Can’t believe I’m having to post this on the account I made to make fun of crypto and finance bros lol

The 'reverse racism' card is often pulled by white people when people of color call out racism and discrimination, or create spaces for themselves ... that white people aren't a part of. The impulse behind the reverse racism argument seems to be a desire to prove that people of color don't have it that bad, they're not the only ones that are put at a disadvantage or targeted because of their race. It's like the Racism Olympics. And it's patently untrue" (Blay, 2015).

REVERSE RACISM IS A MYTH

While assumptions and stereotypes about white people do exist, this is considered racial prejudice, not racism. Racial prejudice refers to a set of discriminatory or derogatory attitudes based on assumptions derived from perceptions about race and/or skin colour. Thus, racial prejudice can indeed be directed at white people (e.g., "White people can't dance") but is not considered racism because of the systemic relationship to power. When backed with power, prejudice results in acts of discrimination and oppression against groups or individuals. In Canada, white people hold this cultural power due to Eurocentric modes of thinking, rooted in colonialism, that continue to reproduce and privilege whiteness. It is whiteness that has the power to define the terms of racialized others' existence. Tim Wise explains how, for white individuals,

"When a group of people [such as racialized individuals] has little or no power over you institutionally, they don't get to define the terms of your existence, they can't limit your opportunities, and you needn't worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it's going to go. What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right. ... White perceptions are what end up counting in a white-dominated society. If whites say [Indigenous people] are savages (be they of the "noble" or vicious type), then by God, they'll be seen as savages. If [Indigenous people] say whites are mayonnaise-eating Amway salespeople, who the hell is going to care? If anything, whites will simply turn it into a marketing opportunity. When you have the power, you can afford to be self-deprecating, after all" (2002).

Ricky Sherover-Marcuse asserts that "we should not confuse the occasional mistreatment experienced by whites at the hands of people of color with the systematic and institutionalized mistreatment experienced by people of color at the hands of whites" (p. 2). While expressions of racial prejudice directed at white people may hurt the white person/people individually or personally, and are never to be condoned, they do not have the power or authority to affect the white person's social/economic/political location and privileges.

"Racism has nothing to do with feelings. It is a measurable reality that white people are not subject to, regardless of their income or status" (Harriot, 2018).

Reverse racism is a myth because it attempts to ignore the power/privilege dynamic between the individuals/groups involved; the myth of reverse racism assumes that racism occurs on a so-called level playing field, when in actuality, it does not.

One claim of "reverse racism" that is often made is in relation to affirmative actions programs: programs that were created to help ensure that non-white individuals are given equal consideration and opportunities, whether it is in regards to employment, school, or scholarships etc. For white individuals, programs such as this might feel like something is being "taken away." Zeba Blay outlines how white people often "believe deserving white students are discriminated against while academically unqualified students are given highly coveted college or company positions -- just because they happen to tick the 'ethnic minority' box.

This argument ignores the fact that affirmative action did not come out of nowhere -- there was a need for a system that would address the decades of underrepresentation of people of color both academically and in the job world." Sherover-Marcuse explains how "[a]ffirmative action programs are attempts to repair the results of institutionalized racism by setting guidelines and establishing procedures for finding qualified applicants from all segments of the population" (p. 2). In other words, these programs do not privilege people of colour but are an attempt to "level" the not-so-level playing field that has historically privileged a certain type of candidate.

↳ See our definition of White Privilege/White-Skin Privilege

References:

Recommended Readings:

    • wtypstanaccount04 [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      :this: Basically the definition of racism was changed but many people were not aware of the change, thus they get caught in semantics.

              • Lurker123 [he/him]
                ·
                2 years ago

                Because the person reacted with 'this,' and then followed with a comment illustrating to me that my comment was unclear. This is why I went more in detail.

                As for the rest of your comments, all I can say is that it was not my intention to upset you.

        • CyborgMarx [any, any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          You’re bullshit rests on the assumption Americans apply a strict synonymous definition to words like “prejudice”, “bigotry”, and “racism” when in fact they don’t

          “I’m not racist, it’s just a little prejudice”

          “I’m not racist, I’m a bigot it’s different”

          There is widespread cultural understanding of the implied differences of these terms to the point racists everywhere can correctly deduce their meaning even if their application of these terms is complete bullshit

        • Wheaties [she/her]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Right this gets to the heart of the semantic debate (which again, I think is not particularly relevant, though as a fan of philosophy of language, I do enjoy discussing).

          Emphasis mine. This isn't a troll, just someone with a passion in a topic. It's important to have a clear understanding of the definitions of words like 'racism', especially in internal discussion. It's also important to recognize that connotation plays a much more important role when engaging with non-leftists out in the wild. If we want to convince people, we have to have an understanding of both.

            • Wheaties [she/her]
              ·
              2 years ago

              Very much felt like someone starting to do a “what even are words anyway” argument about racism

              It's an understandable assumption to make. A frustrating amount of people online will abuse linguistic analysis in order to score pedantic 'points' and derail conversations. It makes it hard to tell when someone is engaging to enrich the discussion.

              Thank you for the pleasant engagement :stalin-approval:

              I wrote this bit as you were editing, and I like it enough to keep it, but I can't find a way make it fit naturally:

              There is as much a linguistic dimension to racism as there is a historical, ideological, or legal .

    • CyborgMarx [any, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      In what fuckin universe is this “semantic”? Any dumbass American hick can intuitively detect the distinction when in large crowds, for instance public expressions of bigotry can either be cheered or booed

      If some cumskin is hollering racial epithets during a town hall meeting and is applauded everything changes, the dynamic shifts, masks are dropped, an expression of individualized prejudice becomes an expression of racism

      But if the cumskin was booed the chances of laughter, comedy, expressions of pity and a distinct lack of power for the expressed prejudice manifests socially in the crowd and a distinct lack of a certain -ISM becomes evident

      It’s ironic the argument is defining the concept of power dynamics using the common understanding of the words and your talking about so-called obscure dictionary definitions, as if most American’s conception of racism isn’t tied up in imagery of Jim Crow, slavery, the border, and other institutionalized i.e. the “prescriptive definition” you claim isn’t in common usage when it obviously is