• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there such a thing as anti-white racism?

Is there such a thing as anti-white racism?


  • Total voters
    86
Actually, the thread is asking if there is anti-white discrimination and Boo's entire point has revolved around whether anti-white prejudice can actually be called racism if it's not institutional, so he is on topic...
You seem to be obsessed in this thread with proving to me how consistently wrong you can be.
 
Regarding your last sentence, yes we have it here. So do other places. We don't hold an exclusive on that. I can't help but sense some need to point out self-guilt, or something. (Self, as in our society, not you individually)

Sure, there's a difference, and it will often take different forms, but institutional racism wasn't really the point of the thread. Ok, it's acknowledged. Can we get back to the intent of the discussion?

No one denies it is elsewhere. Nor do I hold any guilt. You sound like someone who has a pat talking point down, something used to avoid any points.

As for the point, I merely asked which onewere we talking about. No one has answered that yet.
 
Is it really that hard to look at an dictionary?

rac·ism   [rey-siz-uhm]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.


You stopped short of listing them all I see.
 
No one denies it is elsewhere. Nor do I hold any guilt. You sound like someone who has a pat talking point down, something used to avoid any points.

As for the point, I merely asked which onewere we talking about. No one has answered that yet.
I did in the post you just answered. (Unless the OP comes in and clarifies otherwise, of course.)
 
After literally thousands of discussion on racism, most of them in-person and face-to-face, it has been my experience that the "Everyone can be racist" meme is almost always accompanied by an implicit (or sometimes explicit) attempt to put anti-white racism on equal ethical and concrete standing with white supremacy (which is a racist system of power privileging "white" people on the axis of "race").

The two are not equivalent...not even close.

Only individuals are capable of holding beliefs, and any individual (barring certain specific forms of brain damage) is capable of holding racist beliefs.


So yes, of course, any person can hold racist views -- including those against "white" folk.
That's true...but trivial. This is an archetypal case of a hidden-agenda question.
 
I did in the post you just answered. (Unless the OP comes in and clarifies otherwise, of course.)

No, you didn't. YOu said many forms, but institutional wasn't the issue. I have no explanation as to why or which definition the thread is suppose to eb considering and why. cmakaioz suggests a why, and I tend to think he may be on to something, but look for greater clarity.
 
On a separate note, running polls (traditionally used for assessing opinion) over EMPIRICAL questions (matters of fact) annoys the hell out of me. Even if all respondents chose "no" as an answer to this thread poll, the fact would remain that of course there's such a thing as anti-white racism. This, again, suggests to me a hidden agenda.
 
On a separate note, running polls (traditionally used for assessing opinion) over EMPIRICAL questions (matters of fact) annoys the hell out of me. Even if all respondents chose "no" as an answer to this thread poll, the fact would remain that of course there's such a thing as anti-white racism. This, again, suggests to me a hidden agenda.

Agreed. The question suggests an agenda and opens a discussion to what is it we mean by it, IMHO.
 
Of course there is anti-white racism in America and around the world. The ability to hate and discriminate is universal across all people.
 
Is it really that hard to look at an dictionary?

rac·ism   [rey-siz-uhm]
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Since you left out most of the definition, I guess the answer is "It's too hard for some people"
 
Luna, why do you question whether white people can be targets of racism?

If black people can then so can white people, imo.
 
He seemed to equate Mexico as a Native American tribe that had been abused by the white man (Americans). Do I have my history wrong? I thought Mexico was a North American country with European roots (in Spain) just like the United States has roots in England and Canada has roots in England and France. By far the most troubling thing he said was that all blacks should go back to Africa and all whites should go back to Europe. To me that sounds like a racist statement against both black people and white people. Do you agree?

Btw, I'm white, but I didn't come here from Europe. I was born here. Almost everyone I know who's black was also born here. And I think his history is wrong. Mexico is not a Native American tribe.

Mexico is a mix of old Native Americans, with a strong dash of Spanish.;)

Does racism against whites exist? Of course it does. If one automatically assumes something negative about another person, based strictly on his skin color, and without knowing them personally, it is racism.
 
Racism is the sum total of expressions and actions which treat "race" as if it were biologically real -- without regard to personal belief of what may actually be true (you don't have to personally believe in "race" mythology's premises in order to ACT as if you do).

Within that general racism, there is a subset of racism which involves ideologies in which adherents genuinely believe "race" to be biologically real (in other words, lay "race" categories like "black" and "white" and "Asian" etc. are believed by such people to indicate causative differences which both reflect and direct hidden biological mechanisms.

Within that first subset, there is a further subset of people who rank these reified "races" into hierarchies of ability, moral worth, etc. This subset is the one which -- today -- is generally not controversial to identify as harboring racist views. This is also -- not by accident -- about the limit of most "white" people's conception of racism. Attempts to discuss the broader scope of racism (i.e. the first two levels mentioned, not just the third) all but instantly leads to defensiveness, incoherence, rationalizations, minimizations, outright denial, and diversionary tactics, such that -- with or without specific intent -- the attempted discussion usually ends up denying the realities of people of color and/or dragging discussion off-topic such that making "white" people comfortable with themselves becomes the de facto goal.

The framing of this thread is an example of exactly this kind of diversionary tactic. Time and energy spent acknowledging/denying the fact that there's such a thing as anti-white racism once again allows white comfort to remain at the center of attempted discussion of racism...while avoiding confrontation with white privilege and (especially) with white supremacy (in the concrete not just ideological sense). In a classic case of reversal and projection, it allows "white" people to play the role and occupy the narrative position of a target when in real life they are overwhelmingly privileged on the axis of "race."

So again, this leads us to question the motivation for introducing an opinion poll for what is NOT a matter of opinion.
 
Probably
Luna, during our lives we meet all kinds, mostly "go with the flow sheeple", but some smart and some stupid.I am not impressed with the man in question's intelligence...But he is correct about minorities being ill-treated at best and slaughtered at worst...So, unless a man is a saint, racism abounds....in my opinion...
 
Racism is the sum total of expressions and actions which treat "race" as if it were biologically real -- without regard to personal belief of what may actually be true (you don't have to personally believe in "race" mythology's premises in order to ACT as ........

The framing of this thread is an example of exactly this kind of diversionary tactic. Time and energy spent acknowledging/denying the fact that there's such a thing as anti-white racism once again allows white comfort to remain at the center of attempted discussion of racism...while avoiding confrontation with white privilege and (especially) with white supremacy (in the concrete not just ideological sense). In a classic case of reversal and projection, it allows "white" people to play the role and occupy the narrative position of a target when in real life they are overwhelmingly privileged on the axis of "race."

So again, this leads us to question the motivation for introducing an opinion poll for what is NOT a matter of opinion.

You've WAY overthought this. There is no hidden agenda. I've met people who claimed that racism is a white phenomenon who then define racism narrowly to only include institutional racism. Then I've met people (like the example in the original post) who are clearly racist against whites. That's the only reason for the poll.

Racism goes both ways. That's not an excuse for any of the racist whites, their segregation, their slavery, etc. All that stuff still sucks.
 
I met a Hispanic guy online whose views I found troubling. He blamed the Jews for a lot of things such as corporate irresponsibility. He blamed the bank bailouts on the Jews. My best friend from high school was Jewish, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't scheming in the back of a synagogue on how to control all the banks so that she could rip everyone off.The man had the attitude that North America belongs to Mexicans, Native Americans, and no one else. He seemed to equate Mexico as a Native American tribe that had been abused by the white man (Americans). Do I have my history wrong? I thought Mexico was a North American country with European roots (in Spain) just like the United States has roots in England and Canada has roots in England and France. By far the most troubling thing he said was that all blacks should go back to Africa and all whites should go back to Europe. To me that sounds like a racist statement against both black people and white people. Do you agree?

Btw, I'm white, but I didn't come here from Europe. I was born here. Almost everyone I know who's black was also born here. And I think his history is wrong. Mexico is not a Native American tribe.

Oh you better belive there's non- white racism as you put it. Some of the Arabs are the worst ones of the bunch. Black racism has been around since the sixties: trust me on that, I've had direct experience with it as an adolesent. Asian families, and Idnian ones, will not let their children marry outside the race either. So this business about only "white people" being racists in this country is BS.
 
Racism is the sum total of expressions and actions which treat "race" as if it were biologically real -- without regard to personal belief of what may actually be true (you don't have to personally believe in "race" mythology's premises in order to ACT as if you do).

While your ideology is interesting it is difficult for me to accept it, because in the past you've implied that Al Sharpton himself wasn't a racist. Al seems to make his living treating race as if it were real.
 
I cannot even fathom what was going through the heads of those 3 people who said no.
 
You've WAY overthought this. There is no hidden agenda. I've met people who claimed that racism is a white phenomenon who then define racism narrowly to only include institutional racism. Then I've met people (like the example in the original post) who are clearly racist against whites. That's the only reason for the poll.

Racism goes both ways. That's not an excuse for any of the racist whites, their segregation, their slavery, etc. All that stuff still sucks.

I think we all know that all humans are capbale of prejudice. And that given the chance, with institutional support, would allow systematic discrimination agianst a group. This happens world wide. But in this country, whirtes, especially white males, have not had to carry that burden. That too is a truth here.
 
I cannot even fathom what was going through the heads of those 3 people who said no.

Lol. It's MK, 99percenter, and Wiggen. I suppose to them there's no such thing as being racist towards white people. Really, just ask the New Black Panthers.
 
Racism is the sum total of expressions and actions which treat "race" as if it were biologically real -- without regard to personal belief of what may actually be true (you don't have to personally believe in "race" mythology's premises in order to ACT as if you do).

Race is biologically real.
That's why there are inherent genetic diseases more prevalent in differing races.

Within that general racism, there is a subset of racism which involves ideologies in which adherents genuinely believe "race" to be biologically real (in other words, lay "race" categories like "black" and "white" and "Asian" etc. are believed by such people to indicate causative differences which both reflect and direct hidden biological mechanisms.

Within that first subset, there is a further subset of people who rank these reified "races" into hierarchies of ability, moral worth, etc. This subset is the one which -- today -- is generally not controversial to identify as harboring racist views. This is also -- not by accident -- about the limit of most "white" people's conception of racism. Attempts to discuss the broader scope of racism (i.e. the first two levels mentioned, not just the third) all but instantly leads to defensiveness, incoherence, rationalizations, minimizations, outright denial, and diversionary tactics, such that -- with or without specific intent -- the attempted discussion usually ends up denying the realities of people of color and/or dragging discussion off-topic such that making "white" people comfortable with themselves becomes the de facto goal.

The framing of this thread is an example of exactly this kind of diversionary tactic. Time and energy spent acknowledging/denying the fact that there's such a thing as anti-white racism once again allows white comfort to remain at the center of attempted discussion of racism...while avoiding confrontation with white privilege and (especially) with white supremacy (in the concrete not just ideological sense). In a classic case of reversal and projection, it allows "white" people to play the role and occupy the narrative position of a target when in real life they are overwhelmingly privileged on the axis of "race."

So again, this leads us to question the motivation for introducing an opinion poll for what is NOT a matter of opinion.

What you fail to realize, that in certain localities where one race is prevalent, the effect of non white privilege exists.
If a neighborhood or other locality exists, where white people are not the majority, it can express the effects of institutional racism.
So far, your position is just excuse making and incomplete.

This is a kind of diversionary tactic.
Which makes excuses for other types of racism, other than the more predominant whites being racist.
 
I think we all know that all humans are capbale of prejudice. And that given the chance, with institutional support, would allow systematic discrimination agianst a group. This happens world wide. But in this country, whirtes, especially white males, have not had to carry that burden. That too is a truth here.

Whites have traditionally been the most racist, mainly because they've been the largest group, in the U.S.
That doesn't mean that other races, being racist is less bad.

Racism, is bad regardless of who expresses it.
 
Whites have traditionally been the most racist, mainly because they've been the largest group, in the U.S.
That doesn't mean that other races, being racist is less bad.

Racism, is bad regardless of who expresses it.

I said nothing different. It is little more than fact of what has happened here, nohting more.
 
I said nothing different. It is little more than fact of what has happened here, nohting more.

Just seems to me, that you're trying to lessen the impact of racism by minority groups, by saying "well whites did it more and for longer."
That in and of itself, is not a justification.
 
Back
Top Bottom