• 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
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.
 
So, we should accept something because people are too dumb to make the distinction? Is this really what you're arguing? Dumb down knowledge, play to lowest common denominator?

Nope, I'm arguing the opposite.
First off, race is not a social construct.
The way it is used, it terribly incorrect.

It should rather be said that, "the way the U.S. census defines race is incorrect."
 
Oh ok...so let's threaten people's lives by catering to their ignorance, then...that's a fabulous idea.

Says the people making the broad and incorrect statement, that race is a social construct.
You're taking advantage of people, by using misinformation.

You DO get that this is not some benign case of simple ignorance of technical information, right? For example, racist medical research, in which prescription drugs are marketed on a racist basis despite absolutely no evidence to support the claim that a medication is especially beneficial to people imagined to be of a certain "race" -- leading to false expectations of efficacy for some and lack of FDA approval for general use for others -- that's just no big deal.

Clearly, we shouldn't point out the fundamental errors and ignorance of science in such issues...because after all, people don't know the difference.

No we should point out the difference, we just shouldn't lie to people by saying "race is a social construct" when it isn't.
They way race is popularly defined, may be wrong, but that doesn't mean race doesn't exist.
 
So your argument is that the truth depends on whether or not "most people know the difference." Calling race a social construct is either garbage or it's not. Guess what? It's not garbage. It's a fact of existence. The definition of "race" that most people work with and that was being used in this thread is a social construct. Period.

Well not really.
Calling decedents of sub Saharan Africans and aboriginal Australians, the same race, is wrong.
They are not.
Saying that whites and blacks are of different races, is generally true.

Saying race is a social construct, is much too broad a statement.
 
So they teach that in sociology 101... thanks for confirming my own point.
I'm not confirming it, my statement was speculation based on your moronic word choice.... for all I know it came out of a copy of Slanderous Communist Weekly Magazine.

my you just might have to fall over and die.
Awww... still butthurt?

Awaiting your ockham dodge attack...
Would it only be possible for you to intellectually provide something to dodge.... maybe one day.
 
What, exactly, does race mean anyway?
Two organisms are the same species if they can mate and have fertile offspring. All humans, by that definition, are the same species.

Even taking the most extreme differences in looks, say, sub Saharan African vs. someone from Norway, the differences are rather minor compared to different breeds of dogs or horses.

It seems to me we're making a lot out of what is really minor differences in physical appearance.
 
What, exactly, does race mean anyway?
Two organisms are the same species if they can mate and have fertile offspring. All humans, by that definition, are the same species.

Even taking the most extreme differences in looks, say, sub Saharan African vs. someone from Norway, the differences are rather minor compared to different breeds of dogs or horses.

It seems to me we're making a lot out of what is really minor differences in physical appearance.
Which is exactly where the social construction comes into play.
 
Well not really.
Calling decedents of sub Saharan Africans and aboriginal Australians, the same race, is wrong.
They are not.
Saying that whites and blacks are of different races, is generally true.
That's weird, because a few posts ago, you said:

Black, white, etc, defined by American census standards, is a poor measurement of race.

And now, you're saying that it's an accurate measurement. Why the change?

Saying race is a social construct, is much too broad a statement.
Actually, everything I said was accurate. First, whether or not defining race as a social construct is accurate is not a matter of whether or not "people know the difference," it's a matter of whether or not race is socially constructed or not. Second, the definition of race that most people use and that was being used in this thread is a social construct. Therefore, your original comment that referring to race as a social construct is merely "pc, feel good garbage" is one that is much too broad a statement that does not take into account the popular conceptions of race and the conception of race that has been the subject of this threa
 
Sure there can be racism against white people. It's just not really important since white people have all the money and power and other races aren't in a position to do anything to systematically harm whites. When it comes to the comparison of whites against any other race (in white-dominant countries like the United States) the inverse is very much true. We have all the power, and we can and do use it hurt non-whites. So, our racism is the only racism with practical consequences.

Very well stated; much as I was planning on posting.
Things are changing in our nation; "we" are still the largest group, but no longer a majority (49.8%).....if this has any meaning at all...
IMO, it does not;we must replace racism with tolerance and knowledge....and I think we are, ever so slowly...
 
Racism is a learned behavior. It can be learned by anyone, regardless of their own race or ethnic group. To assert that it can be limitted to the racial/ethnic group 'in power' is an absurd argument, often used by some to explain racism by any other group as merely a 'reaction' to having been exposed to it. It is natural, and not racist at all, to generally associate with those that you feel most comfortable with. This is seen in nearly all social settings, that tend to 'naturally' segregate, based on many factors, including race. I think that we all tend to associate with those we identify with as similar, for example at the beach or park we often tend to go toward a group that appears desirable to us based on age, race and gender composition. It is rare indeed for the young to seek out a group of the old, for the single to seek a group of couples or for the Spanish speaking to seek out a group of English speaking people.
 
That's weird, because a few posts ago, you said:

And now, you're saying that it's an accurate measurement. Why the change?

Both statements are true.
Blacks and whites have genetic differences, that can define them as different races.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the former statement is untrue.
This isn't that difficult of a concept to grasp.
I understand that race is more fluid than what typical descriptions define.

Actually, everything I said was accurate. First, whether or not defining race as a social construct is accurate is not a matter of whether or not "people know the difference," it's a matter of whether or not race is socially constructed or not. Second, the definition of race that most people use and that was being used in this thread is a social construct. Therefore, your original comment that referring to race as a social construct is merely "pc, feel good garbage" is one that is much too broad a statement that does not take into account the popular conceptions of race and the conception of race that has been the subject of this threa

Race based on decedent origin, is not false.
Instead of making untrue blanket statements, like race is a social construct.
A better way would be to say, "the way people typically define race is poor, incomplete and prone to errors."

I still feel that it is pc garbage, because while the intentions behind its use are good, you shouldn't mislead people by saying things that are untrue.
 
As for the poll, before I answer, I think we should agree on the meaning of the word racism:

The definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about what the word "race" means, and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination.

(snip)

Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege.

Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How we define the word changes whether it was or not. This example seems more like prejudice to me.

It's a loaded, pejorative term with no legitimate use. It makes a theory based on the preponderance of evidence seem undeniably evil and a theory based on looking behind the evidence, with the goal of dismissing the evidence, seem conclusive and humanitarian.
So it doesn't matter how we define the word; it is the type of expression this word fits into that matters. It is, in fact, a slur word.
 
It's a loaded, pejorative term with no legitimate use. It makes a theory based on the preponderance of evidence seem undeniably evil and a theory based on looking behind the evidence, with the goal of dismissing the evidence, seem conclusive and humanitarian.
So it doesn't matter how we define the word; it is the type of expression this word fits into that matters. It is, in fact, a slur word.

I won't go that far. Many culture have been ethnocentric and have abused races of people. It's as old as time. Having a word fot that is proper. But I think words have to be very specific and that we have to agree on a working fefinition before we can answer questions about them. But, I wouldn't eleminate words needlessly.
 
I won't go that far. Many culture have been ethnocentric and have abused races of people. It's as old as time. Having a word fot that is proper. But I think words have to be very specific and that we have to agree on a working fefinition before we can answer questions about them. But, I wouldn't eleminate words needlessly.
You are unfairly attacking self-defense by calling it abuse, so again you are loading the term by making racial conflict always evil. Living in a dreamworld will create nightmares in the real world.
 
I won't go that far. Many culture have been ethnocentric and have abused races of people. It's as old as time.

Actually, until a few centuries ago (the earliest recorded instances of active application of the myth of "race"), no one abused "races" of people because that particular political fiction hadn't gained enough traction yet. There were, and still remain, many other axes of irrational differential treatment to choose from, and group-based irrational prejudice and differential treatment generally is indeed ancient, but racism is a specific and historically contingent instance which was invented (on historical timescales) late last night.
 
Long story short, yeah, of course it does exist. But it is in the same category as men being raped by women or rich people burglarizing the houses of poor people. Sure, it technically happens, but you should never let it distract you from the radically larger problem and you certainly shouldn't let yourself fall for the ludicrous "ah well, I guess it's even then" line.
 
Well not really.
Calling decedents of sub Saharan Africans and aboriginal Australians, the same race, is wrong.
They are not.
Saying that whites and blacks are of different races, is generally true.

Saying race is a social construct, is much too broad a statement.

ANd yet, you still can't explain what race is

You can only argue what it is not
 
About those biological differences:

Race doesn't matter.

In fact, it doesn't even exist in humans.

While that may sound like the idealistic decree of a minister or rabbi, it's actually the conclusion of an evolutionary and population biologist at Washington University.

Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right type of qualitative variation -- it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.

Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, there is no such thing as race.
 
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.

Of course that is racist... and the Aztecs and Myans were certainly Native American tribes that grew into an empire... Mexico is polorized by by a caste system of peninsulares, mulatos and meztisos. There is major racism amongst Mexicans.
 
You are unfairly attacking self-defense by calling it abuse, so again you are loading the term by making racial conflict always evil. Living in a dreamworld will create nightmares in the real world.

You know, I don't think I did any of that.
 

As usual, one academic, eager to gain brownie points by playing up to the dominant delusion of his peers, selectively seeks a conclusion based on slanted evidence. These narrow-minded conformists glorify themselves with their unearned prestige. And also get government grants if they can seem to justify continuing 50 years of failure based on this delusion.
 
Last edited:
As usual, one academic, eager to gain brownie points by playing up to the dominant delusion of his peers, selectively seeks a conclusion based on slanted evidence. These narrow-minded conformists glorify themselves with their unearned prestige. And also get government grants if they can seem to justify continuing 50 years of failure based on this delusion.

Translation: Another study with an outcome that disagrees with my own belief system, and so has to be dismissed as "delusion."

Here's another delusional piece from Scientific American:


Now evolutionary biologists are leading a shift in perspective. Lumping people by the social categories of race, they argue, can hide patterns of biological variation and lead to misinterpretation. And although ancestral population groups may be important, more comprehensive evolutionary thinking would help doctors and researchers predict patient response, design studies and interpret the associations seen between genes and disease susceptibility. Race isn’t meaningless, says Lynn Jorde, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Utah, but “those categories are only marginally useful.”
 
Back
Top Bottom