Which scenario is racism?

ttwtt78640 said:

The OP poll included two Ford dealerships that based (not?) hiring on the applicant's race differing from that of the owner. To assert that those identical acts of racial discrimination differ is denying equal protection of the law. It may be a matter of academic discussion whether the rights of any individual should differ based on their majority/minority racial status in an entire nation - but, AFIK, that is settled law in the US. Either case cited in the OP is a, completely valid, example of racial discrimination in hiring practices.

Click to expand...

I think the key word is racial discrimination. Racial discrimination doesn't address the topic of racism which still exist today.

ecofarm said:

The white will find another place without discrimination around the corner. The black will find discrimination at every place he goes. It's not the same.

Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is your assumption, but fails since we were given that at least one exception exists, the OP seems to address a (the?) Ford dealership in a particular town. It is not somehow OK for a given black owned Ford dealership to discriminate based on race simply because more white owned Ford dealerships which discriminate based on race happen to exist.

ttwtt78640 said:

That (bolded above) is your assumption, but fails since we were given that at least one exception exists, the OP seems to address a (the?) Ford dealership in a particular town.

Click to expand...

Let's be real. There's hardly a dealership in existence without at least one white in power (management+) with prejudice against blacks.

It is not somehow OK for a given black owned Ford dealership to discriminate based on race simply because more white owned Ford dealerships which discriminate based on race happen to exist.

Click to expand...

It's not okay. It's racial bigotry (or at least discrimination, depending on the reason for refusal) and that's abhorrent from anyone. It's just not racism because it's not part of "a social system (majority privilege) based on racism" (dictionary definition 2b).

rabbitcaebannog said:

I think the key word is racial discrimination. Racial discrimination doesn't address the topic of racism which still exist today.

Click to expand...

Really? What, exactly, does racial discrimination in hiring address if not racism?

ecofarm said:

1. Context is global. And here nationally, whites have the power. If we examine the judges, business owners, business executives, professors, etc... whites still have the power even in minority towns. Then there's the justice system, whites have the power. No matter where a white lives, he never has to worry about whites as a whole not getting a fair shake from the courts.

If we reduce context, we lose sight of the big picture and can make any claim whatsoever.

2. Whites can move. Blacks cannot escape majority privilege. Everywhere, they are disadvantaged in the court system. Being a disadvantaged minority is inescapable.

Click to expand...

Yes - context indeed can be global and when it is global you are 100% correct.

Having said that, there are many things that are also local. People live in cities and towns and within those cities and towns there are governments and forces at work that determine much of what goes on there including bias. Moving is indeed an option - but why should a person have to move to enjoy the same rights and privileges and benefits that everyone else gets.

There are many cities across America where African Americans are the majority and they control the city government and all parts of it. In many of those cities they enacted affirmative action programs which severely limited the ability of white employees to advance or gain promotion over their careers. For example, in the Detroit Public Schools during the late 1970's and all through the 1990's, it was virtually impossible for a white teacher to advance into administration and the Board of Ed had a firm policy to have the percentage of administrators reflective of the student body. Since the student body was over 90% African American - almost every new administrator was also African American. And if that were not enough, they enacted a residency rule that negatively impacted whites since the vast majority of them lived outside the city while the vast majority of African Americans lived within the city.

So is it possible that whites were indeed disadvantaged there as I described?

ttwtt78640 said:

Really? What, exactly, does racial discrimination in hiring address if not racism?

Click to expand...

You mean what's it about, in option A? Either racial bigotry (if supremacist) or racial discrimination (if not). Both being terrible things from anyone. But it's not racism unless it's part of "a social system based on racism" (dictionary definition 2b).

haymarket said:

Yes - context indeed can be global and when it is global you are 100% correct.

Click to expand...

Context must always be global, lest we ignore the big picture.

Having said that, there are many things that are also local. People live in cities and towns and within those cities and towns there are governments and forces at work that determine much of what goes on there including bias. Moving is indeed an option - but why should a person have to move to enjoy the same rights and privileges and benefits that everyone else gets.

Click to expand...

Whites still have the power. Who are the business owners, business executives, judges, professors and deans... white majority.

It's not about having to move, it's about being able to move. Blacks cannot escape majority privilege, it's a social construct. Whites can always escape racial bigotry or discrimination, they are individual acts.

There are many cities across America where African Americans are the majority and they control the city government and all parts of it. In many of those cities they enacted affirmative action programs which severely limited the ability of white employees to advance or gain promotion over their careers. For example, in the Detroit Public Schools during the late 1970's and all through the 1990's, it was virtually impossible for a white teacher to advance into administration and the Board of Ed had a firm policy to have the percentage of administrators reflective of the student body. Since the student body was over 90% African American - almost every new administrator was also African American. And if that were not enough, they enacted a residency rule that negatively impacted whites since the vast majority of them lived outside the city while the vast majority of African Americans lived within the city.

Click to expand...

Public primary school is not a position of power. Who are the owners, judges, attorneys, executives? White majority.

So is it possible that whites were indeed disadvantaged there as I described?

Click to expand...

Whites may encounter individual instances of racial bigotry or racial discrimination, but not an inescapable racial disadvantage.


Look at it like this:

A white claims he's the minority in the kitchen he works in. But who are the managers? White majority (power). In social dynamics, the majority in question is power not population. A kitchen of almost all blacks does not make a white in the kitchen a minority when the management is all white.

ecofarm said:

It's not okay. It's racial bigotry (or at least discrimination, depending on the reason for refusal) and that's abhorrent from anyone. It's just not racism because it's not part of a social system (majority privilege) based on racism (dictionary definition 2b).

Click to expand...

That is where the breakdown of race relations exist. People of color want to discuss racism and white people put their backs up and use instances of racial bigotry and racial discrimination as their defense to any discussion. Many don't want to admit that racism still exist and want to bicker back and forth about their own perceived problems dealing with race. They tune out the whole issue the black community wants to discuss. I was lucky as a young child to perceive the problem without having been brainwashed with the whole reverse racism BS. I knew many of the black kids did not trust us, and more importantly I knew why.

ttwtt78640 said:

Really? What, exactly, does racial discrimination in hiring address if not racism?

Click to expand...

Look at it this way. Racial discrimination is a bi-product of racism. Until we can discuss the bigger picture, which is racism, everything else is just someone trying to one up someone else.

ecofarm said:

Context must always be global, lest we ignore the big picture.



Whites still have the power. Who are the business owners, business executives, judges, professors and deans... white majority.

It's not about having to move, it's about being able to move. Blacks cannot escape majority privilege, it's a social construct. Whites can always escape racial bigotry or discrimination, they are individual acts.



Public school is not a position of power. Who are the owners, judges, attorneys, executives? White majority.



White may encounter individual instances of racial bigotry or racial discrimination, but not an inescapable racial disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Again, I agree with you about the larger picture - globally and nationally. We have no argument there about racism and power.

I think you are ignoring a very solid reality here: Public schools and city administrations are indeed centers of power... they have power over thousands of employees and control vast amounts of public money funding by taxpayers. They are government or services of government. And I gave you a very real situation in a very real American city with very real American citizens who are indeed disadvantaged by racial policies passed by majority African American powerful persons in charge of those areas.

White teachers in a situation like I described are NOT being disadvantaged as individuals but as members of a group that they belong to because of their race. How is that any different than white persons in positions of power disadvantaging African Americans because of their race?

Racists are those who blame all members of a group for something that some members of the group do.

haymarket said:

Again, I agree with you about the larger picture - globally and nationally. We have no argument there about racism and power.

Click to expand...

Only the larger picture matters in social constructs.

I think you are ignoring a very solid reality here: Public schools and city administrations are indeed centers of power... they have power over thousands of employees and control vast amounts of public money funding by taxpayers. They are government or services of government.

Click to expand...

First, you're resuming a significant portion of the blacks will discriminate against whites. We don't have evidence of that likelihood. Blacks (with very rare exception) discriminate as a matter of bitterness - not supremacist beliefs. Whites discriminate as a matter of supremacist beliefs. The former is not racism, according to dictionary definition 1, let alone 2b. The latter is by all dictionary definitions.

Second, admin positions are not positions of power. Their hirings are dictated by policy. Executive positions, the ones who make the rules, are the positions of power.

Third, public money from taxpayers is not spent at the discretion of an admin. It's spent at the discretion of executives.

Fourth, the white still enjoys privilege in the justice system. No matter where.

Fifth, whites as a whole (meaning whites across the nation) are not disadvantaged even in a worst case scenario of the situation you describe. The locality is not capable of creating disadvantage for whites as a whole.

These are all differences from what blacks deal with everywhere.

And I gave you a very real situation in a very real American city with very real American citizens who are indeed disadvantaged by racial policies passed by majority African American powerful persons in charge of those areas.

Click to expand...

A personal anecdote?

No, you argued that local public admins represent the ruling class. They do not. Nor do they have the power to disadvantage whites as a whole.

White teachers in a situation like I described are NOT being disadvantaged as individuals but as members of a group that they belong to because of their race. How is that any different than white persons in positions of power disadvantaging African Americans because of their race?

Click to expand...

It's not disadvantaging whites as a whole. Not merely as a group, but as a whole. Blacks are disadvantaged, as a whole, across the nation, as a result of white privilege.

Even blacks in the situation you describe will encounter racism throughout their life and in every social sector.

shrubnose said:

Racists are those who blame all members of a group for something that some members of the group do.

Click to expand...

No one is blaming all whites for majority privilege. But it does exist. And majority privilege says nothing whatsoever about racial attributes. The majority race is incidental.

If blacks were the majority power (globally, or at least nationally when that does not change the global dynamic), only they would be capable of engaging in the perpetuation of a social construct based on racial bigotry. In this hypothetical case, whites could not be racists, they could only be racial bigots.

Groups like Black Lives Matter want to talk about such institutional racism as the justice system. Then you have bags of hot air like Limbaugh calling them a terrorist hate group. Typical stuff that makes things worst. You actually have people believing what Limbaugh says.

rabbitcaebannog said:

Groups like Black Lives Matter want to talk about such institutional racism as the justice system. Then you have bags of hot air like Limbaugh calling them a terrorist hate group. Typical stuff that makes things worst. You actually have people believing what Limbaugh says.

Click to expand...

When a civil rights movement is construed as racist terrorists, we know the country has a long way to go.

It's like how some people construe feminism as a supremacist movement. That twisted perspective is backwards, it prevents progress.

ecofarm said:

Only the larger picture matters in social constructs.

Click to expand...

Let me stop you right there. If that is your premise - it is a false one.

That is not at all true. That would be like saying that a few southern states with oppressive racial laws and policies could be ignored because they were only a few and only the larger picture matters.

First, you're resuming a significant portion of the blacks will discriminate against whites.

Click to expand...

No - not by any means. I do not believe that and did not say that. I simply related some real world examples where whites were disadvantaged by African Americans in positions of power in the USA.

Second, admin positions are not positions of power. Their hirings are dictated by policy. Executive positions, the ones who make the rules, are the positions of power.

Click to expand...

The Detroit Board of Education is a position of power which makes policy and determines what happens within its jursidiction. And they adopted policies which disadvantaged white employees.

Third, public money from taxpayers is not spent at the discretion of an admin. It's spent at the discretion of executives.

Click to expand...

Public money is spent at the discretion of the Detroit Board of Education. And that money is then distributed to the various departments and schools and the policies adopted by the Board - in this case racially disadvantaged promotional policies - are indeed traced directly back to the taxpayer.

Fourth, the white still enjoys privilege in the justice system. No matter where.

Click to expand...

While I would agree on a larger scale that is true, in the case of white employees of the Detroit Board of Education there was no justice system to benefit them as court upheld various AA programs to advantage African Americans and at the same time disadvantage white employees.

LaylaWindu said:

Simple question. Which guy is racist and practicing racism?

A.) Black guy owns Ford Dealership, he won't hire whites because he thinks all whites are dishonest
B.) White guy owns a Ford Dealership, he won't hire blacks because he thinks all blacks are lazy
C.) Both A and B

Click to expand...

I would assume you'll get 100% response for C. But....ya never know.

ecofarm said:

Dictionary definition 2b (as valid as any other definition), regarding racial majority privilege (a social system based on racism): only option B applies. This is also true for the academic definition, for the same reason.

According to dictionary definition 1 (the most basic, a child's understanding), both would apply.

Blacks, as a minority power, do not have the ability to oppress whites as a whole and thereby engage in a social system based on racism.

I ascribe to dictionary definition 2b, racism is more than racial bigotry.

Click to expand...

Well, so much for my 100% will agree on this theory. :doh


Although Blacks do not have societal control in the US, this particular black person does have total control of his dealership. Hence, he does fit your definition.

Let me ask you, is the Black led government of Mogabe in Zimbabwe racist when it forces white landowners off of their property?

haymarket said:

Let me stop you right there. If that is your premise - it is a false one.

That is not at all true. That would be like saying that a few southern states with oppressive racial laws and policies could be ignored because they were only a few and only the larger picture matters.

Click to expand...

Perhaps social constructs was not the right term, too general. The subject is majority privilege, and only the big picture matters. It's an inescapable disadvantage suffered by all members of a minority. Majority privilege is not a local or isolated social construct, it's not an individual event.

ecofarm said:

Dictionary definition 2b (as valid as any other definition), regarding racial majority privilege (a social system based on racism): only option B applies. This is also true for the academic definition, for the same reason.

According to dictionary definition 1 (the most basic, a child's understanding), both would apply.

Blacks, as a minority power, do not have the ability to oppress whites as a whole and thereby engage in a social system based on racism.

I ascribe to dictionary definition 2b, racism is more than racial bigotry.

Click to expand...

Why just 2b and not all the others? I think racism would be understood as racial bigotry by most people.

LaylaWindu said:

Simple question. Which guy is racist and practicing racism?

A.) Black guy owns Ford Dealership, he won't hire whites because he thinks all whites are dishonest
B.) White guy owns a Ford Dealership, he won't hire blacks because he thinks all blacks are lazy
C.) Both A and B

Click to expand...

Neither scenario is exhibiting racism. Both are exhibiting prejudice.

Racism is based on the underlying premise that "my race is superior to yours."

We really ought to understand the difference.

MaggieD said:

Neither scenario is exhibiting racism. Both are exhibiting prejudice.

Racism is based on the underlying premise that "my race is superior to yours."

We really ought to understand the difference.

Click to expand...

Whites are dishonest or blacks are lazy implies superiority by those of the opposite race making the remarks.

"I'm black. Hence I am honest, not like those white devils."

"I'm white. Hence I am hard working, not like those black bastards."

calamity said:

Well, so much for my 100% will agree on this theory. :doh

Click to expand...

It's not a theory. It's the dictionary definition of racism, 2b. It's also the sociological definition of racism. It's definitions, not theory.

Although Blacks do not have societal control in the US, this particular black person does have total control of his dealership. Hence, he does fit your definition.

Click to expand...

Regarding majority privilege, context must be global. Also...

1. Black discrimination against whites (with very rare exception) is not founded in supremacist belief. If it's not a supremacist belief, bigotry, then it doesn't even satisfy dictionary definition 1, let alone 2b.

2. It doesn't contribute to "a social system (majority privilege) based on racism", definition 2b.

3. The white can go around a corner and find a place without discrimination against him. The black will find discrimination, to some extent in the form of majority privilege, every place he goes. Not the same thing. This is why global, or at least national when the social dynamic is not changed, context is important.

Let me ask you, is the Black led government of Mogabe in Zimbabwe racist when it forces white landowners off of their property?

Click to expand...

1. Was it done based on a supremacist belief? No. It was done based on the belief that land had been stolen during colonization. If it's not racial bigotry, it doesn't even satisfy dictionary definition 1.

2. Was the discrimination inescapable? No. The whites went somewhere they were not discriminated against. Majority privilege is inescapable, global.

Do blacks in Zim suffer majority privilege? Yes, the Western world holds the majority power, as evidenced by colonialism and the effects are still felt today.


Well, I'm tired and starting to flub terms. I used social construct with Haymarket when I meant majority privilege (a social construct). So I think it's time for me to take a break from this complicated subject. Feel free to read the thread. I've already been over all this.

ecofarm said:

It's not a theory. It's the dictionary definition of racism, 2b. It's also the sociological definition of racism. It's definitions, not theory.



1. Blacks discrimination against whites (with very rare exception) is not founded in supremacist belief. If it's not a supremacist belief, bigotry, then it doesn't even satisfy dictionary definition 1, let alone 2b.

2. It doesn't contribute to "a social system (majority privilege) based on racism", definition 2b.

3. The white can go around a corner and find a place without discrimination against him. The black will find discrimination everywhere he goes. Not the same thing.



1. Was it done based on a supremacist belief? No. It was done based on the belief that land had been stolen during colonization.

2. Was the discrimination inescapable? No. Majority privilege is inescapable.

Do blacks in Zim suffer majority privilege? Yes, the Western world holds the majority power, as evidenced by colonialism and the effects are still felt today.


Well, I'm tired and starting to flub terms. I used social construct with Haymarket when I meant majority privilege (a social construct). So I think it's time for me to take a break from this complicated subject.

Click to expand...

"White men can't jump." If said by a black person, is it supremacist?

calamity said:

Whites are dishonest or blacks are lazy implies superiority by those of the opposite race making the remarks.

"I'm black. Hence I am honest, not like those white devils."

"I'm white. Hence I am hard working, not like those black bastards."

Click to expand...

Nope.