To be or not to be?

[Jake]

I'm just going to say "no" and "please do research" and leave it that.

A true story: when I was younger, a guy from a couple of streets over took a disliking to me for some reason - he was generally a bit of a bully, so maybe there was no reason - and attacked me. When asked to defend himself, he simply said "Jake called me a Paki"*.

Of course, it never happened: I don't think I even had heard the term before that, and I certainly wouldn't use it as an insult. Nevertheless, before more people got involved and more thorough questions started to be asked, witnesses started to be quizzed, he was just assumed to be completely justified in his random assault, just because he claimed I used a racist taunt towards him.

That's an advantage - having people ready to back you up without thinking just because you claim racism - whether you like it or not. It might not be enshrined in law, and it might not give you any economic advantage, but it's still fundamentally an advantage and frankly it's still just as racist (if not more) than calling someone by some term like that in the first place.




* 'Paki', short for 'Pakistani'; there's a fairly large Pakistani community in the city I live in, and they're probably the nearest thing we have to the US's black community in this part of the country, at least.

[kinougames]

I'm just going to say "no" and "please do research" and leave it that.

A true story: when I was younger, a guy from a couple of streets over took a disliking to me for some reason - he was generally a bit of a bully, so maybe there was no reason - and attacked me. When asked to defend himself, he simply said "Jake called me a Paki"*.

Of course, it never happened: I don't think I even had heard the term before that, and I certainly wouldn't use it as an insult. Nevertheless, before more people got involved and more thorough questions started to be asked, witnesses started to be quizzed, he was just assumed to be completely justified in his random assault, just because he claimed I used a racist taunt towards him.

That's an advantage - having people ready to back you up without thinking just because you claim racism - whether you like it or not. It might not be enshrined in law, and it might not give you any economic advantage, but it's still fundamentally an advantage and frankly it's still just as racist (if not more) than calling someone by some term like that in the first place.

It's really not. Please read the post I left on the front page. Your anecdotal data is only anecdotal data. People who suck will always suck, but "sucking at life" doesn't equal racism.

You ever wonder WHY people are so reactionary to racism? Because they live it every day. You don't. If you did, you'd likely be damn fast to back people up upon hearing about it. It's not racism to have a reaction strongly AGAINST racism. They backed him up because racism likely meant a lot of horrible pain for all of them, and HOW COULD SOMEONE EVEN DO THAT! They didn't back him because they hated whitey.

If your girlfriend said she got raped, and it didn't actually happen, would you not still run to go kick this guy's ass? Or would you sit there and grill her on the specifics for an hour to "make sure it really happened" before you made a decision?

You happened to have a run in with a single douchebag. The other people aren't douchebags. They'd do what ANYONE would do having heard something horrible happened to one of their own.

Furthermore, do you not think that if some Pakistani guy was hanging around your neighborhood, and a white girl lied and said he did something, that he would not be leaped on? Of course he would. There's not really a difference here. Hell, the Pakistani guy probably worries about getting picked on just because he exists.

[Jake]

Furthermore, do you not think that if some Pakistani guy was hanging around your neighborhood, and a white girl lied and said he did something, that he would not be leaped on? Of course he would. There's not really a difference here. Hell, the Pakistani guy probably worries about getting picked on just because he exists.

Translation: "There's racism in one direction, so that makes racism in the other direction perfectly OK". Disgusting.

It's totally irrelevant whether or not Bob stole one of Alice's cupcakes; if Alice kicks Bob in the nuts, it's still assault and it's still illegal. It's also totally irrelevant whether Pakistanis on the whole suffer racism from white people; if they are racist back, it's still racism. And it's still disgusting. And it doesn't help their [personal] case against white-on-Pakistani racism one bit.

As it happens, the people who jumped to his defence were mostly white people, who also didn't have to worry about racism themselves. It's not racist to have a strong reaction against racism, but it is racist to assume that majorites are the only people capable of racism. The assumption on the part of these people was that since this guy was a minority and accused me of racism, he must be right. That's wrong, it's prejudiced, and it's racist. Just because it's anti-white racist doesn't stop it from being racist.



Shorter, more-succinct version: I, personally, have not been racist to any Pakistanis (or anyone else) to the best of my knowledge. If you're saying that some Pakistanis suffer from some racism from some white people and that explains people's reaction, all that says is that they're blaming me for the actions of other people purely because I'm also white. It's pretty obviously racist.





If my girlfriend told me she'd been raped I'd believe her without a second thought because I know damn well that my girlfriend is a reliable person who doesn't go about lying to people for her own benefit, not because she's a woman and when a woman cries 'rape' it's "obviously true".
But that's beside the point, and you're trying to distract from the actual point with an emotive issue. I wouldn't go around and kick the guy in the nuts, I'd do the sensible thing and call the police. They'll arrest him, perform a hopefully-impartial investigation and prosecute when it turns out my girlfriend wasn't lying. The only instance I'd assault him would be if I caught him in the act, which is a totally different context.

My "anecdotal data" may be anecdotal, but it's still a thing that actually happened in the real world, therefore it's a counter-example to your absolute statement.

[kinougames]

Edit: It seems my prior statement was a bit unclear, so let me try again. I'm not saying that it's not possible for bigotry against whites to happen. If it can happen one way, it can happen in the other. However, this doesn't mean an advantage exists for non-whites, which was my original problem with neowired's statement.

Translation: "There's racism in one direction, so that makes racism in the other direction perfectly OK". Disgusting.

Incorrect extrapolation. I never said it was okay. I was speaking to your incorrect assumption that the Pakistani person had some sort of advantage over you.

It's totally irrelevant whether or not Bob stole one of Alice's cupcakes; if Alice kicks Bob in the nuts, it's still assault and it's still illegal. It's also totally irrelevant whether Pakistanis on the whole suffer racism from white people; if they are racist back, it's still racism. And it's still disgusting. And it doesn't help their [personal] case against white-on-Pakistani racism one bit.

Aren't we reactionary? Bob is still a thief. They're both wrong. They both will get punished, one for being a thief, the other for assault. They are equal in this regard, and no one gets the advantage. (Though in the US, if Bob steals one of Alice's cupcakes and she kicks him in the nuts to retrieve her property, she DOES in fact get off because Bob is a thief.)

As it happens, the people who jumped to his defence were mostly white people, who also didn't have to worry about racism themselves. It's not racist to have a strong reaction against racism, but it is racist to assume that majorites are the only people capable of racism. The assumption on the part of these people was that since this guy was a minority and accused me of racism, he must be right. That's wrong, it's prejudiced, and it's racist. Just because it's anti-white racist doesn't stop it from being racist.

...white on white racism? Racism is defined as a phenomenon that happens "from a person in power to a person without power." In that vein, yes, racism can only be from whites against non-whites, at least in America. (In Japan, it'd be from Japanese against non-Japanese, etc.) That doesn't mean that the minorities aren't assholes, and they are in fact bigoted against majorities.

As far as white people jumping on you, white people would jump on you if someone said you were a bunch of different things. This is not an advantage to being Pakistani. This is you taking your own experience to a level it doesn't actually go. I agree that bigotry happens against whites. I do not agree that it means that non-whites have a magical added advantage because they, to this day, still need to be protected against white people who are psycho.

You PERSONALLY might feel you had a disadvantage, but this doesn't equal a disadvantage for all whites, nor does it equal an advantage for all non-whites.

Shorter, more-succinct version: I, personally, have not been racist to any Pakistanis (or anyone else) to the best of my knowledge. If you're saying that some Pakistanis suffer from some racism from some white people and that explains people's reaction, all that says is that they're blaming me for the actions of other people purely because I'm also white. It's pretty obviously racist.

I'm not sure this is true. "Paki" is pretty specific. If a non-Paki called someone a Paki, they are still bigoted, and I'm not so sure that no one would jump on them, simply because I have seen minorities getting called out for being bigoted against other minorities. (This is why anecdotes are full of crap because one will always disprove another.)

My "anecdotal data" may be anecdotal, but it's still a thing that actually happened in the real world, therefore it's a counter-example to your absolute statement.

It was not a counter example to anything except "it is possible for non-whites to be bigoted". Which I agree with completely. I don't agree that it gives them an advantage, nor does your example express an extra advantage the Pakistani person had over you.

[PyTom]

Racism is defined as a phenomenon that happens "from a person in power to a person without power." In that vein, yes, racism can only be from whites against non-whites, at least in America.

That's not the common definition:

S: (n) racism (the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races)
S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Neither definition mentions anything about power.

[kinougames]

Racism is defined as a phenomenon that happens "from a person in power to a person without power." In that vein, yes, racism can only be from whites against non-whites, at least in America.

That's not the common definition:

S: (n) racism (the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races)
S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Neither definition mentions anything about power.

These definitions have been considered outdated for a while. Even if you want to call it that, bigotry happens from everyone to everyone, and it doesn't mean that minorities gain an advantage all of a sudden.

[Jake]

Incorrect extrapolation. I never said it was okay.

You suggested that when people P - who are the repeated victims of racism by people Q - hear that person X claims person Y is racist, where person X is of the same race as people P and person Y is of the same race as people Q, it's reasonable for them to just jump to the conclusion that person Y is a racist based on those facts alone. Which is, to my mind, unreasonable and indefensible.

(This is summed up in "They'd do what ANYONE would do having heard something horrible happened to one of their own.")

If you didn't mean to suggest that it was in any way excusable, then your entire last paragraph - "Furthermore..." was totally irrelevant. The fact that some other unrelated white people had been nasty to some other unrelated Pakistani people should be irrelevant when talking about the dealings between one particular white guy and one particular Pakistani guy.

Unfortunately, as you suggest, the reality is that a lot of people will take the experience they've had with other people of the same race and assume that this new guy is like that as well. The fact that it happens doesn't make it excusable, though.

I was speaking to your incorrect assumption that the Pakistani person had some sort of advantage over you.

He had the advantage that his word is automatically considered to have more likelihood of being right than my word, just because he's a minority. I don't care whether you like the idea of accepting that, but it's the truth.

...white on white racism? Racism is defined as a phenomenon that happens "from a person in power to a person without power."

Maybe in your head, but not in any dictionary I've ever seen. Racism is "discriminating against people based on their race", it's that simple. It's irrelevant whether the person doing the discriminating is in a position of power over the other or not: if they're doing their discriminating based on race, then it's racism.

So yes, black people in the US can be racist (and are sometimes racist) against white people. Fact of life, unfortunate as it is. Trying to claim it's not possible is, frankly, idiotic.


(Honestly, if anyone considers that definition 'outdated' (I notice you don't provide any supporting evidence) I suspect it's probably because they want to try and promote the idea that minorities "can't be racist". Which is, to my mind, disgusting.)

Sexism - discriminating based on sex.
Ageism - discriminating based on age.
Classism - discriminating based on class.
Racism - discriminating based on race.

As far as white people jumping on you, white people would jump on you if someone said you were a bunch of different things.

If he had said "that guy stole my ball" and I had said "I didn't, this has always been my ball, he's trying to steal it from me" then most people would shrug and try and go about working out whose ball it actually is rather than just assuming that the first person who spoke is automatically correct.

Since he said "he called me by a racist name" and I said "no I didn't", however, it's a different thing and suddenly he's assumed to be right without my defence meaning anything. This is an advantage, whether or not you like to believe it.

I do not agree that it means that non-whites have a magical added advantage because they, to this day, still need to be protected against white people who are psycho.

And white people also need to be protected against non-whites who are psycho.

Some people are racist. Those people need to be dealt with, and it's a disgusting thing. Trying to pretend that it only happens from majorities to minorities is ignoring a part of the problem that - if ignored - will surely kill any progress you make in the long run.

(This is why anecdotes are full of crap because one will always disprove another.)

I never claimed it was a general rule that stood in all situations; that was you. I claimed it was a counter-example to your attempt to basically state "all minorities are always at a disadvantage in everything", which I think is a stupid thing to try and claim.

(Also, just so you know - 'Paki' is generally considered to only be a derogatory term, I've never heard Pakistanis refer to themselves as 'Pakis' at all. I seem to recall it's something to do with the fact that unlike most of the countries with '-stan' at the end, there aren't any 'Paki' people in the same way that there are 'tajiks', 'kazakhs and 'uzbeks'; the name is actually an abbreviation of the various regions the country is comprised of. So some people of Pakistani descent would possibly take offence at you talking about 'non-Paki' people as if 'Paki' was a demonym in the first place.)

[kinougames]

Excusable and understandable are two completely different things. If you beat up rape guy, you're not more correct. You're still wrong. You will just both go to jail, until it was determined through court why rape guy was beat up, and you're likely to be let go by authorities. (At least, in America this tends to happen.)

The fact is that some words are buzzwords. Crying racism will piss minorities off. Crying rape will piss anyone off. It's not necessarily about race, but about the buzzword. If you have studies to prove differently, display them.

Let's use racism across the board, nevermind that racism is a form a bigotry and nearly the same thing. I conceded the point to PyTom, s'fine.

If he had said "that guy stole my ball" and I had said "I didn't, this has always been my ball, he's trying to steal it from me" then most people would shrug and try and go about working out whose ball it actually is rather than just assuming that the first person who spoke is automatically correct.

Since he said "he called me by a racist name" and I said "no I didn't", however, it's a different thing and suddenly he's assumed to be right without my defence meaning anything. This is an advantage, whether or not you like to believe it.

Prove through studies that this is a regular occurrence worldwide like has been done with white-on-minority actions. One perceived advantage doesn't make an advantage, and there are a million factors that could have affected this situation.

And white people also need to be protected against non-whites who are psycho.

Some people are racist. Those people need to be dealt with, and it's a disgusting thing. Trying to pretend that it only happens from majorities to minorities is ignoring a part of the problem that - if ignored - will surely kill any progress you make in the long run.

I never claimed it was a general rule that stood in all situations; that was you. I claimed it was a counter-example to your attempt to basically state "all minorities are always at a disadvantage in everything", which I think is a stupid thing to try and claim.

First, I never said it doesn't happen. I just said like 4 times in the post before this that I agree it does.

Second, where did I state that it was a general rule that "all minorities are always at a disadvantage in everything"? A rich minority has a lot more than a poor white person, but that's rich privilege and not relevant to race. But as far as strictly racial-based privileges, minorities are not getting advantages. They're still playing catch-up. Do you consider welfare a "poor advantage"? Likely not...rich people don't need welfare. There's no reason for them to have welfare. Will there be "not-quite-poor-enough" people who fell between the cracks and just missed qualifying? Yes. Does that mean that the government is "classist against rich people"? No, it means that they went for the people proven to be in need and allow those who aren't in need to do for themselves.

There is a reason that anti-racism laws and anti-racism attitudes run the way they do. Because it is regularly proven that whites are regularly and notoriously racist against minorities. We have people passing laws that allow cops to pick "illegal (read: Hispanic)-looking" people off the street and hold them up for hours and days to "check" their citizenship!

You got the raw end, and undoubtedly, in any bigotry battle, there will people who got a shitty end of the stick despite being a majority, which will cause them to think and say ignorant things, but it doesn't mean that minority in the bigotry gained an advantage. It means that finally, minorities are getting a few ounces of real protection over things that've been proven to happen time and time again, that they never got protection for and might've continued to not receive protection for. Even then, the hidden racism is what hurts minorities in America more than people who are actually dumb enough to scream the n-word to someone's face. Millions of studies have been done. It's not about you, one single person, as much as you want to make it seem so, which is why anecdotal data is a failure. To millions of people, your one story doesn't matter. Your one description of a perceived advantage due to circumstance doesn't negate the millions of actual studies that show no advantage.

http://community.livejournal.com/debunk ... 35955.html
http://community.livejournal.com/debunk ... 37871.html
http://community.livejournal.com/debunk ... 39443.html
http://community.livejournal.com/blackfolk/7656648.html

Majority racism in another country.
http://community.livejournal.com/debunk ... 34500.html

Another nice thing to read:
http://www.nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf

In addition to those, google "casual racism" to come up with several more links.

To your last point, I've never heard that personally, only the opposite, and I refer to people as they want to be called. If someone from the area wants to explain it to me, I will be glad to listen.

[rioka]

Dude, depending on where you are in the world, white people aren't always the majority - rather, they can be the minority. Stop making it like the whole world is run by white people and they're hating on everyone. And no, racism cuts both ways; there are racist minorities towards the majority. There also racist minorities against other racist minorities.

You know, this reminds me of a show I was watching awhile back. There were two black families that had two different perspectives. One dad felt that he was always being discriminated against because he was black. He thought it racist that a clerk would come up to him and ask him if he needed any help if he entered a posh store (he felt like that clerk was watching his every move and thought that he might steal something). He also felt that people would avoid him on purpose if he was walking on a crowded sidewalk. The other dad, though, likes it that clerks come up to him and ask - he see's that as good customer service and wasn't offended by it. He also didn't feel like people were purposely stepping around him if he's walking on a crowded street to avoid him. In summary, it all depends on the persons mentality and perspective. If you find racism in everything, you will find it but maybe it wasn't racism at all and maybe it was all in your head to begin with.

[LordShiranai]

We have people passing laws that allow cops to pick "illegal (read: Hispanic)-looking" people off the street and hold them up for hours and days to "check" their citizenship!

If you need any proof that racism is still alive in the US, look no further than this absurdity. Even though the wording of the law doesn't say it, this law is obviously targeting Hispanics. I really doubt you're going to see many white people being detained because "they might be illegal aliens from Canada.

[neowired]

Guys, don't mind kinou, I think what he says is generally outdated and wrong so it doesn't really matter.

Also he rants too much and if he doesn't like what you say he just says it's outdated and you didn't research. And completely disregards facts.

Oh, and he doesn't know what affirmative action is.

Yay, ad-persona

[fortaat]

[Jake]

Excusable and understandable are two completely different things.

If you didn't mean 'excusable', then what exactly is the point of that last part of your post, the one I first quoted, hmm? You continue to include completely irrelevant information in your posts. The fact that Hispanics are being discriminated against by anti-illegal-immigration laws is bad, but nobody is contesting that racism exists, it's pretty irrelevant. The only reason I can think of to bring it up is to try and get an emotive response, which is the kind of debate tactic politicians sink to, not reasonable people.

It seems to me that you're changing your position. Even more so when you say things like this:

Second, where did I state that it was a general rule that "all minorities are always at a disadvantage in everything"?

Here:

What I did say exactly is that there were and are places where Black people had and have some privileges just because they are black.
It's possible that in the same place white people had and have other privileges because they are white.

I'm just going to say "no"

Neowired said, in more precise language: "there exist situations where being black confers some privilege".

You said "no", which implies that you believe this statement is false. If the statement is false, then the following is true: "there do not exist situations where being black confers some privilege". Or, to phrase it a different way, "there are no places where being black confers a privilege".

So, either you were saying that minorities never get any advantage at all from being minorities, or you have the notion that black people are special and unique in being oppressed in all situations ever, which is even more bizarre. (I mean, just ask white people in Zimbabwe.)



Since you're denying that you said things that you quite plainly said just the day before, I can't believe that you're taking this discussion very seriously. Since I don't think you're taking it seriously, it's pointless talking to you. All you've managed to do is lose my respect.

[Aleema]

I went to public school, where my race was a minority. The majority? African-Americans. Did I feel that sometimes black people were racist towards me? Absolutely. When I talked, they would mock me with a valley girl accent. When I said I liked certain bands, they would throw up devil horns and headbang. When I was in a group project, I was "the white girl." When I had an arguement with a black student over her stealing my entire project idea, the black teacher scolded me for "not being clear enough" that it was my idea? Are you saying that I'm not allowed to feel something about that, simply because of the grand scheme of things, blacks are technically the minority?

Anyway. Touchy subject is touchy. Let's not start throwing around concretes and absolutes. People are allowed to feel things, no matter how unreasonable it may be. As evidenced by the "they're minorities so they say rash things" explanation kinou offered up. It's a bit racist in itself, but whatever. There is still no excuse for hate for the sake of feeling better about one's self.