Reverse Racism?

[kendoiwan]

So I've been thinking about it... Really interesting I say.
Racism isn't racism when it's a black discriminating against a white? If so then why a seperate term?

I must admit I'm generally dismissive of the notion for reasons of power. How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority? When I think of racism and discrimination I think of exclusion from work, racial profiling by cops, disenfranchisement, discriminatory lending practices, gentrification, disproportionate representation in the prison system, derogatory images in the press, under representation in the halls of power, pressure to give up your identity...

So in the name of fairness I ask, how can a minority discriminate against the majority in a truly meaningful way? What are the effects of this so called "reverse racism"?

[Pooja]

Affirmative Action
(thats opening a whole new can of worms).

[philonightmare]

How does it make things any better (economically, politically-wise, etc) when a minority discriminates against the majority?

I would think that it's "racism" either way, "reverse racism" just implies a greater distinction and that one group of people (the minority, in particular) is not held as accountable for their prejudice as a majority group in the same position.

[Claverhouse]

I must admit I'm generally dismissive of the notion for reasons of power. How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority?

The super-rich can discriminate against the poor very easily.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[booyalab]

How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority?
rich white males aren't the majority

[booyalab]

racism isn't about race, anyway. it's about power

[Dr. Haight]

Racism isn't racism when it's a black discriminating against a white?


I would call that a preemptive strike based on historical observations.
Feel me?

[Sackanaka]

Reading the thread title, I thought of "racism without hurtful intent" like the guy Brendan Frasier played on Crash, who stated he needed to take a pic with a black guy to gain the black vote. Kinda like racism-induced racism, inverting and further uglying the issue.

But then that's not what the thread was about :I

[Dr. Haight]

racism isn't about race, anyway. it's about power
Nice. I could not have said that better myself (although, ironically, I could have wrote this sentence a little better).

[MacGuffin]

Racism is merely prejudice on a racial level, so anyone can be a racist.

Actual discrimination is much harder, but in a society a minority group can bear political pressure to push the outcome of a decision in favor of the minority vs. the majority. Usually done by appealing to sense of moral outrage or other negative consequences.

[joft]

How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority?
Don't forget South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid) (i'm sure there are tons of examples of this throughout history but I can't remember any, probably because I never learned about them in the first place)

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_discrimination

[tinribz]

I can't see the connection between racism and minority or majority. An Asian landlord putting a sign up saying Asians only is identical to a white one doing the same. Whether they are in Asia or the US.

Positive discrimination is something completely different (which I initially thought this thread was about), and that I support until balance is restored.

[Nyairj]

I agree with MacGuffin on the issue of racism. If a member of a minority group can say "all white people are racist crackers", then they are capable of racism (or "reverse-racism"; a seperate term for this is indeed redundant).

Minorities get special preferences in hiring, college admissions, and scholarships. Because slots and resources are limited, this is a zero-sum game; what is given to minorities must come at the expense of whites. That is, whites are being discriminated against in favor of minorities.

Discrimination against whites is made possible through other whites, whether it is the liberal college professors, corporate CEOs, your everyday obnoxious lefties, or the silent majority that just goes along with it so they won't suffer the consequences of getting tagged as racists.

Also, whites are not in the majority at all places and at all times; when "minorities" are the majority, they need no help in discriminating against whites.

[Nemesis]

So I've been thinking about it... Really interesting I say.
Racism isn't racism when it's a black discriminating against a white? If so then why a seperate term?

I must admit I'm generally dismissive of the notion for reasons of power. How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority? When I think of racism and discrimination I think of exclusion from work, racial profiling by cops, disenfranchisement, discriminatory lending practices, gentrification, disproportionate representation in the prison system, derogatory images in the press, under representation in the halls of power, pressure to give up your identity...

So in the name of fairness I ask, how can a minority discriminate against the majority in a truly meaningful way? What are the effects of this so called "reverse racism"?
Racism has nothing to do with how many there are of the people you discriminate against. Racism is racism, pure and simple, discriminating against someone by way of racial heritage.

[cjs55]

Not only is racism racism, all ethnicities are racist (this is how they still exist as an ethnicity, not merging into others). Whichever one is in power often will abuse the one out of power (in a multiethnic society), and this has been shown time and time again. It's not a white vs. black thing. It is simply racial identity/prejudice and the power to act on it.

So it's not really 'reverse racism', it's simply racism and power. And actually on that note, I'd say America right now is much less racist and abusive compared to many other multiethnic situations in the past (not the only case of it, but it is certainly more the exception than the rule). Although the west as a whole has obviously become more anti-racist over the last 50 years, but my point stands if one compares cultures over time.

[Ponderous]

And actually on that note, I'd say America right now is much less racist and abusive compared to many other multiethnic situations in the past (not the only case of it, but it is certainly more the exception than the rule).

I'm sitting here with my mouth still open aghast at this statement. When the area you live in is almost 90% one race (http://www.cityrating.com/citystats.asp?city=Salt+Lake+City&state=UT), it's pretty easy to say that "there ain't much racism these days."

Sure, there have been improvements. Laws enabling racism have changed. Laws have been created to address discrimination. Just because it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, that does not prohibit it from happening.

Human X who is different from human Y still finds reasons to point out their differences negatively, and both racism and discrimination still exist.

[Dr. Haight]

Minorities get special preferences in hiring, college admissions, and scholarships. Because slots and resources are limited, this is a zero-sum game; what is given to minorities must come at the expense of whites. That is, whites are being discriminated against in favor of minorities.



Wow, that's a pisser.
Do you mean to tell me that the 55 propertied white dudes that met in Phili back in the day, left a glitch in the system that "those guy's" have figured out how to use for their own advantage? Man, that sucks.

[cjs55]

When the area you live in is almost 90% one race, it's pretty easy to say that "there ain't much racism these days."

Funny stuff, because usually when you have 88% white people and 10% of another (hispanics) [many of whom have little legal recourse], you'd imagine it would be even worse, because the majority in power could disciminate against the minority without much fear of any repercussion. Sure, I have heard of some discrimination against hispanics, but nothing like how say the Japanese treat certain minorities, or countless other cultures in the past.

This is a tricky issue though, because of economics and whatnot (what exploitation is racism and what is simply capatalism [I'm much more inclined to say that most economic exploitation is the latter]. And of course racism still exists. But the amount and severity is much less than many many other situations both in the past and today.


Ohhh wait. Because there's very few black people in Utah I have no say in the matter of racism, because the only racism that can exist is white vs. black. Got it.





Human X who is different from human Y still finds reasons to point out their differences negatively, and both racism and discrimination still exist.

No shit sherlock. However, if you don't think less people are doing this in America than they were 200 or 100 years ago, you're insane. And again, if you have any sort of understanding of history and anthropology you will see that (sometimes brutal) racism is definitely more the norm than not, and that currently America would rate very highly in comparison to many past societies. (although, your jaw may be too far open to effectively communicate a reply to this point, other than OMG racism still exists, which anyone would agree with. There can be degrees and amounts of racism, you know?).

[Ponderous]

Funny stuff, because usually when you have 88% white people and 10% of another (hispanics) [many of whom have little legal recourse], you'd imagine it would be even worse, because the majority in power could disciminate against the minority without much fear of any repercussion.

Nice edits to your original version of this post.

So, you have ample opportunity to turn to your coworker and learn about the Hispanic experience? Or is your experience with Salt Lake City’s biggest minority limited to Mexican restaurants and who you might hire to clean your house or work on your lawn?


And of course racism still exists. But the amount and severity is much less than many many other situations both in the past and today.

I don’t disagree.


Ohhh wait. Because there's very few black people in Utah I have no say in the matter of racism, because the only racism that can exist is white vs. black.
Who said that? Oh yeah, you did. I wasn’t suggesting the experience was relative to any particular race. Have you been in an area diverse enough to have been asked to leave an establishment for not being the right race (like I have)?



However, if you don't think less people are doing this in America than they were 200 or 100 years ago, you're insane... There can be degrees and amounts of racism, you know?).
I’m not arguing this point. You are.

I'm just saying it hasn't disappeared.

[last_caress]

Racism is racism, theres no reverse about it.

[tinribz]

I agree with MacGuffin on the issue of racism. If a member of a minority group can say "all white people are racist crackers", then they are capable of racism (or "reverse-racism"; a seperate term for this is indeed redundant).

Minorities get special preferences in hiring, college admissions, and scholarships. Because slots and resources are limited, this is a zero-sum game; what is given to minorities must come at the expense of whites. That is, whites are being discriminated against in favor of minorities.

Discrimination against whites is made possible through other whites, whether it is the liberal college professors, corporate CEOs, your everyday obnoxious lefties, or the silent majority that just goes along with it so they won't suffer the consequences of getting tagged as racists.

Also, whites are not in the majority at all places and at all times; when "minorities" are the majority, they need no help in discriminating against whites.
Wake up.

[Nyairj]

Wake up.

I'm awake. Do you have any constructive criticism for me?

[Marston]

In-groups, out-groups, and territorial pissings. That's racism. A great big edifice has been built to uphold white-versus-black discrimination in the West, but it seems absurd to me to define racism in terms of that very specific, short-lived edifice and ignore the very general, ancient, humanwide territorial pissings which allowed it to be built.

[Johnny]

Racism isn't racism when it's a black discriminating against a white? If so then why a seperate term?

The ugly truth?

It's because whites still consider blacks to be different...and so a different term for behavior which appears to show an intent to discriminate is needed.

Blacks consider themselves to be different also, and so this package gets tied up quite nicely.

Hope everyone likes the bow

[papertrail]

well said johnny.

'racism' is a term used by whites to describe what whites do.
'reverse racism' is a term used by whites to describe what other people do.

because after all, we're all so very different.

[Nemesis]

The argument is that there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Racism is racism, no matter who it comes from. Racism is not exclusive to whites. We're not the only ones with prejudices, you know.

[papertrail]

absolutely.

that's what makes the whole thing so absurd...that a new term would be needed.

even in a white person’s compliant against racism, the belief that whites and blacks are different is applied, otherwise there would be no separate term.

i worded it that way because I have never known a black person to call it reverse racism. i have only heard that term used by people without color. ;)

[Lee]

Racism isn't racism when it's a black discriminating against a white?Yes it is.


If so then why a seperate term?Racism is just racism, it doesn't matter to which race a particular person belongs to, they can be racist.


I must admit I'm generally dismissive of the notion for reasons of power. How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority?The majority do not discriminate against minorities and minorities do not discriminate against the majority.

Why? because "majorities" and "minorities" cannot discriminate, only individuals can discriminate, whether that individual is being racist depends on whether they are discriminating based on unjustified racial prejudices, this can occur irrespective of which racial category that person falls into.


When I think of racism and discrimination I think of exclusion from work, racial profiling by cops, disenfranchisement, discriminatory lending practices, gentrification, disproportionate representation in the prison system, derogatory images in the press, under representation in the halls of power, pressure to give up your identity...All of these could have alternative causal explanations that do not include a systematic and widespread racism.


So in the name of fairness I ask, how can a minority discriminate against the majority in a truly meaningful way? What are the effects of this so called "reverse racism"?How do you even define majority and minority?

A majority is simply the most common characteristic/trait/opinion in an unspecified group/location/demographic. I can be part of the majority in one location and the minority in another, it could be a geographic location as small as my house or as big as the world, or a group of people dispersed all around the place, such as this forum. Racial discrimination can happen in any of these places, even when the perpetrators are a minority.

[Nyairj]

If racism (and related phenomena like discrimination in employment, the racial spoils system in democratic elections, the transformation of the census into a competition to justify one's ethnic group's place in society, breed-offs and contraception drives, ethnic cleansing, genocide, other forms of ethnic strife etc.) are here to stay (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm), why, then, is diversity such a great thing? No amount of social engineering is going to make it go away because it is biological. You can try to referree your tangle of ethnic groups through violence, coercion, limiting free speech, buying them off with bread and circuses -- whatever suits your fancy -- but multiethnic societies are always unstable and they tend to unravel eventually or else are ethnically cleansed (see: Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and others, with more to join sooner or later; the number of countries has exploded since WWII ended). Compare this with the situation in highly homogeneous countries like Japan and Iceland.

[Vagabond]

well said johnny.

'racism' is a term used by whites to describe what whites do.
'reverse racism' is a term used by whites to describe what other people do.

because after all, we're all so very different. I hate generalisations. Not all whites all over the world are even remotely familiar with the term "reverse racism". Some of them use "racism" to describe descrimination based on race, no matter who is the racist and who is the victim. I agree though that the "reverse" part makes absolutely no sense, but I assume it was needed to specify that it is racism against white people at a time when all racist views and actions came from white people. I am not american though, so I can only speculate.

And I agree that even if you are a really small minority among a vast majority, if you hate people because of their race, you are a racist. You are just not as capable of actively discriminating against them as you'd be if you were the majority.

[Purple-Silver Fox]

If racism (and related phenomena like discrimination in employment, the racial spoils system in democratic elections, the transformation of the census into a competition to justify one's ethnic group's place in society, breed-offs and contraception drives, ethnic cleansing, genocide, other forms of ethnic strife etc.) are here to stay (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/nepotism.htm), why, then, is diversity such a great thing? No amount of social engineering is going to make it go away because it is biological. You can try to referree your tangle of ethnic groups through violence, coercion, limiting free speech, buying them off with bread and circuses -- whatever suits your fancy -- but multiethnic societies are always unstable and they tend to unravel eventually or else are ethnically cleansed (see: Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and others, with more to join sooner or later; the number of countries has exploded since WWII ended). Compare this with the situation in highly homogeneous countries like Japan and Iceland.
Homicide, paedophilia, rape, violence in general, addiction, ... "No amount of social engineering is going to make it go away because it is biological." But their effects can be softened.
As for Iceland and Japan: those are 2 prosperous nations without military ambitions. At least after WW, part 2.
Ethnicity doesn't much more than provide a catalyst to make discontent explode.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Racism is racism. It can all be very destructive to everyone. If we as individuals do not do more to mixed our social and economical circles we face a future where our descendants are not safe from the ill effects of such social blunders.

Interesting note: We in the US should be able to learn from the mistakes of others as well as history. I am refering to something that is happerning in israel as we speak. In israel - the israilis rule legally speaking. They make laws that favor them over muslems and such. THey implimented democracy and cite the policies are "what the people want" and "what the people voted for". They can do this because they are the majority of voting citizens. Here is the catch: - due to birth rates and time - they will soon be the minority. If they do not change the rules of their society the muslems will have the voting power. We as US citizens should watch closely as we are watching our own future. Will israel change the rules to prevent muslems from taking control? Will they ever learn to get along (obvious answer)? If we allow racism to influence us, if we allow it to exists in a way more than a passing fancy, we will face a similar situation here. The good news is we do not have to (but too many of us feel and think we have to choose a side - and thats how we know we were once cavemen - oogah boogah!).

[papertrail]

I hate generalisations. Not all whites all over the world are even remotely familiar with the term "reverse racism". Some of them use "racism" to describe descrimination based on race, no matter who is the racist and who is the victim. I agree though that the "reverse" part makes absolutely no sense, but I assume it was needed to specify that it is racism against white people at a time when all racist views and actions came from white people. I am not american though, so I can only speculate.
that statement applies to whomever it applies to. it’s not a broad indictment of all white people. is it really necessary to say you’re not like them?

speculating on why someone thought ‘reverse racism’ was an appropriate term is fine but the reason you gave ended up being a good example of what i was talking about....because after all, we're all so very different.

tschüss

[Johnny]

I agree though that the "reverse" part makes absolutely no sense, but I assume it was needed to specify that it is racism against white people at a time when all racist views and actions came from white people. I am not american though, so I can only speculate.

"Reverse racism" is, ultimately, an effort to neutralize accusations of racism.


that's what makes the whole thing so absurd...that a new term would be needed.

Yet it is needed by those who want to discriminate based on race but do not want to be called racists for it.

It's not really about a white person, who is not a racist, finding himself on the receiving end of racism. It's an assumption that we're all racists, and so one continuing to discriminate against others based on race is justified.

[papertrail]

"Reverse racism" is, ultimately, an effort to neutralize accusations of racism.. so if i understand you correctly johnny, you’re saying that racist people apply the term ‘reverse racism’ in a ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” way?


Yet it is needed by those who want to discriminate based on race but do not want to be called racists for it..i believed it was used by a white person who felt such a huge psychological distance from anyone different from them that a new term would be needed to describe something the offender did.


It's not really about a white person, who is not a racist, finding himself on the receiving end of racism.i got this.


It's an assumption that we're all racists, and so one continuing to discriminate against others based on race is justified.
this is where you lost me....nevermind. you found me.

[Johnny]

so if i understand you correctly johnny, you’re saying that racist people apply the term ‘reverse racism’ in a ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” way?

Yes...and when we say this, we're assigning the same attribute to both the goose and the gander (for the discussion here, it is racism).

But do the goose and gander truly possess this same attribute? I don't know, and so I call it an assumption.

Reverse racism relies on the assumption that we're all racists, which is something that racism doesn't address (it doesn't need to). Whites will argue that they are not racists and that reverse racism isn't justified, thereby undermining accusations of racism by whites in a rather sneaky way if you ask me.

Are we all racists?

[papertrail]

Technically, no. Practically....maybe

______

tee-hee..sorry. let me think about that.

[papertrail]

so if you can be racist toward me, i can be racist toward you.

but can a minority truly be racist toward a majority? yes. on an individual basis. no, not on an institutional, economic and political level, etc.

Are we all racists?
we’re certainly capable of it. human beings are the worst of kind of people.<sorry joft> i'll stick with my first answer. technically, no. practically....maybe. in which case it's still just racism.

[Dom]

I think perhaps we need several definations of Racism,

Obviously Individuals can be racist, whether they are Black or White or Asian. This is being Racist.

Groups can be racist, I.E KKK Governments (aparthied SA, US southern states, Muslim fundamental nations/groups, Zimbabwe?) this is called being Racist.

The term Reverse Racism I do not recognise, If a white hates blacks thats racism if a black hates whites this too is racism, I don't see any need to give it it's own term.

If you give it it's own term you turn it into a response to the other. And that is a question we can not answer.....

Do Blacks hate Whites because the Whites first hated/mistreated the Blacks? I think not, plenty of White groups hate other White groups for similar mistreatment. Do some Black groups hate other Black groups? I think so (please see Ruwanda).

So then do we need a sepperate defination just to describe racist behaviour from a Black to a White? I personally think not......

However to suggest that this racisim is comparable on scale, with the persecution minority groups still feel, is as unfair as to suggest that a Black's racist attitude to Whites is justifiable.

[Johnny]

so if you can be racist toward me, i can be racist toward you.

but can a minority truly be racist toward a majority? yes. on an individual basis. no, not on an institutional, economic and political level, etc.

Yes and, from my POV, this is why reverse racism is absurd rather than for reasons of logical inconsistency or elegance.

Reverse racists don't stand a chance

edit: no I don't like that ending and I don't believe it. I think everybody stands a chance. Or at least I wish it.

[Ivy]

so if you can be racist toward me, i can be racist toward you.

but can a minority truly be racist toward a majority? yes. on an individual basis. no, not on an institutional, economic and political level, etc.

we’re certainly capable of it. human beings are the worst of kind of people.<sorry joft> i'll stick with my first answer. technically, no. practically....maybe. in which case it's still just racism.

I'm thinking maybe it could be a form of prejudice to assume that there's no way blacks could be racist towards whites because they're the minority and whites are the majority. Isn't that sort of minimizing the power and influence of the black community, in and of itself? There are organizations that hold quite a bit of political sway like the NAACP, and more and more black people in positions of authority. I'm not saying everything's hunky-dory and 100% equal and great, but strides have been made and things are not as clearly controlled by the majority anymore.

[papertrail]

ivy you misunderstood the post. i have no idea where… but you did.

[Ivy]

ivy you misunderstood the post. i have no idea where… but you did.

I thought about editing to add to it that I was jumping off of your post, not exactly squaring off with your point. I pretty much agreed with it. Guess I should have done that. :)

[papertrail]

ooooh.

i don't know if it's prejudice. it's awfully silly though.

[Shimpei]

What about self-antisemitism which is a topical phenomenon in Central Europe?

[papertrail]

What about self-antisemitism which is a topical phenomenon in Central Europe?
dude, what i have a crystal ball? i just made it to work. ask ivy.

[Johnny]

What about self-antisemitism which is a topical phenomenon in Central Europe?

Are you talking about self-hatred? What is self-antisemitism?

[papertrail]

it's internalized hatred. taking the thoughts of and feelings and other and believing them to be true.

is it really new? it’s been going on in oppressed communities for ages. maybe newly talked about within that community.

[Shimpei]

Are you talking about self-hatred? What is self-antisemitism?

Self-antisemitism is when a man/woman of Jewish origin is actually an anti-semite. We have politicians and other public characters like this.

[Johnny]

it's internalized hatred. taking the thoughts of and feelings and other and believing them to be true.

is it really new? it’s been going on in oppressed communities for ages. maybe newly talked about within that community.

O.K. now I get it.

Hmmm for me I consider many things to be true based on the thoughts and feelings of others...for good or ill.

[papertrail]

Self-antisemitism is when a man/woman of Jewish origin is actually an anti-semite. We have politicians and other public characters like this.
:sadbanana:

yeah. a jewish person believing negative remarks about themselves, internalizes the hatred. they then try to distance themselves from other jewish people in effort to show those making the negative comments just how un-jewish and different they are.

you'll find some of that in every traditionally oppressed community.

[Johnny]

Self-antisemitism is when a man/woman of Jewish origin is actually an anti-semite. We have politicians and other public characters like this.

I'm not surprised. I think we all go through a period of self-loathing in the course of our lives.

But yeah when a social component is leveraged it certainly makes the experience more intense...especially when we gain benefit from it.

[jittus rye]

Reverse racism is a term applied almost exclussively to affirmative action, you dumbass Johnny.

[Johnny]

Reverse racism is a term applied almost exclussively to affirmative action, you dumbass Johnny.

If you're so hung up on details and correctness, how about spelling 'exclusively' correctly <_<

[Dr. Haight]

The best part about this thread, is that our black INTP friend, from NYC, started this thread and is now sitting back and watching all you white folk bitch at each other about the word "racism"; moreover, in a country that tries to tell us that this issue is resolved.
That's poetic justice.
Good job, man.

[booyalab]

Good job, man.
good job? he only thinks racism applies to discrimination against black people

edit:which ironically supports your point that we've gotten nowhere with the racism struggle

[Dr. Haight]

good job? he only thinks racism applies to discrimination against black people

edit:which ironically supports your point that we've gotten nowhere with the racism struggle

That's what he said, but if the purpose was--as a sarcastically implied--to simply begin a discussion on race, while watching the scuffle, then,"good job."

Hey, why are you always kicking my ass booya?
I am leaving your state next year, relax.

[Superstring]

So I've been thinking about it... Really interesting I say.
Racism isn't racism when it's a black discriminating against a white? If so then why a seperate term?

I must admit I'm generally dismissive of the notion for reasons of power. How can a minority truly discriminate against the majority? When I think of racism and discrimination I think of exclusion from work, racial profiling by cops, disenfranchisement, discriminatory lending practices, gentrification, disproportionate representation in the prison system, derogatory images in the press, under representation in the halls of power, pressure to give up your identity...

So in the name of fairness I ask, how can a minority discriminate against the majority in a truly meaningful way? What are the effects of this so called "reverse racism"?

I have at least two friends who I suspect are reverse racist towards whitey....they got sick of little everyday things. So what effects did this have. On them; they're really bitter a lot, unless people learn to talk to them not quite like PC-era human beings, but exactly as though they are white. And really I think these people are onto something; all races should learn to view each other as though they were white, because getting white person treatment is better than getting just ordinary human being treatment. So that's what I do now, pretend everybody is white. It's gold Jerry, gold!

[Vagabond]

that statement applies to whomever it applies to. it’s not a broad indictment of all white people. is it really necessary to say you’re not like them?
Then you should have said "whoever this applies to" instead of "whites".


because after all, we're all so very different.

tschüss
We are all so different on an individual basis. On a species basis, we are all so similar it is not even funny.

[tinribz]

We are all so different on an individual basis. On a species basis, we are all so similar it is not even funny.
I read somewhere (probably here) that on a scientific level we are so varied within the ethnic groups e.g. height, intelligence, personality etc that the percieved 'race' is totally irrelevant.

Kinda sums up how stupid the whole thing is.

[Lee]

I'm sorry, but the claim that only a majority can be racist is ridiculous.

During the reign of Saddam Hussain the Shiites were the majority, the Sunnis were the oppressors. Before the Rwandan genocide, the Hutus were the majority, the Tutsis were the oppressors. During Aparthied, the majority were black South Africans, the white South Africans were the oppressors.

These are three I could think of off the top of my head, I am sure there are dozens more. Besides what skin colour is in the majority is simply a matter of demographic group or geographic location, within the United States you could be the part of the majority in one location and the minority in the next. Only people discriminate, the whole problem is posed incorrectly from the OP.

[booyalab]

That's what he said, but if the purpose was--as a sarcastically implied--to simply begin a discussion on race, while watching the scuffle, then,"good job."

Hey, why are you always kicking my ass booya?
I am leaving your state next year, relax.

good, go back to *insert bordering midwestern state that Minnesotans pretend to hate in casual conversation* where you belong

[Birdsnest]

In govt, they often have to chose minorities to fill a certain quota of every race in each office, and therefore, many people have felt they were experiencing reverse discrimination when they clearly had more skills and were overlooked for a position. Sometimes its also obvious that because the govt has had so many lawsuits from certain minorities that things will be stacked against you if you aren't a minority in certain situations. If management is so afraid of another lawsuit that they make sure to promote the minorities first and treat them with more of everything than anyone else, it may be helpful to some, but not really that fair for the rest. So I don't think equal opportunity or affirmative action is really that equitable for every one.

equitable

adj : implying justice dictated by reason, conscience, and a natural sense of what is fair to all; "equitable treatment of all citizens"; "an equitable distribution of gifts among the children"

[Superstring]

I'm sorry, but the claim that only a majority can be racist is ridiculous.

During the reign of Saddam Hussain the Shiites were the majority, the Sunnis were the oppressors. Before the Rwandan genocide, the Hutus were the majority, the Tutsis were the oppressors. During Aparthied, the majority were black South Africans, the white South Africans were the oppressors.


I think there needs to be a distinction between population majority and status majority for this discussion. To me, the point of this 'reverse racism' concept is that it's a type of discrimination from the lower-handed population towards the upper-handed population; with the gap of financial and social power, one being racist towards the other in not the same thing at all...

[Superstring]

"No amount of social engineering is going to make it go away because it is biological."

Wow, I thought CNN wiped out that useage of the term 'social engineering' with its series of stories about people scamming passwords under social circumstances...just like Orwell's conception of 'newspeak' in 1984. Poll time