Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomp | Hacker News Reader

It often seems like the people writing this articles don't realize that preferring your own race is racism, no matter what race that is. If she feels that she doesn't fit in because there aren't enough people like her (black), that's just as racist as white people not wanting to hang out with blacks because they're not white.

View on HN

Haven't you heard that racism = power + prejudice, so black people by definition can't be racist because they don't have power?

(This is not an opinion that I agree with, but a lot of people actually think that way).

Thank god Obama isn't really black.

Sarcasm aside, a lot of people believe whatever serves them better. When they realised that "racism = discrimination" wan't enough to let them achieve their goals, they changed the definition to "racism = discrimination + power". Or, us geeks only became "patriarchal opressors of minorities" when non-geeks realized that the smart kids that got bullied at school were becoming really rich.

I'm not sure they deep down believe it. It's a rhetorical technique of frame shifting that has been quite successful, and allows some people to avoid facing their own racism. Since it works, why not continue using it?

I have found a near perfect antidote: I point out that the USA is the world's most powerful nation (I'm from a small weak nation that has historically been trashed a lot). So, I continue: are you saying that only Americans can be racist, for they are so powerful?

Nobody that I threw that at has been able to recover, they stutter, stumble, flail their arms, start to sweat and change the subject.

> I have found a near perfect antidote: I point out that the USA is the world's most powerful nation (I'm from a small weak nation that has historically trashed a lot). So, I continue: are you saying that only Americans can be racist, for they are so powerful?

That's a really good point.

There's this idea in the world of "white guilt" - that white people have been exceptionally cruel, by enslaving, killing, colonizing other races/nations.

The reality is that most people/races were viciously cruel; people fought wars, killed/raped their opponents, enslaved their prisoners, ... for generations. The difference is simply that whites (Europeans) have been so much more efficient at it (as with so many other things), because they were the first to develop advanced technology.

>"I'm not sure they deep down believe it. It's a rhetorical technique of frame shifting that has been quite successful, and allows some people to avoid facing their own racism. Since it works, why not continue using it?"

Well, it's a "rhetorical technique" then that appears to have gripped mainstream discussion on the matter. It's why blatant double-standards are accepted when it comes to the topics of race, sexism and equality. Either that, or it's the whole "outrage culture" that's causing me to see way more of the blatant outrage rather than the reasoned discussion.

Isn't this a clear cut example of linguistic prescriptivism? The vast majority of people do not use the word to mean that.

The topic of race in america is a complex one. But our understanding of it evolves over time, just like in every other field of study. As a technical matter, the definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior". That last part is important. Things can be racially motivated and negative without being racist. So for example, Indian person denied an apartment by a white landlord because "they make smelly food". Racist. Indian person refuses to rent to whites because he prefers someone who speaks his language. Racist? Depends. On the one hand, as a landlord he has the power to effect discrimination in a way that can cause a problem to applicants. But on the other hand, the language thing is about trying to solve a specific problem that he has, not because he thinks those people are inferior somehow. Similar situations, but the second is less racist than the first. Especially when you take into account the effect, which is that the Indian family being denied might have to work very hard to overcome this stereotype whereas the white family might well just move on to the next listing and be accepted quickly.

What you describe isn't racism at all - assuming, of course, that hte landlord would rent to whites if they spoke his language.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that Twitter would explode if a black candidate was denied for "speaking black" (personally, I find it hard to understand non-mainstream dialects of English). Although tecnically, that still wouldn't be racism, but rather just generic discrimination.

And strange smells coming out of the apartment are not specific problems. You are not entitled to having your culture or culinary tradition accepted or valued. Change the spices and it won't smell.

In my example the Indian family was denied the apartment when they showed up to apply. Your advice would not apply in this situation.

It has to do with the concept of "structural" racism, as opposed to plain bigotry, which can be done by anyone. Structural racist aspects are related to society/institutions, which is shaped by the majority.

While I understand the critique, I disagree with the academic terminology, and think insisting on it leads to misinformed intepretations of others' arguments, like saying "black people by definition can't be racist".

If that's what they meant though, then affirmative action (universities are clearly an institution) would be racist. So would minority business initiatives organized by the government.

I don't think they consider those things racist though, so that can't be their definition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com