Racism

[vijayjohn]

Wait, I thought he was saying he's only heard the idea that "racism against white people is a real problem" from white activists.

Questions exclusively for non-white people: do you agree with the notion that racism can only be perpetrated by white people?

I know I only quoted one part of your post, but I'm not sure I really have a better answer for the rest of the questions you asked than what I'm about to write now.

Personally, I'm not really sure and feel conflicted over this issue. Before I explain why, I'd like to point out that white privilege does not apply only to white-majority countries. After one of the first few posts I ever made on this forum, someone (a short-lived troll) told me to "go back to my country"; those were this user's exact words. This has always made me think, and I've come to realize that aside from the fact that I am in my own country already, one problem with that statement is that even if I was in India, I would still not be able to escape certain detrimental effects of British colonization on India. There would be constant and tremendous pressure on me to learn English, to an extent that I have never seen in the US. I would probably be living in a society where white people were practically treated as if they were faultless despite all the awful things they did during the colonial period, so that if we ever ran into a problem with a white person, we would be presumed to be the ones at fault rather than them.

But AFAICT, Anglo-Indians (in India), for example, are in a really awkward position. On the one hand, it seems that Anglo-Indians often perpetuate the same kind of racism that white people do ("I am white therefore I am superior to you natives" etc.; probably the most famous example of this is Rudyard Kipling). But on the other hand, while it may be true of a lot of Anglo-Indians, it also appears to be a stereotype unfairly applied to all Anglo-Indians, and I doubt very much that that's actually true. It also seems that Anglo-Indians have also (always?) been discriminated against as a group by both white and non-white people in India and have never really been accepted by either. White people have a history of not accepting them because they're mixed (although perhaps people with all-white ancestry like Kipling are an exception), Indians have a history of not accepting them because they're at least partially descended from the British who also colonized us, and this does not appear to be a problem limited only to those individuals who deliberately exclude themselves from white/Indian society. White people don't/didn't consider them fully white; Indians don't/didn't consider them fully Indian, even though there is no reason in my mind why they couldn't be. If Kashmiris, Tamils, Pashtuns (Shah Rukh Khan, anyone?), and Nagamese can all be considered Indian, then why not Anglo-Indians, too, at least as long as they consider themselves Indian?

I don't know of any political power that Anglo-Indians have, so maybe the discrimination they are subjected to in India does qualify as racism. I'm not sure.

Another example that comes to mind for me is American Vietnamese people in Vietnam, who IIRC are at one of the lowest levels (or maybe at the lowest level?) of Vietnamese society, but I know absolutely nothing about them beyond what I vaguely remember from reading in one article in Smithsonian, so I don't think I have much to say about that. Now, I realize that to discriminate against mixed-race people is not necessarily to discriminate against white people, but in both of these cases, the discrimination that is directed against them to my knowledge by the majority population is precisely because they are partly (or fully, in the case of some Anglo-Indians) white.

[mōdgethanc]

Thanks, Vijay.

Wait, I thought he was saying he's only heard the idea that "racism against white people is a real problem" from white activists.

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said that I've only heard the definition of racism as institutionalized discrimination (and therefore, that it's impossible to be racist against white people) from other white people. I was asking if it is possible (even theoretically) for a person of colour to be racist against a white person. Note that this is sometimes called "reverse racism", but I didn't use that term because it's ridiculous: either it's racism, or it isn't.

What race do you think Vijay is?

He's South Asian.

What race do you think Aamer Rahman is?

Probably South Asian too. I don't know what your point is.

[vijayjohn]

I'm pretty sure linguoboy's trying to point out that both Aamer Rahman and I also use that definition of institutionalized racism even though neither of us is white.

[mōdgethanc]

I just remembered that I actually did know that Koko was Native American. Sorry, Koko.

I'm pretty sure linguoboy's trying to point out that both Aamer Rahman and I also use that definition of institutionalized racism even though neither of us are white.

That wasn't clear to me, but I'm sure that he's right and non-white people use this definition also. I just find it somewhat troubling (the buzzword here to use is "problematic") that I keep hearing rhetoric about racism from white people but not people who are actually affected by racism. Therefore, I asked the non-white users here for their perspective on it. Looking back in the thread though (I only read the last page) I saw that many users already had offered their opinion on it. So my post was kind of superfluous, but I would like to discuss the issue of whether it's possible to be racist to whites in a non-white culture. Perhaps it would be better to do this by PM.

[md0]

What Vijay wrote about Anglos in India seems to fit the situation in Cyprus as well. The entitlement mentality from Anglo-Cypriots is astounding. One only has to read their newspaper, the Colonial Mail Cyprus Mail, to see epithets like "dunces of Europe" and "brats", "bullies", "ideologues of mediocrity" and so on being used to describe us. At the same time, they denounce every demand of the native population as unreasonable (because :that's how economics work"), and then highlight the "justified" anger of British residents when they are not all treated like the royal family (a recent one I remember was a British pensioner saying that the 2013 banking crisis in Cyprus destroyed her life and in exchange she wants to see every public servant in Cyprus fired).

[OldBoring]

Does "person of colour" mean non-white in English?
In Italian "di colore" means black.

[vijayjohn]

I've honestly never been sure what exactly "person of color" means in English.

[Saim]

Does "person of colour" mean non-white in English?
In Italian "di colore" means black.

Yes. It's not used much in Australia but my understanding has always been that it's a synonym of non-white, used to redefine it in a more positive way.

[Levike]

Yes. It's not used much in Australia but my understanding has always been that it's a synonym of non-white, used to redefine it in a more positive way.

Does it also apply to Chinese/Koreans/Japanese since they also have pale skin?

[linguoboy]

Yes. It's not used much in Australia but my understanding has always been that it's a synonym of non-white, used to redefine it in a more positive way.

Does it also apply to Chinese/Koreans/Japanese since they also have pale skin?

"White" applied to people in USAmerican usage is not a simple descriptor of skin tone. There are, in fact, "White" people whose skin is naturally darker than those who would be considered "people of color". These are racial categories. As others have said, "POC" or "person of color" is an attempt to find a positive equivalent for "non-White". As such, it includes basically anyone of even partial non-White European descent who chooses to foreground their non-White identity.

Self-identifying as "POC" is a political choice as well, insofar as the speaker is asserting solidarity with all other non-White-identified people in society. (There's a parallel in "queer" for LGBTIA people, but this is a more overtly political term, whereas "POC" can also be used more-or-less neutrally.) A social justice activist of Japanese descent I know quite deliberately uses it this way.

tl;dr: Yes.

[uzferry]

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ ... ing_after/

I just wanna know two things, 1) am I posting in the right thread and 2) is it commonplace in USA for policemen to shoot drivers just because they're reaching for something?

[vijayjohn]

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/ ... ing_after/

I just wanna know two things, 1) am I posting in the right thread

I don't see why not.

and 2) is it commonplace in USA for policemen to shoot drivers just because they're reaching for something?

Yes.

[Prowler]

I think the USA obsesses too much over guns. OK, I have nothing against a person owning a gun but why would a civilian need to own an assault rifle? I mean, in countries like Switzerland many people own guns and you don't see this happening. People will say "oh but America has a problem with gangs and not guns!". but I don't really buy that.

[Yasna]

Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings

I usually find myself on the more conservative side of this debate, but even I was expecting they would find at least some racial bias in police shootings. It's such an unexpected finding that I think we need another group to reproduce it. Unfortunately the NRA blocks federal funding of research on guns so we might be waiting a while...

[Sol Invictus]

First of all the article says that existing data on this is poor and secondly they are more likely to be threatened with a weapon, perhaps they just have learned to expect such behavior from police and therefore are more aware how to act in order not to provoke them to shoot

[Marah]

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said that I've only heard the definition of racism as institutionalized discrimination (and therefore, that it's impossible to be racist against white people) from other white people. I was asking if it is possible (even theoretically) for a person of colour to be racist against a white person. Note that this is sometimes called "reverse racism", but I didn't use that term because it's ridiculous: either it's racism, or it isn't.

When I was reading up about the subject as linguoboy suggested, I found French blogs calling your definition of racism "American racism". Which leads to me to believe that people in Europe grow up with a different perception of racism because of their culture.
Institutionalized racism would be the American definition of racism, and racial bigotry or simply believing that one race is superior to others (with or without the help of institutionalized racism) would be the European definition of racism.

I had never heard about this first definition of racism before I got interested in American culture. I'm pretty sure kids in Europe grow up being explained that racism is just the theory that some races are superior to others while mentioning Hitler of course.

[linguoboy]

I had never heard about this first definition of racism before I got interested in American culture. I'm pretty sure kids in Europe grow up being explained that racism is just the theory that some races are superior to others while mentioning Hitler of course.

In UK English, "racism" seems to be completely synonymous with "bigotry". I've heard it used liberally to describe mainstream English attitudes toward the Scots and the Welsh, for instance. To us in the States, those are ethnic groups, not "races" as such and the bigotry directed against them is substantially different in both degree and kind.

[vijayjohn]

So if racism = bigotry, then what's a "racist bigot"? Just a bigot?

Bigoted bigot?

[Car]

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said that I've only heard the definition of racism as institutionalized discrimination (and therefore, that it's impossible to be racist against white people) from other white people. I was asking if it is possible (even theoretically) for a person of colour to be racist against a white person. Note that this is sometimes called "reverse racism", but I didn't use that term because it's ridiculous: either it's racism, or it isn't.

When I was reading up about the subject as linguoboy suggested, I found French blogs calling your definition of racism "American racism". Which leads to me to believe that people in Europe grow up with a different perception of racism because of their culture.
Institutionalized racism would be the American definition of racism, and racial bigotry or simply believing that one race is superior to others (with or without the help of institutionalized racism) would be the European definition of racism.

I had never heard about this first definition of racism before I got interested in American culture. I'm pretty sure kids in Europe grow up being explained that racism is just the theory that some races are superior to others while mentioning Hitler of course.

Agreed. So far, I've only seen institutionalized racism being called "institutionelle Diskriminierung" in German.
Bigotry is a false friend anyway.

[vijayjohn]

I was asking if it is possible (even theoretically) for a person of colour to be racist against a white person. Note that this is sometimes called "reverse racism", but I didn't use that term because it's ridiculous: either it's racism, or it isn't.

I'm not sure how useful this comment is going to be at this point, but I just wanted to say something about this anyway (I've actually been meaning to for a while and figure I might as well now since this is part of the post that Marah just quoted today; I just never got around to it until now. I must've forgotten). The way I understand the definition of racism as institutionalized discrimination, the idea is that yes, it is theoretically possible under this definition for a POC to be racist against a white person (that's Aamer Rahman's point in the video linguoboy posted), but the whole point of saying that we can't be racist (whereas white people can be) is that the practical reality on the ground today is the opposite.

Caveats, though: I'm still not sure whether this is universally applicable per se (I mentioned Anglo-Indians and such earlier as an example of why it might not be). Also, white people are not the only people in the world who are guilty of colonialism or anything like that; heck, South Indians colonized parts of Southeast Asia, too. It seems hard to assess how much damage we inflicted as a result, though, because it was like a thousand years ago or something, so who knows? I think that in turn makes it difficult to talk about things like colonial reparations in that context.