Anti-white Prejudice - does it exist?

[Piddy]

54 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

 

For the purpose of this thread, as I repeatedly offered, I'm using racial prejudice to mean individual experiences, and racism to mean systemic racism. 

 

Very important distinction.  While white people can experience individual prejudice based on race, they cannot experience systemic / institutional racism.  That is impossible because whites have had the power for 400 years in the U.S.

"Systemic racist realities are manifested in each of society’s major parts, each major part of U.S. society—the economy, politics, education, religion, the family—reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism."

So again,  it would be an absurd argument to say whites experience systemic / institutionalized racism.  Is anyone saying that? 🙄   Sure whites can be discriminated against on a micro level (i.e. individually).  But on a macro level it is impossible because minorities don't have institutional power in our society (i.e. economic, political etc.).

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the point of the thread. 😕  I guess I would say if you are white and have experienced individual racial prejudice, that's to bad.  But it pales in comparison to the systemic / institutionalized racism that whites have embedded in all aspects of society for the last 400 years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sothereiwas]

1 minute ago, Piddy said:

Very important distinction.  While white people can experience individual prejudice based on race, they cannot experience systemic / institutional racism. 

And yet evidence says you are wrong. There are plenty of examples of institutions which legally implement racially discriminatory policies that are applied against non-blacks, typically targeting either whites or asians. The fact that those policies have been implemented and are effective is seldom if ever disputed, what is done is that those racially discriminatory policies are justified in one way or another. That justification is the problem. 

The great concern isn't the direct effect of such policies, it is the acceptance that some racism is OK that is objectionable. It is offensive to me that our society should accept any form of racism as OK, and it is destructive to the values of our society to do so. 

[introverted1]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Agree to disagree on the rest. That we can't move forward from semantics is crazy to me, but I see why it's hard to admit past deeds, so filing everything under generic 'racism' becomes super tempting; it allows perpetual denial and paranoia-induced projection.

I don't know what country you are in, but here in the US, the "racist" label is consistently applied, especially by the media, to people. 

[Piddy]

16 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

And yet evidence says you are wrong. There are plenty of examples of institutions which legally implement racially discriminatory policies that are applied against non-blacks, typically targeting either whites or asians. The fact that those policies have been implemented and are effective is seldom if ever disputed, what is done is that those racially discriminatory policies are justified in one way or another. That justification is the problem. 

The great concern isn't the direct effect of such policies, it is the acceptance that some racism is OK that is objectionable. It is offensive to me that our society should accept any form of racism as OK, and it is destructive to the values of our society to do so. 

 I'm using 'institutions' on a macro scale.   Have some institutions like colleges tried to make up for racist practices of the past?  Sure and that's a good thing.   I'm basically saying suck it up butter cup if you're white.

  Whites have held political and economic power for 400 years.  White privilege is still very much with us.  If you're white stop complaining.  It's extremely disingenuous.  

Edited July 8, 2020 by Piddy

[Emilie Jolie]

11 minutes ago, Piddy said:

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the point of the thread

In retrospect, I see that the thread title has lended itself to this needless circular argument. My bad.

It's pretty obvious racial prejudice and racism are 2 distinctly different things.

What I'm actually interested in is what hides behind anti-white prejudice, real and/or perceived.

On the thread, an argument put forward is that in the USA, anti-white prejudice is being marginalised. I'd like to know how this conclusion has come about. 

I know anti-white bias exists in other cultures, but I don't see being predominant in the US or the UK, unless we are to believe that all minorities (still a minority when all are combined) will bandy together against the whites and impose racist laws just because. I think there is a fair amount of projection that explain fear of immigration and prejudiced / bigoted views. 

[mark clemson]

On the language thing, I rather doubt there was any deliberate co-opting of the term racism to mean more than prejudice, at least when it started out. It was probably more an attempt to show the pervasive effects of things like Jim Crow laws, inability to get small business loans, etc.

I think one possible reasonable solution to the "meaning" debate (racism as systemic vs. racism as prejudice) is for both "sides" (meaning language groups) to recognize that there are others who use the definition differently and take that into account.

So rather than saying "white people can't experience racism" say, "white people can't experience systemic racism" if you're talking with someone who uses the "prejudice" definition. And speaking to someone and realizing they use the systemic definition, say "I mean prejudice".

While by no means perfect, it seems like that is a reasonable approach. Rather than saying "jelly" at the British breakfast table I can just say jam and no one need feel put off. It's close enough.

[Emilie Jolie]

23 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

And yet evidence says you are wrong.

Where? We've already established that private establishments have their own recruitment rules, and in the one example you gave, Harvard was cleared of anti-Asian bias. I've seen you post this obsessively on a number of threads - again, why don't you open your own thread about this?

Positive action in the workplace is off-topic to this thread, sothereiwas.

[Piddy]

2 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

In retrospect, I see that the thread title has lended itself to this needless circular argument. My bad.

It's pretty obvious racial prejudice and racism are 2 distinctly different things.

What I'm actually interested in is what hides behind anti-white prejudice, real and/or perceived.

On the thread, an argument put forward is that in the USA, anti-white prejudice is being marginalised. I'd like to know how this conclusion has come about. 

I know anti-white bias exists in other cultures, but I don't see being predominant in the US or the UK, unless we are to believe that all minorities (still a minority when all are combined) will bandy together against the whites and impose racist laws just because. I think there is a fair amount of projection that explain fear of immigration and prejudiced / bigoted views. 

But isn't all a moot point if the minority race holds no economic / political power?  By being a minority race they can't enact /embed systemic racism for that very reason.  That's why Merriam and Webster will be changing their definition of racism.

"Merriam-Webster’s first definition of racism is “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.”

But Mitchum said that definition was too simple and could be used by people to overlook broader issues of racial inequality and emailed the 189-year-old company demanding change.

“I basically told them they need to include that there is systematic oppression on people. It’s not just ‘I don’t like someone,” it’s a system of oppression for a certain group of people,” Mitchum told the outlet.

Mitchum said she was surprised to receive a response, and that, after a couple of back-and-forth emails Merriam-Webster agreed a revision was needed.

“While our focus will always be on faithfully reflecting the real-world usage of a word, not on promoting any particular viewpoint, we have concluded that omitting any mention of the systemic aspects of racism promotes a certain viewpoint in itself,” read one of the emails she received.

Alex Chambers, the editor of Merriam-Webster Dictionary, told Mitchum that “this revision would not have been made without your persistence in contacting us about this problem.”

[Emilie Jolie]

Honestly, I thought we'd moved past the language thing.

Racial Prejudice is one thing,  racism is another. I made it clear in the OP.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[Emilie Jolie]

13 minutes ago, Piddy said:

But isn't all a moot point if the minority race holds no economic / political power?  By being a minority race they can't enact /embed systemic racism for that very reason.

Yes.

This is why I don't think calling everything 'racism' is helpful, which is why racial prejudice is a better term for what some whites are experiencing.

I do think the wording is relevant, and find resistance to using the word 'prejudice' mind boggling, to be truthful. 

To be clear, I appreciate that some white people have been the victims of racial prejudice in white-dominant countries, but I've not come across any source to demonstrate the extent of it beyond anecdotal evidence, which I am not denying.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[sothereiwas]

55 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Harvard was cleared of anti-Asian bias.

No, that's not true. The lower court said the bias was OK, which is a different thing. It is being appealed on that basis. The headline (shocker) is misleading. 

  

50 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I made it clear in the OP.

Saying it doesn't make it so. We could change the way we use language for this conversation, but it would be simpler if we just used what's already established to present the ideas. Why make something simple hard, or something difficult even more difficult?

Edited July 8, 2020 by sothereiwas
Consolidation

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, mark clemson said:

So rather than saying "white people can't experience racism" say, "white people can't experience systemic racism" if you're talking with someone who uses the "prejudice" definition.

For me there are two possible ways of going at this.

In the first, we take a strict view of the terms, and see that racism is a belief, and then conclude that institutions and systems can't have beliefs, therefore no one can "experience systemic racism" since the words strung together that way are nonsense. That's one way to look at it, but probably not productive. 

The second way is to accept the colloquial use of racism as a shorthand for race-based discrimination, and then examine whether or not systems have been put in place to implement such policies. That to me is a much more productive route to run down but I don't see a lot of buy-in, so until we decide how to proceed we can't really get rolling. 

[Piddy]

8 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Yes, a sign of our times. An activist got tired of having her ass handed to her in debates due to her sloppy use of terms, and so badgered one dictionary into changing their definition of the word.

*slow clap*

I think it's correct to change the definition.  Somehow I knew you'd disapprove.  🙄   I give it a rapid clap.  👏

[sothereiwas]

5 minutes ago, Piddy said:

I think it's correct to change the definition.

I think it's fine, we just all have to agree what the term means. Sort of a stupid REASON to change a perfectly good word though, since once changed, the formerly desired phrase no longer has the implications that were desired. Since the meaning of the word changed. So yeah, really ciruclar and pointless but well done anyway?

Whatever. 

As I noted above, if we can all agree on using a single definition it's OK, however if we redefine racism such that the definition itself says white people can't experience it, we can't reasonably go back and apply the new meaning to old conversations and expect anything to make sense. So why make all that work and confusion? Why not keep meanings clear?

Hmmm, I wonder why. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by sothereiwas

[Piddy]

32 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

I think it's fine, we just all have to agree what the term means. Sort of a stupid REASON to change a perfectly good word though, since once changed, the formerly desired phrase no longer has the implications that were desired. Since the meaning of the word changed. So yeah, really ciruclar and pointless but well done anyway?

Whatever. 

As I noted above, if we can all agree on using a single definition it's OK, however if we redefine racism such that the definition itself says white people can't experience it, we can't reasonably go back and apply the new meaning to old conversations and expect anything to make sense. So why make all that work and confusion? Why not keep meanings clear?

Hmmm, I wonder why. 

What?   All they've done is include that racism is also systemic.  And guess what?  It is.  

[sothereiwas]

5 minutes ago, Piddy said:

All they've done is include that racism is also systemic.

The term racism has been redefined in Websters to no longer be defined as only a belief. I think that's fine, this matches popular colloquial use anyway. If we further want to say that (essentially) white people can't be victims of racism, we then are faced with the doubly hilarious situation where the definition is not only recursive, but also racist. Brilliant!

In the context of this thread, for extra hilarity: 3: racial prejudice or discrimination

Edited July 8, 2020 by sothereiwas

[introverted1]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Where? We've already established that private establishments have their own recruitment rules, and in the one example you gave, Harvard was cleared of anti-Asian bias. I've seen you post this obsessively on a number of threads - again, why don't you open your own thread about this?

Positive action in the workplace is off-topic to this thread, sothereiwas.

Harvard wasn't "cleared"; rather, the court determined that it was appropriate for Harvard to apply a "holistic" approach to admissions.  That holistic approach means weighing race as a factor.  If this was happening in, say, the mortgage industry, where race was being used as part of a "holistic" process that resulted in denying blacks mortgages, even if the number of blacks receiving mortgages each year increased (as in the case of Asian students at Harvard), we would say - rightly - that this was evidence of institutional or systemic racism.

You say you want to hear other opinions, but each time someone presents an opinion that goes against your thesis, you claim it is not relevant to the discussion.

[Piddy]

4 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

The term racism has been redefined in Websters to no longer be defined as only a belief. I think that's fine, this matches popular colloquial use anyway. If we further want to say that (essentially) white people can't be victims of racism, we then are faced with the doubly hilarious situation where the definition is not only recursive, but also racist. Brilliant!

In the context of this thread, for extra hilarity: 3: racial prejudice or discrimination

Again, forget all the semantics.  Racism is all about who has the power.  Not if someones feelings got hurt.  White people can't be victims of systemic racism.  Impossible.   Racism as practiced to oppress, subjugate, or discriminate against people to whom hold no power.   

That's not applicable to white people in this country.  White privilege remember.  White people made up the rules.  So write a letter to Websters and whine about how whites are victims of racism too.  🥴

 

 

[sothereiwas]

5 minutes ago, Piddy said:

Racism is all about who has the power. 

Not according to Webster's, which moments ago I thought you were championing as arbiters of such things. 

rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm  also -ˌshi- \

Definition of racism

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

2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination

 

That's literally the Webster's definition for today. Tomorrow, who knows. 

If we want to run with the freshly minted dictionary definition, I'm fine with that. If we want to run with the older definition still found in other dictionaries, I'm fine with THAT. If we want to take random words and then redefine them as suits our fancy at the moment, I see no use in doing that. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by sothereiwas

[Piddy]

2 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

Not according to Webster's, which moments ago I thought you were championing as arbiters of such things. 

rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm  also -ˌshi- \

Definition of racism

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

2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination

 

That's literally the Webster's definition for today. Tomorrow, who knows. 

If we want to run with the freshly minted dictionary definition, I'm fine with that. If we want to run with the older definition still found in other dictionaries, I'm fine with THAT. If we want to take random words and then redefine them as suits our fancy at the moment, I see no use in doing that. 

Nope.  I was arguing just what I said earlier, that the only racism that matters to me is systemic / institutional  racism for reasons I've explain ad nauseam.   And I don't think the redefinition is in there yet.  

[sothereiwas]

Just now, Piddy said:

I don't think the redefinition is in there yet.  

2 a,b are the new definitions. 

  

2 minutes ago, Piddy said:

the only racism that matters to me is systemic / institutional  racism

 I've given one example of proven institutional racism up thread a bit. No one seems to want to chew on it ....

[Emilie Jolie]

 

18 minutes ago, introverted1 said:

Harvard wasn't "cleared"; rather, the court determined that it was appropriate for Harvard to apply a "holistic" approach to admissions.  That holistic approach means weighing race as a factor.  If this was happening in, say, the mortgage industry, where race was being used as part of a "holistic" process that resulted in denying blacks mortgages, even if the number of blacks receiving mortgages each year increased (as in the case of Asian students at Harvard), we would say - rightly - that this was evidence of institutional or systemic racism.

You say you want to hear other opinions, but each time someone presents an opinion that goes against your thesis, you claim it is not relevant to the discussion.

Harvard was cleared of anti-Asian bias on account of the fact that the numbers of Asians students at Harvard have consistently been going up, which is why they haven't been asked to change their holistic approach to recruiting. If they were found to be biased, they would not have been allowed to carry on. One is the consequence of the other. This isn't an opinion or a political slant and that's not even an illustration of anti-white bias, which is the point of this thread. Show me a study or a situation in which a bank (totally different to a selective, internationally reknown educational institution, but whatever) has been accused of systemic racism on the same basis - I don't do hypotheticals, sorry.

I have taken on board every instance of anedoctal evidence presented on the thread, and I agree that anti-white bias is a thing.

I don't have to change my opinion on the fact that whites aren't victims of systemic racism simply because you don't agree with me. In fact, I literally told you I 'agree to disagree'. I also agreed with your argument that no race holds the moral highground on prejudice. What else am I to do?

No credible source has been put forward to justify or explain how anti-white prejudice is being marginalised in the USA, or at how big the problem is.

On the other hand, I've seen posters flip a switch at the mere use of the word 'prejudice'...

 

[Piddy]

13 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

2 a,b are the new definitions. 

  

 I've given one example of proven institutional racism up thread a bit. No one seems to want to chew on it ....

If it was an example of racism against whites, then I probably chewed on it and spit it out. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Piddy

[sothereiwas]

5 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I agree that anti-white bias is a thing.

Would anti-black bias in the same scenario be racist?

[sothereiwas]

7 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Harvard was cleared of anti-Asian bias

Um no. Here is the document: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.165519/gov.uscourts.mad.165519.672.0_2.pdf

The court found, essentially, that it was OK for Harvard to be racially discriminatory in this case. This is pretty germane to the thread.