1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry.
Show me evidence that this definition is universally accepted (viewing both individual and institutional racism while still distinguishing between the two is a much more logical and useful definition), rather than fringe among "racialist" sociologists who want to pretend that only whites can be racist. You can see that in how they carefully calibrate "power" so that again, only whites have "power" in their view.
2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.1
Only if you subscribe to the ridiculous redefinition of racism and completely ignore that minorities can have institutional power. For example in Metro Atlanta area the City of Atlanta itself, several of the counties and suburban cities are politically dominated by blacks. Why do you think officials of these entities cannot be racist even under the "bigotry plus power" definition?
I am afraid your side is acting like a they were on the playground, by insisting that different rules should apply to them vs. the other kid.
3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.
Nobody is saying that racism no longer exists. In fact, it is your side that practices "racism denial" because you deny anybody but whites can be racist.
Also one has to be careful not to ascribe racist motives just because you have two people of different races in a confrontation. It's a logical fallacy to go from "white cop shoots black perp" to claiming that the white cop shot the black perp because the white cop was racist, without any actual evidence for that claim.
4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.
Right back at you with the appeal to those sociologists that use intellectually dishonest definitions to claim that only whites can be racist. Or that whiteness is "a frame of mind" or some other nonsense like that.
5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists spring into action to deflect the conversation away from the dangerous ground of societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.” This allows them to ignore the way that these incidents fit into the larger context of institutionalized racism, thus avoiding any potential learning opportunities. Instead of talking about how White America interacts with the Darker Nation, Highly Affected racialists can argue for hours, even days, about whether the policeman in question has a history of racism; whether the dead or injured black male was acting in a threatening manner; whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports, and on and on.
Each case should be examined on its own merit. Judging people by their skin color without regard to what actually happened is racist on its face. Then you get nonsense like saying that it doesn't matter if Brown attacked Wilson, since Wilson by the curse of his white skin is automatically guilty of racism if he shoots a black criminal. Or assuming that white college students must have raped a black stripper, because they are white and she is black. Seeing people as interchangeable representatives of their race rather than individuals is a classic mark of a racist.
6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.
On the contrary, arguments that assume guilt for rape because the accused is a man and "women don't lie about rape" are bigoted. So are claims that the white cop must be a racist if he shoots a black perp.
7. Redefining Racism. This is an ironic habit, and one which many Highly Affected Racialists no doubt find hilarious. At the same time that the accepted sociological definition of racism is tossed aside as “too narrow” or simply “ludicrous,” Highly Affected racialists will tell you that, since they never ever use the “n-word,” and they don’t “hate” minorities, therefore they cannot be racists. Never mind that they regularly utilize every single one of these 7 habits; never mind that they ‘wouldn’t want their sister to marry one,” they don’t hate, tell racist jokes, or use slurs. All they want is to be left alone.
As can be seen from your point #1, it is your side that wants to redefine racism. And name me one person on this forum who "‘wouldn't want their sister to marry one"? Putting words and attitudes into your opponents' mouths is a sign of an intellectually dishonest debater.
1. The sociological definition of racism can be seen most clearly by examining the root of American racism during the days of slavery.
You do realize that slavery ended 150 years ago, right?
Racism involves the following: hatred of or disdain for a minority group; feelings of superiority over a minority group; active participation in a system which harms and diminishes a minority group. While there were no doubt numerous slaves who hated all white people, as well as many who felt themselves superior to white people, these attitudes did not affect the well-being of white people one bit.
No innocent white people were ever killed in slave rebellions? But sure, blacks lacked institutional power during slavery. How is that relevant to today? Does the so-called "accepted" sociological redefinition of racism require a certain group held power a century and a half ago rather than holding power today? Because blacks can and do hold institutional power in contemporary America, and therefore can engage in institutional racism.
Slaves could hate all they wanted, but their hatred was not the problem. In fact, their hatred was a direct result of the problem, which was the racism of the white people who made the institution of slavery possible – and later the institutions of sharecropping, Jim Crow, Segregation, and lynching. The hatred of the oppressed for the oppressor does not equal racism. It may well be characterized as racial bigotry, but it is not racism.[/INDENT]
Racial bigotry is racism under the normal, nonideological, definition of racism. Furthermore, do we still have slavery? No. In modern day America, blacks can and do have institutional power. Hence, there can (and are) black bigots in positions of power who can engage in institutional racism.