Should white people perform the blues?

[Loren Pechtel]

No. "Reverse racism" exists--it's a particularly odious kind of racism: Racism that pretends to be for good instead of evil. It's a subclass of racism, not a separate thing.

There is no such thing as reverse racism. Now If you want to say black folk are racist against white folk, that would still be racism. reverse racism would be something like, not being an asshole.

Reverse racism is racism engaged in for the purpose of rectifying racism.

No that would still be racism. define racism anyway you like, then reverse that definition, as in find its opposite, and you don't wind up with racism. It is a term of art used as a trigger shut down discussion.

Please note that reverse racism is a subclass of racism. Thus saying that an act is racism is not evidence that it's not reverse racism.

What's reversed is the motivation.

 

[EricK]

When someone came up with the incorrect definition isn't relevant to how incorrect it is. It may qualify as an alternate definition of the word that a subset of people use, but that doesn't affect the common usage of the word which doesn't take the additional qualifiers into account. It's a poor definition that excludes a lot of racist behaviour and isn't very useful as a result.

Uh, no.

A bastardization of a word, just because it is popular, doesn't make the bastardization right.

But because the word is loved so much, let's say that there is racism and then there is institutional racism. Here's the the thing. Let's say we got rid of all the racists in a company, but none of the racist policies, practices, and procedures of the company, you would still have racism. Now do the opposite, keep the racists but remove the institutions of racism, racism goes away because then you are just left with bigots with no way effect their beliefs.

Can you give an example of a racist policy, practise or procedure which might exist in a company and which would continue to be practiced by non-racists?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is no such thing as reverse racism. Now If you want to say black folk are racist against white folk, that would still be racism. reverse racism would be something like, not being an asshole.

Reverse racism is racism engaged in for the purpose of rectifying racism.

No that would still be racism. define racism anyway you like, then reverse that definition, as in find its opposite, and you don't wind up with racism. It is a term of art used as a trigger shut down discussion.

Please note that reverse racism is a subclass of racism. Thus saying that an act is racism is not evidence that it's not reverse racism.

What's reversed is the motivation.

No, I know you think it's a power term but it isn't. It is just a gimmick, made up to divert attention away from racism. And all the black people know it. We discussed it during our morning conference call where all the black people discuss blackness and white people.

Yes, there is such a thing and you were right all along.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Uh, no.

A bastardization of a word, just because it is popular, doesn't make the bastardization right.

But because the word is loved so much, let's say that there is racism and then there is institutional racism. Here's the the thing. Let's say we got rid of all the racists in a company, but none of the racist policies, practices, and procedures of the company, you would still have racism. Now do the opposite, keep the racists but remove the institutions of racism, racism goes away because then you are just left with bigots with no way effect their beliefs.

Can you give an example of a racist policy, practise or procedure which might exist in a company and which would continue to be practiced by non-racists?

Sure

A “reluctant racist” is an institution that purports to have no negative biases or prejudices against Blacks but has definite discriminatory behaviors. For example, an institution could hold no negative beliefs about Blacks but prescribe pain medications differently to Blacks as an indirect result of some other policies. This is the most pervasive form of racism and also the hardest to challenge. Reluctant racism occurs due to mistaken stereotypes, biases or prejudices that are acted out in an unthinking manner or through policies, practices, or procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative impact on Blacks.¹⁷ Often, the behavior is motivated by non-race based reasons (e.g. economics). Because of this non-racial motivation, individuals leading and managing institutions often do not believe that their institutions are being racist. Furthermore, it is even more difficult for the institutions to change the behavior. For example, some teaching hospitals do pelvic exams on unconscious female black patients in surgery without the patient’s consent in order to train interns, and the hospitals do so without a conscious desire to discriminate. These hospitals would fit into this category of reluctant racist.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008electionandracism/raceandracism/racism02.htm

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, I know you think it's a power term but it isn't. It is just a gimmick, made up to divert attention away from racism.

I thought it was a PC term made up to remind everybody that "real" racism has to be white on black, and "reverse" racism would be when the roles are reversed.

If that isn't what you see "reverse racism" meaning, and if you insist on defining "racism" to exclude black people, what word do you use for black people bigoted towards and discriminating unfairly against others based on race?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, I know you think it's a power term but it isn't. It is just a gimmick, made up to divert attention away from racism.

I thought it was a PC term made up to remind everybody that "real" racism has to be white on black, and "reverse" racism would be when the roles are reversed.

No, it's a real thing. It's along the lines of "White people are keeping me down, so fuck white people". The word "white" could be subsituted for anything else, but the most common occurance of it these days is amongst blacks who are pissed off about the treatment they're historically received from whites. It's a subset of racism where you're being racist towards a particular group because of the actions of members of that group towards you or your group.

One of the theories about the origin of the Robin Hood mythos, for instance, is that it's based off of a group of Welsh dissidents who enjoyed hunting down and killing any Normans who wandered across their path in response to the Norman conquest of Wales, which would be an example of reverse racism.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I thought it was a PC term made up to remind everybody that "real" racism has to be white on black, and "reverse" racism would be when the roles are reversed.

No, it's a real thing. It's along the lines of "White people are keeping me down, so fuck white people". The word "white" could be subsituted for anything else, but the most common occurance of it these days is amongst blacks who are pissed off about the treatment they're historically received from whites. It's a subset of racism where you're being racist towards a particular group because of the actions of members of that group towards you or your group.

One of the theories about the origin of the Robin Hood mythos, for instance, is that it's based off of a group of Welsh dissidents who enjoyed hunting down and killing any Normans who wandered across their path in response to the Norman conquest of Wales, which would be an example of reverse racism.

Then that would be reactionary racism. And it would be based on there being racism to react to. "Reverse racism" discussions tend to avoid discussion of racism past or present but focus on the victimizing of white folk by black folks.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Then that would be reactionary racism. And it would be based on there being racism to react to. "Reverse racism" discussions tend to avoid discussion of racism past or present but focus on the victimizing of white folk by black folks.

And, Athena, what do you call that if it is done on a racial blasis? You have been avoiding my questions for a while now, even though I have directly answered yours.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, it's a real thing. It's along the lines of "White people are keeping me down, so fuck white people". The word "white" could be subsituted for anything else, but the most common occurance of it these days is amongst blacks who are pissed off about the treatment they're historically received from whites. It's a subset of racism where you're being racist towards a particular group because of the actions of members of that group towards you or your group.

One of the theories about the origin of the Robin Hood mythos, for instance, is that it's based off of a group of Welsh dissidents who enjoyed hunting down and killing any Normans who wandered across their path in response to the Norman conquest of Wales, which would be an example of reverse racism.

Then that would be reactionary racism. And it would be based on there being racism to react to. "Reverse racism" discussions tend to avoid discussion of racism past or present but focus on the victimizing of white folk by black folks.

Fair enough. The point is that there are many different types of racism. If someone were to say that the KKK aren't racist because they're not engaging in reactionary racism and that's the only real definition of the word then they'd be just as wrong as the article you linked to which was saying that institutionalized racism is the only real definition of the word.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Uh, no.

A bastardization of a word, just because it is popular, doesn't make the bastardization right.

But because the word is loved so much, let's say that there is racism and then there is institutional racism. Here's the the thing. Let's say we got rid of all the racists in a company, but none of the racist policies, practices, and procedures of the company, you would still have racism. Now do the opposite, keep the racists but remove the institutions of racism, racism goes away because then you are just left with bigots with no way effect their beliefs.

Can you give an example of a racist policy, practise or procedure which might exist in a company and which would continue to be practiced by non-racists?

It could happen--a hidden way of discriminating that people didn't realize was discriminatory.

The main example that comes to mind is the minimum wage.

 

[thebeave]

No, I know you think it's a power term but it isn't. It is just a gimmick, made up to divert attention away from racism.

I thought it was a PC term made up to remind everybody that "real" racism has to be white on black, and "reverse" racism would be when the roles are reversed.

If that isn't what you see "reverse racism" meaning, and if you insist on defining "racism" to exclude black people, what word do you use for black people bigoted towards and discriminating unfairly against others based on race?

Yeah, what's the word for what this woman is doing, if the word "racism" doesn't include black people?

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/guide-goes-on-videotaped-racist-expletive-laced-rant-to-tourists-aboard-chinatown-bus-in-san-francisco/

 

[EricK]

Can you give an example of a racist policy, practise or procedure which might exist in a company and which would continue to be practiced by non-racists?

Sure

A “reluctant racist” is an institution that purports to have no negative biases or prejudices against Blacks but has definite discriminatory behaviors. For example, an institution could hold no negative beliefs about Blacks but prescribe pain medications differently to Blacks as an indirect result of some other policies. This is the most pervasive form of racism and also the hardest to challenge. Reluctant racism occurs due to mistaken stereotypes, biases or prejudices that are acted out in an unthinking manner or through policies, practices, or procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative impact on Blacks.¹⁷ Often, the behavior is motivated by non-race based reasons (e.g. economics). Because of this non-racial motivation, individuals leading and managing institutions often do not believe that their institutions are being racist. Furthermore, it is even more difficult for the institutions to change the behavior. For example, some teaching hospitals do pelvic exams on unconscious female black patients in surgery without the patient’s consent in order to train interns, and the hospitals do so without a conscious desire to discriminate. These hospitals would fit into this category of reluctant racist.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008electionandracism/raceandracism/racism02.htm

So the scenario you are suggesting is that a hospital, staffed entirely by non-racists, has a, presumably unwritten, policy of carrying out certain procedures without patient consent, and those procedures are only carried out on black patients (the policy presumably having been instigated at a time when the hospital was run by people with racist tendencies).

Because that is almost impossible to believe. How, for instance, would the next generation of non-racist doctors learn from the current generation of non-racist doctors to only do this to black patients?

 

[ZiprHead]

Can you give an example of a racist policy, practise or procedure which might exist in a company and which would continue to be practiced by non-racists?

It could happen--a hidden way of discriminating that people didn't realize was discriminatory.

The main example that comes to mind is the minimum wage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sure

A “reluctant racist” is an institution that purports to have no negative biases or prejudices against Blacks but has definite discriminatory behaviors. For example, an institution could hold no negative beliefs about Blacks but prescribe pain medications differently to Blacks as an indirect result of some other policies. This is the most pervasive form of racism and also the hardest to challenge. Reluctant racism occurs due to mistaken stereotypes, biases or prejudices that are acted out in an unthinking manner or through policies, practices, or procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative impact on Blacks.¹⁷ Often, the behavior is motivated by non-race based reasons (e.g. economics). Because of this non-racial motivation, individuals leading and managing institutions often do not believe that their institutions are being racist. Furthermore, it is even more difficult for the institutions to change the behavior. For example, some teaching hospitals do pelvic exams on unconscious female black patients in surgery without the patient’s consent in order to train interns, and the hospitals do so without a conscious desire to discriminate. These hospitals would fit into this category of reluctant racist.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008electionandracism/raceandracism/racism02.htm

So the scenario you are suggesting is that a hospital, staffed entirely by non-racists, has a, presumably unwritten, policy of carrying out certain procedures without patient consent, and those procedures are only carried out on black patients (the policy presumably having been instigated at a time when the hospital was run by people with racist tendencies).

Because that is almost impossible to believe. How, for instance, would the next generation of non-racist doctors learn from the current generation of non-racist doctors to only do this to black patients?

Ya, I don't get how that would work either. Even if the hospital had a policy of training interns by sexually violating unconscious patients and the practice continued because none of the doctors or interns had ever found out that there was a concept called "medical ethics", why would non-racists who continued this practice limit it to black patients as opposed to simply using whichever patient was available when they were doing the training, regardless of race?

 

[Bronzeage]

Sure

A “reluctant racist” is an institution that purports to have no negative biases or prejudices against Blacks but has definite discriminatory behaviors. For example, an institution could hold no negative beliefs about Blacks but prescribe pain medications differently to Blacks as an indirect result of some other policies. This is the most pervasive form of racism and also the hardest to challenge. Reluctant racism occurs due to mistaken stereotypes, biases or prejudices that are acted out in an unthinking manner or through policies, practices, or procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative impact on Blacks.¹⁷ Often, the behavior is motivated by non-race based reasons (e.g. economics). Because of this non-racial motivation, individuals leading and managing institutions often do not believe that their institutions are being racist. Furthermore, it is even more difficult for the institutions to change the behavior. For example, some teaching hospitals do pelvic exams on unconscious female black patients in surgery without the patient’s consent in order to train interns, and the hospitals do so without a conscious desire to discriminate. These hospitals would fit into this category of reluctant racist.

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/2008electionandracism/raceandracism/racism02.htm

So the scenario you are suggesting is that a hospital, staffed entirely by non-racists, has a, presumably unwritten, policy of carrying out certain procedures without patient consent, and those procedures are only carried out on black patients (the policy presumably having been instigated at a time when the hospital was run by people with racist tendencies).

Because that is almost impossible to believe. How, for instance, would the next generation of non-racist doctors learn from the current generation of non-racist doctors to only do this to black patients?

Ya, I don't get how that would work either. Even if the hospital had a policy of training interns by sexually violating unconscious patients and the practice continued because none of the doctors or interns had ever found out that there was a concept called "medical ethics", why would non-racists who continued this practice limit it to black patients as opposed to simply using whichever patient was available when they were doing the training, regardless of race?

This is one of the more bizarre examples of racism I have ever seen submitted for discussion. I think a lot of medical procedures are based on some research doctor's particular fetish. Maybe the Teaching Physician who started this practice was just a freak for unconscious black women. The following generations of students follow the tradition without understanding why.

There is a particular fetish which consists of tying a woman to a chair and clamping her breasts between two boards and mashing them flat. I am convinced the person who pioneered the mammogram was just this sort of pervert.

 

[dx713]

Yes, I have to ask Athena to clarify on this one too.

Organizations don't exist into a void. They are made of humans. Plenty of rules and procedures get lost if said humans don't believe in them - and others can get created unformally just because said humans start applying them.
We see that all the time in accident investigations, procedures that have been forgotten because the operators didn't understand their safety benefits. Or, during incidents lesson learned, trying to understand what practices avoided an accident to put them into procedures and disseminate them to the other actors.

If your organisation is not racist but enough individuals inside are, your organisation is bound to become racist. It just takes a HR manager sliding applications from the wrong race closer to the waste basket or a chief frowning when a promotion is brought up for someone with the wrong skin colour.
If no-one in your organisation is racist, the racist policies will, after some inertia I agree, end being forgotten and unapplied.

Where I understand the point is that a non-racist organisation/group of people within a bigger racist organisation/environment/society can act racist unwittingly, just out of peer pressure. Like a HR manager not selecting coloured saleforces because "the customers will be less trustful" or things like that. Which is why in today's world, organisations need rules, checks and balances, to ensure they're not acting racist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It could happen--a hidden way of discriminating that people didn't realize was discriminatory.

The main example that comes to mind is the minimum wage.

The minimum wage was originally part of Jim Crow.

 

[laughing dog]

The minimum wage was originally part of Jim Crow.

So  History_of_the_minimum_wage is incorrect? Please provide documentation to support your apparent counterfactual claim.

 

[Bronzeage]

The minimum wage was originally part of Jim Crow.

Could you elaborate on that one? It has to be an interesting story.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Finding old stuff like that on the internet is hard. However, I do find:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carries...cally-racist-motivations-behind-minimum-wage/