Actually, that is what they teach at university nowadays in race and gender studies departments, sociology, and other mushy social-sciences. My friends who went to places like Harvard all believe it.
I don't understand what's wrong with this. This is quite literally the definition of racism in a sociological context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological. You're going to need to disprove a lot of social science before you tackle this definition.
That's all a bit silly. We have a common understanding or definition of what racism is and it connotes something immoral. _Some_ sociologists define racism as something else which also connotes something immoral. The common thread is that both definitions connote immorality, and so if something falls under either definition, it's still bad and so the whole arguing over which definition to use is moot.
For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral?
People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question.
So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people.
(I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)
"Blacks cannot be racist against whites" does not logically follow from "racism can only come from the oppressor who has the power".
The group in power can be black, as, for example, more or less is the case in the current South Africa, and may be the case in some subcultures (rappers? Basketball players? Some prisons?)
liquidise|13 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
newnewnew|13 years ago
untog|13 years ago
anonfunction|13 years ago
paranoiacblack|13 years ago
mcantelon|13 years ago
The commonly used definition of racism is hatred against people because of their race.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
>hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
A couple of black kids beating a white kid to death because he's white, for example, would be defined as racist under this definition.
josh-j|13 years ago
For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral?
People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question.
So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people.
(I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)
Someone|13 years ago
The group in power can be black, as, for example, more or less is the case in the current South Africa, and may be the case in some subcultures (rappers? Basketball players? Some prisons?)
pan69|13 years ago
I guess "some" is the keyword here.
Zak|13 years ago
minimize_me|13 years ago