Reverse Racism: A final footnote.
So Sarcasm and Satire finally met and hooked up, attracted by their mutual love for amorous excitement, incessant passion, and morbid, moribund fascination for kinky exploration. Of course, their union left a veritable trail of jealous, dejected and surly suitors along their respective forlorn paths of unrequited romance....so cry me a river as Brevity, Metaphor, Pun and Hyperbole all wept in secret, yet curious elation as they eavesdropped on the whirlwind romance of Satire and Sarcasm....
Any talk of racism supports the existence of value difference between races. The claim of reverse racism is typically used when people of the majority group feel racially stereotyped and prejudiced against by a minority group. Racism is not dependent upon majority and minority groupings, however, so this definition of so-called reverse racism is invalid. When it is believed that characteristics exist uniquely to a race there are grounds for racism. The prejudice comes into the equation when these perceived race-specific characteristics are used to classify and define people of a specific race with no foundation of truth. All racism exists upon the foundation of one race being superior to other races based on characteristics unique to the supposed superior race. There is no reverse racism, there is only racism.
Preferential treatment of one race over another as a reaction to claims of racism may also be defined as reverse racism, but this doesn’t meet the definition of racism either. Racism affects access to resources because of stereotyped judgment made about an individual on the basis of their race alone. Preferential treatment along these lines is itself racism, and is not reverse racism.
Racism depends on ignorance, so in a way there is a bond between racism and reverse racism, as the latter also depends on ignorance. Someone ignorant of the definition of racism may believe that reverse racism exists. But for reverse racism to actually exist there would need to be a universal acceptance of racial differences that made one race absolutely superior to any other race. It is highly unlikely that such a situation of belief will ever exist as there doesn’t seem to be any unique characteristics of any race that give validity to such a claim. Unless one race is declared superior, and therefore a center point for all claims of racism to emanate from, there can be no legitimate claim to reverse racism given the definition of racism.
Some people of color may view whites prejudicially; no wonder, given the interactions of racism in society. Anyone can believe in stereotypes or hold ideas about members of other groups that are not entirely accurate.
However, being, and behaving, prejudicially isn’t the same thing as racism, especially when such prejudice punches up, not down. As Justin Simien of Dear White People puts it, “Prejudice and racism are different. A joke about white people dancing has no impact on the lives of average white people, whereas jokes about black people and reinforcing stereotypes about black people do have an impact on the lives of everyday black people.”
In any discussion of racism and its alleged "Reverse," it's crucial to start with the definitions of prejudice and discrimination, to lay the foundation for understanding racism in context. There's a reason these three terms exist, and a very good reason not to conflate them, as I'll demonstrate below.
Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype. Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it's for an ethnic group, or for a religious group, or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people. The important thing is they just don't like them, in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief. You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you're careful not to act on your irrational dislike.
Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice. This describes those moments when one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation. Or even because of their looks (there's a lot of hiring discrimination against "unattractive" women, for example). You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you're in a position of power over the person you want to discriminate against. White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being interviewed.
Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as "normal" throughout an entire culture. It's based on an ideological belief that one "race" is somehow better than another "race". It's not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.
A clear cut example is the historical American slave-holding culture: People were born into a society where one sort of person was "naturally" a master, and another sort of person was "naturally" a slave (and sometimes not considered a person at all, but a beast of burden). In a culture like that, discrimination is built into the social, economic and political fabric, and individuals....even "free" individuals....don't really have a choice about whether they discriminate or not because even if they don't believe in slavery, they interact every day with slaves and the laws and rules that keep slaves bound.
In a racist society, it takes a special act of courage and willingness to subject oneself to scandal or danger to step outside that system and become an abolitionist. It's not the "fault" of every member of the master class that slavery exists, and some might wish it was gone. But the fact is that every single member of the master class benefits from the unpaid labor of slaves at every level of society because they simply can't avoid consuming the products that slavery produces, or benefiting from the exploitation of slave labor. So unless members of the master class rise up and oppose the system and try to overthrow it (abolitionists, for example), they're going to be complicit in the slave system: even abolitionists will profit, against their will, in the slave system because they still have to wear clothes or use other things the system produced.
The above is an extreme, clear example, which I use to make it easier to see the fuzzier, more complex situations in which we operate today. Despite the fact that slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, and that the 14th Amendment gave African Americans voting rights, the institutional structures of racism were not overturned. Even after the 14th was passed, white people still had the power to prevent black people from voting by instituting the poll tax, the grandfather clause, and the "understanding" clause which required blacks to recite any segment of the Constitution the registrar wanted them to recite. In the Sixties, the Civil Rights Voting Acts were passed, which knocked down those obstacles to voting. But black Americans still do not have political power in proportion to their presence in the population (even though there as been a black President).
If you look at important voting bodies like the Federal and the State senates and congresses, or at the Federal and State supreme courts, or at the CEO list of major corporations, or at any other body that wields substantial power in the U.S., you will count only a few black faces (and in some cases, none). Out of the number of black faces you count, most of them will not be representing the views of the majority of black people in this country, but the views of the white majority. On the other hand, if you count the number of black people in poverty, and in prisons, or the number of people who are unemployed or lack health care, there are far more black people in these categories than is proportionate to their numbers in the larger society. Don't make the mistake of falling for the falsely spouted line that this means there are more people of color with a propensity for crime. 70% of the totality of acts of terror in America has traditionally been committed by adult white males, but we associate acts of terror with men of Middle-Eastern descent. Why is that? Because institutionalized racism inculcates it into our psyches.
Unless you are going to argue that blacks are "naturally" inferior to whites (which is an outright racist position), you have to admit that there is some mechanism that is limiting black opportunity. That's the mechanism we call "racism".....the interacting of social, political, and economic rule systems that all discriminate, either overtly (racial profiling, for example) or covertly (i.e., white majority governments redrawing district voting lines so that black majority areas are politically split up and don't have the electoral power to vote in black candidates; or, white-run banks using zip codes as a criteria for excluding people who apply for loans, and just "happening" to exclude all the majority black neighborhoods in a city, a practice called "red-lining"; the practice of lumping together Black neighborhoods into spheres of white political influence where votes to withhold economic funding is in the hands of white politicians, called "redistricting" and so on). One could go on for hours about these various mechanisms, and I'm sure you can think of plenty on your own which discriminate against Blacks, Hispanics, "Arab-looking" people, Native Americans, and so on.
Now to "Reverse Racism." It's crucial to maintain the distinction between the above three terms, because otherwise white people tend to redefine "Discrimination" as "Racism". Nothing could be further form the truth. Their main argument is that because both blacks and white can discriminate against each other, that "Reverse Racism" is possible. But the truth of the matter is that black people: 1) have an infinitesimal ability or opportunity to discriminate against whites, while whites have an abundance of ability and opportunity to discriminate against blacks, overall; and 2) black people lack a system of institutionalized support that protect them when they discriminate against whites.
It took black and white people working together for one hundred years to get programs like Affirmative Action installed in the U.S., but it took one white man (Alan Bakke) only a single Supreme Court case to get those programs dismantled because he felt he didn't gain entry into medical school based on his white race. 
"Reverse Racism" would only describe a society in which all the rules and roles were turned upside down. That has not happened in the U.S., however much white right-wing ideologues want to complain that they're being victimized by the few points of equality that minorities and women have managed to claim. White people who complain about "Reverse Racism" are actually complaining about being denied their privileges, rather than being denied their rights. They feel entitled to be hired and not to be discriminated against, even though the norm is white people discriminating against blacks. If, in a rare instance, a black employer discriminates against a white job applicant, that's not "reverse" anything....it's simple discrimination. It's to be condemned on principle, but it's not evidence of some systematic program by which whites are being deprived of their rights.
The right wing popularized the term "Reverse Racism"because they were really angry at having their white privileges challenged. Anyone who uses that phrase, whether they are right-wing or not, furthers the right wing's cause. This is what I tell Democrats and Progressives who I hear using the term, not only are they being inaccurate, but they're helping out their opponents.
The above arguments can be applied to any institutionalized structure of oppression, affecting any race, ethnic or religious group, and can be used to to oppose claims of "Reverse Sexism" too.
I hope that clarifies things a bit......and if not, allow me to clarify further.
In order to be racist, you need to possess two traits. The first is privilege: A structural, institutional, and social advantage. White people occupy positions of racial privilege, even when they are disadvantaged in other ways. White women, for example, consistently make more than black women, because they benefit from racial attitudes. Furthermore, you also have to have power: the ability, backed up by society, to be a strong social influencer, with greater leeway when it comes to what you do, where, and how.
For instance, white people benefit from privilege and power when they aren’t arrested for drug crimes at disproportionate rates, while black people experience racism when they’re arrested, and sentenced, for the same crimes. This reflects a racialized power imbalance in the justice system. It’s about the privilege and power of white offenders (less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have strong legal representation, more likely to be able to talk police officers out of an arrest) and the lack of social status for black offenders.
People of color talking about white people don’t occupy positions of privilege or power. Therefore, they cannot be racist. Racism is structural, not personal.
When “reverse racism” is flung around, it’s often in response to angry language, to protests, to fights for equality. People of color have been pushing back on privilege and power for a long time. Many of them are understandably pretty tired of it. Unsurprisingly, some aren’t interested in moderating their tone for a white audience. That means that sometimes they use strong language, out of frustration, rage, or to make a heavy impact on observers. Still not reverse racism.
More importantly, insisting that people of color need to be nice about the way they talk about racism is, in fact, racist: It suggests that, for example, “angry black women” don’t merit social attention, because they’re being unreasonable.
One of the most common pieces of evidence used as “proof” of reverse racism is that of affirmative action and minority admissions at colleges, universities, and some companies. The argument goes that people of color are stealing positions and jobs away from better or equally qualified white people.
This is not the case. The problem is that generations of injustice have resulted in underrepresentation of people of color in these settings, and the goal of affirmative action and related initiatives is to ensure that they aren’t harmed by racial bias in admissions and hiring decisions. People of color aren’t admitted or hired “over white people.” They’re considered equally, with an eye to the fact that subconscious bias may be influencing decisions made by people in power, who are, you guessed it, often white.
“White folks will tell me time and time again that Affirmative Action is ‘unfair,’” writes Jamie Utt, a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator, “because it discriminates against White people. What the term ‘fair’ assumes here, though, is that we live in a society where there’s an equal playing field for all students, regardless of race or wealth.” Addressing these injustices is intended to give people of color more opportunities, and to ensure that future generations won’t face the same imbalances current generations do.
Whites are often resentful of clubs, organizations, and groups focused on people of a specific race, with membership closed to people who are not members of that racial community. The claim goes that such groups segregate and discriminate; after all, if members of those minorities cared so much about racism, they’d open their membership to all, right?
Josh Odam writes in the Daily Collegian, “One of my favorite examples of such a mentality is this: It’s unfair that black students have a Black Student Union when white students do not. To put it simply, the University of Massachusetts is a White Student Union.”
But it’s about more than that. It’s not just that every public space is open to white people, but that white people have an expectation that every private space should be open to them, too. Some conversations and community events need to take place behind closed doors. People of color may need to have sensitive conversations about discrimination, racism, and their lived experiences that are difficult to have when they are surrounded by white observers or people who talk over them. Such spaces provide a medium for doing so, just as members of the LGBTQ community use retreat spaces, and women join women-only organizations and groups for mutual support.
The history of the oppression of people of color by the West, and, by extension, white people, spans centuries. Africans were enslaved and brought to the New World, where European colonialists stole land from Indigenous people. Colonies across the Global South brought untold wealth into the coffers of Europe, with the low, low cost of suffering for native populations.
Today, we’re still living with the legacies of colonialism: In the United States, the black community is dealing with the aftermath of slavery and the poverty and systemic prejudice it left behind. In many African nations, the collapse of former colonies left governments in shambles and unable to support themselves. In Australia, indigenous people struggle with a high poverty rate and low access to health care.
Despite the belief stated by some white people that they are more oppressed than people of color, their claims don’t bear out when looking at social metrics like statistical representation in the justice system, poverty, educational achievement, and unemployment rates.
Making a racist statement is a manifestation of racist culture; being “mean” isn’t. For whites, it can be difficult to be confronted with the reality of racism, and with comments from people of color about how privilege and power operate. It’s tempting to take such comments personally and to insist that people of color are being “mean,” which is often a hop, skip, and a jump away from an accusation of reverse racism.
In this case, the goal is often to invalidate the points made. If someone is being racist, surely her comments can be dismissed instead of taken seriously. Thus, a white person uncomfortable with a racialized conversation may claim that it’s reverse racist in order to escape the conversation, or escape her own role in racist power dynamics.
On the Internet, where such conversations fly by at lightning speed and often get heated, accusations of reverse racism often come in hot and heavy. It’s worth taking a moment to back up and hit those commenters with a healthy dose of truth serum.
In the early 1960s, the question of "retaliatory violence" was raised by Blacks who felt that the civil rights movement's "nonviolent direct action" strategy was ineffective and even dangerous in the face of violent repression by Southern racists and their police allies. Robert Williams, of Monroe, N.C., urged members of his NAACP branch to take up rifle training, an idea that gained support following the bombing of Black children in Birmingham in 1963 and the murder of civil rights activists in Mississippi in 1964.
Not surprisingly, those who heeded Malcolm X's call for self-defense "by any means necessary" were criticized by liberals and conservatives alike as "Black racists." This, of course, diverted attention from the segregationists, who were the real source of violence.
The question of retaliatory violence was also debated among Northern activists. Louis Smith, field secretary of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said after the 1965 Black rebellion in Los Angeles:
"I find it amusing that those who are quickest to condemn the revolt of the people in Watts, who were only asking to share in the American dream, are the people who worship our revolt against England. Watts was saying to white America that [Blacks refused to] march to the gas chambers."
The charge of "Black racism" was also leveled at those who wanted all-Black leadership in interracial organizations like CORE or the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
There were many reasons for the resurgence of Black nationalism in the 1960s. Among the most important were the escalation in racist violence, deep pessimism among Blacks about the potential for a united struggle with whites, and the sellouts by white liberals, who constantly tried to steer the Black movement into the Democratic Party. To many African Americans, an all-Black organization appeared to be the only way to wage a consistent struggle against racism.
The nationalist sentiment, characterized by the slogan "Black Power," met with shrill denunciation from white liberals who supposedly opposed racism. For example, Black autoworkers in Detroit's Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM) during the late 1960s were labeled as "Black fascists" by the same United Auto Workers Union bureaucrats who had participated in civil rights marches.
Even more severe was the criticism of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, which gained national attention for its armed confrontation with the brutal racist cops of Oakland, California.
Liberals, both white and Black, invariably respond to Black militancy with an appeal for "calm and racial unity." Often enough, this means demobilizing protests and a highly publicized meeting of interracial "leaders," who do not even address the roots of racism, much less challenge them.
By contrast, socialists call for unity in the working class on Black workers' terms. This will require winning white workers to a recognition of Blacks' special oppression and an understanding that all workers have a material interest in Black liberation. In practice, this means socialists must defend the right of Blacks to self-determination, and even separatist organization when it is called for.
The argument about the "racism" of Blacks is, as it always has been, nothing but a cover for the real source of racism, cultivated by the capitalist system.
As Leon Trotsky said in the 1930s, Black and white working class unity will be built by those who fight an "uncompromising merciless struggle, not against the supposed national prepossessions of Blacks, but against the colonial prejudices of the white worker, and make no concessions to them whatever."
Let the press encounter a crime in which the victim is white and the perpetrator is African American, and that becomes part of the explanation. The idea of "Black racism" against whites gets thrown out even more consistently against organizations of all or primarily African Americans who challenge racism.
Such ideas must be rejected out of hand. Racism is not simply animosity based on skin color or other physical characteristics, but a systematic, special oppression, which employers use to keep the working class divided and to forestall any challenge to their rule.
The material basis for racism in the U.S. is a Black unemployment rate double that of whites, an inflated poverty rate for Black families and individuals and an ongoing wage differential between Black and white workers.
Racial oppression goes far beyond the labor market, too. More than half a century after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" public facilities for Blacks and whites were inherently unequal, many public schools in U.S. cities remain segregated--in fact, they have become more segregated in recent years, not less.
In every U.S. city, there are wealthy and mostly white neighborhoods where young Blacks, if they venture into them, face certain harassment from police. The claim that whites face similar treatment in all-Black neighborhoods from residents is false.
Blacks cannot be "racists." They are not in a position to oppress anyone....certainly not the majority white population of the U.S.
The distinction, however, is once again between systematic and incidental. A white person may only experience racial discrimination on an incidental level so long as they exist in a society built to their advantage. So although white people are not inherently prejudiced, and people of color are not inherently unprejudiced, higher social capital means a louder voice, and a louder voice means that white prejudice consequentially permeates deeper into society.
White people, in effect, have the power to enforce their prejudice while minorities can only exercise discriminatory behavior on incidental levels.
Imagine a brick and a pebble dropped into the same lake from identical points. Although the action is the same, the brick will produce a bigger splash. This is what it’s like when two people, one with high social capital and one with low, display the same prejudice and discrimination. Although the white-discrimination may be no more severe, its effects are greater.
This is why context is so important when examining issues of larger society. What is equal is not always what is fair, which is in large part why white people are often singled out on matters of racism, discrimination and prejudice. Recognizing the historical privilege, oppression and racism in the context of whiteness is not random bullying and it certainly isn’t racism.
The argument has been repeatedly made that “white privilege” is an unfair term because white people don’t ask for this , which is maybe at its core what the concept of reverse racism is trying to convey.
It’s true, no one chooses an ascribed status. As the beneficiary of this system, however, consider that if your objection to its injustice is that it makes you look mean, instead of that it oppresses innocent people; you’ve missed the point. As a white person, remember that your lived experiences are exponentially different than those of someone from an oppressed group. It may not always be possible to understand what you haven’t experienced, but a good start is to focus on listening to people’s stories rather than defending your role in them. More importantly, remember that your privilege, and attendant wealth, is most likely a handed-down product of centuries of slavery, genocide, toil, blood, sweat and tears of millions of African slaves and their descendants, labor which has never been addressed nor compensated.The notion, held by a majority of white Americans that it is conceivable to discriminate against them, simply because they are occasionally not allowed to exercise the whit privilege which makes it possible for them to get away with things that people of a different race would have been locked up, is idiotic and ridiculous.
In any event, prologue monologue aside, I have come to the conclusion that there is something to be said about "reverse racism"....lol. It must be hard being a member of a race whose privileged existence has been predicated upon the destruction of others. I can't even begin to imagine the horrors they suffer at the hands of the rest of society, not being to function as they please, not being able to always have their way. It must be devastating to be absent of melanin, and always be judged by the actions of those that seek to exterminate the rest of indigenous populations worldwide.
Hahahahahahaha......okay, I had to get that laugh out of my system.
Racism and prejudice aren't quite the same thing. Racism, rather, is best known as a system in which a racial majority is able to enforce its power and privilege over another race through political, economic and institutional means. Therefore racism can be described as "prejudice plus power," as the two work together to create the embedded system of pervasive inequality.
*Stereotype is a widely held, but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
*Prejudice is when a person negatively pre-judges another person or group without getting to know the beliefs, thoughts, and feelings behind their words and actions. A person of any racial group can be prejudiced towards a person of any other racial group. There is no power dynamic involved. The fact is white people can literally get away with murder and have judges exonerate them based on the color of their skin while Black and Brown people are locked away for similar offenses for decades. That is the realist reality of Amerikkka. If you are occasionally put in check because of some stupid infraction on your part, I have news for you. You are not being discriminated against. You are simply the exception that proves the rule.
*Bigotry is stronger than prejudice, a more severe mindset and often accompanied by discriminatory behavior. It’s arrogant and mean-spirited, but requires neither systems nor power to engage in.
*Racism is the worst kind of bigotry, a system that allows the racial group that’s already in power to retain power at the expense of people of a different racial background, often with the use of ethnic cleansing and other forms of oppression to maintain that structure. Since arriving on U.S. soil white people have used their power to create preferential access to survival resources (housing, education, jobs, food, health, legal protection, etc.) for white people while simultaneously impeding people of color’s access to those same resources. White people are the only racial group to have ever established and retained power in the United States.
Sadly, America (as most Western nations whose wealth was built on the backs of Black Africans during the Middle Passages, otherwise known as the African Slave trade) is an amalgamation of all four disgusting practices which are promoted and used to divide, and exploit us...institutionally.
So with all due respect to my white friends, to recap...while a Black person may have negative stereotypes of White people, he cannot be racist. He has no means of affecting the economic well-being of a White person. Funnily, even in Africa, Black people have no means of affecting the economic well-being of Whites in their midst. An Asian person may be a bigot but unless he has been conferred, by his surrounding society, with the means to adversely affect the wherewithal of another race, he cannot be said to be racist. Black people suffer from all these forms from all other racial groups because that is the way American society has been set up. 
So to claim a white person suffers from "reverse racism" is a laughable fallacy which must be addressed. When you're so deeply invested in your privilege, and in this case white privilege, racial equality feels like oppression and as soon as people begin to question issues surrounding racism, (white) people get uncomfortable with it and hence the pushback we're seeing called "reverse racism".
In reality, the United States has a long legacy of racism that makes it difficult for people of color to receive quality health care, access affordable housing, find stable employment and avoid getting wrapped up in the justice system. Just to be acknowledged as an equal member of society without derision is a daily uphill battle for most people of color....maybe because we are not equal in the eyes of those societies. These examples of institutionalized racism don't quite match with the examples of reverse racism that they give. There has never, ever, ever been a national set of laws or system put in place to systematically oppress white people or push them to a status that is less than that of another racial group.
Sometimes the so-called spouted "reverse racism" manifests as a fantasy of white people who are keen to experience the kinds of oppression that they have used against indigenous people of this country, or at times they feel like they are being criticized, fairly or unfairly, because of the color of their skin (and we do know that there are some of them, few and far between, who have fought alongside people of color for equality in american society), but even if all people of colour straight up said they hate white people, it wouldn't qualify as racism, and it certainly wouldn't affect a white person's ability to get a job, an education, or increase the odds that they'd get carded, derided or charged for a crime. If all white people had that same view [of black people], that would have a very dramatic life impact on the material reality of all those Black people.
Period.
You'll be hard-pressed to find people of color doing anything contained in the accompanying photos in this post, not necessarily because there are no stupid people of color, but because we fully understand the lopsided consequences of "not-being-white" in America. We don't "have the complexion for the protection" as they say. Some of these pics are funny, others serious, but they all share one thing in common...they smack of white privilege, engaging in situations that make the rest of us think:
Funnily, even that kind of statement earns cries of "reverse racism" from those who obfuscate, hide, and distort the real insidious meaning of the long-lasting, vile, venomous and evil historical institutionalized racism under which we labor. To equate a Black person calling a white person, "redneck", "peckerwood" or "white boy" is totally, disingenuously, and vastly different from the vile use of the derogatory N-word by white people (it is ignorant for Black people to use it as well, but that is another post for another day).
This kind of thinking is the most disastrous and commonplace false equivalency in American society. The idea that racism is the simple 'act of acknowledging race' relinquishes the responsibility of white people to reconcile with the evil acts that their not-so-distant relatives perpetuated, (and some still perpetuate), as a matter of law. The fact that even into the 1960s, black citizens were systemically blocked from basic home ownership, voter rights, and basic human rights, has yet to be fully rectified or even acknowledged by most. It would be unfathomable for a German-born citizen to cry on television for being called “that German boy” by a Jewish person. Yet America’s maniac genocidal history of everything from not only slavery but the Jim Crow South, where lynchings happened for sport, to the racialized targeting of black women by the police officer Daniel Holtzclaw in 2015, as well as the systemic murders of people of color by law enforcement officers, remain unchecked, unevaluated, denied and blithely ignored.
In acknowledgment of their racist practices against Native-Americans, interred Japanese during WW2, Chinese immigrants (and yes, even Jewish Holocaust victims), the U.S. government has hastily dispatched reparations to these groups.....never once even considering doing the same for Black people, ameliorating the plights of these victims of the worst Holocaust in world history, Black people, victims whose deaths numbered in the tens of millions, and whose free labor was the engine that kickstarted the inception of America into global superstardom via the back-breaking free labor they forced out of millions of Africans in their cotton and tobacco plantations.
There is no one-to-one comparison to be made with incidents of random violence and systemic racism. The burden of proof for racism cannot fall on a disenfranchised group. White people historically have been, and continue to be, an oppressive force in America (you can quite easily argue that this is true around the world), and the victims of that oppression have no responsibility to be quiet about it. Before we declare the phrase “fuck white people” a hate crime, we should focus on addressing the millions of people still disenfranchised by policies created by white people with the literal intent of targeting blacks.....not to speak of the millions more being killed annually by the military forces of Western nations, run predominantly by old white men, for the benefit of acquiring super-rich mineral resources in Africa and the Middle East. While the majority of people who have committed acts of terrorism in America have been predominantly white....70%....it is only people of color, mainly Arabs or Muslims who are associated with terror in the media.
Racism has always been a function of economic acquisition....never forget that.
In Germany, children learn a unique word:
"Vergangenheitsbewältigung".
It describes the guilt that only German people can feel as a result of the Jewish Holocaust. In America, the idea that white people have any special responsibility for the psychopathic destruction of communities of color going back centuries, here and abroad, is seen as heresy. Textbooks have been written that gloss over the effects of slavery, and today’s students learn next to nothing about the rampant lynchings of tens of thousands of ancestors of the current African-Americans they see amongst them, disenfranchised, but they deride them, debase them, are disgusted by them, spit on, and step over them, follow them around each place of business they patronize, incarcerate them in the millions for insignificant offenses, and criminalize them in the media continuously. 
The present generation of white people, (and others who are not Black,) learn nothing about the housing and employment discrimination that permeates the fabric of American society (hell, we just elected a repeat offender of that systematic discrimination to the highest office in the land); they will never know what is feels like to watch as your grandfather is burnt alive, shot a hundred times for the simple offense of "looking at a white woman" or watching as your mother, sister and wife are raped in front of you; they will never know what it means to have an entire society hate you simply for the color of your skin; they will never know what it feels like to be herded into toxic communities around the country, dying of exposure to the worst cancerous, lead-infested, asbestos-filled areas, to be the guinea pigs of biogenetically-engineered experiments and chemical warfare, to have your countries of origin bombed into oblivion because they posses mineral resources that a more powerful nation covets, simply....because....we.....are.....Black.
I could go on and on but limited by space, this post is only a cursory, comical look at what passes for reverse racism....in a society that has mastered the act of (Black) holocaust denials...justifying mass scale genocide, institutionalized hatred, and economic exploitation of minorities, instead, making themselves look like the victims of "reverse prejudice"....cry me a river, then tell it to the birds.
黒人浪人
Comments
Post a Comment