Can only white people be racist?

[phil19034]

Coming from a Spanish background myself i do think Spain as integrated non white people much better than England or America, having so many years of Moorish occupation meant that the Spanish are more at ease living with people of a dark complexion(who make up perhaps 20% of the population) than others.

…??? The views of 19th century America and 20th century English have very little to do with anything. My Aunt grew up in Spain and my uncle when to Medical School in Spain. They own 3 houses there and several tree lots. Today’s they still spend at least one month living in Spain each year. The Moors were not as dark as Native Americans, they were similar to modern day people in Algeria, since they were Bebers.

Spain integrating the indigenous peoples of the Americas had nothing to do with the Moorish occupation. Spain evicted the Moors in 1492, and were never really fond of them. The Spanish Inquisition started because of a fear of the Moors regaining power and of fears of non-Catholic groups (mainly the Jews) helping the Moors.

The reason Spain “integrated” the Native Americans was at least three part:

1. Spain was Catholic and Queen Isabella wanted to bring Catholicism to the New World. Plus, Pope Alexander VI charged both Spain & Portugal with evangelizing the New World.
2. Many researchers believe that the majority of Native Americans lived in the areas primarily colonized by the Spanish & Portuguese, which were warmer climates than Canada & the East Coast of the United States.
3. The Natives of Mexico and South America were more like Old World Empires and Kingdoms than the more nomadic tribes the British encountered in the 17th and 18th centuries.

These three factors are some of the major reasons why (even though upto 80% were killed due to Eurasian diseases) the Spanish & Portuguese where willing to assimilate, why there were still a lot of people left for the Spanish & Portuguese to assimilate, and why it was easier for the Spanish & Portuguese to assimilate the their natives.

When you go to war with an empire, with a King and/or Queen, it’s easier to assimilate their people when you win the war vs. when you fight nomadic tribes.

NOTE: The feud between Spanish & English Crowns started with King Henry VIII divorcing Catherine of Aragon in 1509, but it didn’t become hot until the First Anglo-Spanish war from 1585 to 1604 (over 74 years after the establishment of the Archdiocese of Santo Domingo). Average citizens didn’t care so much until the wars became hot.

The British left the Catholic Church a few decades later and really didn’t start settling the New World until the 1600. By then, the diseases the Spanish & Portuguese brought over had killed a large percentage of the natives all over the two continents of the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

There is not a single race that exists or has ever existed in the history of the world that wasn’t racist at one time or another or one individual or another.

 

[Servant31]

That’s actually what I was saying. The steps were actually just to broadly demonstrate siloing behavior.
I think there are some overt racists, sure, but I think it’s oftentimes common to break into groups. This can lead to unconscious biases or inadvertent biases, even for people trying to do the right thing.

In war for example, people often become very close due to the stress and interdependence, this might lead to good people sticking with their own group, even after the war is over, or doing things they might not normally do, to go along with that group. Just my.02. Best regards.

 

[Freddy]

…where prejudice refers to treating / believing something about someone because of their race.

Uh? Isn’t that the very definition of racism? That’s like saying that treating a woman purely based on her gender is prejudice and not sexism.

 

[Paddy1989]

The problem with people including a few members on this forum who are caught up in this identity politics of the left is that they view society through the prism of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. The problem with that is when they view discrepancy in statistics they are quick to assume racism, sexism etc before looking further.

Ok so tell me this would it be Racist to assume Black people are racist against whites because with interracial homicides there were nearly 750 deaths. 500 committed by black on whites while only 250 committed by whites on blacks. You see such people if they were consistent would also be forced to claim that this is proof that blacks are racist against white people and are actively engaged in killing them because 2 times as many white people are killed by blacks.

These same people are quick to then jump on another statistic that claims black people are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people but they now assume it’s because of racism.

It’s nonsensical, there is no logic to it, they have been duped and all it does is keep society divided into different tribes by those who claim to be it’s savior. The US is not plagued by racism, the US is plagued by division and tribalism stemming from the hole where God used to be in people’s hearts which they are trying to fill through other means. Don’t buy into it.

 

[Zaccheus]

Often times people mistakenly say “racism,” when they actually mean “prejudice.”

Racism refers more technically to a system; where prejudice refers to treating / believing something about someone because of their race.

Racism is prejudice, based specifically on race.
The system is better described as “oppression.”

 

[JoeFreedom]

That’s an absolute. Quite a bold statement. And how do you know this? Please show me me.

 

[JoeFreedom]

It’s this mentality that everyone…as you say…is implicitly racist…which “everyone” by the way includes black people…that slams the door shut on actual conversation.

I suppose because I’m white I guess I’ll always choose white people when I interview. Sigh…my my inherit racism again. I guess I will sit in the corner and shame myself over my white guilt.

 

[Freddy]

That’s an absolute. Quite a bold statement. And how do you know this? Please show me me.

If you could find some evidence that we are not then I’d be pleased to see it. In the meantime, you could read this: Infants show racial bias toward members of own ethnicity, against those of others: Racial bias begins earlier than previously thought, new insights into cause -- ScienceDaily

 

[silentwitness]

As far as i am aware Leftist academia tried to redefine racism as only being possible if you are part of a dominant power structure.

(As an aside this is very telling in that this idea of power structures is how the academic Left looks at the world).

But you only have to consider a short thought experiment to see how silly it is.

Two neighbours live in Somewhereville USA. One family is white, the other black.

The men in each household (let’s pick on the men) both hate the other’s race, think they are stupid and not to be trusted. The academic Left’s definition would only allow for one of them to be labelled racist even though the viewpoints held and the emotions felt are the same. This practice takes away the idea that racism is primarily about a persons attitudes and emotions.

But it gets more incoherent and apart from Christian thought.

If the (good) wives convince them to take a trip to the Caribbean as soon as the white guy sets foot off the plane his racism magically disappears.

Likewise without any change in the black man’s attitude whatsoever, as soon as he steps off the plane he suddenly becomes racist.

This is a nonsense where important designations of sins like racism are simply redefined for political advantage for those doing the redefining.

That is, sins become relativised to Leftist politics. This is not Christianity.

 

[sealabeag]

Nope, anyone of any colour or race can be racist. There is a view that many hold that black people can’t be racist but it’s totally illogical.

 

[Freddy]

The academic Left’s definition would only allow for one of them to be labelled racist even though the viewpoints held and the emotions felt are the same.

It would? That’s a new one on me. People who denigrate someone based purely on their ‘race’ (scare quotes to signify that race is a dubious concept in any case) are, by definition, racist. There’s no two ways around that. Anyone who disagrees with that would seem to have a very tenuous grasp of English.

 

[silentwitness]

It would? That’s a new one on me. People who denigrate someone based purely on their ‘race’ (scare quotes to signify that race is a dubious concept in any case) are, by definition, racist. There’s no two ways around that. Anyone who disagrees with that would seem to have a very tenuous grasp of English.

I agree but unfortunately there are other non traditional definitions that vie for acceptance. These people wish to redefine the language rather than grasp and accept traditional definitions.

Prejudice plus power - Wikipedia

Another example but it is widespread.

There are so many examples.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It would? That’s a new one on me. People who denigrate someone based purely on their ‘race’ (scare quotes to signify that race is a dubious concept in any case) are, by definition, racist. There’s no two ways around that. Anyone who disagrees with that would seem to have a very tenuous grasp of English.

I agree but unfortunately there are other non traditional definitions that vie for acceptance. These people wish to redefine the language rather than grasp and accept traditional definitions.

Prejudice plus power - Wikipedia

But you were talking about a person being racist. And ‘the left’ has a definition that would exclude an African American from being racist. The link you posted has nothing to do with that at all.

The link leads to a discussion that racism can be institutional. I see no problem with that. The protests at this moment are not against individual racists per se but intitutionalised racism some claim is apparent in groups such as the police. No at all what you posted.

 

[silentwitness]

The link you posted has nothing to do with that at all.

But the link talks about a definition of racism that needs a pre-requisite of institutional power.

The Left defines institutional power along racial lines so that a white person is defined as having their prejudice being backed by racist institutional power - white privilege.

Following the logic only a white person can be racist which is why there is a thread wanting this clarified.

Here is a paper defining the problem and arguing against its logic,

 

[neophyte]

I keep hearing that only white people can be racist. Is that true?

Not only is that one of the most laughable claims ever made, it’s patently racist itself.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The link you posted has nothing to do with that at all.

But the link talks about a definition of racism that needs a pre-requisite of institutional power.

The Left defines institutional power along racial lines so that a white person is defined as having their prejudice being backed by racist institutional power - white privilege.

Following the logic only a white person can be racist which is why there is a thread wanting this clarified.

I don’t think you’re following the line of reasoning. A racist can be of any ‘race’. And racists can have their beliefs backed by any given institution. Such as a predominently white police force in the US or a predominently black police force in Nigeria for example.

Again, your suggestion that anyone claims that racism only works in one direction is nonsensical.

 

[silentwitness]

I don’t think you’re following the line of reasoning. A racist can be of any ‘race’.

Agreed.

And racists can have their beliefs backed by any given institution.

Agreed.

Such as a predominently white police force in the US or a predominently black police force in Nigeria for example.

Agreed.

Again, your suggestion that anyone claims that racism only works in one direction is nonsensical.

It is not nonsensical because people do claim this. These people claim racism only exists in the direction of institutional power being on the side of the person having prejudicial views.

In the United States this would mean that only whites could be racist but if they went to the Carribean, because the power structure is different, his racism wouldn’t exist.

It is the idea that is non sensical not the claim that this idea exists.

 

[StudentMI]

Racism refers more technically to a system; where prejudice refers to treating / believing something about someone because of their race.

The dictionary disagrees.

 

[JoeFreedom]

You made the assertion that every single human ever is racist. I’d like to know how you know this and how any scientific study can assert such nonsense.