Opinion: Sheryl Swoopes is right: Black people can't be racist

This harks back to the 50+ year old Kerner commission report from the late 1960s to define racism. I notice how similar that definition is to today's definition. There was the famous statement about the US moving toward 2 societies, one white and one black:

 

So I guess when a black person gets told no at my place of employment and I get called a "cracker"..... That's perfectly okay and that's not racism.

I like to tell him get it right...... That's pink belly Florida cracker to you.... And then if I go on to call them the magic n word I'm the racist

 

My opinion differs from the one Swoopes has.

Black Lives Matter co-founder appears to label white people ‘defects’

She also faced controversy in the news for a tweet posted a year ago stating: “Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today.”
.................
“Whiteness is not humxness,” the statement begins. “infact, white skin is sub-humxn.” The post goes on to present a genetics-based argument centred on melanin and enzyme.

“White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual,” the post reads towards the end. “white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”
................

https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/b...founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects

 

Unfortunately her for her racist argument.... White people must be genetically Superior because they're the ones in control of the world.

If they was King's and wakanda and whatnot.... How come they didn't conquer the world?

 

"Black people can’t be racist"

Black people can be anything white people can be

racists come in all shapes and colors

 

One needs only to listen to Louis Farrakhan, and you will know that yes in deed, Black people can be racist.

 

Swoopes is just pissed off her record, as well as Steph Curry’s 3pt college record, was broken by a white woman. Had it been Angel Reese or Rickea Jackson she’d be fawning all over their accomplishments.

 

Those same morons who say black people cant be racist will tell you white people cant play basketball. Ask them how that's working out for them.

 

This seems to be people playing with semantics, but not to establish clarity and consistency but to achieve the exact opposite. In this case, they're distinguishing between discrimination based on skin colour, which they label prejudice, and discrimination specifically combined with the power to act on it, which they limit racism to.

Now that distinction isn't bad or wrong in and of itself, the problem is that what follows is effectively saying that as long as you're not actually racist, it's OK. In reality, in the context of these definitions, something identified as "only" prejudice should be seen much more serious and significant than it generally would be. The fact the statements about the white basketball player didn't technically fit this limited definition of racism doesn't make them any less problematic, and I think highlighting that distinction is just an attempt to minimise or excuse very real racial discrimination, rather than understanding and addressing it as should always be (but sadly rarely is) the case.

I think it's also worth noting that this definition of racism doesn't automatically mean black people can never be racist. There are plenty of environments or situations where black individuals or groups have a level of power or authority, and so racial prejudice on their part could fit this restrictive racism definition. That is true in the US and certainly true across the rest of the world (not that Americans often consider that ).

 

The usual argument is that while Blacks can express racial prejudices against Whites, they lack the power to negatively impact Whites for racial reasons. It is the imposition of disadvantages because of racial reasons that constitutes racism.

This sort of works if you consider Blacks and Whites as monolithic separate groups, and it was more valid in the 1950s than today. Today there are often situations where individuals or small groups of Blacks have power and are in a position to disadvantage Whites, so the theory is not always true.

 

Is it cancelling time yet or is this another slap on the wrist.

 

Blacks used to want equal treatment and equal opportunities. The good Blacks want that now but the racist Blacks now like it the way it is.

 

You are 100% right but the general consensus of about 90% of the left is that blacks cannot be racist. Even if they beat the crap out of a 90 year old white lady and call her white derogatory terms during the beating, the left won't say its RACISM, they'll say its 400+ years of built up oppression. Search your feelings, you know it to be TRUE
Also, congrats on being part of the 10% that believes in logic

 

I do not deny that some on the left are as crazy as some on the right with their "logic"

 

If one reads the report, it never defines racism in the way the linked article opinion claims. In fact, it doesn't define racism at all. It DOES blame white racism and institutional racism for what was going on in those times. And for the times it was absolutely correct. In fact the author of the article clearly made that interpretation on their own because they couldn't even quote from the report such a definition. Instead saying, without quotation marks like it does for another part that it did quote from the report...

From the article: "It went on to offer a clear and extremely useful definition of racism. Racism was not simple hatred or prejudice based on skin color. Racism occurred when power was added to prejudice — the power to affect someone’s life physically, economically, educationally, politically or otherwise."

If it was so "clear" and so "extremely useful" then why couldn't the author of the article quote it from the report? Simple. Because there was no such definition. It is just the author of the article trying to uphold a definition that is designed to be one sided and to excuse racism by POC.

Well... **** that. I do not cede the linguistic arena to them or anyone else that upholds such a messed up definition of racism. There is no one race that cannot be racist. They can ALL be racist. And every race has its racists.

 

The terms whitey, honkie, and cracker are not racists then??? Even if softened to "white supremacist"?

 

They are not. They are prejudice. Not racism. Racism is specifically the oppression of the dominant ethnic group over minorities.

In the last few decades, white supremacists have been trying to change the meaning. Especially using extremist media: Hannity, Tucker, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones... Who knows if they'll succeed one day. But, at this point, it's simply white-supremacist-speak. Today it's also used sometimes by the consumers of shows of the afore mentioned white supremacists. But it hasn't permeated into the language of common folk.

However, it's not true that blacks can't be racists. There are black people who are racist against other black people. The name Tim Scott comes to mind.

 

Guess what, its BOTH.

 

What a steaming load of equine excrement.

 

Nobody is falling for your word-fu. "its not racism its prejudice", give me a break!
Didn't you make that thread "there is no race, just racism"? Word salad is yummy, ain't it? too funny.
Your theories and feelings don't stack up to FACTS and STATISTICS and the STATS show that the most racist group in the country is definitely not whites. Go look up black on white crime VS white on black, then go do some math regarding the proportions (that's important to the final number), then get back to me with your results

Ready............GO!!!!

 

Correct! You're learning...

 

I'm not from SC but I have heard Tim Scott being interview and I heard some of his speeches when he was running for POTUS. I never heard him say anything that I thought was racist. Can you enlighten me with some of his quotes and/or actions that were racist?

 

What a load of garbage. In 1903 Oxford dictionary had the definition thusly: LINK: racism - Quick search results | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)



The following is the current definition:



LINK: racism noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Its not the "right wing" that's trying to change the definition. Its leftist identitarians and people that want to excuse racism from one group and only apply it to the group that they want to attack.

Or are you going to contend that Oxford Dictionary is "white supremacist"? Or "right wing"? Pfft. Take your bloviating arguments elsewhere.

 

Tim Scott is a Republican. That is enough to be branded a racist by leftist identitarians.

 

People often conflate Racist and Bigot.

For me, the racist is a person who seeks personal benefit from creating or agitating racial animus.
All Sharpton is a racist. Trump is a racist.

As opposed to the Bigot whose hate is no less but is based ignorance rather than intent.

Intent is a big part of my view of the world around me.