Actually, I agree. White people do experience reverse racism, because they literally experience the opposite of racism.
That moment when a statement is so truth that your brain explodes a little bit.
"I will give you an example of how race affects my life. I live in a place called Alpine, New Jersey. Live in Alpine, New Jersey, right? My house costs millions of dollars. [Whistles and cheers from the audience] Don’t hate the player, hate the game. In my neighborhood, there are four black people. Hundreds of houses, four black people. Who are these black people? Well, there’s me, Mary J. Blige, Jay-Z and Eddie Murphy. Only black people in the whole neighborhood. So let’s break it down, let’s break it down: me, I’m a decent comedian. I’m a’ight. [Applause] Mary J. Blige, one of the greatest R&B singers to ever walk the Earth. Jay-Z, one of the greatest rappers to ever live. Eddie Murphy, one of the funniest actors to ever, ever do it. Do you know what the white man who lives next door to me does for a living? He’s a fucking dentist! He ain’t the best dentist in the world…he ain’t going to the dental hall of fame…he don’t get plaques for getting rid of plaque. He’s just a yank-your-tooth-out dentist. See, the black man gotta fly to get to somethin’ the white man can walk to.”
~ Chris Rock
“The black man gotta fly to get somethin’ the white man can walk to.”
By not seeing that racism is systemic (part of a system), people often personalize or individualize racist acts. For example, they will reduce racist police behavior to “a few bad apples” who need to be removed, rather than seeing it exists in police departments all over the country and is basic to the society. This mistake has real consequences: refusing to see police brutality as part of a system, and that the system needs to be changed, means that the brutality will continue.
The need to recognize racism as being systemic is one reason the term White Supremacy has been more useful than the term racism. They refer to the same problem but:
A. The purpose of racism is much clearer when we call it “white supremacy.” Some people think of racism as just a matter of prejudice. “Supremacy” defines a power relationship.
B. Race is an unscientific term. Although racism is a social reality, it is based on a term which has no biological or other scientific reality.
C. The term racism often leads to dead-end debates about whether a particular remark or action by an individual white person was really racist or not. We will achieve a clearer understanding of racism if we analyze how a certain action relates to the system of White Supremacy.
D. The term White Supremacy gives white people a clear choice of supporting or opposing a system, rather than getting bogged down in claims to be anti-racist (or not) in their personal behavior.
"Operation 8: Deep in the Forest"
On 15 October 2007 activists around New Zealand woke to guns in their faces. Black-clad police smashed down doors, dragging families out onto roads and detaining some without food or water. In the village of Ruatoki, helicopters hovered while locals were stopped at roadblocks. Operation 8 involved 18 months of invasive surveillance of Maori sovereignty and peace activists accused of attending terrorist training camps in the Urewera ranges — homeland of the Tuhoe people. Operation 8 asks why and how the raids took place. How did the War on Terror become a global witch-hunt of political dissenters reaching even to the South Pacific?
Thanks for your comment.
I agree there are many, many problematic aspects to Miley Cyrus’ behaviour: racism, ableism, transmisogyny, and so on (I had a small tag-rant about her here). However, I don’t think it’s necessary to address them all in the same post. I also don’t feel that calling someone out implies that is the only thing they’ve done wrong, or even that it’s the worst thing; it’s just a comment on a particular aspect of their behaviour.
Having said that, the main point of the post wasn’t criticising Miley Cyrus at all. It was a response to the holier-than-thou types who think she’s a “bad influence” on young girls while overlooking the sexualisation of non-consent by Robin Thicke. In other words, the post was chiefly a criticism of Robin Thicke. As a result, I worry it would be derailing to add disclaimers to the post. But I am happy to listen to more feedback if you think that’s short-sighted of me.
[Hopefully you’re okay with me publishing this. I thought it would be good to clarify for anyone else who thought I was condoning Miley Cyrus’ behaviour. Let me know if you would like it unpublished.]
ETA: Just looked up the stuff you mentioned about her cissexist comments and…just…wow. She needs to learn to shut her mouth all the time.
I know that wasn’t the point…? It’s not required to address it all in one post, but the post is literally saying you don’t need to talk about how Miley’s being oppressive to your kids. There’s nothing indicating it’s speaking solely on rape culture. Since I’ve seen legions of cis, abled, white feminists saying Miley’s a great feminist and stuff, the post really comes off to me as an intersectionality failure. I didn’t think you meant it that way, but I think it’s used that way.
Point taken. What made it solely about rape culture for me was the reference to Robin Thicke (who personifies rape culture in my mind) and the author being Jackson Katz (who writes extensively about masculinity and rape culture). But I can see that’s not clear to everyone. And I agree with you about certain feminists portraying her in a positive light, and I have witnessed it myself. I’m sorry for contributing to that; it’s definitely an intersectionality fail on my part.
I will add this discussion to the original post for clarity. And thanks again. I appreciate you taking the time to explain.
R. Young (1987). Racist society, racist science. In D. Gill & L. Levidow (Eds.) Anti-racist science teaching (pp. 16-42). London: Free Association Books.
Remember that time when they made up a disease for black ppl when we didnt wanna be stuck as slaves?
Remember when they operated on black women with no anesthesia to get modern gynecological surgical procedures?
Remember when they sterilized poor woc without consent to keep us from ‘creating more undesirables’?
Remember when the government allowed Black men to go untreated with Syphilis even after a cure was discovered?
Remember when minority heavy areas in cities were sprayed with radioactive material to ‘test’ how America could handle a nuclear fallout?
Oh, you dont? Because I do…
Go look it up. Every single one was done by a white supremacist nation called America.
|—||Patricia Hill Collins|
And this is exactly why ‘white pride’ will always be racist, but ‘black pride’ is not.
"You don’t have a problem, because it’s not Real Racism — it’s caaaaasual. Not a big deal. Certainly not worth analyzing or pointing out, lest we make anyone uncomfortable."
I don’t claim that my food is cruelty free b/c nothing in a capitalist society is cruelty free.
But the argument that vegans are awful people because most plant foods are harvested by poor, underpaid migrant workers is extremely flawed because like.
Do you really think the animal industry involves less of that?
Do you really think the animal industry doesn’t involve plant foods being grown/harvested for animal consumption? Or that eating less plants and more meat means less plant foods being grown?
If you are a vegan who doesn’t claim their lifestyle is cruelty free then you are the exception to the rule. In fact you are the very first vegan I’ve ever encountered who has acknowledged that. Congratulations.
That said, there are plenty of other reasons vegans are awful, and I have summarised them here.
You also seem to have misunderstood the discussion about migrant workers. Non-vegans don’t think they are *better* than anyone (that seems to be the exclusive domain of vegans, actually) and I’ve never seen them deny exploitation inherent in all forms of consumption. No. Non-vegans get angry because of vegans’ hypocrisy on this matter. End of story. Any inferences you make after that statement are you own, and not what non-vegans have been saying.
And it’s also really funny you acknowledge that the number of plants you eat doesn’t affect the number of plants being grown…part of that reasoning sounds familiar but I just can’t place it!!
And pro-tip: if you want to make your argument seem more serious avoid the PETA references. They are a despicable organisation.
To summarise: food and diet are personal choices and you don’t have the right to tell others what to eat. Because that makes you a douchecanoe.
What would have once sounded like a far-fetched feminist fantasy – women forming the majority of a parliament – is a reality in one country in the world, Rwanda.
In fact, women are making gains throughout all of Africa, but these achievements have been met with a loud silence from the western feminist movement.
SLURS CANNOT BE “RECLAIMED” AS INSULTS GODDAMMIT.
I am so fucking sick of this.
I have run into a disturbing amount of people lately who honestly believe that the concept of reclamation encompasses being able to use slurs that have been used against you as insults against other people, even others who have been targeted by the slur as well. This supposedly operates under the principle that it’s not oppressive if someone uses a slur that’s been used against them for any reason at all.
Well, it may not be oppressive per se but it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT constitute a Get Out Of Being An Asshole Free card. That kind of logic just sounds to me like if you’re someone that has been punched in the face a lot, it gives you the right to punch other people who have been punched a lot and then when someone asks you “What the fuck was that for??” you say “Well, it didn’t hurt as much as if someone who’s never been punched had punched you, right?” THIS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
Not to mention that this concept completely ignores intersectionality because it would supposedly allow that out of two people who share a marginalization (say it’s being gay and in reference to heterosexist slurs) that someone who’s a cis white able-bodied gay guy would have free rein to call a gay MOC, or a disabled or trans gay guy, such a slur. That could easily be seen as a “double slur” laced with extra betrayal because you’d be in a minority within the minority and even the use of a common slur could be used to mark you as lesser.
And I would also argue that since slurs are things that can trigger PTSD and panic attacks, among other things, that their use as insults by anyone can in fact be oppressive.
I’ve had to unfollow people because of this. And if you subscribe to the notion that being in an oppressed group gives you free rein to use slurs targeted at that group for any reason whatsoever, GET THE FUCK OFF MY BLOG.
This is something I think about a lot, and I agree very much with this post.
I think a lot of people don’t understand the difference between reclaiming a slur (where the slur comes to be used in an empowering way and takes on a new neutral or positive meaning) and perpetuating harm using a slur (where a member of X group uses Y slur to abuse or demean other members of X group - when X has been historically oppressed by Y slur).
The latter is not okay. Not at all and I’m also getting sick of seeing this on my dash.
N.B. There are times, however, where chastising someone for this behaviour is inappropriate. And this usually needs to be considered in terms of intersecting oppressions. For example: a WoC is calling out a white woman for saying something racist and, during the course of said call-out, tells the white woman she is a ‘bitch’. Yes, this is a sexist slur. But it is not acceptable for the white woman to derail the call-out and start acting as if she is now the victim. To continue with the punching analogy used above, I guess the exception is in circumstances of self-defence.
(Hopefully this makes sense, my brain isn’t very cooperative right now.)