Can Black People Be Racist?

... Huh? No one never said everyone can be racist. What in the world are you talking about? It doesn't matter if a black person calls a white person a cracker or a white person called a black person the n-word, the ends doesn't justify the means and you want it to justify the means for the black person to call the white person a cracker.

They are both prejudiced and racist.

Then the definition of racism is the color orange. But Angel's definition is of the minority and is not something approved by Webster and for everyone to be on one accord of what a word actually means so it really doesn't matter what he says though, right?

Your repetition of your own sociological definition of racism solves nothing and changes nothing because its meaning constantly changes in terms beyond sociological standpoint... and racism means the color orange. Now why bring that up?

Ok... but what does being unequal have to do with not being a racist? Being at a disadvantage does not give permission or authority to be rude and look at your race above others in any way, which you seem to prefer.

 

I must admit that when I made my reply there was a moment I would be worried about the minority comment being misinterpreted. My apologies and please allow me to clarify. When I say that the people who use your definition of racism are in the minority, I am not referring to any one minority such as blacks, Asians, or Latinos. I mean minority with respect to the net population. So basically 49% or less of people, regardless of their race.

I gotta admit. I've been debating with myself whether or not I should jump back into this debate. Personally I see no point because I can't see anybody's opinion changing at all from this. At the end of the day, we will claim black people can be racist while @Angel will claim they cannot. But there are some things that I have to, at the very least, point out their flaws. I'll quote the biggest thing, cuz damn this is an important part as to why my view is what it is. But I might as well comment on some of the other stuff first.

For starters, there is something that I've said before that I guess I'm going to have to say it again. As far as I can tell, not one person has argued that your examples of institutionalized racism are not cases of racism. I'm fairly certain we're all in agreement at that point (I mean, I suppose I could set up an argument against the existence institutionalized racism, but I really don't wanna). The disagreement is from the rest of us pointing out that there are other examples of racism and that it is not limited to just institutionalized racism.

Angel you keep on making the claim "When you think of racism, there's always some sort of system of power behind it." That is not true. Angel, when YOU think of racism, all your thoughts include systems of power behind the examples. You should not speak for everyone based on your own thoughts. You cannot claim to know what a person thinks of when they think of examples of racism.

Angel, you brought up something along the lines of "Viewing racism as an individual issue isn't going to solve racism." We haven't actually gotten to any part about solving it. I know I haven't talked about how to end racism, and I'm fairly certain that nobody else but you has. With regards to solving the issue of ending it, personally I'm kinda split on it. One one hand, I'm tempted to argue that you can't ever end racism because it is almost impossible to end hate and even if you could then somewhere down the line it will sprout out again; like a weed. On the other hand, I'm tempted to argue that working on it on an individual level will help work towards ending it because individuals could move onto government and fix the system as well. Very time consuming method though.

The difference between the words "nigger" and "cracker" were brought up. The reason why one word holds more severity than the other is because that one word (nigger) has been forced into our minds as being worse than other racial slurs. In layman's terms, we're conditioned at a young age to view it as this terrible, terrible thing. You can't really deny that the word wouldn't have as much power as it does if people didn't let it. And while that claim makes it sound like the severity of the word is something easy to change, I'm not saying it is an easy change. So please don't misinterpret my words that way.

What else to say? Part of the problem of this debate is that Angel keeps on changing things or ignoring things. I pointed out how the idea that blacks can't be racist doesn't hold up logically, and he moved the goalposts (As an aside to that, you really shouldn't leave implications like you did. That is misleading, especially with broad generalizing statements. Of course, even on the topic of blacks in America can't be racist, I still wholeheartedly disagree with that idea). Kitty pointed out the logical conclusion of such a statement, and he ignored it.

I agree, and it is wrong. When a white person does a hate crime towards a black person and the white person is considered racist while when a black person does a hate crime towards a white person it is considered prejudiced and not racist, the white person's actions are viewed as worse than a black person's actions even if they are the same damn action. That is the problem with claiming that a group of people cannot be racist. Ffs, Hope has posted two videos now about black mobs chasing down white people simply because they're white. If the roles were reversed and it was a white mob chasing down black people because they were black, the country would light itself on fire out of rage. And while you can make the argument that neither situation is okay, you're missing the point. By claiming an action is racist if a white person does it while the same action is not racist because a minority does it, you are literally justifying the action when done by a person of the minority. It becomes a statement of "Oh, it is okay because the person wasn't white."

You talk of black people in this country being unequal to whites. But to claim that a step towards making them equal is to insist that only people of one race can do something bad such as racism is a step in the wrong direction. Like seriously, it's racist

Oh, I agree. My intent was to point out the futility of arguing definitions with Angel.

 

... ok.... you fail. That did not include everyone. I said quote "To justify superiority over another" and you certainly overlooked that. If I want to blow up Kitty's house because I do not like her nieces and nephews (Only an example) and they offended me, am I'm a racist? No. I did not justify my emotions because of race. I wanted to justify my actions and emotions because of what her nieces and nephews did. There are black people such as the Black Hebrewlites who used religion to say black people are superior than whites so that is racism. Once again, I never said all blacks are racist or that everyone can be a racist.

If definitions comes from us, then it is my right to say the racism is the color orange. Plus, since definitions are from us, then it is my right to expand on that and not to narrow a word to one definition and give more clarity. Since you want to narrow a word to only one definition, you are of the minority because the majority of the people know racism stems deeper than that and the committee recognizes it (With the exception of you). It's like saying orange is only a color when it is also a tree and a fruit and it is ignorant to not say the word orange is a tree and a fruit. WHOOPS!! MY BAD! Racism is not the color orange. The Definition of racism is orange.

You didn't acknowledge the other definitions of racism since you only see it as a system and beyond that.

Ok... so what about the system and why care about it? What about it to keep me from using my own religion and emotions and culture to be racist? What keeps me from considering @Hope and @Desert Warrior whitewashed and beneath me and my race's standards? I can use the Bible or create a group who shares my own frustration and increase that frustration into hatred based on those emotions and have them have a terrible outlook on them and see whites as pale as the cheap paint on a wall and blacks as strong ox who're meant to rule over them. BUT HEY! I guess I am not a racist then. None of my business.

You do not get it. The fact you want to only point it towards white and want to only keep it at that level and in denial of seeing the situation beyond a system and beyond an individual level leaves you blind. You continually want to make it one-sided.

Aaaaand as I thought and you prove things to me, you want things to be one-sided. When majority is used, it is based on everyone (Of all backgrounds) who agree as to what something means. The minority are those (Of all backgrounds) who agree on something whose opinion is not with the majority. You see minority and majority based on race.It is sad on your part and the reason I labeled you as the minority because you are one of the people whose opinion is not in agreement (And I would go so far as to labeling you deeper as a group of minority who would oppose any statement and only go by their own statement and what they say goes). Yes, blacks did experience racism on a deeper level but if the blacks should be the only one to define what racism is, then what about Jews, San People, and the others who also experienced it? NOPE! Only the blacks had the authority to determine what it means (And the Black Hebrewlites will have a field day). You're just begging to ignore racism that rose up in WW2, Israeli society and anything else that happened across history. That is why if we allow people who do not think on all aspects like you to define what it is, then it is screwed.

 

Racism is no longer just the color orange. I am now saying that racism is orange. At least you would agree with one of the definitions of it. But as far as YOUR MINORITY, your minority does not want to agree with the other aspects which is true to begin.

Oh certainly! As if you desiring to only narrowing racism to only one point of view when it does not proves you right. You talk of complex and you contradict yourself lining yourself to one thing. Please.

Ok... so? We already know about racism being used within the social system and it needs to changed. Explaining something already known which is cliche.

Validating convoluted ideas for prejudice AND/OR racism. Discrimination is still racism because racism relies on the behavior to even have the mindset to even act out towards a person of another race so no. Not good. Racism is prejudice. Racism is discrimination. Racism is orange.

Uh, ok? I am already aware of white people having benefits, white privileges and the like, even when those who are not even racist are obtaining benefits from them.We end up talking about inequality (Which is a big topic and as complex as racism itself and racism can even use inequality to bring such things) However, it does not negate the fact you continuously kept wanting to say there is no way black people can be racist as white people (Or not even a single thing in an African American person's bone).

Because it is global and no race should be racist against blacks and blacks should not be racist against any race.

Being with a minority is not wrong; being with a minority within a minority that is against a fact or overlooking a fact, that I can have a concern.

 

Aww, you sure do know how to make a man blush. And while I agree that proving you're right isn't the whole point of a debate (Or even close to the point of a simple discussion), it is a major point. One important part of debates is to sway your opponent (Or the audience) to your side by providing the most logical argument. Sadly though, I feel that doesn't happen much these days because most of the time it feels like people are simply yelling their opinion and bracing their feet against the sand instead of actually considering the other side's points.

Also, in my defense, I didn't really want to jump in. I saw the definition argument being brought up again and I figured I'd try to end that before we waste a couple posts on that topic again. And then it kinda snowballed from there.

I do believe later on I added on that when a debate falls into debating about the definition, that conversation does fall apart because it is focused on defining the word and not on what the debate was originally about. Of course I did also add that with debates such as racism, the debate kinda has to be about what racism is defined as and people use examples to support what it is. So take that how you will.

While this part wasn't in reply to my comment, I feel that you could very well try to apply it to things I've said. While you yourself do not condone bad actions committed by the minority on the grounds of they can't be racist, there are people who will use the argument of "only whites can be racist" as a way to justify bad deeds committed by people of the minority. Unfortunately it seems to be most commonly used by people of the minority to justify their hate for white people.

My point is that the way you spoke was that each of those common ground examples you used, you made it sound like those were the only examples anybody can think of when they think of racism.

Good lord that is an easily misunderstood sentence I typed just now. Sorry about that. Let's try again. Each time you used this common ground as an example, you made it sound like the only examples of racism people think of are examples of institutional racism. If that is the case, it is wrong to do that. I admit that I may very well be misinterpreting your intent with these examples you use, but that is the sort of tone I get from reading your posts bringing up those examples.

Of course the individual level isn't practical. Sometimes though, the method that is overall the most effective isn't the most practical or the most efficient. Whether or not it is the most effective or anything, well I suppose that depends on your opinion on how such a method would work out over time. Of course, I'm not the first person to ever make such an argument. Hell, feminists make a similar argument all the time when they say we should teach men not to rape.

With regards to your statements on Affirmative Action, I figure it would probably be best for me to give it its own couple of paragraphs. I'm not sure if I should try to instead include it with another paragraph later on down the post cuz I know that there are some things I'm going to say that will tie into each other with other parts later. First things first, the ends do not justify the means. Usually when people make the claim that the ends justify the means, it ends up that the ends don't justify the means. Naturally there are exceptions, but I do not feel that Affirmative Action is one of those exceptions. I do think that when it was first enforced, Affirmative Action was something that was good to have. In today's age though, I feel as though Affirmative Action has an equal chance to have negative consequences as it does positive consequences.

I don't know if you're using Affirmative Action with respect towards education or the workforce, but I figure my argument is going to have more of an education lean to it. The problem with Affirmative Action is that it does not cultivate ability. It is a quota, simple as that. When you have quotas, you stop looking for ability and instead look to fulfill that quota. Now with respect to education, education is not meant for everybody. Yes, it should be available to everybody, but not everybody is made for education. There are various reasons for this, such as the type of culture somebody grows up in or their own abilities. So consider the situation where two people, one white person and one black person for simplicity, are trying to get into a college with one open spot. In this situation, let's say that the black person is the one who gets admission because he/she is black, even though it is the white person who has higher grades and a greater aptitude for education for the black person. Situations such as this are why Affirmative Action bears the possibility of having negative consequences. It ignores individual merit and instead goes to fill quotas when it needs to.

I'm not saying it is outlandish that people are conditioned to make it so severe. My point was to explain why it is so severe Personally I feel it is better to question why it is that slur specifically that is treated as one of the worst things to say. And I mean that across the board. That one word is more severe to say than any other racial slur, whether these other slurs be towards whites, Asians, Latinos, or even blacks. Don't you find it odd that no other racial slur towards black people is treated with the same severity? Hell, until maybe 4-5 years ago I don't think I even realized there was more than one racial slur for any one group. Sounds odd, I know. But I remember this one conversation I had, and as I was walking with somebody I pointed out to an area and said something along the lines of "I saw some coons there the other night." Now when I said that I was referring to raccoons, but the person I was talking to was shocked and asked if I was referring to black people. So yeah, until that night I had absolutely no idea coon was a racial slur.

To add to that bit about multiple racial slurs, these past few weeks I've actually ended up learning a whole bunch of racial slurs towards white people due to the misfortune of watching videos from a person on YouTube who people call "Black Hitler." Not his actual name on YouTube, of course, but he acts a lot like Hitler. Like, if you wanted an example of a black person being racist, he would be my example (Aside from those mobs in Milwaukee chasing people down for being white).

Okay, looking back at your post, it looks like I mistook parts of your reply to Kitty as replies to somebody else. My mistake.

When given a general statement such as "Black people cannot be racist," the statement must hold true in every situation for it to be true. So you add a caveat to the statement to narrow down the qualifiers to make it true. But when I first disproved the statement "Black people cannot be racist," nobody ever explicitly said it was in America. In fact, it wasn't narrowed down to America in this thread until after I went to disprove the statement "Black people cannot be racist." It was, at most, implied.

While it is true that there are some things that are implicitly understood, your example does not fit. With claiming that saying water can freeze implies that it freezes under certain conditions, you're missing that the reason that it is implied is due to water freezing under certain conditions is due to the fact water (Or any liquid) freezing under whatever conditions is due to freezing being an innate characteristic of all liquids. Racism is not an innate characteristic of groups within any society so you cannot imply any one specific society with such a broad and general statement.

So let's go on to your revised statement of "Black people in America cannot be racist." It still does not hold true. Let's consider Zimbabwe. Down in Zimbabwe white people are discriminated against much more blatantly than black people are here in America. So based on how you describe racism, in Zimbabwe black people can be racist and white people cannot. If a racist black person from Zimbabwe comes to America, he/she suddenly stops being racist while in America? That notion is ridiculously illogical. A person cannot magically stop being a racist simply because they go to a different place in the world.

Regardless of whether or not you go with that argument, the ends still do not justify the means. That argument is based on emotion and not on fact. It ignores the details of the law. Blacks are, on average, sentenced with X% more years than whites. Is that because they're black? Or is it because the law is made in such a way that repeat offenders get harsher sentences for the same crime? I'll give you a hint; it isn't because they're black.

As a side note, I'm surprised that you're treating them differently. If my memory serves correctly, your view on right and wrong is very black and white (Not talking about race in this statement). You don't allow for shades of gray and argued that something wrong cannot be greater or less worse based on the situation. If you've changed or I'm remembering incorrectly, then that's one thing. It just seems kinda strange based on what I'm remembering.

Back to the actual argument. When you make the claim that black people and white people are treated differently in the eyes of the law, are you talking about law enforcement or the actual written laws? With respect to the actual written laws, laws actively discriminating against black people (Such as the examples you provided earlier) are not representative of society as a whole. With respect to law enforcement, you're chalking things up to racism without even given consideration to the actual causes for law enforcement interaction with black people.

Also, for fun, how does a white person's action have more severity on a societal level?

It is a step in the wrong direction because it is regressing to a racist idea. Equality is not a zero sum game.

 

In my opinion no they can not be racist because racism means you believe your race to be superior. Black people believe themselves inferior to whites. In the black community we have terms like "good hair" a person has good hair when it's straight or fine or soft while course kinky hair is seen as "bad"

The reason why black people can't be racist is because they don't hate solely on the basis of race.
They may hate whites but it's not simply because they are white that they hate them.
It's like asking the question, if a home intruder breaks into your home to kill you and you kill them are you a murderer? No you aren't, you simply responded to the actions of a murderer. You arnt a murderer if you kill him.

 

In other words, I may hate white people because of their complacency in a system of oppression. I may hate them because they still honor the slave owning founding fuckers I may hate them because they praise the raping thieving Christopher Columbus.
I may hate them because they celebrate the slaughter of the natives on thanks giving but I don't hate them simply because they are white. And that's the difference

 

Then why do you find black people who bleach or who want to be white or hate other blacks why do we have terms like good hair. Look man, I grew up in Detroit MI I'm black. I'm not bout to argue with you about facts. Of course I'm not talking about ALL black people.
But you don't find white people hating "pale whites" like some blacks hate dark skinned blacks. They don't walk around talking about good and bad hair either

The proof is in the pudding. Whites have dressed up and made fun of black features.
They have made fun of our big noses and lips etc. They called us aunt jimama

Blacks don't hate white people because of a pointy nose or thin lips or straight hair.
If we hate them its retaliatory

I live in the black community I know my people.
I'm from Detroit you don't know what you talking bout

It was whites who didn't want us at their schools. It was US trying to go to their school.

It's black people who grow up getting attached to white characters like sora, goku the list is endless, Jon Snow from Game of thrones

It's not whites who grow up getting attached to black characters on screen so it's not black people who are racist it's white people

Race didn't even exist until white people made it up

 

No I don't mean some. black people admire white features, how do I know? Because I live in the black community.
The first time I heard the term "prominent features" or "keen features" it was from my grandma talking about a white man so I had to look up what prominent and keen features were and this is what I saw.

Prominent =
important; famous.

"she was a prominent member of the city council"

synonyms:important, well known, leading,eminent, distinguished, notable,noteworthy, noted, illustrious,celebrated,

Keen =
sharp or penetrating, in particular.
highly developed.

"I have keen eyesight"


Like I said black people as a community praise European features calling their hair good.

We fought for integration in their schools, they fought to keep us out.
We play and watch white people on TV so we've gotten use to them. No black person hates white people just because they are white it doesn't work like that.

I thought you were black but I know you don't live in Detroit.

Detroit is majority black so I don't have to take a poIl because I have friends and family and if you know black people then you know we talk about race issues alot.

And that's your uninformed opinion and an uninformed opinion isn't worth anything