18896, hmmm... Posted by thebigfunk, Wed Jan-31-01 05:43 PM
Hmmm. I have to say I disagree (which is more than okay) :)
>but most people >on this site will agree >that in order to be >racist, one must be a >part of an oppressor group >and one must direct one's >attitudes toward an oppressed group. > In other words, racism >against "whites" doesn't exist because >"whites" have never been an >oppressed class in and of >themselves.
So then what you've done is you've constructed a shelter of sorts... excusing any and all attitudes against whites. I don't believe racism has anything to do with who's actually in power... okay, I take that back, because obviously that's not true. A lot of today's racism is weaved into government actions that prefer whites and oppress blacks. That's clear.
Let's take a really simple sentence. Suppose a black person said: "Black people are better than white people."
I'd say that's a racist statement. Now if he said "I like black people more than white" that's a different story.... he's talking about a preference. But to me there's a clear sign of superiority in the above statement... regardless of what class he's in, the person who uttered that statement would essentially be a racist. Obviously, these statements get more and more complex, rarely so blunt.
I'd love to hear your defense for your definition of racism...
-thebigfunk
|