Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reverse racism"

Revision as of 19:36, October 20, 2008

Could the intro to this article be a little clearer? I know I'm dense sometimes, but I don't quite follow it (though the examples help). The most common uses of the term "reverse racism" are a black person being racist against white people (which is really just racism and in no way "reversed") or a preference for someone of another race (which again, would just be racism). This article obviously uses it differently. As best as I can tell, it uses the term to mean people casting unfounded and unjustified accusations of racism. Is that right? LiamG 14:25, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

The history on this page is that it was once deleted by CP, for reasons unknown to me. Google has 375,000 links to Reverse racism. To Reverse racist, over 3 million. So I believe it has its place. Second, can you tell that charges of racism are being levied where no racism exists? That is what this page is. I welcome all to edit, to make it the best on the Internet. --Jpatt 14:36, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Wait, I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm not saying it doesn't have it's place. It seems like a good topic to cover. I'm only saying that I'm not quite sure of what the term means as it's used here. I was just hoping someone could explain it to me, and maybe clarify it in the intro. I can't clear it up myself, since I don't know that I'd get it right because I don't quite understand it myself. LiamG 14:51, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

racism accusations where no racism exists.--Jpatt 14:56, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks! I altered the intro to say that. I hope that's ok! LiamG 15:08, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

"Reverse Racism is an accusation of racism where no racism exists" I have never heard this as the definition of "reverse racism". RR is usually racism "the other way", that is, minority races being racist towards majority races. The definition given in the article would describe "false racism" or some such term that probably doesn't exist. HelpJazz 22:03, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

If a white man says something demeaning about a black man, that is racist. If a black man says something demeaning about a white man, that is racist too. Regardless of majority/minority status, these are both incidents of racism, not reverse racism. RR is not the opposite of racism, although it is often used as such. WP stated conclusions, the majority group racism being replaced by minority group racism. Let's determine its actual definition via Affirmative Action example. Minority disadvantage propped-up by the Majority. In essence, the member of the more qualified Majority losses out. Where does the guilt lie? Group Majority is against Majority member, by law. Is reverse racism- the intended target against a race, protected, target of race is then deflected to non-protected group or race, and told sorry? Is reverse racism just 'new racism'? It is deep and more understanding needed. In the guis of doing good, laws are inacted to protect the less fortunate from discrimination. These same laws that fight discrimination, actually discriminate against others.--Jpatt 00:01, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

"In the guise of doing good, laws are enacted to protect the less fortunate from discrimination (Affirmative Action). These same laws that fight discrimination, actually discriminate against others." The are two separate instances of racism. One, I mentioned the white person doesn't make the cut because the white group has to hire somebody less than qualified. The white person may cry reverse racism. The second instance, a white person decries Affirmative Action, claiming racism, it must be dismantled. The less qualified person says no-way, that is racist not to admit disadvantaged groups. One of these or both of these are instances of reverse racism. --Jpatt 14:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I think I understood your concept of "reverse racism" until you said that. Why does either have to be an example of reverse racism? In the first instance, you highlight the problem of affirmative action and then say that the person will claim it is "reverse racism." This is the definition that HelpJazz referred to, the definition that is incorrect. This is not the definition in this article. The second instance seems to adhere closer to your definition, but it doesn't seem to exactly fit, since it seems more like a disagreement over affirmative action rather than a false accusation of racism. Also, I don't exactly know what the purpose of the comment was. Was it meant to explain the article's definition of reverse racism? I think the point of HelpJazz's comment was that this article doesn't explain the common (incorrect) use of the term. Sorry for any misunderstanding. LiamG 14:57, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I am also trying to get at the real definition because many exist. I trying to accommodate HelpJazz in making an accurate definition. Don't worry about being misunderstood, I am not able to logically convey a complex thought without sounding wacked. I was just trying to dissect WP's explanation for RR. I want to say the group label majority versus minority, is not reverse racism. But what is it then? Hunters aren't considered anti-semitic, but it is used purposely to brand them as such. That is as close to reverse racism I can come up with. --Jpatt 15:07, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying that RR (as I've seen it defined) is a "correct" parsing of the two words, nor am I saying that it's not racism. What I'm saying is that the definition given is not the definition of the word in popular usage. I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to mean offense, but from the WP sentence on, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. HelpJazz 23:56, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

I alluded to the definition you mentioned in one of the above posts, but even that use is incorrect. Racism is a prejudice based on race, any race, minority or not. I agree, however, that use currently used in the article is new to me. LiamG 22:46, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

The usage might not be literal, but it's a correct definition. HelpJazz 22:51, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

Might this problem be avoided if we retitled the article "Liberal racism?" Ungtss 13:25, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

NO. HelpJazz 14:26, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Well the article uses the phrase "reverse racism" in a way I've never heard it used. Do we have a cite where somebody used it as "groundless accusations of racism" rather than "racism by or for the benefit of those who have historically suffered from racism?" 'Cause that's what reverse racism means to me and everyone I know. Ungtss 15:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Ok I did post some links, but the spam filter blocked it so I lost my post. Ungtss, you are correct. Every cite I can find says that either reverse racism is "racism by or for the benefit of those who have historically suffered from racism" OR that that is the common definition, which isn't technically "reversed". Can't we just say that in the article? HelpJazz 15:29, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

I am all for its correct meaning, a change is welcomed. Did Hastings historically suffer, or was a descendant of a suffered group, that can now claim hunters as anti-Semitic? Racism charges from somebody that has been protected from racism? I am still in the dark here. --Jpatt 15:36, 20 October 2008 (EDT)