Actually, that is what they teach at university nowadays in race and gender studies departments, sociology, and other mushy social-sciences. My friends who went to places like Harvard all believe it.
It's not a "belief". It's just predicated on an alternate definition of the term.
(Unfortunately, many people on learning an exciting new definition of a word forget it has a more general meaning; confusion and stupid internet arguments ensue.)
Care to elaborate? I think that's a misrepresentation of critical gender and race studies, because I happen to be in one of those very programs. I won't deny that it's a "mushy social science", but I think you're radically simplifying the field.
I don't understand what's wrong with this. This is quite literally the definition of racism in a sociological context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological. You're going to need to disprove a lot of social science before you tackle this definition.
That's all a bit silly. We have a common understanding or definition of what racism is and it connotes something immoral. _Some_ sociologists define racism as something else which also connotes something immoral. The common thread is that both definitions connote immorality, and so if something falls under either definition, it's still bad and so the whole arguing over which definition to use is moot.
For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral?
People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question.
So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people.
(I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)
No, you're missing that racism is a systematic oppression of a certain group or people. HN isn't the best place for speaking about social issues, so I won't write you an essay about what's wrong about what you're saying. I'll just say I believe you and others are conflating the terms prejudice and racism. I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "common-usage-racis[m]." Indeed, black people can be prejudiced against white people, and that prejudice can be because of race. Racism, however, needs a little bit more than that. Particularly, institutionalization.
You're lacking an understanding of linguistics and philosophy. Both usages are no more correct than the other, and the point of such usages is to ascribe a connotation to a cluster of things along a continuum. Arguing over definitions is pointless (I can create my own definition of racism and it will be equally valid), the point is what they connote.
We'll never agree because I'm arguing about what racism is (a semantic argument) and you're arguing about how racism is defined (a pedantic argument). Perhaps my original post was a red herring. I was merely justifying that what she said lines up with a known definition, not that it is the ONLY correct definition.
Also, your definition of what racism connotes is severely lacking as well. Simplifying racism to "something that connotes immorality" is a gross oversimplification.
You have it backwards. I don't care how racism is defined. I care about whatever the word "racism" points to in the real world. But you have to realize that a word can point to anything you want it to point to.
And not only that, but words have denotations and connotations. "Ugly", in common usage, denotes and points to a set of subjective physical characteristics. "Ugly" also connotes and points to a negative affect that isn't explicit in its denotation.
I'm not simply saying that racism is "something that connotes immorality", but that is what we're connotating when we use that word in its various denotations (although, it's not necessarily the case). Racism's denotation can be literally anything. I can say, for example, that it's racist to call Canadians effusive pushovers even though "Canadian" is a nationality rather than a race.
And people do exactly that. In the U.K., for example, it's common for people to call people that insult the French "racist."
Language is fluid.
So, I think you can see why people are affronted when someone says "black people cannot be racist" without putting it within a certain context. The implication is that it's not immoral for black people to act denotatively common-usage-racist.
"Blacks cannot be racist against whites" does not logically follow from "racism can only come from the oppressor who has the power".
The group in power can be black, as, for example, more or less is the case in the current South Africa, and may be the case in some subcultures (rappers? Basketball players? Some prisons?)
I don't know what this means. But please elaborate what's wrong with that statement. Please understand that a word's definition is not necessarily it's meaning.
He's talking about Invader Zim; Zim is racist to the other kids because he is literally from an alien race, even though they have the power (he is a very ineffective invader).
