"Reverse" Racism

Do you actually have to go into nitty gritty details, cjhsa? Isn't there a way you can just give a small example of what you are talking about?

I think this might be a rather interesting thing to discuss.

It might be, perhaps on another forum.

hmmm, i guess you can ask the mods to remove it.

I asked them once to delete a duplicate thread I had made. I thought I still had their answer saved but I don't. It all came down to they don't delete threads for a lot of reasons. But, you never know, cjhsa, you can always ask.

Well, since no one else has the balls to bring it up, I will.

I think that even though not a race issue, reverse bigotry resides here in the form of the religious bashing that goes on. My religion is better than your religion. You suck. Your beliefs suck. Dumb ass. Idiot.

I think it trickles over into a lot of different groups. If you are an American, you must be a dull witted but arrogant idiot for one.

It seems ok to be a jerk if the group is big enough. And this applies to "real life" as well. The fact that someone on this thread automatically attributed it to whites being the whistle blower on reverse discrimination, it just goes to show you a perfect case of it.

There. I said it. Crucify me.

well, then maybe they won't delete it
....in aaaaany case, there's lots to talk about on reverse racism, in america or elsewhere. we could just pick a topic and run with it.

i, for example, have a dilemma: from the point of view of collective rights, reverse racism makes no sense. if there is a policy that favors members of socially disadvantaged minorities (be it employment, education, what have you), that's all just and well, because it only eliminates or actually only lessens the step of a difference between two or more groups.
but, from a point of view of individual rights, that won't hold. if someone fully qualified, who have done no harm to anyone in the past, doesn't get a job because of someone less qualified belonging to a certain group whose members are favored, we have a problem...

i believe firmly in both individual and collective rights, and it's difficult to fulfill both in case of AA. i prefer 'preventive' or 'positive' AA - concept by Glenn Loury - when there should be courses and trainings for minorities (or anyone who's interested for that matter) preparing them for entrance to employment or education. naturally, cost and access is a problem...

we don't have AA in Slovakia - but there's much talk about it. I only know the policies in America from textbooks. Anyone out there with a strong opinion one way or another, experience, or just random musings?

Bella Dea,

Woman, my respect for you seems to grow with each post of yours. Your honesty is so refreshing. I appreciate you clearing this up. You go girl!

Yes, and the white man is the most oppressed of all. Let me stand with you in proclaiming these profound, yet unspoken truths. Shee...

I think what cjha is talking about is people that aern't white are able to walk right on the line with out crossing it when talking about white people lets say in the form of crude jokes. If somebody feels there race is getting insulted when talking about what they feel is very important thats not good and they my choose to externalize it in some other way.

AA is a double edged sword. It needs to be in place so that racism doesn't occur but can end up being racist against a non-minority.

It needs to be in place to protect those who are often discriminated against but in turn discriminates another group.

I have mixed feelings about AA. I don't know that there is a better way except for people to get their heads out of their asses and hire people based on their qualifications and/or not judge them on their ethinic background. But can that truly happen? Can life be a more level playing field?

No one said that.

For whatever the effect of affirmative action, its intent is not to prevent racism. Its intent is to "level the playing field," since those who are discriminated against for generations lack the sociel entres and the cultural immersion which favors the dominant group in employment and public office. The theory runs that if a sufficient number of the members of a formerly oppressed group get a foot in the door with employment and the holding of positions of public responsibility, they will create a middle class which will perpetuate for them the advantages which the majority group alread enjoys.

That was a simplistic analysis of what AA intends, BD.

bella, why is that reverse bigotry? that's just bigotry, plain and simple. unless we presume that one group was discriminated against before and now the other is discriminating against the former oppressors...which somehow don't seem to be the case in the discussions between christians and atheists and others... unless you mean the atheists bashing christians as reverse bigotry...but even that is problematic, at least in the u.s., where church and state are supposedly to be separated for a long time.
i don't feel the thing about american bashing though. i think people from the 'outside' well distinguish who is a jerk and who is an arrogant idiot and american-ness has nothing to do with it. after all, most of the folks here are american...who would we talk to if we'd think they're all idiots? well, that's how i feel it anyway.

I don't think anyone should be discriminated against for any differences they may have from someone else.

I think God sees us all one color and as one thing, human beings. It's important we treat everyone with respect and dignity.

I know it's not something anyone IMO does 100% because we have differing views, etc. But, to treat anyone as less than because of color, race, creed, religion, beliefs, etc., is just flat out wrong IMO.

right, set. that's the collective rights approach. level the playing field. which i, by the way, subscribe to with my heart.
it is just with my mind that i have a problem justifying it also on the level of individual rights.

i hear ya. BUT, if you grow up in a ghetto, you will just not have access to get those qualifications. that ain't no leveled playing field either.

I guess you are right.

But most of the time, these large groups can't call "racism" or "bigotry" even if it's there because people just make comments like snood did and roll their eyes. They are told to "suck it up" or to quit being a baby. Things that if were said to a minority group would be called bigotry or racism. That is the reverse racism/bigotry I am referring to. Does that make sense?

It took me a while to figure out AA means affirmative action here and not Alcoholics Anonymous. Though I did wonder how the thread could've segued to that topic so smoothly!

Having said that, when I hear white people (and, by the way, my avatar notwithstanding, I am one) gripe about racism in this country, reverse or otherwise, I roll my eyes.

Let's face it, fellow white folks, we have every advantage, beginning with schooling. As dagmaraka notes. Before we sniff about everyone else lifting themselves up by their boot straps, let's remember that, shall we?

dunno, bella. i believe he was just sarcastic.

this happened to be on the issue of race, but i would not call it racism. highlighting that white people were not the ones that were oppressed much of the time in human history does not seem racist to me....

That isn't what I am talking about.

Take this conversation as your example. I say anything relating to any sort of discrimination against whites and everyone seems to think that I am being a baby about it.

You have always had it good.
What do you have to complain about?
You had better schooling so you have had a better start in life.

So what? If you make a bigoted remark about me, white or black or green, you are still making a bigoted remark. THAT is my point. The point that people seem to turn their heads when a group (whites as an example, but not the only example) that has not always been oppressed is discriminated against.

That is what I call reverse discrimination/racism/bigotry. When a large group is discriminated against and it is ok for some reason or another.