There is racism, and then there is not racism. There are varying degrees of prejudice, from assumptions to flat-out hatred. But, for the love of God, there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Treating individuals poorly or differently on account of the happenstance of their race is racism.
That is all.
2 comments:
I like this...however, I wonder if you would share your thoughts about why people hang on to the term 'reverse racism,' or why it came about in the first place. I imagine that the initial engendering of the term involved the assumption that Whites would be the group typically engaging in racism, so any racism shown by people who were non-White must be a reaction to the racism they had themselves experienced. I think that there is some merit to the idea that some people develop racist ideas as a reaction to personally experiencing discrimination - perhaps "reactive racism" is something we should think about and explore.
I don't know about "must." I get the idea behind the term "reverse racism," but to qualify it as such belies the gravity of the implication.
If an act is indeed racist, then call it such. Labeling it as "reverse racism" somewhat softens the accusation, leading to the thought process you're getting at--that an injustice was perpetrated therefore this reaction can be expected and, perhaps even excused on some level. I don't buy it.
There is justice, and there is injustice. An injustice brought about by another injustice, whether personally or collectively, remains an injustice and therefore inherently wrong.
Post a Comment