Have You Ever Experienced Anti-White Racism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Broadly, some definitions posit that racism is a prejudiced or discriminatory attitude against members of a certain racial group, while others stipulate that such attitudes need to be accompanied by race-based structural or institutional inequalities in order to qualify as racism.

I tend to lean toward the former definition for reasons whose details bear no relevance to this thread, but based on that definition, have you ever been a target of anti-white racism? If so, how often, and in what context or contexts?

I've gotten some side-eye before in Chinese businesses that mostly cater to Chinese clients, but that's about it.

 

[exchemist]

I see. I probably wouldn't have expected Singaporeans to be on that list, with how much of an international hub Singapore has become in the last few decades. I guess some forms of historical resentment may take a long time to fade even in the presence of globalism and pluralism, though.

Well the Chinese are quite racist, and have historical reasons to resent the British (Opium wars), so there are a few factors at play.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well the Chinese are quite racist, and have historical reasons to resent the British (Opium wars), so there are a few factors at play.

I've heard mixed things about China, which leads me to believe there may be a lot of variation in individual attitudes, if only because of how massive the population size is.

A close friend (from Europe) is currently doing postgraduate studies there, and her experience with Chinese people has been largely positive. She has told me that people have paused her on the street to take pictures with her, apparently because there aren't many foreigners in general where she is (although she has Arab parents and therefore looks Arab rather than European). That part did sound a bit... unconventional.

 

[rocala]

The first time that I experienced racism was when working in Israel in the late 70's, where I was a catering worker. A young woman there clearly took a dislike to me. I was told that she "did not like Brits".

At first, this was not a problem, I was not that bothered. She escalated her hostility to the point that she was hindering my work. This was very troubling for me, I am not the type to run from a fight, but everything in my upbringing was about man v man. This was alien territory.

One day I was pushing a trolley through a corridor when she decided to stand in the way. There was a collision and she stood aside. The next day she stood in my way while I was serving coffee. Another accident, hot water scalded her hand, and she left me alone after that.

That was nearly fifty years ago, but I have never forgotten the feeling of receiving hatred from somebody who does not know you, simply based on who or what you are.

I was raised not to discriminate, but that experience placed the idea deeply into my nature, and that has never changed.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'll touch on a summarized and brief example of why I don't subscribe to that view, but I won't go further because that would be outside the scope of the OP.

Consider a hypothetical where a member of a racial majority were violently assaulted by a few members of a racial minority who shouted racial slurs during the assault. They were then arrested. Because the legal system was not systemically biased against the racial majority, their crime was not considered racist by the media.

I find the definition lacking and too disconnected from the experiences of laypeople—as opposed to the work of academics—who would probably pause and raise an eyebrow while asking why the racial abuse they experienced didn't qualify as racism. If definitions of such crucial terms become mired in technicalities and qualifiers to the point where they become counterintuitive and in need of academic reading to understand, I doubt that will help the discourse around the subject, at least not as much as it will obscure and isolate it from many people.

The definition of racism is an interesting one.

I used to just consider racism discrimination against someone based on race. But then I realised that that basic definition of racism blinds us to the nuanced historical and current systemically racist issues, which is the biggest problem.

When I look at how the colonial idea of white and black came about in the first place, it had to do with gaining resources by disenfranchising those who were considered not white. Through religious, cultural and political propoganda, non whited were classed as inferior, justifying their disenfranchisement. And this systemic racism is implememted in a complex manner that allows for plausible deniability, such as what happened in the states with redlining.

Today people see racism as basic obvious surface extremes, such as through verbal bullying, violence and blatant racism laws. To focus on this is an oversimplification, even though these are clearly a wrong thing to do. It divorces the philosophy of racism from its original intent and enforcement. Now people consider even addressing racism of the past done to a community as racism, because it has to show favouritism to a previously disenfranchised racial group in order to solve the problem, and people think that laws favouring a race at all to be racism.

To oversimplify racism in such a way is problematic. People equate verbal abuse and favourable laws towards racial groups with actual historical racial suffering of people in the past, such as enslavement and rape, lawful mutilation, destruction of homes, being treated as savages, living in poverty while so called "white" people have stolen your land and live in relative luxury, etc.

I think the lay people view vs academic view is the result of people simply not being educated or not even being interested in a topic because it doesnt affect them. I think the correct view depends on examining whoch view is more harmful vs which view is less harmful.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The definition of racism is an interesting one.

I used to just consider racism discrimination against someone based on race. But then I realised that that basic definition of racism blinds us to the nuanced historical and current systemically racist issues, which is the biggest problem.

When I look at how the colonial idea of white and black came about in the first place, it had to do with gaining resources by disenfranchising those who were considered not white. Through religious, cultural and political propoganda, non whited were classed as inferior, justifying their disenfranchisement. And this systemic racism is implememted in a complex manner that allows for plausible deniability, such as what happened in the states with redlining.

Today people see racism as basic obvious surface extremes, such as through verbal bullying, violence and blatant racism laws. To focus on this is an oversimplification, even though these are clearly a wrong thing to do. It divorces the philosophy of racism from its original intent and enforcement. Now people consider even addressing racism of the past done to a community as racism, because it has to show favouritism to a previously disenfranchised racial group in order to solve the problem, and people think that laws favouring a race at all to be racism.

To oversimplify racism in such a way is problematic. People equate verbal abuse and favourable laws towards racial groups with actual historical racial suffering of people in the past, such as enslavement and rape, lawful mutilation, destruction of homes, being treated as savages, living in poverty while so called "white" people have stolen your land and live in relative luxury, etc.

I think the lay people view vs academic view is the result of people simply not being educated or not even being interested in a topic because it doesnt affect them. I think the correct view depends on examining whoch view is more harmful vs which view is less harmful.

Isn't it still be possible to acknowledge varying degrees of severity of racism even if one doesn't believe that racism must be systemic or institutional? In that context, verbal abuse is racism, and systemic discrimination is also racism but obviously a far more severe form thereof.

We can say that a stubbed toe and a broken leg are both injuries, but of course one is much more complicated and difficult than the other. I don't think we would need to limit the definition of "injury" to the latter in order to acknowledge this difference in severity.

 

[Erebus]

Not personally, though I know that my parents and grandparents did.

I grew up in Oldham which was fairly notorious for its interracial conflicts. The 2001 riots were perhaps the most extreme example of that tension finally boiling over. During that time my parents had slurs shouted at them, they were spat at and my grandad had acid poured on his car.

 

[Father Heathen]

I do believe it is correct that there needs to be structural power to lead to social inequities for it to constitute racism.

Anyone of any race can be prejudiced or bigoted toward another race. Playing a semantics game doesn't change that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Isn't it still be possible to acknowledge varying degrees of severity of racism even if one doesn't believe that racism must be systemic or institutional? In that context, verbal abuse is racism, and systemic discrimination is also racism but obviously a far more severe form thereof.

We can say that a stubbed toe and a broken leg are both injuries, but of course one is much more complicated and difficult than the other. I don't think we would need to limit the definition of "injury" to the latter in order to acknowledge this difference in severity.

The problem that is happening today though is that people are considering the stubbed toe as severe as the broken leg, even though they haven't experienced a broken leg before and they are often grossly ignorant of what a broken leg even looks like.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The problem that is happening today though is that people are considering the stubbed toe as severe as the broken leg, even though they haven't experienced a broken leg before and they are often grossly ignorant of what a broken leg even looks like.

I agree it is problematic when someone minimizes severe forms of racism by equating them with less severe ones, although I don't think limiting the definition of racism to the more severe and systemic forms is the solution to this.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Broadly, some definitions posit that racism is a prejudiced or discriminatory attitude against members of a certain racial group, while others stipulate that such attitudes need to be accompanied by race-based structural or institutional inequalities in order to qualify as racism.

I tend to lean toward the former definition for reasons whose details bear no relevance to this thread, but based on that definition, have you ever been a target of anti-white racism? If so, how often, and in what context or contexts?

It's a good converse argument, but yeah there's definitely been white racism employed called affirmative action.

Don't get me wrong, I think affirmative action was made with the best intentions , but it has definitely produced mixed results when applied in real life to those who have better skills and abilities we're race either way shouldn't have never been a factor in the first place.

Race should never be used as a criteria for anything. Just equal opportunity for all , and let the better ones who study hard and work at it take the cake and others can just try again.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A friend of mine had a brother who hated white people and would often say nasty things about white folks. Not sure why... His family was definitely not that way, and he himself was half white

That said, one day he got arrested and went to jail. He started running his mouth about white people and promptly had the snot kicked out of him by his cell mates. That changed him. After he got out of jail, the look in his eyes changed. He went crazy. He dove out of his dad's apartment window 3 stories up because the government put listening devices in the apartment. He then starting walking to my parents house (he knew about how to get there from when we were kids) which was miles away from where he lived then

Since then he went to a mental health facility. I hope he's doing ok

Other than that, not that I can recall. I've definitely been treated differently due to being white, but nothing really negative. Folks have always been respectful towards me, even when I'm the only white guy there

I've actually seen people like that too on both sides of the race aisle and yeah it can get really really crazy.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree it is problematic when someone minimizes severe forms of racism by equating them with less severe ones, although I don't think limiting the definition of racism to the more severe and systemic forms is the solution to this.

I think that education is the solution to this, but with the way propaganda is working these days I doubt this will happen.

I find that what is happening today is that many people are minimizing racism to the less severe and obvious ones, and then saying that systemic forms are a figment of peoples imaginations and leftists. And those who are shown explaining racism are not the most sane individuals either.

Another thing to point out is that to me an important element of racism is the idea of superiority over another race. Which makes the difference in racism to me to be that white supremacists do acts against non whites out of a feeling of superiority. A lot of what people call racism by non whites is not them doing acts out of a place of superiority but out of a place of hurt. Would you consider both racist acts?

 

[Samael_Khan]

It's a good converse argument, but yeah there's definitely been white racism employed called affirmative action.

Don't get me wrong, I think affirmative action was made with the best intentions , but it has definitely produced mixed results when applied in real life to those who have better skills and abilities we're race either way shouldn't have never been a factor in the first place.

Race should never be used as a criteria for anything. Just equal opportunity for all , and let the better ones who study hard and work at it take the cake and others can just try again.

How does one fix racist issues of the past without addressing the racism itself?

 

[Twilight Hue]

How does one fix racist issues of the past without addressing the racism itself?

Well in my opinion, it wouldn't be through racism based solely on ethnic standards through means of racial quotas and the like, I'm certainly an advocate of equal opportunity in terms of accessable education and training to level the playing field based on a person's own abilities, strengths, and intelligence that makes the grade when finding the right candidate rather than ones race and skin color.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well in my opinion, it wouldn't be through racism based solely on ethnic standards through means of racial quotas and the like, I'm certainly an advocate of equal opportunity in terms of accessable education and training to level the playing field based on a person's own abilities, strengths, and intelligence that makes the grade when finding the right candidate rather than ones race and skin color.

I wouldnt consider affirmative action racism if it is trying to uplift an ethnic group that affirmative action and other discriminatory practices and laws was used against in the first place. That is more like levelling the playing field. I do consider it inneffective though.

I agree with you that equal opportunity to education is the way to go. But this includes raising schools in minority communities to a high standard, feeding children who are underprivileged and improving community conditions.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that education is the solution to this, but with the way propaganda is working these days I doubt this will happen.

I find that what is happening today is that many people are minimizing racism to the less severe and obvious ones, and then saying that systemic forms are a figment of peoples imaginations and leftists. And those who are shown explaining racism are not the most sane individuals either.

I agree that these are real problems that need to be addressed. I also think complacency can be insidious in perpetuating or compounding the minimization of racism: if someone claims that a society is no longer racist and dismisses instances of institutional racism on the grounds that they supposedly don't happen anymore, they are effectively shutting down necessary conversations about the existence of those instances and, in many situations, casting doubt on the integrity of the people who are targeted by the racism.

Another thing to point out is that to me an important element of racism is the idea of superiority over another race. Which makes the difference in racism to me to be that white supremacists do acts against non whites out of a feeling of superiority. A lot of what people call racism by non whites is not them doing acts out of a place of superiority but out of a place of hurt. Would you consider both racist acts?

I don't think racism—which I view as discrimination or prejudice based on race—is limited to acts stemming from a feeling of racial superiority, so yes, I think both are racist acts but with substantially different motives and contexts.

There's widespread fetishization of Asians in some online communities, and it is often accompanied by glorification of real or perceived aspects of "Asian culture," a term I'm enclosing in quotes because I realize that Asia is a vastly diverse continent without a single, uniform culture. I consider such fetishization racist even if it is often not accompanied by feelings of superiority.

I also think it's important to denounce racist acts even when they are out of hurt—but of course also understand the background behind them—because, for example, the same logic was used by many people to justify anti-Arab hatred in the wake of 9/11, and you can find many examples of apologetics for anti-Black racism because of statements like, "Black communities have higher crime rates." If someone has been hurt by a member of a certain ethnicity, I think that is terrible and needs to be rejected by any respectable individual, but I also don't think it is fair to refuse to label a racially prejudiced act "racist" just because it was done out of hurt. The act itself doesn't change even if the motive and background do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Broadly, some definitions posit that racism is a prejudiced or discriminatory attitude against members of a certain racial group, while others stipulate that such attitudes need to be accompanied by race-based structural or institutional inequalities in order to qualify as racism.

Yes, but too little to mention except in this context. It's happened a handful of times since moving to Mexico. I look like a typical American, and we are easy to identify on sight.

The cost was next to nothing. I'm pretty sure that a bus driver deliberately took us past our stop. Also, twice, food vendors have refused to acknowledge our presence in lines, not even making eye contact, much less take our orders. They just want us to leave, and we do. Does that count? Like I said, that's too little to justify a yes answer beyond this kind of answer. And I'm not sure that it was my skin color they objected to, but rather, having been born into more opportunity.

 

[Stevicus]

The definition of racism is an interesting one.

I used to just consider racism discrimination against someone based on race. But then I realised that that basic definition of racism blinds us to the nuanced historical and current systemically racist issues, which is the biggest problem.

When I look at how the colonial idea of white and black came about in the first place, it had to do with gaining resources by disenfranchising those who were considered not white. Through religious, cultural and political propoganda, non whited were classed as inferior, justifying their disenfranchisement. And this systemic racism is implememted in a complex manner that allows for plausible deniability, such as what happened in the states with redlining.

Today people see racism as basic obvious surface extremes, such as through verbal bullying, violence and blatant racism laws. To focus on this is an oversimplification, even though these are clearly a wrong thing to do. It divorces the philosophy of racism from its original intent and enforcement. Now people consider even addressing racism of the past done to a community as racism, because it has to show favouritism to a previously disenfranchised racial group in order to solve the problem, and people think that laws favouring a race at all to be racism.

To oversimplify racism in such a way is problematic. People equate verbal abuse and favourable laws towards racial groups with actual historical racial suffering of people in the past, such as enslavement and rape, lawful mutilation, destruction of homes, being treated as savages, living in poverty while so called "white" people have stolen your land and live in relative luxury, etc.

I think the lay people view vs academic view is the result of people simply not being educated or not even being interested in a topic because it doesnt affect them. I think the correct view depends on examining whoch view is more harmful vs which view is less harmful.

This is a good summary, and there's several points here worth exploring.

First, the colonialist roots of racism as it came to be practiced. At first, money was the primary motivation for the early explorations and expeditions which would lead to more colonization, particularly the Americas, where the Spanish and Portuguese got a head start, then the French jumped in to claim a share, then the British, who were somewhat late to the game. I would think they were partial towards their own nation and nationality, although the grouping and categorization of different races was probably not foremost on their minds at the beginning. The ruling monied interests would likely be interested in profit and gain from the acquisition of land and resources, and the lower classes (many of which were landless peasants) would have been attracted to the idea of open land in America. In essence, it offered a safety valve towards political stability in the homelands, as anyone who might be dissatisfied with their lot in life could then go out to a colonial territory and seek their fortune there.

Some might point to Bacon's Rebellion as a key event which solidified the idea of race-based, generational slavery. A century later when the American Revolution took place, the idea was firmly entrenched in the culture and political system - and was also integral to the economies of the Southern states. Not so much in the North, as they quickly abolished slavery after America became independent. However, that didn't make them any less racist, as they were still strong supporters of Westward expansion which involved violent relocations and atrocities motivated by racism and greed. Another aspect of Bacon's Rebellion was that poor white farmers were fighting alongside the poor black farmers, as they both were fighting the same enemy. This seemed to frighten the upper class whites who would later implement the policies mentioned. Not only was racism created to keep other races down, but it also had the effect of elevating the lowliest white peasants to a relatively higher position (even if they were still dirt poor and looked down upon by the upper classes).

The end result was that, in the perceptions of most people, there was a roughly-defined categorization of people based mainly on race. We had a certain group of people called "white," another group called "black," another called "Native American," then "Hispanics" and "Asians" (although the terminology has also evolved over the centuries). But the bottom line is that it firmly establishes a perception of a society of people grouped together into all these different groupings - like a nice tight little package - simplified and sanitized to make it easier for the public to understand.

As this has been going on for many generations, it seems that society can't really break free of this tendency to group people into their own categories. Even after the Civil Rights Movement and a period of far-reaching reforms and a genuine push towards justice and equal rights for all, people are still categorized in this way.

If people are intentionally put into groups like that, then they can often develop a group mentality and a group identity. Even people who don't want to be part of the group they've been assigned to are still identified and categorized that way just the same.

 

[Augustus]

Broadly, some definitions posit that racism is a prejudiced or discriminatory attitude against members of a certain racial group, while others stipulate that such attitudes need to be accompanied by race-based structural or institutional inequalities in order to qualify as racism.

I tend to lean toward the former definition for reasons whose details bear no relevance to this thread, but based on that definition, have you ever been a target of anti-white racism? If so, how often, and in what context or contexts?

Quite a bit when I lived in SE Asia, despite the fact that most people were lovely.

What some people would call racism I used to get basically every day.

Most would fall into the category of “micro aggressions” (a silly concept primarily for people who like to seek offence) based on anything from mild prejudice to “cultural insensitivity” to well intentioned curiosity.

This could be a bit tiresome, but no more than countless other things we need to deal with daily. I wouldn’t personally consider this racism though.

People would frequently try to overcharge me, or speak about me assuming I couldn’t understand them.

A few times a month I would get abusive comments shouted at me in the street.

Extorted by the police a few times.

Occasionally I’d feel threatened, was in the odd fight and a few situations I was seriously worried for my safety.

It’s also true that I would sometimes get preferential treatment too though.