Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Dissections of Power: Can Blacks Be Racist To Whites?

First things first. I've added Alas, a Blog to my blogroll, both because their posts are superb and because their comments are intellectually invigorating. I'm glad I've stumbled across them, and hope that we have many more intelligent conversations.

The comments this post have veered into an interesting discussion of whether it is possible for blacks to be racist against whites. Everyone agrees they can be prejudiced, but the argument is that racism is a power relation--it is not just the thought but the effect of subordinating someone due to their race. Furthermore, racism cannot be separated from racist histories--that is, racism draws upon past inequalities to justify and reify present ones. Since blacks are not and were not in a position of power in America's racial scheme, they cannot cause racially disparate effects and thus cannot be racist.

If you prefer, here's the more technical form of the argument. Joe Feagin and Hernan Vera write:
"Racism is more than a matter of individual prejudice and scattered episodes of discrimination. There is no black (or other minority) racism because there is no centuries-old system of racial subordination and discrimination designed by African Americans to exclude white Americans from full participation in the rights, privileges, and benefits of this society. Minority racism would require not only a widely accepted racist ideology directed at whites, but also the power to systematically exclude whites from opportunities and rewards in major economic, cultural, and political institutions."

Marilyn Friedman continues:
[L]et us consider what an incident of racism might be like when isolated conceptually from a social pattern of racism. In such a case, a perpetrator would express or enact hatred or scorn toward a targeted person in virtue of her race, but there would be no history, or prevalent pattern of racism that pertained to the target person's racial identity. There would be no commonly known stereotypes of members of the target's racial group. There would be no commonly known slang words available for insulting such persons. In addition, if the targeted person were not relatively socially disadvantaged, it would be difficult to shame her on economic grounds let alone associate that shame with her racial group. There would simply be no racebased context of hatred or scorn for making sense of such an act. A conceptually isolated act of racism becomes little more than an act of mere hatred or scorn that happens to be prompted by the race of the target person quite independently of the culture in which it occurs or the history of that culture.

I might start my disagreement by noting that I think this definition of racism is wrong. We might quarrel over whether racism with significant effects is more morally culpable than racism without it (I'd agree it is), but I don't think that the latter is not racism. Furthermore, it neglects forms of voluntary power construction. While I might have the option of maintaining myself at the top of America's racial hierarchy, I don't. Because of my beliefs, I voluntarily make part of my sense of wellbeing contingent on what the disadvantaged think of me--I want them to know me as someone who cares for their plight and is working to remedy it. In other words, I give them power over my self-esteem--their comments matter to me. So if a minority tells me, "you're just a racist cracker like all the rest," that draws on the power I've ceded to them in order to harm my self-image--on account of my race. That I "chose" to construct my sense of well-being in this manner in no way obviates the power the relationship has over me. I think we've all said to someone who we care about who utters a hurtful word to us, "well, I don't care what you think!"--and we all know what a lie it is. Power does not just lie in coercion, often, it is part and parcel of our own decision about what we deem important.

But even if we make coercive power the litmus test for racism, I still think it is possible for Blacks to be racist against Whites. Power operates on many levels. In ABA's comments, for example, one person noted that Jesse Jackson probably has power over his white Janitor. It was responded that an individualist view on racism obscures the way structures are racist--Jackson may be more powerful than the Janitor, but when they drive home from work, it'll be the reverend who gets pulled over on a DWB.

We blind ourselves when we ignore any level of power--individual, structural, or what I term "mid-range." As has been noted, individual racist acts can occur by any race--I do believe that a black owner of a grocery store who continually berates his white employee with racial taunts, refuses to promote him, and blames him for all the store's misfortunes, has the requisite power level and thus is engaging in racism. By contrast, on a structural level, whites rule and thus overarching structures are racist towards minorities.

Where things get interesting, in my opinion, is at the "mid-range" between the overarching superstructure and the individual level. This would include communities that are subsidiary to the overall community--for example, Academia or Politics. Mid-range race discourse is not necessarily the same as at the levels above or beneath it. Take academia, for example. Academia still operates within a superstructural racist climate in America. And individual students at a college may still utter racist remarks or engage in other racist conduct. But at the mid-range, colleges and universities in America have thrown themselves entirely against racism. The structure of academia has wholeheartedly embraced (as I do) Critical Race Theory, Standpont Theory, Intersectionality, and other post-modern anti-racism remedies. In this context, a new empowered group emerges--consisting of the minority scholars and writers crafting/applying these theories, and their allies. They can, if they wish, use this power as leverage against persons, including whites, they dislike (I'm not saying this happens often, only that it can and occasionally does). If they claim that a certain professor's work is racist, that guy will be in serious trouble (especially if he isn't tenured). The very notions of "standing" and such that Crits are so proud of will make it almost impossible for him to give a defense--he is not considered "competent" to speak on race issues since he isn't a minority--an odd inversion of the "rules of racial standing" Derrick Bell talks about in our daily life. Even if he is cleared, the stigma will remain--he might not get invited to conferences and his articles may get blackballed, a hostile work environment (who wants to associate with a racist?) might drive him out of his job altogether. This power, to both make the accusation and demolish the framework by which the accused can conduct a defense, is a power that blacks arguably have over whites in the context of academic discourse. Other examples abound. The explicit argument that Whites should stop writing (or write far less) on a given topic is legitimized. Claims that white culture is fatally defective are seriously discussed and argued. All of this occurs inside a power matrix where, ironically, the very black professors who hold power over their white counterparts still might be pulled over on the way home from work, and still might have to suffer through racist comments overheard in the Cafeteria.

Politics operates similarly. The battle against racism, as Mari Matsuda notes, has "legitimating force." Those who are seen as against racism are deemed as good, those who are not, bad. Who controls the label of "racist" in this context becomes critical--which is part of why the right and left love to fight over it so much. Insofar as someone is effectively dubbed as "racist", their career is pretty much over. Yet the process is very inexact. John Cornyn gives a police officer whose false drug accusations imprisoned an entire town's worth of black persons (often for life) "Lawman of the Year" award, he is elected Senator from Texas (thankfully the sentences were eventually overturned). Trent Lott praises Strom Thurmond, and is forced to resign is leadership post, though it is difficult to see (aside from whether Lott was wrong) how his comment was worse than Cornyn's act. But in political groups which do value the voice of color (and there are some), there is a very real opportunity for black persons to use their position as "definers of racism" to tar politicians they simply dislike. If they choose to do this, it is racism. And of course, that does not get into Black-majority cities--where the political establishment as a whole (which is as big a power player as there is) is controlled by African-Americans. If that government chooses to race-bait, that qualifies pretty clearly as racism.

The idea contained in this is that power can operate at cross-purposes even within the same system. Blacks can be both dismpowered and empowered within even the same context--which brings along with it the possibility of cross-currents of racism. If racism is a function of power, than anytime blacks are given the power they have been unjustly denied there is the potential for racism. Even accepting the obvious truth that racism still overwhelmingly is skewed against Blacks, it still does not affect the pockets of Black power where they have the opportunity to be racist against whites.

This isn't to create a misperception that this sort of minority-on-majority racism happens all the time. It doesn't, and even when it does it pales in comparison to the volume of white-on-black racism in the world. But the anti-racism crowd does itself no favors by falsely universalizing power to one group. To do this denies contemporary realities and reduces the credibility of the anti-racist message as a whole.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

This seems pretty clear. Racism, defined properly, is prejudice based on race (rather than any of the other things prejudice can be based on).

But defining racism as necessarily based on a position of power, allows the authors to "conclude" that black-on-white racism is impossible. A type case of assuming your conclusions.

Aegis said...

The idea contained in this is that power can operate at cross-purposes even within the same system.

Correct. I have made the same arguments in the case of gender. Actually, I think cross-currents of sexism are easier to see than in the case of racism. An great book on this subject is "Spreading Misandry" by Nathanson and Young (it also has an excellent chapter on the problems with ideology in general).

Good point about the existence of pockets of society where some of the dynamics of race are inverted. At my university, I have noticed a strange atmosphere in many discussions in classes or dorm "identity" workshops. Minority/gay/female students seem to get greater weight added to their opinions, while white, straight, or male students must argue better or be extra diplomatic if they say anything that seems to conflict with feminism or multiculturalism. This will lead non-minority students to often censor themselves out of fear of looking racist or sexist.

The problem here is obviously fallacious reasoning: specifically the argument from authority (of minority status, in this case), and ad hominem (against those who lack that status). Yet I doubt you would succeed in explaining logical fallacies to most of the posters on Alas (I've tried). As you have probably noticed, most of them don't understand what intellectually honest debate is.

Btw, I've enjoyed your posting on Alas.

Aegis said...

Wait a sec, for some reason I thought/think that you were the poster "Niels Jackson" in the thread at Alas (I'm confused). If you are not he, then oops... I enjoyed your post here anyway.

Brian said...

The idea that racism is only present when it's perpetrated by a group in a position of power is a poor definition.

Any social group, whether at school, or amongst a meeting of people on the street, involves a power dynamic. People exert social power with or without the help of institutions, so the concept that racial precudice must involve a history of institutionalization to be considered "racism" is false.

As a young (white) child i went to a predominantly black school for a few years. I can assure you, what i experienced at the hands of a few of the black students there was racism. They believed themselves to be superiour to white people, and that is the definition of racism itself. Believing that one race is superiour to another.

Brian said...

The idea that racism is only present when it's perpetrated by a group in a position of power is a poor definition.

Any social group, whether at school, or amongst a meeting of people on the street, involves a power dynamic. People exert social power with or without the help of institutions, so the concept that racial precudice must involve a history of institutionalization to be considered "racism" is false.

As a young (white) child i went to a predominantly black school for a few years. I can assure you, what i experienced at the hands of a few of the black students there was racism. They believed themselves to be superiour to white people, and that is the definition of racism itself. Believing that one race is superiour to another.

Anonymous said...

Here is an example of the double standard in the race card.
A white man goes into a dinner to eat. The waitress is a white southern woman with a bad attitude. She gives the man terrible service, is rude to him, degrading to him. I guess she is just either a b*tch or is having a bad day. So the white man leaves, thinking "Damn! What a b*tch!”

10 minutes later a black man comes in and gets the same waitress. Is that black man going to leave thinking she is a rude b*tch? Hell no! She is a racist! The race card gets to be played; maybe the NAACP will come in and sue for millions or dollars. What about the white man that got the same poor service, where is his race card? Where are his millions? There is such a double standard.

Anonymous said...

Of course blacks are racist against whites. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. And I totally disagree that to be racist one has to be in a position of institutional power. Individual racism is in the very same vein as institutional racism. I'm white, never been wealthy and never been a part of a wealthy family. I've never been in "power" over anyone especially blacks. My ancestors did not own slaves, as they were poor themselves. Yet if I made an "off-color" remark, I'd be called racist. So it is only logical that blacks who make anti-white statements, and hold anti-white sentiments, are obviously racist regardless of who do or do not have this imaginary "power" over. It is racist for anyone to think their own race better or more deserving than another race.

In West Virginia, I find plenty more blacks who are much more openly racist than most whites. I also find that, while there are obviously some racist whites out here, predominantly whites "fear" blacks much more than they are "racist" against blacks. Blame the media for making blacks look violent and ruthless, or blame the black culture for actually being violent and ruthless, whichever you choose (not that all races arent to a point), but most whites I know are simple afraid of blacks, it isn't that they hate them or are racist.

For whatever reason, I would wager that 90 percent of violent crime or robbery in our capitol city is committed by blacks. Maybe the media just makes it seem that way, but I'll be the first to say that as a white guy there are many many streets in Charleston that I wouldn't dare walk down either at night OR in the day. I can't see any parallel on the opposite side of the argument, in other words I don't know any black person that should be afraid to go into any "white" neighborhood and be afraid of white-on-black violence...it simply doesn't happen.

So in conclusion, yes blacks (not all) are very racist against whites, whether out of pure ignorance, or because of the fact that society wishes for me as a white man to feel guilty for something I had nothing to do with and thereby is much more tolerant towards racist blacks. So I should just sit back and shut up and agree that I'm a no good hillbilly cracker, I deserve it right?

Anonymous said...

Proud To Be White!

Someone else besides me finally said it. how many are actually paying
attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab
Americans, Native Americans, etc. and then there are just Americans.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction. You call me "White
boy," "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" and that's OK.

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Diaperhead, Towelhead, Sand-nigger,
camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink you call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the
ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.

If we had WET(White Entertainment Television) we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to "advance" our lives, we'd be
racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and
then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce. Wonder who pays for that?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships, you
know we'd be racists. There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in
the US , yet if there were "White colleges" that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race
and rights. If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us
racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid
to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the
law and posing a threat to society,
you call him a racist.
I am proud. But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?

There is nothing improper about this email.
Let's see which of you are proud enough to forward it.
;
GOD BLESS YOU

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that blacks cannot be racist against whites should move to broward county Florida. Whites have in recent years become the minority here. Its mostly subdued, but on at least two occasions I have been called a "cracker". I was in a store minding my own business both times. One other time while waiting in line to pay my phone bill, a little boy in front of me standing with his mother related to me how they "didnt like the white man". I also encounter the occasional dirty look. There is a lot of anger and hostility just below the surface. The natural reaction to this is to feel hostility back. Most white people at least make an effort to be civil. My OBSERVATION has been when blacks are in a majority situation, they definitely lean towards hostile racist tendancies. Racism is a HUMAN trait, and since black people are human beings, they are capable of it like anyone else.

Anonymous said...

I have been living in poor "minority" neighborhoods in New York City for 13 years. In New York City, "minorities" are, ironically enough, 65% of the population, with blacks comprising a healthy slice of that chart pie.

I am a white secular Jewish female in my thirties. But because I look like a WASP, I am the perfect target for black hostility. (Let's not even get into the ignoramuses who think I run the media (see above re: "White Pride") and that I own everything and am rich and then of course there's the breathless moment when eventually someone finds out through the course of conversation that I am Jewish and invariably someone says "But you don't LOOK Jewish!" -- That's a topic for a whole other blog).

Anyway, it is 2:45 pm as I type this. At 1:45 pm today an employee of the New York City Parks Department just screamed at me "Fuck you White Bitch" because I asked him to move out of my way on a crowded street corner. Before I even asked him to move, the man was clearly sneering at me and languidly chomping on a cigar, fully intent to show me that he was in fact *not* going to move in spite of the fact that I was laden down with heavy bags from the grocery store.

Of course this person was black. And of course I will also be calling the Parks Department on Tuesday (it's Presidents Day on Monday) to complain.

This was in the South Bronx. Believe it or not, I've lived here for almost seven years, and until the rents went up this year, it was a lovely place to live. The same crap happened to me when I was a poor student in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn (predominantly black neighborhood where I was forced out as well due to skyrocketing rents.)

The fact is, I don't mind being called a Bitch. I actually take it as a badge of honor when it's true. A bitch in this culture (when you exclude someone who is truly malevolent from the definition) is usually just a woman who has the audacity to stand up for herself and defend herself in adversarial conditions. It's the "White Bitch" that I take issue with.

The other day, some henpecking black woman in the line at the grocery store did the female equivalent of that to me as well, and even pulled the race card, stating "everything was just fine, until YOU PEOPLE moved into this neighborhood." And on and on these kinds of comments go. When I reacted, stunned, that that was one of the most racist remarks I've ever heard, she remarked without a hint of shame, proudly and clearly, "That's right!"

This year so far has been drastic in the number of hostile incidents I've had with black people, and no one ever says, when they invariably say that WE PEOPLE (poor whites who didn't have the good fortune or sense to be your kind of folk?) invade their neighborhood:

When's the last time you voted?
Wrote a letter to your district representative?
Went to a PTA meeting?
Went to a community board meeting?
Participated in the democratic process?

I'm willing to bet that the answer would be stunned silence. There is almost *no* participation in that regard in this district (which also happens to be-literally-the poorest in the country), and I am not surprised. I would posit that race is not so much an issue in 2007 as much as a system of social conservatism (hello, homophobia, hyper-traditional sex roles, and sexism perpetrated in black culture much?), a culture of learned helplessness through the reiteration of the idea that the black person is always the victim, economic anxiety, and paranoia about participating in a governmental system that has historically not taken this demographic seriously.

None of these shackles of ignorance are helping anyone, least of all the black person who believes this tripe about victimhood being empowering. You can thank the Al Sharptons of the world for spreading that kind of divisivness. There is nothing empowering about willful ignorance.

I would like to see more of an honest dialogue about the rise in incidents like this and was relieved to find this blog. I am not an apologist, far from it, I hate these people who have harassed me, mostly because they are clearly so prejudiced and *willfully* myopic and ignorant.

And let's not sugarcoat this: I also hate them because they are asshole cowardly bullies.

The D'Anne Burley Show said...

Racism is still here but Don Imus is not the issue the most important one is below and I am black and can get no policing agent to investigate corruption and or criminal acts.

I am a former Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois, I know much about law enforce and clout, and before that I worked over 35 yrs within Corporate America as an Accountant, Computer Programmer/Analysis, did some actuary work relating to removing employees who got close to retirement age, Developed Businesses, I worked as a para legal from Friedman and Koven which was the second in it's day Law Firm in the World within Conflict of Interest international, also for United States Gypsum, Navistar, FMC Corp, Harris Bank, First National Bank, Argonne National Lab's as Assistant Editor in the Bio lab, and many other larger than live Corporations within their Controllers Dept and World Headquarters, and in the Mortgage Industry of over 8 years seeing already formed terrorist cell operating from withn the Suburb of Palos Hills, Palos Heights, Broadview, Chicago and other neighoring communities. The scandal involved the use of International Drivers Licenses to falsify Identity and create other false ID's such as Drivers License, Corporations, Bank Accounts in order to move and laundery money into Jihad and Al-Qauda cells all over the globe.

Drug Trafficking occured over Operation Mountain Express, which had netted over 52 mega tons of drugs, and drug making material to use to place on the streets and in the hands of mintories, our youth date rape drugs and other nightmare subtances to fund Terror across the world. In Illinois the Illinois trucking scandal was involved because the truck were involved within a operation to move the drugs, laundered money and also guns in and out of the hands of criminal within the KKK and aryan nation and other hate groups. All who were being used as part of the funded Bin Laden Operation, and that was really the involved of Bin Laden. Sept 11, 2001 was a part of a mock terrorist drill which was designed to cover-up the fact that the WTC had design defects that were brought to the port of Authority when it was being built but NYC had no rights to the business plans and could do nothing in the courts because it was alleged that the Port was not governed by the City and or State Regulations and laws because it fell under Marine laws only. In addition because of the first failed attempted to bomb the buildings in 1993 by so-called Islamic Extremist and due to the injuries, death, and claims filed against Lloyds of London in England, Lloyds was on the brick of Bankruptcy and was the Port of Authority, which also would have effected NYC itself in paying off huge amounts of money which would had totally bankrupt the city and the state.

As within the plot of the Savings and Loan Scandal years before as the failed savings institutes had not enough money to pay back the people who had accounts within within the federal Reserve, in both cases I alleged that conspirators from within and outside the government conspired to commit fraud by turning these events into cases for insurance.

In the savings and loan scandal during that time there were mounting numbers of "Banl Robberies in the Midwest and across the US.

The robberies I saw began in the late 80's but expanded into 1990 whereby while I worked within the Courts there was the alleged ex-police officer out of Hoffman Estate called the Bearded Bandit, who with his wife alleged robbed banks all over the suburban area of Chicago Illinois. There were some elements of this case which were not true in fact and covered up for one the wife never shot herself in the front of a home in Streamwood she was shot by special unit op's from what division I am not sure. Then her husband who was capture was killed in a shoot out but what I alleged was that he was gunned down so that he would not share information of the insurance scam. The same issue was happened in areas around Ok City and that could be the reason why Jesse Tredue's brother was allegedly murdered within his prison cell the cover-up the real reason behind the bank robberies.

John Gary Peeler a former CIA/BATF/FBI agent was undercover within the KKK he has been on my program and his son John Christropher Peeler is being held in a Ark prison without parole for a crime of murder where there is no body, no crime scene and no evidence nothing to shutup Peeler. Peeler Sr. worked with Timothy McVeigh while undercover within the KKK working on bombing the Ok City Building, he knew about the bank robberies, the plot to take down the building and was able to stop one, but could do nothing about the WTC because no one would listen to him, his story as those of Eric Shine Merchant Marine Presidential Appointed by George Bush Sr., , Mary Schneider who worked 30 yrs within the INS and saw the florida connection of agents allowing Middle Easterns to gain entrance into the US that area of Fla was where the flight school was involved with the alleged training of terrorist cells at the same time I saw within my then office which was a place I was bought to to setup a new business to do Islamic Interest Loans for homes (Noriba) on the wall a huge picture of a boeing 747 class plane which I was told that being use as a picture to explan how to flight within a flight school which operated out of the Palos Hills area with ties into FL prior to 9/11/01.

The story was my nightmare, the government via clouted government officials and those who I had alleged were involved in a major sleeper cell used terrorism against me and my children. By sending in spooks, attempting to setup my bank account with counterfeit money orders, blackball me so I can not work and so that my children can not, criminalized by young son, use traffick tickets and others working within the policing agencies to cover-up and not investigation major corruption and criminals acts within DuPage County in order to shut be up and down and make me homeless. This is the same pattern that had been used on all whistleblowers and then causing them not to have equal rigthts under the amendments of the constitutional.

I am 55 yrs old and I have seen every level of corruption over a spam of 45 years including how entertainers and others were taken out in the same fashion in the 1940's-62 while my father was involvcd as a publisher and reporter.Within his archieve were letters of this and then I was told by other creatible sources over the years of how they watched Mohammad X, who was a friend of my fathers, Joe Louis for saying good things about Jimmy Hoffa, and my father knew Jack Ruby prior to my father's death. My father's name was within the Warren Commission Report of the Death of JFK and my father help Kennedy to get elected within the chains of press he was involved in within the Black Community.

Because of all this I had been watched, and as they attempted to do with Mohammad X's daughter they attempted to set me up over the years. But you see I saw things when I was very young and knew how they operated. Please read on thanks

D'Anne Burley

I need your help and support, with a attorney, money and anything else because the attack at hand is a nightmare. Within hospital settings I was given the wrong meds I feel with intent. I attempted to sue many times but attorneys turned down anything I bought to them as it is within the pattern of all whistleblowers. And if the case goes into the courts they Gag them to stop all further action. My journal exposes this with the top professionals in the World, scientist, journalist, Government Agents, Business Owners and all having information but can do nothing with it because of the corruption from within the policing forces who are allegedly being told not to do there job and or by racial bias which maybe true in my case.

D'Anne Burley
Call me at 1-630-930-9782 or 1-630-812-0171


My father was Dan Burley who was a Managing Editor for many publications, he was a journalist and friends to three Presidents going back to the Roosevelt's, and the King of Ethophian, plus a well known Musician. Dan took the very first Black USO Troop overseas to Burma during WWII under Bob Hope and was a good friend of Walter Winchell and others. When I was born my birth appeared in Walter Winchell's Column, At the age of 10 I had a column called "Thats a Fact" which appeared in two newspapers.

We are indeed in a nightmare and unless the people watch and understand and recover this government from thieves, murders and conspirators we will see something worse than Hitlers Germany in maybe less than one year.

My nightmare is told within the link and I am adding more as I go because if you read this and really understand this government as developing this platform for years and decades. The goal was to remove the constitution replace the people with foreigners who are less expensive for business spending, dumb down the nation and worse. My programs are all involved with showing the ties together. I am one of many whistleblowers who all link into one another many had been within former government agencies, or private businesses

Those within the mainstream press get fired if they go against their owners look at Don Imus he was getting ready to talk about WTC and had covered Ok City. Now its Rosie O'Donnell whose next.

You can call me at any time as well and if you know of any stories needed to be shared please sent it to me because I cover all that no one else will touch - Peace !

Sincerely yours D'Anne Burley Forensic Journalist Talk Show Host featured on truthradio.com rbnlive.com, in your face radio out of South America, Blogtalkradio, and others. Peace!

1-630-930-9782 after 7pm

http://clearblogs.com/frominsideout/47704/By+the+Code+Name+Al-Masri+"LOOK+AT+ALL+THE+TERRORIST+TIED+TO+THAT+NAME".html

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha ha, are you fucking stupid? Of course there are racist black ppl. Racists can be of any colour, race, nationality, religion or creed.

I live in a poor area where blacks make up the majority. I am a minority here in my own country (England)local wise but a majority nationwide.

I have received so much racist abuse from Turks, Blacks etc... it is unreal but of course most ppl won't believe this because they think only whites can be racist.

People that think only whites can be racist should be ripped to pieces, I'd gouge their fucking eyes out if I could get away w/ it.

Another thing, the term "counter-racism" is racist in itself, as if saying it is not as bad as black victim racism, it is only counter-racism. Who cares about white ppl anyway?

That's the message it stamps home like a boot stomping someone's face into the curb.

There are way too many ignorant fools in this world that defend the system which makes them ignorant in the first place, don't listen to the media, it is 1 sided bullshit to try & brainwash you into thinking you have your own belief system when really everyone thinks the same on certain subjects because they've been conned into beLIEving that if you don't hold viewpoint X you are a (insert whatever here)ism.

To me, it's like a slave defending his master when someone tries to free the slave, this isn't just about racism, it's about the whole fucking package of eveything.

Anonymous said...

There is a fatal flaw in the original premise that individuals or groups must be in power to be racist. They must only be in power to DISCRIMINATE. To discriminate is to take some sort of action, even if that action is inaction (like taking a loan application and tossing it in the trash).

It is a simple case of misunderstanding the basics.

Anyone can be racist against a person or group that does not look or act like them.

Here is the Department of Defense definition: RACISM may be viewed as any attitude, action (conscious or unconscious), of a person or institutional structure that subordinates a person or group because of skin color or race.

There are several parts to the definition but you can split it up to see it can be as simple as one person's unconcious attitude (usually negative)towards another person based on skin color or race.

This is reenforced by Wiki's definition: RACISM, by its simplest definition, is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

These definitions do not include power as a factor.

When you look at Gordon Allport's Scale of Prejudice:
1. Antilocution
2. Avoidance
3. Discrimination
4. Physical Attack
5. Extermination

You will see that antilocution (1st level on the scale) describes when disparaging terms or racial epithets are used. These types of behaviors easily fall under the banner of racist or racism.

It is not until the 3rd level of Allport's Scale that we get to Discrimination.

This should clear it up for everyone out there once and for all.

Cheers! :)

zadeh79 said...

Racism against whites is (currently) impossible. As the quoted author stated, if the system doesn't back it up or didn't lead to the action against a race- it is not racism. It may be a race based crime, but it is not a case formal, or rooted racism. Consider the useful analogy of sexual harassment. If a man is groped by a women (as I have been), it is highly unlikely that he would find it disturbing. But if the reverse happens, than it is almost always a hurtful event. This is because in the case against the women, it is usually the man who has the 'power'. And it is the privilege of this power makes the act 'harassing'.