Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmrfrmrf | Hacker News Reader

> just like you can only be racist if you're white (https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858)

I see people post this a lot without understanding the point of what she's saying. Adria subscribes to the belief that "racism = prejudice + power", which is basically to say that, yes, black people can be hateful towards white people and yes, racial discrimination does occur within the black community, but RACISM is the result of systematic oppression over hundreds of years.

The reason this distinction is made is because black people discriminating against white people is a response to the racism that they face every day, which is very different from white people thinking that blacks are inherently inferior and should have their rights stripped from them.

Please, educate yourselves on what Adria's saying. I know it all seems so foreign, but beyond the fog, there is a very real and very true message that should be heard and studied.

View on HN

Don't blame the reader for not being aware of a failed definition of the term "racism". The definition of "race based prejudice" is the one being taught across the western world to children and it has therefore "won".

The concept you describe is indeed important and should be understood, absolutely, but don't blame the reader for the authors failure to communicate. Especially when that failure is mostly intentional as part of a struggle to redefine a word that has significant power. A very useful tactic when it succeeds, but that battle has been lost in this case for quite a while.

Personally I'm quite happy with the common definition of "racism" because the belief you describe is too tied up with the dated concept of "race" (which doesn't exist in reality) and means that the determining factor in whether an action is "racist" is the skin colour and ancestry of those involved, neither of which is under the control of any participants. The other definition means it is determined by asking if the action was prejudiced and if that prejudice was related to race.

There is a very good point to make here that the more common definition can make it more difficult for people to understand the effects of generations of oppression can have on a class of people, even on that society generally considers overt racial prejudice to be unacceptable. The definition you describe does not have this flaw.

I am brown. I have never felt like I was treated in a prejudiced manner by a white person that I know. My grandfather was. Some brown people still are. If I discriminate against a white person, that's not a response to racism, it's racism and calling it anything else is utter bullshit.

For what it's worth, if I am treated in a prejudiced manner by person A, and I treat person B in a prejudiced manner, and the only thing connecting A to B is race, that too is racism.

Or in simpler terms, two wrongs don't make a right.

Have to agree with you. I have a fairly messed up background for this, and prejudice based on race is racism. Any other name for it is just foolishness.

It's called Critical Race Theory, and it's just as valid to question it as it is to espouse it. It's not hard science.

One could argue it gives minorities license to say as many racist things as they want to and claim it isn't racist. It's an argument constructed so that one side wins by default.

Well, it's an argument that one side does win by default, and that "racism" should be used to acknowledge that power imbalance.

"Minorities saying racist things", by this theory, doesn't hold a candle to, say, the fact that minorities are more frequently imprisoned, more often pulled over/searched illegally/beaten by law enforcement agents, more often feared, more often treated with bias in the workplace or dating world, and on and on and on and on and on. Racism isn't "the act of saying something bigoted", it's the acknowledgement of a systemic bias based on a person's skin color. And it doesn't deny that bigotry exists in both directions – it just insists that to focus on bigotry is to miss the deeper issue.

This is relevant to this thread, because gender inequality works much the same way. What Adria did was a dick move, and I think her actions were and continue to be rude as hell. But she acts within a greater context of sexism and misogyny in the programming world – hell, in America at large – and to completely disregard how shitty an environment exists for many women is to miss that Adria's behavior stems from a crappy reality. Doesn't make what she did any less inappropriate, perhaps, but it suggests that maybe there are issues here more important than what she did which may be more worth focusing on. I mean, any ills resulting from her behavior have been more than counteracted by the death and rape threats that have been fired her way – she may have started this, but the backlash against her has been obscenely disproportionate.

In both cases, it seems to work more as extenuating circumstances than as a blanket permission to say inappropriate things to another human being based on his looks. Or in other words, it's not OK to discriminate against somebody else solely for the reason that you are part of a group discriminated against. It just makes you part of the problem.

I think having a definition of racism to be "discriminate against somebody else due to skin colour", as well as a notion of "institutional racism", which is the same thing but on a systemic level, would make more sense than the more academic definition of racism.

I agree with you. It's an ambiguity that leads to lots of people ignoring the real problem, because they're convinced the people talking about it are really just looking for an excuse to be bigots – as here.

I agree with you. I took notice of how the backlash was disproportionate as you mentioned, and I believe its because of what I've heard people describe as "racial fatigue" (in this case it's gender). The media is constantly bombarding us with racial issues, and at times even finds ways to racially charge stories that have nothing to do with race. I'm sure the accused party (white people, or Men in general) gets tired of being portrayed as the proverbial villain, so when someone attempts to blow something out of proportion under the banner of sexism(and it turns out to be bullshit), you get this colossal shit storm.

Do realize that your superparent (who you are associated with by arguing with your parent) is not criticizing Critical Race Theory. They are claiming it is racist.

That definition of racism is certainly a minority one, and isn't supported by the dictionaries I checked. To intentionally misunderstand what most people mean by racism, and then tweet like that, it seems like she's setting up a straw man in order to get into a fight.

The popular definition of racism is popular because it robs the word of it's purpose, which is to fight power, not pattern matching.

Source?

I'd say the exact opposite. This attempt to redefine the well-understood term "racism" into "something only white people can do" is a shameful maneuver to commandeer the societal reserves of moral outrage rightfully reserved for use against racial hatred, and redirect them so that racists who hate white people are immune. It is absolutely Orwellian.

Racial hatred is despicable in all forms. Those who push for such an artificial redefinition of racism would have us forget this.

That's a lot of nonsense and semantic quibbling. Words mean what they are understood to mean. The school of thought she adheres to is attempting to re-define a word, and they have thus far failed.

Therefore, no, she cannot expect her audience to adhere to her particular definition of racism since it is highly non-standard outside of certain limited circles.

For what it's worth, I also happen to think her "definition" of racism is rubbish. It makes all kinds of assumptions about power dynamics in a given situation and injects motivations into actors where none are known.

What? People shouldn't have to be "aware of her definition of racism" because her definition of racism isn't the definition of racism. I might as well lament your ignorance for not being familiar with a word I made up 5 minutes ago...

This bit of definition only matters if there's someone involved without power.

Presumably Adria is claiming to be without power. She has the power to get someone fired with a single tweet. She has so much power she's gone mad with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com