Talk:Reverse racism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Basics

That's the basics, I think. Time for the rabble to come in and spray graffiti on the walls make needed improvements. --Kels 11:27, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Men's Rights...

I'm not even going to bother with the standard opening disclaimers. Anyone who knows me should know where I'm coming form. Back home there were a number of prominent cases having to do with child custody in divorce cases that were adopted/co-opted by the Men's Rights types. Their argument was, and I think it has a certain amount of credibility, that the courts tend to favour mothers when deciding on who gets the kids. Moreover, it would seem that the threat of--or the actual use of--false accusations of a sexual nature is not unknown in these sorts of things. Does this mean we need to change something in the article? I dunno. I just wanted to point out that in real life, these terms can get messy and grey...PFoster 11:29, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

So why not have an article about Men's Rights, which could show both sides? It's a bit off-topic to go into much depth here in the reverse racism article. weaseLOId~ 11:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

No doubt, and I've seen it happen myself. Divorces can be extremely emotional events, and people don't always act rationally. The thing is, Men's Rights groups tend to do what they can to make it look far more widespread and far more of a problem than it actually is. Besides which, there's a big resistance to feminism in general by these groups, which is more what I was getting at. Go wander around the comments at Feministing, Eschaton, or other similar blogs, and you'll find the inevitable "but what about the MENZ!!111!!" comments, defending the poor, defenseless males against the onslaught of feminism. It's this sort of behaviour that I was really trying to underline, but the Men's Rights groups are frequently guilty of it as well. --Kels 11:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

We really should debunk the Men's Rights bowel movement. ħuman 00:28, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Conservapedia

I just added a paragraph about how CP are using a uniquely incorrect definition of this term, but then when I checked it has now been corrected, so I deleted it. If anybody wants to add anything back in about this, you can retrieve what I added from the history. It would need to be permalinked to an old version of the CP article. Really it only serves to illustrate Jpatt's dickheadedness, so I decided it wasn't worth mentioning in this article now that it's been sorted. weaseLOId~ 11:35, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Too biased

This is too one-sided. Is anyone against me neutralizing it a bit? I'll leave in that many supremacists use it and such,b ut also point out the validity when used by people for equal rights but not affirmative action or the like (me, for instance. I think everyone should be treated equally, and that means not using racism to stop racism, and also the point mentioned above that divorce proceedings generally favor the woman. And I guarantee if a woman assaulted a man, she could claim self defense in this day and age and be fine, but if a man tried the same thing he'd be jailed). falco1029 00:35, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

If you could find a cite for that last statement I would be more inclined to believe it. Stats, that what I want. - User $\pi$ 00:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Actually what the fuck does that have to do with racism? - User $\pi$ 00:50, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah ha ha, you're trying to make a rational argument on RationalWiki. Let me tell you this: they can't stand the truth. People like them just deny, deny, deny. That's why they tried to get rid of me: I tried to tell the truth. Fall down

How do you magically show up the moment someone raises a topic like this and why do I always keep finding you lurking around? - User $\pi$ 00:49, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The fourth mission statement: "women are teh ebil". Is that why? Fall down, is not your spine flexible enough by now to not need a friendly companion? ħuman 01:03, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

What? Fall down

I don't know exactly where to reply so I'll just put this below the rest. I wasn't planning to include that last part in the article, it was just my reasoning (I assume you mean the part about assault). I don't have any sources on hand though I'll look for some, but basically I was going to just add a less extreme definition of Reverse Racism. If you'd like, I could just write it so you guys could see and then you could reverse it if I don't balance it correctly. Does that work? falco1029 05:04, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

By the way, I think the normal term I hear is 'reverse discrimination', not 'reverse racism'. You're right, you'd never get the truth about female violence past these people! Fall down

Hey, here's one source http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1784. That site seems to have more such examples. Also, maybe this article should be about "Reverse Bias", or somethign similar, since it already covers more than just racism as it is.falco1029 05:41, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

The article as it stands is perfect. It's really about the term, after all, not the actuality. Of course there are instances of "reverse racism," but the term itself has been co-opted by the disgruntled and prejudiced. A bit more might be added about how the phenomenon does exist, if we can find some examples more familiar to people (and let's not touch Sharpton on this one). I'll look around.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:47, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I wasn't going to remove anything, maybe reorganize and reword, and then add the less extreme less right-wing and more up-wing (re: libertarian :P) version of the term. I mean, I sometimes use the term but not with anywhere near the connotation. What do you mean by examples more familiar to people? Usually for something like this you'd wan the lesser known, obscured stuff. falco1029 06:59, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Affirmative action would be a good example, I believe; currently it's only linked without explanation. Although I might be in the minority on that one.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:15, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Generally, when affirmative action is explained, it's for places with racial quotas being one main thing (hire a certain amount of a race, regardless of other comparably better applicants), and for schools having race be added as a qualification (the best example I can give is like they treat it as an extra "Honor", thus putting otherwise average applicants above their level, up with those on the honor roll or the like). I'd go research the Michigan law to see EXACTLY what they changed, but I believe it's something along those lines. So should I find the specific examples like I just explained, add them as sources and use that in any edits I make? falco1029 07:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't like examples, as anecdotes don't establish a trend. However if you can find a place/school/state that has an actual written policy/law, that can go in. If you can find statistics that show a group being hired above the skill level that can go in. Don't assume that it is happening and then make a Schlafly style list of anecdotes and selected examples; actual show it is happening. - User $\pi$ 01:27, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Do NOT compare me to Schafly. You'll note I wasn't going to claim any of those examples as facts in any rewrite I did.

Anyway, http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/aahist.html has some examples of such policies in effect (including some that disbanded)

http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8901paso.html also mentions some policies though in a less definitive manner.Hope those are enough to show you it is indeed the case. falco1029 04:07, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

Loaded rewrite

The recent rewrite was fairly wrong and hugely biased, with no sources for half the loaded things you added in the end. "(some take it a step further and say that all white people are racists)" seems to be right up there with those who might say "(some feminists take it a step further and say that all men are sexists)". You also don't seem to understand the sociological definition. It isn't that "only white people can be racist", but rather that "it is impossible to be racist against the race that holds the institutionalized power". It also does not say that minorities cannot be prejudiced, like you accuse. They can have all the racial prejudice in the world, but beyond going out and murdering the race they don't like, their power to upset the daily lives of others is minimal (they can't affect national hiring rates, they can't pass laws that would remove benefits from the race in power). If you are going to write bullshit like "lets them pretend that reverse racism does not exist", you better have some solid proof (especially sociological evidence) showing that it does exist first. --ShadowofLords (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that LX pretty much did a all out chage, rather than edit within the existing. Though Shadow, if the original was yours, you probably need your own set of citations that you want listener to have. Just saying we *all* are good at "you didn't cite when you changed me", but at the same time, our own views might not be cited. :-)GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, since LX was the one who change the tone first, he should be expected to explain why he did so. The article should stand as it was before he fully rewrote it, as is standard on RW. If you do a full rewrite, and someone disagrees, YOU need to explain why you did a total revision, not teh other way around. That does not mean LX is wrong, but he needs to address why he totally changed it. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have re-re-re-reverted it to the pre-rewrite version. Please leave it there until a consensus emerges. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Whatever, just stop reverting, all of you. I see about four or five people in this edit war, only a couple of whom have commented here so far. Please talk it out & agree on changes. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(ECx a lot)My objection here is the conflation of racism (plain and simple) and institutionalized racism (racism + power). Black supremacy groups like the NOI don't have any power over the US political and social systems, but you can't pretend they're not racist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't have the phrase "the dictionary definition of..." in it, I'll be happy. ^gnostic 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

<- Second on "the dictionary definition" point, given how the dictionary is controlled. I'd like to point out that the "pure and simple" definition of racism (i.e. the "dictionary definition) is what sociologically is referred to as "racial prejudice". Of course anyone can be prejudiced against anyone because of their race (there are some nuances here in terms of theoretically justified prejudice, such as prejudice against an oppressor), but a simple prejudice against a race doesn't amount to racism as discussed in sociological context (which seems the most rational context for a societal issue). The rewrite seemed to be right out of Fox News, asserting that those who question the concept of "reverse racism" are just "pretending it doesn't exist", not citing any sociological studies or logical process that might show that it does exist, while asserting a straw-man position that "some go even further and say that all white people are racist". I can find absolutely no reason to let that edit return, especially when the entire edit only introduced one new "source" that was completely out of place (if you want to bring the dictionary definition into the page, don't bring it into the section on sociology as a way to attempt to belittle the sociological claims, bring it into the start of the article), and completely challenged the sociological standpoint with nothing more than mocking and fallacies. --ShadowofLords (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My advice is to explain what you just wrote, in the article with sources. Best way to resolve edit conflicts (i think, anyhow) is to address teh conflict within the article. what is the "normal" def and why is it not standard. Why can there not be racism against those in power, etc. Don't assume the reader will know any of this (I sure don't, you are educating me). and back up what you are saying with sources. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you missed it, you really do need to address Neb's point that there really is no case where you would not say Black Supremicy groups are not racist. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it's a term of art, but I also think it's in many cases an excuse for equivocation. Barry Mehler has a good article on black supremacy in academia in which this definition is invoked to defend racial prejudice. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Neb, being racist does not depend on being part of a group that controls power. White, unemployed, working class racists are just as dispossessed as black, unemployed working class but they see "blacks" or "foreigners" as being the problem while the "blacks" see the white establishment as being the problem when the class structure is the real problem. It is very difficult to compartmentalise prejudices because society is a not a simple ordered hierarchy. Can you honestly say that the wp:Zebra murders were not racist? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument about white/unemployed/working class racism is that white/unemployed/working class racists are performing a particualr role for the people who do have power. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 19:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, interesting that a "Jordanian Arab Muslim" is counted as "white" in that context. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 19:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Our isms and prejudices are probably just general othering but given a fancy label to explain it - when it's really nothing more than "hey, you're a convenient target for me to feel better about myself". In the UK, I would argue that we have less of a racism problem and more of a xenophobia problem... but you can't just split it down the middle and separate it like that. ^theist 20:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I can more clearly address Godot's and Neb's concerns here. The small section I wrote defends itself, in my opinion, but if you would prefer me write another defense to defend my five sentences, I certainly can. The reference already in this section of the article discusses how racism should not be equated with racial prejudice, because prejudice alone doesn't affect anyone, but the power to effect others based on prejudice and the systems that arise from it surely do. In a society in which whites already have clear advantages (e.g.:discrimination in the hiring process,lack of discrimination directed at names considered "white",and Caucasians are even more likely to receive scholarships and grant money (dispelling the "affirmative action is reverse racism" myth)), whites are not oppressed, and racism at a societal level clearly must be oppressive. It follows from this that the very idea of "reverse racism", i.e. "racism" directed at whites, cannot exist in a society that bestows huge advantages on those who are considered "white", which is written at the end of the section.

I think I have clearly addressed Neb's point from the view of the sociological definition challenging the concept of reverse racism (which is the section that the edit war is occurring in), if not explicitly marking it as a counter-point. In the sociological view that is being discussed, groups like Black Supremacy groups can surely be racially-prejudiced, this is not argued against at all. However, what socio-political power do these groups have? Can they pass laws limiting the rights of white individuals, even at a tiny local scope? Can they make it harder for a white individuals across the nation to get jobs? The most they can even theoretically do at the social level is possibly attempt to prevent a small group of individuals from voting, but in this case they can readily be arrested and sent to jail for decades (longer than a white man who attempted to do the same to blacks, as we see clearly in statistics about severity of punishment for crime based on race).

Again, I must make it VERY CLEAR HERE, for everyone who keeps railing on about how "racially motivated crimes must be racist crimes!". This section is about the current sociological definition which challenges the idea of "reverse racism". It is about oppression at the societal level, which is argued needs to be the new definition of racism. Just because it is racially motivated does not mean it falls into the sociological definition of racism, especially when you consider how widespread murders based on race are both historically and culturally biased. There is no society-wide issue of whites being oppressed, but there certainly are individual cases of whites being attacked and murdered because of their race. These individual cases are not societal oppression however, and therefore they don't fall into the sociological definition gaining ground that is being discussed in this section of the article. Racism is an oppressive societal issue, and a small sample of black individuals murdering white individuals doesn't equate to societal oppression of whites. --ShadowofLords (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree here 100% -- my argument is something of a semantic nit-pick. I see that "racism" and "racial prejudice" are sociological terms of art. My problem with this, then, is that it also seems to be abused by invoking the sociological term of art "racism" in a colloquial manner so as to equivocate the two to excuse "racial prejudice," in the sociological sense, as in the article above. Perhaps that could be added on to the end. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

By the sociologists' definition of the term "racist," a racially motivated crime is not necessarily a racist crime; but by everyone else's definition, it is. Furthermore, if Wellman's book speaks aright, sociologists were largely using the vernacular meaning of the term when he first wrote it in 1977, but later adopted the modified definition for largely political reasons. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX, by your own admission then we should be writing our articles on Evolution to say that it is false if we are to use public opinion to write our articles, since people view them to be false at dismally similar rates. The first claim of your argument fails completely here. The second claim has no basis in the book at all, and seems more like you grasping at straws to attempt some Faux News declaration that the opposition is a straw-man and anything you disagree with must have a political conspiracy behind it. The book has less than 30 uses of the term "political" in it, and by my readings none of them talk about adopting the usage of the term for political gain, rather for the benefits that would come from a society that is willing to talk about racism openly. --ShadowofLords (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, there isn't a majority of public opinion that opposes evolution in the world as a whole. Here in Europe the overwhelming majority accept evolution, just as most do in South and Central America. RationalWiki is a global wiki and is not just US-centric so should present that view. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but my point goes beyond the case of evolution Evolution, extending to that we have no reason to (and shouldn't) be catering solely to the belief of the a majority. I did not mean to make it seem like I was talking about the world at large, and I wouldn't do so on the actual wiki, but we are in a talk having a discussion. There was a time period where almost everyone believed the earth was created (in some form or other by some deity/deities or other), Evolution would have been just as true then as it remains today. What I presented in this article was a section discussing a current sociological opposition to the definition of racism. What I presented in this talk was a somewhat comprehensive review of why this definition exists, and a defense of it at the sociological level, and examples of racial bias in social and political systems. What ListenerX presented in the article was mocking of scientific, sociological opinion. What he presented in this talk was an appeal to popularity. --ShadowofLords (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Listener won't count sociological opinion/consensus/findings as "scientific" because reds. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The analogy with creationism does not stick, because there is not a factual dispute here, as between creationists and scientists; it is a dispute involving two different meanings of the word "racism." When it comes to what a certain word means in common usage, the general public and the dictionary are much better authorities than sociologists, unless you are suggesting that sociologists should write Webster's and be the final authority on what any given word means. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

<-None of this excuses your rewrite of the section, though. The page for racism wasn't rewritten to entirely portray the definition of racism, regardless of public opinion. All that was done was a small section was added to the page for Reverse Racism that detailed a current sociological definition of it that touches on racism as a systemic issue that goes beyond racial prejudices. What you did was turn that section into a mockery, completely discounting a valid sociological definition of it in a section providing factual information about why many sociologists have taken to defining it in a different manner, presumably because, if we take your own writing as a term, "THE DICTIONARY AND MY FRIENDS SAY DIFFERENT, IT'S A POLITICAL CONSPIRACY, THEY JUST WANTED TO CALL ME A RACIST AND IT HURT MY FEELINGS!"

If you want to have a discussion about why you think the dictionary should be trusted over sociologists for sociological terms... I'd sure be happy to have that too. The evolution comparison is surely apt here: there are still dictionaries in existence today that don't define evolution by it's proper, scientific definition. If you ask an average member of the public to define evolution, I'd be quite surprised to see somebody even mention something as basic as "changes in gene frequencies in a population over time" combined in some way with a more expected "natural selection". It appears obvious here that a conflict between the public's definition (or that in some dictionaries) and the geneticist's definition exists, but this doesn't call for mockery of the scientists. This is without even mentioning that the dictionary is maintained by a staff that is disproportionately white, a staff we would find willingly remiss to include a sociological definition in the dictionary (though we have made headway in recent decades ensuring that a definition for evolution is included, labelled "Biological"). We might as well consult a history book written by "pro-confederates" in the South what the chief causes of the civil war were.

This all still just touches upon the true problem: you rewrote the entire section of the article discussing a valid sociological definition to be in a mocking tone, completely dismissing the definition because "the dictionary says different", and accusing it of all being part of some "political" conspiracy. Do you have any real reason that we should be mocking a sociological definition of a sociological issue, or did you just feel uncomfortable with it and needed to lash out and attack it? --ShadowofLords (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have explained the reasons why I think the current sociological definition to be dodgy in the section below. If you do not wish to answer them any further, I will not be repeating myself.

...all being part of some "political" conspiracy... The redefinition seems to have been carried out openly in sociological literature, with motivations clearly stated, which disqualifies it as a "conspiracy."

If you want to have a discussion about why you think the dictionary should be trusted over sociologists for sociological terms... As I specifically stated, I was referring to the meaning of the word in common or colloquial usage, not as sociologists currently use it. Sociologists are entitled to define their own jargon how they see fit; but if their reasons for doing so admit of mockery, it is counter to the spirit of the Wiki to spare them. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe that it was done with clearly political motivations, I'd be happy to read your sources, which you did not include in your article. All you did in the article was mock it, not sourcing any pages of writing where the sociologists discuss how it was done for political purposes.

Sure, but you were "referring to the meaning of the word in common or colloquial usage" in a section that was about the sociological definition of racism that challenges the concept of reverse racism. You were doing this to somehow discredit the sociological definition because it didn't agree with the colloquial definition. This is silly and has no place on this wiki. If you want to write about the colloquial definition of racism, go write it on a different page.

Sociologists are entitled to define terms as they see fit, but I wonder why you are entitled to mock these terms when you disagree with them? Again, you have YET to provide even a sentence from the writings of the sociologists who wrote this term that shows it was a political move. You also have yet to provide reasons why a move that had some political motivations behind it is necessarily deserving of mocking. What I believe is counter to the spirit of this wiki is bashing on scientists for disagreeing with the opinions on the general public, accusing them of having political intentions, and then providing absolutely no sources for any of your claims. --ShadowofLords (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In my version of the article, and continually throughout this discussion, I have made reference to the same book you cite in your version of the article (Portraits of White Racism, 2nd edition), but to a different part. In that part, the author argues that the old definition is unsuitable because it fails to encompass people who go against specific policies, or even specific policy-makers, on completely non-racial grounds. One of his examples was of a teachers' union who got on the wrong side of a new school administration. That definitely introduces a political dimension to the redefinition.

Sociologists are entitled to define terms as they see fit, but I wonder why you are entitled to mock these terms when you disagree with them? I think that anyone should be allowed to mock or satirize anything, and that this is one of the chief reasons that freedom of speech was instituted. In my experience, people who object to some piece of mockery just for being mockery usually do so because they are unable to find any legitimate grounds for contesting it.

As to what belongs on the Wiki or not, you might want to hang around for more than ten days before making pronouncements in that area. Mockery and snark are our stock in trade. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Explanation

People such as Wellman found the usual definition of "racism" unsuited to slapping the "racist" label on anyone who opposed any of the policies of certain pinkos pretending to speak for all members of racial minority groups (Wellman provided several examples of such "racism" in his book). Hence, they moved the goalposts by introducing a new definition that was reflective less of reality than of their own black-and-white fantasy world (no pun intended) where racial minorities have no power at all.

Also, the last time I checked, articles on the Wiki are not intended to be "unbiased," and rewriting sections of articles is not disallowed, so people might want to come up with some better reasons to revert next time around. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

By your own claims, you want to bias this article towards public opinion, purely because more people believe the public opinion and you think that the sociological definition is some type of conspiracy that was put in place "for largely political reasons". Your entire argument seems to be an accusation of "they changed the term just so they could call me a racist for disagreeing with them", which hardly seems like anything at all. I've provided a well reasoned sociological base for why the challenge exists, the racial power gap in government, economics, and crime-sentencing. You've merely said you want this article to be more biased towards my views and the publics views and it's all a conspiracy to call people who disagree with it racists. I think I'd like some better reasons from you, since you have essentially spilled some Fox vomit on the talk page and called it an argument. --ShadowofLords (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but did David T. Wellman not write the book you cited, Portraits of White Racism, at least partly to try and convince sociologists to switch from the common definition of "racism" to the new definition that is now apparently the standard among them? And did he not state that one of the reasons to use the new definition was that the old definition could not be applied to people who opposed certain policies even on non-racial grounds? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsensical

"However, by this definition there is no such thing as "reverse racism," as even if a minority held racially-prejudiced beliefs about the racial hegemons, they are unable to disadvantage them outside of the small scope of their personal life, specifically because they lack the power to oppress in a more covert manner."

How about the situations whereby blacks violently attack whites for racist motives? ^{— Unsigned, by: KingtheKing / talk / contribs}

The argument might be that what you are describing would be an instance of bigotry, or prejudice, and that those terms are not synonymous with racism, which involves a structural power harnessed against racialized groups. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the definition of "racism" is controversial. The relevant controversial part here is that racism can only come from the privileged class. How ironclad is that part of the definition? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's contextual to some degree. If I were in a room full of people with advanced degrees who studied race and racism full-time, very few people would dispute the idea that racism is about power, and not just about how individuals feel about other individuals based on their ideas about things like skin colour. If I were talking to my buddies at the pub, it's more likely that I would want to avoid the argument and talk about the hockey instead of trying to deal with the slippery usage of the term. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 04:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Although their importance is blown way out of proportion for political reasons, I have a hard time seeing what other word might better describe, say, black supremacy or melanin theory. And not all the racism of black supremacists is directed against whites -- indeed, their anti-Semitic diatribes could be lifted wholesale from neo-Nazi screeds. (See the Tom Metzger quote.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I just noticed I had this discussion over a year ago...on this very page. I have learned nothing. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No dispute that it's contextual, and about power, but there are places in between the elite symposium and the pub, each with its own demographic. Might say all racism, like politics, is local. Even in a district dominated by purple people, you will find venues where blue people are the dominant majority, and who may inflict racism on purples who show up by mistake.

I suppose terms of art may be paid extra, so they mean whatever the academic lictors wish them to mean, but there is only so far that can be pushed before one finds the linguistic anthropologists revolting.

Hockey, you say? It's summer where I live. Practice is gonna cost ya, if you can even get time on the ice. Not a sport for penniless serfs. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't say how Powder's hypothetical experts use the term, but if they've changed the meaning so that only those in power can be racists, then they've done so at the expense of clarity. The etymology of the term is clear enough, and has nothing to do with dominance. Indeed, I can't see why restricting the term thus is very useful: we would thereby have no term for the melanin theories of black nationalists, say. Instead, it would make more sense to introduce a new term that focuses on racism of the dominant group and leave the existing term unchanged.

Sadly, language often changes in unfortunate ways. If Powder is right, and many folks reserve the term racism for this asymmetric meaning, this is just another less-than-ideal shift.

In any case, Sprocket, I rent the ice twice a week for practices, paying $250 an hour and charging my skaters $20. That's not so different than the winter ice, in fact a wee cheaper and the ice is easier to come by, because there's less demand (there are fewer rinks, too, but it still works in my favor). At least in Boston, summer hockey is not so bad. Phiwum (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference to blackmail

Hi, I was reading the article and I noticed a reference to blackmail that didn't really seem to make sense towards the beginning so I just removed the 4 words in question. I hope this is okay, I don't think the article loses any context so I'm pretty sure it's fine. 72.227.65.112 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed Dead Langston Hughes Poem Link

Pretty self explanatory. Also, the article was harder to understand than is necessary. I think it could be simplified, and probably point out that "reverse racism" is a term frequently employed by our friends at Faux News. This clarifies that it's a term you can see in conservative circles, not just from white supremacists who seem to be more on the fringe of the right wing. User:PsychoGecko 22:27, 23 June 2014, (UTC)

What i don't understand

What i don't understand is why they use the term "reverse racism". Racism is racism both ways so if you REALLY felt persecuted against because you were white, you could just say "racism". However i do understand its supposed to be a snarl word.--N7.Geth (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In case people think that racism directed at white people doesn't exist...

Look up the names Kim Curtis and Karla Holloway. Even though professors operating in their little academic fiefdoms hardly wield the power of being the majority in an entire society, it's worth noting they can do plenty of damage as it is; as an example, Curtis nearly prevented a white student from graduating due to blatant grade retaliation that was directly tied to his race, which was so egregious the university ended up having to change his grade after he filed a lawsuit. Every so often being white is a distinct disadvantage (one can peruse the Duke lacrosse case for the most obvious example, and there was another case on campus at the time involving a black student raping a white student which raised nothing but victim-blaming from the same people howling about the lacrosse players), and while such cases aren't altogether common they do exist. Obviously that's the definition of racism, not "reverse racism", the point being that it's possible for anti-white people to get some measure of power and that, on an individual level, it's not any better or worse when these sorts act out their bullshit views. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

While minor, I'd like to add that one of my roommates in college was a straight A student (not even an A-) EXCEPT for a class taught by an ex radical black professor where he got a B+. Not the biggest deal in the world, and there isn't an employer alive that'd say "well, he has a 3.95 but require at least a 4.0, so next person", but still. I'd be an asshat to cry and say "waaa it's so much easier being black" or anything like that, I've seen pretty bad blatant racism with my own eyes, but it does happen against white people too. I've had girls molest me but I'm not going to say it's easier being one... CorruptUser (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Our definition of racism is:

"Racism is a system of societal organization in which one or more races is held to be superior to others, thereby enjoying greater privilege in society."

Given that definition, the examples detailed above do not fit the definition of "racism." Hence the "reverse racism" option.
Carptrash (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I still have a problem with that definition. I mean, I can understand the "societal" aspect. But the racial supremecy aspect is part of racialism, not racism. Slightly different. It's possible to be racist but not racialist, e.g., you believe every ethnic group is in competition with each other and you have to support your group or you are a "race traitor", even if you don't think your group is inherently superior. And you can still have two groups that are both racist towards each other; my hometown was mostly Irish and Italian, and while they get along now both groups were various levels of dicks to each other back in the day.

I also take issue with the technicality that one group receives greater privilege. This is a decent enough metric for determining if society is more racist towards ones group than it is towards others, but I'd argue that a better metric would be if privilege is ever reduces. For example, it's pretty damn clear that rigid gender roles harm women more than men, but men still have reduced privilege than the the world without such sexism because many men that'd be happier in "feminine" roles are discouraged from doing so.

Incidentally, we used to have one of the largest chapters of the Klan in town, but the local factory decided to hire Catholic immigrants...CorruptUser (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Why has no one posted anything sane in this entire discussion? "Hey, here's an anecdote where I pretend race is the relevant factor in my friend getting a B+ given zero evidence" is pretty fucking dumb CorruptUser. Grow up you're not entitled to As in one class because you got them in another, nor is it evidence of anything. And, OP? At no point did we say that racism is never directed at white people. That's just a meaningless strawman you constructed. I'd appreciate a discussion on the matter, but you're bringing up right-wing distorted stories that you don't know shit about, and using it for exactly the sort of whining that this article deconstructs. And the only stories that even remotely support the even more distorted narriative you're giving here are fucking neonazi sites. Please don't be a complete idiot desperately grasping at straws to justify barely cogent narratives in order to excuse a term that is used almost exclusively in defense of racist ideologies.

If you want to talk about the relationship of power and prejudice in a wider context: go right ahead. If you want to cite "Look up these things that I'm badly distorting" then grow the fuck up. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a strawnman; in that particular class he wasn't the only white kid who got reduced grades and the professor did receive a censure or whatever the punishment was at one point for it. I didn't feel like going into all the details, because I don't view this site as my own personal diary. You don't know me nor my friends, yet you immediately assume a bunch of stuff about me. As for the strawman, I wasn't the original poster in this thread, nor did I vigorously research the case that was posted. I was pointing out that, yes, I have seen some amounts of racism (and sexism, and homophobia, and transphobia) in Academia. Then someone brought in our definition of racism, which I obviously took issue with. As for "right-wing distorted stories", I'm not sure where that comes in. Settle down, we're mostly on the same side on most things hereCorruptUser (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, racism against white people happens sometimes too, but some dude getting a B instead of an A on some test? Yeah, sorry, that's a really lame example. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Course not test, but I said it was minor. Just responding that yes, I can confirm that at least a small amount of racism existed when I went to college. CorruptUser (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So it was personal prejudice of the professor, not racism according to the given definition, correct? --Castaigne (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably. Yeah, he was part of the system and had power, but I guess the fault there was more individual than systemic. CorruptUser (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ikanreed, if your rant was directed at me (hard to tell with the indenting and such) you might want to do some basic fact checking. KC Johnson (the source I'm using to back up the statement about Kim Curtis) is not a neo-Nazi, he's a highly respected history professor who noted that a huge chunk of the professors at Duke were, among other things, engaging in particularly vile race-baiting because the students accused were white. If you're too lazy to take 10 seconds to run a Google search (hint: search "Kim Curtis" "Kyle Dowd") I'll even give you the link myself. I'm not quite sure what your issue is with simply acknowledging that such things happen, I at least ascribe to the view that this kind of thing should be combatted no matter who is victimizing who. The section header was a bit of sarcasm, given that the article as it stands doesn't include even a single actual example of what someone might term "reverse racism"; you're reading way more into it than intended. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What I have enjoyed about RationalWiki is that we are allowed to bring personal experiences into play, so I liked the shitty grade story. i also trust that the poster of the story did not make it up to prove a point but is being honest. I assume good faith. However, even if the Prof knocked 10 points off of every white person's grade just for the fun (or whatever thrill it might have provided) of it, this still does not fit our definition of "racism." A black person in a position of power, misusing that power because s/he disliked whites is not being racist. S/he is being a jerk, allowing personal opinions to influence his or her grading process. We don't have a term for profs who grade blonds higher than brunettes or red heads. We don't have one for the prof with the Napoleonic complex who grades tall students harsher than diminutive ones. In that same respect, 'racist" is not the proper term for our friend's teacher. Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do, gingerism and heightism. CorruptUser (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You know, Carptrash, we actually do have a word that most people are happy to use to describe a black prof who grades a white student unfairly. That word is "racist". I know that some academics have changed the definition, but I think you'll find the man in the street would have no problem identifying this as racism. Phiwum (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

One day, people will understand the difference between "individual acts of discrimination and prejudice" and "systemic racism," and then we can shut down a big chunk of the internet. We'll shut down another big chunk when people leant what "free speech" actually means. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that difference matters, but historically (and etymologically) the word "racism" has been applied to individuals. At some point, it was adapted to include systemic racism, and that's not a bad thing until people decide that racism means only the systemic variety. (I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or agreeing with me, but as far as I'm concerned, the issue could be easily settled by distinguishing "systemic" or "institutional" racism from individual racism.) Phiwum (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To me, individual racism is when a judge sentences black kids to prison because he hates black people; systemic racism is when a judge sentences black kids to prison because he needs to be seen as "tough on crime" to get re-elected. But you can't turn around and say the first guy isn't racist because he's only being a bigot by choice.CorruptUser (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If we begin applying "the-man-in-the-street" guideline to Rationalpedia I do believe that the whole site will sink like a rock in the deep blue sea. I argued (mostly with myself) against the new (dare we say "PC"?) definition of racism and have come to peace with it. I still on occasion will go into an office somewhere and as I approach the counter will notice that there is a 45 year old black woman behind it and I think, "Okay, this might be difficult," because I am a tall, white male and she has the power here and is likely to wield it with a not-so-good-for-me effect. But I do not see that as racism. Racism is what she and her ancestors have gone through that have created this person who is about the screw around with me. It's (opinion) different and I think it is good for (particularly) white males to recognize this "fact". To cast ourselves into the role of victim is not a good thing. Carptrash (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't intend to cast myself as a victim of racism. In fact, in my daily life, I don't notice any obvious signs of prejudice. My point is simply that an academic re-definition of the word "racism" to mean something narrower than it has historically, and different than is is etymologically, and rather more confusing as well, is likely not going to gain traction. More to the point, complaining when others use it with the common meaning won't get you far.

But, complaints and criticisms about the P+P definition ought to be brought up on that talk page. Phiwum (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There is, however, something that needs to be clarified about the P+P definition as it's used in this article. Please see the section below. Phiwum (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What people forget about definitions is that words gain definitions all the time, and rarely lose them. That means if you define a banana as "a fruit you can pretend to make telephone calls on," it will still not erase the original definition of a "curved, cylindrical, yellow, tropical fruit." So while a segment of the population may have added the "power+privilege" definition to racist/racism, the older definition of "an asshole who hates people based on the asshole's definition of race" OR "thinking one or more race is inherently superior to other races," are still valid definitions. Show-Me Skeptic 14:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering the age of this discussion (last reply before yours is from April 2015!), I'd recommend you to head on over to our prejudice plus power article and see the tremendous work that has been performed on it since. Spoiler: don't worry, the "traditional" meaning of the word "racist" (roughly: "bigoted asshole") still applies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bit of a silly claim here.

From the article: "However, by this definition there is no such thing as 'reverse racism,' as even if a minority held racially-prejudiced beliefs about the racial hegemons, they would be unable to disadvantage them outside of the small scope of their personal life, specifically because they lack the power to oppress in a more covert manner."

This is, of course, nonsense. Presumably, in the modern U.S., blacks are disadvantaged and whites are advantaged. But it is nonsense, of course, to say that no black American has sufficient power to disadvantage whites outside of their personal life (Obama comes to mind). So, when we say that racism as "Prejudice + Power" goes only one direction (from privileged to oppressed), we can't mean that no individual minorities have sufficient power. Rather, this definition of racism can't meaningfully be applied to individuals at all, but only to systems or institutions.

I haven't studied this usage, so I may be mistaken on details. I cannot be mistaken, however, that the above quoted sentence is simply false. Individual members of a disadvantaged class can have considerable authority and power. Phiwum (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That's more or less what I was trying to say above, although I once again couldn't get the words I wanted out. No doubt Steven Pagones would agree with your statement, if you catch my drift. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not defending the term "reverse racism" necessarily, since it draws an unnecessary distinction in my mind. Also, I didn't think your example of the prof who penalized a (falsely) accused rapist was convincingly racism as such, since there was rather a lot going on there.

In this section, I'm also not criticizing the "prejudice plus power" definition (though I don't like it). I'm just pointing out that either the U.S is not a racist society or the sentence quoted above is literally, obviously false, since it suggests no minority is in a powerful position in a racist society. Phiwum (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Steven Pagones was the one caught up in the Tawana Brawley mess, probably should have clarified that. Other than that, I agree. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked him up when you first mentioned him. I'm not sure I'd use Tawana Brawley as an example of an empowered minority, even though she obviously had a profound effect on those she accused. Maybe you were thinking of her supporters, like Sharpton, as being empowered. Phiwum (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sharpton and Maddox both. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the text to remove the obviously false claim and instead refer to the actual terms of the definition cited.

There seem to be a few ways to interpret the P+P definition. That is, what does it mean to require both prejudice and power?

1. The individual is prejudiced and personally possesses social power.
2. The individual is prejudiced and his race is in a socially dominant position.
3. The definition applies not to individuals, but to systems or social arrangements.

The first interpretation obviously does not allow one to conclude there are no black racists in the U.S. Presumably the second or third interpretation is what social theorists intend. The third interpretation is not very pleasing, since it has so re-defined the word as to make it unsuitable for its most basic use: to describe certain race-related beliefs of individuals. Under the third interpretation, the sentence "Joe is a racist" is nonsensical, since Joe can no more be a racist than liberty can be yellow-green.

Anyway, hopefully the text now reflects the second interpretation, which I presume is what was intended. Phiwum (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

From above. "Rather, this definition of racism can't meaningfully be applied to individuals at all, but only to systems or institutions." and I would add to that, "groups of people" and what you have (opinion) is a nice workable definition of "stereotype." I use stereotypes all the time, for black people, for white people, Jews, old people, men, women, the list is endless. it can be useful in understanding some behavior and in making some predictions, but it breaks down and becomes useless or even counter productive when applied to individuals. Anyway, is one of the things that we are trying to resolve here, 'Is there such a thing as 'Reverse racism" or is it just a useless and pointless diversion of some sort? " because if so, I am prepared to follow the "reverse racism is just a form of gibberish or psychobabble or something group. Carptrash (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not defending the use of "reverse racism". I was simply puzzled by the text as it stood, prior to my edit. It didn't seem a persuasive rebuttal of the term.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the P+P definition, applied to groups of people, results in a definition for "stereotype". Phiwum (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel that any definition applied to a group of people is a stereotype. Or something like that. Carptrash (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my claim. What I mean is this: when we say that racism requires both prejudice and power, what are the sorts of things that can be racist? One answer might be that people can't be racist, but only systems, organizations, social settings, and the like. This is because we're analyzing the system in which prejudice takes place and is reinforced by the distribution of power, so it is the system itself which earns the term "racist", not any individuals in the system.

I don't know if this is a common interpretation. It's not one I like, but it's one that I think is suggested by the little I've read. Phiwum (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry (getting in touch with my Canadian roots). Misunderstanding is on of the things I do best. Still. I am not sure that I can go along with people can't be racist, Carptrash (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We can always be pluralists when it comes to word meaning. In fact, that's one reason I think it's fairly silly to say, "Black Americans can't be racist," full stop. They cannot be racist according to the P+P definition (interpreted as (2) or (3)) would have it), but they obviously can be racist in another common definition of the term, and which definition is appropriate depends on the context of conversation.

Similarly, the third interpretation, which suggests that people literally can't be racist, might be a reasonable use of the term in the context of analyzing the effects of institutional racism, but it would be pretty stupid for anyone to thereby proclaim that no person is a racist, full stop, because of this definition. I should think that in other contexts, we want to talk about individuals and their prejudices.

Stipulative definitions are useful for this or that purpose, and it seems rather silly to me to pretend they settle synthetic claims about racism in minorities. It involves an almost willful misreading of the assertion under debate. Phiwum (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

My brother, H, came up with what I think is a good idea. In any conversation, such as this one, anyone gets to define any word any way that want in order to get their point across. So I can say Cracism is such and such and you can say Pracism is something else and we can proceed from there to the point of the discussion rather than spending time and energy arguing about what a particular word means. One a personal level, "Cracism" is what occurs when people make disparaging remarks or behave in an unpleasant manner toward someone based on that person's race. So . . .. anyone can be a racist. Also, "obviously" (you used above) is high on my list of 27 (carp math) words of phrases that mean "in my opinion." Perhaps I should put that list on my user page. If I have not already done so. Carptrash (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There should be a rule where if you have to redefine a word from its original definition in order to make your argument, you are almost certainly wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just what we need. More Rules. So, . . ..... please define "original definition." Carptrash (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to reveal your brother's name btw. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I used "obviously" in the following sentence: they obviously can be racist in another common definition of the term... I see nothing the least bit controversial or inobvious about that claim. If you do, then let me know and I'll see if I can't make it even clearer.

I'll start by saying that the "other common definition" I had in mind was "one who holds racially based prejudices and/or stereotypes". Now, surely you agree that, per that definition (which I think you'll find is pretty common), it is obviously the case that black people can be racist.

So, it's good your ears perk up when you hear the word "obviously", but I do believe that what I said was obvious is, indeed, obvious. You may correct me if I'm mistaken. Phiwum (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "obviously" is one of those words that I take note of because frequently what is obvious to one person is not so at all to another. it is also one of those words that . . . well if something is really so obvious then it is not necessary to say it. Okay, now about a racist being "one who holds racially based prejudices and/or stereotypes". I happen to hold several "racially based prejudices and/or stereotypes" yet do not consider myself to be a racist. I hold a belief, for example, that a northern European male is much less likely to publicly express his emotions than say, a southern European one. I believe that a person of African descent is likely to be able to run much faster than one of Jewish descent. Obviously I do not believe that holding these racial stereotype makes me a racist. Do you? Carptrash (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a background in math and philosophy, and adding the word "obviously" when what you're stating is not novel, deep or abstruse is generally regarded as a help to the reader. Feel free to complain when the word is misused, but I see no reason to point it out when properly used.

Perhaps the use of my word "stereotype" is too broad, and the line between harmless stereotypes and racism is difficult to define clearly. If you think that cultural stereotypes don't count as racism, I won't belabor the point. After all, the line drawn in the P+P definition is every bit as vague when it comes to stereotypes crossing the line into prejudice.

The only claim I've made is this: there is a commonly accepted understanding of racism in terms of race-based prejudice and discrimination, without any reference to power differences. This definition can be found in literally any complete, general purpose English dictionary. Under this interpretation of "racist", it is plainly obvious that black Americans can be racist. (It is also reasonably clear that under the P+P definition, depending on how we understand it, black Americans literally cannot be racist.) Phiwum (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as the only senior in my high school algebra 1 class (a while ago) I certainly must defer to not only math, but philosophy. As far as the definition goes, this is what the point of my brother's thing about getting to define a word as we intend to use it in a conversation and adding one's initials to it to make that clear, is about. Since there are two commonly used definitions of "racist" in one blacks can fit and in the other they can not, we might as well be able to use which ever one we want to further some discussion rather than arguing about wors meanings. Carptrash (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a nice webcomic link about words and definitions. *whooshes off again* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In a reasonable conversation, one doesn't bother arguing over the "real" meaning of a word, since that is of course arbitrary. That is why the common rejoinder "But American blacks can't be racist!" is fundamentally silly. If you insist on using a different meaning of the word, then we're not really disagreeing.

Now, we can argue about which definition is more useful, produces more insight, and so on, but to complaint that racism "really" means this or that is no more useful than complaining that there is nothing really odd about the number 23. Phiwum (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

" of course " is another of those phrases that always catch my attention because it means . . . ...what? And I wonder how many conversations about racism end up being "reasonable conversations?" But okay, let us talk about racist blacks and use this definition of Racism that I found in the Oxford dictionary. "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:" Well, first of all, I guess this is "Cracism" (Carptrashracism) - does it meet with your approval? And if so, explain how a black racist occurrence stems from the black person's feeling that his or her race is superior? Carptrash (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Of course" means roughly the same as "obviously" and the arbitrariness of definitions really is bloody obvious to anyone who thinks about it for just a moment.

Sure, we can discuss that meaning, though it wasn't the one I had in mind. I don't think that a presumption of the superiority of one's own race is all that essential to the kind of situation that I'm thinking of. But let us ask whether black Americans can be racist in this sense.

And, the answer is, yes, obviously they can be racist in this sense and moreover a small minority of them are racist in exactly this sense. See the WP article on Melanin Theory for an example of prejudice directed against pale skinned persons based on the presumed superiority of those with dark skins.

Let's use subscripts, calling this definition racism_c, the previous definition I offered (substituting "discrimination" for "stereotype", if you'd like) racism_p, and the P+P definition racism_P. Then, the set of black American racists_P is empty, and the set of black American racist_c is a small subset of the set of black American racists_p. Phiwum (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)