Racism is NOT power+prejudice, it's just prejudice
Let us approach this topic with just a modecom of logical thought. Racism has almost always been defined as the belief that one's race is superior to another race. It goes without saying that racists are far more prone to oppressing, and it can be said racism and oppression of other races(than whatever race x racist happens to be) will go hand in hand. There is little logical reason to oppress a group of people you consider to be equal with you. That's why demonization of enemies has always been a thing, but that's not really the point. This definition has been fine for decades. Let's start the analysis of the power+prejudice definition of racism now.
First aspect of the new definition is power. What exactly is meant by power? Well, as this is a definition adopted only by this movement, we can only look at what they say. They seem to believe that power refers to institutional power. Like governmental positions and the like. The problem I have with this is that it can also refer to say, a boss, a teacher, a mother, etc. If a black woman adopts a white child, given she has prejudice against that child, does that make her racist? She DOES have institutional power over that child as a guardian. I'll come back to this in a minute.
Second aspect of the definition is prejudice. This one should seem obvious. This is in reference to the belief that one's race is superior to other races. I would argue that what they've essentially done, is add the power requirement to the original definition of racism.
Now to the actual analysis. There are a multitude of problems with this definition. Namely, power is not clearly defined by anybody in the movement. They always just say something along the lines of "whoever has the most power". Since this definition is used universally in reference to universal white supremacy, we will talk on that topic.
1. White people are not a hive mind. I'm not in power. Yes, a majority of power positions are filled by white people. That said, I am not one of them. I am a broke college student living in my mother's basement. I promise you Barrack Obama has far more power than I do. The problem is that in order for this definition to prove that all white people are racist, all white people would have to have more power than all other races. The only rational way to show that is to treat white people as a hive mind. To summarize. The idea is that if the majority of power positions are filled by white people, then all white people have power. That is demonstrably false as not all white people have power, because white people are not a hive mind.
2. What is the line between power and not power? Let's do a thought experiment. In the isolated system of a high school, imagine the majority of the higher ups are black. The majority of the teachers are white. The majority of the seniors are black. The majority of the juniors are white. The majority of the sophomores are black. Finally, the majority of the freshman are white. Since the definition is power+prejudice, assume that all white people are prejudiced towards black people and vice versa. Remember, this is an isolated system, meaning nothing outside of this school should be taken into consideration. Who is racist? The black or white people? Is it that black people are all inherently racist to white people because they hold the majority of the higher up positions? Is that true regardless of their rank in this system? So all sophomores are racist to the teachers? Is it a leveled thing? The higher ups are racist to white people, then the teachers are racist to black people, then the seniors are racist to white people, etc. That would simplify to all black people being racist towards white people and vice verse; thus making the power aspect of the definition irrelevant. How does this absurd definition work?
Apply this reasoning to society now. It IS true that white people hold the majority of government jobs, but what happens if black people become the majority? Would that absolve white people of racism and make black people the racists? So the solution to racism is a government quota? If not, then once again, the power aspect of this definition is pointless.
This entire definition is absolutely ridiculous. Stop redefining words for your political gain, you schmucks.
First aspect of the new definition is power. What exactly is meant by power? Well, as this is a definition adopted only by this movement, we can only look at what they say. They seem to believe that power refers to institutional power. Like governmental positions and the like. The problem I have with this is that it can also refer to say, a boss, a teacher, a mother, etc. If a black woman adopts a white child, given she has prejudice against that child, does that make her racist? She DOES have institutional power over that child as a guardian. I'll come back to this in a minute.
Second aspect of the definition is prejudice. This one should seem obvious. This is in reference to the belief that one's race is superior to other races. I would argue that what they've essentially done, is add the power requirement to the original definition of racism.
Now to the actual analysis. There are a multitude of problems with this definition. Namely, power is not clearly defined by anybody in the movement. They always just say something along the lines of "whoever has the most power". Since this definition is used universally in reference to universal white supremacy, we will talk on that topic.
1. White people are not a hive mind. I'm not in power. Yes, a majority of power positions are filled by white people. That said, I am not one of them. I am a broke college student living in my mother's basement. I promise you Barrack Obama has far more power than I do. The problem is that in order for this definition to prove that all white people are racist, all white people would have to have more power than all other races. The only rational way to show that is to treat white people as a hive mind. To summarize. The idea is that if the majority of power positions are filled by white people, then all white people have power. That is demonstrably false as not all white people have power, because white people are not a hive mind.
2. What is the line between power and not power? Let's do a thought experiment. In the isolated system of a high school, imagine the majority of the higher ups are black. The majority of the teachers are white. The majority of the seniors are black. The majority of the juniors are white. The majority of the sophomores are black. Finally, the majority of the freshman are white. Since the definition is power+prejudice, assume that all white people are prejudiced towards black people and vice versa. Remember, this is an isolated system, meaning nothing outside of this school should be taken into consideration. Who is racist? The black or white people? Is it that black people are all inherently racist to white people because they hold the majority of the higher up positions? Is that true regardless of their rank in this system? So all sophomores are racist to the teachers? Is it a leveled thing? The higher ups are racist to white people, then the teachers are racist to black people, then the seniors are racist to white people, etc. That would simplify to all black people being racist towards white people and vice verse; thus making the power aspect of the definition irrelevant. How does this absurd definition work?
Apply this reasoning to society now. It IS true that white people hold the majority of government jobs, but what happens if black people become the majority? Would that absolve white people of racism and make black people the racists? So the solution to racism is a government quota? If not, then once again, the power aspect of this definition is pointless.
This entire definition is absolutely ridiculous. Stop redefining words for your political gain, you schmucks.
Comments
Post a Comment