For some, especially on the right, reverse racism is just as serious and problematic as regular racism.
For others, especially on the left, reverse
a black person, say, may be hostile toward or prejudiced against white people, but cannot count as racist toward them.
This disagreement is due, in part, to a further disagreement as to whether racism, and/or the badness of racism, is essentially a matter of individual attitudes and actions, or essentially a matter of systematic power relations.
And the same issues arise with sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, and so on.
I think both sides are wrong. That is, I think reverse racism (along with sexism, etc.) is a) possible and real, but b) less seriously problematic than the regular sort.
Let me say why.
I’ll start with a thought-experiment designed to convince those who already accept the existence of reverse racism (etc.) that it is less seriously problematic than the regular sort.
Thought-Experiment #1:
Bobby Shafto’s Burger Shack
Bobby Shafto has an odd obsession with freckles, specifically facial freckles.
He likes people with an even number of freckles on their face.
(That includes people with no freckles on their face, since zero is an even number.)
But he has an aversion toward people with an odd number of freckles on their face, and he refuses to allow them into his Burger Shack, either as employees or as customers.
In his world, which we’ll suppose to be ours as well, Shafto’s particular prejudice is of course highly unusual.
But on Twin Earth, let’s say, the same prejudice is widely shared among the even-freckled, and as the even-freckled command the lion’s share of economic and political power, they are able to make their prejudice effective.
Suppose Bobby Shafto and his odd discrimination policy really exist somewhere.
We might well disapprove.
But how concerned would we be about it?
Not very, I suspect.
And the reason isn’t hard to find:
Shafto’s prejudice is so rare that it causes very it’s easy enough to find other places to work or to eat.
By contrast, when we consider the Twin-Earth scenario in which Shafto’s prejudice is the norm among those with economic and political power, then the life-choices of odd-freckled people would start to be systematically constrained, and the prejudice in question would begin to look like something in need of being condemned and combated in a serious and organised way.
(Such combating need not necessarily take the fo but that’s a distinct issue.)
When I say that prejudice against odd-freckled people is a worse evil on Twin Earth than in our world, I don’t just mean that it has worse consequences (though that’ part of what I mean).
I also mean that it evinces a worse motive and character – since it involves knowingly contributing to ongoing oppression, as Shafto’s does not.
So discrimination against the odd-freckled is a serious evil on Twin E but our world is not Twin Earth.
And considering Bobby Shafto in our world – Bobby Shafto the isolated eccentric weirdo – I ask those who think reverse racism is as seriously problematic as regular racism whether they also think Shafto’s discrimination policy is as seriously problematic as regular racism. If – as I predict – they mostly don’t, that would seem to show that they’re committed to acknowledging that the badness of racism is at least in large part a matter of the systematic constraining of people’s options – of their oppression, in .
But that means that reverse racism – i.e., racism by an oppressed group against a non-oppressed group – cannot be as serious an evil as racism by a non-oppressed group against an oppressed group.
My argument presupposes, of course, that blacks are an oppressed group and that whites are not.
(And ditto mutatis mutandis for women vs. men, etc.)
Obviously some of the people who worry about reverse racism will deny that supposition. I think they’re crazy to deny it, but that’s a debate I’m not getting into here.
For purposes of this post I’m addressing those who grant that blacks are oppressed while whites (quawhites) are not, but who nevertheless regard regular racism and reverse racism as equally bad.
The point of my comparison between Bobby Shafto and Twin Earth is to convince holders of that position that they can’t hold it consistently.
Let me now turn to the second group – those who deny the possibility of reverse racism, on the grounds that racism is essentially about systematic , institutional oppression, not merely individual attitudes.
The usual criticism of this view is that it conflicts with ordinary usage.
That criticism is, I think, a strong one, but not quite as strong as its proponents suppose.
Why is the appeal to ordinary usage strong?
Because the standard use of the word “racism” in ordinary language does treat individual attitudes as sufficient (even if not necessary) for racism.
People are of course free to give the word “racism” a special sense as a technical term referring exclusively to
but if that is all they are doing, then they are not entitled to criticise others who use the term in the ordinary way.
By analogy, , means something radically different from its use(s) almost everywhere else (whether in rhetoric, in literary theory, or in ordinary language); but it would be silly for me to criticise those who don’t use it as analytic philosophers do.
Why is the appeal to ordinary usage not necessarily decisive?
Because a term’s ordinary use can legitimately be rejected if there turn out to be something wrong with that use – as
with, for example, the term “capitalism.”
But is there anything wrong with the ordinary meaning of “racism”?
It allows for the possibility of reverse racism, of course, but is there anything wrong with doing so?
One might think so, if one thought that acknowledging reverse racism as a category committed one to regarding reverse racism as comparable to regular racism either in extent or
but no such commitment exists.
(That the existence of reverse racism does not entail its being comparable in moral seriousness to regular racism was the moral of my Bobby Shafto thought-experiment above.)
Of course the sort of people who tend to bang on about reverse racism do typically regard it as comparable, both in extent and in moral seriousness, but we do not need to deny the existence of a category in order to deny that the category has the significance that those who are most invested in the category generally attribute to it.
Another reason one might have for rejecting the ordinary meaning of “racism” is simply the need for a term that conveys the systematic, institutional dimen if “racism” as commonly used doesn’t do that, maybe we should change it so that it will.
But in fact we have terms that do the trick, such as “oppression,” “white privilege,” and (mutatis mutandis) “patriarchy.”
Those term “racism” doesn’t need to be (nor, e.g., does “sexism”).
In any case, insisting that nothing counts as racism unless it involves systematic, institutional oppression
has some consequences that even those who take that view ought to find awkward.
This brings me to my second thought-experiment.
Thought-Experiment #2:
Unfrozen Caveman Owner
Take someone you think
presumably Donald Sterling will do (he’s also a sexist, so this example can do double duty), though pick someone else if you like.
Now suppose that while touring a cryogenics facility he falls into the vat and is instantly frozen.
When he is revived, many years (decades? centuries? millennia?) have passed, and he wakes into a world in which true racial (as well as gender, etc.) equality have finally been achieved.
But all of Sterling’s attitudes remain the same as they were in the early 21st century. Is Sterling no longer a racist (and ditto for sexist)?
If racism necessarily involves society-wide power relations, then Sterling in my example is not a racist once he wakes up, since the power relations in question are gone.
But it seems bizarre to deny that future-Sterling, with all his attitudes unchanged from those of present-Sterling, is a racist.
I don’t just mean that it seems bizarre to me.
Rather, I’m predicting (subject of course to falsification) that even those (or most of those) who are attracted to the denial of the possibility of reverse-racism will find it plausible to think of future-Sterling as a racist.
But if he is a racist, then racism does not essentially depend on systematic oppression (even if much of racism’s moral interest stems from such oppression), and so the chief case against the possibility of reverse racism must be abandoned.
But perhaps it will be said that future-Sterling counts as a racist only because his beliefs and attitudes were formed in a social context of white privilege and so are still defined by their origin.
Well in that case let’s consider a final thought-experiment.
Thought-Experiment #3:
The Red and Yellow Peril
Two distinct ethnic groups, the Winkies and the Quadlings, live in adjacent territories.
Each side regards the other as racially inferior degenerates who deserve to be either subjugated or exterminated.
The two are at constant war with each other, but as they are roughly equally matched, neither side has succeeded in subduing the other.
Are the Winkies and Quadlings not racist?
The mutual race hatred between the Winkies and the Quadlings seems like the kind of situation that the concept of “racism” is tailor-made to describe.
But while each side seeks domination, neither has it.
There’s no inequality, no privilege, no oppression.
So racism, I suggest, need not involve these.
In which case reverse racism is possible.
Though not necessarily that big a deal.
Pingback: ()
Pingback: ()
Pingback: ()
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 418 other subscribers
Email Address
Posts by Main Authors
Posts by Guest Authors
Categories
Recent Posts
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.
The Latest
You should read Joseph Heath’s Morality, Competition, and the Firm. My review of&[&]
(C) 2011 Bleeding Heart Libertarians
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.If we interere with nature ,we will have to deal with a series of problems and the consequences ___ will create in turn.A it B they C which D that_百度作业帮
If we interere with nature ,we will have to deal with a series of problems and the consequences ___ will create in turn.A it B they C which D that
If we interere with nature ,we will have to deal with a series of problems and the consequences ___ will create in turn.A it B they C which D that
选A吧we will have to deal with a series of problems and the consequences （which）it will create in turn仅供参考
定语从句，有两个先行词，故选D,that
这个选C 从句
这题该选 B they； 整句 “a series of problems and the consequences they will create in turn" 应被视为宾语从句，they 指代从句中的 problems。
B， 应该是（that）they will create in turn.因为create不是过去分词，所以主语不是consequence，所以不能用that。这个从句缺主语，这里they指的是problems。Everyone needs friends.We all like to feel close to someone.It is nice to have a friend to talk,laugh and do things with.Surely,there is time when we need to be alone.We don't always want people around.But we will feel lonely if_百度作业帮
Everyone needs friends.We all like to feel close to someone.It is nice to have a friend to talk,laugh and do things with.Surely,there is time when we need to be alone.We don't always want people around.But we will feel lonely if
&&& Everyone needs friends.We all like to feel close to someone.It is nice to have a friend to talk,laugh and do things with.Surely,there is time when we need to be alone.We don't always want people around.But we will feel lonely if we never have a friend.&&& No two people are just the same.Sometimes friends don't get along well.That doesn't mean that they no longer like each other.Most of the time they will go on being friends.&&& Sometimes friends move away.Then we feel very sad.We miss them very much.But we can call them or write to them.It could be that we would even see them again.And we can make new friends.It is surprising to find out how much we like new people when we get to know them.&&& There's more good for people with friends.They live longer than people who don't.Why?It could be that they are happier.Being happy helps you stay well.If someone cares about you,you'll take better care of yourself.
1.The first paragraph (段) tells us that ______.
A.none need friends B.we always need friends around us C.making friends is a need in people's life D.we need to be alone
2.Sometimes friends move away.We feel&______.
A.happy B.sad C.lonely D.excited
3.People with friends live longer than people without friends because ______.
A.they feel happier and healthier.B.they get a lot of help from their friends C.they take better care of themselves D.both A and C
4.The writer doesn't say in the passage ______.
A.people are not happy when their friends leave them B.people will never see their friends after their friends move away C.people can know their friends in different ways D.people like their friends very much if they get to know them
5.The main idea of this passage is ______.
A.people are all friends B.people need friends C.how to get to know friends D.how to write to your friends
1-5: CBDBB