Racism or Bigotry, Which is it???

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: mOjOm

It strikes me that a racist must also be a bigot whereas a bigot doesn't have to be a racist.*





* thought of the day brought by the letters R and B.

I dunno, sometimes being around a specific element can breed a level of distrust. I know many people who dislike bikers. But they don't hate their place of origin. Often it is the same as theirs.

And if you only ever see one thing, you're going to carry that with you to everyone who reminds you, or places you in that situation.

Bigots just dislike people for a perceived reason, based on a trait they see and consider all encompassing. Racists dislike people solely on their 'race'. We're all the human race. Racism, is pure ignorance, not something you develop from continued encounters, but something you just think because you don't know any better.

If I were to see a mime in a circus and then see a mime on the street, I'd expect them to act the same. Nothing wrong with that. And if I were to find mimes in a certain place always stealing my balloons and developed a dislike for them no matter where I saw them, that would be bigotry. But if I only ever thought mimes are evil, with no basis. That would be racism..

a reply to: mOjOm

Not wild at all. Look at the term "soft bigotry of low expectations."

It is the idea that a lot of the constructs set up to "help" the "oppressed minorities" do more to reinforce the idea that they can't succeed without the help of those constructs than they do actually help. Take Affirmative Action for an example, in your own life how many people do you know who would actively seek to hire a less qualified person simply because they do not like the race, religion, etc., of the more qualified one? But that is the presumption Affirmative Action Laws do make and the social idea they reinforce.

Now, I am not saying that racism, bigotry, and prejudice do not exist. We all have them in various ways to some degree or other, but most of us recognize them and know better than to act on them in any real way to actively seek to hurt other people in our lives by barring them from the mechanisms of life - work, housing, etc.

But getting back to my point, laws and constructs that reinforce the idea that certain groups or minorities cannot succeed without legal force behind them compelling their entry into culture spreads that perception. Did you really earn that for yourself or did the law force your way in despite your lesser ability? And one the on hand people do start looking at your group as lesser qualified and able while your group starts to think that you can't succeed and do for itself without that long arm of the law moving the game to your advantage.

So, yes, it can create the impression that leads to people thinking of a group as less and less able.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Ok, so this is just an explanation on what the current usage of Racism and Bigotry are for others. Like some of you I wasn't exactly clear on what the difference between those two terms actually was according to intellectuals and academics of today. Even more confusing was when I'd hear someone in the media say "Black People can't be Racist only White People can be Racist". To me that always sounded kinda Racist to say that in the first place as well as being plain wrong.

But recently I saw some guy who actually described it and why that is how the word Racist is being used that way. So I thought I'd write it here for anyone else who might be confused as to why so many people are saying that.

Apparently when using the term Racist rather than prejudice or bigot, the difference is that Racism is not only having the perspective that some races are superior to others or prejudice toward other groups based on race but also having the means to act upon those racist thoughts against that group of people.

So for example, A Racist White Cop not only acts negatively toward another person because of their race but since he's in a position of authority he has the means to act on his racism and effect that other persons life in some way. That is why so many people say that only "White People" can be racist, because they are in the position to effect other peoples lives in negative ways because of it. On the other hand, without that power to effect others you're just considered a Bigot but not Racist.

So using the same example as above, the White Cop is said to be Racist because he also has the power to effect the other person against their will, but the victim wouldn't be called racist even if he hated the cop equally as the cop hates him based on their racial differences because he lacks the power to effect the cops life. The victim in this case would just be said to be Bigoted against the Cop.

This is how it's been defined in today's society apparently and even though I now understand it, I still don't agree with what they're saying or how they use it.

I don't have any trouble with it being defined that way however. It makes perfect sense and actually does help point out the difference between those terms. But the problem is that to say Black People can't be Racist Against White People because they lack the power to effect them against their will is just plain wrong. They certainly can and I think they are making themselves sound weak by saying or believing such BS.

Perhaps during the slave era when black people literally were owned as property such a statement might be valid. But not today and not in an open or even quasi open society like we have. Anyone can effect anyone else against their will based on just their prejudice alone. Now of course that balance of power may not be completely equal but it never is and never will be. But there are Judges, Politicians, Wealthy Business Owners, Great Athletes, Actors, etc. of all races that have positions of power over other people and other races. Especially here in America where we are mixed cultures.

Anyway, Just thought I'd throw that out there for those who were confused on why the word Racism or Racist is used differently by some people and with a different subtle meaning sometimes. Hopefully I explained it well enough. Let me know what you think.

I get the definition and its reasons.

But it also ignores when people of color have micro power, such as if they own a company or are a supervisor and can hire/fire people.

There are people of color who Do have the power to affect white people through actions. And, that doesn't even begin to describe basic violence or prejudicial actions.

Further, this claim is based solely on the US or Europe. It ignores the non white societies across the world.

Hence, it's too overly generalized. Sjws don't say "in America only whites can racist." They say " only whites can be racist" period.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: mOjOm

It strikes me that a racist must also be a bigot whereas a bigot doesn't have to be a racist.*





* thought of the day brought by the letters R and B.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I almost posted that same thing earlier actually.