The Myth Of Reverse Racism
Shaun Richardson | Copy Editor
The lexicon of a society can reveal volumes about that society’s beliefs and values. Linguistic studies have proven this point time and time again. For example, rain forest-dwelling societies have been known to develop multiple words for the color green, a word that our society is comfortable nailing down with one word due to the fact that we do not live surrounded by trees. Often, the vocabulary of a society can provide a view of exactly how far a society has to go. Take the English terms reverse racism and reverse discrimination: these terms say a great deal about our society’s misguided views on discrimination and racial differences.
These terms are used to refer to situations where attitudes are held against and actions are taken against the majority group, usually Caucasians or men in the U.S., in an effort to rectify the damage done by centuries of ignorance directed toward minorities. At first glance these terms may seem harmless; however, a closer examination of their structure and meanings reveals their less than positive natures.
To call actions and attitudes taken against one group “racism” and to then call actions taken in retaliation “reverse racism,” insinuates that the majority group holds some sort of patent on being racist. Further, reverse racism has a positive ring to it, despite the fact that the phenomenon is guided by the same sort of flawed, unhealthy thinking as “normal” racism. The same holds true concerning discrimination and reverse discrimination.
These terms are divisive, which is ironic in light of the fact that racism and discrimination are supposed to be vehicles of disparagement to be used against those ignorant enough to harbor such attitudes and actions. Prejudging and discriminating are crimes against humanity. Viewing these actions as crimes against a segment of humanity in many ways reinforces ignorance. A crime committed against a black man equates to a crime committed against a white man, an Asian woman or a Hispanic child. Until we as a society can band together as a species to fight these phenomena, we will never be free.
Racism is racism. Discrimination is discrimination. There is no reverse; it is not a two-way road. It is a one-way road paved by ignorance that ultimately will lead to societal destruction if we do not stop it. The first step is to change our views on the topic, beginning with labeling racism and discrimination accurately as crimes against humanity and not as some sort of race-specific phenomena.
If a firm hires a less qualified man over a more qualified woman due to
prejudices against females, that's discrimination. However, if the firm
hires a less qualified woman over a more qualified man due to an effort to
meet a quota or make right wrongs of the past, that too is
discrimination-- there's no "reverse" to it.
Responses: Refresh frame to view latest entries.
Comments:
We all discriminate. It is foolish or dishonest to say otherwise. The point in question is HOW we discriminate. The liberal view (which is relatively new in terms of cultural ideas) is that we should base our discrimination on the content of individuals' character- not to their membership in any group. Unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. Even the most liberal, enlightened one amongst us is guilty of passing judgement on people because of their membership to a group. Yet despite philosophical perspectives, some of us are doing this a lot more than others. Conservatives, for better or worse, have a much more notorious and deep-rooted history of this type of bigotry. It just seems funny that now that we have a program that offers help to members of traditionally oppressed people (affirmative action) the inheritors of the ideology (and fortunes) of the conservative people who have traditionally be the advantaged are claiming that no one should be discriminated against! I haven’t figured out whether this is hypocrisy or genuine naivete. It probably depends on the person. Even if a few of the people calling for an equal playing field were genuine and are really ready not to discriminate based on class or any other group membership, then we can be sure that they rest of them aren’t. How many female corporate CEOs are there? How many blacks? How equal really is your “equal” playing field? Rhectoric about descrimination is wonderful, but be careful not to let it cloud your perception of reality.
Name: Shaun Comments:
So, are you saying that because my ancestors (not that you even know my race!) MAY have discriminated (you don't know their actions either), I am somehow not entitled to what you term an enlightened view on racism. You were right about one thing: the notion that no one should be discriminated against is wonderful. We may never see such a scenario, though, because some people are ready to have their futures doomed by the past. That is truly sad.
Comments:
I think it is rather odd how this wonderful enlightened view of racism has apeared on the conservative radar at this stage in history. (not implying the political leaning of the author, only that this is an idea readily adopted by conservative rhectoricians currently) How wonderful it is to think that NO ONE should be descriminated against and everyone shoudl be equal only a few decase after their ideological forfathers were all for descrimination based on various sociocultural and even biological myths. The proof is in the puddin'.
Name: shaun Comments:
That is a good point. I do think that the terms have certain positive applications in academia or in the minds of the enlightened. However, we do not exist in an intellectual vacuum, and the door to abuse of the terms remains open so long as they are used, making them a tool of divisiveness.
Name: Kevin Comments:
I agree with most of your views on racism and discrimination, but I view the "reverse" terms as meaning somethings totally different. If a person is discriminated against as part of an action taken to prevent descrimination against another person, I would consider that reverse discrimination. Most people would point point Affirmitive Action as an example. A person who normally wouldn't be discriminated against was to prevent the same against another person. Think about it.
