If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today. Dr Thomas Sowell
Perhaps to give this quote extra validity Dr Sowell should have begun it, ‘Speaking as a BME….’. The respect afforded Sowell comes not from his race but from his intelligence, his achievements and his unrivaled ability to sniff out and unpack bullshit. He wouldn’t have it any other way. And that ability, unfortunately for us, seems ever more valuable.
Reverse racism does not exist. For that matter, neither do reverse sexism or “misandry”. This will continue to be the case until the existing hegemonies of society shift so that white people/neo-Europeans are no longer the dominant racial group in society and men are no longer the privileged gender. These are fairly simple statements but unfortunately appear to be concepts which a depressing multitude of people either cannot grasp or are unwilling to accept.
She starts strongly, the first sentence is correct, for the wrong reason though. I don’t accept the concept of ‘reverse racism’ either, for there is only plain old racism and that can work in any direction. Though the author, Faatima Osman, doesn’t mean this. So I must therefore be one of that depressing multitude as I am unwilling to accept her ‘fairly simple statements’. And not because I cannot grasp them but because they are deeply stupid and will remain deeply stupid no matter how blithely she attempts proof by assertion.
The racist Welfare & Diversity Officer herself tried to assert the same nonsense in her exculpatory video.
I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system
Again, there is no attempt to justify the assertion, it is merely made and then ran with. Both are propagating the ever more confidently asserted canard which is best summed up thus:
Racism = Prejudice + Power
After asserting this premise as fact it is easy to understand the flights of fancy these people choose to subsequently indulge in. Unfortunately though, it is a false premise.
The term racism does not ‘describe structures of privilege’. The suffix ‘-ism’ describes a “distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory”. In this case it is attached to the word race. A doctrine, cause or theory based on race is by definition racist.
On the Wikipedia page for ‘racism‘, after saying something similar to what I just have, it says:
In sociology and psychology, some definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination… One view holds that racism is best understood as ‘prejudice plus power’ because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.
These social-justice types have taken a stipulative definition used by some, within some university departments, and decided to assert that the word, as society understands it, and its plain meaning, has been universally redefined. There is something comic and quaint about this, grabbing a shiny new idea they just learned in class then brandishing it about like a weapon is a common enough act by the youthful and freshly educated and usually one can simply wait until they learn the next thing, or understand the context, and it goes away. Unfortunately though, something worse is occurring in this case. There are more than word games at stake.
The word racism describes thoughts, statements and actions and in our society it has a negative connotation. By redefining it as they have they are removing the power of that disapproval from cases where it might be deserved and applying it where it might not. We should look at this. Also we must ask why, once the manifest stupidity of this false redefinition has been explained to them, are so many so keen to maintain the falsehood?
Racism is ignorance. Though surely it has some things that make it attractive, the ability to be sweeping and lazy, to feel superior by belittling an other and through feeling the consequent bonds of ingroup solidarity. I can therefore see why the more weak minded ‘anti-racists’ are so keen to make a form of racism not just acceptable but socially and intellectually praiseworthy. And of course, like all racists they want to keep this privilege to whichever group they have chosen to identify themselves as.
The above picture features the racist Welfare & Diversity Officer Bahar Mustafa mocking the complaints of others. They complained about her requesting people of a certain race and gender not to attend an event and here, she is not implying disagreement with those that objected to her but that any objections they may have should be mocked and ignored as mere whines and that the reason for doing this is based on their race and gender.
Demanding that they should merely be content and therefore silent because the group she decides they are part of statistically enjoys privilege in wider society doesn’t negate this point. She is having all the fun of an old-school racist while pretending she is on the side of good. On some level this should be applauded for sheer chutzpah. But ultimately, she is a racist and only in a modern seat of learning could such flagrant racism be be seen as a part of an anti-racism movement.
I understand that due to history and present society not all racist acts from all people are the same. It is clear to me why, for example, Diane Abbot writing “white people love playing divide and rule” will not end a career whereas a likely corollary to that, “black people are easy to manipulate and control”, expressed by a white MP, would do. One act may not be as serious as another in a society but it is still racism. It is a cause/theory based upon race. If it isn’t racism because SJWs have purloined the word, then what word which adequately describes it shall we use instead ? Calling dog-shit ice cream doesn’t improve the flavour and we will still need another word for ice cream.
If these Warriors for Social Justice were to abandon this attempt at redefinition and stick to ‘racial discrimination’ they might, might, be on to something. Racial discrimination does depend on an element of power because one requires, by definition, the power to discriminate. However, in the two quotes provided at the top and in arguments made elsewhere, those that push the ‘power + prejudice’ line speak of ‘society’. The requirement of power seemingly applies only to power applied at the broadest possible levels. It’s a macro-only view where individuals are ignored (see my 3 Stages of Stupidity) and reduced to representing, or being represented by, demographic groupings and assumptions. Even if this were logical or acceptable it raises a question about which level we decide to define ‘society’ at. Let’s look at some examples:
Some take this ‘society’ as global and this is implied by a statement with no national qualification such as, “I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men”. The most common response to this has been ‘Zimbabwe’ which is itself countered with previous white power, the best land going to colonialists etc. etc. Fine, I will use my sister as an example, she may mind but she never reads what I write anyway so won’t ever know.
After a few years as a teacher in the U.K. she moved to Zimbabwe to teach there, possibly for altruistic reasons, I suspect the weather. Her and her husband bought some land (a few acres), it wasn’t arable but just some unused scrub land of negligible value. They bought it from a black Zimbabwean so there is no claim to be had regarding iniquitous land distribution. On this land they erected green houses and started a business growing flowers for export. After some time, under the excuse of white farmers having the best land, this business was taken from them and eventually given to a friend of Robert Mugabe’s. The business fell apart and from what we can gather the remaining staff are now basically starving to death. The justification for this theft was 100% based on the race of my sister and her husband. Now, if only seen as black Africans, the perpetrators cannot be described as ‘privileged’ on a global level. But as Shona, in Zimbabwe, they can be. More apposite, they can be seen as privileged for having the power of the state on their side. Can I not call their action racist? If not, what should I call it?
Perhaps, though unstated, these people mean to apply their theory strictly to the national borders in which they make the statement. It’s unfounded but let’s be generous.
I once walked home the wrong way, a young lad 30m away from a group of bigger lads, told me I couldn’t go that way because it was Bangladeshi and I was white. When I objected I was told he would ‘stick me’. I don’t remember exactly what happened next, either I karate’d all their asses and went the way I wanted or I slunk off and chose another route. Either way, why am I to pretend in that moment and that instance, they did not have the power? Why would my being part of a racial group that is statistically richer and more populous, when assessed within the national borders, mean their threats to me, based on race, are unable to be called racist? If I can’t call it racist, what should I call it?
Why national borders? Are there not societies within societies? Why does a prison or a school not count? If a prisoner of race A is part of a minority compared to group B within a prison, is group B still incapable of being racist?
So even if we need to add the power element to the discussion, what relevance is the arbitrary definition of a society? Does a racist Welfare and Diversity Officer have no power, at all? This is bollocks on stilts.
If you are going to crowbar in ‘structural’ or ‘society’ to these things you at least have to adequately explain why and you have to explain why we are to be robbed of a perfectly good word that describes actual events. But without doing so one is left with the conclusion that you are stealing the well-earned power of a previous word to wield it for your own ends and satisfaction. And that’s fucked up.
Their confident assertion is nonsense and I don’t have to start a piece with “Speaking as a…. [insert well-worn and coveted negative-trait here]” for that to be true.
I suggest the real measure of privilege is whether, if given the chance, you would choose to spin the tombola wheel of life again. Speaking as a man, whiter than most, taller than most, richer than most, straighter than most, more hairy than most, more roguishly handsome than most, disease free and in possession of a formidable penis, I say ‘don’t touch that wheel’. So I can see why my tears are of little value to some. Except, I don’t offer any tears. I offer merely lofty contempt and derision. Because you see, bullshit is bullshit. It is bullshit whether from the mouth of a mountain of privilege like myself or from a racist Welfare & Diversity Officer. That’s the glorious equality of logic.