biccat wrote:Wait, I'm the one who is "deliberately misreading the post?"
Yes, and you're doing it again.
You're the one who proposed the idea that only white people can be racist. Therefore, the idea of a "non-whites only" scholarship can never be racist.
That's just gibberish, a completely nonsensical reading of the debate.
For starters, it's just plain factually incorrect on the most basic level. Meliisia complained about poor white kids not gettin scholarships while poor black kids were,
CT Gamer responded that he knew of white kids getting scholarships to traditionally black schools and that claims of "reverse racism" were incediary. You responded with a complaint about "reverse racism" as you (mistakingly) understood the idea, at which point I came into that side discussion for the first time, to try to explain to you what "reverse racism" actually meant. I didn't propose the idea, I just tried to explain what it actually meant, and how your rant was based on a complete minsunderstanding of the concept.
Worse than that, though, is that despite me explaining the concept to you twice you're still claiming it somehow means that white people can't be racist. That isn't what it means, you can accept the ideas of racial power structures (and therefore the idea of "reverse racism") and still believe the very obvious fact that everyone can be racist. The point of the idea is that overall institutions matter more than anyone person, and those institutions tend to favour the majority racial groups.
Using such a definition, you avoid the difficult moral question about whether we should treat all 'races' equally or whether certain people should have preferential treatment afforded to them solely based on the color of their skin.
No, the point is to understand that racism exists, it is inevitable, and that the vast majority of it's tangible, material effects impact the minority populations more than the majority. Having system that simply ignore colour doesn't mean that everyone becomes equal. To meaningfully address institutional racism you need systems that see colour.
I don't even completely agree with the concepts, but at least I understand them. You are welcome to dismiss them entirely if you please, but before that you have to actually understand them.
BTW, the only site I found that described the history of racism as you suggest was a white supremacy website (which I'm reluctant to take at face value, even when discussing a historical account). Not that there aren't other sources out there, but I'd love to see some support for that.
WTF? It's not exactly an obscure element of thought... I could go home and unpack some boxes and get out textbooks if you insist...
Why can't it be both?
Because there isn't a systemic bias against white people. They earn considerably more than other races except Asians, and are highly over-represented in the top tiers of business and government, relative to their proportion of the population.
This is the point. I don't particularly like the idea of colour bases scholarships, but to use that one small thing to try and claim that it's actually white people that are disadvantaged by the systems in the US is absurd.
