Neo Nazi father bans black nurse from looking after his baby

[Change]

What would this guy do if the only nurse available was African American? That can happen in a small town where the only ER doctor on duty is of another race. I feel for the nurse, it is horrible.

[moodygirl86]

What would this guy do if the only nurse available was African American? That can happen in a small town where the only ER doctor on duty is of another race. I feel for the nurse, it is horrible.

Exactly, which is part of what's so monumentally fucking stupid about racism. Aside from the obvious fact that skin colour doesn't tell you anything about the person at all, having that sort of mentality will end up hurting this guy and his own family as much as it does anyone else. Also, at some point in his life, he'll end up having to be two-faced and lie about his beliefs if he wants to avoid being beaten up. Freedom of speech certainly won't guarantee him protection from that.

[the 4th survivor]

Yup. I think you have to look at the individual but in academic circles now (I'm in school) the power dynamic is included in the definition of racism. Anti-racists and Activists will not consider the dictionary definition accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/09/wonder-how-to-define-racism.html

The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means, in easy language:

A. Anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.

B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn't like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don't have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as "lateral racism". You may also hear the term "colorism", which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese people can't be racist because they don't hold the institutional power.

E. If you're in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it's still not racism, even though you're in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they're the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall.

F. So that's the definition of racism that you're likely to encounter. If you start talking about "reverse racism" you're going to either get insulted or laughed at, because it isn't possible under that definition; PoC don't have the power in North America, so by definition, they can't be racist. Crying "reverse racism!" is like waving a Clueless White Person Badge around.

After reading this garbage is it any wonder where "anti-racist means anti-white" comes from? These so-called anti-racists want to redefine racism so that it can only apply to white people. How is that not anti-white?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYML_F1Nb0

I guess according to them, this video isn't racist at all, just prejudiced :roll:

[MyNameIsJonas]

After reading this garbage is it any wonder where "anti-racist means anti-white" comes from? These so-called anti-racists want to redefine racism so that it can only apply to white people. How is that not anti-white?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vYML_F1Nb0

I guess according to them, this video isn't racist at all, just prejudiced :roll:

So we take an extremist example to try and paint the whole movement? That's like thinking every racist white person is a member of the KKK :lol: You can miss me with that one. There are many anti-racist white people, so please don't exclude them. Do you believe that movements for LGBT people are anti-straight? All feminists hate men too, right?

Please, take your nonsense elsewhere. If you're expecting someone here to commiserate with you about the Great White Downfall, keep waiting. There are plenty of other websites that cater to your kind.

[the 4th survivor]

I'm pretty sure most people in this country would call themselves anti-racist, the problem is they have a different standard of what's racist for whites. Non-whites and especially blacks can get away with things that whites never could without being called racist.

[MyNameIsJonas]

I'm pretty sure most people in this country would call themselves anti-racist, the problem is they have a different standard of what's racist for whites. Non-whites and especially blacks can get away with things that whites never could without being called racist.

Such as?

Edited to say that you didn't address my other questions either.

[2xx1xy1JD]

MyNameIsJonas:

The revised definition that you gave was something that I heard in university even 20 years ago.

On one hand, I think you posted a very clear and succinct definition and example of the revised definition, explaining why power matters. It's the sort of thing that goes through my head every time someone says "ZOMG if [any particular minority] has a preference for dating only members of their group, it's RACISM!"

OTOH, I have issues in general (not just with this example) with argument-through-redefinition. I get that words can change organically over time, but deliberately changing word meaning for political purposes strikes me as being a bit Newspeak-ish.

As a non-American, I also tend to see race as being far more complex than a black/white dichotomy. In the American context, whites have been the dominant group, period. Laws have changed over time to remove the worst discrimination, but the fundamental balance of power hasn't shifted and there is no expectation that it will any time soon. So, I understand how the revised definition came about.

At the same time, the world is general is more complex than that. Is Kidist racist, by your definition? Most of her venom is directed at a group (Asians) that in her city, generally has more power than she does. In specific contexts, couldn't a given group have power in a particular area even if they are a minority or lack power in other areas? For example, if you are dealing with a child protection worker or police officer, there is a power dynamic in that particular interaction. You can also have minority groups that have gained power in some areas (such as being economically successful), that are still vulnerable because they are minorities. I'd point to the anti-Asian bias in some college admissions. As for the bullying example - the environment of the particular school would matter, wouldn't it? The school is pretty much the child's world, so if students, teachers and principals were predominantly from one group and subjecting a child to abuse, it wouldn't matter much to that child if he or she was theoretically part of a dominant group.

Dominant groups can change. Once upon a time, Belgian colonial forces favored Tutsis in Rwanda. Would that mean that the subsequent genocide against them was not racist? In fact, many conflicts around the world involves groups who will each claim that they are the victim and underdog. Do we just focus on calculating who is more oppressed, or do we work to change the entire mindset of treating others like shit because of their group?

[wtfrenchtoast]

I'm pretty sure most people in this country would call themselves anti-racist, the problem is they have a different standard of what's racist for whites. Non-whites and especially blacks can get away with things that whites never could without being called racist.

So what you want is for white people to "get away with" things that black people supposedly do? Or you just want to not be called racist? I'm not really clear on your underlying motives here. If you don't want to be labeled as racist, don't do racist things. It's really very easy.

[Anxious Girl]

I'm pretty sure most people in this country would call themselves anti-racist, the problem is they have a different standard of what's racist for whites. Non-whites and especially blacks can get away with things that whites never could without being called racist.

Ok, here's the thing: - when a group such as white people hold power for so long, don't you think that the minorities and women are going to get sick of it? So there's an American Civil War and an American Civil Rights movement which would've made Ghandi proud; and you complain that you have to share your privileges which make you think you have power by the rich old white men when you really don't. Do you think that if a straight person grew up in a homosexual community all their lives and that homosexuals bullied that straight person, that homosexuals can be anti-hetero? Puh-lease. At least unlike that other site that you go to, we don't block people if they have different opinions. There are plenty of white people around the world; hence there's no white genocide that you're implying. Try again.

[MyNameIsJonas]

*This will probably fall under tl;dr for most of you*

I think Kidist has a drastic case of internalized racism. It's apparent in the way that she tries to white identify but also uses her actual blackness as a weapon (as if she can just take it on and off.) Kidist understands that she's in the same boat as Asian people as far as the social hierarchy goes, but she is desperate to be in with the white kids. Maybe the other POCs in her area have more economic power than Kidst, but that isn't enough for them to oppress Kidist (if they chose to). They don't have to push Kidist to the bottom of the social hierearchy (and they can't) because that's already been done by white supremacy. Now, if Asian people then started looking down on Kidist for being at the bottom, they would be victims of the same internalized racism that she is.

Yes, POCs hold white collar jobs or jobs that put them in positions of individual power. Maybe relatively speaking in certain circumstances these people have power, but in reality they don't. In terms of class, yes they could have power, but they could also be subject to white power at any time. Class becomes irrelevant. Education becomes irrelaevant. Ex: Crash. TW for sexual assault.

EtvbEtPIGiA

"There are many kinds of power that people may wield. The power a parent has over a child, a boss has over an employee, and a government has over its people. However, the only kind of power that matters in terms of racism, sexism, or any other kind of oppressive prejudice is the power of a dominant group to disadvantage a non-dominant group. Some of the hypothetic scenarios brought up by commenters have been black congressman vs. white wino in the gutter or black boss vs. white employee. Certainly, these people all wield different types of power over the other, but it doesn’t matter how far down the white person is or how far up the black person is. The black person is still not a member of the dominant group. The white person still has the advantage of white privilege, whether or not he or she has been able to make the best use of that advantage. Again, the only Power that matters in the Prejudice + Power equation is that of the dominant group and individuals backed by the power of the dominant group in some way. Calling someone a Racist is a pejorative. A strong term that should be indicative of strong actions or words. I still think that racism can only occur when backed by systemic power, or, as Ken put it, a support structure of power. And I still hold that, in America, white people are the only ones with the kind of support structure that can perpetrate racism. The reason I reject that black people in America and other disadvantaged, oppressed, and marginalized people in the world cannot be Racist is that Racism is not just prejudice or discrimination. Though some may point to the dictionary and say “Yes, it is,†or “Yes, it can be,†I bring up another point from the Defining Racism essay: dictionary definitions are short and unambiguous, as they should be. You can’t, in a dictionary definition, include all of the discussion we’ve had here about Racism the institution, the process, and everything else. That’s not what a dictionary is for. The dictionary is a basic tool, but it is not (pardon me) ultimately definitive. And it’s not always completely correct. The dictionary isn’t free of bias or influence, and is (again, pardon me) usually put together by white people. It is a simple tool, at best, and this is not a simple issue."

Of course it wouldn't matter to a five year old being harrassed in school that they were part of the dominant group. The actions of the students and administration would be wrong and should be censured. But to cry 'racism' is dishonest.

About Rwanda (Note: This is my personal opinion that doesn't really come from any type of expert or super-smart thinking. Just Jonas)

Internalized racism in Rwanda was perpetuated by white colonists. It wasn't spared from the racial conspiracies and Christian colonization that tried to justify racism. They developed myths about different ethnic groups to suit their agenda. The Hutu from the Negroid race, and the Tutsi who were thought to be descendants of the Aryan race. This began just basic discrimination from schools and trade so the colonists could have an "in" with certain groups to maintain their own commerce system. Then divisions between the two groups went further into class (divisions based on how many livestock one owned). Then, a white Catholic bishop took it upon himself to further divide Rwandans into separate "races". This system was politically maintained. It became a common knowledge that because of their superior ancestry, Tutsi were meant to rule. Of course the spread of racist ideology went from there to genocide after a tug of war for power.

My point is, obviously what happened was horrific and wrong. However, I do not consider the Hutu to be racist. In my opinion, they were operating off of the same concept of internalized racism that was decades in the making. They weren't different. At all. Not to mention the way they had been exploited by the Belgians (racial grouping, power shifts, etc). There was no clear cut power dynamic, just two oppressed groups begging for scraps from their oppressor and then killing each other. The two groups weren't really different, they'd just fallen into the hegemony of what white colonialists said they were, but the separation remained because of the internalized racism and the desire to place themselves on the same level as the colonists. In other words, the white people fucked it all up in this case.

As for Oppression Olympics, I don't like them, and I try not to play them. I don't think I've ever really played them. However we are not all the same. Asians are the highest paid group in the US as a people, not just as POC. Latin@s make the least. This is a real issue. We are all oppressed on the basis of being people of color, but we are not treated equally under that umbrella and it's okay to talk about that. Most people are oppressed in some way. There should be power to all people. My feelings come from the double jeapordy I face in this country and my status at the bottom of the social hierarchy. It makes me sound a bit militant sometimes :lol: but I can't afford not to be.

[Jana814]

I know this is an old story, but I just saw a commercial for Kate, & one of the nurses from this hospital will be on her show tomorrow.

[MyNameIsJonas]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2013 ... /302230347

The hospital settled out of court.

[gustava]

Thanks for the update.