Private Pool Bans Minority Campers

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

FWIW, I have to agree w/ Kevlar. It goes both ways. You can't say one is racism and the other is just 'perceived' b/c it was the other way around.

My understanding is that racism involves an element of power. So, while the actions of whites towards blacks can be qualified as racism, the opposite situation can't technically be called racism. It doesn't make it right or ok, but it's not racism either.

However, I don't have a lot of interest or experience in sociology, so I may not be explaining this correctly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

My understanding is that racism involves an element of power. So, while the actions of whites towards blacks can be qualified as racism, the opposite situation can't technically be called racism. It doesn't make it right or ok, but it's not racism either.

However, I don't have a lot of interest or experience in sociology, so I may not be explaining this correctly.

I understand where this is coming from and recall a thread a few years back where this was discussed in depth. At any rate, the definition you propose here is not a universally accepted one. Far from it.

The word is so politically and ethically charged that it has many acceptable definitions and this power-based definition is only one of many.

ETA: IIRC, the thread I just referred to is the infamous "Prejudism" thread.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I understand where this is coming from and recall a thread a few years back where this was discussed in depth. At any rate, the definition you propose here is not a universally accepted one. Far from it.

The word is so politically and ethically charged that it has many acceptable definitions and this power-based definition is only one of many.

ETA: IIRC, the thread I just referred to is the infamous "Prejudism" thread.

Oh, I understand that it's not the universally-accepted definition; I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to give the "right" or "correct" definition. I was just explaining my own understanding of the term.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

My understanding is that racism involves an element of power. So, while the actions of whites towards blacks can be qualified as racism, the opposite situation can't technically be called racism. It doesn't make it right or ok, but it's not racism either.

The opposite is called racism by some social scientists but most distinguish that it is individual level racism, which has minimal social significance because it cannot be aggregated if the "racist(s)" is of the minority in power. Racism and hate crimes targeting whites occur in limited contexts and are extremely rare because, as you implied, whites are the majority in power and in population size. Moreover, racism is more covert than overt and Blacks would have a difficult time finding contexts in which they could covertly (as well as overtly) victimize whites.

More importantly, I was wondering what chip Kevlar was trying to shoulder. This thread is about alleged discrimination and possibly racism. What's the point of bringing another incident into the mix? Just to prove a point?

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The opposite is called racism by some social scientists but most distinguish that it is individual level racism, which has minimal social significance because it cannot be aggregated if the "racist(s)" is of the minority in power. Racism and hate crimes targeting whites occur in limited contexts and are extremely rare because, as you implied, whites are the majority in power and in population size. Moreover, racism is more covert than overt and Blacks would have a difficult time finding contexts in which they could covertly (as well as overtly) victimize whites.

More importantly, I was wondering what chip Kevlar was trying to shoulder. This thread is about alleged discrimination and possibly racism. What's the point of bringing another incident into the mix? Just to prove a point?

Are Anglo-Americans really the "Majority in power" though? I thought that they were either already considered a minority b/c the huge influx in minority populations by now?

[33girl]

I think that whole "whites will be a minority" thing only counts if you make 2 groups, White and Not White.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think that whole "whites will be a minority" thing only counts if you make 2 groups, White and Not White.

Maybe. But even comparing a white group of about 220 million to a nonwhite group of, let's say, 100 million still makes whites the majority. Maybe the higher fertility rates of some of the nonwhite groups would be able to bridge that gap (sarcasm).

I say it doesn't count unless people pretend that their definitions of "whiteness" have suddenly changed and that Hispanic/Latina suddenly does not include whites, as well as Blacks (such as Cuba).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Are Anglo-Americans really the "Majority in power" though?

Yes.

Originally Posted by texas*princess

I thought that they were either already considered a minority b/c the huge influx in minority populations by now?

Whites are over 70% of the total population. That inludes whites of various ethnicites (e.g. white Hispanic/Latina) and combinations with other races. This makes whites the majority in population size.

Being the majority in power is part of, but not contingent upon, being the majority in population size (think South African Apartheid). However, whites are also the majority in power as social, political, and economic institutions in America are dominated by whites.