Friday, November 2, 2012
Language and Racism
In class on Wednesday we had a very interesting discussion about racism and reverse racism. We tried to delve into the facets of racism and question the way it historically influenced society and the role it plays today. One thing I find really interesting is the way we distinguish “racism” and “reverse racism.” Within historical context, these terms make sense because of the relationship between white and black people in the early years of America. Should these terms change with changing times? Now, racism here is not strictly between the 2 groups but encompasses many different races. Reverse racism is said to refer to racism towards white people and racism is commonly known as anti-black. Are these terms in a way presupposing and inherently hindering a wider view of racism today? How does our language affect racism? Racial slurs are one example of words/phrases carrying negative connotations. Dr. J brought up an example of a flesh color bandage matching the flesh of lighter skin. Does the language used in this case play a part in stunting progression towards a more accepting society?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have actually wondered that exact same thing. I understand where it came from because of the inherently racist whites back when they were settling into the land. However, it feels wrong thinking that it is "reverse" though. I don't necessarily think that they should reverse over time. I think that they are just good ways of understanding the ideas and the words work for what they are trying to portray. They don't however encompass the wide variety of other forms of racism which are just as wrong now. I also am curious as to what the terms are for other countries when the role is reversed and white people are not the majority.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that our language does strongly affect racism. I think it is interesting that some words are more severe then others and why some terms were even put on stereotyping a certain group of people. Society should start being more race sensitive to things like the skin colored band aid especially in a time when caucasian may not be the majority for much longer. I think that just like racism the language behind it started off in a bad place and we should change it as we are progressing to a more equal life for everyone.
I see where you're coming from. I think that the term "reverse racism" should not be used. Reverse racism, in my opinion, existed only in the times when whites were the dominant race. Now that we have a minority-majority, I believe that we can say that "racism" doesn't just encompass bias against blacks but also against people of other colors and faiths. "Reverse racism" can't really exist because these days, Blacks can be biased against Asians and Asians against Blacks. I believe that judging on the basis of someone's color and not their character should just be labeled as racist. Also, about the flesh colored bandage, companies do make bandages that are tan, black, brown and etc.
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with Rahat. The term "reverse racism" explicitly normalizes racism as from white to everyone else. Yes, it makes sense in historical context, but as the US continues to diversify and the population expands, this term is becoming semi-archaic. Not only that, it perpetuates White stereotypes. Apparently, White folks are the only ones who are racist. I dunno, I gotta put up for White folks on this one... because I usually don't otherwise. "Reverse racism" is just an irritating term.
ReplyDeleteAs for the bandaids, let's all just buy blues and printed ones. Why we feel the need to even produce "flesh" tones is stupid to me.