The Myth of Reverse Racism
Exploring the falsity of an inverted system.
2014 has been the year of race. Between the controversy surrounding the Redskins’ name, Donald Sterling’s infamous racial slurs, and the shooting of Michael Brown, it’s felt that now, more than ever, is time to talk about the role of race in present society.
But as the rate of discussion rises, increasingly, we’re hearing a new story; the story of the straight white man, oppressed by a culture infatuated with political-correctness and trapped in a phenomenon being called “reverse racism.”
The concept of reverse racism is essentially the idea that heightened social-sensitivity to racism elevates minority races above white people, turning the system on its head and subsequently leaving whites as the new victims of racism. The same principle applies to notions of “reverse sexism,” etc.
Visit virtually any website in which a person of color shares their experience with white-racism and you’ll find hundreds of comments aimed to address the reverse racism implicated in singling out a specific race for such actions. “Anyone can be racist!” is something of a mantra in these forums.
The problem with the notion of reverse racism, however, is that it’s not only false but fundamentally impossible.
To understand why there can’t be a “reverse” to racism, you have to first understand racism itself. Unlike prejudice or discrimination, racism cannot exist on an incidental basis. By definition, racism exists when prejudice and power intersect to form patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized throughout an entire culture. Racism forms legislation and pervasive social bias against an identity group.
Racism is institutional in its very nature; it involves an entire group of people and the systematic oppression of another. And because racism is institutional it is also fundamentally incapable of being imposed by the minority onto the majority.
It’s also important to note that in this instance “majority” and “minority” are not statistical terms and do not necessarily refer to population size. Sociologically speaking, a minority is a category of people who hold relatively little social capital; the social, economic and political power in a culture. To illustrate this idea, consider women. Despite making up over half of the nation’s population, women still lack the institutional power held by men and are subsequently considered a minority (while still being the statistical majority).
So then if a minority can’t institutionally oppress a majority, and in present western society white people cannot be the victims of racism, perhaps proponents of the concept of “reverse racism” are simply using the wrong term. After all, part of what they’re arguing is true — any person from any background can be prejudiced and discriminatory. On a micro-level, white people can absolutely be racially discriminated against and this is where individual assessment of individual instances comes into play.
The distinction, however, is once again between systematic and incidental. A white person may only experience racial discrimination on an incidental level so long as they exist in a society built to their advantage. So although white people are not inherently prejudiced, and people of color are not inherently unprejudiced, higher social capital means a louder voice, and a louder voice means that white prejudice consequentially permeates deeper into society.
White people, in effect, have the power to enforce their prejudice while minorities can only exercise discriminatory behavior on incidental levels.
Imagine a brick and a pebble dropped into the same lake from identical points. Although the action is the same, the brick will produce a bigger splash. This is what it’s like when two people, one with high social capital and one with low, display the same prejudice and discrimination. Although the white-discrimination may be no more severe, its effects are greater.
This is why context is so important when examining issues of larger society. What is equal is not always what is fair, which is in large part why white people are often singled out on matters of racism, discrimination and prejudice. Recognizing the historical privilege, oppression and racism in the context of whiteness is not random bullying and it certainly isn’t racism.
The argument has been repeatedly made that “white privilege” is an unfair term because white people don’t ask for this — which is maybe at its core what the concept of reverse racism is trying to convey.
It’s true, no one chooses an ascribed status. As the beneficiary of this system, however, consider that if your objection to its injustice is that it makes you look mean, instead of that it oppresses innocent people; you’ve missed the point.
As a white person, remember that your lived experiences are exponentially different than those of someone from an oppressed group. It may not always be possible to understand what you haven’t experienced, but a good start is to focus on listening to people’s stories rather than defending your role in them.
