Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Just for context, I'm black, I go to a predominantly black school, and live in a predominantly black city. So, when I have these opinions like the title, I feel kind of nervous to express them because I know for a fact that a lot of people might disagree, and I might even lose some friends. So I'd like to share it here and see other people's thoughts.

I, for one, think black people can indeed be racist. Any person can be racist, in fact.

According to Merriam-Webster, racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Another definition I like is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior".

I remember months ago, someone argued with me that these weren't the definitions. No, matter of fact, they said more than that. They said that I couldn't trust these definitions just because she assumed they were written by a white person, thus, were biased. I found this absolutely ridiculous, but I want you guy's opinion on it.

Another reason that black people cant be racist that I've heard about is because they don't have power, therefore, they can't be. A friend said that they could be prejudice but not racist, which makes no sense to me, because racism is a form of prejudice, isn't it? But then I think about areas in the world with solely black people who hate/dislike white people and I think, can't white people be powerless against those groups?

My thoughts are a bit jumbled, but surely you get the gist of what I'm saying? Basically, I want to know what everyone's opinion is on this. If you feel as though they can't, I'd like to hear your argument as to why. I try to be as open-minded as possible.

I agree with you, but i feel this video does a much better job of presenting a counter argument to the idea than i could.

But attempting to discredit something purely on the merit of who and where it came from, and whether or not its actually sound is ridiculous.

And plus no one i've argued with who believes in this definition has been able to explain why power is a requirement for a prejudice to be racist or sexist. Its just commonly accepted amongst leftist circles, and in my opinion without good reason

I always was under the belief that prejudice was more or less a blanket term that basically meant "disliking someone based on a characteristic they have" and then other terms like racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on would fall under that term.

In my opinion, if you don't like someone based on their race, then you're racist. And anyone can be capable of this. White people can, black people can, asians can, hispanics can, anyone can.

It's just in today's society I feel like some forms of racism are more "acceptable," or I guess the better term would be "ignored."

I think power + prejudice is a useful tool for prioritizing various issues. If 90% of the government is white, and whites are generally better off economically etc. then it's probably more important to focus on fighting white supremacy than black supremacy. Go ahead and apply that to any other marginalized group and it will be the same.

But as for actually defining racism, and applying that unilaterally, it just creates a lot of problems. One reason is that power is contextual. A rich black man may command more or less respect than a poor white man depending on their audience. A black landlord definitely has power over his white tenants. And it doesn't always even have to do with class. A black person may have more power socially than a white person in a black neighborhood or even a majority black school. And for that matter there are whole countries where white people are not the majority. So if you do use power as a requisite for racism, then you have to account for the fact that it's not as simple as white people having power and other races not.

Furthermore speech is almost always an attempt to influence others in some way or form, especially political speech. So if you are going to preach, black nationalism for example, and hide behind the excuse that you currently don't have power, then you have to realize that that won't always be true. If you sway enough people to your side then one day you might have power, even in the broader sense.

That being said, western civilization was largely built buy and for white straight men, and its ingrained biases against black people and more subtly black culture run deep. They're not something we can shed overnight and we have to work continuously to root these biases out. They're not something we can just say "good enough" and let remain. And there is no equivalent that targets white people. So while I agree that there is no such thing as culturally institutional racism against white people (in America), I don't think we can unilaterally excuse or downplay racism from every individual who happens to be black.

Say you have two groups who have no power, but both deeply despise each other for purely arbitrary traits. Why is it that neither are racist, when they have a hate for each other fixed solely within race? Why is power a qualifier, and what even qualifies power?

The fact is, this definition of power plus privilege is an entirely subjective field. Someone with no money hut a water well will have power plus privilege as opposed to those without money and no well. Does this mean only the person with the well can be racist? If it's a black person who refuses to let white people drink their water because they believe white people are soulless and thus require no sustenance, does that not make them racist against their worse off white counterpart?

If we are judging the value of a "race" via a collective power plus a collective previlige, is that not itself prejudices? Because it's relying on stereotypical roles for who has power and who doesn't, when that very thing is subjective.

What is your definition of racist?

and I think murder is bad. Any other massively unpopular opinions?

tl;dr: The oppressive system that is a part of most cultures with different races is a valid and harmful racism, and the prejudice that any person has towards another race is also a different kind but still valid and harmful racism.

So yes, black people can be racist.
 
I think it's a bit of a game of semantics on one level (i.e., what makes one "a racist," what are racist actions, and what is "racism?") and what actually matters in that particular situation for another (i.e., "Can a racial minority with a prejudice against other races be a racist?")

I think the first part will be easier to explain. I think most people have heard that racism cannot exist without systematic oppression that benefits one race and disadvantages others. That is certainly a concept that exists in the humanities and the social sciences.

Where it gets troublesome is where people disagree on whether that oppressive system still exists and to what extent does it exist.

I think most of us agree that any oppressive system is not overt in the western world anymore. We do not actively target particular races except Nazis.

What people (like me) posit is that drug crimes for the crack version of cocaine net harsher penalties than the powder version, and blacks are more likely to use and have easier access to crack. Or that black people are more often pulled over than white people.

Then you get into arguments of responsibility such as whether or not black people disproportionately give reasons to be pulled over more often such as swerving or honking a car horn repeatedly at a friend, accelerating more rapidly that make patrol vehicles begin to follow these cars. That shifts the focus from "some immaterial, intangible, and difficult-to-test power" to "personal responsibility."

And then you go into whether or not a police officer in the patrol car would do that if the person were white or black. That shifts the focus from "shared personal responsibility" to "the previous explanation that doesn't imply that blacks or the culture in which they're embedded are self-destructive."

(Which can go off into Neo-Nazi grounds very quickly or into an argument that people with an external locus of control want to put blame off onto some untestable boogeyman through overly sympathetic and emotional folks.)

If you remember the #BanBossy movement a while back, the thought behind that is similar to what many black people feel. A black person can be assertive and be exhibiting leadership qualities, but they're interpreted as being aggressive whereas they're interpreted as simply assertive qualities from a white person.

Or a short person who's an overachiever might be considered to have a Napoleon complex where a person of average height may just seem to be a go-getter.

Or a woman who's dominant in the workplace and is actively trying to get promotions to supervisory and management roles might be seen as being bossy where a man with the same qualities might not be seen as such.

Of course, the retort is that men are very often seen as bossy, white people are seen as thuggish, and average height people can be seen as trying to overcompensate.

But those aspects are not attributed to being some feminazi woman that wants to dominate men, a short guy who has self-esteem issues specifically because of his height, or a black guy who was raised as a thug and should be treated as such.

Whether it exists or not is up in the air. I say it does just like the words "bossy" or "bitch" exist specifically to target a person's immutable attribute that has nothing to do with their personalities (or worse, makes people see attributes in a negative light when they would otherwise be seen in a positive light.)
 
It's extremely hard to test and prove as my experience as a black person hasn't been as subject to these factors (or they're so high level that I don't feel them at this point in my career, and liberal academia most certainly doesn't care if you're black or not. In fact, I was given all of the opportunity in the world to succeed by white professors, mentors, and fellow students.)

But I am also more articulate than what you might expect from a black person, more formally educated than most black people, and am not uncomfortable engaging in yuppie conversation. I also keep a relatively neat haircut and wear clothes that indicate that I'm not actively engaged in hip-hop culture and that I have little interest in the genre and certainly not anything that might speak to gangsta violence or the like.

So that lie perception might almost make me

You know…one of the "good ones." In a way, that perception makes you "not black" in people's eyes. And the other black people posting here have almost certainly been reminded of how white they are and being reminded that they're black just as often.

Or friends avoid race in any way. (Personally, I try to maintain friends who don't ignore that I'm black but pick at me for other things outside of race.)

Now what most people think of when they think of "racism" is simply the prejudice someone has towards a particular race. That is also racism, but it's not the same racism as is denoted by what is taught in the social sciences. One's macro, one's micro.

Both are valid forms of racism that can and do exist. But trying to ask or deconstruct what racism is or is not is fruitless. At that point, it feels like the debate is less to find common ground or to increase one's understanding of a different viewpoint and more to simply "win" an argument (sometimes by changing the argument or to simply discredit the other in a debate outside of the bounds of the debate.)

If someone is being a jerk to someone based on their race, then that's wrong. Call it racial prejudice, racism, bigotry, whatever. For the sake of excusing the behavior, it doesn't matter what you call it.

That can lead into the discussion of affirmative action where companies, schools, or other organizations actively seek out diverse population. Part of that is some form of "reparations" where you acknowledge that people of a certain identity might not have the credentials of others, so you have a quota that you try to meet.

I feel two ways about this. One answers a question many who are opposed to want to know, and one is going further beyond that answer (because just because I gave you that answer doesn't mean other reasons can't supercede it.)

• Yes, I would feel awful knowing that I was given a slot only because of my race.

That likely doesn't happen very often. You may have a candidate that is not quite as qualified or won't perform quite as well as someone else who might happen to be white/male/whatever. But they're probably still a very good candidate who, in practice, isn't going to slow down the organization to a point that you're losing out significantly.

• And it is very utilitarian to simply think the only concern for a workforce is to get the guy who is the best at the thing.

Colleges stopped that mess a while back. If you have a 4.3 GPA and perfect ACT/SAT scores, then you may get into schools, but only if you do other things on the side.

Schools and academia in general don't just want the smartest kid as determined by grades. They want intelligent kids who will contribute to the campus in their own ways.

Workforces could seek out the very same thing. Take Google who specifically targeted women and probably weeded out men who could probably do the job better.

Google probably doesn't operate significantly better as a whole or in their departments with the women in place outside of the men who were better candidates. And given that Google still has more men than what would be expected in those positions, affirmative action was never rampant at their workplace at least.

But simply having someone (or someones) of a different identification may help the workplace feel better outside of just work. I'm the only guy at my health department, and the office would feel a lot more different with more males there. Or more black people. Or…any other black person, really.

But I prefer for a workplace to be diverse. I don't spend all of my time working, and I'm often working with other people. Even if productivity suffered a bit by not hiring 10 of 10 of the top 100 candidates and instead choosing 10 of the top 30 candidates in order to have 2 women in the number, the atmosphere of the workplace might be so much better…

than hating where you work because your coworkers are overzealous butts only concerned with turning that wrench for 10 hours better than anyone else or consistently having to look over your shoulder for a fresh college graduate who is a better candidate for the job than you are a worker who applies for your position.

There is something to be said for the secondary and tertiary. Maybe hiring a competent employee who is simply easier to work with or makes for a better workplace atmosphere is better than the absolute best candidates that don't know how to people well.

…anyway, yes, black people can be prejudiced towards white people or people of other races even in a culture that disadvantages black people. It's just different conversations.

Everyone can be racist m8

Humans are tribal creatures at heart. That is our nature. Upon meeting another who bears our semblance with obvious difference, we instinctively became cautious around them until we know more because in our instinct, the opposition is an unknown so anything can happen and self-preservation instinct comes into play. Same thing when a bear, a wild dog, or a wild animal come across human, they sniff you, they gauge you out to get a feel of you.

Of course, that is where stereotype begins. Not all stereotype is bad, it is a telling of what we can expect from a (group) we have never actually met before from another person who have actually met them before or just got it from another person altogether. Could be total nonsense, but there is no smoke without fire; As in no denying that a lot of Mexicans criminal abuses border to smuggle illegal stuffs in and out, no denying that some ghetto blacks used to do drugs and gangbang, and rotten apples spoil the whole barrel.

When the tribes are encroached upon with no regards or reservations from the other side as in trampling upon and do not give a damn or conform to the cultures of the native tribe (e.g. did not do as Romans do in Rome), the tribesmen will feel threatened as their way of life slowly fades away. Same thing is happening in Europe at the moment. That is when caution, stereotype, become hatred.

Hatred is the strong feeling to remove unwanted elements. One of our base emotion, one that the agitators can appeal to and incite more of it to further their agenda. Especially in the colleges right now, some people try to rile young people up to hate white race, and in the KKKs and neo-nazis camp are also doing the same for other race.

Best lie is half-truth and those agitators mixed them well (nazis saying all non-whites save for some Asians are worse, far left try to push everyone is equal meme). The truth is, human of each respective race has VAST amount of differences. For example, if you are not Japanese, good luck eating raw seaweed without dying painfully at worst or one hell of a stomach ache at best, they are only ones that can do that because their ancient tradition of consuming seafoods raw and their body adapted and this trait is passed further down. Did you know that Asians have dry and flaky 'earwax' as opposed the westerners who have wet clumpy earwax? When we travel abroad and have local cuisines, sometime we got bad stomach for it, because our body are not used to it like the locals and their kids who got their traits passed down. Not mentioning the average IQ/EQ of each respective race. Also the fact that sub-Saharans got around 50 IQ? White men and Asian have their own respective civilisation while in Africa it is still tribal society at the time of their respective first meeting? The fact that strong athletes are from African descent? The fact that a lot of premier leaguers football (for American, soccer) players are also of African descent? The fastest man on earth, Usain Bolt, is of African descent. Is acknowledging those facts that we all have our own characteristics will make one a racist?

Bigotry, cousin word to racism. By its definition is an intolerance of the opposing idea of what one believes in. Irony is that most liberal leaning people will call out people who are openly against homosexuality like Christians like myself a bigot because of our belief, dox us, harass us, and socially murder us. In calling us 'bigots' and trying to make our lives hell because of ideological differences, they themselves are bigots. Not just about homosexuality though, anyone who believe that there are racial differences between races of mankind are also called bigot, racist, etc. As they are intolerant of the other sides beliefs.

Being racist isn't exclusive to a particular race, to be honest.

In reading I come to wonder if by equating racism with the twin qualities of prejudice and power within institutions you aren't undermining the need to reduce racism. Let us imagine that you have come to a point where all forms of institutional racism have been eliminated. Are there, at the that point, no more racists? If so then there would be no need to preach any anti-racism would there? And if you stopped doing that how long do you think that bucolic world would last?

Thus, if you reduce racism to institutional power applied against a race of people you put yourself on the road to formal eradication of racism but leave the distinct possibility that there will be racists among you.

I think it better to consider racism in four categories along two axis. A four corner matrix, if you will. One is institutional-action racism. Here the institutions of government, both public and private, engage in formal behaviors to restrict and control races other than their own. Now if you wish to restrict the definition of racism to the corner of the matrix which covers institutional action, you can feel free to do so. In that corner those who have been the victims cannot be racist unless the institutions begin to take actions against another race. In the past institutional racism against blacks was prevalent and insidious throughout the country. That was years ago and thanks to the civil rights movement such formality has been uprooted in most public institutions and many private. Hopefully we will get to the point where all such racism is gone. This is the instututional-active part of the corner of our matrix of racism.

But of course, that leaves three other areas where the term racist may be applied.

The second corner concerns a person who acts with prejudice against another due to his or her race alone. In this it is assumed that person is willing to treat all persons of that race the same way based solely on their physiological characteristics. Some may call this prejudice but it is a specific kind of prejudice against those possessing a particular set of physiological characteristics. Since those characteristics are, by definition, used to distinguish a "race" of people, the prejudice is racist and the words and actions should be classified as "racist." That is the individual-active part of the matrix of racism.

In the third corner are those institutions who engage in informal racism but without formal structures. These institutions don't overtly act racist but due to a culture inhabited by people with racist attitudes the climate is not conducive for the advancement of those not of the predominate group. It might be noted that in this group the identification of racism is extremely difficult as the group may, in fact, have formal procedure and rules to avoid such behaviors. This is the Institutional-emotive corner of the matrix.

Finally, in the fourth corner there are those whose emotional makeup causes them to feel afraid, dominant or something when in the presence of one from another race. In this they often are faced with the conundrum of both being required to recognize and consider the race of the person with whom they are interacting at the same time to possess no predetermined opinions about that group and their characteristics. Most white Americans, I think, are in this group when it comes to race issues. They recognize they are making note of the race of the person they are facing, and don't wish to do or say anything racist, but at the same time recognize that to be sensitive to the person's race they must have some preconceived ideas about that race. This is the individual-emotive corner of our matrix.

Racism is what it is. It is not just prejudice or bias for there are things and groups against which it is good to be prejudice or biased (I'll leave it to you to figure out the groups you think are "over the top" and should be discriminated against). Racism, if it means anything, must be at least defined as a sense of superiority and/or difference solely derived from clearly and easily identified physiological differences -- racial characteristics -- accompanied by a set of generally negative associations without regard to the actual person faced. Restricting to institutional actions leaves too much out.

Finally, on a slightly different tact, I think it is impossible for any people, once they define themselves by race, to not be racist. Classification of people by their physiological characteristics is normal simply because there is not time to engage and meet all the persons with whom we must interact. When meeting others there are no blank slates. But what we do with our attitudes and actions, regarding racism, is another matter. Hopefully, since we are but humans, our humanity will win and we will at least arrive at the point where our institutions are free of racism and our hearts working very hard to be so.

AJ

Verbose said:

Workforces could seek out the very same thing. Take Google who specifically targeted women and probably weeded out men who could probably do the job better.

Google probably doesn’t operate significantly better as a whole or in their departments with the women in place outside of the men who were better candidates. And given that Google still has more men than what would be expected in those positions, affirmative action was never rampant at their workplace at least.

But simply having someone (or someones) of a different identification may help the workplace feel better outside of just work. I’m the only guy at my health department, and the office would feel a lot more different with more males there. Or more black people. Or…any other black person, really.

But I prefer for a workplace to be diverse. I don’t spend all of my time working, and I’m often working with other people. Even if productivity suffered a bit by not hiring 10 of 10 of the top 100 candidates and instead choosing 10 of the top 30 candidates in order to have 2 women in the number, the atmosphere of the workplace might be so much better…
than hating where you work because your coworkers are overzealous butts only concerned with turning that wrench for 10 hours better than anyone else or consistently having to look over your shoulder for a fresh college graduate who is a better candidate for the job than you are a worker who applies for your position.

There is something to be said for the secondary and tertiary. Maybe hiring a competent employee who is simply easier to work with or makes for a better workplace atmosphere is better than the absolute best candidates that don’t know how to people well.

I think this did a fantastic job answering the question, especially the last few paragraphs.

Just because you're the best candidate statistically, doesn't mean you'll fit in with the atmosphere.

A) By definition, you are a bigot – that's out of the dictionary. If you believe bigotry is acceptable, that's another matter. I think this something you'd be better off taking up with those you are "bigoted" against.

B) Ironic that you say all that and then stereotype the left.

C) There's a difference between acknowledging differences between races vs. treating those races differently, denying them opportunity, and looking down on them. There are plenty of smart, successful Africans, and plenty of Asians who don't exactly fit the math whiz stereotype.

D) If you do treat innocent groups like shit, then yes, people are going to call you out for it, because we have this thing called civilization.

Personally, I just feel it's a case of semantics. In american politics, racism became a very charged term because of how real and terrible it was in our history. But the term has encompassed both the societal ill of racism and the actions of people as racism. And now different sides are trying to specify it to different things since this is the only word that holds that kinda weight in this topic.

I believe that in general, a minority in a region is typically the recipient of a societal racism (unless a lot of power is involved, like south africa), but any person can be racist in their actions. Power is what makes it societal.

A) One thing I really hate about this word is that anyone can be a bigot with the slightest mental gymnastics. "Intolerance of the idea", yes, I do not tolerate some ideas. For example, some cult out there think ritual killing, animal sacrifice is good and if anyone is against their 'belief' protected by the law of freedom of religion or some shit, they are a bigot, then yes I will be bigoted against them because that is sick. Some tosspots on twatter out there advocating incest, of bloody course I am fully against that idea and sickened by it, yes I am a bigot.

Intolerance is not bad in and of itself, like how we do not tolerate evil; and tolerance is not good in and of itself, like tolerating evil to be done.

One note, you cannot be bigoted against 'race'. Because how the heck can you be against the idea of race anyway. And what exactly is the idea of race. By definition it is intolerance against others who hold different opinion.

I really bloody hate this word. It is almost as if someone invented it to shut down opposition in argument of ideas by name calling or something and all people lose their mind and the word itself loses its meaning.

B) But you cannot really deny that some elements of the left truly are out for blood against Christians and anyone who does not buy into their ideas right? Exactly what I have written earlier, stereotypes are not all bad and are there for reasons.

C) What I am against is this everyone is super equal doctrine. Equality of opportunity, yes. Equality of result? No. Everyone gets a chance to take an exam into university, but if the result is that it is mostly whites and asians who got in. Lowering the passing score or dividing a quota specially for filling in the 'diversity' purpose is wrong and pretty much ironically racist (implying others are not as good as whites and asians so they have to lower the standard).

D) I treat people on case by case basis.

One question. I just wrote a pretty neutral statement and why are you going all out for my blood?

Clownfish said:

B) But you cannot really deny that some elements of the left truly are out for blood against Christians and anyone who does not buy into their ideas right? Exactly what I have written earlier, stereotypes are not all bad and are there for reasons.

As a liberal who was brought up as Catholic myself, I can say that is far from true.

What most people want out of Christians (and religion in general) is to stop being dicks and forcing beliefs upon those that don't desire so, and to preach the Good Word instead of fear and hatred of non-Christians.

Take, for instance, the Westboro Baptist Church. Everyone hates them because they're the biggest assholes in Christianity; protesting the burials of soldiers, rampant homophobia, and corrupt to the core.

That being said, there are Christians that are sympathetic to those beliefs of fear and bigotry, but not as outward about it as good ol' Westboro. And that's where my problem is with Christianity; there are too many trying to normalize bigotry against homosexuals and transgendered, Muslims, Hispanics, veterans, people of color, and humanity and general.
Others are genuinely trying to enact the Apocalypse because it didn't come soon enough. And some of those people are in positions of power in government.

So, to summarize, while Christianity has made good reforms recently, we Christians still have a long way to go.

I guess you have not seen those who liberals who put stuffs on their profiles like "we are going to put an end to Christianity" and defacing old statues of Mary with the graffiti which reads "whore" on it and posting it on Facebook for likes. Not seeing those? Christianity is pretty much acceptable victims in the eyes of the media. But that is not the main point, I want to say is: "There are people out there, maybe just the crazy radical people, but they are definitely out there for Christianity.

Pretty much Gods word, most things about homosexuality. It is pretty clear cut. While going all Westboro is bad, because hate the sin, not the sinners. I am totally against "reforming" the teachings to protect the feelings of those people (homosexuals, transgendered), and I think it is wrong, but I do not go after those people like a bloodhound. On the stuffs about the gay marriage, if it is secular/civil thing as a written form in a town hall, then not my business. But if it is doing it in the church then it is because the church cannot condone performing a sacrament for any sin and forcing the church to do it is pretty much bullying the church around. I mean what the heck, you cannot even receive communion under the state of mortal sin (e.g. after you fapped, bear false witness, etc.) without confessing to the priest first.

One thing that I find unsettling about this whole ordeal is this. ANYONE who is against those left leaning ideas got slapped with labels and called names like Nazis, racists, homophobes, and got doxxed, got fired, etc. This is my biggest problem with the 'liberals' (or its radical elements) exactly. They do not want people to be treated badly or hurt for their ideas, but they will do exactly that against those who do not agree with them.

I mean what the blazes?! People are getting punished for wrongthink now?

PS. Sidetracked :P

I'm wondering how this is even a debate. It's only recently that people have tried to excuse their racism by saying that it requires power.

I would say rather than power being a requirement, it's often a factor in why people become racist in the first place. If you were a young man/woman growing up with slaves taken from a "savage" place like Africa, it's likely you would believe them to be inferior because that's all that you know.

But just because power can be a factor in becoming racist, doesn't necessarily mean it's the only factor in becoming racist. If you grew up as a young man/woman in a ghetto, seeing your friends and family get arrested by white police officers (since very often black police officers are treated as traitors by the community) and you see that your city is screwed up but the white politicians refuse to give any substantial help, it's easy to see why someone would become racist to white people as well.

Regardless, even if it's understandable to see why someone would become racist that doesn't make it excusable. In the internet age, where knowledge is just a click or screen tap away, you don't have much excuse for ignorance. Regardless of circumstance, if you're treating someone unfairly based on race, you're doing something wrong. Your circumstance doesn't give you an excuse to do something universally seen as wrong.

Never was it my intention to "attack" anyone, nor would I wish to. I won't touch on whether the Bible actually forbids same-sex love (rather ambiguous and sketchy at best), since you've certainly already heard that argument and dismissed it for your own reasons.

Your problem with the left, as I see it, is that, because your views are relatively extreme in today's society, you encounter the more extreme opposite element, and probably seek it out – which is always a consequence of extremism, especially social extremism. And of course the left of center must seem generally intolerable since even moderate right-leaners would disagree with you on a lot of points.

And yes, some people do match your descriptions of the radical left. Lumping that minority in with the rest of the left really only serves to drive moderates away.

I come from the Bahamas, which pretty much 95% black and I can tell you. Yes, black can be racist. Growing up back home and distictivly remeber friends, family and my community hating Hations with a passion. Going as far saying how much Hation blood you have in you.

Racism:

NOUN

1-"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Anyone can be racist against any other race different from their own, if you think only white people can be, you are stupid.

Jesus Christ, why do people keep reviving this thread right before it’s about to expire?

Since people revived it: Yes they can be but so can everyone no need for both sides to single out a particular racism as worse

Oh gee you mean all races and therefore everyone can be racist? well no shit to me