By Zach Schanzenbach
Senior Staff Writer
It’s no secret that racism was deeply embedded in American culture in the past.
In fact, black men didn’t succeed in obtaining the same rights as white men until President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, a mere 50 years ago. Since then, the prevailing ideology is that all men are equal, regardless of skin color, and that no one should be treated less because of the skin color.
That’s how it’s stated, but is that how it’s lived out? Sure, black men as a whole are no longer explicitly treated as inferiors, and that’s a good thing. But racism still exists in America. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or in denial. They are ignorant if they don’t understand that racism is a philosophy as opposed to a set of laws, in denial if they don’t want to acknowledge it.
Interestingly enough, the only time I personally have noticed racism getting no attention is when the tables are turned. In other words, if a black man expresses racist thoughts towards a white man, the media will shrug and say that he’s just venting anger. If a white man did this to a black man, everyone would lose their minds and be condemning him for racism.
As you read this, one word may come to mind: Ferguson. The riots that broke out when a white cop killed a black criminal were a horrifying response to what the protesters believed was an act of blatant racism.
What many people fail to understand, however, is that racism is, as I like to put it, a two-way street. It goes both ways. Look it up in the dictionary and you won’t read that it’s when a white man hates a black man. You will read that it’s the belief that one skin color is superior to another. So if a black man hates a white man because his skin is white, he is just as racist as a white man who hates a black man because his skin is black.
A white man who calls a black man racist as a result of a hateful or racist action against a white man will be ignored, even though he’s correct in pointing it out. Flip the tables, and the world will sympathize with the black man.
A man who calls white hatred for black people and black hatred for white people what it is, namely racism, is a man who can be trusted.
Ken Austin • Nov 30, 2020 at 10:27 pm
I recently watched Netflix series called FLINT TOWN.
It shows the battle police have dealing with crime, mainly in black communities..
The people who may have witnessed the crime, maybe murder, will not reveal what or who they saw doing the crime.
Snitching can lead to death in those communities. The black people in the document ary hate the police, even the black Police.
Most of the crime in the city is by blacks against blacks.
Most of the racial abuse shown is by the black women objecting police investigation of crime.
I would suggest people watch the show. The head of police is a good black gentleman, who cracks down on the criminal black drug gangs who prey on innocent black citizens.
Of course there are racist white police, but the
Police depicted here hate this ever happening
Jose Ruiz-Escutia • Mar 5, 2015 at 12:16 pm
To Zach Schanzenbach
In your article Racism is two-way street: The truth about racism and why we need to hear it you argued that “racism is… a two-way street”, that is, “it goes both ways”. In support of this statement you urged the reader to look up the definition of racism to see for herself or himself that the definition would not read “when a white man hates a black man”. Instead, you affirmed that racism is defined as “the belief that one skin color is superior to another”.
On that note, it has come to my attention that right after you defined racism as the belief that one skin color is superior to another you stated that, “if a black man hates a white man because his skin is white, he is just as racist as a white man who hates a black man because his skin is black”. In your statement, you have included the word hate instead of the word belief to make your point that a black man can be racist. That is, you are using the definition of racism that you suggested the reader would not find in the dictionary (i.e., “when a white man hates a black man”).
In another statement you argued that “a white man who calls a black man racist as a result of a hateful…action against a white man will be ignored”. Once more, you are using the word hate as part of the definition for racism, but in this instance you related it to a black man’s actions. This raises the question of whether you use the word hate unconsciously in your statements after you had defined racism without that word. If we use the definition for racism you found in the dictionary, then, the first statement you made would read along the lines of, “if a black man believes he is superior to a white man based on his color then he is racist”. This statement might be closer to what you meant to write to support your argument that racism is as you like to put it, “a two-way street”.
Overall, I cannot agree with you that racism is a two way street because you might be speaking from a privilege point of view. That is, you recognized that racism is still embedded in the fabric of this country, but you rather focus on how the black folk, and not the white folk, can be found guilty of racism and not be called out on it by members of this society. In other words, you want the reader to recognize that the white folk will be condemned at the slightest sign of racism on his or her part, while the black folk will not. In your own words, “the world will sympathize with the black man” when he or she “calls a [white] man racist as a result of …a racist action against a [black man]. However, if we look at Michael Brown’s death, we would see that some people did not sympathize with him (e.g., the officer who shot him, the jury who did not find the officer guilty and the media who obsessed over the riots after the verdict). In addition, you do not seem to sympathize with Michael Brown, that is, instead of calling him by his name in your article you refer to him as a “black criminal”. Instead of paying respects to a victim of our racialized social structures you rather reinforce the idea that blacks and crime go together. Further, you posed that the media downplays when a black folk is racist towards a white folk by excusing the behavior “as just venting”. However, that same media you mentioned did not shrug when the Michael Brown verdict was giving that night. In fact, that same media as aforementioned obsessed over the riots creating an image of the black folk that reinforces what some Americans already implicitly expect of the black folk.
I understand that it is easier to attack those individuals who are part of a minority group. But what if instead of using your energy to explain how the white folk gets ignored when he or she calls out a black folk for being racist you directed that energy to deconstructing our racialized social structures. Further, what if instead of using the school paper during Black History Month to help maintain our racialized social structures you wrote about how racism came to be in the United States of America. Or, rather why not shed light on how slavery in the South was justified using the concept of race. Even further, you can remind your readers about the Slave Codes, Black Codes, and Jim Crow Laws, and mass incarceration. By arguing that the black folk can be racist just like the white folk and not be called out on it is attempting to silence him or her. That is, you are promulgating the idea that black folks should be challenged on their racism towards whites when in fact we know that racism only benefits white society.
Joshua D. Copeland • Mar 9, 2015 at 7:16 pm
Wow Jose, you literally took every word out of my mouth. Zach is obviously coming from a place of privilege and doesn’t understand racism if he can honestly say that Black people venting about the death of Michael Brown should be interpreted as racism towards white people.
Joshua D. Copeland • Mar 9, 2015 at 7:16 pm
Wow Jose, you literally took every word out of my mouth. Zach is obviously coming from a place of privilege and doesn’t understand racism if he can honestly say that Black people venting about the death of Michael Brown should be interpreted as racism towards white people. I totally agree with everything you said. Thank you for your words.
Mike • Feb 19, 2015 at 2:34 pm
Racism is systematic, and systems are devised by those who have the power to do so. Those who have the power are white people. Yes, black people can be biased, and they can have prejudices against others (any person from any race, ethnicity, or gender can) but they have not created a system capable of aiming these prejudices effectively against others. The semantics and terminology matters here.
Heather • Feb 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm
What is this mess? Racism is based on a system of privilege and power. Systematic racism does not affect white people (I am white and know this). We built a system that still holds down people of colour, especially black men in America. Just because someone called you a cracker once doesn’t mean you’re a victim of racism lmao.
Henry • Feb 18, 2015 at 11:59 pm
To start off we all live in a patriarchy world which is that of a system of society or government in which men hold the power. In the definition it does not state if the man is black or white. In our government we have had very few black men in charge not until recently we have had our first black president. Which leads me to racism, in order to be racist you have to have power which the black man does not have. If the black man does not have power he is unable to be racist. Racism is prejudice plus power and since the black man does not have power he may only be prejudice.