Those who know me well realize "reverse racism" is one of my personal pet peeves. To me, the very idea of it is analogous to espousing belief in the tooth fairy. Before you get your panties in a bunch, let me explain.

Let's begin with some dictionary definitions of the word 'racism':

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

If you look carefully at the first definition, you will notice the last clause states, "...usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." [Italics mine.] This is a particularly salient point when examining racism in America. Which race in America has been the ruling majority since the country's inception? Whites. Therefore we can postulate that in the context of looking at American race relations, the word 'racist' more aptly applies to the majority.

The second definition references the system of government fostering such a doctrine - so again, we must look to which group has been the ruling majority in government.

Finally, the third definition is more general, and might apply to any race, although the points above outline the caveat when examining race relations in America specifically.

Most importantly, there is a qualitative aspect to the discussion. In the study of law - distinctions are made between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Given the fact that black Americans are only 12.5 % of the US population - a clear minority - these distinctions become important. Can you accuse a black person in America of being 'racist' against whites? I suppose you could, technically. But in the larger context of America's history, you wouldn't be accurately capturing the spirit of what the word truly implies.

In the law, there are also varying degrees of infractions, i.e., first degree murder, second degree murder, etc. - based on qualitative aspects of the crime. I submit the same judgments must surround which people are called 'racist' in America. A black person could be called racist in America - but given the context of America's record on race - that 'crime' certainly isn't one of the first degree. There are extenuating circumstances to consider - just as we do as jurors when deliberating on whether to acquit fellow citizens of a crime.

Finally, when considering 'reverse racism', there is the donut argument. If I eat more donuts than I do now, I will get fatter. The reverse is also true: if I eat less donuts than I eat now, I will get thinner. On the face of it - these two converse points appear true. But the operative assumption is ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. If I inject some amount of exercise into the equation, it changes the outcome.

So it is true with 'reverse racism'. All things in American life and government since her inception have NOT been equal (despite the brilliance and hopefulness of our Constitution); without a level playing field, and given the composition of our citizenship (majority of the population white; 12.5% of the population black) - the idea of 'reverse racism' becomes patently absurd.

Just one gal's opinion. Pass the donuts.




~