The Big Pink Elephant in the room in this discussion is the definition of racism. As we know in the mid 1990s, the conservative movement began to strongly focus on how to linguistically frame the debate on political issues . And in the debate on race, this became focussed by GWB's use of the term "color-blind society" to move the discussion of race in the conservative direction. This has lead to a redefinition of Racism to be

"Discrimination based on race"

But is this a reasonable definition of racism? It has an appeal in simplicity, but realistically It doesn't work. Here's why:

Lets try the definition in a couple of things. First lets understand what the word "discriminate" means: "To Make a Distinction", "To distinguish by discerning differences" Fair Enough? OK so the conservative definition of racism then is:

To make a distinction based on race is racism.

OR

To discern differences based on race is racism.

So now lets apply the definition to a couple of realities

• MLK's Freedom March discerned differences based on race - QED it was racist
• Montgomery Bus Boycott discerned differences based on race - QED it was racist
• Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman focussed their registration efforts by making a distinction based on race - QED they (and the rest of Freedom Summer) - were racist.

Notice the trend here? This simplistic definition of racism gathers in not only racism, but also any attempt to recognize and combat racism. A definition of racism that cannot distinguish between acts of racism and attempts to ameliorate those acts IS NOT A USEFUL DEFINITION OF RACISM.

So what is a useful definition? Well what happens in racism? fundamentally its pretty simple (and this applies to sexism as well). Race is used as a means of categorizing individuals, and then that categorization is used to project beliefs onto those individuals.

For example, I identify you as black, and because my beliefs are that blacks are lazy, I project onto you that YOU are lazy.

Now beliefs really are just mythologies since by defnition a belief is disconnected from verifiable reality. So where does this leave us?

RACISM is the imposition of MYTHOLOGIZED ATTRIBUTES based on physical (physiognomic) distinctions.

IE because of your skin color, you are [lazy, dumb, incapable, shifty, criminal etc.].

Using this definition,

• Marching for recognition of equal legal personhood ceases to be racist, and the attempts to limit that march based on bigotry about blacks continues to be racist. So MLK's Freedom March ceases to be racist but Bull Connor's response remains racist
• the recognition of Jim Crow seating rules ceases to be racist, but the rules themselves remain racist. So the Montgomery Bus Boycott ceases to be racist, but the "blacks sit in the back" continues to be.
• Using this definition the opposition to allowing minorities to vote continues to be racist, but the efforts to overcome this no longer are. So the killings of Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman were based in racism (even though they themselves were white), but Freedom Summer ceases to be.

But herein lies the problem When we try to apply this more accurate description of racism to "reverse racism" against whites, it almost ALWAYS fails to satisfy. Why?

Because there are very very few myths that are imposed on white males as a consequence of their race. I challenge you to come up with some. Particularly ones that would limit opportunities on a daily basis.

For example, the original "reverse racism" case brought by Bakke presumed that he was the subject of racism towards whites because blacks with lower LSAT scores and grades were being admitted ahead of Bakke to the UTex Law School. Except that so where other white males. So clearly there was no consistent mythology being imposed on Bakke by the admission of lower scoring blacks ahead of him.

So I challenge all you conservatives: What are examples of myths that get imposed on whites, and particularly white males, that are the basis for reverse racism? I can think of some edge cases, but I'm looking for ones that apply on a daily basis.

C'mon lets hear them

Your challenge is pretty low Degs - not that the topic is weak or unimportant, but that you have to resort to such grandstanding and baiting....

As for racism. Your flaw is in assuming racism as a concept is bad. There's no redefinition going on, only understanding of context. Racism as a concept is neutral - it is how that concept is used where good and bad come in to play.

just because I am white or asian - this is discrimination based on race. It's clear and simple.

Your views are racist, because they are based on a racist mythodology - all whites (jews, chinese, include your least favourite group) have unearned privilige, and therefore it is fair and just to discriminate against them.

Simple enough?

If racism is the imposition of mythologized attributes, then it is a disconnection from reality.

How is a cognitive dissonance between reality and belief anything but bad?

that the it's bad to promote a myth that all whites prospered at the expense of all blacks. Right?

Yes, it is a decicsion based on race- offsetting the numerous decisions based on race that went your way unearned.

Discrimination based on race is not inherently racism. You are once again doing exactly what my top post indicates: You are redefining racism in a manner that makes

• MLK's Freedom March racist
• Freedom Summer Racist
• Montgomery Bus Boycott racist.

That's beyond silly.

Yes, it is a decicsion based on race- offsetting the numerous decisions based on race that went your way unearned.

Sure, but then you cannot decide that all people of a particular race have unearned privilige, while all people of another race have undeserved punishment without actually analysing the history of each involved individual.

Discrimination based on race is not inherently racism.

It is most likely racist.

You are once again doing exactly what my top post indicates: You are redefining racism in a manner that makes

• MLK's Freedom March racist

You failed to prove this. I believe all government discrimination based on race is evil and must be forbiden. Ditto for MLK's freedom march. We are in agreement.

• Freedom Summer Racist
• Montgomery Bus Boycott racist.

See above. You argument is not based on what I am saying. Discrimination based on race is evil. Period. Opposing such discrimination is not evil and it's not racist.

That's beyond silly.

Yes, your claims are silly. I am glad you figured this out.

Sure, but then you cannot decide that all people of a particular race have unearned privilige, while all people of another race have undeserved punishment without actually analysing the history of each involved individual.

Sure you can. Just like obesity increases the risk for every individual of stroke. Doesn't mean that for that person the risk factor is necessarily great, but in comparison to say his genetic twin who is not obese, it is a definitive increase in risk factor

Pervasive racism means exactly that. And the data is unequivocal, racism is still pervasive.

• MLK's Freedom March racist

You failed to prove this. I believe all government discrimination based on race is evil and must be forbiden. Ditto for MLK's freedom march.

Thank you for admitting that your definition of racism includes MLK's Freedom March. You have just relegated yourself to silliness.

Only if it is a myth. The research and data across the board demonstrates that it is not

I suggest you bring in the reproducible data for all 300 million Americans that proves it. I am not sure what is stopping you.

You can start by explaining how the son of Jesse Jackson the infamous race hustler, has been descriminated in order to help me. Go ahead.

I was asking for a proof, not a demonstration.

Sure, but then you cannot decide that all people of a particular race have unearned privilige, while all people of another race have undeserved punishment without actually analysing the history of each involved individual.

Sure you can. Just like obesity increases the risk for every individual of stroke.

There are physical laws that prove this. not simple statistics. So if you have any physical laws to support your hypothesis that all whites have unfair advantage versus all blacks - well, you got nothing.

Doesn't mean that for that person the risk factor is necessarily great, but in comparison to say his genetic twin who is not obese, it is a definitive increase in risk factor

The conclusion is based on the laws of physics, not randomly selection tests on a few people.

Pervasive racism means exactly that. And the data is unequivocal, racism is still pervasive.

Sure racism is pervasive, and you are a racist. But we are not discussing whether racism exists, we are discussing whether you have conclusive evidence that ALL white males have unfair advantage, while all black males have unfair disadvantage.

• MLK's Freedom March racist

You failed to prove this. I believe all government discrimination based on race is evil and must be forbiden. Ditto for MLK's freedom march.

Thank you for admitting that your definition of racism includes MLK's Freedom March. You have just relegated yourself to silliness.

MLK was against discrimination - which means his march was not racist according to my definition. It is racist by your definition, since MLK asked for a color blind society.