Claiming Racism is Racist
Yesterday the current president of my University shared a photo on his facebook of a photo someone had captioned. The photo was three black girls, and the person had captioned it with 'With Aids.'
The president posted that this was 'horrifying to see examples of racism like this on our campus' and that he found it 'so incredibly offensive', and that it was 'hate speech'.
I have some problems with him posting this:
-Firstly and most importantly, what is racist about captioning a photo of anyone of any race with the words 'With Aids'? There is the negative association of AIDs with the black community due to the AIDs epidemic in Africa, granted, but to immediately say it's racist to caption a photo with 3 black women in it only perpetuates and solidifies that association. If anything it's racist and patronising to draw attention to that association by calling a picture of three black girls captioned as aids as offensive. I'd say the real 'offensiveness' is to people with HIV/AIDs rather than blacks
-He mentioned that as a white person I have no right to comment on whether or not this was racist, despite the fact that HE is white as well, so he has hardly any right to be so 'incredibly offended'. Essentially he shot himself in the foot.
His response to me was that he did not 'have to prove the racist intent behind it' and 'nor will anyone else' have to. This is a ridiculous statement because if you cannot prove racist intent then you are bypassing any idea of fair trial and thus can make any ridiculous claim of racism.
I personally think that the guy who original captioned the photo probably was meaning in a racist way, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he meant it that way.
Frankly I think the president doesn't actually care about the issues at hand and just wants to get more votes by bending over backwards for any minority on campus, but in doing so he only increases the idea that we are different.
My main points, in short, are that the only racism was created out of the president's own head and thus he perpetuated the association of AIDs with blacks more than the original poster, that he was a hypocrite for telling me that I have no right to judge the racist intent as I am white yet ignores the fact that he himself is white, and lastly that he is only pandering to the lowest common denominator for more votes/to look PC.
What do you think? Do you think the person who posted this is racist or do you think that the president failed to recognise his own racism by claiming it was racist? Do you think there is any way to prove captioning a photo with 'With Aids' as racist? And is it more racist to immediately make that association or is it sensible?
The president posted that this was 'horrifying to see examples of racism like this on our campus' and that he found it 'so incredibly offensive', and that it was 'hate speech'.
I have some problems with him posting this:
-Firstly and most importantly, what is racist about captioning a photo of anyone of any race with the words 'With Aids'? There is the negative association of AIDs with the black community due to the AIDs epidemic in Africa, granted, but to immediately say it's racist to caption a photo with 3 black women in it only perpetuates and solidifies that association. If anything it's racist and patronising to draw attention to that association by calling a picture of three black girls captioned as aids as offensive. I'd say the real 'offensiveness' is to people with HIV/AIDs rather than blacks
-He mentioned that as a white person I have no right to comment on whether or not this was racist, despite the fact that HE is white as well, so he has hardly any right to be so 'incredibly offended'. Essentially he shot himself in the foot.
His response to me was that he did not 'have to prove the racist intent behind it' and 'nor will anyone else' have to. This is a ridiculous statement because if you cannot prove racist intent then you are bypassing any idea of fair trial and thus can make any ridiculous claim of racism.
I personally think that the guy who original captioned the photo probably was meaning in a racist way, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he meant it that way.
Frankly I think the president doesn't actually care about the issues at hand and just wants to get more votes by bending over backwards for any minority on campus, but in doing so he only increases the idea that we are different.
My main points, in short, are that the only racism was created out of the president's own head and thus he perpetuated the association of AIDs with blacks more than the original poster, that he was a hypocrite for telling me that I have no right to judge the racist intent as I am white yet ignores the fact that he himself is white, and lastly that he is only pandering to the lowest common denominator for more votes/to look PC.
What do you think? Do you think the person who posted this is racist or do you think that the president failed to recognise his own racism by claiming it was racist? Do you think there is any way to prove captioning a photo with 'With Aids' as racist? And is it more racist to immediately make that association or is it sensible?
Scroll to see replies
I personally think that if the racism doesn't effect you personally (as in it is aimed at you for whatever reason), you have no right to be offended on someone else's behalf.
The amount of times I see white people complain about racism in films, cartoons etc. yet the target of the racism laugh it off.
Racism will continue to exist when we have, (excuse the pun) 'white knights' riding to the rescue of every 'poor victim', even when the supposed 'victim' isn't bothered or cares.
The amount of times I see white people complain about racism in films, cartoons etc. yet the target of the racism laugh it off.
Racism will continue to exist when we have, (excuse the pun) 'white knights' riding to the rescue of every 'poor victim', even when the supposed 'victim' isn't bothered or cares.
If it's 'racism' only because the target is of another race then it's not racism. The target doesn't determine if a comment is racist or not, but is circumstantial to it. For example, if I called a white person a monkey, it is acceptable, but if I said it to a black person, immediately I would be assumed to be racist. The very fact that we make this distinction perpetuates racism because it draws lines between what is and is not acceptable to say to a person dependent on their race.
If races are truly equal, we shouldn't start appealing to race to decide what is and is not acceptable to say to a person - if we are equal then we should concern ourselves with what is acceptable to say to people, regardless of their skin colour, which we have already dismissed as unimportant.
If races are truly equal, we shouldn't start appealing to race to decide what is and is not acceptable to say to a person - if we are equal then we should concern ourselves with what is acceptable to say to people, regardless of their skin colour, which we have already dismissed as unimportant.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by A5ko
I personally think that if the racism doesn't effect you personally (as in it is aimed at you for whatever reason), you have no right to be offended on someone else's behalf.
The amount of times I see white people complain about racism in films, cartoons etc. yet the target of the racism laugh it off.
Racism will continue to exist when we have, (excuse the pun) 'white knights' riding to the rescue of every 'poor victim', even when the supposed 'victim' isn't bothered or cares.
The amount of times I see white people complain about racism in films, cartoons etc. yet the target of the racism laugh it off.
Racism will continue to exist when we have, (excuse the pun) 'white knights' riding to the rescue of every 'poor victim', even when the supposed 'victim' isn't bothered or cares.
But isn't he just as bad for pointing out the negative stereotype/association of blacks and AIDs/HIV and calling a photo with absolutely no direct link to racist discourse as racist? He's the one creating the idea that its racist from his own perspectives and in doing so he's perpetuated that link of AIDs and blacks.
Original post by Kiss
But isn't he just as bad for pointing out the negative stereotype/association of blacks and AIDs/HIV and calling a photo with absolutely no direct link to racist discourse as racist? He's the one creating the idea that its racist from his own perspectives and in doing so he's perpetuated that link of AIDs and blacks.
Unfortunately the link exists and has done for quite a while. It's stupid to point it out and maybe give it more exposure than it deserves, as he did. A better solution would have been to just report it quietly.
It saddens me that most people don't even know the actual definition of racism.
If you're going to be 'offended' by racism then please understand what it is.
Some people seem to deem anything negative said by one race to another race as racist.
If you're going to be 'offended' by racism then please understand what it is.
Some people seem to deem anything negative said by one race to another race as racist.
You shouldn't expect common sense and reasoned enquiry to prevail at university, but good on you for challenging the President's overreaction towards an edited (and ill-judged, admittedly) Facebook photo. Don't these people have more important things to deal with? He should perhaps stop acting as the Defacto Thought Police and do something that will add value to the university experience, i.e what he's paid for.
I often think that the issue here is that if the racism is not targeted towards you, yet you ignore it, you too are tarred with the same brush.
So, for example, if someone was to say something derogatory about a Chinese person for example, instead of letting it slide, I might turn around and say: 'You can't say that! That's racist!' However, if I let it slide, they might assume that I am also racist, and others overhearing the conversation might think I have similar viewpoints.
So if the president highlighted the racism within the image, he might see it as 'backing up' those who are afraid to speak up about it. Often, people in positions of power (such as those not targeted by the racist image) might help those who otherwise might just roll their eyes but actually be deeply offended (those targeted).
It's the same with other things, such as sexism. If someone were to say something rude about women, and a man speaks up and says 'that's sexist!', does that make him sexist, because he highlighted the sexism in it?
Interesting topic, nonetheless.
So, for example, if someone was to say something derogatory about a Chinese person for example, instead of letting it slide, I might turn around and say: 'You can't say that! That's racist!' However, if I let it slide, they might assume that I am also racist, and others overhearing the conversation might think I have similar viewpoints.
So if the president highlighted the racism within the image, he might see it as 'backing up' those who are afraid to speak up about it. Often, people in positions of power (such as those not targeted by the racist image) might help those who otherwise might just roll their eyes but actually be deeply offended (those targeted).
It's the same with other things, such as sexism. If someone were to say something rude about women, and a man speaks up and says 'that's sexist!', does that make him sexist, because he highlighted the sexism in it?
Interesting topic, nonetheless.
There was some sort of a fuss in the USA during the Olympics when an advert with a monkey doing gymnastics in it was shown after their (black) star gymnast had done her routine. I'd say to make the connection between monkey and black person, and to complain about it, one must have to be racist.
That president is a moron. I hate people that enforce stereotypes in this way, or at least enforce the notion that it's somehow worse to compare blacks to monkeys than whites to monkeys even though we both have the same ****ing evolutionary relationship with monkeys. It's like the people who spaz out whenever I say 'queer' and say I'm being homophobic, even bringing up the 'language changes and evolves' argument which is nonsense because they're keen for that meaning to stay there and not evolve or change.
Racism is the new witchcraft. It doesn't need to be proven, it doesn't need to have intent behind it, it doesn't even need to be racist, it's just an effective way of shutting someone up and claiming victory in a debate.
Original post by Snagprophet
That president is a moron. I hate people that enforce stereotypes in this way, or at least enforce the notion that it's somehow worse to compare blacks to monkeys than whites to monkeys even though we both have the same ****ing evolutionary relationship with monkeys. It's like the people who spaz out whenever I say 'queer' and say I'm being homophobic, even bringing up the 'language changes and evolves' argument which is nonsense because they're keen for that meaning to stay there and not evolve or change.
Yeah, they're a bunch of hypocrites. And so is our president.
Yes it's totally the president who is perpetuating stereotypes and not the person who writes 'with AIDS' on a picture of black people. 
TSR can be so backwards sometimes.
TSR can be so backwards sometimes.Original post by Captain Haddock
Yes it's totally the president who is perpetuating stereotypes and not the person who writes 'with AIDS' on a picture of black people. TSR can be so backwards sometimes.
TSR can be so backwards sometimes.I just knew that you would wade in backing up the President.
Someone said something I didn't like, quick, call the Thought Police to shut them up!
Original post by Kiss
But isn't he just as bad for pointing out the negative stereotype/association of blacks and AIDs/HIV and calling a photo with absolutely no direct link to racist discourse as racist? He's the one creating the idea that its racist from his own perspectives and in doing so he's perpetuated that link of AIDs and blacks.
Is this a coincidence that has absolutely no relation to 'black' people? Anybody who associates this with 'black' people is themselves racist?
One must question what the point of a caption is if it has no bearing on the picture's content. As far as I'm concerned, linking the caption to the picture to infer the original editor had a particular intention in mind is is not unreasonable; I believe you're being willfully ignorant here. Acknowledging the existence of stereotypes and expressing an opinion on when you believe they are being deployed does not mean that you personally agree with them.
You're effectively suggesting bullying in the form of imitation and mockery (whether that be of the individual or the identity of the individual (i.e., stereotypes)) does not exist outside of the recipient's imagination. Only somebody with some form of social disorder would not see the connection and remain unaffected.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Kiss
Yesterday the current president of my University shared a photo on his facebook of a photo someone had captioned. The photo was three black girls, and the person had captioned it with 'With Aids.'
The president posted that this was 'horrifying to see examples of racism like this on our campus' and that he found it 'so incredibly offensive', and that it was 'hate speech'.
I have some problems with him posting this:
-Firstly and most importantly, what is racist about captioning a photo of anyone of any race with the words 'With Aids'? There is the negative association of AIDs with the black community due to the AIDs epidemic in Africa, granted, but to immediately say it's racist to caption a photo with 3 black women in it only perpetuates and solidifies that association. If anything it's racist and patronising to draw attention to that association by calling a picture of three black girls captioned as aids as offensive. I'd say the real 'offensiveness' is to people with HIV/AIDs rather than blacks
-He mentioned that as a white person I have no right to comment on whether or not this was racist, despite the fact that HE is white as well, so he has hardly any right to be so 'incredibly offended'. Essentially he shot himself in the foot.
His response to me was that he did not 'have to prove the racist intent behind it' and 'nor will anyone else' have to. This is a ridiculous statement because if you cannot prove racist intent then you are bypassing any idea of fair trial and thus can make any ridiculous claim of racism.
I personally think that the guy who original captioned the photo probably was meaning in a racist way, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he meant it that way.
Frankly I think the president doesn't actually care about the issues at hand and just wants to get more votes by bending over backwards for any minority on campus, but in doing so he only increases the idea that we are different.
My main points, in short, are that the only racism was created out of the president's own head and thus he perpetuated the association of AIDs with blacks more than the original poster, that he was a hypocrite for telling me that I have no right to judge the racist intent as I am white yet ignores the fact that he himself is white, and lastly that he is only pandering to the lowest common denominator for more votes/to look PC.
What do you think? Do you think the person who posted this is racist or do you think that the president failed to recognise his own racism by claiming it was racist? Do you think there is any way to prove captioning a photo with 'With Aids' as racist? And is it more racist to immediately make that association or is it sensible?
The president posted that this was 'horrifying to see examples of racism like this on our campus' and that he found it 'so incredibly offensive', and that it was 'hate speech'.
I have some problems with him posting this:
-Firstly and most importantly, what is racist about captioning a photo of anyone of any race with the words 'With Aids'? There is the negative association of AIDs with the black community due to the AIDs epidemic in Africa, granted, but to immediately say it's racist to caption a photo with 3 black women in it only perpetuates and solidifies that association. If anything it's racist and patronising to draw attention to that association by calling a picture of three black girls captioned as aids as offensive. I'd say the real 'offensiveness' is to people with HIV/AIDs rather than blacks
-He mentioned that as a white person I have no right to comment on whether or not this was racist, despite the fact that HE is white as well, so he has hardly any right to be so 'incredibly offended'. Essentially he shot himself in the foot.
His response to me was that he did not 'have to prove the racist intent behind it' and 'nor will anyone else' have to. This is a ridiculous statement because if you cannot prove racist intent then you are bypassing any idea of fair trial and thus can make any ridiculous claim of racism.
I personally think that the guy who original captioned the photo probably was meaning in a racist way, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he meant it that way.
Frankly I think the president doesn't actually care about the issues at hand and just wants to get more votes by bending over backwards for any minority on campus, but in doing so he only increases the idea that we are different.
My main points, in short, are that the only racism was created out of the president's own head and thus he perpetuated the association of AIDs with blacks more than the original poster, that he was a hypocrite for telling me that I have no right to judge the racist intent as I am white yet ignores the fact that he himself is white, and lastly that he is only pandering to the lowest common denominator for more votes/to look PC.
What do you think? Do you think the person who posted this is racist or do you think that the president failed to recognise his own racism by claiming it was racist? Do you think there is any way to prove captioning a photo with 'With Aids' as racist? And is it more racist to immediately make that association or is it sensible?
It is neither racist NOR sensible.
Is it a jump to assume racism? Yes
Is there something wrong with trying to stamp out racism? No
Original post by Kiss
Yesterday the current president of my University shared a photo on his facebook of a photo someone had captioned. The photo was three black girls, and the person had captioned it with 'With Aids.'
The president posted that this was 'horrifying to see examples of racism like this on our campus' and that he found it 'so incredibly offensive', and that it was 'hate speech'.
I have some problems with him posting this:
-Firstly and most importantly, what is racist about captioning a photo of anyone of any race with the words 'With Aids'? There is the negative association of AIDs with the black community due to the AIDs epidemic in Africa, granted, but to immediately say it's racist to caption a photo with 3 black women in it only perpetuates and solidifies that association. If anything it's racist and patronising to draw attention to that association by calling a picture of three black girls captioned as aids as offensive. I'd say the real 'offensiveness' is to people with HIV/AIDs rather than blacks
-He mentioned that as a white person I have no right to comment on whether or not this was racist, despite the fact that HE is white as well, so he has hardly any right to be so 'incredibly offended'. Essentially he shot himself in the foot.
His response to me was that he did not 'have to prove the racist intent behind it' and 'nor will anyone else' have to. This is a ridiculous statement because if you cannot prove racist intent then you are bypassing any idea of fair trial and thus can make any ridiculous claim of racism.
I personally think that the guy who original captioned the photo probably was meaning in a racist way, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he meant it that way.
Frankly I think the president doesn't actually care about the issues at hand and just wants to get more votes by bending over backwards for any minority on campus, but in doing so he only increases the idea that we are different.
My main points, in short, are that the only racism was created out of the president's own head and thus he perpetuated the association of AIDs with blacks more than the original poster, that he was a hypocrite for telling me that I have no right to judge the racist intent as I am white yet ignores the fact that he himself is white, and lastly that he is only pandering to the lowest common denominator for more votes/to look PC.
What do you think? Do you think the person who posted this is racist or do you think that the president failed to recognise his own racism by claiming it was racist? Do you think there is any way to prove captioning a photo with 'With Aids' as racist? And is it more racist to immediately make that association or is it sensible?
The president posted that this was 'horrifying to see examples of racism like this on our campus' and that he found it 'so incredibly offensive', and that it was 'hate speech'.
I have some problems with him posting this:
-Firstly and most importantly, what is racist about captioning a photo of anyone of any race with the words 'With Aids'? There is the negative association of AIDs with the black community due to the AIDs epidemic in Africa, granted, but to immediately say it's racist to caption a photo with 3 black women in it only perpetuates and solidifies that association. If anything it's racist and patronising to draw attention to that association by calling a picture of three black girls captioned as aids as offensive. I'd say the real 'offensiveness' is to people with HIV/AIDs rather than blacks
-He mentioned that as a white person I have no right to comment on whether or not this was racist, despite the fact that HE is white as well, so he has hardly any right to be so 'incredibly offended'. Essentially he shot himself in the foot.
His response to me was that he did not 'have to prove the racist intent behind it' and 'nor will anyone else' have to. This is a ridiculous statement because if you cannot prove racist intent then you are bypassing any idea of fair trial and thus can make any ridiculous claim of racism.
I personally think that the guy who original captioned the photo probably was meaning in a racist way, but there is absolutely no way to prove that he meant it that way.
Frankly I think the president doesn't actually care about the issues at hand and just wants to get more votes by bending over backwards for any minority on campus, but in doing so he only increases the idea that we are different.
My main points, in short, are that the only racism was created out of the president's own head and thus he perpetuated the association of AIDs with blacks more than the original poster, that he was a hypocrite for telling me that I have no right to judge the racist intent as I am white yet ignores the fact that he himself is white, and lastly that he is only pandering to the lowest common denominator for more votes/to look PC.
What do you think? Do you think the person who posted this is racist or do you think that the president failed to recognise his own racism by claiming it was racist? Do you think there is any way to prove captioning a photo with 'With Aids' as racist? And is it more racist to immediately make that association or is it sensible?
Lobbying for the freedom to deploy racial devices. Savage.
yes, screeching 'waacism' when no evidence exists for it is 'waacist'
Original post by A5ko
I personally think that if the racism doesn't effect you personally (as in it is aimed at you for whatever reason), you have no right to be offended on someone else's behalf.
The amount of times I see white people complain about racism in films, cartoons etc. yet the target of the racism laugh it off.
Racism will continue to exist when we have, (excuse the pun) 'white knights' riding to the rescue of every 'poor victim', even when the supposed 'victim' isn't bothered or cares.
The amount of times I see white people complain about racism in films, cartoons etc. yet the target of the racism laugh it off.
Racism will continue to exist when we have, (excuse the pun) 'white knights' riding to the rescue of every 'poor victim', even when the supposed 'victim' isn't bothered or cares.
This. Racism does exist and it does need to be tackled, but idiots like the uni president mentioned by the OP make the whole thing worse and are just an irritation to be honest. IF someone from the black community found such a thing offensive, thought it was racist, and as the OP says it can be proved to be racist/done with racist intent then by all means, get behind them, but doing stuff on behalf of communities when either they are not bothered or unaffected is lunacy in my opinion. In fact I would go further and say that on some occasions, it can stifle healthy debate and free speech, and that is not a situation we should be in as a society.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
