I'm sure you're factually accurate in your statements but I just want to comment on the structure of your argument (and I don't at all mean this in a snarky or negative light).
Racism is about more than being race-conscious. I think we all recognize that. I can say 'Obama is black' and 'John Boehner is white' and 'How many Asian senators are there?' None of these questions subjugates anyone.
For systemic oppression (and Racism), there has to be a group in power and a set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others.
Back to the point: speakers often speak about Racism (which, as above, requires the power to create oppressive institutions) in the same way they speak about what you described as 'opposition to the majority establishment and a black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration.' This probably happens because the nuanced description you gave doesn't roll of the tongue.
My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.
If you are allowed to redefine any word you want and completely remove it from its common usage and any vestiges of its actual meaning then you are certainly free to say something like "it's not clear to me than an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'racist'" -- you're just saying nothing more than "I'd like to redefine racism as something that can only be done by white people". Which is fine, you just need to make it clear when you use the word that you don't mean actual racism, you mean your new definition of "white-only" racism, or you need to use a different word if you don't want people to be confused. What's wrong with using 'systemic oppression' to describe systemic oppression (or even just oppression if you want something shorter) and 'racism' for actual racism?
It seems very extreme the mental contortions that are required to say to a white kid in an inner city school that when other students beat him up for being white they aren't being racist. Or when a hispanic person uses the n-word to describe a black person they aren't being racist.
Then once we've agreed on the definition of words we can argue whether or not there's any context in which white people can experience systemic oppression in the US (I think probably not but perhaps there's an argument to be made)
> My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.
I truly loathe this argument because it allows people to engage in hatred based on race while saying that their hatred is not racism. Hatred breeds hatred. I don't understand why people would judge me based on my skin and say that I have a hand in oppression, when I have no power over them. Why am I judged for actions of people who are not even my ancestors, because the color of our skin is the same? Is that not the very problem that we're trying to solve?
I feel conflict and resentment when I am told that I am oppressing people and that I should be hated for it because I am simply white, and frankly I think that's the end goal for the media as they are fanning the flames of racial tension. Don't give in: judge individuals on their merits. Judgment based on race is racism.
I've also heard this line of reasoning referred to as "the soft bigotry of lowered expectations", due to its implication that not all groups of people can be held to the same standards of behavior as society as a whole.
Your sentiments are totally understandable - but lets take this to a broader, less emotional level.
We, as Americans, are responsible for poor working conditions in large parts of the world. People recycling metals from computer parts (a topic HN users probably think about) develop neurological disorders, based on what we do.
Am I harming someone directly by not thinking about recycling more often? No, but I'm still part of a system that perpetuates these effects.
Your conflict and resentment stem from what some people before us have done. I have conflict over the families whose breadwinners die due to my electronic excess. But the answer isn't to deny the system I live in but to be more thoughtful.
Feel free to call a system racist; I'll likely agree depending on the merits of your argument. But people that hate others due to their race are racist, no matter how you couch the issue.
The conflict and resentment that people feel when they are accused of being racist due to only their race works counter to the cause of solving problems, not towards resolution. It encourages in-group/out-group mentalities on both sides and is unproductive toward the goal of equality. When you say that one class of person engaging in the same act as another is different because of their race, you are saying "we will never be equal."
No, there does not need to be any group in power or set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others for there to be racism.
Trying to redefine terms to avoid having to accept that minority/non-establishment groups can also be racist is ludicrous.
If you have not experienced minority groups being racists, lucky you. Meanwhile I've fairly regularly had members of minority groups expressing fairly crass racist views to me, presumably under the assumption that I as a white man won't take offence when they express racist views about other minority groups.
Important distinctions. But redefining 'racism' to suit a particular dialog isn't going to play well. It rings of an exclusionary tactic common in activism to mark outsiders as wrong because they don't know the 'new truth'.
Why not just use the dictionary definition of "racism" in the way that most people understand it, and use the phrase "institutionalized racism" when that's what you mean? Redefining words is a pretty juvenile rhetorical trick that will only work on the unintelligent. Most people will just think less of you and your argument when you try to use these cheap tricks.
Its important to understand the word majority has two different meanings. There is the mathematical majority which we are all familiar with on here but majority used in these cases is not referring to the mathematical definition of majority but the sociological definition of majority which is the group that holds [the majority of] the social power. In sociological contexts the word majority never refers to population size.
It's not that important. His point is that (neo nazis|white supremacists|whatever) are not racist as they are not part of the social majority. That's twisted.
To give you another example, then: Pre-Apartheid, Mahatma Ghandi campaigned for improved rights for Indians. Only. He explicitly did not support giving blacks the same rights he wanted for Indians, and explicitly accepted continued white supremacy. Indians in South Africa at the time were an oppressed group, with substantially curtailed rights - they were by no means part of the "majority establishment".
I am sympathetic to threat expressions by oppressed groups with more leniency, but trying to redefine racism to avoid labelling it as such I find extremely offensive - it does not just affect the "majority establishment", but also other minority groups.
> I'm not sure I follow your logic - are you equating 'majority establishment' with 'majority'?
Are you not equating it? A demographic majority is an enormous source of power. It seems like you're trying to avoid the dynamic and highly local nature of power by putting everything on "institutions" to paper over all the subtlety. Institutions are not monolithic, are not all aligned with one another, and are not the sole source of all power.
It is never the case that a group has no power whatsoever. Anyone who uses their power out of racial animus is a racist.
What you're proposing is like when feminists claim that anyone who is for equality is a feminist, but then in practice self-described feminists care much more about the gender disparity in corporate officers than the gender disparity in prison. It's a bait and switch. Which causes reasonable people to object to the equality-for-me-not-for-thee feminism and start a civil war with other people who also actually want equality, because the leaders lie about who they are and what they want.
When racism is defined as "power exercised under racial animus" then everyone can agree that it's wrong. As soon as you try to redefine it as "power exercised by white people", you're not going to be able to convince white people that that is wrong. Acceptance of your definition of racism will cause white people to stop accepting racism as wrong. That is not OK.
Racism is about more than being race-conscious. I think we all recognize that. I can say 'Obama is black' and 'John Boehner is white' and 'How many Asian senators are there?' None of these questions subjugates anyone.
For systemic oppression (and Racism), there has to be a group in power and a set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others.
Back to the point: speakers often speak about Racism (which, as above, requires the power to create oppressive institutions) in the same way they speak about what you described as 'opposition to the majority establishment and a black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration.' This probably happens because the nuanced description you gave doesn't roll of the tongue.
My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.