My honest view is that this is the new form of "acceptable" racism. It's not "reverse racism", it's just racism.
The idea that someone's ideas are more or less valid based on the colour of their skin is completely antithetical to the original aims of the civil rights movement.
I agree with you, but it's important to realize that this new form of racism (and by extension, racism in general) doesn't focus on skin colour alone. The focus is on the cultural traits that tend to correlate with skin colour and their implications given the context.
If you group people by skin tone, sex, height, country of residence, or pretty much any other trait, you'll find that average lived experience differs in some way across groups. As a result, if you draw people mostly from one of these groups, say, white men, then this group's ideas, experiences, opinions, etc. are likely (of course, not guaranteed) to differ from the population average. As long as different people are different, this will remain true. In some contexts, some people decide that this non-representation is serious enough to warrant correction. This leads to what you call the new form of acceptable racism.
This thinking is discriminatory by definition, since it assumes things about people based on their skin colour. And it becomes much less palatable if you replace "white men" with pretty much any other demographic. (It's interesting to consider why that is!) But if you know nothing else about the group, knowing their skin colour and, by extension, cultural backgrounds, can inform you about their likely biases. For example, a bunch of old white men probably won't understand the motivations, challenges, and needs in a population of young women of colour.
Replace race with socioeconomic status and you'll get a more complete picture that doesn't rely on traits someone has no control over. "Old white men" is no more an acceptable pejorative than any other in my view.
You are free to hold that view, but nowhere did I see that anyone says their ideas are not valid because they're white.
What I did see was that the claim that cryptocurrency is unlocking power and wealth to impoverished people doesn't hold up to the reality that it's just perpetuating the same financial and power structures that have come before.
And to people who argue against that, well, I'd love to see who, for example, in Africa, is getting rich or at least better-off from the existence of any of various cryptocurrencies. Or where are the people of color in Chicago or Baltimore, spinning up their own coins or empowering their communities, or any of that?
For all the supposed world-changing potential these things supposedly offer, why do the outcomes they're producing so closely resemble the way things already are?
I, for one, would turn my opinion on cryptocurrencies 180 degrees if I saw them being used to give any of the war-torn or impoverished African nations (both of which are a consequence of European colonialism being exploitative and drawing borders to maximize regional conflict) a real leg up on the world stage; and one for all the people, not just the ruling elites there.
Think of it something like a sovereign wealth fund derived from crypto, giving every citizen a monthly draw -- why don't we see anything like that?
---
And the explanation, by the way, for why you often see people making the claim that reverse racism isn't a thing is because, in these discussions, racism isn't just hating someone or assuming something about a person based on their skin color, but about the economic and political power structures that get wielded against certain groups based on skin color.
In the US, there's never been a white chattel slavery system (though white supremacists have spun a false narrative about the Irish to try and muddy even this discussion), there's never been policies that exclude whites from living in certain neighborhoods like redlining did for decades, etc. The machinery of the state has never been applied to white people the way it has been applied to people of color time and time again.
Black people can hate white people all they want, but you never see wholesale systematic destruction of white communities like, for example, the Tulsa race riots in the 20s.
So you can say this is all acceptable racism, but I for one can't imagine how anyone can look at any facets of the history of this country and come up with that same constellation of ideas that there's now anti-white acceptable racism.
There's a single counter-example that I think demolishes this entire line of thinking, and it is the rise of "Asian privilege". If Western power structures are inherently racist, they sure dropped the ball on immigrants from the Asian continent (who, by the way, were in recent history pressed into indentured servitude to build railways).
There are no longer any laws on the books that discriminate against people based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. So certainly there are no legal barriers.
So if your narrative is that there is still systematic racism it's really incumbent on you to provide a factual basis for that claim - and, quite frankly, the evidence is sorely lacking. If you were to remove race from the equation and simply group people by socioeconomic factors like wealth, family composition and attitudes about education, you're likely to find that a middle-class white, black, or Hispanic child has similar chances of success at birth (assuming they belong to a complete family unit with positive views on the value of education). Remove a father from the equation and, regardless of race, their prospects dim considerably.
Race is highly visible, but for the same reason that academic research on the link between IQ and race is shunned I think it's a terrible proxy for comparison of groups.
> There's a single counter-example that I think demolishes this entire line of thinking, and it is the rise of "Asian privilege".
No, it doesn't.
> If Western power structures are inherently racist
They are.
> they sure dropped the ball on immigrants from the Asian continent
They didn't.
> who, by the way, were in recent history pressed into indentured servitude to build railways.
Recent Asian immigrants were not; Asians several generations ago were (many of whom were later expelled.)
Yes, recent Asian immigrants are above average in many respects.
So are recent sub-Saharan African immigrants. Of course, current immigrants and those whose family immigrated in the last couple generations are a lot more of the Asian population in the US than of the population of sub-Saharan African descent.
> There are no longer any laws on the books that discriminate against people based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Yes, there are, and moreover sexual orientation and gender identity are not included in many laws against private discrimination in public accommodations.)
And on top of that, there are many laws which discriminate in ways (particularly geographic) that are tightly associated with race.)
>> There's a single counter-example that I think demolishes this entire line of thinking, and it is the rise of "Asian privilege".
> No, it doesn't.
>> If Western power structures are inherently racist
> They are.
I'm sorry, but the null hypothesis is more likely unless you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.
And the standard is this: show how specific "power structures" discriminate against people based on race in ways that are not attributable to other factors. For example, if the effect is largely explainable by poverty, then your hypothesis has not been proven (even though it may point to another issue).
> And the explanation, by the way, for why you often see people making the claim that reverse racism isn't a thing is because
During the civil rights movement, black supremacists advanced, and others in the movement did not expend sufficient effort counteracting because of (understandable, perhaps) higher priorities, a redefinition of racism designed specifically to exclude (and thereby license) black-against-white racism.
While the intersection of power and prejudice is important for determining the impact of racism, and consequently properly plays a role in prioritizing responses to racism, excluding prejudice without dominant social power as “not racism” and therefore not problematic simply encourages that prejudice to deepen and spread, which is especially problematic when you are trying to deal with the problem that those holding it lack power, because by dealing with that problem without addressing (and, indeed, while licensing) the prejudice, you are helping to create a confluence of power and prejudice.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” - MLK jr
