Does racism only work one way?

[Libre2]

twitter.com/MrNishKumar/status/1544372542097559554

Not sure what I think about this really, but I can see it causing absolute outrage if it were the other way round.

Race isn't entirely a social construct; there are distinct phenotypical differences between groups of people. The meaning of race is certainly something that has changed over time.

I suspect it is human nature to construct the world into 'us' and 'them'. Certainly the fear of outsiders and of those who look different to us seems to be an evolutionary feature. Amazingly, we have built societies in the west where we have equality under the law regardless of race. It's fantastic, and it pisses me off that people want to destroy it all because it's not perfect.

Would be nice if the colour of someone's skin wasn't used as something to beat them with.
No one should be doing it.

Unnecessarily divisive comment. Obviously seeking attention.

It’s staggering to me that there is an argument basically refuting the entire concept and construct of the legislated right not to be discriminated against on grounds of race (ethnic origin, nationality, colour) on the basis that is does not apply to certain ethnicities. This undermines the entire purpose of having a protected characteristic in the first place.

The Equality Act 2010:
Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics')

“ It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin “

Not difficult. The definition is simple. Privilege power and colonialism (whilst inextricably linked with many forms of racism) don’t change the definition of the term nor the legislated right for every individual to be protected from racism.

Yes racism works both ways but of course that fact outrages many people.

Nish Kumar's tweet has been reported for racism by Calvin Robinson.

I don’t think that Nish Kumar is very funny, and I think that he’s said things which are racist.

Nish Kumar is a Grade A Twat. And deeply unfunny.

Yes what he said is racist. And I say that as a South Asian immigrant. Twitter is awash with accounts tearing into RS and SJ and with hashtags of #BackBoris. All these accounts have Union Jack flags proudly on their handles and a cursory look tells me most of them have far right sympathies.

But even these users havent commented on the skin colour of the ministers who resigned. If they can manage it, I'm sure Nish can manage revelling in Boris' fall without resoorting to "brown guys" He is a complete and utter idiot that is all.

There is probably a feeling of "one of us"- all communities, countries, neighbourhoods tend to claim ownership when one of theirs makes it big. They are proud of the famous son or daughter and rightly so.

But jeez divisive tweets like this will only stoke resentment.

Agreeing with PP - yes, it works both ways. Racism is discrimination based on race. And that means any race.

I completely agree with the concept of white privilege and structural racism never working to the detriment of white people.

in terms of the semantics though, at what point and on what authority did the definition of the word “racism” change to mean other than prejudice based on race? so that the isolated instances of eg a black person treating a white person less favourably are not racist but just racially prejudiced?

Agreed
These posts really annoy me
Non white peoples can be racist, women can be violent etc etc.

So bloody what? It doesn’t change the fact that non white people are subject to racism and that most violent crimes are carried out by men.

yes I’m Asian so it’s nice when they’re funny and relatable but I find he tries too hard and this pathetic comment has confirmed it. Really no need and I doubt SJ and RS would be impressed.

No, of course it doesn’t, as anyone who has ever heard educated middle-class Arabs & Indians talking about sub-Saharan Africans is well aware. I’m white, and I have been called ‘Gweilo’ to my face in Hong Kong.

Don’t think racism towards white people is quite the same as towards black or brown people as those with white skin are still widely seen as better and superior.

“in terms of the semantics though, at what point and on what authority did the definition of the word “racism” change to mean other than prejudice based on race? so that the isolated instances of eg a black person treating a white person less favourably are not racist but just racially prejudiced?”

It hasn’t. Or shouldn’t have done.

”Oh it’s ok, when I called her a stuck up white b*tch I wasn’t being racist, just racially prejudiced. It can’t be racism cos she’s white”.

Isn’t that setting a very dangerous precedent?

It does work one way, yeah.
Next!

@TheWrongAllmanBrother exactly people choose to say its mean something it doesn't

Not sure what you think about it?
I think that's clear from your thread title. Don't be so disingenuous.

Main? How have you quantified that?
So the taliban not a problem unless they global?

rich white men run civilised functional countries. Not perfect at all but main problem?

please qualify that one

But that’s what racism is
prejudice based on race

I have known many non white people to be racist
I worked with people from various countries who were racist , people on here cannot change the definition it yo suit themseves

@ResentfulLemon yes can be racist about a rich white man
Look up the word racist and what it means
Also many non white men run awful countries aa well and you can't blame that on a rich white man hundreds of years ago

So do you think the men in power there are not reality in power? Puppets?

So can you explain why a non white person would be a better prime minister solely due to the colour of their skin?
Given that 87% of the U.K. is white then statistically we are more likely to have a white PM.

"Does racism only work one way?"

Yes. The oppressors cannot be the oppressed.