Mulling #1: Reverse Racism:
I do not believe “reverse racism” should be a term used anymore, because the term is ridiculously overloaded with false assumptions. “Reverse” racism assumes #1. That when racism happens to whites it is reverse racism
#2. That people who aren’t white own the truest purest form of racism.
Racism is defined as a negative act done against a person/group due to physical attributes, especially skin color. This definition encompasses the whole of humanity, not just some over others. Therefore the codifier “reverse” is unneeded and carries heavy implications in its use.
It implies firstly that white people are not easily prone to negative acts due to their skin color and when it does happen it needs the sign “reverse” to lessen or intensify (depending on the user) the racist act being described. This is a huge problem because it separates a white man’s social and moral character apart from his fellow man.
When “reverse” is used to mean less important, it holds the racist acts perpetuated against whites as a side bar compared to racist acts against people of color. This means that whatever prejudice or persecution that befalls a white man would be of less importance than a person of color. This is unfair as one racist act of one caliber (ie physical violence against whites) would not be compared fairly against another of the same caliber (Ie physical violence against blacks). Using the term “reverse” to amass more severity to the racism perpetuated against white in comparison to racism against people of color, is likewise unjust; For it again puts whites in a moral and social bracket apart from his fellow man. This time it means racism is more important when it is against whites than it is when it is against people of color.
Secondly, “Reverse” Racism implies that pure racism (without reverse) is inherently an act that affects only people of color. That true racial discrimination is only found against Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. But the definition of racism ascribes the act to any skin color/people group not just some over the others. This can lead to the conclusion that whites are held to a higher moral standard than their fellow man, because racism doesn’t afflict them in its pure form.
So we can see that “reverse” racism is a term that denigrates the very acts against the people it is attempting to describe. The term can actually cause racial prejudice to be magnified and separate one people group from another. Therefore, dropping the “reverse” as a prefix and ascribing every act of racism purely and severely will help true justice be meted and further improve race relations.
Some describe reverse racism as a term used when the minority race (any race) commits a racial act of injustice against the majority race (any race). This is a moot point as even in this new definition it still falls prey to all of the problems mentioned above simply by using the word reverse. The majority race’s racist encounter is of more importance/less importance than a minority race’s encounter, which still causes a degree of separation in moral imperatives that simply doesn’t exist in the pure definition of racism alone. I used a White vs. Black example, because it is what I am most familiar with living in the United States.