They can be racist using the common definition that does not have the context of power imbalance in the sociological definition. Just like a lay person using theory in a way that would be a hypothesis in a scientific context.
Acting like the sociological definition is the only definition comes across as arrogant when you leave out the context.
And yet I all but guarantee that anyone who has ever said “black people can’t be racist” did not actually mean “black people cannot be discriminatory, racially prejudiced bigots.” (I’ll allow for corner cases where people are idiots - because that happens with anything.)
Anyone at all can plainly see that nothing stops black people from being those things.
So the singular reason to get upset when someone says “black people can’t be racist” is a failure to recognize (and based on this discussion I’m pretty sure it’s a choice for many) the scholarly definition.
No, a black person can be racist. They cannot meet the sociological definition of racist that includes additional context of the power imbalance of western culture.
Leaving out the context means the statement is meaningless. Someone from Saudi Arabia cannot be racist using the sociolocigal definition while in the US, but can in Saudi Arabia doing the exact same thing because of the context. They are still being racist in both situations because the sociological definition did not replace the common definition that does not include that context.
You are like a guy from the US telling someone from the UK that chips can only mean deep fried thinly sliced potatoes and that potatoes cut in strips can only be called fries.
They can be racist using the common definition that does not have the context of power imbalance in the sociological definition. Just like a lay person using theory in a way that would be a hypothesis in a scientific context.
Acting like the sociological definition is the only definition comes across as arrogant when you leave out the context.
And yet I all but guarantee that anyone who has ever said “black people can’t be racist” did not actually mean “black people cannot be discriminatory, racially prejudiced bigots.” (I’ll allow for corner cases where people are idiots - because that happens with anything.)
Anyone at all can plainly see that nothing stops black people from being those things.
So the singular reason to get upset when someone says “black people can’t be racist” is a failure to recognize (and based on this discussion I’m pretty sure it’s a choice for many) the scholarly definition.
No, a black person can be racist. They cannot meet the sociological definition of racist that includes additional context of the power imbalance of western culture.
Leaving out the context means the statement is meaningless. Someone from Saudi Arabia cannot be racist using the sociolocigal definition while in the US, but can in Saudi Arabia doing the exact same thing because of the context. They are still being racist in both situations because the sociological definition did not replace the common definition that does not include that context.
They are being bigoted racially prejudiced douchebags in both cases, but only racist in one. Not that hard.
You are like a guy from the US telling someone from the UK that chips can only mean deep fried thinly sliced potatoes and that potatoes cut in strips can only be called fries.