Inversed racism

This is a discussion moved from the comments of this story into the forum:

@Martin

My stance on this topic:

Don’t you think it’s already racism in your head, if you think it’s perfectly acceptable if a white man is dominated (in whatever extreme way) by a black man, but not the other way round? Think about it: What you’re saying is, that because of the history of black people in the USA, they must be treated differently in that area.

I say: This is already racism by definition. Racism, or better, discrimination based on a common characteristic of a group of people, always means that this group is somehow treated differently. If you think that enslaving a black person is “more wrong” than a white person, then you already make a distinction that in no way is rationally warranted.

I know, especially in the US, there are many MANY cases, where people are treated differently because of their race, their gender, their sexuality, their social status… many of them conscious and purportedly meant to help or protect the minority. Same happens in Germany, if to a lesser extend.

I say: Differentiating in ANY way is already a discrimination. ALWAYS. No matter why and how.

An Anon:

what the fuck is this, “anti-racism is the real racism, actually,” nonsense lmao

@Martin:

I’m sorry that you think that my opinion is nonsense.

Anti-Racism means to NOT differentiate people based on their “race”. It does NOT mean to differentiate in a different, supposedly “good” way.

That just leads to more racism. That’s my firm believe.

Anon:

Well your firm belief is nonsense.

@Martin:

Well, you’re free to think and write that, but it would have more substance, if you’d add some reasoning to your opinion. As it is, your statement is simply an emotional outburst.

Anon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

“oh no, don’t help the oppressed, that would be oppression :’c abloo abloo”

that’s you that’s what you sound like

@Hypnothrill:

Hi Martin, I respect your beliefs, but I have to disagree. I think the “color-blind” rhetoric you’re espousing is well-intentioned, but it’s actually done more harm than good. When you don’t acknowledge racial difference, the ongoing historical legacy of racism, or internalized racial prejudices, you actually make it more difficult to fix the systems that are still responsible for a lot of racial disparities and injustice.

@Martin:

Well, I disagree, too…

What is the goal? Answer my question, what do you want to achieve?

Let’s not talk about the way to get there, but the actual way you want people to treat each other?

My answer is: It shouldn’t matter, what, how and why you are. You should be treated based only on your personality and nothing else.

To switch around discrimination into some kind of “positive” discrimination just cements the difference forever. You’ll always have the difference as a reason to treat a person differently, you’ll never really accept that the look/race/gender etc. just shouldn’t make any difference.

As a gay man I am part of a minority, too. I don’t want to be treated ANY different than a straight person. I don’t want any better treatment than a straight person. Not any protection a straight person wouldn’t get, for example. Just the same, not more, not less. My sexuality should make JUST NO DIFFERENCE.

Same with race or ANY other characteristic people abuse to define minorities, they can then think about as “The Others”. That’s the main issue: there’s “WE” and there’s “THE OTHERS”. That’s the source of all the problems.

Anon:

“There are problems and the solution is to ignore them really, really loudly!”

…genius, racism and has been solved forever, you cracked the code

@Martin:

Not ignore them, fight them. Instead of turning them around. You just don’t get my point, I’m afraid.

And you still fail to give any real arguments. No point in this discussion that way, Mr. Anonymous.

Anon:

Yeah, that’s what’s happening here, I’M the dumb one. :^)

LongtimeFan:

I agree with Hypnothrill and other commenters, Martin. Yes, you can be PREJUDICED against other races–that is, form prejudgments about them–but racism is specifically used to refer to a historical system that espouses superiority of one race and the inherent “inferiority” of other races. Heck, the entire CONCEPT of “race” (as opposed to nationality or country of origin) was invented as a social construct in the 17th century (source: https://books.google.com/books?id=YMUola6pDnkC&pg=PT1217&dq=race+social+construction#v=onepage&q=race%20social%20construction&f=false). Race is not inherently biological or taxomonic; it was wholly invented as a sociopolitical/sociocultral construct. And as a result, it cannot be divorced from its social history–and the “social history” of race, as the current term is used, was largely developed to make false claims about the inherent superiority of white-phenotypic people over black individuals. So to put it bluntly, “all racism is not created equal”–because race was INVENTED to support the completely incorrect notion of whiteness as superior to all other races. That’s why claims of “it’s just reverse racism!” always ring false. Racism, like misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia/TERFdom, is/was specifically designed by the social power structure of the cis straight white male to denigrate and disenfranchise every group outside of that classification.

Anon:

your arguments so far have been

"A: racism was real

B: it isn’t real now

C: in fact, being against racism is the REAL racism

D: pretending race doesn’t exist and ignoring all systemic problems and treating everyone the same from now on, on a case-by-case basis, will solve everything, there are no lingering effects of systemic racism to combat, it’s all fine,

E: everything is fine

F: I live in a dream world

G: everything is fine"

so idk if you have much of a leg to stand on here my dude

Martin:

No, you didn’t get my point at all. All of B-G doesn’t represent what I’ve been writing.

Read again, this time with an open mind and no preconceptions about what you THINK I want to say.

Anon:

I don’t need an open mind to read crap, thanks. You should listen to LongtimeFan though, dude clearly knows what he’s talking about.

@LongtimeFan:

Actually, all you write is true.

You strengthen my point as you don’t bring any reason why a black person should be treated ANY different than a white person. And I agree that there are no “human races” (just a single race), but that point of view is usually very hard to uphold in the US public.

This whole discussion has given me a great idea for a scene in the story I’m writing right now, so thanks guys!

1 Like

LongtimeFan wrote (moved from the comments section):

Thank you, anonymous commenter! I’ve been lucky enough to have some amazing teachers/professors in my life who have shared their knowledge with me. :slight_smile: And Martin: I think you have a good point when you say “People should be treated equally.” That’s always a noble goal. The problem is that nearly all of Euro-America social systems were implemented hundreds of years ago…when people WEREN’T treated equally. And one of the goals was to keep power consolidated for cis straight white men. Those repercussions echo across time and haven’t been solved yet. To use an (admittedly imperfect) analogy: let’s say you loved to work out at the gym. But due to a particular issue, you never worked out your arms, overemphasized your chest muscles, and did the other body parts at a relatively equal emphasis. You neglected those exercises for years. Then one day, you realized that was a bad idea, and declared “I’m going to work out ALL the parts of my body COMPLETELY EQUALLY.” That’s a noble goal…but it fails to acknowledge that you’ve neglected your arms for years. You need to work extra hard to undo the damage to that part of your body, understand why you neglected them, and work them harder for some time. This (again, imperfect) analogy explains why “Treating everyone the same FROM NOW ON” does not work as a social strategy–because it ignores the enormous damage and systemic problems that were caused when people weren’t treated the same. To me, true social equality is about undoing the damage that was done during that time by dismantling the oppressive power structures created in that period, acknowledging the pain those structures caused and working to heal that pain, and THEN replacing the structures with fairness. …am I making any sense?

Well, I think healing or solving discrimination by reversing it is not the way to go, LongtimeFan.

But it’s ok that we differ on that. What pains me, though, is that you thank the anon, even though he just kept throwing offenses at me and my opinion without any real substance.

Ah, well, Martin, I was more thanking them for their compliment about my teachers. That they are ignoring you out of hand is rude and wrong.
To your other point: I disagree there, too. There ARE different nationalities, genders, sexualities, and cultures in this world. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging those differences—saying we are “all one type” is no good, because it drains the things that make our cultures unique! What I want is to acknowledge those differences and make room for them in our world without belittling or demeaning them. Acknowledging and respecting different groups is fine; it’s when you start treating them WORSE for their differences, either through active disenfranchisement or more subtle snubbing/reactions, that the problems begin. So there ARE multiple groups in this world. And saying they don’t exist will not solve the problems unique to each of those groups.

Well, I don’t want to equalize differences, far from it.

I just want people who are different in some way, to be treated and judged the same as anyone else, and not based on their differences.

So i feel like people are talking past each other here. I also don’t think the title of this topic is really helping the discussion.

The issue i saw with the story and why i originally posted my critique of it was not that the topic of a black man being dominated by a white man was racest. Not even the fact that they used dog whistles for racism in the text. It was that the text as written set up a clear allegory for race relations intentional or otherwise.

By not giving the White character a name, the text sets him up as a stand in for white people as a whole. That coupled with his use of the racially coded language and dog whistles along with the fact that the narrator, the voice that colors the lens of the readers, agrees with him gives no out for how the audience should read the events that are taking place. The fact that Brysen is the point of view character does help the issue a bit.

This story is salvageable. make the hypnotic force more apparent and addressing it. Make the narrator more of a neutral party. Give the white character a name. Honestly if you changed those few things i would be fine with it. Still wouldn’t be my kink but I would have no real problems with it.

Edit: accidentally wrote “this story isn’t salvageable” instead of “is salvageable”

Actually, this is an interesting point, @cadekfenrir

The site is full of forced dominance, submission, and psychic violence. It’s just a written fantasy, that makes us hot, that’s the only reason why I think this is ok.

There’s a also a lot of this specifically targeted against straight people, but that seems to be ok, even though it’s definitely a case of reversed discrimination.

As soon as it’s about the skin color or any other ethnic difference, it somehow becomes a problem, though.

Why is that?

I say, because we differentiate people based on the ethnic origin. And as long as we do that, stories like these will ALWAYS trigger something. The solution is to NOT differentiate people because of their origins, then it doesn’t matter anymore if a person with color x enslaves a person with color y.

But here is my point. Even if we don’t address the differences they still exist. You can’t ask someone who doesn’t have functioning legs to grab you something from the top shelf. It is how you present those differences that maters.

If we agree on this site that it is ok for person x to enslave person y then we agree that on a base level it doesn’t matter what race or color or ethnicity or sexuality they are. It is fine on a base level.

The issue is just acknowledging the differences between the person x and person y and how that is presented in the story

Again, I’m not negating differences, I want them TO NOT MATTER when treating and evaluating a person.

Those people in the story ARE different, sure, but it doesn’t matter. They’re just two human beings.

If a hunk is dominated by a twink, they’re also obviously different - still noone sees a problem with that, do they?

You are right. There is no problem with white dom/black sub just like twink dom/hunk sub at their core. But with the history of the institutional Slavery and racism that still permeates the world today, one needs to be more careful with how they write the former rather than the latter.

This is not me kink shaming Elan. I can understand the place where the story came from. I just think that the way it was written flew it too close to hurtful/hateful past who’s echos still define the lives of people in the presence.

That is a fact, and I’m not denying it.

I can still argue against this, though :slight_smile:

I agree that a disclaimer could help, especially to show that the author is not a racist himself. Still, a disclaimer only proves that ethnic differences still matter… So it would just be a testimony of the general racism in our society.

LongtimeFan here! Again, Martin, I think that it’s not because we differentiate between nationalities. I think it’s because throughout history, that practice has been used to justify the subjugation, enslavement, and mass murder of millions of people from African nations. Plus large portions of the United States, at least, STILL refuse to acknowledge just how terrible that crime was, and how the repercussions are still being felt.

No, we don’t see a problem with that because there aren’t centuries of historical and sociopolitical crimes against humanity centered on hunks and twinks. THAT is the issue at hand.

Hopefully one day it is just another fact about us like height, weight, or if you like cilantro or not. Today is not that day however and until that day we can take little steps to help separate fantasies from issues with our current reality.

1 Like

@Both LongTimeFan and Anon:

Yes, hunks and twinks don’t have that kind of history. But gay people do. And many other minorities.

Still, I repeat that by treating people differently based on whatever difference (ethnic, sexuality etc.) is just further cementing that those people ARE somehow different.

That there’s still so much real racism against non-white people in the US is really awful. We have the same here in Europe against migrants. It’s AWFUL, simply and undeniably.

Still, it wouldn’t help giving people special rights and some “positive” treatment, just because they’re migrants. That’s what I’m saying. That’s just turning the discrimination around.

That’s it’s a sensitive topic is obvious and that people react on stories like Ethan’s in that way is just a fact. I still don’t think it’s ok, though, and I definitely don’t think that stories like these shouldn’t be written or even worse, censored because of that.

Because not everyone starts with the same information, let’s define our terms. For the sake of this discussion, i am, unless otherwise stated talking about the sociopolitical situation in the United States of America. I’m not talking about European countries or the world as whole. While there are some similar situations, it’s still culturally specific.

There are actually multiple definitions of racism. According to Merriam Webster they are:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination

The third one is what many regular people people use, and it’s basically just a race based version of discrimination. This one can be used regardless of the flow of power. So in this case a black man can discriminate against a white man. I like to use the term “discriminate” because it’s a sub section of it.

The first two combine to what is normally called Institutionalized Racism. Institutionalized Racism DOES care about the flow of power and who possesses it. This means that (In the US) institutionalized racism doesn’t happen to white people (the definition of white people has since changed to include previously excluded groups like the Irish, who could not own slaves or land, but here refers to the people in power who could own slaves) because they control the majority of the political and economical power. Academia frequently refers to this as just racism (it also includes the concept of privilege). So we have two completely different definitions that don’t really have anything to do with each other.

In the US there is a history of chattel slavery of black people by white people. There is no history of the reverse in the US. These policies were enforced by spreading the myth that black people were subhuman, could not survive on their own and were naturally subservient to the white man. This belief still persists today. This was institutionalized racism.

Even after slavery ended, it was replaced by Share Cropping (arguably worse), policies all over the country that prevented black people from owning property, and Jim Crow laws. All of which are Institutionalized racism.

What’s more, many of these policies still exist. In the city I live in in California, redlining policies (that prevented people from renting or taking it loans) were in effect until the 1980s for people of color (and Jews). In other states they lasted until the 2000s. There are also policies that fundamentally segregated schools and neighborhoods. New York schools are more segregated than the South because they never bothered desegregating their neighborhoods. Voter id laws and similar policies target people of color disproportionately.

I completely understand the urge to say everyone is equal and we’re should just ignore race, and if we were dealing with the discrimination version that would work. But when it comes to institutionalized racism Ignoring race just props up the system and the inherent racism.

And to Martin, remember, Americans are the Masters of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring problems. That’s why we still have Holocaust deniers :cry:

3 Likes

That’s it’s a sensitive topic is obvious and that people react on stories like Ethan’s in that way is just a fact. I still don’t think it’s ok, though, and I definitely don’t think that stories like these shouldn’t be written or even worse, censored because of that.

Can i ask what you don’t think is ok? it is just unclear in this statement

That people react on a “white dominates black” story stronger than on any other “stereotypical member of group A dominates a stereotypical member of group B” story.

I know why this is happening, but to me this feels simply hypocritical and a testimony of existing racism - even if the intent of the uproar was meant to fight racism. But it’s still just a testimony. Not necessarily of the person who’s enraged by the story, but of the actual racism in the society. That’s why I don’t like it, and I think people should realize it and reconsider their rage.