I Reject the Underlying Assumptions

 I was thinking of writing a post one the inherent inconsistencies behind the concept:

Only white people can be racist.

The defense, is that white people are the oppressors and therefore everyone else is justified in any animosity toward white people.

A non-subtle trick is being played:  They are simply redefining oppressor as white and oppressed as non white--or people of color.  It will sometimes be rephrased as, race is a social construct.

So, what am I rejecting?

1. I reject the claim that all societies must be structured as oppressed/oppressor.   I think we can and mostly do have a society based upon freedom.  We are all free to gain and profit from choosing the trades we are willing to make.  This is not a claim that we all are born with exactly equal privilege.  It is a claim, that in aggregate, there will be a strong relationship between your actions and your eventual social status.

1a. Let us assume, for the sake of argument that there is or must be an oppressed and an oppressor.  Why should I agree to be the oppressed?  If I am an oppressor and the only other option is to be oppressed, why would I choose it?  If I am an oppressor and there is an option where we all are treated the same, well, that's mostly what we have and I'm in favor of working to make society based even more on merit and less on innate properties.

2. I reject the claim that oppression is always based upon race and that race is a social construct as this renders the term, "race" as indistinguishable from "oppressed".  Humans are like any other animal, in that we adapt to our environments over time.  As such, it would be absurd to think there are not genetic differences in people who have lived far apart and in different environments.  Anyone who has used 23andMe will find that the genetic tests can very accurately reflect your known heritage.

3. An oppressed minority will never have the ability to redefine words and language, if they are truly oppressed.  Rulers are the ones who can do this, so to the extent they succeed in redefining language, they prove that they aren't oppressed.

Note:  I almost didn't write this at all because there's a great article already written, from 2015

Where Did We Get the Idea That Only White People Can Be Racist?

By, Peter Wood:  

Some nice quotes:

First, one of many operational "definitions" of "racist"

A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. ‘The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination….’ 

The article's first rebuttal:

The idea that “black people can't be racist” is just a meme, not a coherent argument. It is easy to see why it appeals. The programs these folks want to defend and, if possible, advance, are inherently racist. That is, they divide people into primary groups by race; treat race as “essential”; and distribute public goods according to racial group identification and affiliation. This is purely and simply racism. Because it is so patent, its supporters must reach for excuses and work-arounds... The usual step is to assert that racism must involve a structural privilege that an oppressed group can never have.

 And:

...not all “systems of advantage” are based on race.  They may be based on lots of things—family wealth, birth order, or social networks, for example—that may overlap with racial categorizations but which are not racial per se.  This isn’t a minor distinction.  It is central to the question of how equitable our society really is.  Those who reduce everything to race or who make a practice of discovering racism hidden behind every disparity are engaged in what has become the most common contemporary form of racism in America.