Wikipédia

Vache-crapaud

Inscrite depuis le 7 juillet 2015

Juriste, interprète, et étudiant en lettres et sciences politiques :)

DE/EN/ES/FR, comprend un peu de portugais et créole

J'habite en SLUMIL K’AJXEMK’OP, le plus souvent à paname, saint-valery-en-caux et bruxelles.

Comme sur wikipédia il peut y avoir des enjeux autour de qui écrit, je pose là que je suis pédé et viens d'une famille bourgeoise et blanche.

J'encourage tout le monde à utiliser le modèle:extrait pour éviter les doublons !

J'ai du mal avec les gens qui arrivent sur un des articles que je crée et agissent sans donner de signes d'avoir lu au moins une partie des sources. Lire svp !

J'aime bien la botanique, la vannerie, les estrans, le textile, la communication non-violente, la poésie, les enseignes, le droit des biens, le solarpunk, le carnaval...

Vous pouvez consulter mon blog de droit pipou sur jurisme.fr :3

Bonne journée !

∇
LGBT
Je participe au projet LGBT.
∇
Anarchisme
Je participe au projet Anarchisme.
∇
Droit
Je participe au projet Droit.


~

nya

mia mia mia

pon ita ita

« Wikipedia inherently has white supremacy woven throughout its systems and governance. »

  • Kai Alexis Smith, « Do Black Wikipedians matter? Confronting the whiteness in Wikipedia with archives and libraries », dans Laurie M. Bridges, Raymond Pun, Roberto A. Arteaga, Wikipedia and Academic Libraries, Michigan Publishing, (ISBN 978-1-60785-672-6, lire en ligne)

« Seventy-five percent of the world’s online population is from the global South, and nearly half is projected to be women. Yet public knowledge on the internet - exemplified by Wikipedia - is primarily constructed by (white) men from western Europe and North America. One in ten Wikipedia editors are estimated to self-identify as female. In other words, the internet of the majority is produced by the minority. But Wikipedia is only one example of the deeply skewed experience of the internet: from the design and architecture of the internet, to the production and reproduction of knowledge on the internet, this globalised “public sphere” not only reflects the structural and representative inequalities of our world, it can, in many ways, amplify and deepen them. Still, the internet’s socio-technical nature can also engender potentially emancipatory processes in which communities on the “margins” of both the physical and virtual worlds can produce and curate their own knowledge online. »

  • (en) Camille E Acey, Siko Bouterse, Sucheta Ghoshal et Amanda Menking, « Decolonizing the Internet by Decolonizing Ourselves: Challenging Epistemic Injustice through Feminist Practice », Global Perspectives, vol. 2, no 1,‎ (ISSN 2575-7350, DOI 10.1525/gp.2021.21268, lire en ligne, consulté le )

« Yet the unverifiability of whiteness is itself an undeniable verification of Wikipedia's whiteness. »

« PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT “REVERSE DISCRIMINATION,” BUT WHAT IS IT?

Nothing.

This one is easy. Reverse racism, or reverse discrimination, is not a thing. It is a myth. The idea of reverse racism refers to the assumed overreach of affirmative action programs that are aimed at equalizing past injustices against minorities of color. But that is not true. »

« Narratives about anti-white racism leech their influence from antiracism’s postwar moral authority. In the story they tell, though, they plagiarize a longer, oceanic history of Black suffering and endurance. And because part of that history is American, French critics of the new civil rights movement remain more indebted to the American example than they realize. In the guerres de mémoire or “memory wars” raging in France since the 1990s, many have contested the germaneness of slavery and empire to the political present. Yet even as they make an ostentatious show of closing the historical book, they seem still to peek inside, transposing what they find into sprawling fictions about a white race reduced to the condition of those it once conquered and enslaved. »

« Un racisme à l’encontre de la population majoritaire ? Ces dernières années, des faits de racisme déclarés par des personnes de la population majoritaire ont fait l’objet d’une forte médiatisation et des personnalités politiques et intellectuelles ont voulu en faire une question de société. Les recherches sociologiques sur les quartiers populaires mentionnent souvent que des personnes sans origine migratoire développent un discours au contenu ethniste ou raciste faisant porter la responsabilité de leurs difficultés sociales à la présence et aux comportements des immigrés (et plus encore des descendants d’immigrés) ; une attitude qui contribue à l’ethnicisation de la question sociale. Les mêmes se posent fréquemment en victimes d’une prétendue domination étrangère et d’un racisme « anti-Français » tant à l’intérieur des quartiers que de la part des institutions (Braconnier, Dormagen, 2010).

L’expérience du racisme déclarée par les majoritaires se distingue de celles relevée par les minorités migrantes et issues de l’immigration par de nombreuses spécificités. Il est d’abord à noter que, comme nous l’avons dit (cf. encadré), la catégorie « population majoritaire » comporte nombre de personnes altérisées appartenant en fait à des minorités ainsi que des majoritaires en couple mixte qui sont objectivement liées aux populations immigrées ou issues de l’immigration. Bien que nés français de parents également nés français, leur situation face au racisme est plus proche de celle des personnes d’origine étrangère (directement ou par leurs parents) que du reste de la population majoritaire (de loin la plus nombreuse) qui socialement n’est pas perçue et qui ne se perçoit pas elle-même comme allochtone, étrangère ou autre.

Les Français sur au moins deux générations qui sont altérisés du fait de leur religion ou de leur apparence sont 33% à déclarer avoir été la cible du racisme au cours de leur vie (cf. tableau 1), taux proche de celui des immigrés d’Algérie (35%). La prévalence du racisme s’élève même à 41% lorsqu’ils se reconnaissent d’une religion minoritaire (musulmane, juive, boudhiste). Ce racisme est le plus souvent vécu dans un seul lieu, l’espace public (71%), l’école (42%) et plus rarement le travail (10%). Parmi les actifs, 7% déclarent avoir vécu des comportements explicitement racistes au travail au cours de leur vie ou des traitements discriminatoires induisant un préjudice matériel dans les cinq dernières années, ce qui est 4 fois inférieur à ce que vivent les immigrés ou enfants d’immigrés algériens. Bien que minorisés, les individus qui composent ce groupe sont nettement moins souvent confrontés à une dégradation de leurs conditions de travail du fait du racisme et parmi ceux qui le sont, seulement 1% cumulent l’expérience du racisme explicite et les préjudices matériels. Les personnes de la population majoritaire ayant vécu au cours de leur vie avec une personne immigrée, native d’un DOM ou dont au moins un parent direct est immigré ou natif d’un DOM, autrement dit ayant vécu en couple mixte, subissent aussi le racisme. Loin d’être toujours vus positivement, ces couples peuvent faire l’objet d’une forte stigmatisation : 26% des majoritaires ayant déjà vécu en couple mixte en ont fait l’expérience. Cette hostilité peut être individuelle ou vécue familialement, à travers ce que subissent le conjoint ou les enfants ethnicisés ou racisés. En général, un seul lieu est cité : le racisme s’exprime d’abord dans l’espace public (43%), aux abords de l’école (32%), dans des lieux qualifiés de « autres » (25%), et plus marginalement sur le lieu de travail (19%). Ce que vivent ces personnes au travail ne prend pas la forme de traitements discriminatoires ayant pour conséquence un désavantage matériel, puisqu’ils déclarent uniquement avoir été la cible de propos racistes. Relevons que les commissariats et administrations sont déclarés par 7% de ces personnes, à la différence des autres catégories de majoritaires, ce qui laisse à penser que ces personnes ont à gérer des tensions importantes liées au statut de migrants ou de descendants de migrants de leur conjoint.

Les majoritaires paupérisés et étudiants en situation de précarité, déclarent un revenu mensuel à l’échelle du ménage inférieur à 1000 €. Ils se disent la cible du racisme aussi fréquemment que les majoritaires en couple mixte : 26% d’entre eux. Il est difficile de comprendre ce qu’ils déclarent exactement. En effet, comme déjà indiqué dans l’encadré présentant les groupes de population, il est possible qu’ils déclarent autre chose que du racisme (entendu comme une expérience d’hostilité liée à leur couleur de peau ou à leur ascendance). Il se peut qu’ils déclarent un racisme « anti-pauvre » ou un racisme « anti- jeune », faute de vocabulaire spécifique pour nommer ces phénomènes. Concernant ceux qui ne sont pas étudiants, il se peut aussi qu’ils se trouvent assimilés par leur lieu de résidence (25% déclarent résider dans un quartier ou la moitié voire plus de la moitié des habitants sont immigrés) aux familles immigrés et qu’ils subissent indirectement la stigmatisation qui vise ces familles leur déclaration témoignant alors d’une exclusion sociale mêlée de ségrégation raciale sur le territoire urbain. . La concentration de la pauvreté dans des zones d’habitats dégradés contribue incontestablement aussi à créer des tensions, voire des comportements violents, pouvant encore s’exprimer par des invectives au contenu raciste. Leurs déclarations témoigne sans doute aussi de l’existence d’une lecture ethnicisante ou racisante de tensions (ou conflits) entre habitants au sein des zones d’habitat où la concentration de familles migrantes est très élevée. Tout porte à croire que nous avons affaire ici, à une sous-population qui ressent une adversité et une hostilité à l’encontre des immigrés et de leurs descendants avec lesquels elle se trouve en concurrence dans la recherche d’emploi, de revenus et de logement, mais aussi avec lesquels ils se trouvent assimilés. (...)

Enfin, les majoritaires non paupérisés, qui constituent de loin le groupe le plus important (74% de l’ensemble des « majoritaires ») sont les moins concernés par l’expérience du racisme : seulement 15% des personnes de cette population déclarent en avoir été la cible au cours de leur existence, contre par exemple 60% des descendants d’immigrés d’Afrique subsaharienne, soit quatre fois moins. Les attitudes racistes que rencontrent la masse des majoritaires n’a donc précisément pas le caractère d’une expérience de masse. Son expérience a peu de rapport avec le racisme que vivent les immigrés et les descendants des migrations postcoloniales, originaires des pays africains, nord-africains, d’Asie du sud-est, des DOM ou des Français sur au moins deux générations appartenant aux minorités altérisées. Tout d’abord leur confrontation aux attitudes racistes est plus ponctuelle, moins répétitive et ne renvoie pas à la notion de racisme ordinaire identifiée pour les minoritaires. En effet, seulement 22% des majoritaires concernés citent plus d’un lieu, alors que c’est le cas d’une personne sur deux pour les populations les plus exposées au racisme. Le taux d’expérience du racisme passe à 3% si l’on se cantonne aux 12 derniers mois alors que ce taux reste supérieur à 10% pour les personnes originaires du Maghreb et aux environs de 20 % pour celles originaires d’Afrique subsaharienne. Les espaces de la vie sociale où se construit l’expérience du racisme de cette population se limite le plus souvent à un lieu unique : l’espace public d’abord (55%), l’école ensuite et dans une moindre mesure le lieu de travail (22%) : racisme explicite et discrimination ne se cumulent pas pour les majoritaires non paupérisés. Le racisme déclaré par ces derniers ne prend ni la forme d’un refus d’embauche, ni d’un refus de promotion, ni d’une assignation aux tâches ou aux horaires dont personne ne veut, ni à un dénigrement systématique du travail accompli. Le racisme subi par les majoritaires non paupérisés est non seulement nettement moins fréquent, mais il ne se matérialise pas par une privation de droits ou d’accès à une ressource, comme le racisme subi par les minorités migrantes et issues de l’immigration. Les comportements de racisme explicite que déclarent subir les minoritaires et les majoritaires ne sont ainsi aucunement symétriques ou équivalents. Le racisme des minoritaires à l’encontre des majoritaires peut blesser verbalement, voire être agressif physiquement, mais il ne fait pas système et ne produit pas d’inégalités sociales. En ce sens, on est fondé à voir dans le racisme du minoritaire à l’encontre du majoritaire une violence verbale (plus rarement physique) dénuée de pouvoir d’exclusion et sans effet à l’échelle des groupes. Il s’agit d’un racisme de réaction face à des personnes qui, par leurs origines, leur apparence, leur couleur (réelles ou imaginaires) leur position sociale ou leurs comportements, peuvent incarner la classe ou la « race » des dominants et des racistes. A cet endroit, il y a lieu de s’interroger sur le degré de sensibilité des majoritaires non- altérisés (qu’ils soient paupérisés ou non) face à ce type d’attitudes hostiles. Il n’est pas absurde de penser que leur indignation est d’autant plus forte que l’hostilité vient de personnes considérées par eux comme étant « étrangères » ou « extérieures » à l’espace national et à ce titre perçues (consciemment ou non) comme illégitimes et inférieures. Notons cependant que nous ignorons dans l’enquête quelle est précisément l’origine (vraie ou supposée) des protagonistes des attitudes et des comportements racistes subis par la population majoritaire. Finalement, il y aurait lieu d’approfondir le sens que prend pour ces majoritaires le qualificatif de « racisme » qui figure dans le formulaire d’enquête et la réalité du phénomène raciste pour cette population. Il ne faut pas non plus exclure que des accusations de racisme aient été vécues et déclarées comme une insulte raciste. »

« Race consciousness, ‘reverse racism’, and historical amnesia Another example of a growing culture of racial equivalence is the tendency to regard all race conscious policies as instances of ‘reverse racism’. In the wake of anti-racist legislation and the post-civil rights era, there has been a backlash against race-conscious policies, and recurring moral panics about immigration and social cohesion are unlikely to abate (Finney and Simpson 2009; McGhee 2005). Some analysts wish to claim that we now (or should) occupy a colour blind society (see Ignatieff 1999). Barack Obama’s 2008 election to the White House has bolstered some neo-conservative analysts’ claims that ethnic minor- ities are no longer disadvantaged, and that we now inhabit a post-racial world (see Browne and Carrington’s 2012 special issue contesting such assertions). Some analysts have asserted that we should and need to go ‘beyond’ race to achieve a truly equal and tolerant society (see Mirza 2010; Malik 1996). In Britain, Munira Mirza (2010), the Deputy Mayor for Education and Culture of London, argued in a special issue of Prospect magazine: ‘Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety.’ (Mirza 2010: 3).

Increasingly, race conscious policies are seen as problematic. However, as discussed above, not all forms of racialization (or representations or projects of race) are necessarily racist (Omi and Winant 1994). As Amy Gutmann (1996), among others, has argued, forms of race consciousness (such as in forms of affirmative action – which are increasingly embattled in the USA, and effec- tively illegal in Europe) may be important for a more socially just society: But color blindness is not a fundamental principle of justice. . . . Fairness is a fundamental principle of justice . . . and it is a principle that does not always call for color blindness, e.g. in relation to employment, education, or univer- sity admissions in our nonideal society. To respond to racial injustice with a color conscious principle or policy is therefore not to commit any wrong at all, provided the principle or policy is consistent with fairness. (1996: 107) Ronald Dworkin also argued that race conscious distinctions are not gen- erally wrong because there is a difference between racial distinctions that reflect prejudice against members of a disadvantaged group (and are used to perpetuate the disadvantage) and distinctions that are designed to redress the disadvantage (Dworkin, cited in Gutmann 1996: 118).

However, determining (consistently) which race conscious policies and proj- ects are justified is highly contested, and we must assess the objectives and consequences of each ‘racial project’ carefully. A rethinking of contemporary racial projects is pressing because in comparison with the recent past, the ‘old’ polarities of White/non-White, or what we mean by ‘ethnic minority’, have become categories which are constituted by highly diverse people, especially in terms of class and privilege, ethnicity, and various forms of belonging. So while a shift toward a broader and more nuanced understanding of racism has occurred among many British scholars, so that we are better able to theorize specific racial incidents involving sometimes contradictory and ambivalent people, we also need to retain an understanding of racism which is not overly relativized or solely individualistic in emphasis – racism as a structured system of power and domination (while changeable) which has a historical basis. Furthermore, assertions of reverse racism often fail to consider the historically specific ways in which racial hierarchies and inequalities were institutionalized. The concept of racism cannot be understood in a wholly abstract, formulaic way, divorced from the lengthy history in which beliefs and practices about racial inferiority and superiority emerged and were consolidated. Whether this is understood in relation to the treatment of Black pupils in British education (see Gillborn 2008), the racialized stop and search tactics which disproportionately target ethnic minorities (Bowling 1998; Phillips 2011), the Holocaust, or the transatlantic slave trade, the historical context in which White racisms (in its myriad forms) have occurred cannot be erased or replicated. For instance, Mugabe’s policies in Zimbabwe are racially discriminatory, in that they dis- criminate against White people, qua their Whiteness. This treatment of White farmers in Zimbabwe is reprehensible, and racially discriminatory, but to see their treatment (for instance) as the mirror equivalent of former Rhodesia’s treatment of Black people would be wrong-headed, and would erase the historical context and weight of colonial history. The treatment of White land- owners is political retribution (however wrong it may be), and is not motivated by the long-standing belief that they are racial vermin. As Desmond and Emirbayer (2009) argue,

there is no such thing as ‘black institutional racism’ or ‘reverse institutional racism’ due to the fact that there is no existing history of a socially ingrained and normalized system of domination designed by people of colour that denies White people full participation in the rights and privileges of society. . . . (Also, see Cashmore and Troyna (1990)).

So while there are practices and policies which can formally discriminate against or disadvantage White people, on the basis of their Whiteness (and are thus racially discriminatory), this does not necessarily constitute ‘racism’ as such – though, increasingly, ‘White’ is not an uncontested category. We must attune ourselves to the qualitatively different motivations, historical experi- ences and consequences of such behaviours, practices, and policies which are said to constitute racism and ‘reverse racism’. »

« Those who believe in reverse racism, or that white people can experience racism, do not have an awareness of how race has been structured as a concept over time. As one respondent indicated, “reverse racism is very evident when whites get blamed for doing things as being racist when actually whites have to be very careful what they say and do while minority groups seem to have more leeway in these areas.” Since this individual does not go into specific details about the ways in which white people apparently have to be cautious about their words and actions, while people of colour do not, it is hard to know if they are speaking from their experiences or in generalities; nonetheless, they are incorrect. Another respondent, though also somewhat vague, wrote that “there is starting to be what is called reverse racism or prejudice especially against white males.” This response is particularly interesting since the participant also included gender as part of their answer. As mentioned above, prejudice is not the same as racism, because anyone can be prejudiced, but only white people have the systemic power to be racist. Along the same lines is the fact that men,10 as persons abiding by the standards established through sex-based social norms, and thus the gender that maintains systemic power over all other genders, cannot face “reverse sexism.” This respondent, too, is mistaken in how they perceive both race- and gender-based oppression. Work by Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012) confirmed this: reverse racism does not exist, because racialized persons do not maintain political, economic, or institutional power.

Though the majority of survey respondents (21.43% strongly agreeing and 42.86% agreeing) believed that white people could experience racism, it is important to contrast these faulty rationales with those who “get it.” As one participant noted, “reverse racism is not a thing. Racism is power + prejudice. White people may experience prejudice, but since they are the ones who hold power in our society, they don't actually experience racism.” This articulation is not only spot-on, but easy to apply in classroom settings and other locations of discussion. What then, is the root of the issue, and why do white people think they can face racism? One respondent articulated one possibility: “If a white person is claiming racism, it is usually because for once they are not getting their way.” More succinctly, and what has entered into popular consciousness as of late, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression” (Shirky, 2016). 11 This means that for white people—who have not faced systematic oppression due to their race—when racialized peoples start to gain equity in society, they feel as though their rights are being taken away from them. The result of this of this is resistance. Vickers and Issac (2012) outlined four tactics white people use in order to legitimize their belief that they are capable of being victimized by race in the same way as people of colour: a) ignoring and discrediting the speaker, b) denying the need for change, c) constructing hierarchies of oppression, and d) displacing the voices of those who face discrimination. These cognitive manoeuvers show not only that the concept of race continues to benefit white people, but also how strongly race and settler colonialism are interconnected manifestations of oppression. Seeing that the majority of respondents of the survey were white, well-educated teachers in Alberta, it is clear how deeply imbedded settler colonialism is within, not only systems of education, but the mythology of the nation as a whole. In essence, this allows for the continued erasure of Indigenous experiences in favour of those of white settlers. »

  • (en) Danielle Lorenz, « Reversing Racism in the Time of Reconciliation? Settler Colonialism, Race, and Alberta Teachers », Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/ Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, vol. 8, no 1,‎ (ISSN 1916-9221, lire en ligne, consulté le )

« Of course, the fallacy at the heart of the ‘It's OK to be white’ motion is that, not only is it OK to be white, it is structurally advantageous to be white in settler-colonial countries like Australia. The hegemony of whiteness which refers to the ‘ways in which whites benefit from a variety of institutional and social arrangements that often appear (to whites) to have nothing to do with race’ (Bush, Citation2011, pp. 27–28) is central here. As further argued by Moreton-Robinson (Citation2015), ‘white race privilege and advantage are unearned invisible assets that benefit white people in their everyday lives; they are possessions’ (p. 97). These unearned benefits and set of advantages are, in turn, expected by white people, ‘so that any threat to their status … is perceived as illegitimate, particularly when it comes from the racially subjugated’ (Lentin, Citation2020, p. 88). The reality that whiteness often appears as invisible, neutral, and benevolent (Mondon & Winter, Citation2020) is of particular utility to those elite political actors pushing white victimhood narratives. In this sense, ‘whiteness cannot be acknowledged or recognised unless it is as powerless and victimised’ (Mondon & Winter, Citation2020, p. 66). Hanson has consistently denied the existence of structural racism and the enduring legacy of colonialism and the White Australia Policy. While conceding that ‘injustices’ were committed in the past, Hanson now argues that not only have these injustices been addressed, but that racialised people are now structural beneficiaries of government policies. This reflects a frozen view of racism (Lentin, Citation2020). Frozen racism, as argued by Alana Lentin, is the thought that ‘“real racism” is frozen in past examples that float free from the wider context within which they can be fully understood’ (Citation2020, p. 64). Hanson's ‘It's OK to be white’ motion hinges on convincing people that ‘real racism’ is indeed frozen and that white people are now the true victims of racism. Lentin (Citation2018) draws on the concept of not racism to explain the ‘denial and redefinition of racism’ (p. 40, emphasis added) which is so prevalent in contemporary discussions of racism. Lentin argues that ‘not racism’ ‘takes the right to define racism away from those affected by it and, in this way, is a form of racist violence’ (Citation2018, p. 406). I argue that Hanson has not only denied her own racism through strategies of denial of racism and victim-perpetrator reversal, but has also denied negatively racialised people – most notably First Nations peoples – the opportunity to define what constitutes racism. The implication of Hanson's promotion of so-called ‘reverse racism’ coupled with her denial of racism, is that the only legitimate form of racism that exists in contemporary Australia is ‘anti-white racism’. In this context, Hanson is enacting a ‘discursive racist violence’ (Lentin, Citation2020, p. 62). »

  • (en) Kurt Sengul, « ‘It's OK to be white’: the discursive construction of victimhood, ‘anti-white racism’ and calculated ambivalence in Australia », Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 19, no 6,‎ , p. 593–609 (ISSN 1740-5904 et 1740-5912, DOI 10.1080/17405904.2021.1921818, lire en ligne, consulté le )

« Em seu livro Racismo estrutural, S. Almeida (2020) discutiu a es-tratégia de se alegar racismo reverso quando sujeitos insatisfeitos ou que se sentem prejudicados pelo avanço das políticas de ação afirmativa travam esse debate na esfera pública. Na abordagem sobre racismo como processo político, Almeida mostra que a ideia de um racismo reverso simplesmente não faz sentido. Segundo ele, trata-se de “um grande equívoco nessa ideia porque membros de grupos raciais minoritários podem até ser preconceituosos ou praticar discriminação, mas não podem impor desvantagens so-ciais a membros de outros grupos majoritários, seja direta, seja indiretamente”(id., p. 53).

Ele mostra a sutileza do termo “reverso” nessa alegação: “O termo “reverso” já indica que há uma inversão, algo fora do lugar, como se houvesse um jeito “certo” ou “normal”de expressão do ra-cismo. Racismo é algo “normal” contra minorias – negros, latinos, judeus, árabes, persas, ciganos etc. – porém, fora destes grupos, é “atípico”, “reverso”(idem). Ele entende que se trata de artifício para deslegitimar demandas por igualdade racial. Ou seja, tira-se o foco da injustiça para se pôr em eventual prejuízo de quem se sente prejudicado com a obrigatoriedade de reconhecer o que é devido ao outro. E arremata: “Racismo reverso nada mais é do que um discurso racista, só que pelo “avesso”, em que a vitimização é a tônica daqueles que se sentem prejudicados pela perda de alguns privilégios” (idem).

O racismo reverso mostra como pessoas brancas, que sempre foram beneficiadas em razão de sua branquitude, lançam mão da acusação de racismo para que medidas de promoção da igualdade racial que eventualmente poderiam prejudicá-las não sejam apli-cadas ou sejam rejeitadas na sociedade. Com a postura, rejeitam a mudança do status quo e mobilizam-se pela manutenção de seus privilégios de raça. É preciso combater essa estratégia em prol do avanço da democratização e da luta antirracista. Avanços e recuos podem ser notados e nós os apontamos aqui. Frente à compreensão de que o racismo é fenômeno estru-tural e estruturante, insiste-se de modo retrógrado na narrativa do racismo reverso para descaracterizar e enfraquecer políticas de ação afirmativa, sejam estas desenvolvidas pelo poder público ou pela iniciativa privada.

Pessoas em defesa do status quo racista e de manutenção e reprodução das desigualdades raciais têm recorrido a imagens e sentidos historicamente vinculados ao discurso de combate a essa conjuntura para barrar conquistas e frear iniciativas que ob-jetivam inclusão e igualdade racial na sociedade e, em especial, no mercado de trabalho. É um movimento no processo discursivo que se distingue de outro – o da simples negação do racismo, bem como da naturalização das desigualdades raciais. Este movimento não chega a substituir o anterior, mas convive com ele e, como demonstramos aqui, aponta e condena a luta antirracista como sendo ela mesma uma reação racista, o tal racismo reverso.

Ora, mas se racismo tem raízes em fenômeno histórico-social de submissão, exploração e perseguição de povos em situação vul-nerável por outros com mais poder e que, para tanto, aqueles são minorizados e oprimidos por estes, como acreditar que a situação se inverteu como num passe de mágica? Ou seja, querem fazer crer que os tais grupos minoritários passaram a ser dominantes ou pelo menos que já estariam em pé de igualdade na sociedade quando em verdade as desigualdades permanecem, sendo que é por isso que a luta por ação afirmativa se justifica. O estratagema do racismo reverso e iniciativas correlatas só aumentam as expecstativas da cidadania e tornam mais relevantes os próximos lances dessa luta. »

« Still, the assertion that whiteness is a disadvantage is both an old one, dating back at least to the post–Civil War Reconstruction era, and a persistent one. Blee's study of American white supremacist groups has shown that allegations of white victimhood, particularly the supposed racial and gendered persecution of white women, helped fuel the growth of the original Ku Klux Klan during the 1870s (Blee 2009[1991]:13). Reverse-racist victim narratives also play a crucial role for women members of the diverse racist hate groups that exist in the 21st century, such as neo-Nazis and the modern KKK (Blee 2002:57 and 80–83). However, such views are not only found among extremists. Mainstream white society is also permeated with vague notions of white disadvantage, as seen in arguments that practices ranging from bilingual education to affirmative action are somehow unfair to whites (Winant 1997).

The perception of white victimhood did not develop in a vacuum. Rather, this narrative has been advanced as a reaction to historical gains in the direction of more equality for people of color (Brooks, Ebert, and Flockhart 2017). The first citation of the phrase reverse racism in the Oxford English Dictionary is from a 1950 Washington Post article. According to a search of the Google Books database (Michel et al. 2010), which catalogs millions of books and magazines published since 1800, the phrase has seen a steady climb in frequency since in 1965, the year that the Voting Rights Act extended civil rights to Black Americans and other Americans of color. Bloom reports that during the early 1960s, when segregation and Jim Crow laws were still in effect, “a majority of whites believed that blacks and whites had equal opportunity in employment and education” (2014:207). If during the era of overtly racist Jim Crow policies, whites thought that Black people received equal treatment, some would have no doubt seen the push for legally enshrined civil rights and voting rights, as well as institutional affirmative action policies, as tipping the balance unfairly in favor of Black people and other people of color. This view is still common today: a recent social psychology study, the findings of which went viral, showed that whites tend to see any gain in equality by Black people as a “zero-sum game,” a net loss for white communities (Norton and Sommers 2011). Whites surveyed in the study indicated their belief that white Americans today face significantly more discrimination than Black Americans. Even among liberal whites, complaints of white disadvantage at the hands of anti-racist movements like Black Lives Matter can function as a denial of white privilege (DiAngelo 2011:64).

The dominant color-blind discourse institutes a “cultivated un-thinking on matters of ‘race’“ (Feagin 2005:xiv), which allows whites to claim parity between perceived white victimization and the centuries-long racial oppression of people of color. This “un-thinking” is based on an ahistorical or even antihistorical perspective, wherein whites argue that people of color who acknowledge the modern-day effects of historical racism are “living in the past” (McKinney 2005:116). In such an ahistoricized context, antiracist movements that strive to end oppression against people of color have come to be seen by many whites as an attack on whiteness itself. Individuals and institutions who act against white racism—for instance, by implementing affirmative action policies—are frequently subject to “white backlash” (Abrajano and Hajnal 2015). For many whites, simply acknowledging the history of white racism is seen as an anti-white act. Indeed, the term racist has now come to be seen as an injurious slur itself (Hill 2005:115), “the ultimate insult” for many white people (Tatum 2004:10), an issue to which I return in the conclusion. »

  • (en) Anna Bax, « “The C‐Word” Meets “the N‐Word”: The Slur‐Once‐Removed and the Discursive Construction of “Reverse Racism” », Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, vol. 28, no 2,‎ , p. 114–136 (ISSN 1055-1360 et 1548-1395, DOI 10.1111/jola.12185, lire en ligne, consulté le )

« Outra pista sobre a acepção do racismo reverso pode se situar no imaginário ciumento do branco, destituído de seus locais de poder. A experiência patrimonialista referencia e pensa o passado à partir de suas próprias experiências, desconsiderando a discussão histórica, como articulada de forma exemplar na sentença. O ciúme surge quando o branco se vê obrigado a dividir espaço na correlação de poderes, manifes- tando uma teimosia em não aceitar gestos políticos como a criação de cotas ou come- morações e feriados memoriais auto referentes, como o dia da Consciência Negra, por exemplo.

De forma similar, parece ver o empoderamento estético contemporâneo como afronta aos padrões estabelecidos e, como tal, uma luta por representatividade iden- titária. Muitas vezes guiados por um espírito aventureiro, de curiosidade ou exotismo, são guiados à conhecer o outro, mas, se veem impedidos de frequentar ou experimen- tar sociabilidades negras e indígenas, como religiões, festas e associações identitárias. Essa situação é internalizada pelo branco como um tipo de racismo, contudo, não é perceptível para tais indivíduos que a exclusividade de tais sociabilidades se justicam no passado de agressões às essas mesmas manifestações.

Nesse sentido, Lourenço Cardoso (2010) cita o trabalho de Maria Aparecida Bento, que esclarece parcialmente a mentalidade envolvida nesses tipos de atitudes acríticas e suas implicações chamando a atenção para a solidariedade entre os bran- cos quando se sentem discriminados, independentemente de sua classe social. Dando como exemplo as políticas afirmativas para os afrodescendentes, ela diz que os bran- cos de média e alta classe

[...] procuram denunciar essa injustiça praticada contra o branco po- bre. Porém, essa união e solidariedade da branquitude independente de suas diferenças teria um objetivo comum: a manutenção do status quo, isto é, a conservação dos privilégios que o grupo branco obtém. (BENTO apud CARDOSO, 2010, p. 614).

Outra pista sobre a sustentação da acepção do termo racismo reverso está no imaginário do não reconhecimento da existência de uma dívida histórica produzida pelas situações passadas e que engendram desfavorecimento econômico, social e jurí- dico à certos grupos sociais. A crença de que o branco foi causador da escravidão não é um imaginário tão bem situado a ponto de mediar a situação histórica do movimen- to de imigração forçada de africanos, bem como, sobre a desumanidade com que seus descendentes foram tratados. Essa situação parece não produzir, nos imaginários brancos, uma ligação entre o passado de violências coloniais e o presente desigual. Atualmente, essa concepção tem sido amplamente reforçada pela ideia de a escravi- dão ter sido engendrada pelo próprio africano e essa relativização incide diretamente como referência construtora do equivocado racismo reverso. »

  • Maria Cândida Simon Azevedo et Maira Damasceno, « Negação da realidade histórica: Racismo Reverso entre Colonialidade, Direito e Diferença », Revista Videre, vol. 13, no 28,‎ (ISSN 2177-7837, DOI 10.30612/videre.v13i28.12863, lire en ligne, consulté le )

« C’est dans un contexte social d’ethnoracialisation des rapports sociaux que la thématique du racisme anti-Blancs prend de l’ampleur dans le débat public, et ce faisant dans l’espace social que constitue la presse quotidienne nationale. La dynamique de mise à l’agenda de la thématique dans la presse est assez similaire au fil du temps : tributaire de causes conjoncturelles, le profil des entrepreneurs et surtout leur légitimité et notoriété médiatiques sont décisifs dans sa publicisation. Si, durant la première décennie des années 2000, la thématique du racisme anti-Blancs fait l’objet d’une mise à l’agenda médiatique limitée et discontinue, c’est à la suite de son saisissement par Jean-François Copé en 2012 qu’elle est mise à l’agenda médiatique de manière centrale et inédite. Cette tendance est accompagnée d’une polarisation accrue autour du thème, certes observable depuis le début des années 2000, mais qui s’est considérablement accentuée après 2012, opposant les deux quotidiens étudiés. En effet, Le Figaro, opérant un virage à droite, se saisit et soutient plus largement la cause que Le Monde, qui la questionne, et se refuse à la traiter de manière centrale. Finalement, l’analyse de contenu médiatique tend à questionner la réelle audibilité du problème, qui semble rester cantonnée à certains espaces majoritairement conservateurs.

Ces débats autour de la thématique du « racisme anti-Blancs » posent un certain nombre de problèmes, et en particulier la question de savoir comment les analyser sans y participer, le chercheur ayant un rôle dans les luttes discursives autour des identités prescrites (De Rudder, 1998). Étudier ces débats implique de mobiliser des catégorisations et labellisations plus que contestables et difficilement objectivables, au croisement de croyances, de ressentis, mais surtout d’entreprises de stigmatisation de personnes non blanches et de délegitimisation leurs causes. »

  • Reihane Merazka, « Le « racisme anti-Blancs ». Carrière d’un problème public dans la presse quotidienne nationale française », Réseaux, vol. 223, no 5,‎ , p. 43–74 (ISSN 0751-7971, DOI 10.3917/res.223.0043, lire en ligne, consulté le )

« Social workers in welfare organisations serv- ing overwhelmingly white families in Newcastle attempt to demarcate when, for white people, apartheid privilege ‘ends’ justifying their support of whites ‘falling through the cracks’ and ‘caught in vicious cycles’ who they believe suffer from the post-apartheid attempts at redress in work- places. Members of the families in this study repeated a similar argument, without its sociological pretences. Mrs D, for example, sees her- self as a white woman threatened by discrimina- tion in hiring practices:

Mrs D: If I did not have an education, maybe it would be a different situation, but I have an educa- tion behind my name. I have nursing and comput- ers. I do not want to nurse again, since nursing took it out of me; I almost lost my life nursing…. even though at the hospital they are trying to push me back into nursing. I just put my foot down. That is why I am working as a porter. […] The thing is, I have to keep my mouth shut again and just carry on, and that makes me so angry – because when can we open our mouths for once? You know? And that is what makes me angry about this coun- try. The blacks, and I am not racist, but the blacks are prone to speak of oppression. They should… see who is really being oppressed today, because it is definitely not them … It is the whites, espe- cially the white women with children, who are op- pressed. Women with qualifications behind their names. But since their damn skins are white they cannot get the work they are supposed to get. … I experience it every time. Because most places have equity policies. If not for the equity policy, I would have the admin position I wanted a long time ago …

While blaming the new government and under- standing whites as victims, Mrs D. constantly reaffirmed to us that what ‘really’ makes a dif- ference is religious faith and individual determi- nation. Several times she leapt from saying ‘it’s about the individual, not race’ to saying that Africans are given opportunities ahead of whites, and hence that employment equity has under- mined racial equality in hiring practices, as if indi- vidual merit as the grounds for employment was more characteristic of the past than the present. What seemed to annoy her most was her percep- tion that ‘qualifications’ and ‘know-how’ are not respected and that things were not going to ‘bal- ance out because the whites in this country have not yet learned how to stand together.’ Such sentiments of standing together are clearly nostalgic for the beginnings of apartheid, long mythologised as a moment when white Afri- kaners were able to stand together and claim the majority in government. It is a sentiment where curiously whites have become the victims of the transition, despite large amounts of capital remaining in white hands at the point of transi- tion. Such statements participate in the kind of discursive repertoire Steyn (2005: 131) has delin- eated as ‘white talk’.

Yet, there is something specific to this partic- ular mode of white talk, insofar as the specific character of their discourse is not one whose function is to veil racism. Their racism is explicit. Rather, casting themselves as victims is a mecha- nism for these white people to claim and inhabit the figure of the poor white, when the institu- tional, state and legal support for this figure has disappeared.2 Claiming oneself as poor whites in turn allows them to distinguish themselves from others who are poor, thereby constructing them- selves as exceptional. Unlike well-off whites who possess considerable amounts of economic and social capital sustaining their privileged access to employment and domains of cultural privilege, the specificity of this claiming of victimhood and of their anti-black racism is thus that their white skins are no longer adequate to protect them from poverty, regardless of how they conduct themselves.


It is when the social world loses its character as a natural phenomenon that the natural or con- ventional character of social facts can be raised. (Bourdieu 1977: 169) The rules of social life that these poor whites living in Newcastle learned was one that took white privilege for granted. It was a perception produced within a set of government appara- tuses that cast being white and economically secure as a natural phenomenon and being white and poor as abnormal. Its foundation, materially, lay in the possibility that those whites who had been ‘reformed’ by institutions, who had learned the correct virtues of labour and life, could find permanent positions at work that would guar- antee their privileged social position. We have argued that for white people in the town of New- castle, political and economic change has called the naturalness of racial privilege into question. Welfare institutions in the town still preach that self-discipline will lead to successful and mor- ally superior beneficiaries but, for our white informants — even if they are compliant—there is no passage to economic security based on conduct.

There is a broad sense among informants that there are troubles everywhere, claims that crime is on the increase, moral decay is rife, and how neighbourhoods are ‘going down’. In one example, white people now call the neighbour- hood Arbour Park ‘Arbordeni’ to describe the fact of a number of African people moving into the area. For these families, there was an uncanny sense of transformation, of things at once famil- iar and unfamiliar, of the world they knew look- ing almost the same but having changed so that they could no longer feel safe (cf. Ballard 2004: 68). This applies to places they had known for a long time which now felt unsafe, but also to the morality preached by the welfare organisations to be good people – that was becoming patently ineffective in producing transformed conditions – and to respectable work, where qualifications and diligence no longer seemed enough.

During apartheid, it is probable that for white South Africans the path from good moral conduct to empowerment was seldom as smooth as ide- ology suggested. In post-apartheid South Africa, however, it is increasingly clear for white welfare officials and for whites on welfare that there is little chance of finding permanent employment. Both blame the post-apartheid administration and ‘reverse-racism’, steadfastly refusing to rec- ognise that both Africans and whites receiving the contemporary version of welfare, the social grant, share a common plight of being unlikely to secure permanent employment. Ultimately, it is a kind of mourning for the fact that being poor white is no longer a condition to be studied, or made remarkable: a melancholic retention of a state of exceptionality in the hope of being noticed and somehow helped, perhaps by other more privileged whites. »

« What do the narratives of anti-white racism constructed by our participants tell us about contemporary intercultural relations in Australia? We have highlighted the asymmetry of claims to race based victimhood. One lens through which we analysed our survey respondents’ accounts of witnessing anti-white racism was in their differences to other experiences of racism. This was most evident in our analysis of the racialised language reported to us, where we observed other axes of disadvantage, such as class and gender, brought into anti-white slurs in order to taint an attribute (whiteness) that is typically positively valued. The survey data showed that those who reported witnessing anti-white racism were also more likely to report personal experiences of racism, including those at the ‘harder’ end or more extreme forms of racism, such as racist attacks. This suggests that perceptions of victimhood amongst this group of respondents are strong. It may be that these participants reside in areas of antagonistic race relations. Perhaps more likely is that these participants have a broad, loose understanding of racism that encompasses white Australians as targets. This interpretation marries well with the findings that this group of participants fail to acknowledge structural, white privilege. »

  • (en) Jacqueline K. Nelson, Maria Hynes, Scott Sharpe et Yin Paradies, « Witnessing Anti-White ‘Racism’: White Victimhood and ‘Reverse Racism’ in Australia », Journal of Intercultural Studies, vol. 39, no 3,‎ , p. 339–358 (ISSN 0725-6868 et 1469-9540, DOI 10.1080/07256868.2018.1459516, lire en ligne, consulté le )
Ce document provient de « https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisatrice:Vache-crapaud&oldid=218554501 ».