To be perfectly honest... (and knowing what I can be like after a few drinks)...I would of opened up the biggest can of whoop ass that dude had ever seen.

Little Big Brother *wink* I didn't see your friends post, but I will check it out next.  I think after being stunned, I would have lost my temper (and possibly my chances at a career in Hell-ay).  Then I would have beaten myself up for not thinking first and not using tact.  I am one of those cut off your nose despite your face people.  I've learned to dial it down.  If I hadn't, my principles and I would be on the bread line one day

In your situation it depends on how quick my friend is in shutting me up.  If not quick, I would have responded and quite probably sarcastically.  Mind you, the only thing that came to mind was "Yeah, it is.  Why, you planning on invading it?"   Typically, the people I hang with are quick and then it would have become a hushed discussion on wtf is wrong with your friends.  I don't buy that "they see us the same" line your friend has bought into.  The average workplace and or college classroom tells you the full truth.   I know better and I think  you do as well.   

A racist is a person of a controlling group (finacially etc) that uses said control to claim their superiority over others.  By that economically and socially agreed upon definition a person of color can not be racist in the USA and in most countries as those without or with less melanin have such power.  Reverse racism is a buzz word used by white people and their pet negroes when they sue to override EOE and education.   A person of color can most certainly be a bigot, but not a racist.   

Spellmandiva, I respect your attempts, but give up boo.  Pick your battles.

p.s. Yes Tom,

I also meant to note that as I said in ALL of my posts.....racism is a SYSTEM, not an institution.  Institutions AND individual acts operate together to create a system that feeds and perpetuates itself.

Yes_Tom,

We can agree to disagree.  Not a problem for me.  However, for a definition for racism for "the majority of the English speaking world", I would say go to Wikipedia (problematic, but its basic and has its uses) .  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

There you will note several definitions.  The one I utilize is the sociological one because it is the most COMPREHENSIVE in explaining racism --- especially because most people fail to understand the complexity of racism, simply because it is basically thought of as the superiority of one race over the other.

Institutional racism then is simply a specified subdivision that details an aspect of racism, in the same way that individual acts of discrimination feed the institution.  Thus, the sociological definition of racism accounts for the more subtle, not so obvious acts like "buring a cross" or making stereotypical "chinese" sounding comments.  People easily grasp these actions, but they dont get how bank redlining of neighborhoods is also racist and by extension affects, credit worthiness, wealth, and generational wealth.

If the room was filled with Latino and Black people, I would tell you they were ignorant as hell, that they were engaging in stereotypical thinking and that they had been affected by the system of racism which operates to distinguish people of color - not just from whtie people but even among each other.
(Historical examples: African Americans did it around the turn of the century as a way to respond to conflicts over labor.  Chinese did it in Mississippi in the 1890s-60s against black people as a way to avoid being segregated.  Japanese did it to Chinese as a way to avoid being segregated in California in the early 1900s. )  What's the difference?  None of these groups had access to power over the other, and the system of racism operated to such an extent that they turned on each other and not on the system that set up the terms of their financial, social, and political interaction.

When white people make such distinctions, however, it has ramifications beyond simple negative group interactions among people of color, because with whiteness comes a privilege and with that privilege comes a system which feeds and supports that privilege.  Simply put, whose voice counts most when it comes to the United Sates?  As such, he who has the most power, carries the most responsibility.

As I said, racism is much more deeper than somebody did something to this one person.   And if you dont understand that first, then you get confused when racism shows itself in its more subtle forms.  To assume that its a "straw man" because I account for the more subtle forms of racism and its multi-level ramifications is an exact example of what I mean.  That phrase implies that something is not there, when in fact it is.  This is why you could not understand as you note in your first post, "that you could not see the offense"

Marie, I agree that in most of the world there is an us and them mentality.  The differences as I pointed out before is that this same mentality takes on ominous tones - depending on where you are and who is in power.  In the United States, its white people.  In Rwanda, it was the Hutus (BTW, backed by the French who were the ones who provided the weapons during the massacre).  During WWII it was the Japanese against the Chinese.   I think this is why the UN does not distinguish between Ethnic Discrimination or Racism  -- because both are virulent and deadly as hell.   I think what is most relevant however is how these small acts help to perpetuate the really BIG ones.  In Rwanda, for example, it was the Hutu extremist radio which started off with "comments" about Tutsis.....and well, you see where that went.

Now imagine if you are a person of color in the U.S. and these comments are a regular part of your life.  In fact, they are a part of the lives of all Americans.  It leads to confusion, anger, misunderstandings, or worse -- violence.

So maybe a cigar, then, is not just a cigar.

Spelmandiva: I appreciate your comments but it seems our definitions of the word racism are not quite the same. You view racism as an institution, which I don't disagree with, but my examples were of singular acts (which you prefer to refer to as examples of discrimination). I have a feeling that the majority of English speakers in the world would tend to disagree with you about your definition of racism.

"For why the Asian corner comment is offensive, read my first post.   Short version, white people never seem to think of themselves as the other and off to themselves.  To point it out is to imply that it shouldn’t be or that it’s odd or that it’s unusual or even that it’s simply noteworthy – in a way that a white corner would not."

Okay, so lets say the party was full of people of color instead (let's say they're Latino or black, just for the sake of this making sense) that are not white. Let's also say that there was still an "Asian corner" at the party. Again, the rest of the people at the party are either black or Latino (but not a mix of both). If one of these people goes up to said corner and says "hey look it's the Asian corner" that is not racism, but discrimination? Whereas if all of the black or latin people at this party suddenly turned white and someone uttered the same comment it would be racist because growing up in a white-ruled society has made this person feel that an "Asian corner" is out of place?

I disagree.

Your entire argument against mine hinges on something of a straw man.

"Racism is a SYSTEM OF POWER"

My statements and queries do not refute that idea...but racism does exist on a personal level and can be commited by people of all colors. If you need further proof then pick up the dictionary and look up the word.

I know this is a bad analogy, but it's like if I mentioned that an orange was a piece of fruit and you told me that it was a color.

Thank you for your comments, though.

Marie, Indeed, I have come upon the term "reverse racism".  You assume that is a term that I neither know and/or if I did know it, I would accept as valid.  I do not.  

It is a term utilized by conservatives as a way to combat many of the government programs and laws that came out of the 1960s protest movements.  It is also a term that generally lacks any kind of historical context.  In essence, “reverse racism” argues that the system no longer works for only white people but has changed to such an extent to adversely create a backlash that negatively impacts or takes away from white people.  

This is, in fact, why I defined racism as a SYSTEM OF POWER.   You, like many people, think that racism only consists of individual acts like the Klan burning crosses or an African American attacking a white person for being white.  Racism is far more complex.  I will give a simpler historical example here than the FHA one I used.

A Klan member who burns a cross in your yard is an individual act.  A police officer who refuses to arrest the Klan member is an individual act.  A jury that refuses to convict a Klan member makes up a series of individual acts.  A state body that determines that the Klan can legally operate is a series of individual acts made into law.  These individual acts taken TOGETHER create a system in which racism is perpetuated from individual to institutional/government action and back to the individual.

Now, how is this different from African Americans or any other person of color.  An African American beats up a white person.  The first break in creating a “reverse racism” system is that this individual act will immediately result in arrest – probably of the wrong person.  The second break in this individual act becoming a system is that they will be placed on trial, and more than likely convicted.  The third break is that there are no laws created that allow, support, or protect black people who randomly go around beating up white people.

This example, for your understanding, is a much simpler and more extreme version than the previous FHA example, but the point still follows and the idea only becomes more and more complicated when dealing with institutions.  (For a more detailed example, see Black Wealth, White Wealth, by Oliver and Shapiro.)

For a more modern example, let’s look at how Affirmative Action policies are considered.  There are many who argue that affirmative action is a policy of “reverse racism” in that white people are denied positions they should have based on merit, but that people of color simply obtain based on race.  (This generally implies that people of color are not merit worthy or that positions obtained by white people are absolutely divorced from race.)  Even if we assume that people of color are the main beneficiaries of AA programs, that still does not constitute “reverse racism.”  One may argue that it is “reverse discrimination”, but not racism.  What then is the distinction?

AA policies were generated by the government to deal with the massive amounts of discrimination experienced on a myriad of levels by various people.  Its point was to force an end to discrimination by means other than by asking people to do it (since that was not working- and in many ways still doesn’t work).   AA is a government policy for which African Americans or persons of color may benefit but not one in which African Americans have sole control.  It is not solely created or run only by African Americans - even though they (along with other people of color) certainly influenced its creation through the civil rights movement.  Additionally, these laws can be challenged or taken away at any time by the government.  Most importantly, AA as policy has not ended the discrimination which still takes place in both education and employment.  (Quick example:  A study done two years ago found that African American men in NY with a diploma and no jail time were still less likely to get a job than a white male in NY, with a GED and jail time).  If AA were run and controlled by people of color, issues like discrimination on the job would be obsolete.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, even though Affirmative Action is constantly referred to as an example of "reverse racism," the reality is that the largest beneficiary of affirmative action is NOT people of color.  

It’s white women.   

(most people don’t know that.  For more information, go to the online site for the Department of labor at http://www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm)

Again, I do not mean to imply that people of color can not engage in discrimination against each other or against white people.  ABSOLUTELY, this is possible and, it in fact, happens!  I did, in fact, point that out.  However, in the United States, black people or other people of color do not have the power to shape institutions or systems that affect masses of people.  I will refer you to my example of the FHA.  As such, whatever the behavior, none of it constitutes racism in the United States.  Discrimination yes, racism no.

Finally, I understand your frustration with my comments.  I often find that white people who do not have a grasp of history or the various ideas about how to define ethnocentrism, racism, discrimination, etc. assume that they are meant to be just negative comments about white people.  They are not.  I am more aware than you even know of the many white people who have fought against discrimination and racism; and who have risked their lives and died to challenge the system of racism, all of which I learned in all my “academic reading”.  Shall I tell you about Bruce Klunder who was run over by a bulldozer trying to stop the building of a segregated school?  Shall I show you the picture of him crushed to the ground, his face pushed into the dirt?  

There are many white people who understood and understand that being white gave them privileges in the United States that people of color do not have and never had.  They recognize that you don’t have to think negatively or have a bias toward other people in order to still be a recipient of that system of privilege called racism.  

The term “racism” should not be bandied about without historical context or framework.  In order to truly understand racism, you must know it as a function of history which continues to perpetuate itself, even with all the strides made from the 1960s.  Nor should it be said without understanding how that history affects the lives of all Americans – white people for the better and people of color for the worse up until the very moment of this post.   
The fact is – racism is a far more complicated word.  And it's through all that "extensive academic reading" that I have learned the difference.  So before you are appalled, refer to those books, articles, and sites I suggested.  I would love to talk more when you have an additional historical and theoretical framework from which to engage in a discussion. (p.s. I am not trying to be condescending.  I am truly interested in having an honest conversation)

Spelmandiva--I am appalled that, by your definition of racism, a "person of color" cannot be a racist.  What planet are you living on?  In all your extensive academic reading have you never encountered the term "reverse racism"?

Yes Tom, I wanted to respond to some of your comments regarding what constitutes racism.

For why the Asian corner comment is offensive, read my first post.   Short version, white people never seem to think of themselves as the other and off to themselves.  To point it out is to imply that it shouldn’t be or that it’s odd or that it’s unusual or even that it’s simply noteworthy – in a way that a white corner would not.

No such thing as PC in the workplace.  You may FEEL that way, but the experience of people of color on this issue is varied, and for some consistent, but certainly there.

Racism vs. offensive language.  The two are separate.  One is a question of power and privilege the other of crudity.  The definition of racism is generally poorly understood, but I will provide a broad definition here.  

Racism is a SYSTEM OF POWER which allows the privilege of one group over another by allowing the individuals of one group – either consciously or subconsciously- to benefit over that of the other.  This system can also be fed by the individual actions of persons in the group which then feeds the environment/atmosphere in which this system of power operates.  Certainly, people of color can say racially offensive things or engage in individual acts of discrimination from situation to situation – which I certainly don’t condone.  (BTW, they don’t bleep out Dave Chapelle using the N word, which really works my nerve but that’s for another post).  However, that is NOT the same as racism.

To that end, in the United States, people of color can not be racist, because the system of power in the U.S. has historically operated to uplift whiteness and denigrate color.  Of course, there are all kinds of variations to this – for example in how the Irish/Italians were initially treated in the U.S., however, as the groups shifted into “becoming white”, then they also came to benefit AND feed the system.  Quick down and dirty example of how a system is created and people fed.  Let’s use the FHA policies from the 1940s as an example of how systems continue to operate even up until now.

The Federal Housing Authority (FHA) – a government agency - set up a system in which neighborhoods were ranked according to race….Black, Latino, and Asian at the bottom, Ethnic White neighborhoods in the middle, and “Native” White at the top.  It then determined for banks which persons should get loans for homes and how to rank the financial worth of neighborhoods – thereby leading to the creation of redlining by banks.  i.e. you are less likely to get a loan if you live in a bottom neighborhood and if you got a loan it was at a higher interest rate.  

In addition, realtors based on FHA guidelines ranked neighborhoods for people of color as having lower home value – despite the fact that these neighborhoods had the same comparable value of homes found in white neighborhoods - if not better.  As such, when a black person moved into a white neighborhood, it immediately led to white flight out of the neighborhood.  Why?  Because living in a neighborhood with even one black person classified your community as mixed and as such, the value of your home went down.  To prevent black people from moving into white neighborhoods, white people would either leave in mass, set up residential covenants which blocked the sale of homes to black people, or engaged in violence or harassment to make a black resident leave.  

In sum:  bigoted white people set up a series of government guidelines saying that to simply be black in a neighborhood (no matter the class) meant the value of your home went down.  This thereby triggered a system in which banks, realtors, and individual home buyers participated and bolstered the government policies which kept neighborhoods segregated in the past, and even NOW keeps black neighborhoods listed at a lower value – as exampled by the number of middle class black homes being listed as having lower value than white working class and poor homes.

For more information, see “The Evil that FHA Did” in Phillip Rubio’s book in a History of Affirmative Action.
Redlining and Mortgage loan discrimination see,
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/August94/484.txt.html
Department of Justice decision based off a series of articles run by Washington Post called “Separate and Unequal”

Great feedback from everyone!  there were a lot of good points brought up...to me, it was just an eye opener that living in HK...I forgot a little bit that racism even existed.  But coming back to the States and right away, BAM, it was in my face.  Thanks you guys for taking the time to voice your opinions.  It truly means that we are ALIVE not DEAD....  was that cheesy?  :p

Get a different agent.  Vote with your feet.

"Calling it the Asian corner wouldn't upset me. I mean, if it were kind of true - the Asians indeed congregating in that area - I don't see the offense."

My thoughts exactly...I'm somewhat flabbergasted that the man on the phone with your friend was so blunt with his racism though, I didn't think people like THAT (who are supposed to be professional) existed anymore as nearly everyone has jumped on the PC bandwagon, at least in a professional setting.

That said, I will contribute something to this discussion:

Why are white people always portrayed, by the media and otherwise, as the only perpetrators of racism on the planet (excluding genocidists)? Doesn't that seem a tad racist? I know plenty of people, many of them Asian, who are intensely racist (especially against black people).

Anyone remember Kenneth Eng? He was the guy who, a couple of years back, wrote two editorials entitled "Why I Hate White People" and "Why I Hate Black People" but it was "Why I Hate Black People" that got noticed and that he was made to apologize for.

Why? Because the system we live in today allows and, in some aspects, even ENCOURAGES racism against white people.

The N-word is ALWAYS censored on tv even on channels like comedy central etc...but no one censors the word cracker....Dave Chappelle can call people crackers all he wants but look at the flack Mike Richards got for saying the N word (though, they were slightly different circumstances, but had Chappelle called an audience member a "cracker" he would have easily gotten away with it)

p.s.  What would I have done?  I'm from N.C. and lived in Atlanta a long time.  Dont let the education fool you, I will turn into a television version of a black stereotype when the mood and occasion suits me.  

However, for those who are not as assertive or simply want to maintain a professional air (which I often need to do as well), I would say that there is nothing better than asking the question, "What does that mean?" becauses it forces them to pause and explain themselves or correct themselves, or at least realize you dont quite "get" or "appreciate" their perspective.

And then there is my all time favorite, fold your hands in your lap, sit quietly and stare until they finish.  Silence is its own response....and quite powerful in making a point.

Of course, if you want to add a little southern flair,...you can slightly lift an eyebrow, drift your head upward and off to the side, and sigh heavily like.......hmmmmm.

I  think perhaps, the real issue was why they felt the need to point it out - and what does that say about how we deal with race and cultural distinction in America?  It seems to me that if they were curious or thought something was odd about it that they could have come over to talk.  

More likely imbedded in the comment is a recognition of the "other" gathering.  More to the point, (assuming they were all white together) ----

How come they didnt see themselves as being in the white corner?

The distinction is not that THEY are separate, but that YOU are separate.  

There in lies the problem.  Does that mean they were uncomfortable or curious? Could they not understand why the Asians were all in one corner or did they feel they shouldnt be in one corner?  Did they feel that by Asians standing together, it confused their understanding of Asian friends "being like them."   

I just recently posted an old article I recently found, that speaks directly to this issue.  It struck me as interesting so I put it on my blog.  It talks alot about what it means when white people see you as "no different from them" which in itself is its own de-valuing.  

It's called, Tne Unbearable Being of Whiteness: You worship your melanin level. Get over it.
By Eric Liu
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2450/

ya, that's one nice thing about living in hong kong...

I've faced that many times and when ppl do that..I tend to get argumentative...ppl usually heard a long speech out of me. Some people are so ignorant that I just can't stand it.

Educate them... with a traditional Chinese tool... The feather duster or the fold-out stool!!! Waakakakaka!