• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Can the oppressed be racist to the oppressors?


Time Lord Victorious
No ****:Racism isn't always systemic.

But systemic racism is the bigger issue that the thread is challenging.
Well, I was talking about regular racism.


Unevolved Mankey
"Opressor" is not a race,
an opressor is someone who conflates a social-hierarchy in which that individual is trying to control other people in their social group.
A "race" is kind of a foriegn concept and to illustrate as "black vs white" is still playing into 1800s deliberation on the topic,
in my opinion (IMO)
During 1800s North-America you have a scheme where northerners look white and southerners look black.
The theme in that deliberation being that during "1800s-american-civilwar"
seeing that whites are framed to oppress blacks, and northerners are construed to liberate southerners.
This obviously would not apply in the southern continent,
since there one cannot obviously expect northerners to look white and southerners to look black.

So furthermore consider what are examples of "racial opression" where the terms might actually apply?
During 1900s television, I would've thought instead that there is race at televised sports...
Perception is the only cue that race stems from:
I think that my perception based on 1900s television was like:
"baseball players are white, futbol players are latin, basketball players are black"
Most of these groups aren't doing much to intentionally, directly, actually opress anything really except for conversationalists.

On internet forums for contrast, the "opressor" can be a "forum administrator" or "forum moderator" that is
creating opression, by imposing their idea of what the rules should be, unto what would normally be considered a conversation.
In educative terms, it would be like a teacher who is opressing the students by prohibiting "side-conversations,"
that aren't directly involved to the lecture or the material that is suposed to be currently taught.
Or in governmental terms,
the "opressor" would be an individual who deliberately prevents other people from expressing their ideas, thoughts, statements, etc.
For strictly conversational terms, an "opressor" can be one who interrupts other people in a conversation,
preventing them from regularly getting a chance to talk or say what they had to say.

The point about opression also being the idea of adhering to an elite-tier lifestyle,
thereby preventing regular people from having the same, or equal or equivalent options,
for being able to reach their goals or achieve what they want in life.
I'm not sure if that's what I would define as opression, except it can also be a "2ndary" meaning for the term,
or simply an alternate philosophy about how to answer the original question.
Surely there are people who deserve to have the same opportunites that everyone else have,
except that is kindof a philosophical question, about what tasks must be complete prior to reaching the same stage of opportunity
as the other person being compared.

In that sense, it will still be an issue of "black people having more difficult chance to reach opportunitys of white people"
since given the above definition of "black person - basketball player" and "white person - baseball player" that simply means
what tasks are prerequisite for getting the opportunity to achieve that goal. To extrapolate by using those terms philosophically,
in order to describe concepts and situation that don't literally have to do w/ race, is, IMO why there is a framework for contextualizing
that "1800s-american-civilwar" status quo of the philosophical argument, there is no proof, AFAIK, that:
"slave-laborers" would appear black while "slave-drivers" would appear white,
that's purely guessing w/o any actual evidence,
and that's why it's disapointing to see colorist terms used incorrectly to describe race,
and furthermore applied indiscriminately & w/o justification to the topic of opression

[Bonus content to avoid doubleposting]

This might sound unannointing to say, anyway:
-In my community, it shows that,
the "white" gas stations are the least willing to serve customers that aren't purchasing gas,
the "black" gas stations have the most customers inside their stores,
and of the 4 gas stations at the highway intersection,
their willingness to serve customers that aren't purchasing gas,
can be ranked on a scale from white to black
(Anyone w/ their own thoughts on the matter, please feel free to post a response to this topic,
the evaluation is based on my prior personal experience having transactions,
and making visual observations during my interactions at these 4 gas stations)
--The "white/black" visuals correspond to the concept of spending a proportionate amount of time inside a gas-motor-vehicle
Last edited:

Gnostic Christian

Active Member
So the thread “can anyone be racist” got shut down and I believe it was due to it being ambiguous thus sparking a lot of different topics. Instead of asking “can (insert race) people be racist to white people. I’d like to ask does being a minority or oppressed mean you cannot be racist to the oppressor or majority?
Simply said, reciprocity is fair play.

That is the principle of the Golden Rule, so if racism is being used against you, you are just in using racism against your interlocutor.

If the inquisitors and jihadists innocent victims had played by that rule, Christianity and Islam would have folded to better theologies and ideologies way sooner than at present.

Modernization and these modern enlightened days are killing the right wings of both religious and political camps.

Modern people want equality and unity while the right wings want division and strife.