-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is preferring a leader the same race as you, racist?
- Thread starter Exellus
- Start date
Nah, the thread is fine. It's the reverse racism bullshit and "PoC can be racist too" bullshit that's trash.
In a vacuum, yes absolutely it's racist.
But we don't live in a vacuum and if a black person wants a black person to be their political/social leader because of the well-documented oppression against black people throughout history and thinks a black person (rightfully) understands that better than anyone else then no, it's not racist.
The discussion is nuanced yes, but it's not rocket science.
But we don't live in a vacuum and if a black person wants a black person to be their political/social leader because of the well-documented oppression against black people throughout history and thinks a black person (rightfully) understands that better than anyone else then no, it's not racist.
The discussion is nuanced yes, but it's not rocket science.
Maybe if you are white? I'm asian, I'd love to see an Asian president one day. I'm sure latinos etc would also like to see that etc.
And in the context of race those unique experiences tend to be based on the person's, well, race. I'm not sure what is even in contention.
It is racist only if you are voting because they are the same race. But if its for any other reason other than race but they happen to be the same race as you then no.
It depends on the context of the question and the reason for the "preference". For example, if you prefer a leader of a country/city/etc... to be of the same ethnic group as you and all the previous leaders of said country/city/etc... have been in the same ethnic group and you're only expressing this preference when presented with an option for a leader from a different ethnic group, then yes that may be "racist/discriminatory". But if for example, it's the opposite of the previous example and you are expressing this preference because there has never been/very rarely a leader from your ethnic group in said country/city/etc..., then it's probably not "racist/discriminatory" since the intention is for more diversity in the leadership role.
The choice itself is not, the reasoning can be.
"i want this person in office because they share an important life experience with me and i expect they will reflect that in their politics" is a perfectly valid political reason to vote for.
However it clearly means very different things based on who is saying it. A white person in america saying that sentence about a white politician is basically admitting that they enjoy an inherent privilege from being white and want to perpetuate the status quo by electing white people over and over. A PoC in america saying that same sentence is hoping to gain increased representation to correct disfavored conditions they live with because the people in power currently do not share that important life experience of being a person of color.
You could repeat the exercise with not just white/PoC, but just about any power dynamic. Like see what the context is when employers and employees say that same sentence.
"i want this person in office because they share an important life experience with me and i expect they will reflect that in their politics" is a perfectly valid political reason to vote for.
However it clearly means very different things based on who is saying it. A white person in america saying that sentence about a white politician is basically admitting that they enjoy an inherent privilege from being white and want to perpetuate the status quo by electing white people over and over. A PoC in america saying that same sentence is hoping to gain increased representation to correct disfavored conditions they live with because the people in power currently do not share that important life experience of being a person of color.
You could repeat the exercise with not just white/PoC, but just about any power dynamic. Like see what the context is when employers and employees say that same sentence.
Could also be opportunism, depends on the reasoning. In this day and age, in most cases, probably racism.
Last edited:
hence the ignore history part.
Look at any oppressed of subjugated group, why the hell would they not prefer a leader whos experienced their strife and can empathize
I'd rather the hierarchy itself get eliminated. A non-hierarchal structure if implement right would make this question useless because all groups would have a voice.
Now, to get out of that idealism, as many cities have found out, the idea that your skin folk is kinfolk can get you a very bad leader. But the amount of white or any majority population leaders willing to do what it takes to make life for their minority constituents is far fewer than people want to admit. Especially white people.
So it is prejudiced. But the alternative has bitten minorities in the back since forever, so good options are limited.
Now, to get out of that idealism, as many cities have found out, the idea that your skin folk is kinfolk can get you a very bad leader. But the amount of white or any majority population leaders willing to do what it takes to make life for their minority constituents is far fewer than people want to admit. Especially white people.
So it is prejudiced. But the alternative has bitten minorities in the back since forever, so good options are limited.
Wtf is this thread lol
As left leaning person I will always vote left. So if for whatever reason there was a black republican candidate facing a white democratic candidate, I'd be considered racist for voting democratic? Lmfao
As left leaning person I will always vote left. So if for whatever reason there was a black republican candidate facing a white democratic candidate, I'd be considered racist for voting democratic? Lmfao
If it's your only criteria, yes.
If it's between two candidates of similar qualities and you prefer the one who's your race, also yes, but it's excusable.
Most people will go with who makes them feel most comfortable; there's comfort in familiarity, people are usually most familiar with their own race.
If it's between two candidates of similar qualities and you prefer the one who's your race, also yes, but it's excusable.
Most people will go with who makes them feel most comfortable; there's comfort in familiarity, people are usually most familiar with their own race.
If you are apart of the dominant/oppressor group, yes absolutely. Minority and marginalized groups have very real and valid reasons to vote for and prefer a person that is apart of their or other minority groups. If only for the sake of representation. That is completely fine.
Last edited:
Racists say that all the time. Context does matter. They said "Black people only voted for Obama cause of the color of his skin!". You can't compared people that have been historically marginallized vs those that haven't and have enjoyed leadership roles. Ignoring historical context is the bread and butter of many racists. Don't fall for the bull, dude.
By your logic anything that stresses upliftment of others from marginalized groups is racist/bigoted. Because it is based on the same criteria that led to their disenfranchisement.
And like I said, context matters. Black conservative dude being a "leader" we ain't just gonna follow him cause he black, lol. But a leader that expresses our own values and is also black? that's a win-win as far as I'm concerned. Make it a black woman for that trifecta.
Racist? It depends. But regardless of what color you are, voting for someone solely because they're the closest to your skin tone is fucking stupid.
It is. A political leader should be chosen based on ideology and proposed policy. Race is just a coincidental factor two people may share, but does not necessarily mean they will be aligned in political ideology or have the same interests.
If you don't care about policy or ideology, just about choosing someone who is not a different race from yours, that's racist.
If you don't care about policy or ideology, just about choosing someone who is not a different race from yours, that's racist.
It could be argued so. Let us consider your imaginary example. What is the most effective action against racism: voting for a candidate from a minority group, or voting for the white democratic candidate? If the former is more effective yet you choose the latter, then you are deliberately not fighting racism with the best option offered to you. To evaluate your choice, you have to assess the consequences on society, and take into account the people less privileged than you and whose life would be positively impacted if the leader were not another white person. I won't provide a proper answer, it is just a hint that your immediate choice is not so obvious.
For instance, consider how empowering it is to have a charismatic and smart USA president like Obama, not just for American but for people all over the world. His sole presence in the worldwide media does more than a thousand words, because he conveys an extremely positive image. That is on another scale than Rep vs. Dem.
Last edited:
