Why Charges of Racism are Biased as No Group is Not Racist

Executive Summary

  • What is the Definition of Racism?
  • People’s Rights to Think, Say and Believe What They Want
  • Jimmy the Greek
  • Danielle Lloyd
  • Who Is Not Racist?
  • The Racism of the Aztecs
  • What Does Research into Racism Say?


Racism has developed into a weapon which is used by non-whites exclusively against whites. It has almost become a reflexive statement brought out when one group is not getting what they want. However, the way the term is used is often incorrectly, and if non-whites are accused of being racist (which is very rare by the way), they typically declare that it is impossible for them to be racist. One statement often repeated is the following:

How can blacks be racist since they can’t deprive whites of a job.

Therefore, among people that accuse whites of racism, racism is two things, both discrimination by race, and performed by a group with more power versus a group with less power. Therefore, the less powerful group can say whatever they like, and this is not considered racist. Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly to groups that enjoy frequently accusing other groups of racism, that is not the correct definition of racism.

See our references for this article and related articles at this link.

What is the Definition of Racism?

The definition of racism is listed below.

Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people’s traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined, and that, as a consequence, racial discrimination (i.e. different treatment of those people, both socially and legally) is justified. – Wikipedia

Therefore, if a person from a powerless group criticizes or discriminates against a person from a more powerful group, the first person is still practicing racism. The effect of racism against a member of a more powerful group may not be significant, but the significance of the effect is not part of the word “racist.” Racism can have no effect such as when a person avoids another person in a public area or has a negative thought about a person of another race, or enormous effect, such as when one group enslaves another group.

Both would fit the definition of racism.

This is because the word racist does not encompass the magnitude of the effect. People who are of relatively powerless groups, who state that they cannot be racist because they cannot have a significant effect on individuals from the more powerful group are simply not using the word racist properly. They can say the racism does not have the same effect, but racism is not defined on the basis of effect. It is defined on the basis of discrimination on the basis of race.

People who broaded the term of racism in this way haver perverted the meaning of the word to meet their needs, and their need is a weapon that they can use against others, but can never be used against them. This is called perverting language. When it is done, it always means that the person doing it is hiding something or lying in some way. This is why the perversion of language is most common in the practice of law and public relations. Let us review the definition of he word perversion.

Perversion: the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. – Apple Dictionary

People’s Rights to Think, Say and Believe What They Want

Jimmy the Greek, a famous sports announcer, was fired from his job when he made an observation that slaves in the US were bred during slavery and this lead to their advantages in attaining success in professional sports. We don’t know if the second part is true, but blacks are highly overrepresented in collegiate and professional sports in the US. But the statement about slaves being bred for a particular purpose by slaveholders is true. Let us review for a moment what slaveholders did in their management of slaves.

  • US slaveholders both dissuaded their slaves from reading or learning in any way.
  • They deprived them of education and on the contrary bred them for physical characteristics.

Isn’t this a historical fact and more embarrassing to the slaveholders than anyone?

If Jimmy the Greek wants to propose a hypothesis that this lead to modern day Africans being better at athletics isn’t that his right? Something to note is that no one contradicted the hypothesis offered by Jimmy the Greek. Instead, they asked for Jimmy the Greek to be fired.

Danielle Lloyd

Recently, Danielle Lloyd, a well-known glamor model from the UK made what were perceived as some as racist comments about another contestant on a reality show, who was Indian.

Undiscussed is that Indians themselves are quite well known to discriminate by race among Indians. They draw immediate conclusions about Indians from different parts of India where they differ in physical, and according to Indians, I have spoken with, mental characteristics. And this is simply discrimination among Indians before we get into discrimination by Indians against non-Indians. Indians in the US who have entered the H1-B program, have entered most intensively through some parts of India. Within tech companies, there are disagreements between “clans” that trace their roots back to the associations/heritage of Indians back in India.

Interestingly she has been pilloried on the internet, and several of the stories about her introduce her as a racist. People who are non-white seem to think that they can call anyone names who does not see things the same way that they do. Interestingly it is not established as to whether Danielle Lloyd is actually any more racist than average. The primary evidence of her racism is that she was recorded making negative comments towards another cast member which had a racial overtone. However, when people dislike each other, they tend to say things that will hurt them. For instance, a tall person insulting a shorter person by calling them a midget is not proof that they particularly dislike short people; rather it is simply a convenient way to injure the other person.

Here is the thing, even if Danielle Lloyd is a hard core racist, that is her right, just as Robin Williams has a right to be a Democrat or a Marxist, or anyone has a right to believe anything they want. And as I will show further on, no group does not in some way discriminate against other groups.

For instance, 85% of the population believes that a man in the sky loves them, and if we are keeping score, there is far more evidence for the biologically differences between the races. The wait is that true?

  1. Every year the strongman competition comes down to competitors from two regions; the Pacific Islands and the Scandinavian Countries (including notably Iceland)
  2. The Dutch are the world’s tallest people. Pygmies are the world’s shortest.
  3. The skin of Scandanavians burns much more easily than the skin of people from Uganda (who are some of the darkest people in Africa).

It is simply highly unscientific to propose that there are not differences between people. Under evolutionary pressure, humans have evolved different characteristics, although it is known that all humans originated from a relatively small group in Africa roughly 50,000 years ago.

For instance, anyone who thinks Papa New Guineans would make good collegiate or NFL offensive lineman, please raise your hand) There is far more evidence for the differences between races than any religious person can bring for the existence of a God. However, we don’t ask that all religious people be fired from their jobs and lose their livelihood. But we do ask this exact thing of people that we have only limited evidence for being more racist than average. Secondly, we believe we have the right to ask for actual racists to be punished. Why? Finally, why is the anti-racism considered more important than the right to freedom of speech? Do people who dislike your race have the right even to think this, or should their thoughts be monitored with some remote brain reading device?

This is what happens to all non-believers in the eyes of the vast majority of religions. 

How did racists get a worse reputation than religious people? Aside from having zero evidence for their beliefs, most religions not only declare that their converts are better than the followers of other religions (the central tenant of racism), but they declare that followers of other religions will be punished in some way, often tortured for eternity.

Isn’t this a far more extreme view than racism.  

Who Is Not Racist?

The story on racism seems to go something like the following.

White people are racist, but other groups are not racism, racism is primarily the domain of whites.

What the this viewpoint fails to provide is any evidence that whites are more racist than another group. Europeans colonized vast areas of the world and mistreated the races that they found there. However, that only establishes that the opportunity to take advantage of others, and it does not provide evidence for the enhanced racism of whites. Also, the places that whites conquered already had divisions and inequalities that were…..cover ears……based upon race. This was true of the English in India as it was the Spanish with the Aztecs.

The Racism of the Aztecs

One of the reasons Hernan Cortez was able to conquer the Aztec empire with only 1000 Spaniards is because while marching towards the capital city of Tenochtitlan is that he recruited an army of local non-Aztec tribes from the surrounding jungle. These tribes all detested the Aztecs for some reasons, but one of the major ones was the Aztecs would raid their villages, take their individuals to the top of the Aztec temps and cut the living hearts out of their body. Let us observe that this is a very extreme version of discrimination. 

Therefore Cortez’s conquistadors were supplemented with at least 5000 extremely irate local tribe members. It turns out that Montezuma was a racist, and thought that his tribe was superior to other tribes. This may be shocking to many as Montezuma was not white.

  • This is not to discount the fact that there are tons of writing that show that whites thought they were superior to the groups they came into contact with during the colonial period.
  • That is the most common conclusion when one group finds another group that is much less technologically sophisticated.
  • The Japanese stated the same thing as a motivation for beginning WW2. The Japanese highly discriminate against Koreans that live in their country. This passes without comment? Is this because racism only counts if it is engaged in by a white person? Do all other groups have a free pass to be as racist as they like because the only problem with racism is when it is engaged in by white people?
  • If American Indians had found a culture that had not yet discovered how to make clothes, it is quite likely the American Indians would have also felt superior. Did all of the American Indian tribes live in harmony or was there in fact racism in North America before the Europeans arrived? Why is the warfare between the Indians tribes not also referred to as racism? It is again because racism loses its meaning if not whites are part of the equation?

What Does Research into Racism Say?

In fact, the modern research on racism shows no predisposition of white people to be more racist than other groups. The matrix below, which the response rates on a dating site by different racial groups, shows white women being more open to non-white profiles than non-whites, and that non-white women have a higher preference for white men than white women.

One of the most amusing results of this research is that Indian women prefer all other races (except for Asians) over Indian men. Is that racist? It appears to be. Do Indian women have a right not to date Indian men? I think they do, but now after listening to non-white racism accusers, I am not sure. However shouldn’t they be criticized for it? If we apply the rule of non-whites with regards to racism, no group that is less powerful than another group can practice racism. Indian women are probably on average less powerful than Indian men, so according to non-white racism accusers, this would meet the definition of racism, but it isn’t racism by their other requirement because Indian women aren’t white, and only whites can be racist.

Is that racist? It appears to be. By why don’t we see articles about how racist Indian women are? In order to not be racist, you must have exactly equal preferences for dating all types of races. Even the slightest preference is racist.

Do Indian women have a right not to date Indian men? I think they do, but now after listening to non-white racism accusers, I am not sure. Indian women are probably on average less powerful than Indian men, so according to non-white racism accusers, this would meet the definition of racism, but it isn’t racism by their other requirement because Indian women aren’t white, and only whites can be racist.

So clearly, racism is a universal, however, why do we not hear more about non-white racism? It seems that non-whites have a monopoly on accusing whites of racism, but their racism is completely undiscussed. Is that fair?


Non-whites perpetually accusing others of racism are in hypocritical because numerous studies show that no group does not discriminate based upon race. But of the different groups, whites seem to be the most aware of racism and appear to be the least racist, not the most racist. The primary reason this is not understood is that racism is seen within the framework of whites being racist.

What the anti-racist and non-anti-white mob are saying is that the person that they don’t like is racist against them or their group. Discrimination tends to be one sided. Groups that are highly offended when discriminated against are usually fine with performing discrimination once the tables are turned. Most groups don’t have an issue with racism at all. That is they want the right to discriminate against others, but obviously, prefer not to receive discrimination in return.

They believe others have no right to think or say what they want when it comes to race, but that their racism is not even pointed out if they are part of a less powerless group, and non-white, it is, in their view impossible for them to be racist.

Buying this line of thinking gives the anti-racist mob power that is not backed up by any logic. Charging other people with racism is an extremely effective weapon and often used which much relish. However it is so cynically used, it begins to be difficult to respect the intentions of those that overuse it.