Summary
The speaker recorded their thoughts following a TikTok debate about whether white people can experience racism. They constructed a detailed argument addressing this question through multiple perspectives.
The speaker identified two distinct definitions of race:
The speaker emphasized that while biological races exist in some species, multiple studies confirm human biological races do not exist.
The speaker used the historical oppression of the Irish (14th-20th century) as an example of racism against white people. When challenged that Irish and British were the same race, they countered that since race is socially constructed, societies can define different groups as distinct races.
The speaker referenced multiple definitions of racism:
They noted these definitions don't limit racism to specific races or require power dynamics.
Based on their analysis of definitions and examples, the speaker concluded that racism can be experienced by anyone regardless of race, including white people, as racism depends on social context rather than strict biological categories.
Notes
Transcript
So, I was having a discussion, basically on TikTok, recording this at 10.27pm on the 3rd of the 6th, 2025. And basically, as we know, they were claiming that racism cannot be received by white people. However, I said the following and my argument was in essentially two or three points, or I'll go through it.
They said that white people cannot receive racism and I gave the example of the oppression of the Irish for around 600 years from the 14th century to the 20th century. Then they said that these people were the same races. So then I pulled up two points. I said that race is defined in two ways.
It is defined biologically and according to a few sources that I could pull up in the biological definition classifies race as a a sub-species, or a sub-categorization of life, applying to all life, within the taxonomy of life, race is equal to sub-species.
And I found a few studies on this. For example, there was a study done by the Dutch, the University of Amsterdam about the host race formation in Tarantius uticae, genetic differentiation in host plants preference. This was a study done by the University of Amsterdam and its publication date was 1993, published in the Anthemologia Experimentalis et Applicatica.
However, and this is an example of a study clearly using the word race and it's focused on the definition of what race is and it goes in depth into it. And there are multiple other studies, however. The first definition of race, it being biological, classifies race within a taximonial way of a sub-categorization of species.
This clearly exists and I can look over it but it clearly seemingly exists and is used in studies. So now simultaneously according to multiple studies A race or races for human beings do not exist. A biological race for human beings does not exist and this is backed by multiple independent studies.
So now we can go to the second definition of what race is. The second definition of what race is, is that a race is a human categorization of humans based on shared or social qualities into groups generally viewed as distinct within a given society. This is the definition of race according to the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society written by
Born Shaw John in 2008 It is also the definition according to Roediger is also the definition according to...
It is also the definition according to David Roediger, Historical Foundations of Race in the National Museum of African American History and Culture. And it is also the definition according to multiple scientists and independent studies. For example, study by Massachusetts Medical Society.
The definition according The definition according to the National Academics of Scientists, Engineering and Medicine and a lot of them generally agree that race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate of population genetic differences and has a long history of being incorrectly defined as the major genetic reason for phenotypical differences between groups.
This definition is specifically important because it directly contradicts one of the arguments that it gave me. So I will read it out again. According to and the source specifically is According to the Nassau Academic Press, the name is Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research.
Semi-colon, a new framework for an evolving field written in 2023, and it specifically defines race as being. Something inhumans raises a socially constricted designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypical differences between groups.
This is a well supported definition. So to go over what I said again, point one, race has two definitions. One, a biological definition. Two, a sociological definition. The biological definition is supported by multiple studies as being the definition
of within the taximony of life, austerities can be defined as having a race as a subspecies within that group. Human beings don't have that, according to multiple studies. It has a social definition of being a social construct, how people understand each other, being purely subjective to each society.
So in each society, they can see different races and I was speaking to Americans that they gave the general example of the race being black, white, indigenous, etc. If you go to Myanmar, and they gave me the example of some people of them, some people possibly not considering them a black and I refer to them as
These races that they are claiming exist. Some other groups who point out races within these groups. For example, they claim Asian was a race. However, in Myanmar or in Burma, they might point out races within these groups. So this is an example of race not being objective. So because of these two, because the race is not objective, since it's not biological and because it's subjective based on the group, their contradiction.
of race not applying because the Irish and the British were the same race does not hold water because you can easily argue they're different races if the society deems them the same race. If the British people, or the Irish people, or any viewer, outside viewer to this scenario, sees them as different races, by this definition it is racism.
However, I had another interesting example, another interesting refutation for this statement. They defined racism as needing to be oppression between two distinct racist groups. This definition does not follow Because racism, as defined by a few sources Racism, as defined by
Firstly, I refer to the United Nations definition for racism, because it's very interesting. It's a definition that's accepted that was essentially made by...
They define racism as being...
In the International Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination In the preamble of Convention, Reaffirms Dignity and Equality Before the Law, citing the Charter of United Nations and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, condemns colonization.
declaration of granting independence to colonial countries and peoples, declaration on the elimination of all forms of racism, and also cites a few other things and article 1 or national, or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition or enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.
This is what is defined as racism according to the International Convention of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination according to the United Nations. This is definition 1 on racism. It's a definition of racial discrimination by a class of racists. Another definition would be the definition of racism according to the soul, according to the enclave.
It is the idea that there is a distinct correspondence between the group's values, behaviours and attitudes and its physical features. Racism is also a relatively new idea. Its birth can be traced to European colonisation of much of the world and the rise and development of European capitalism and the development of European and US slave trade.
This is the definition according to Dennis R. M. 2004, The Social Encyclopedia Volume 2. There is also another definition of race. Which is racism, the belief that human beings are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities that can be ranked as superior or inferior.
So, basically according to these, racism is never defined purely by race. Race is not the pure or sole determiner for racism according to Not many sources that I can find and this is according to multiple sociologists, according to the United Nations, according to legal definitions of the word, specifically the UK because the UK is pretty in-depth in its definition of racism.
And according to some dictionaries, so the conclusion is that a racism can happen to black people, what black people can do racism on each other, white people can receive racism. This is because a racism has two definitions. It is biological. However, there's one human race and it's social. It's subjective to each society.
And by both definitions, racism, so therefore race, a race can be based on a struggle, meaning that whatever is defined as a race is still within the people. And this is essentially all of warm argument. If it can be summarized and if it can be said in depth, that would be very nice. Thank you.
https://chatgpt.com/share/687953b6-8df8-8000-a2e6-6b5304192bcc - Explained here with refrence to sources but essentially race, in its social sense, subjective. There's 2 definitions for race ;
———-
https://chatgpt.com/share/687953b6-8df8-8000-a2e6-6b5304192bcc