Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

For example, a person fights (or claims to fight) against racism in the manner of believing a group/ethnicity/etc. (in a culture where this group is often disliked) to be morally superior, and if a member of this group commits something bad, this person refuses to believe it, and calls everyone a racist who dare to say anything but praise about people from that group. Or, this person being an advocate against prejudice, and fighting for "equality", but in fact vilifying and being prejudicial against everyone who does not share his/her exact political beliefs.

Is there an English word or short phrase, to express the above attitude in a much shorter way than that whole paragraph?

I thing demagogue is not the word, because it means that a person claims to have other beliefs as he/she really has, for gaining some advantage.

The main point is not on holding some race to be superior instead of inferior, but to claim to fight against prejudice but at the same time being prejudicial (for example, by calling everyone a bigot who do not agree 100% with them).

share
    
Related: english.stackexchange.com/questions/1974/… –  user19148 Nov 17 '12 at 14:59
    
@Carlo_R. : that was about an "irrational fear from ones own countrymen". I don't think it's the same. –  vsz Nov 17 '12 at 15:03
3  
It sounds like what you're describing is hypocrisy, which is not an antonym of racism. –  Robusto Nov 17 '12 at 15:05
2  
In general, it's called "playing the race card" –  FumbleFingers Nov 17 '12 at 15:06
1  
Heterochromophilia is abnormally intense sexual attraction towards people of different skin color. –  SF. Nov 17 '12 at 20:36

6 Answers 6

Those who are overly sanctimonious or self-righteous in their war against the wrong right-wing beliefs are commonly said to be (too) politically correct, or PC. Normally, this has a negative connotation, because it usually implies intolerance and superficiality.

share
2  
You could also call it "extreme reverse discrimination" –  FumbleFingers Nov 17 '12 at 15:12
1  
You should remove the “right” part of right-wing, because it happens no matter what color of political rainbow one’s flags are flying. Every political extreme, perhaps even every party and person, naturally chooses words that make their side look good and their opponent bad. Just look at the terms thrown against progressives by ultra-conservatives, and you will see that it is not merely the left that does these things. –  tchrist Nov 18 '12 at 2:30
    
@tchrist: I don't consider PC to be something that applies to right-wingers. It strongly associate it with the left. –  Cerberus Nov 18 '12 at 8:35
    
Originally, the phrase "Politically Correct" was a charming bit of self-mockery from people who realized that they themselves might be going a little overboard in their efforts to be "nonjudgmental" and "bias-free". Sadly, it was seized upon by humorless partisans of both sides and now it is just another piece of invective. –  Malvolio yesterday

You are describing supremacism, the view that a particular group is and ought to be treated as superior. Its proponents often describe it as anti-racism, but it is actually a form of racism which often arises in the context of racial conflict.

For example, in the United States (with which I am familiar) and in other locales, racism targeting the African-American minority sometimes expresses itself as “White Supremacism” movements which claim whites are superior. These movements are countered by “Black Supremacism” movements which claim that the targeted black minority is actually superior.

share
    
The main point is not on the "supremacism" part, but on the inconsistency of how someone claims to fight for equality and fight against prejudice, but is actually extremely prejudicial against everyone who does not share his/her exact ideology. –  vsz Aug 3 '13 at 16:29
    
@vsz Please edit the question and add that clarification there. –  MετάEd Aug 3 '13 at 16:38

What you are talking about still sounds racist, not its antonym. The opposite of someone who is racist is someone who is not a racist, so someone who is unracist in the extreme can be said to be racially color-blind, or race-blind.

However, critics of this sort of color/race-blindness have claimed that is still a form of racism. See the referenced Wikipedia article for a discussion of this.

share

As the other people who replied, I am a bit confused by the question's description, because actually it doesn't ask about the opposite of racism, but about something quite similar to it.

An ideology opposed to racism can be called "anti-nationalism" or "anationalism", or simply "anti-racism". A particular brand of this worldview to which some people in the Esperanto community adhere is called "Sennaciismo", but this word would be too peculiar in most contexts.

share
2  
I would go so far as to say that what the asker describes is in fact not only similar to racism — it is racism, simply a different form from the one most commonly seen and associated with the word. –  Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 3 '13 at 16:55

On a philosophical level, you could call this a "moral absolutist" mentality.

If a person takes a hardline stance on Racial Issue because he/she believes it to be morally right, and in the meantime disregards the disadvantages incurred by the stance, that person could argue that the disadvantages are justifiable if Racial Issue is upheld. This person would be a moral absolutist.

The larger ethical paradigm is deontology, or ethics based on rules (deons). Deontologists sometimes bite the critique that the disadvantages and prejudices inherent in their rules outweigh the ethical benefits of following them. In this sense, a person taking a hardline stance would be operating out of a set of rigid black or white rules, and I think the faults to thinking this way are quite obvious with or without an example.

share
1  
Uhh that is the exact opposite of Kant's moral position. He argued that actions should be judged on principle, not on the possible outcome. See his categorical imperative. –  Cerberus Nov 17 '12 at 18:35
    
Thanks for that. –  tylerharms Nov 17 '12 at 20:12

This is still racism, whether you are racist in a popular direction or not makes no difference, as long as you believe one race to be superior to another, you are displaying racism.

If the race you consider superior tends to be considered inferior by the mainstream racists around you, that does not make you any less racist. See the definition below (from dictionary.reference.com, emphasis mine):

rac·ism, noun

  1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
  2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

  3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

There is nothing directional about racism, you can be racist with respect to any race.

share

This site is currently not accepting new answers.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .