I get it, and he's angry, incisive, on-point, cutting and poignant in the tradition of the great social comedians. But his is ultimately a harmful and anti-intellectual argument.

Any discrimination based on shading of skin or generalized facial features is racism. That interpretation is necessary for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact racism begets racism. Modern colonialism exacerbated and institutionalized the ills of racism but is not an excuse for continued discrimination in any form.

Bill, I have to disagree. White people have the privilege to back up racism with oppressive actions that actively discriminate against people of color, by denying them jobs, sending them to prison, determining where they can live, etc. When people of color generalize about white people, it comes from a specific historical context - their history is that of being oppressed and discriminated against by white people, actively and passively, even those who say they are "not racist". Does it feel unfair to those of us who are white and consider ourselves nonracist? Yes, but our feelings are not really at issue - we have to understand that this is coming from a long history of being betrayed and mistreated by white people. Making jokes is one of the few actions that people of color can take to assert a small measure of power; it is up to white people to hear what they're saying and take genuine steps to make meaningful change.

Racism, as defined in this context, has nothing to do with the dictionary definition. It is simply:

White people [blank] black people.

You can fill in the blank any way you want. "White people love black people" - oh, they're fetishizing them? "White people like black music" - you mean they're appropriating it? "White people hate black music" - because they look down on anything they didn't create.

This definition means that racism is simply the history of power relations we live in. It's not a idea or a thought or an action, simply the state of being.

Which is a useful frame of thinking for historical analysis, but it's incompatible with the definition of racism the people he's talking to are using, aka the one from webster:

"the belief that some races of people are better than others"

That says nothing about history, or oppression, or anything. It's a guideline for behavior for humanity that works from square one, for people of any race or color. It's a nice way to think about how to live.

So, the answer is - yes it's racist (or "reverse-racist" an unnecessary addition) for him to make jokes about white people. It's just that nobody cares.

Oh, I see, Aamer Rahman. The only real way to find if people are racist is to check and see if they're the same color as other people, who are racists.

That's very funny, but not for the reasons you were hoping for.

In Ancient Greece racism was based not on skin color but on an individual's ability to speak Greek. If you couldn't speak Greek you were obviously a barbarian, i.e., an inferior.

I found it funny personally. However, he's not really helping anyone move forward by holding onto the past so angrily.

Of course, not only is there no such thing as reverse racism - there is no such thing as racism. The human race is not plural. We are all the exact same race. Semantics? Not in scientific terms where exact terminology is important. It's equally important in human terms to stop this needless categorizing of people.

The word is bigotry and that ugliness is used to discriminate against people of all colors. In order to progress as a race we need to let go of the past and it's provincial, often emotional ideas of "separate races" which only serve to highlight cultural differences at the expense of shared human characteristics such as love, compassion and dignity.

In case you don't have time to watch the video, the basic crux of his argument is somewhere between "two wrongs make a right" and "the sins of the father are the sins of the son." Whatever fits the narrative, I guess.

We need a name for this sort of thing, though, don't we? People were killed (starting but not ending with the child):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Heights_riot

What a crock. This redefining of "racism" to suddenly mean power and bigotry when its convenient to pass over the commentary of a non-white in America... when no effort is made to correct the widespread usage of the word in literally every other realm of discussion... is just petty and stupid. Racism and bigotry are exactly the same whether you want to tack on power or ability to act or whatever. The festering boil of hatred is the same regardless of what color you paint it... and its just as bad for a White person to call out a Black person as it is vice versa.

The people who complain about "reverse racism" are usually the same people who proclaim that "cracker" (from slave owners cracking a whip) is equivalent to "n*gger" (a term used to systematically oppress entire races).

Let's recap: a chap speaking a european language that he got from a european-style education, in a european-built country that his parents migrated to (by choice), while wearing european clothes (by choice) says it's OK to abuse people who are identical to him in every way except their race and religion? There's nothing reverse about that kind of racism. It's hate speech, pure and simple, and he should be condemned for it.

Eh, this bugged me, but mostly because it wasn't funny. It was a sociological statement not fit for standup -- not surprising enough, my opinion of course.

Normally, I find jokes picking on white people refreshing. We don't hear enough of them!!

Aamer is not a reverse racist - he's pretty much straight up racist.

Aamer is myopic and racist. He is in need of as much education as an old white guy that thinks black people are biologically inferior.