Are you sure you've read the paper properly? Or understood it? Or remember it, if we are to believe your stated age... Because I would bet that the paper was talking about justified hatred vs unjustified; any group of oppressed people are justified in their hatred of oppressor, therefore their hate may not be seen as an evidence of racism.
Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example.
However, there is a difference between current oppression and the memory of past oppression. Oppression that happened in the past, so that neither oppressor nor oppressed are alive, can't be a justification for current hatred. However, the consequences of past oppression do not die out with oppressor/oppressed, but continue to linger and are necessary to be fixed. Thus the need for some kinds of affirmative actions and so on.
40
@HoosierBob2
Are you sure you've read the paper properly?
Hatred of blacks towards whites in 1950-ies, for example, was completely justified and wasn't evidence of black racism at all. Same with hatred of blacks towards whites in South Africa during apartheid, for example.
However, there is a difference between current oppression and the memory of past oppression. Oppression that happened in the past, so that neither oppressor nor oppressed are alive, can't be a justification for current hatred. However, the consequences of past oppression do not die out with oppressor/oppressed, but continue to linger and are necessary to be fixed. Thus the need for some kinds of affirmative actions and so on.