Would love to see a citation for what you mean by "reactionary racism" - especially from the period in Malcolm's life after he split with the NOI in favor of Sunni Islam.
It is true that there are many reactionary elements of NOI ideology and I'm sure you can find all sorts of snippets of quotes from when Malcolm was with them, but not only did he walk away from them, he ultimately gave his life in part because of his split to the NOI (and the FBI stoking tensions around that split via COINTELPRO)
Generally more troubling here is the trend of white people to think that they are victims more than perpetrators of racism[1]; you're just backporting it to history here. Something is wrong with you if you can think about the 1960s or anyone from that period, and end up blaming Malcolm X for "racism" with no mention of the racist police, Klansmen, etc. that openly proclaimed and demonstrated their racist power in that era.
Klansmen and corrupt police from the 60s were racist.
So was Malcolm X.
"Usually the black racist has been produced by the white racist. In most cases where you see it, it is the reaction to white racism, and if you analyze it closely, it's not really black racism... If we react to white racism with a violent reaction, to me that's not black racism. If you come to put a rope around my neck and I hang you for it, to me that's not racism. Yours is racism, but my reaction has nothing to do with racism..." - Malcolm X
I disagree with him. I believe that hatred towards a race of people is racism, regardless of origins. When one condemns a group for the actions of a few -- i'll never believe that to be correct. You'll notice that he only mentions a reaction to imminent racism; he, however, did not conduct himself in that manner.
He could be called a 'reactionary racist' because his racism was not entirely fueled by sociocultural norms, but rather as a reaction to the hatred that he experienced from living near racism which was fueled socioculturally. While I agree that the motives for that form of hatred are more pure and just, it's still hatred. The repeated perpetration of hatred only leads to more hatred, due to the non-linear growth of vendettas which require 'settling'.
Just because he was the victim of much hatred doesn't make certain things he said 'non-racist', and as a (loud) public figure, atonement for advocacy of violence and racism in the past does not undo the damage that it caused. The 'nation's teachings' were despicable; how many were affected?
I agree that nearly all of the atrocious stuff he said was during his part with the NOI, but there's no time machine. He still did it. He was never an angel, he just improved with age.
The work he did towards uniting blacks as a singular entity to stand towards oppressions was fantastic, however the inches closer towards utopia that got us were lost to incessant preaching of racial weakening (coffee and creamer allegory..) and 'Truly Africans' movement, just further alienating the country as a whole.
There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past.
"When one condemns a group for the actions of a few -- i'll never believe that to be correct."
Racism in America is not an act, it's a caste system. It's not something you do, it's a form of social structuring. Black people are systematically disadvantaged, and white people receive privileges due to their race.
So you're wrong that racism is just "the actions of a few". This implies that you are a neutral white person, and shouldn't be blamed for hate crimes or whatever, which are done by a minority of bad white racists whom you don't even like.
In fact, the caste system of racism is maintained by all of us, in the same way the rest of the status quo is maintained. Mostly just by people being comfortable enough with the status quo that they don't try very hard to change it, and end up reinforcing it without even realizing. The caste system puts in place all the preconditions for the police brutality, the hate crimes, the denial of employment, etc. None of those things could happen without the caste system supporting and incentivizing them.
So we're all responsible for the existence of racism - the whole society. But in particular, consider the group of people who systematically benefits from said caste system, and who despite having drastically more power, are doing pathetically little to eliminate the caste system.
Were I looking at the situation from afar, it would seem completely reasonable to say "hey, fuck those people".
In fact, the caste system of racism is maintained by all
of us, in the same way the rest of the status quo is
maintained. Mostly just by people being comfortable
enough with the status quo that they don't try very hard
to change it
Thank you for posting this. This is so important for people to realize.
This finally "clicked" for me a few years ago when somebody explained it to me like this:
Murder is problem, right? And each of us knows that we have to go beyond simply not murdering people. We instinctively understand that if we witness an attempted murder in progress, we must do something: help, or call for help. We know that we need to punish murderers, maintain a police force to catch murderers, and hopefully defuse situations before they get to the point of people murdering each other.
Problems like racism are similar in one way: it's not enough for each of us to simply "not be racist."
(It's not an exact analogy, I know: racism is institutional whereas murder often isn't. However, it got me to think about racism differently...)
You seem to think it's important to believe there is a caste system, which is moving close to Abrahamic Religion territory - you have to believe because (sometimes irrational) faith becomes the very bedrock of your belief system.
You you don't believe, you are part of the problem, right?
Well if tehblackbloc's wrong then racism in america is the action of quite a lot of people and the inaction of many more.
"fuck those people" still aint exactly unreasonable.
Though I'm not sure where you got the idea that it was "important to believe there is a caste system" from what was pretty much a cut and paste definition of racism as used in large chunks of civil rights activism/academia.
> In fact, the caste system of racism is maintained by all of us, in the same way the rest of the status quo is maintained. Mostly just by people being comfortable enough with the status quo that they don't try very hard to change it, and end up reinforcing it without even realising.
By implication, if you're not against there caste system, you're for it. And if you don't believe in the caste system, how can you be against it?
And I don't think it's a helpful definition. It could confuse a stupid person into thinking a dumb celebrity twitting a racial slur is one of the primary causes of inequality.
The "caste system" is entrenched poverty. Visual markers (skin colour) might make it harder to fight the poverty cycle (as it speeds up white flight, and causes some profiling and other discrimination), but the fundamental problem is no longer about race.
The poverty cycle in the US was caused by racism, and is to some extent worsened by racism. But if you want to stop it, you have to fight poverty. Free community college level education to young mothers (and young fathers), remedial literacy (for the kids who need it) in K-6. A few busses, to prevent the segregation due to white flight. That's just IMO, there's probably some things I'm missing.
Fighting the caste system is more or less orthogonal to fighting racism.
>There are better civil leaders to look up to -- some don't even require you to skim past their evil past.
>He's was never an angel, he just improved with age.
This is actually precisely what I find interesting and relevant about Malcolm X. I read his story not just as a man that people followed, but also as a man continuously undergoing a transformation. By virtue of his intellectual integrity in the face of his life experiences "El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz" manages to appear as a completely different person than "Malcolm Little". I am in agreement with you that the much of the activities of the NOI, and even things that Malcolm X was involved with on behalf of them, are absolutely not things to look up to. But again, that is why I think his story affects me, in that I see a man who has attained a degree of enlightenment by inspection of his own self. I find it easier to follow such a person than a saint.
His transformation is the most powerful part of this story and probably one of the reasons why so many readers of HN, who value continuous learning and self-improvement, can relate to it.
Your concept of hatred here is what I would describe as self defense. I draw a distinction between racial prejudice - that is, prejudging people based on their race - and racism - which I understand as a social-political-economic system of institutionalized racial oppression.
Racial prejudice is an order of magnitude less interesting to me than racial oppression. I am a person of color and I know that people see me and think all sorts of things about me because of things beyond my control; this bothers me, but it doesn't bother me as much as the fact that I've been physically attacked and harassed for walking around my own neighborhood, and it doesn't bother me as much as the fact that I know that I and many of my loved ones will, even holding all else equal, have worse outcomes with job interviews, police, and law enforcement because of our race. To me that's real racism, and it's not something that white people can experience in our society.
Stamping out racial prejudice is a worthwhile goal, but in my opinion it's an order of magnitude less important than ending racist systems. The focus on racial prejudice is likely to create lots of bad analysis (e.g. people who aspire to make the world "colorblind") from otherwise well-intentioned people, so I don't think it's tactically sound to focus on prejudice. I also do not believe there is any moral standing to criticize survivors of racism for having prejudicial feelings towards white people. It is a response. People build these walls because they're tired of getting hurt.
I have tactical objections and moral concerns with many things concerning the NOI but I do not judge people for their involvement or promotion of it, for as long as it's motivated by a desire for self-liberation. I'm not sure what the "atrocious stuff" you're worried about from his past is, but nothing I know from his past I consider as "evil" that I have to "ignore." The coffee and creamer allegory, etc. simply don't bother me, because I understand them in historical context.
White people can and do experience this. I have experienced harassment by blacks because I am white. Never a physical attack, but certainly verbal slurs and taunting. Am I therefore morally justified to have a predjudicial opinion of blacks, because a few anonymous ones have harassed me?
There isn't any institionalized discrimination in the USA any longer. There's a perception of it, but that's largely self reinforced. It's easier on my ego to tell myself I didn't get a job because of my race, rather than because another applicant was more qualified. Yes, there are individual prejudiced/racist people of all races and there always will be. But the institutionalized discrimination is gone.
You say that "people see me and think all sorts of things about me because of things beyond my control." This is just reality. People judge others based on looks, whether they are obese, skinny, muscular, how they dress, whether they have facial hair or wear glasses, whether they are naturally or deliberately bald, how they carry themselves, how they execute a handshake, and any number of other things.
Do you really give an automatic free pass to people who are involved with or support any idiology as long as it's in the cause of self-liberation? One of the other flaws of humans is that they are easily swayed by charasmatic leaders promising freedom from oppression. This often ends up badly for the supporters themselves when their leader turns out to be a tyrant, or for the people the leader set up to be the scapegoats.
White people can and do experience racial prejudice in America, but we do not experience institutional racism, which is the working definition of "racism" for the author of the comment you replied to.
> There isn't any institionalized discrimination in the USA any longer. There's a perception of it, but that's largely self reinforced.
Institutional racism is alive and well here; I'm surprised to be the first one to respond to your remarks stating otherwise. There are many, many studies that show a marked disparity between arrest rates, conviction rates, and incarceration rates for whites and blacks in America. This disparity exists virtually across the board and for crimes which we know are committed in equal amounts by both groups of people such as marijuana use (in fact, whites smoke more weed but are still arrested less frequently for it). Regarding employment, there are also plenty of studies which show that job applications with "black-sounding" names get far fewer callbacks than those with "white-sounding" names, regardless of what else is written on the application.
The difference between people judging someone based on race versus all of those other things that you mention is that in the other cases, society has not been shaped so that "haters of feature set X" are pretty exclusively the people in power, so e.g. bald people are not consistently discriminated against at every turn. This is at least in part what is meant by institutional racism: the random person on the street has little effect on anybody[1], but when people with the same attitude have the power to arrest you, to deny you a loan, to make your life difficult in any number of ways, the result is a hostile environment that is supported and maintained by the institutions that house such people and support their discriminatory behavior by tolerating its emergence in their official capacities.
Institutional racism can be difficult for members of the dominant group to acknowledge or even see. I have only started to become attuned to it myself over the past few years, and I still don't have a very sharp or complete picture of it. It is usually far more subtle than calling someone a name or making a disparaging remark: you will be treated with a veneer of politeness as your concerns are summarily dismissed. It's easy for someone from the dominant group to come up with excuses as to why a particular act is not an example of institutional racism instead of giving credence to the collected experiences of those who are on the receiving end[2]. If you are genuinely interested in investigating and understanding the phenomenon, I'd recommend looking at the statistics before talking to people about it for precisely this reason: what seems innocuous in isolation looks more sinister when you begin to understand the scale at which it is happening.
This comment is not going to change anybody's mind, and that's okay. I just didn't want to let that statement stand uncontested any longer than it already has.
[1] Though, really, when the random person on the street becomes many or most random people on the street, the effect can be pretty devastating as well.
[2] Some are of the opinion that this tendency is itself an expression of racism, effectively assuming that the victims are mistaken or lying while the perpetrators are assumed to be innocent. I am not sure if it is a subtle racism or if it is simply hard to put faith in such a vastly different outcome that developed from a familiar situation. Having exhibited this behavior myself on more than one occasion, I'm sort of invested in believing that it is the latter.
We are fairly quick to erase, forget or forgive the racism of white leaders, but seem to have a harder time doing so for those who oppose the majority's cultural status quo. I fear this has been used historically as a way to marginalize certain voices.
Certainly X is a complicated, difficult and contradictory figure, but also one who, through the autobiography, is able to capture a particular time and experience amazingly well.
I haven't read the book since high school, but the segment on conking stays vividly in my mind. It is a great example of one of those seemingly small details that X manages to use as mule to talk about larger issues of identity and assimilation.
Another way to put it: Malcolm X was authentic in everything he did, and that was something this country needed.
He was able to articulate more clearly than anyone else the implications of being black in America: that the only way to succeed in any way was by trying to act white.
Thanks in large part to his activism, that is far less true today.
We are fairly quick to erase, forget or forgive the racism of white leaders, but seem to have a harder time doing so for those who oppose the majority's cultural status quo. I fear this has been used historically as a way to marginalize certain voices.
It's possible you under-appreciate the amount of nuance in the underlying theory on fascism which the author is extending. Even though the author avoids mentioning who he's extending, anyone familiar with the literature on fascism knows immediately.
That theory can be dense, and this is by far the best description I've seen which is simultaneously accessible to someone unfamiliar with the literature, and also doesn't compromise on correctness.
It comes down to whether you consider not compromising on correctness important. Unfortunately, the norm in journalism is to tell the most neutered version of the story possible, correctness be damned. You can see this in most science journalism. So when someone puts the effort into a piece like this -- which explains ideas in lay terms but does not throw out correctness to the point of rendering the description of the work meaningless -- it mostly passes unnoticed as "a bit too dense" or "not TEDy enough".
>We are fairly quick to erase, forget or forgive the racism of white leaders
You are in no position to assume what oldmanjay has forgotten and forgiven. You are basically implying that all white people think and act the same. Either that or you are simply saying that oldmanjay is personally responsible for what other people think.
Personally, I despise racism no matter who the perpetrator may be. However, even racist people are capable of having a significant and positive impact on the world. Malcolm X was a racist at one point in time. I have no idea if he actually changed his mind or if he simply chose to keep his views to himself. What I do know is that through his efforts America became a better place.
You are using your intellect to convince the world that white men are oppressed. That's a waste.
Malcolm X was addressing decades of white-on-black domestic terrorism across the country. Black people were being regularly lynched, firebombed, raped and imprisoned for little more than being black and asserting basic human rights.
Segregationists controlled Congress when Malcolm was at his most influential - there was vanishingly little support from the federal government in stopping these attacks, and the state and local authorities were often complicit.
Even in the face of this, Malcolm X never advocated violence except in self-defense, which is REASONABLE under the circumstances. His threat of returned violence lended credence to the more tolerant views of MLK, and even Malcolm preached universal love in the years before he was murdered.
His father was murdered by members of the Ku Klux Klan. I would say he had justification in reacting.
His intellect allowed him to get his message out to millions of people around the world from the streets of Harlem to the lecture halls at Oxford University.
Hardly wasted. Hardly shameful. The real shame is referenced in the original article.
It did not work this time? Ever heard of the civil rights act of 1964? Think it was a coincidence that it happened at around the same time his intellect was being wasted to use your own words?
The waste was the generations of people lost to a racist society. His work to directly address it was an attempt to cure a tragedy that had been unfolding uninterrupted for hundreds of years.
Rationalizing to the end of a problem does not make the conclusion feel true. The work of making something not only logical but believable is his contribution to American history. The argument that all persons are valuable is a simple one, and he allowed more people to see someone who felt it. His evolution from brutalized child, to street criminal, to inmate, to adherent, to individual enlightenment is something we would all be lucky to experience.
What is telling was how his experiences actually led him to reconsider his racism. After he returned from the Hajj he changed his viewpoints, and that change ultimately got him killed.
That ability to question your own assumptions is a powerful tool.
You're comparing 1960s America to colonial (and later) America. It's certainly possible that the damage done later on was greater, as there was a greater disbursement of knowledge, media, and information during a time in which the country was known as the land of opportunity, the melting pot.
A speech calling for violence in the time of newspapers and television is surely more damaging than that same speech given in an auditorium in the early 1800s to a select group..
I am not attempting to put a 'value' on the whole of slave trade, that's impossible. I'd merely like to point out the 'apples vs. oranges' nature of your comparison.
People give such speeches today in mainstream right-wing rallies and are not criticized for it at all, let alone as harshly as Malcolm X is criticized. That's apples to apples since it's still the time of newspapers and television.
In the context of the previous two comments, it was stated that present-day mainstream right-wing speeches call for violence. If so, I must have missed it. I did not intend for my statement to reflect on the actions of Malcolm X.
It worked for King, it worked for Ghandi. Do you really think there could have been something like the civil rights laws -- born primarily of white people -- if the primary black person had been X and not King?
It is patently absurd to give MLK's non-violent movement 100% of the credit for civil rights reform. The political situation during that time was unbelievably complex, and the changing attitudes of a turbulent nation cannot be so simply explained.
Yet it was Ghandi himself who, when asked if his peaceful tactics would have worked against Hitler, said, "probably not."
I'm not suggesting that white people are literally Hitler, but simply that there's a time and place for everything, including peace and violence. And I say that as someone who has never called for violence on anything ever.
Black people can't be racist in any way that really counts. Racism only matters if the attitude had some sort of negative effect on the group you're racist towards. Since blacks have no real power as a whole, they can't be racist. If blacks were in the majority in terms of power, then and only then could they be racist. The ideas of Malcolm and the NOI, the panthers, etc were a perfectly sensible response to the racism of the white power structure.
Ah, the standard bullshit apologetics of "the bad things they do don't count because they are an oppressed minority". Why do you think they can't be held up to the same ethical standards as the majority? Are you implying they are to incompetent to think?
Lol I certainly don't think I or the majority of other black people are too incompetent to think. What I am saying is that if a white person has stupid racist views, I don't care. Unless that racist person is in power, what difference does it make that they are an idiot? Of course black people can hold racist views, just as whites can but blacks aren't the majority in power, and so those stupid views have no real effect on society. Since whites have been the power holders in society, their racism is the only racism that actually matters.
A lot of this hinges on whether you believe you should be exempt from your own moral standard.
The idea of "racism" as requiring a position of power comes most directly as a reaction to the "reverse racism" bullshit from racist apologists who want to roll back affirmative action and various other programs. The reaction comes from sympathetic academics and writers who would rather focus on words and philosophy, and are better at that, than practical issues "on the ground" so to speak. And yet, AA is an example of something which is known to be imperfect, but is needed in some practical sense -- much like the tracking of race or gender ratios in various careers. I think it's a huge mistake to attempt to redefine words in terms of power, because it plays into the corrupting idea of power as the ultimate goal of human endeavor.
The reverse racism shit is really dumb, but the proper response is that there is no such thing as reverse racism, just racism, and that racism is borne from improper over-generalization and a unwillingness to examine ones own prejudices about the world. It is not borne from attempting to correct for those things in other people (e.g. AA, etc.).
Racist views may be understandable as a reaction to oppression by the oppressed, and you make allowances for human frailty -- it is still not generally acceptable. Redefining the word "racist", or any negative epithet, such that it can never be used against your particular group, whoever they are, is just an invitation to corruption.
I am not saying that racist views are acceptable. I am saying that racist views only matter if the racist is in power. You can't be racist in any meaningful way, such that your racism affects large parts of society, unless you are in power. That's all. Who cares about a powerless person's racist views? They are of no consequence. There is no redefinition of the term 'racism' involved. What does matter is if the congress, the police, the judges, etc are all white and consistently act on racist views.
Novacole is not saying violence and hatred toward white people is okay. The poster is distinguishing between prejudice and the term racism. Racism has a power component. Powerless people cannot make another race face racism as a group because they do not have the societal power to effect laws, police, institutional behavior.
>The poster is distinguishing between discrimination and the term racism.
You and the poster seem to misunderstand what racism is. Racism is a type of discrimination. The term discrimination covers a wide range of things, it doesn't only deal with race. You are free to disagree with the actual definition of racism, but you don't get to reinvent the english language. Whether or not something is racist has absolutely nothing to do with power.
Its as if you and the other poster read the definition of racism and decided that the words used to describe it weren't horrifying enough, and so you made up a definition that better represents how you feel about it.
Here is text from Wikipedia:
"One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon."
So I'm not making things up. To address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging the relevance of power to the perpetuation of racism being institutionally enforced.
Apparently its a popular idea, but both of the papers Wikipedia cited as references for the existence of that idea found that racism does not require power. Furthermore, they both found that the idea is often used as an excuse for racist behavior by those who don't hold power.
To address things scientifically you need to talk about groups not individuals in isolation. Ghettos, police profiling, stop and frisk, exonerated death sentences based on DNA testing, dog-whistle politics, voter ID laws, and U.S. media can statistically be argued to show that the U.S. is racist against racial minorities. To speak scientifically you need to address group behavior and what perpetuates that group behavior. If you want to address Black or Latino racism then show the group power which is oppressing whites.
>If you want to address Black or Latino racism then show the group power which is oppressing whites.
This doesn't really address what I was talking about. I'm not saying that whites didn't oppress blacks(because they did) or that white people are now being oppressed by minorities(because they aren't). I was simply explaining that racism is not a synonym for racial oppression. Racism is a specific word with a specific meaning. There are racist members of every ethnicity because being racist has absolutely nothing to do with a person's or a group's ability to oppress a group of people.
Focus solely on individual behavior when addressing racism will only cause institutional racism to be hidden in society. Statistics will show what institutional bias exist and then legal interventions done where required. Maybe the U.S. is not capable of fixing its racist problem. But history has shown that state force has been required in schools, the military, and the private sector to reduce racism.
>Focus solely on individual behavior when addressing racism will only cause institutional racism to be hidden in society.
I'm not focusing on individual behavior. As a matter of fact, I wasn't talking about behavior at all. I was just talking about the meaning of the word racism.
As I posted elsewhere.
Racism Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission
How is a white person subordinated and controlled in the U.S. based on race to where that white person does not have recourse to the the law, the courts, the police, them finding another job, or just avoiding the offending person? If you have a problem with a person you avoid them or address the law. Racially oppressed people don't escape the situation so easily hence why racism is debilitating.
If you are white in the U.S. you are not going to get racially subordinated. Stop worrying, you are just going to make yourself sick.
The dictionary definition of the term "racist" refers to a systemic discrimination based on race. The problem is that the colloquial use of the term simply means that one is prejudiced against races that aren't their own. To clarify the issue one is trying to discuss, it's better to use the term "institutional racism" in order to clarify the point you're trying to make.
There are many useful things to be talked about. Individual prejudices, individual behaviors, and self-reinforcing societal power systems all get called "racism". Quibbling over which arbitrary word is bound to which concept looks like an avoidance of actually grappling with the issues.
The issue at hand is that claiming that only white people can be racist is itself a racist statement according to the traditional definition of racism. Even with moo's definition of racism, the statement cannot be true in states where non-whites are the majority and hold power.
Again, I am not claiming that whites face racial oppression across the US. That's silly. This is whole thread only exists because of people twisting the definition of words to suit a purpose.
The same behavior is recorded in the political histories of Ancient Greece. It's nothing new. I'm just calling it out as the political trick that it is.
As I posted above quoting from Wikipedia:
"One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." To scientifically address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging the relevance of power to the perpetuation of racism being institutionally enforced. To deny the power component of racism is to make racism an argument about individual behavior which will never progress beyond "he said she said" which is not how science is done. Science is not done at the individual level but at the group level.
If you call a person a racist, you're saying 1) that he has certain views about race, and you may also be saying 2) that he takes certain actions in line with those views. Saying someone can't be racist without power is saying "if criteria for definition 2 aren't met, then criteria for definition 1 are not met," which is silly.
Racism Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission
How does your point 1 above satisfy the "subordinates an individual" criteria for the definition of racism by the US Civil Rights Commission? It doesn't! For your point 2, to subordinate someone you need power or institutional power backing you up. If you don't have institutional power then the person you're bothering ignores you, tells others and gives you a bad reputation with people, takes you to civil court, calls the police and you are then in jail. The repercussions commensurate with your actions. I argue that your point 2 does not subordinate a white person beyond that of being attacked by an individual or small group of people because you do have recourse by law to defend yourself or have them arrested. The same with any physical assault. The significance of racism is when the person may not have recourse to defend themselves or protection by the law because of racial bias then they are put in a position of subordination and controlled.
Then you think racism can be fixed by just condemning publicly open displays of racial prejudice. So if a Michael Richards torpedoes his career by doing a public racist rant, I guess you would argue that is proof our society is not racist instead of saying that only public displays of racism is unseemly. Racism is institutionally perpetuated, that is where you fix things. Otherwise you limit condemnation of racism to public displays instead of finding the source of group behavior.
The references for that Wikipedia statement are both from the last five years. One reference is an article titled "Only white people can be racist." That's hardly an unbiased definition of a much older term.
Since 1933, the definition of racism according to Merriam-Webster has been "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Why the more recent trend of redefining a clear term to include results of racism when institutionalized by those in power? That seems disingenuous and counterproductive.
I wouldn't look to 1933 white people to define racism. Yes, the Merriam-Webster definition stinks. Go with the US Civil Rights Commission's definition. They are more researched and sensitive to the issue.
Here is the Civil Rights Commission's definition again:
"Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally."
In case you think I'm making a non sequitur again, the power component comes from the word "subordinates."
Racism
Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission
How is a white person subordinated and controlled in the U.S. based on race to where that white person does not have recourse to the the law, the courts, the police, them finding another job, or just avoiding the offending person? If you have a problem with a person you avoid them or address the law. Racially oppressed people don't escape the situation so easily hence why racism is debilitating.
Nobody said that white people are oppressed. There is some kind of communication breakdown going on because you keep accusing myself and other individuals of claiming that we as white men are afraid of being oppressed. No one under my comment you responded to said that, so please stop acting like we did.
Why are you not seeing the word "subordinates" in the US Civil Rights Commission definition of racism. People are subordinated when the law fails to protect them. The law can fail to protect you due to corruption, bad management, or institutional racism. If you are white and the law fails you I'm saying it is not institutional racism.
The difference here is one of degree, not kind, as institutional racism is built out of a whole lot of individual racism.
Anyone who mistreats someone because of the color of their skin or defends the practice is doing wrong and I see no value in defending that. Standing against individual racism is a necessary part of standing against institutional racism and I don't think a reasonable person can condemn one but not the other.
A difference of kind is evident when people say racism is the same whether referring to racial prejudice by a Black US person or White US person. People are using a 100 year old dictionary definition to say racism is just racial prejudice. Wikipedia's first sentence says it is racial prejudice AND discrimination. While the US Civil Rights Commission is stronger in saying you have to also subordinate someone based on race. You want to say racism is derived from everyone's individual racial prejudice but you miss the economic exploitative motives from 200 years of slavery and group behavior. So let us be clear it is not just personal racial prejudice behind racism. To subordinate someone you really are talking about racial prejudice and discrimination with power backing it based on institutional racism, hence power. Otherwise you are talking about racially based prejudice that is based on the individual and not the group or its historical circumstances. People here want to address racism by lifestyle choices and racism is not fixed by lifestyle but by law, institutional changes, and starting with the recognition of what racism actually is.
The newspapers are not going to report on a street riot if I go out by myself on the street and break windows and set fires. To report me as a street rioter there should be a street riot which makes me part of a group dynamic. Racism is a group dynamic effort to oppress another racial group. If someone is not a street rioter without a group dynamic of street rioting how can someone be racist without a group dynamic of racism to oppress another racial group. To have a group dynamic of racism to oppress another racial group you need power.
You may not intend this, but you have been implying that racial prejudice is somehow tolerable.
Your down votes are proof that it is not and that we must judge people not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, as a wiser man than me once said.
Oppress is a synonym for subordinate as used by the US Civil Rights Commission. So why don't you people calling me a troll use the word oppress for your white condition instead of pulling out magical meanings for racism.
I'm sorry, to those accusing me of non sequitur because I'm making too large of jumps in logical reasoning. I'll try to remember, "baby steps, baby steps."
I think you make a good point. Racism is prejudice and power. Power to institutionally marginalize a racial group. It is meaningless to call racist an oppressed racial group that is institutionally powerless. Some reactionary people like to confuse the issue with calls of reverse racism by oppressed nation people.
