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."
