Chris Rock has been brilliant on race issues lately — he’s been saying some of the smartest stuff on Ferguson, cops strangling black people, and all the other injustices that plague this country. So what’s a no-name white conservative comedian (those two words do not go together) like Stephen Crowder to do? Accuse Chris Rock of being the real racist.
Aamer Rahman has a few things to say to Stephen Crowder.
Ah, reverse racism. As far as I can tell this is when White People are treated as everybody else. There is nobody more sensitive to abuse than a middle-aged white man, they will not tolerate anything. Except when it happens to somebody else that is…
“Reverse Racism” is a funny term, because it’s somehow managed to define racism in two separate ways at once and it’s cool with that.
Like much good comedy, this is ultimately a semantic argument. Jokes about “white people” can be rude, offensive, and simply wrong without being racist or especially “reverse racist,” whatever that means (based on usage, I suspect it actually means “uppity,” which isn’t nearly as fun.) And that does pretty much mean I won’t enjoy them.
As an aside, I’ve read a few alternate history novels where Europe didn’t come out on top in the colonial era. I think it’s a fascinating scenario.
There is no “reverse racism”. There is only “racism”. But of course it can go both ways! It was racism when the Nation of Islam movement once believed that white people were blue-eyed devils bred in a laboratory bent on ruining the world. The point is that that can be brushed off by those in privileged positions. It doesn’t really affect them.
However, it is also racism when Robert Mugabe, apparently entirely oblivious of the irony, brands white people as the most racist people of all. And when he then implements policies of retaking their farm lands from them with the threat or application of violence, that does hurt those people, who happened to be white.
Or when Black South Africans tell white Afrikaners to “go back to Holland”, it may not be as hurtful as the reverse “Go back to Africa” to an African-American, but I still think it would be racist.
Use of the phrase “reverse racism” implies that the user believes that there’s a direction that racism ought to go.
@ #4
no mark it is from a stupid belief that the term racism was white people being bigoted against black people for their ethnicity. So when blacks do it against white they thought that “reversed” it (which is bullshit). It is really any race being bigoted against any race for their ethnicity, white against chinese, black against white, white against hispanic, black against hispanic, hispanic against chinese, etc.
.
I get it that words have meaning by consensus (Matt Dillahunty mentions this often but I had heard that long before I began watching TAE), but people really need to look up what the general consensus is rather than applying their own experience first.
That was brilliant. Arguing with comedians is always bad strategy to begin with. They are professionals at making fun of things – and it could be you.
I see racist black people all the time. Charles Barkley is the first name that comes to mind, but pretty much anybody who’s brought on as a friendly guest on Fox News.
Oh, you mean racist against white people? I totally agree when it comes to comedians making jokes about white people. Basically, not racist. But in Cincinnati during the riots over the killing of a young black man there was a moment when an albino black woman driving through a predominately black neighborhood was pelted with stones by a crowd after someone yelled “There’s a white girl!” Yeah, that’s racism, too. But it’s pretty damned rare. It’s not like the daily, persistent conscious and unconscious racism that non-white people in this country face. Is one worse? Hell if I know. But one’s protected by the system and the other’s prosecuted by the system.
Middle-aged white male cops are more sensitive.
Yep, minorities can be ***ist, but not in the direction people who cry “reverse racism” think it goes.
They can believe in the system of white male het cis superiority, they can buy into the beliefs about other minorities (for example, I’ve been reading a lot on Twitter about how people with a mixed white-native heritage are often accepted as Native Americans while people with a mixed black-native heritage are denied their ancestory because “they’re black”)
Women can be misogynist and play the system in their favour (CHS anybody?)
Petrander
After how many centuries does theft become rightful property and how are you going to address the social inequalities that are the result of centuries of theft and exploitation? You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Well, yes and no. There’s something to be said for the fact that every bit of land and wealth that white people have in Southern Africa was taken forcibly from Africans who were literally enslaved or at the least forced to work for whites for exceedingly low pay under harsh conditions to keep from starving. It’s not entirely unreasonable to say you want the land back and the people who’ve reaped the benefits of the destruction of your people out.
That said, Robert Mugabe is probably racist, and that approach is probably not the best path forward for African nations. It’s not the way to peace.
#3 petrander
If you define racism as an actual system of oppression rather than individual prejudice, then, no, it wasn’t racism, as per your second statement. I think that is what Rahman was going for in his speech.
pertander @ 3
And how much of a negative affect has the extremely tiny sliver of Nation of Islam members have had Whites in general, as opposed to the much larger systemically racist white societies have had on black societies? I’ll give you a hint: fucking NONE!
Again, no comparison. Mugabe might be a tinpot dictator who uses resentment of past white colonialism (Gee, I wonder why anyone would resent decades of foreign exploitation?) to further his own ends, but his actions have little if any negative impact on Caucasians in general. Ditto black South African anger toward Afrikaners. An understandably resentful African telling some Boer that they ought to “go back to Holland” is no deleterious on my life than a Sioux telling me to “go back to Germany.”
It might be hatred–given the historical and present circumstances, I dare say it’s justified hatred–but without the power to back it up, it’s not “racism.”
Racism is a complex phenomenon of human social interaction. The people who study complex phenomena of human social interactions are called sociologists or social scientists. According to them,
Racism = prejudice + power
If you’re talking about a situation where a person is prejudiced against the group that holds all the power (i.e. white people) then just say “prejudiced.” The people throwing stones at an albino black woman because they thought she was white were prejudiced against white people. They were not racist.
It’s not hard. And if you adopt this terminology you’re helping to fight racism and inequality.
@ Lynna #8: Dang, you’re right. They don’t seem to tolerate other people having rights or even breathe.
He is, without a doubt, prejudiced against white people.
Is he racist against them? Well, how much of a wage and hiring gap is there between black and white people in Zimbabwe? Can whites expect better or worse treatment from the police and court system than blacks? Is there a long and lingering history of the extralegal execution and torture of white people at the hands of the authorities in Zimbabwe? Are there prevalent negative stereotypes of white people that are incessantly repeated in Zimbabwean media? Do whites have a harder time accessing health care than black people do in Zimbabwe? Is the maternal and infant mortality rate higher for white mothers than it is for black mothers?
#11 Doki
That’s the way I took it as well.
Sociologists tend to define “racism” as being a structural, systemic form of oppression. Under such a definition, it is impossible for a person of a disempowered class to be “racist”. They can certainly be bigoted–and the Nation of Islam certainly fits the bill–but racial bigotry and racism are two completely different beasts.
Slight correction: it’s not the source of the bigotry that defines whether it’s racist or not, it’s the target. People of color can be and frequently are racist. As in, they perpetuate negative stereotypes and discrimination against other people of color. See also: Don Lemon, Charles Barkley, Bill Cosby.
Nobody can be racist against white people. People can be prejudiced against white people, with good reason sometimes, but since it’s white people holding the levers of power in a system that’s rigged against non-whites, “racism” is a term that simply doesn’t apply to prejudice against white people.
Chas drops in to announce how he disapproves of ALL types of prejudice in 3… 2…
As often defined in academia, racism is a system disadvantaging certain ethnic groups. In this sense, black people can be bigoted against whites, but “racism against whites” is nonsense. It’s like elephant-hunting perpetrated by mice.
Well, I guess I’m going to have to review my working definition of racism. I expect I’m going to have a hard time convincing people I interact with of this sociological definition, but thinking about it, it makes sense.
As for Mugabe, he is pretty much a dictator. I expect, though I’m not sure, that under his government whites can expect worse treatment from the courts and police, and probably even negative stereotypes in the media. But no, it’s not long and lingering because he hasn’t been in power that long. And certainly, I expect the health disparities in Zimbabwe still go the other way. But how long does he have to hold power and use it to practice prejudice before it qualifies as racism?
So how is “power” being defined? During the Rodney King riots, Asian owned businesses were targeted for attacks. The rioters had power and they were prejudiced so that means they were being racist, correct? The same would be true of one person gunning down people because of their race because the gun gave them power.
A minor comment: Not every language is like English. As far as I know, all well used languages have the word “racism” or its equivalent, but not words like “bigotry” or “prejudice”. This means that people who aren’t native English speakers will use “racism”, “bigotry” and “prejudice” as synonyms.
Let me also note that the whole Mugabe thing, though I’ve been generous to it, is a bit of derail. The real question isn’t whether it’s possible for black people to be racist when they are in power, the question is isn’t really possible for them to be racist against the dominant social group in the United States when they are quite obviously not in power. And I’ll accept the definition of racism I’ve just been taught and agree that no, they really can’t.
Gussnarp
That’s a question I would find interesting were it coming from a discussion amongst sociologists and other people who study systems of power and prejudice. Outside that context, I’m not really interested in pursuing it because it seems like grasping at straws for an opportunity to apply the label “racist” to a black person because he’s mistreating white people.
Alverant
Seriously? No, that’s not the kind of power we’re talking about here. I’m fairly confident you can brain better than this. Try again, this time without JAQing off.
@Alverant (#21): From what I’ve been reading here, I think the issue is that the power has to be more structural and long term than that to qualify as racism. I almost made a similar point, but no, I don’t think that kind of temporary, situational power counts as racism. But I think a lot of us don’t have that definition of what racism is in our heads when we use the word, so it’s jarring to say that those situations aren’t racism. However, that definition of racism, dealing with long term structural power and enforcement, is actually a very useful one, compared to the naive definition I’d been working with up until now.
@SallyStrange (#24) : I agree. I find the question interesting, but I’m dropping it as derailing in this context.
Alverant: Pretty sure that power in that context is a synonym for privilege and is based on power differences between groups, not individuals per se. It is in nature social, cultural, structural, systemic, class-based, etc.
AlexanderZ
As with the distinction between the lay definition of “theory” and the scientific definition of “theory,” this is a correction that those who are in the know are accustomed to making, whether it’s with native English speakers or ESL speakers. In fact I’d expect foreign speakers to be more amenable to the correction since they don’t have it in their mind that their definition is the RIGHT definition dadgummit, and ain’t no fancy-pants ivory tower perfesser gonna tell them otherwise.
Gussnarp
Agreed, and thank you for noting that.
Alverant @ 21
We’re not talking about interpersonal interactions. We’re talking about systems.
#22 AlexanderZ
Oh, well, my English is shit, but even I knew the difference! I also make a distinction between race and ethnicity, even though Google insists on telling me they’re synonyms. (*grunt*)
Prejudice is Latinate noun, anyway, so I’d expect at least Romance languages to have equivalents.
Alverant: It’s systemic power–sustained, over a period of time, used to maintain privilege of the dominant group.
So no, neither of your bullshit examples applies. Oh, and speaking of those examples–from the Source of All Knowledge…
The racism there is against the black community; the decision to target the businesses that had been profiting off of the community without contributing to it was a reaction to an existing systemic racism that, once again, deemed black lives to be of no value.
@#5 frankgturner: My post at #4 obviously needs clarification.
With thanks to SallyStrange’s #15:
Thus, “reverse racism” is by definition not possible. Racism can only possibly travel in one direction, down the power gradient.
I think that the phrase “reverse racism” is a tell, a phrase used by a racist when their own privilege is challenged, or when their own prejudice is reflected back upon themself.
All right look, the english language has bothered me ever since I learned it growing up whether it was American or British or whatever. It bothers me because it is not one language developed by one group of people but 5 or 6 languages jammed together. Hence why there are so many different rules of pronunciation between the written and spoken form.
.
I had suspected that this was the problem with having 26 letter and having many more phonemes. I would like a language that has as many letters as it has phonemes so that the written and spoken form would follow more directly from one another. This would result in the English language having hundreds of letters in the written form but I am sure this could be worked out and I have heard that some languages periodically go through normalization periods.
.
Words having meaning by consensus is a bit of a problem too as specific definitions don’t always get adapted by all of society. As far as I knew racism was simply bigotry and prejudice engaged in by one ethnic group against another because of the race of the target group being different from the race of the group engaging in the prejudice and bigotry. So the target group and the attack group only mattered in that they were different from one another. Yes it is generally used to identify the prejudice and bigotry engaged in by the larger group against the smaller group but there was no rule that said that this had to be identified in this way.
.
Believe me I would like more than anything for there to be extremely strict rules about the usage of words, even if we had to create new words to identify new situations. So racism engaged in by whites against blacks would be one distinct word and by blacks against whites another distinct word, and by whites against all asians another distinct word, and by whites against chinese asians specifically another distinct word, etc. Of course this would result in an endless number of extra words (whites against nigerian blacks specifically, nigerian blacks against European whites specifically). So somewhere along the way we have to accept that specific words may not exist in common usage to identify certain specific situations and we just have to accept some misunderstanding.
.
However, some linguistic normalizing by professionals would be nice periodically. As laymen are using the word “theory” the way scientists use the word “hypothesis,” I would like the scientific community to create a new word. Even some scientists use the word “theory” when they really mean “hypothesis” and I complain and correct them when they do. Yet I am seen as the “bad guy” for doing that because people don’t like to be corrected but at the same time when I get them to think about it, they often really do mean “hypothesis” but don’t automatically use it.
.
I can accept some error in speech. My mother use to be so critical of people not using perfect English that she would have considered a renowned brain surgeon describing how to remove a tumor from the frontal cortex to be the biggest idiot in the world and have no credentials because he said “you and I,” when correct english was “you and me.” I see that now as obsessive compulsive and not critical to the point of what is being described. However, in some instances it really is a problem. The layman does need to understand that a “theory” is different from a “hypothesis” and the layman does need to understand that engaging in prejudice against a person because their biological racial heritage, whether that contributes to your cultural beliefs or not, because it is different from your biological racial heritage, whether it contributes to your cultural beliefs or not, is wrong to do. People need to be taken on a person by person basis to the best of one’s ability. The word that one uses for that condition is irrelevant, but I generally call that racism regardless of who the perpetrator or the target.
from the rawstory link in the OP:
Oh heavens, what a problem. The last thing conservative white dumbfucks want is for anything to change. That would be terribly unfair to them.
Better not give a deliberate answer or attempt to do anything, or he’s going to shit his pants. You probably don’t want to be around for that, because it looks like there’s a lot of shit in there.
I’m sure he has no concept of the actual history, but even if he did, it’s as if he believes the past has nothing to do with the present. It’s all over now: things are totally fair and square, and that’s what white people get to own. What a stupid, dishonest fuck. Stick to your comedy, so you’ll probably just fail at that instead of failing at being a decent person as well.
Yep, in spanish it’s “prejuicio” and in french “préjugé”. I’m almost certain all other romance languages have their versions.
@call me mark # 32
Maybe I am just using “power” in a broader sense than you are. Where I live being white puts you in the minority and a lot of people in power are non whites, and yes I am in the United States.
.
Who says that being in the majority puts an individual in a position of power though? Being charismatic and sounding confident can put you in a position of power even if you are in the minority or if you are telling complete bullshit. Creationists would have nothing to go on in some areas where they ARE the minority and have no empirically factual evidence to go on.
.
Think about where we would be if everything was a matter of fact and nothing was a matter of opinion.
frankgturner @ 36
Its.
Not.
About.
Individuals.
Systems. It’s about systems.
SallyStrange@13&17, Alastor Russell@16, Florian Blaschke@19
I would be interested in some citations. Most definitions that I have found on the web do not define racism in such a narrow way. Wikipedia mentions how some sociologist would define racism in a similar way, but it also seems to me that what you are describing would normally be called “institutionalized racism”.
There is so much basic nonsense going down on this thread i had to double check to make sure I was on Pharyngula.
What the fuck, you guys? what is this shit I’m seeing? and pretty please can a few more of the horde come get these wild ass white people clucking about things they really don’t comprehend?
And you have trouble understanding why people think you’re the bad guy in this situation? Mmm hmm.
So, you know the correct usage, and have been told that adopting the correct usage will help in combating racism, but refuse to adopt the correct usage because reasons. Mmm hmmm.
@ consciousness razor # 34
I have said before that if we could develop time travel and could get actual evidence of the events of the Bible occurring or not occurring the Vatican would go out of their way to stop that from happening. The amount of shit they would be producing from their pants in that case would be more than enough to fertilize the whole world 1 x 10^50 times over.
Racism has several facets. Institutional racism is one facet of the overall phenomenon of racism. Structural racism, systemic racism, and interpersonal prejudice are some other facets. I’m not a sociologist, so I’m repeating back to you what I’ve learned from experts, at anti-racism workshops. I understand the difference between institutional and structural–they’re similar and related but not exactly the same thing. But I couldn’t do a good job explaining it right at the moment, I don’t think.
Honestly, don’t you think something this complex and important warrants a BIT more work, and a BIT more understanding than can be provided by dictionaries and wikipedia?
Well, Sally the title of the post is “How can a black person be racist?” with emphasis on the word PERSON. If you’re talking about institutional racism, that’s one thing. And to answer the question in the post title; yes the same way a white person can be racist – if they had institutional power. I’m not saying it’s happening now or that it will happen in the future, I’m just answering the question of “how”.
I’ve found this article discussing the history and use of the “prejudice + power” formulation helpful. Here’s the book that’s usually credited with coining the definition. I also find KRS-One’s explanation in “You must learn” to be unmatched in its clarity.
“A lot of people”? Really. If white people are in the minority, are the minority of people in power white? If not, then you are either being disingenuous or missing the fucking point.
Here we go with another fucking thread about racism that can’t go anywhere because a bunch of ignorant fucks just can’t fucking get over being asked not to use the colloquial definition of “racism” they’re used to. Call it fucking “institutional racism” if you want. Or “systemic racism”. Just fucking make sure you’re being clear when you’re talking about interpersonal prejudice vs. systemic oppression. Why? Because rational people fucking define their terms and they don’t fucking equivocate between various definitions as it suits them. Jesus fuck.
I believe that the particular person the OP discusses (Chris Rock) is a black person within a systemically racist society (America), so it is technically impossible for this specific PERSON to be racist against whites (which is what he is being called out for). He could be racist against other people of colour (there were a few examples above). But whites? In this specific situation, since we are now drawing attention to the specific title of the OP, rather than racism in general, then – no, he is not and cannot be racist.
There’s no hypothetical in the OP, so why should you, Alverant (for instance), argue a hypothetical situation where black people have institutional power? Because they don’t, Chris Rock does not, therefore he is not, by definition of his current time and place, a racist and cannot be one. Unhypothetically.
No I have not been “told the correct usage,” because what seems to be considered to be correct from one group to another seems to have so much variation that it is obvious that there is NOT a large consensus on the word, at least when it comes to racism . Parasite boy makes a good comment about it being “institutionalized racism.” I get it that there are “systems” of racism like Seven of Mine says in # 37, which makes sense. However, does it make sense to identify that word as “systemic” when we don’t seem to have another word that identifies racism when it is not systemic?
.
As for the word theory I actually am a scientist and I do know what the consensus is in the professional community on that word. What is funny is that I find other scientists using that word like the laymen does outside of the scientific community and then complaining that the laymen is not using the word correctly, which is hypocrisy. I get how it is hard though to go against the way the larger community uses the word.
.
In the laymen’s world I personally tend to use the word “hypothesis” when that is what I mean and I almost always only use the word “theory” when talking about it in scientific terms. I catch myself not doing that here and there and I have even corrected myself mid sentence as I thought about it.
#36 frankgturner
A majority isn’t necessarily in power. People were talking about Mugabe, but neglecting to mention the white tyrant who came before him, Ian Smith. Smith led a white minority government in Southern Rhodesia, and his regime reeked in racism.
Now, the question isn’t really if you are part of the biggest group in whatever specific location you are, or if there are some members of oppressed groups represented in government. The question is whether your group, considered as a whole, is more advantaged by the system than the other groups. If you are saying that somewhere in America being white puts in the lower end of the power gradient, allow me to be very, very skeptical.
Is the Racism = Prejudice + Power definition the consensus of current Sociologists? I only ask because in trying to explain systemic racism to an idiot on FB, just yesterday, I came across a couple links that posited there being two different levels of racism: individual and systemic. For example here: http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/formsofracism
Is that a fringe/outdated view in the world of Sociology? Honest question, not trying to troll.
Even if one accepts the two-level view which would make anti-white racism possible on an individual level, that still wouldn’t change the fact that it’s a trivial concern compared to systemic racism, and people who bring it up usually A.) don’t even understand the difference between the two levels or B.) purposely conflate the two to attempt to derail in pitiful both-sides-do-it-ism.
Sigh. Institutional racism is just the racism of institutions. Government, businesses, etc. Individuals can be racist, but the relevance of POWER is based on the GROUPS. Institutional racism can lead to power differentials, but even if there was none, if there was a power differential, a member of the racial group with more power would be racist if they were prejudiced against the less powerful group.
How is this difficult? This isn’t rocket science.
Alverant
Fucking, no. When we say any individual is being racist or is racist, what we’re saying is that they’re behaving in a way that contributes to an oppressive system. We’re not talking about their personal, consciously held opinions about anyone. A black person can be racist against other people of color; not against white people because there is no oppressive system for them to contribute to.
I honestly do not see how Chris Rock was being a racist in his interview. As for black people making fun of white people and how it would be different if it was the other way around, I think Ed over at Dispatches has said on several occasions (in regards to racial jokes or jokes made about poor people), that “it’s the difference between punching up vs. punching down, punching up can be funny whereas, punching down just seems mean”.
So now you want me to believe that you can’t recognize a rhetorical question when you see one. I take it back, maybe you aren’t capable of better braining than this.
I’m puzzled. How are you responding to my posts if you didn’t read them?
Uncle Ebeneezer: Did you go back one page to their definition of racism?
http://www.ucalgary.ca/cared/racismandpower
They mention the interrelationship between individual level racism (behavior, treatment, prejudice, slurs, etc.) and systemic racism (discrimination, segregation, unequal treatment under law, etc.). The former reinforces the latter, the latter is a ubiquitous cultural influence that can contribute to the former. They are intertwined and (at least from my perspective) form a positive feedback loop.
The power difference is still relevant to both forms of racism.
@ anteprepro # 45
What I mean is that in the area I live in, being white puts you in the minority at the city and county level and the majority of persons holding political power at the city and county level are non whites (mostly black). At the state level it is still majority white and the majority (although slim) of individuals holding political power are white.
.
You are right in general in that it is not the point. What I am getting at is that in general when I use the racism I don’t define it as one particular group engaging in it as another particular group. To me racism is to engage in prejudice and bigotry because of the race of one group being different from another. Feel free to disagree with me on this as I have no problem with that. I have seen a lot of variation on the general consensus of the word and as Sally Strange says in # 42 it is a complex issue.
.
Too often in my personal experience I have heard people define for themselves personally racism as white against black. I have even heard it locally said a number of times growing up in my area (in almost these exact words), “I am black I can’t be racist,” or “it isn’t racism if it is against whites.” I know that this is not a general idea of what goes on in the larger community (or what may go on) but it gives you an idea of how confused I get about the general consensus.
FYI, Alverant, if we’re going to take the question in the title seriously, the more correct and relevant-to-real-life answer is “When they’re expressing internalized anti-black prejudice.”
It’s pretty fucking useless and not a little bit racist to attempt to derail the conversation into a fictional hypothetical world where black people hold the levers of power in a system that’s rigged against white people.
You have an incoherent definition which you would like to substitute for both the coherent definition used by experts and the consistent but imprecise definition used by lay people. Not helpful. Lay off the Humpty Dumpty act.
@Sally Strange # 55
I am reading your posts. I don’t consider your usage to be the correct usage. I honestly don’t know what the correct usage is because I fail to see a consensus by the larger society.
Holy fuck. frankgturner particularly but others above too: shut up and go read Unpacking the Knapsack of White Privilege, read ANYTHING, but for fucks’ sakes stop spewing your ignorance and demanding spoonfed information. You’ve been given a hypothesis, scientist; go find data and test it, don’t just sit here whinging about dictionary definitions, and using perianal instantiation for your data source.
Seriously, if you’re still at the level where you think racism against white people in the “Western democracies” is an actual thing, then politically speaking, you aren’t potty-trained yet, and need to get your 101 on, before smearing your faeces on the wall and demanding admiration for the wit of your argument.
@Uncle Ebeneezer (#50):
I don’t think there’s anything in that quote that’s in any way at odds with the prejudice + power definition of racism as it’s been discussed here. I’ve highlighted the sections that indicate that even when it operates at an individual level, racism is still related to power structures and systems:
I share Seven of Mine’s frustration with this. The use of the prejudice + power formulation is well known in online social justice circles at this point, and, if not, has already been explained. The label-based analysis spat that comes up every time this discussion arises is silly and non-productive. Endorsing negative racial stereotypes about whites is wrong, but it’s also clear that it’s different than endorsing negative racial stereotypes about people of color.
Furthermore, what Crowder accuses Rock of doing (“giving a deliberate answer in an attempt to affect cultural change”) isn’t racism by any possible definition. Talking about how people’s race affects their lives isn’t problematic, its just acknowledging reality.
Racism is one of those magical words that has more than one definition. Like many such mythical creatures, all the definitions are valid, but it is easy to confuse them in the very same sentence. Done one way, it’s a pun, but done another, it’s deceptive (either by mistake or malice).
The anti-racism culture shift did a great job in teaching people that “racism is bad”. What it failed to do is properly define exactly what racism is. Many white people, when first taught what racism is, as kids, in school or at home, are taught a different definition than what minorities learn it means. Ask your average white person, and the overwhelming majority (who, it should be clarified, don’t even know these forums and blogs exist and aren’t even aware enough to suspect their working definition could use some addendums) will tell you “racism is judging or hating someone just because of the way they look or the color of their skin, and that’s wrong”.
Working under just that definition, is it any wonder that so many white people think that “reverse racism” exists, and it exists in the person of Chris Rock joking about how “white people are like this”? Is it any surprise at all? Under that definition, racism against white people in the US totally DOES exist, absolutely does exist, though even then not nearly to the extent it does for minorities.
That last bit there is why it’s important to re-teach what racism is, with new definitions. The first education wave failed, that’s just a fact, and BECAUSE of the nature of “privilege”, most white people didn’t even realize it WAS a failed education, that the single definition of racism above just wasn’t enough.
But, that’s how it’s always been. “Racism” as a term has been evolving. At first, it was a struggle JUST to convince everyone that minorities were, in fact, people who deserved human rights and not to be enslaved or genocided. Extreme concessions had to be made, famously statements like “I don’t hold to equality in all things, but equality before the law” (I’m paraphrasing). Essentially, saying “I’m not saying they actually are our equals, we’re still “better”, but we can’t own them and have to give them some basic rights”. These concessions are morally horrible, and from here it’s hard to say whether or not politically that first basic step could have been passed without them, but either way eventually they had to be dealt with, and it was passed to later generations. Civil rights dealt with another aspect. It wasn’t enough to say minorities were legally free people, they had to be seen as true equals, as citizens deserving of all the same rights. Culturally, another shift was in seeing hatred or fear of black people for being black as the evil it was.
Again though, one major concession, which our generation now gets tasked with remedying. Laws discriminating against black people are now seen as wrong, and culturally, hating black people is seen as wrong, but this is all still on a personal and individual level. The next step may just be the last one, but it’s the biggest one because it’s the hardest for those not experiencing it to see. Minorities can still be oppressed and disadvantaged at a systematic level even where not a single person in that system themselves actually hates or works against minority people on a personal level, and further, the system promotes racism as defined by older terms to reemerge all over the place, always threatening to take us back to a pre-civil rights movement era.
This is why so many white people are shocked by things like the Rodney King case, because they thought we “resolved” the matter when we decided that hating people for the color of their skin was wrong. It’s a case where a system can skirt by intact so long as it doesn’t explicitly state “this is targeting black people”. And why? Basic true understanding is hard, that’s why. White people don’t live the life a black person does, so they don’t actually see their struggles face to face, and it’s a lot harder to see day by day constant tiny things. Hence, Bill O’Really being able to say with a straight face that a black person being avoided on the street “isn’t a big deal”, because he keeps seeing them all as isolated, not as a day to day thing, constant death by a thousand tiny cuts (and that’s ignoring the times when they aren’t tiny cuts).
I suspect white people who struggled in school with bullying their entire school career (with similar “blame the victim responses from the authorities at these schools) have an easier time “getting” it, as it’s a small sample of that reality they can directly relate to.
Anyway, it’s a huge stumbling block. This definitional confusion regarding the word racism, and the lack of personal perspective, it gets all sorts of people caught up who are otherwise not racist and don’t understand that “merely” treating everyone exactly the same doesn’t resolve the systemic problems.
So, you were lying when you said you haven’t been told the correct usage. You were told, you just disagree.
Why should I care what definition you want to use? You’re wrong. If you’re confused then go out and do some basic research on the subject. You will discover that there is a consensus, at least among people who a.) care and b.) are rigorous in their use of language on the subject and c.) have some understanding of the academic research that has been conducted on the subject. The fact that you are unaware of this consensus is nobody’s problem but yours.
@Seven of Mine # 52
That actually makes a bit of sense to me as a definition of racism which could specifically apply to that of whites against blacks but not blacks against whites.
.
Again I am not sure if I agree with it as I am not a sociologist, but that does make a lot of sense.
frankgturner
We don’t need larger society to come to a consensus. We don’t even need a “correct” fucking usage. We need people to fucking BE CLEAR when they’re talking about systems of oppression as opposed to interpersonal prejudice. Call it Great Uncle Ebenezer for all I care: just because clear which you’re fucking talking about. But don’t fucking use “racism” to mean “interpersonal prejudice” when you KNOW that the people you’re talking to are not using it that way. That is dishonest and you’re doing nothing but derailing. You’re doing exactly what a creationist does when they say evolution is “just a theory.”
There is a black footballer (soccer) here in UK being charged by the football authorities for racism. He tweeted a silly cartoon stereotypical of blacks and Jews. By the definitions here I think he could be guilty.
@ fergl100
And?
Uncle Ebeneezer, #50:
I’m no sort of expert on this, but it makes sense to me that talking about racism at an individual level depends on racism at a group level. There may well be a reason to talk about different levels, However, that does not mean they’re independent of one another, because for one thing, the concept itself is about groups of people, even when an individual “uses” racism at their own personal or “interpersonal” level. That’s just what it means. So you won’t have individual racism which stands in contrast to societal racism. It just doesn’t work.
Besides, an individual doesn’t exist somehow independently of the society in which they’re embedded — not when we’re talking about racism or about anything else. If they were totally isolated individuals who aren’t in some larger system of people, then that would just mean (if any such being actually existed) that they’re not interacting with others and have no such attitudes toward them. It’s like you’d be expecting such people, if there were any, to act without motivation toward a group to which they have no actual relationship. That wouldn’t make any sense, even on a psychological level, much less a social one.
I think some weekend soon I’m going to find a nice professional scientific conference somewhere and pull aside some attendee and start debating the validity of their nomenclature with them. I’m 100% confident they’ll take me seriously.
I think that privilege is a better determinant than power. After all, Barrack Obama is arguably the most powerful man on the planet at this time. However, he has always been denied the privilege afforded to every other occupant of the Oval Office.
In contrast, when I lived in Africa as a white person, I was afforded considerable privilege, despite the fact that I was no one, had no power and minimal understanding of the society in which I found myself.
Conservative do love a Tu quoque fallacy. However, the only funny conservative I know of id P. J. O’Rourke.
@Sally Strange # 65
So do you consider Dark Jaguar’s usage of the term “Racism” in # 64 wrong too? That actually is is better agreement with my understanding.
.
Look I don’t consider a lot of things to be “right” or “wrong” because they are highly subjective. You can measure the way society uses words but it changes both between the laymen and the experts. I can accept the possibility that the experts use the word “racism” as flowing down the gradient of power and if you have done more study upon this than I have then hey I am all for it. I tend not to use it that way but I think Seven of Mine makes a convincing case.
.
That is not the way I have heard the layman use it. I have heard laymen use it in so many different ways as it confuses my brain. The word “theory” is a bit different because of the people I work with, but I don’t even consider that to be a “correct” usage. (Maybe “more correct”?).
For FUCK’s sake, frankgturner. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD what racism means in the context of this discussion. You have been told repeatedly. Make your arguments using this context or fuck off.
@Seven of Mine # 67
Hey fair enough, I can agree to that (although I may stop myself and stumble a lot). I often will make a distinction between “truth” vs. “factual correctness” so I can make a distinction between saying “racism” and “interpersonal prejudice.”
.
I want to ask you something though and for it not to be taken as a personal challenge though, it is more of a hypothetical situation that came to mind.
OH MY FUCKING FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
NO. *squirt bottle*
fuck your hypotheticals. Fuck your devil’s advocate. Fuck you.
You’re not a special snowflake, Frank, and your hypotheticals are, I predict, worse than useless. You have not succeeded yet in stopping your Humpty Dumpty act. Why is that? What makes you so special that we should cater to your ignorance instead of expecting you to fix your ignorance?
@ ceesays 76
Sorry, actually never mind, a_ray_in_dilbert_space proposed the real life hypothetical I was going to propose an ask about in #72, which I guessing you would consider “racism” as it goes down the power gradient even when the group in power is in the minority.
@ frankgturner
I’m not going to make a promise how to take what you say before you’ve said it. Like ceesays said, fuck hypotheticals. Racism is not fucking hypothetical to huge numbers of people. Racism fucking kills huge numbers of real people. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can get an ivory tower, philoswanking circle-jerk going over whatever hypotheticals you like. At Pharyngula, we deal with the real fucking world.
@qwints (#44):
Thanks for that.
Hypotheticals are for those without evidence to back up their claims, hence no rational arguments. The claims against you have been evidenced. Now, where is yours?
Crap, I got hit with the Invisible Stick. Can someone switch me back to Privilege-Visible? Apparently my reasonable anger caused me to trip the Incivility Filter that privilege teaches one to assert.
Fuck that.
frankgturner,
Why would you even think being outnumbered by the other group is required for there to be racism? Are there not enough historical examples? One of the best examples would be the British occupation in India. Or take any case of European colonizations of dozens of countries/lands.
@Seven of Mine
I know racism hurts people, bigotry and interpersonal prejudice hurt people. I have seen racism and as you would say interpersonal prejudice hurt people where I am.
.
I would not have really gone out of my way to call it something different than racism where I was if I saw one ethnic group or individual demonstrating prejudice against another. I guess one might say that I am not happy about prejudice and bigotry no matter who the target is or who the perpetrator is.
Your brain is confusing itself by insisting that it’s “highly subjective,” so that there’s no fact of the matter. But there is a matter of fact, and that’s what people are actually interested in. That is, assuming we’re not discussing language or semantics, in which case we would have a reason to be interested in that sort of thing. But we’re not. We’re talking about racism. Not the word but the thing it describes: how and what it actually is. We don’t simply get to choose that, or opine about it, or emote it, because it doesn’t exist subjectively only in one individual’s head. It’s “out there” in the world, all over the place.
Indeed, if you even wanted to talk about words, and how you can use them to communicate with anyone else who’s supposed to understand what they mean, subjectivity better go out the window pretty soon too. But that’s still a different topic than the one we’re having now.
No, just “correct.” A scientific theory is a certain sort of thing. How various people play around with words to describe it in various ways is a separate thing. The first thing is a matter of fact, no matter how confused and fucked people are when attempting to fuck around with their words, which only represent the things they’re about.
What you’re probably saying, without really saying it, is that somewhere deep down you take science seriously, while you don’t take this quite as seriously, so that makes it “different” to you somehow. Maybe that’s not the case, but it’s worth reflecting on anyway.
@ frankgturner
Yes, you’re a fucking fence sitter. Color me completely and totally not surprised.
#84 frankgtuner
One might also say you don’t have your bloody priorities straight.
@Saad # 83
Because where I am even though the larger party in the state is white and there has been systemic prejudice against certain minority groups (mostly blacks) sometimes smaller groups within the larger minority have become the majority. In some counties the majority of people holding power are black and there is systemic prejudice against whites within that county.
.
I can understand the idea of racism being defined as flowing down the power gradient. That is where what Seven of Mine made sense to me. It did not make sense to me to insist that it would always be white against black because where I am I have seen too many examples of black on white (because in the smaller sub group black individuals held power) and white against black (the larger group), which I saw examples of too.
.
To use the terms you all mention I guess when someone said to me, “I can’t be racist, I am black,” what I heard is “I cannot be prejudiced or bigoted against whites because I am black.” It was as though being black made it not wrong to do those things.
.
Maybe the confusion comes from where I am.
.
@65 SallyStrange
That’s putting it too strongly. While it’s certainly a well known definition, it’s by no means the consensus one.
“Racism, disadvantage and multiculturalism: towards effective anti-racist praxis” (Berman 2008)
Only White People can be Racist: What does Power have to do with Prejudice? (Sawrikar 2008)
“”Unpacking diversity training”” (Rosenstreich 2003)
“RETHINKING RACISM: TOWARD A STRUCTURAL INTERPRETATION” (Bonilla-Silva 1996)
ayup
I don’t care if they’re black, white, brown or purple…
@conciousness razor # 85
.
I don’t know, but in my family and community I don’t hear people say “interpersonal prejudice” when a black person engages in an act of bigotry or unmitigated presupposition against a white person regardless of the larger system in place, they just say “racism,” or maybe I hear “racism.”
.
I admit that I did hear people say, “I can’t be racist because I am black,” too. I admit I have heard a distinction between the words at times. Generally speaking though I call that racism but I can change that for the purposes of the discussion.
Gonna blow your mind.
I don’t trust white people who have not proven themselves to be safe, reasonable people. My first assumption when I meet a strange white person is that they don’t know a fucking thing about racism while simultaneously believing that they do know actually quite a lot, and they’re going to prove it to me in 3…2…1…
I don’t trust them, because my years on this planet have taught me over and over again that privileged and ignorant is the BEST I can reasonably hope for from any given white person on the street. They don’t know, they don’t know that they don’t know, they spout fairy tales about fictional places that exist nowhere on this earth about the superior black man, and they keep on going with this nonsense even after they been told.
You’re just another stranger who didn’t break the pattern, frankgturner. you a damn fool who thinks he knows something about something. you don’t have a clue, and you won’t shut up long enough to get that through your skull.
Chigau, 90:
Solidarity for the purple people, who exist in the same place as a society where black people run a social and political system that keeps them on the top of every intersection of existence and shit rolls downhill on those poor purple people. Won’t someone please think of the purple people?
Actually, complete solidarity with the purple people. Never had a purple person spout racist bs at me.
I once overheard someone saying, “How could Japanese people be racist? They’re practically black themselves…”
Then fucking change it frankgturner or shut the fuck up and let the grown ups talk.
Sorry, I meant to add that post # 64 from Dark Jaguar is absolutely correct.
It’s extremely fucking helpful–one might even say essential–to have terms that distinguish between the type of interpersonal prejudice that FUCKING KILLS PEOPLE and the type of interpersonal prejudice that mostly just hurts people’s feelings.
You are equally disapprove of the type of prejudice that kills people and the type of prejudice that hurts people’s feelings.
All that means is that you’re part of the racism problem.
Also please refer to Consciousness Razor’s very accurate words about your ignorance and deliberate obfuscation based on your misunderstanding of what the word “subjective” means.
Also please note that it’s not that the anti-racism movement that has failed, contra Dark Janguar’s assertion. As with myths about the man-hating feminists, it’s people in power, expressing institutional and structural power, who have deliberately gone about obscuring the true meaning of racism. Because to recognize that there’s prejudice, and then there’s prejudice that kills people, is to admit that something really ought to be done about the latter. Erasing the institutional and structural component of racism, whether semantically or otherwise, is a racist act.
In other words, Frank, you’re being actively racist right now. How does it feel? Not much different from usual, I’m going to guess.
Qwints, there is something of a consensus. It’s not a perfect consensus but it exists.
Michael Brown was murdered. Eric Garner was murdered. The man who filmed Garner’s murder was indicted while the cop went free. There are thousands of other examples of this.
Hundreds of thousands of people around the country and the world are protesting and blocking thoroughfares because the murder has to stop.
And the first thing you white people want to do in this thread—the very first thing, the priority for you above all others—is to niggle over whether it’s possible in some hypothetical scenario for you to maybe someday be oppressed and racisted at.
What a disgusting spectacle. You are among the reasons I’m ashamed to be white. Sort your shit or shut your fucking mouths and get the hell out of the way.
@CR & Guss,
Thx, I think I see where my confusion stemmed from. I was not seeing why in a case where Racism = Prejudice + Power, and Power = 0, why that wouldn’t be just another type or value of Racism. But it makes sense now because Prejudice + 0 is simply Prejudice. No need for two words to define what one does already.
On the topic of Rock (who has been excellent on this stuff recently) does anyone know if he has ever expressed regret over his infamous routine on the difference between Black People and Ni-clangs? It’s sad that that is still considered by many to be one of his best works.
That’s… uh… what?
First and foremost, I did not intend my simple question to devolve into a argument over the word racism. Sallystrange (and others) made a statement of fact about the definition of the word racism, which was new to me, and I was only looking for more information.
Maybe I’m just used to working with people in scientific setting, since when someone makes a factual statement (SallyStrange@13&17, Alastor Russell@16, Florian Blaschke@19 all made factual statements referring to sociologist and academics) that is new to you, the person making the statement can either give you several citations or at least send you in the right direction.
qwints@44 thanks for the information.
anteprepro@51 it’s not difficult, I was just not thinking about it from that perspective From that perspective I can see how you could generalize the definition to Racism = prejudice + power form.
qwints@63 I can understand your frustration, but not all of use follow what’s going on in the online social justice circles. Although I frequently read this blog, I don’t always have the time to read the comments or post comments. But you have to get used to repeating yourself if you want to educate people outside of those circles. Your basically taking on a teachers role and I appreciate the effort.
Right. And in the meantime, people of color continue dying.
#100 Uncle Ebeneezer
thirty-second internet search:
[source]
parasiteboy: demanding citations and educations is a derailling tactic. you derailed the conversation, and you continue to derail it.
No.
Listen, there’s a hell of a big internet out there, use it. if your humblebrag about being smart holds any water, surely you know how to research shit for yourself.
And that just makes me roll my eyes: all of these people, spouting off about how fucking smart they are acting like the most basic fools who don’t even know how to do a simple google search, let alone stop and pull out references and context from what people are saying.
WAY back in #13, Sallystrange said, “Racism = prejudice + power.” Here’s a fucking cool thing you can do.
highlight “Racism = prejudice + power” with your mouse. right click, and choose “Search Google for ‘Racism = prejudice + power'” and LOOKY THERE, DAMN NEAR 10 Million hits, scholarly articles at the top. Why the FUCK am I explaining this to people who have more formal education than I do? what the fuck is the matter with you?
#102 parasiteboy
Never put the burden of educating you on the shoulders of people who suffer oppression. Don’t suggest the victim has the responsibility for solving those problems.
I was just about to say, anyone wondering what an effective detailing tactic The Great Definition Chase is, take a moment to count the number of comments in the first 100 of this post are about definitions, or some of us pleading to not do this derail Yet AFuckingGain.
That’s how effective it can be, as a percentage. Right there. Now think of the number of places you’ve seen this foolishness. Multiply it by Every Fucking Day that another person who looks like you will be KILLED for it.
Now are you starting to get the tiniest inkling of what it’s like to be a visible minority, let alone specifically a Black person, just trying to fucking LIVE? While you argue about definitions, the clock is ticking down to the next dead unarmed Black man.
What are you going to do about it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just typed “sociological definition of racism” into google and this is my third hit: http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm It’s pretty good.
I’m accustomed to providing citations for assertions like, “Being exposed to stereotypes about the intellectual capabilities of people of color, just before test-taking, has a statistically significant, negative effect on the test results of people of color.”
But about the basic definition of racism as used by social scientists? Eh. I mean I guess I can provide it for you but that’s because I’m white and I’m not as fucking tired of coddling the ignorance of white people on this subject as most people of color are. If the definition is new to you, well, damn. I guess you just now started paying attention to the whole phenomenon of racism, which is a force that has dominated American politics and economics since America was even a thing. Not really impressed that you didn’t MEAN to do the thing that just happened; if you’d been paying attention before you’d know how sadly predictable this whole conversation was.
sprigga73 @ 95
Jesus Christ on a pie plate. Do you agree that there are such a thing as systems of oppression? If yes, do you further agree that systems of oppression are different from individual prejudices? If you answered yes to both, all you need to do is be absolutely clear which you’re talking about. That’s it. Right now, at Pharyngula, you’re in an environment where people use “racism” to mean “prejudice + power”. It matters not one whit how many people approve of that definition. We’re describing a thing that fucking exists in the world regardless of what anyone calls it and we’re talking about that thing; not the fucking word. You don’t have to agree about what this thing ought to be called…you just have to be clear WHICH fucking thing you’re talking about.
This should not be controversial.
I can accept the idea of racism equalling prejudice + power and there being a difference in the types of interpersonal prejudice that kill vs. that just hurt people.
.
You all have been making an interesting assumption about me though…….what makes you think that I am white?
This. With bells on.
If we determine that actually, sociologists are full of it and we should just defer to the ignorance of the general population with regards to what terms are most helpful to use in this discussion, what does that change?
The sort of arrogance and ignorance you evince is most typically found in white people.
Just after skimming the comments on this post I came across this Tweet from Racialicious in the context of this post from MedievalPOC. The tweet is part of a live tweet of a conference session and it’s a quote, “I define Power as a group’s ability to define reality.”
I need to save that so the next time I encounter one of these “But the dictionary!” derailing fests I have it available to throw at the fool whinging about how “power is such a subjective term!!!”
ceesays, sorry, I meant to refer to your name in my 108, and then got rolling on my rant and forgot. Sorry for that. It was meant to have been a nod to your comment @105, pointing out the derailing tactic. I don’t want to move forward without having acknowledged that you’d raised it first, and I was agreeing with you.
Please consider this off-topic; I don’t want to myself derail us, nor seek cookies, just point out that being an ally is a process, not a state, and that processes fail sometimes. Ignoring points that are later raised by privileged voices like mine here and then taken up as good, it’s a Thing. This is part of making it Not a Thing. Thank you for understanding and not continuing to derail this important topic.
ceesays@105
It’s not a humblebrag, I was just trying to give people an idea of where I was coming from and why I asked the question.
If your disagree with my statement that you are citing then you are basically saying that you are fine discussing these issues in your insular community and anyone who ask a question should just STFU. Part of changing the world and peoples perspectivesis educating them and in order to do that you are going to have to repeat yourself a lot. Also notice that I appreciated Qwints comments and patience even though they are frustrated.
It can be, but not always. Notice that I said I would be interested (ie. I would like to learn) and never demanded.
You continue to be inaccurate in your use of language. The type of prejudice that kills people also hurts PEOPLE. The other type of prejudice hurts FEELINGS. Feelings are not people. People have feelings. It’s not good to hurt feelings but it’s a damn sight better than hurting people.
Urg. Detailing = derailing, in my 105.
frankgturner
You mean other than your burning desire to make this conversation all about your level of comfort with the definition of a single word instead the effects on real people of the thing described by that word? Not to mention this transparent attempt to now turn this thread into “Aha!! Y’all are the REAL racists!!”
parasiteboy @ 116
Others have said this but there’s a whoooooleeeee wide internet out there. Google is a thing. It’s nobody’s job to be your personal tutor.
Another part of changing the world is reacting in a way that makes it how destructive and hurtful the other person is being, in the hopes that they’re doing it accidentally and learn how to do better in the future. Right, ParasiteBoy? Or do you disagree? Are you planning on doing better in the future? Are you making a folder of helpful links to Sociology 101 and Racism 101 for the next time YOU discuss the topic so that you can join in on the project of public education?
Correction for myself:
reacting in a way that makes it clear how destructive and hurtful the other person is being
Sally Strange speaks for me.
Seven of Mine expresses my frustration.
I endorse the hell out of qwints’ links.
Piles of jedi-hugs offered on a take-as-needed basis.
To the extent I have anything more to add, it’s this:
=========================================
It’s not that the definition of racism “is confused” or “is confusing”. Racist white people confuse the definition of racism. Racist white people confuse conversations about race. Racist white people confuse people of good will who want justice.
Talking about the definitions of racism without talking about the active campaign to change the definition is worthless. The passive voice makes it seem like a confusing muddle of definitions “just happened”. When the word was in common use in the early 20th century, everyone knew what it meant. It meant the systemic oppression of a people. Not haphazard hostility. Not a person. Systemic oppression of a people.
This didn’t mean that it was always recognized in practice. But yeah, everyone knew the definition. It was racist whites who deliberately rebelled against the anti-racist tide (that, may it be true, is still far short of its high-water mark) that labeled anti-racism activists as racists specifically in order to muddle and confuse the conversation, especially with an eye toward ending any possibility of accountability.
Imagine if Malcom X could only decry racism without reference to race?
or
When you choose to use a history-free, context-free, power-free definition of racism, you are siding with the racists declaring accountability for systemic oppression to be unjust.
Don’t. Fucking. Do. That.
@frankgturner:
Wow. That’s a good question.
Hmm. Is there any data on racial disparities in internet usage?
Is there any data on racial disparities on whether racism against whites is a thing? or at least a big, problematic thing?
It’s almost like we could make a provisional assessment based on logic, empirical data, and critical thinking.
But of course, that would be using our pinkfluffyirrationalladybrainz to make an assumption, I’m sure.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
Do you want to aid in the project of white racists to confuse and obfuscate people’s understanding of racism? Or do you want to hinder that project?
Hmm… Thinking that your county exists in some weird parallel dimension that doesn’t interact with our universe. No, wait, that’s what made me think you’re full of shit. I’ll have to get back to you about what could possibly make me think you’re white, but it was definitely based on evidence in this thread not an assumption I pulled out of thin air.
I was binging on slam poetry last nite and stumbled upon a video of some sort of town hall thing where a black leader of an anti-racist organization was talking about what his organization did and mentioned 400 years of police repression etc. The sort of cliff’s notes version of the racist history of the US. The leader of the meeting then let this white dude speak. White dude was, predictably, all “I agree this is a horrible problem but when you talk about it like that it makes me feel like you’re being racist against all white people for something none of us did”. Which perfectly illustrates what’s going on here.
“Four centuries worth of kidnapping, enslavement, murder and oppression are bad ‘n’ all and I’d love to help you fix that but I’m gonna have to ask you to make sure you only talk about it in a way that I’m comfortable with.” Nope. Sorry. Fuck that.
That was not my intent at all.
.
I have personal experience for, “interpersonal prejudice” on both sides of the boat. I called it racism. Qwint gives a good indication of some of the stuff I have read, among others. I am listening though, please continue.
Sallystrange@121 I agree and I am trying to learn and be better in many aspects of my life. I will admit to some “laziness” when I first asked you for more information because I thought it would be quicker to find a reliable resource from someone who seemed to know what they were talking about. Maybe it’s just the teacher/student in me that made want to ask the question in the first place. And that’s where I was going with the comment “But you have to get used to repeating yourself if you want to educate people outside of those circles.”. I’ll bow out now so I don’t derail the thread anymore. Thanks again to those of you who provided me with info.
Intent is only relevant in determining how you respond to being corrected. It doesn’t change what you actually did. You shouldn’t be bringing up your intent at all unless it’s alongside a sincere apology for fucking up, and you haven’t done that yet.
frankgturner,
In a place where a black man was choked until he died on video by white people from a public organization which is supposed to look out for his safety, you write paragraph after paragraph telling us that black people can also be racist against white people. Sorry, but dropping a vague “where I live, it happens” doesn’t work. You have to ask yourself WHY you’re arguing about this? What’s your motive?
The most charitable thing I can say about you at this point is that you just like to be contrary. But I suspect deep down, that’s not it.
Fair enough Sally Strange.
.
Let me think this out as I would like it to be as sincere as possible.
Are you still wondering why people think you’re white, Frank? It could be that you’re a person of color who enjoys acting exactly like racist white people act. They do exist. Just like misogynist women exist and are sometimes mistaken for misogynist men on the internet.
frankgturner, 111:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA fuck man I got a bingo what do I win?
Because if you weren’t white, you wouldn’t need to ask these questions, because you’d already be carrying the weight of inescapable racism throughout your entire life. You would KNOW that it’s only white people who demand to be educated by a brown person displaying sufficient abjection so they don’t feel anything less than stroked or petted while a definition that couldn’t POSSIBLY have anything to do with them is softly uttered in a pleasing, exotic accent, adding another thrilling dimension to the novelty of such an articulate dark skinned person delivering the gross weight of deference a white person is entitled to.
Because you would KNOW that “Where are you from?” always carries the demand to justify your existence in a country dominated by white supremacy.
Because you would KNOW that a lot of the white people around you say shit like, “you know, I don’t even see you as You’re just a person, like me,” they think it’s a compliment, but you can hear it: I single you out and exclude you from your racial and ethnic group because you don’t fit my racist understanding of that group, and exceptionalizing you means I don’t have to shift my perception of an entire people, and therefore admit that this aspect of my thinking has been racist.
Because you would know that there’s no way to escape from this system that keeps you down and makes sure you’re never seen with full humanity, full context, full understanding, or even real interest, because it’s not just in person to person relationships, it’s crammed into the stories we’re told for entertainment and even in the narrative of the news.
because you would know this shit even if you were on that white supremacy drink and fell for the bullshit that is respectability politics and the prison of the model minority. You would argue and refute against it, but you would not be wholly ignorant of it.
And you are wholly ignorant. Only a white person could ask this question, and they always, always do.
My apologies for contributing to derail. It’s something I sometimes don’t realize I’m doing when chiming in on portions of a bigger conversation.
@Doki 104- you’re right I should have googled. Glad to see Rock abandoned that routine.
To be fair, Uncle Ebenezer, a lot of us, a hell of a lot of us perform internet conversations the way they used to happen before the internet was nearly everywhere. This thing is new, still. I certainly did not grow up with the internet and mind-bogglingly powerful, simple means to search for information available in seconds, even if I have enthusiastically adopted the internet as an adult. We are still shaping the cultural expectations of internet conversation, and that’s super interesting. Though I think to say anything more would be off – topic.
Ceesays, thanks for your anger and your bluntness and your truth.
I just get so damn tired of this. it happens everywhere I go. Everywhere.
The pro-social-justice regulars have been killing it; I have nothing to add but agreement with y’all.
Here’s another kind of “reverse racism” – an African footballer being fined for reacting to monkey chants from Russian “fans”. This is the country that will be hosting the World Cup in 2018. They don’t like gays either.
ceesays, I got a small but different taste of this when I transitioned, before I could reliably ‘pass’ as myself. For a few years, it was unceasing, and showed me a lot of how much my ass had been showing before that.
And I only got a small piece for a few years, and it sure didn’t take away the massive privilege I carry in my white skin. My trans sisters of colour take a far worse burden. So even when we get shit on by the system, white people get dainty little pigeon shit, while we back up dump trucks of rank human shit for PoC.
To the white people here, I’ll repeat to you a challenge I received back when I wrote at shakesville: “Yeah? What are you doing to honour Black bodies today? Black people cannot change our minds – they can only keep telling us that our skirts are tucked into our panties. Again. And Again. And Again.
We have to wake the fuck up and stay fucking woke, and no, I don’t think there’s a single word I’d take out of that sentence to spare someone’s hurt white feefees.
How about we try something positive?
What can you do, today, to honour Black bodies?
What little or big thing will you do, today, to make Black lives matter? And what tomorrow?
Tell us what you do to make things better, not to be told you’re great for it, but for us to work through ways we can put belief into practice.
I’ll start: I make a point of being warm and friendly to all people, but I focus on PoC, and especially Black men, so regularly stigmatised as The Brute. I don’t demand interaction, but i meet eyes and smile genuinely, in any circumstance where I might do so to a white man.
Is that going to change the world? Not unless everyone commits to it. But other white people need to see us, as progressives, living the ideas. We need, each and every one of us, to make the changes that will cumulatively change the world.
The personal is political, you might say.
ceesays
You have a heckuvalot more patience than I’m pretty sure I would have. ♥
+++
This whole conversation sort of brings to mind the BlackLivesMatter vs. AllLivesMatter hashtags on twitter. A response to that was something along the lines of ‘Yes, all lives matter, now sit down, we’re trying to get some work done’ (as in, shut up and let the black people work on some of those lives). Because it damn sure isn’t all lives being systematically targeted by white law enforcement and the justice system. Another sort-of response came right after the Garner non-indictment: ‘How can we show black [people] that their lives have value if they’re constantly being shown to be worthless?’ That, right there, is something no white person will ever have to face, here or in South Africa, or anywhere else in the world. White people may have been oppressed, but it has been by other white people. And within the bounds of global, white people’s colonization efforts. Nowhere have they, white people, been crushed beneath the bootheels of a coloured power for centuries and then left to deal with the fallout for another few centuries after that in a system that consistently denies them their rights to live as people.
I refuse to believe that there is any way that any other person or group of people can be racist towards a white person anywhere in the world. Prejudiced, yes. But not racist, whether institutionalized, systemic, or any other kind. Anywhere. It’s better in some places – for black people (or other people of colour). But it’s pretty damn good everywhere for white people. (Generally speaking. And even where it’s bad for white people, it’s prejudice, which is often rooted on historical events where white people have shown rather bad sides of themselves – but not, not, racism.)
The main reason I come to the comments on Pharyngula is to get educated. Even when I think I’m well versed in an issue and on the right side ethically, I can come here and find out where I’m wrong. Some people aren’t wiling to take the criticism dished here and listen to what’s actually being said. It’s amazing what happens when I listen and think about it before I spout off defensively. So I hope my occasional ignorance isn’t too upsetting, because I honestly learn from someone here in almost every thread I wade into.
Everyone shows their ass at some time. Like any mistake, what you do next is what counts. When someone says, or you notice, that you’re feeling a better-than-usual cooling breeze around your cloaca, do you insist it’s because of your specialness, or do you acknowledge that you’ve got a bogroll tail and your pants are around your metaphorical ankles?
It’s really down to you. And if someone doesn’t want to accept your apologia for whatever you did, tough. Get used to it. The only people who don’t owe anything to you or the conversation are those who are marginalised in it.
@gussnarp
CatieBat has it basically covered, but yeah, no one expects perfection. And, frankly, people are giving me a lot of credit when they lay into me: if they didn’t believe I was worth the time to educate, they wouldn’t do it.
I try to take it as a compliment when I get my ass handed to me.
I try to learn from it as well, because I prefer to intentionally pick the moments when my ass gets beat (and who beats it), but I find it makes everything go better when I remember first that the implied compliment runs through every bit of correction.
Oh, hell. Did I just write “CatieBat”? The B and C aren’t even adjacent. How’d I do that?
Apologies to my friendly neighborhood harridan.
For those of you who are interested, here is an article that addresses the “racism = prejudice + power” formulation of racism and a bit about the title of the post “How can a black person be racist?”
The Pedagogy of the Meaning of Racism:Reconciling a Discordant Discourse
Sallystrange@130 I don’t see why I should apologize, you were the one who brought up the “racism = prejudice + power” definition and I asked a question about it. If people here want to blame me for derailing the thread with that question then so be it, i disagree.
LOL, I was just gonna wtf that. Hey, CD, feeling breezy? ;)
I want to also say thanks to those who’ve pitched in on this thread, the usual suspects – I’d name you, but then I’ll forget someone, which would suck, and I’m back on my phone for afternoon horizontal time, so I’m not gonna try and run back to collect, but you’re all awesome.
I should have added to my post @147 when talking about the part of the article “a bit about the title of the post “How can a black person be racist?””. That the author describes a specific, small scale, situation and not something on a societal level, and sure as shit not when a black person speaks their mind like Chris Rock did in the article. Going with other people definitions here, I don’t see how Chris Rock was being prejudice.
so you’re going to continue to derail, parasiteboy?
i’m beginning to wonder about your choices in self-naming. at first I assumed it was because you were a parasitologist.
ceesays@150
It is because I am a parasitologist. Whereas, I was looking for more information and came across something that I thought would be of interest.
Parasiteboy #147 – My comment at #130 was directed at Frank, not you. Apologies for not including name and post number.
Alternate history: I mentioned the “prejudice + power” racism definition.
Parasiteboy thinks, “Hmm, really? I never heard of that before. Is that really true?”
TIME DIVERGES
Parasiteboy copies & pastes “racism = power + prejudice” into a search bar.
Parasiteboy posts a comment that says something like, “I was unfamiliar with that definition of racism, so I looked it up. Turns out it’s true! Here are some interesting links I found.”
Parasiteboy does not derail the thread.
The end.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to quibble about the definition at all. I was simply saying that, like (I suspect) most white people, I thought of racism as a personality defect rather than a system of oppression until fairly recently. That’s one of the roots of the problem – most white people think of racism as a personal shortcoming and the term “racist” as a personal insult, rather than thinking of it as a system. That’s why so many whites get all angry and defensive when they’re called out on their racism, rather than thinking things through. It’s also a lot more comfortable to think of racism as a kind of personality flaw because then it’s much easier to assure oneself that one isn’t racist, rather than admitting that one is part of, and probably complicit in, a huge system of racism.
I’ve heard a saying that “It’s very hard to get someone to know something if their job depends on not knowing it.” In this case, it’s very hard to get white people to know the true, systematic definition of racism when their privileged position and sense of being good people depends on their not knowing it.
@153: there is no “probably” about it. If you’re white, youre complicit. I am. What are you going to do about it, now you know? That 28-hour clock is still ticking.
@SallyStrange, #152:
I so love you.
What Crip Dyke Said.
@SallyStrange (and many others )
Thanks for your comments and explanations – I learned a lot from reading this; I knew the power+prejudice definition before, but you made it especially clear why this is important.
Back to lurking (and learning)
hmmm
I think that a CaitieBat would be way scarier than a CaitieCat.
I mean, imagine her airborne!
I’d like to quote the entire post by Dark Jaguar, but I’m afraid that would annoy the hell out of people, so I’d just like to say that as much as I hate having been bullied, that yes, that experience has probably given me a glimpse of what it’s like to experience racism. (It also made me get “Schrödinger’s rapist” right away, because for me it was “Schrödinger’s bully”).
I also want to say thank you, SallyStrange.
There is a big problem with a blanket denial of racism as being exhibited by any other human phenotype (race) other than white; that problem is that it exists.
For example, talk to Han Chinese and you can find out that Caucasian and Hispanic types are “wooden headed monkeys” and that Caucasians are disgustingly hairy and smell. Such ethnic Chinese exhibit racism towards the Uigars, Mongolians, Tibetans and many other non-Chinese and Chinese similar types. The Japanese are racially prejudiced towards the Koreans and the Ainu as well as regarding other outsiders as Gaijin or big noses which is an insult all too familiar to Jews in Europe.
Now let us look elsewhere. It was racism that was the driver behind the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians. In the late 1970s I lived in Brixton (UK) and often heard Indians and Pakistanis referred to by black Britons as “wogs” and regarded in much the same way as fascists regard Jews. Additionally did hear myself described as being “OK – for a Whitey.” Similarly if you talk to those who have worked in Saudi and the Emirates (as I have) you will find out that prejudice against Caucasians is very common in that area.
Racism exists, all human types on all continents exhibit it. I am certain that White Americans are often pre-judged on their perceived race by those of other types, just as I was judged until found to be “OK”.
On the other hand Reverse Racism does exist, it is called tolerance.
People who shout reverse racism remind me of Gomer Pyle in this scene…
And there is a difference between “being prejudged”, which is prejudice and oppression.
Have you read the thread? Have you even watched the clip?
Because, my aren’t you a special snowflake that either:
1) there’s no chance your point of view has been raised in 160 previous comments
or
2) It doesn’t matter how many times your point of view has been represented, because until *you* chime in, it doesn’t count. after all, the discussion doesn’t advance by considering ideas. The discussion advances by everyone taking time out to listen to the hexagonally-symmetrical-crystal laden air coming out of your mouth.
yeesh.
You could have saved yourself the time it took to set that strawman on fire by just scrolling up and READING.
HA! And thanks for the parentheses (those curvy things around race). Let me guess…male?
And those parentheses too! I was so totally ready to dismiss your expertise on the peoples of the Middle East until I got to that little bit between the curved lines.
gussnarp @25:
You’re right. A lot of people don’t use the sociological definition of racism. Many people just think “if you’re bigoted or prejudiced against someone because of their actual or perceived race, then you’re racist”. As Sally Strange, dõki, and Akira MacKenzie pointed out early in this thread though, that’s not the sociological definition. Racism is more than just prejudice against someone for their race (or perceived race). There is also a component of power. And not power in terms of having a gun, or having numbers, or having physical power. Power in terms of institutional power. Power in terms of social power. Power in terms of governmental power. Just look at the murders of Michael Brown and Eric Garner. The cops who killed them had institutional (police and government) and social power backing them, so when they killed their victims, that was an act of racism. In addition, the grand jury decision in both cases, which said “we’re not going to hold you accountable for the deaths of these men” is another example of racism. At least in the US, black people don’t hold the kinds of social, political, or economic power that white people have. They can’t be racist against white people. They can be prejudiced or bigoted though. And certainly, some of them are.
****
call me mark @32:
Nicely put.
****
from consciousness razor’s quote @34:
Crowder thinks there’s something wrong with questioning comedy? I wonder why that (and other forms of art) are off limits. He just says it shouldn’t be viewed through the lens of journalism, but that’s not much of an explanation for why one shouldn’t question comedy.
****
CaitieCat @61:
This reminds me, I need to check the Pharyngula wiki and see if there’s a Racism 101 entry.
****
frankgturner @88:
What type of power are you talking about here? And how does this ‘systemic prejudice’ manifest? Are white people denied housing, or treated to higher loan rates? Are white people in this area disproportionately targeted for low level crimes? Are a disproportionate number of white people in this area in jail? Do black people in this area write the laws that white people have to follow? Do black people run the local city council, the police department, and the financial institutions?
****
For the benefit of some of the people in this thread, went and googled (though not using Google Scholar) “racism= prejudice plus power”. This site is a blog, but gives a nice explanation for why black people can’t be racist:
We don’t have the power in the United States, no matter where you live (speaking to you, frankgturner). We don’t run the banking institutions. We don’t run the government. We don’t run freakin’ Hollywood. We don’t control any oil companies. There are only six of us who run Fortune 500 companies. No matter how many of us get together, we still won’t have the institutional power that white people–as a group–possess.
I hope this clue by four helps a few people better understand that racism is not simply prejudicial or bigoted views of someone based on their actual or perceived race. Power is a necessary component.
@ nich 164
I was not setting up a straw man – there are those who deny that racism can be exhibited by any race other than white; at no point did I indicate that those people were commenting here. Please do not assume that you are being insulted without evidence.
@ Crip Dyke 163.
At no point did I address the problem of oppression, If I had wanted to do so I would have used that word. I was addressing racial prejudice, a root cause of racial oppression. I was demonstrating from things I have both experienced and been advised about that prejudice exists in human types other than “white” and can even be aimed the human type termed “white”. The mere fact that others have referred to that does not invalidate my descriptions of it.
If I had wanted to raise points about the oppression of one “race” by another then I would have brought in Mugabe’s oppression of racial types in Zimbabwe or Amin’s oppression (not just expulsion) in Uganda. I could have highlighted the oppression of the Tibetans or the Uigars in China and the cruelties visited upon Koreans in Japan. In the UK I am fully aware that there is an institutional oppression but I am also aware of local criminal gangs clearing out those of an offending racial type in areas of London, Manchester and Birmingham and this too is oppression, just not officially approved oppression.
Thanks for the compliments! I’m doing my best, passing along the generosity, patience, and education that have been given to me. I hope you all do the same.
Please make one more post about how little you understand either racism or oppression, Intaglio! I just can’t wait to hear more of your oh-so-novel thoughts on the subject.
Intaglio
Bless your heart.
So one could say you built, say, a strawman, aka, an argument you concede nobody here was making, and then, say, burnt it down, aka, a rebuttal to the argument you concede nobody here was making.
Gotcha.
SallyStrange@152 No worries.
Although I still disagree about the derailing, I do understand your point. Thanks.
I’m confused, it seems that the only type of racial prejudice and racial oppression that exists, as far as many Pharyngulites are concerned, is white on black oppression and prejudice. This may apply in the USA but there is a far bigger world out their than the USA.
Intaglio @161:
Dear new commenter–please read the thread. You’re deeply wrong about several things. The 101 level stuff occurred in the prior 161 comments (again).
Gee, aren’t we talking about the US, with quotes from USAians about recent USA happenings?
Why are you trying for a world-wide definition? Or you just can’t wrap your mind around the fact the those with privilege and those without may change country by country.
Intaglio (confused)
What is the topic of this thread?
Intaglio @174:
False. Racial prejudices exist across the planet and are exhibited by people of all races.
Racism OTOH is racial prejudice plus the added component of POWER. In the United States, neither African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, nor First Nations people possess the structural/societal/institutional power that white Americans do. I can’t speak to other areas of the world, but I suspect the same holds true across the globe.
There are explanations peppered throughout this thread that you could look to to educate yourself. Hell, you could listen to the video in the OP and gain a better understanding. Instead, you opted to drop into this thread and put your ignorance on display for the world to see. Stop. Read. Learn.
Intaglio @168:
Point to a commenter that said no other race on the planet can exhibit racism.
There was a reason Crip Dyke mentioned oppression. Read the thread and you’re likely to understand why.
Oh, and I see what you did there. Prejudice and racism are not interchangeable terms.
English does not have hundreds of phonemes, so it wouldn’t need hundreds of letters for a phonemic alphabet. The number of phonemes varies by dialect, but it’s around forty or so.
I found his “there are black people, and then there are n*****s” bit to be pretty freaking racist. I know white people love repeating it.
Anyway, he is horribly misogynist in addition to that.
@ Tony
Nor was I suggesting that you did. Let me give you a little background here. And by the way that article is very good. Maybe you might understand my motivations instead of painting this straw man of me.
.
I am in an inter-racial relationship (surprise surprise). Many years ago when I dated inter-racially that was very tough. I was threatened and even beaten up by people of both races. Most who threatened me were actually black but that means nothing as it was in proportion to the population here. The one time someone did have to face charges he was actually white (as was strangely part of a mixed group that was attacking me). Believe me though, it hurt just as much to be threatened and beaten up by whites as it did blacks. I get it though that what I was facing was not part of the way I might get it from larger society. I never got threatened by the Klu Klux Klan. I did fear for my life a few times though and it lead to a great deal of depression.
.
That line about “I can’t be racist, I’m black” I heard a lot. Believe me I can understand how the larger population oppressed the black population to the point where one would engage in behavior that was, well basically oppressive. I felt that hateful and mean spiritedness that you were talking about and I did my best to sympathize, but two wrongs don’t make a right.
.
Now times have changed, heck some years ago (about 3) I was hit on by at least 2 women who were interested in me at work despite the interracial difference and I am glad for the change around here. It has become rather common around here now. The point is though, I have had many a talk with black people in my area and I often discuss how reacting to oppression with violence is not the answer. My significant other gets that too.
.
One of the guys who beat me up and threatened me as a teenager called me some years ago. He was going through a 12 step program and he had to call people that he had hurt in his past. We had a long talk, he said something to me about how he was trying to use his race to justify his actions. I can forgive what he did, but the fact is, he was trying to call it something different in order to justify it. I don’t give a flying fuck if it has a different name and I can understand that it being done on a larger scale by big institutions has more of an impact, but it does not justify it either way. The mean spiritedness and hatefullness and threats may not be as large of a scale or have as much of an impact as when they are done by the one’s in power, but it is morally objectionable ether way. He had been trying to justify it by claiming that it was fair retaliation and I was glad that he saw that this was not the way to solve the problem.
.
No I have not seen black people running banking institutions. Around where I live a lot are in the local government (in proportion mind you). I would never claim that being black gives you any privledge that whites don’t have on a large scale.
.
I did have a long talk with a friend of mine who is a sociology expert though and I learned some things. The technical definition of racism according to official declarations of institutions that she is familiar with basically identify it as prejudice based on race that uses racial categories to yield superiority for some and inferiority for others base on ethnicity. Of course she pointed out that she would be a fool not to include in that definition the inclusion of social institutions who use their position of power to maintain that superiority. She summed it up with, “technically that is not part of our current professional definition but don’t be surprised if it is within the next so many years as that is where the trend is going.” Pardon if some of us are a bit behind on that.
.
Among her colleagues she tends to work with the trending definition. She did point out that the use of power institutions is common in how they understand racism as well as in articles that she has read recently. Having kept up with the American Sociological Association and the National Association of Social Workers there are a number of articles in which the prejudice + power is a popular usage of the term “racism” even if not explicitly stated. So in general she does tend to assume that racism is by definition institutional unless otherwise stated if the term is used. (She mentioned something about what she reads being more explicit in their usage). So what Tony here mentioned seems to be based on popular usage among sociological organizations rather than official declarations, but as that is where the trend is going it sounds like that could be an official declaration soon enough.
.
She also mentioned how there is discussion of how individuals will downplay the inequalities in the levels of racial prejudice engaged in by institutions as a method of denial. That is not my intent and I am definitely learning more about it (I intend to talk to her a lot more).
.
Furthermore I am seeing that highlighting the differences in interpersonal prejudice, one being with the component of power and one without, in order to better solve the problems is the general intent here. I think that is very noble of people like SallyStrange. I think that is noble of many of you and while it may not be part of an official declaration, not including it in one’s consideration is foolish and it was foolish of me. Even if I failed to use the term “racism” in a way that was technically aligned with your usage, I would certainly take what you have said into great consideration.
.
Oh an conciousness razor, the point I was making before about being a professional scientist and not a professional sociologist that is why I consulted one. Pardon if I get hung up on technicalities, I would ask for forgiveness if you are willing to give it.
.
Even if it is not given as you think this not a sincere apology I can understand that. I definitely have someone to speak to who can point me in the right direction.
I sincerely doubt that. Shutting the fuck up is the proper way to explain you have diddly squat.
Yawn, heard this before.
Thanks for agreeing with us.
That intent, whether you mean it or not, seems pretty obvious, at least to me.
Your wanking definition is rejected, and the sociological one will be used. Your wankings are meaningless to that definition. If you hope to accomplish anything here, take your wankings outside of yourself to legitimate authorities. That won’t make you sound like a liar and bullshitter with a shitload of self-justification.
@Tony!
Because bad reviews hurt feefees, duh!
Not his of course. He is a strong manlyman. But he has a VERY GOOD FRIEND whose fee fees are often hurt by critics and thinks all that critiquing of art should JUST STOP. WHY CAN’T YOU LEAVE THE WHITE MAN ALONE????
@frankgturner:
I absolutely agree. I am not interested in distinguishing oppression from prejudice (or racism from racial prejudice) because I am interested in distinguishing morally objectionable from morally blameless. To use, “It wasn’t rape it was theft” to say that theft is okay is bullshit.
But rape and theft are different problems, and there is great utility in being able to distinguish between the two if we wish to solve them.
Likewise, racial prejudice is bullshit that needs to end. Racism is bullshit that needs to end. [And trying to claim moral blamelessness through noting that one’s actions are **only** racially prejudiced violence and not racism can and must be squashed flat.] But if we can’t distinguish prejudice from oppression, racial ill-will from racism, then we are going to have a much harder time ending both problems. I’m for accurate information. I’m for eliminating confusion. I’m for justice.
It is because of my opposition to both prejudice and oppression that I refuse to conflate the two, and where I see the conflation made by others, call out that conflation and point out its deliberate creation by pro-oppression activists and advocates.
@Intaglio:
I noticed.
And yet you called the prejudice “racism”. Funny that.
@ Crip dyke
Well thank you very much for understanding where I was coming from. The difficulty is, I see a LOT of people, black and white, that don’t define racism in the (trending) sociological way and who DO conflate prejudice and oppression in this regard as long as it is racially motivated.
.
Upon thinking I can see a problem with that, much in the same way as I see a problem with conflating theory and hypothesis. How does one get the larger part of society to change their word usage and not just a select group of professionals? (And maybe a few thinkers).
@ Crip dyke
Not everyone who conflates the two is a pro-oppression activist and advocate. Many may simply come from a background. Go out and ask 10 random people how they define racism and see if you get the sociological definition or as Nerd here calls it, the “wanking definition.”
.
I am not saying that the confusion is right. In retrospect reading some of the previous posts and thinking about it, Sally has a point here.
This issue reminds me of Leonard Jeffries, someone who has argued that black people are nice “Sun People” and white people nasty “Ice People”. Thus making him a black racist.
I think that it would be fun to get white racists and black racists together, and watch them argue that it’s the other side that is subhuman.
lpetrich @187:
FTFY.
@frankgturner
I’m not saying that everyone who conflates the two is a pro-oppression activist and advocate.
I’m saying those people exist and the confusion of racism with racial prejudice and generally of oppression with prejudice is an outcome of their advocacy and activism – one that was foreseeable and foreseen.
If I wasn’t aware of that, I could make my choices about uses of those words without “taking the side” of those activists/advocates. I am aware of it, however, and ethically there are repercussions for knowingly choose to side with the advocates of ambiguity, given that the ambiguity is created to serve an anti-accountability a gender.
Thus it plays a decisive role in my thinking without needing to consider precisely what percentage of people engaging in ambiguity are those reprehensible activists/advocates.
Really interesting thread.
I think most people obviously have their prejudices and are ‘prejudice’… so growing up I always thought that racism was: prejudice + hatred = racism. Now I see that adding the position of ‘power’ into the equation makes perfect and total sense – I had never thought of it in that precise way. VERY eye opening.
This is a very simple concept that I wish more people would grasp.
So thanks Sally Strange.
AP
#182 frankgturner
Forgive me if that didn’t blow my mind. Actually, it’s so predictable it’s actually a bingo card item.
@Crip Dyke # 189
I am taught that intellectual honesty is important, this comes up when discussing it is “just a theory” when it comes to evolution. And I can’t help but thinking (if you read some of the back posts) that not all of the ambiguity has the intent of being an advocate of conflation between the prejudice with oppression and prejudice by itself. Although this is an important distinction an one that I would try very hard to include in the future. If I were intellectually honest I would have to offer that I think many are not making the distinction and that it has nothing to do with them being advocates of the oppression.
.
I have not had much of a chance to ask around to those who can see the distinction, but asking a few random people that i ran into tonight (say about 5) I am not sure that any of them made the distinction. If I were honest, I assume none and that includes at least 3 black women. I am not sure that the addition of this factor to the equation could be explained adequately to them. Would you think it more advantageous to approach creating awareness from another angle?
@ doki # 191
Look if you are gonna be a dick about that then go ahead, I am used to it.
You hit the nail on the head doki, everyone regardless of race acted like an asshole to me and had prejudices about me because of my racial dealings and acted out of hatred and mean spiritedness regardless of whether they were the recipients of oppression or not. So no I did not make really firm distinctions between their motivations and the average lay person does not either.
Yanno, I am in an interracial relationship. So is my roommate. So is my coworker. The first non-family wedding I went to was an interracial (gay) marriage.
Strom Thurmond also was in an interracial relationship. So is this reactionary conservative douchebag who used to comment here.
I find it crass and tacky in the extreme to bring up my sweetie in an argument about race. It’s so bogus. Men have been having sex with women for eons, and it hasn’t stopped them oppressing women. I wish people would stop acting like it’s relevant to the accuracy or usefulness of your views on racism whether you routinely bump genitals with a person of color.
Also note: in #194, Frank demonstrates what his biggest stumbling block is: he seems incapable of stepping outside his personal experiences. Yes, from the perspective of a white man, getting shit from white people and black people is about equally painful. So? Who fucking cares? We’re talking about black people. Or trying to. Now, I guess we’re having yet ANOTHER meta-conversation about the inability of white people to not insist on being the center of every damn thing.
Also note in # 196 how Sally Strange is so determined to point out that what I said should be a negative that she spins it in a direction so as to point out why it is a negative so as to fit in with her preconceived notions of me. The point I was making was that a person who took shit (and you still have no hard evidence that i am white, you have assumed that) from both sides might find a bit of a hard time seeing one side as being on the hard end of things. If you had read a previous post in 182 a little more carefully (like Crip Dyke did) you might have picked up on that.
.
I tried apologizing and you treated me like garbage. You are no better than the prejudiced people that you put down.
I’m not sorry that I find your apologetics and explanations unimpressive and self-serving.
frankgturner
I can hardly see you, that hole is so deep.
@frankgturner
Anger at oppression expressed towards at an individual representative of that oppression does not equal racism. In this case, I don’t even think it was prejudice. I think you were attacked by people of colour because you were perceived to be doing something to uphold the racist system (i.e. using your privilege to take advantage of a woman of colour). You were not attacked because of your race, but your actions. Ironically, you were attacked by white people because you were perceived to be doing something to flout the racist system (i.e. treating someone of the oppressed class as worthy of a relationship with a man of the privileged class).
So this is still the frankgturner show, eh? What a complete and total not-surprise.
That’s a hint frankgturner. You want to know why people doubt your motivations? There it is. Your first post was #5 and we’re now almost at #200 and this thread is still about how frankgturner just “can’t” (read: “won’t”) wrap his brain around the difference between an individual’s personal experiences and a system of oppression and about how frankgturner has been mistreated by people of many different races and about how mean some people are being to frankgturner in this thread. We wanted to talk about racism but then frankgturner showed up and 16 hours later we’re still talking about the definition of a word.
LOL, after a few dozen posts on this thread you’re saying it’s Sally that’s making it about you?
That, sir, is a rich feast indeed. You were told more than hundred comments ago to stop being so focused on yourself and your perceptions, and start listening. And yet here we are, still talking about you and how important it is that we know you’re totes not racist at all.
Two thoughts on that: a) of course you are, no one grows up in this society without swimming in racist thought and deed; and b) nobody but you could give the feathered cloaca of a mutant ratypus whether you are or not. It’s not the important thing here. You’re not the important thing here. And if you don’t want people to be rude to you, read the comment guidelines, and stop doing things deserving of rudeness, derision, and anger. It’s not complex.
@SallyStrange
Sorry. I should’ve ignored him so as to not let him derail the conversation even further.
Thanks to you all (won’t name you all cos I’d be here all night and I gotta sleep, though–>), and especially ceesays for her resilience.
Oh dear….and this is what i get for arriving to the party late.
I’ve definitely seen some examples of black people being racist – but Chris Rock is far, far from that.
I mean, stuff like seen in Louis Therox’s piece on Black Nationalism, particularly with the Black Israelites. That’s some twisted stuff. Honestly, it made me feel sad rather than angry, because they’re just responding to all the hate that’s been spat their way with their own brand of it.
No apologies needed, Ibis3. Honestly these sorts of conversations seem sadly necessary.
And Frank, it’s nice that you mean well. It’s just that your efforts so far are underwhelming, to say the least. I believe that you can do better, and also that you don’t require head-pats from me or anyone else to do so. If I thought you were a lost cause I wouldn’t bother saying anything to you except “fuck off”.
Of course, I now see that you think that my impatience with your pig-headedness makes me worse than the bigots I fight against. So maybe you are completely worthless after all. I guess we’ll see.
Oh god, of course this thread is going to have clueless white asshole after clueless white asshole taking the rhetorical question in the title seriously and trying to explain when and how black people are racist. Surprise, they’re never talking about black folks reinforcing anti-black prejudice.
P. S. Making a big deal about being thought white on the internet due to clueless remarks about race is a thing white people do.
Wait, are you talking about me?
If so, wow, that was incredibly rude and uncalled for.
I mentioned it because of a documentary I recently watched which you can see here in dubiously legal fashion which featured some pretty extreme behaviors that I think no one should emulate.
Do I think the guy in the video PZ posted has a point? No, not remotely. Do I think Chris Rock is racist? No.
It was tangential, but “tangential” is not “clueless white asshole.” But, hey, make it about my race if you like. I’m sure it’s easier to insult me when you make me less of a person by referencing a surface trait.
Pardon, I mean to say Stephen Crowder.
…which is to say I don’t think Stephen Crowder has a point.
Stars, it’s late. You know what, final correction then to bed.
Zimmerle @ 209
You’re the one who just parachuted into a 200 comment long thread and completely failed to notice that what you were about to say had already been addressed at length. There’s no need for you to be attempting to educate anyone else about rudeness.
After I went to bed I was asked what the title of this thread was, well here it is “How can a black person be racist?” Please note the question was not “How can a Black American be racist towards White Americans?”
In answer to that original question I responded with evidence and anecdote that all human types can be racist, naively assuming that the commentariat here would be aware that there are people of other types, including some with black skins, living in places other than the USA. At no point did I deny the existence and reality of White racism in the USA or anywhere else. My point was that Black people can be as racist as any other human type because Black people are humans and subject to the same human frailties as others.
Originally I did not address the problem of oppression that is based in this racism as I personally regard oppression and prejudice as both being the result of racism. Because racism exists in all human types oppression of one human type by another exists everywhere. There is even evidence of racist oppression by Blacks on White (and other human types), just as there is good evidence of racial oppression between human types other than just “Black” and “White”
Another matter that seems to be ignored is that even where one particular “race” is dominant in a particular country there seems to be a hierarchy of racism where there are local majorities of one particular human type. In Brixton in the late 1970s the local majority regarded Whites as OK but untrustworthy and not “streetwise”; Sikhs and Indians were dirty and stunk of curry; locally the bottom of the heap were the Pakistanis, whose homes and businesses were vandalised and sometimes burned. How did I come to be aware of this? By talking to people and, eventually as being seen as “OK – for a Whitey”. The Brixton of that time is not unique, other, similar, examples can be found in other locations in the UK and Europe.
So, in answer to the original question, the answer is “A black person can very easily be racist as racism seems to be evidenced in all human types.”
Intaglio
If you had any interest in actual discussion, you’d have noticed that the way you’re using the word “racism” is inconsistent with the way the word is used here. You’re using it to refer to individual prejudice; consciously held opinions by an individual about a group of people based on race. Had you been bothered to notice that, you’d realize that nobody has actually denied that anyone at all can harbor any kind of prejudice at all.
frankgturner
*ponders*
I wonder, if you subjected this to an actual analysis by numbers, if it weren’t subject to the same kind of perception skew as we see for women in spaces, where approximately 20% women is already perceived as a majority (or 30%, sorry, I’m hazy on the numbers right now). By which I mean that their representation seems proportional, but may not actually be proportional. So “a lot” might not actually be a lot.
(Not saying you’re wrong, just thinking this warrants a closer look.)
Intaglio
The title of the post is “How can a black person be racist?”, but we do not argue or discuss within comments simply based on the title. For that, you need to read the OP. And if you read the OP, you will see that it deals with a black man in America being accused of racism against a white man in America.
No confusion. No need for global context, as this whole conversation is on racism in the American context.
Now, was that so hard?
#193 frankgturner
I won’t let you use it as some sort of gotcha moment, if that’s what you mean. I understand that you suffered, and hope it doesn’t happen to you anymore, but to regard white and black racism and black on white prejudice as equally bad is a false equivalence when you consider the larger picture, and your bringing up your relationship does not change that.
@ 193 frankgturner
Ah yes, gendered insults are so useful in making your tedious point.
I wanted to thank all the regulars who have shared so much useful information. Please know others are reading and learning thanks to you.
#195 SallyStrange
Also: John Derbyshire.
@ rq 216
I repeat – racism is more than just oppression. In my opinion it is an entire suite of judgemental opinion, oppressive actions and flawed assumptions based upon visible and/or audible characteristics of peoples perceived as a group.
The original OP moved from the general to the specific; I did not address the specific point because that was not my intent. That intent was to raise the general case that racism exists amongst all human types. If commentators fix their view only upon the specific case then they ignore the larger problem and the absolute need for that wider problem to be addressed.
@frankgturner (and others)
Thank you so much for this; for your patience and perseverance. This whole thing is starting to be real eye-opener for me. I have been a loyal follower of PZ Myer’s blog for many, many years now, and actually agree with many of the things he writes. However, I am aghast to what the comments section has devolved to. And this current thread exemplifies very clearly what goes wrong all too often, especially on topics like racism, sexism and feminism.
It’s like anyone who does not express the correct opinions right off the bat, or may not line up as perfectly as deemed proper, or may not be aware of, or choose to accept, the “correct” definitions of terms, ends up getting shouted down by a small circle of zealots, who are often being deliberately mean-spirited and hurtful. Just because they can.
Well, I’m sorry, but some of us are just regular, imperfect people, who may struggle with their own deficiencies and narrow perspectives. And despite perhaps seeming clueless in some respects, most of us are still open-minded enough to learn. That’s why we’re asking questions. Not because we’re necessarily questioning your sacred opinions, but just because we’re confused about this other, new perspective. And when we’re not learning as quick enough as some of you might like, doesn’t justify being decidedly abusive, as if you all are so perfect. How about you all climb down your high horses and come play in the mud and get dirty like the rest of us!? Some of us here aren’t actually afraid of being wrong sometimes.
Frankly, it’s like there’s a competition of who can come with the most politically correct comment delivered in the cleverest most down-putting way. Some of you have simply stopped listening and only concern yourselves with mining after imperfections in other peoples’ comments that can be twisted and amplified into monstrous forms to be then put down with some snide remarks. It’s like it’s turned into a sport! Seriously, what is wrong with some of you? It’s about as painful as looking at a crowd of Beatlemaniacs trying to outshout each other (or crowd of soccer fans for that matter). It almost becomes impossible to have an interesting, informative exchange of ideas!
I also predict up-following comments to precisely follow the pattern described here.
Ranzoid @204
I just need to call this out. It appears, from my perspective, as if the message you’re conveying is that there is no vested interest in the issue on your part, just an opportunity to argue a point that was missed, or a chance to ‘enter the fray’ has gone.
Petrander @221
There is no need to scare-quote the word “correct”, as in this case, the correct definition for racism was pointed out. Whether you choose to accept it or not does not invalidate the definition’s acceptability to those who agree upon that meaning.
intaglio @220
So, the sociological definition of ‘racism’ then. Because it sounds like you have prejudice + power there.
To what purpose?
Oh, the wider problem being addressed… Great. Now that it has been addressed, what is your intended solution to the wider problem of racism within humanity itself?
petrander @ 221
Yes, yes. We’re all a bunch of overzealous ideologues, obsessed with political correctness and unwilling to countenance being disagreed with. Do you have any thing else to reveal to us that we totally haven’t heard 100 times this week?
#220 Intaglio
However, systematic oppression white people exert on black people (also: Asians, Native Americans, etc…) is a larger problem than inter-ethnic tensions in parts of London or pre-conceptions about ‘Caucasians’ in Gulf states. It’s important not to lose perspective.
Han Chinese dominance may be a big problem, but it’s not really intersecting with the issue at hand. I don’t see how bringing it up here helps solve anything.
Petrander
Sounds like you want to derail things to be as mean spirited as you claim the “zealots” to be. Only in your own selfish way that makes you feel good, but shows a lack of grasp of the topic, and a way to “zing the zealots” for your own amusement.
If you have something substantial to offer. Do so. Otherwise, stop showing your own mean spirited ignorance with such drivel.
So now Intaglio is arguing the ‘All Racism Matters!’ point. Well, it does, but the OP is specific about what kind of racism it is discussing, which is why we’re discussing it in the comments!!! When PZ does a post on global racism and its many facets and manifestations, then we will discuss that. This thread is for specific cases in America, so any attempt to move to a global perspective (as salutatory as that may be in other circumstances) is nothing more than (a) an attempt at a derail, (b) a fear of looking into a specific case because [reasons] and (c) a profession of ignorance concerning the widespread, insidious and definitely-more-than-just-local characteristics of the American system that is racism. Or American racism that is the system. Either one works.
So, Intaglio, shut the fuck up about your global perspective and the general view. We’re trying to have a specific conversation here.
Also, Ingalio, the way to address global racism is to look at the specific, local issues that make it so prevalent, as these conditions will not be identical throughout the world and require individual attention and individualized action. Think of this thread as a look into the American chapter of the book on Global Racism. And we’re talking only about that chapter, not the entire book. You want to talk about the entire book, go elsewhere.
Petrander @ 221
You were.
I’m just aghast at how regulars keep having to explain Racism 101 to clueless white people over and over and over and over. It boggles my fucking mind. It makes me groan that people are literally clueless about a term invented in 1970 (prejudice + power = racism) and then start going argumentum ad dictionarium about it.
Did anyone who is actually that clueless actually watch the video in the OP?
People have tried very patiently to inform and advance the topic since the first few posts….200 posts in, there are still people throwing smoke bombs.
Hi everyone! You know evolution is a big crock of lies, right? I mean, come on.
I’m willing to change my mind about evolution but only if petrander explains it to me in depth while showing gratitude for the opportunity to do so. Because disagreement is how we learn right?
Start with the monkeys, petrander.
What the fuck. I have seen the sociological definition of racism discussed SEVERAL times at Pharyngula. This is not groundbreaking stuff here. Is this just the first time you read past the headline on a post involving race, Petrander? The level of ignorance in this thread is honestly baffling to me.
There are none so reliably ignorant as those whose overinflated self-esteem relies upon not learning.
… how the hell is this a confusing issue for so many people?
It’s a simple matter of definition. Racism is an institution (official or unofficial), not individual people being prejudiced.
I’ll use the British/Indian example again since hopefully that’ll be distant enough to not make these fools feel emotionally involved:
If there were Indians in the early part of the 20th century who said they hated the British occupiers and wanted them out, would you call them racist? Even if they hated any British they saw in their city, it’s not racist. Racism would be what the British Empire was doing to Indians. How can you use the same exact word to define the Indian response to it?
Thing is it’s not even really about the definition. I mean, obviously it’s easier for everyone if we’re all using the same terms for the same things. But nobody has to agree that the concept of systemic oppression must be called “racism.” If everyone was simply careful to be clear whether they were talking about conscious opinions on an individual level vs. systemic oppression on a cultural level, none of the regulars here would be hounding anyone about calling systemic oppression “racism.” All that’s needed is for people not to equivocate and, regardless of anyone’s intent, if you’re purposely using the colloquial definition of a word when talking to someone else who you KNOW is working with a different definition of that word, you’re being dishonest.
Good point. Basically, take care to differentiate between centuries of oppression and a black guy who says he doesn’t trust white people. The difference is a chasm and requires different terminology. Doesn’t get simpler than that.
Yet oddly enough, you still can’t get the possessive case of his name right. I suppose that’s just the same kind of obliviousness that makes you totally unable to notice that frankgturner has been (quite successfully) striving to make the whole thread about how poor frankgturner has suffered for his noble decision to have a sexual relationship with someone of another race, and is now suffering from the slings and arrows of outrageous Pharyngulites.
Well you could save yourself the trouble of testing this hypothesis by fucking off. You won’t be missed.
Well, anyway.
I think the people who are insisting that racism means “A Black Person Was Mean to Me” didn’t actually watch the video.
disclosure: i didn’t click on the link, because I’d seen it before. this morning I thought, “there’s no harm in double checking to make sure that Aamer Rahman totally broke down in detail the full history and context of racism like I remembered, so let’s click that.”
and yeah. I don’t see how petrander or frankgturner can honestly be doing anything but derailling, and it’s absolutely clear that they didn’t watch the video. None of any of the nonsense they’ve been leaving all over the thread shows any sign they watched it.
Zimmerle, 205:
I mean, stuff like seen in Louis Therox’s piece on Black Nationalism, particularly with the Black Israelites.
have you ever met a black nationalist or a black israelite as depicted in this documentary?
Just wondering. I never have, but that’s no surprised considering where I live. I just wonder how common they are, since I hear so little about them. Actually let me open this up: has ANYONE in the thread ever met a black nationalist or a black israelite as depicted in this documentary?
(I say that, because there are Black Israelites who are Black people from Israel, and the distinction’s important.)
Now on to conversation actually about the topic. I like Chris Rock. I like his work. And I’ve heard him say this before:
it reminds me of something Stokley Carmichael said. He said that civil rights laws weren’t actually for black people, that they were for white people:
It’s still the same. Black people know that they have a right to walk down the street or play in a park without being murdered by a white person, but white people don’t seem to know that. any change that comes as a result of the wave of civil action over a state protected murder of an unarmed black person every 28 hours in America? any law that changes a white cop’s license to kill? that law will be for white people, because we already know we have the right to breathe.
intaglio @ 213,
No-one here has attempted to deny that one individual can feel antagonism, hatred even, towards another person or that if they are of different perceived races than that may extend to regarding all who look like the person they dislike can be swept up into that. He may even put their differences down to race.
What we are talking about is STRUCTURAL RACISM which operates rather differently. It can, for instance, be entirely unconscious on the part of those with power or taken as “normal” though intellectual laziness. Another thing it does is encourage those who are disrespected by people in authority to look for others even lower in the social order to despise. It’s still structural racism.
In your tales of Brixton you missed out key factors. In the 1970s and 1980s the place was generally poor, with inadequate housing, inadequate education and poor job prospects for the young, especially young African Caribbeans of whom there were many. Even those who managed to do well at somewhat indifferent schools had great difficulty in finding jobs which matched their qualifications.
As Lord Scarman set out in his report on the 1981 Brixton riots, the assumption by especially the police that a young black guy was, by definition, trouble and someone who should be firmly put down actually cause the riots. He was the one who brought the phrase “institutionalised racism” – he did not invent it – to national attention.
Quite a bit later when Brian Paddick was appointed as Borough Commander of the Met he demonstrated the truth of what Scarman had said. A local police force which treated the locals, all of them, with respect and which did not go berserk at the mere possibility of a minor crime helped produce a calm atmosphere and, surprise, surprise, a significant fall in crime. That’s all crime not just crime committed by a particular group.
As the area became sightly more affluent, the very worst of the housing was replaced and education get better and got rid of some of its own racism then Brixton became a desirable place to live. It stopped being a ghetto and the Ugandan Asians – who only arrived in 1979 – were as much part of a creative and happily mixed community. Something very similar has happened to Peckham in the last decade or so.
Yes, I was there too. So, please, if you’re going to use an actual place and time to prove your point them, for fuck’s sake, tell the whole story.
ceesays, closest I can come is being politely but firmly refused any social interaction by a Black woman who simply did not engage with any white person she didn’t have to, ever. I heard her speak at a lunchtime lecture series put on by a socialist group I attended, and she made a reasonable case for reparations and what I’m remembering as “Black disengagement” (but not in a place I can search easily to back up my addled memory, so my apologies if I’ve misremembered. In any case, her brief for the talk was basically about Black people withdrawing labour from participation in white-run and racist society.
In the TV movie they’ll make of my life one day (come on, I’m white, you know they’ll get to me after the white men, and before anyone else), I will have heroically and righteously then led a student revolution against the cartoonishly racist Evil White Administration.
In reality, “heroic” is not a word I would claim. Nor “righteous”, “feminist”, “humble”, or any other adjectives that would imply I heard that talk without becoming defensive and argumentative.
That’s the only Black separatist person I’ve met. I’m in Canada, so that’s not necessarily indicative of much. And really? She was more ‘reasonably postjudiced’ than prejudiced, given her analysis and life history.
Thank you all (Tony!, CaitieCat esp.) for answering the questions and responding to logical fallacies being presented by those who hope to shift the blame for racist oppression by a racist society to those who are being abused, tortured, and murdered by that society simply for being the ‘wrong’ color. I knew that those claiming “reverse” racism (what a fucking joke) were “not even wrong” but you helped me see just how deeply, terribly, and idiotically “not even wrong” they are.
Intaglio @213:
Where is this culture that black people wield the social, political, and economic power to shape society in ways that benefit them and to the detriment of people of other races (and have wielded said power for centuries)?
ceesays @239
Can I, once again, express my appreciation for your comments? Because that was an awesome reminder re: civil rights bills. And absolutely spot-on, not in the sense that you need my approval, but in the sense that it just makes so much more sense to look at it that way.
Also, just in case SallyStrange thinks I’m ignoring her comments, huge appreciation for your contributions in this thread, too!!!
Intaglio #220:
No one, but no one has said that racism is “just oppression”. Oppression is a component of racism in the United States (another point rq made that you seem to have missed).
No one denies that racial prejudice and bigotry can be exhibited by people of all races. What we’re arguing is that racial prejudice is not the same as racism. You ignore the element of power inherent in racism. Institutional, structural power. The power to discriminate at multiple levels of government and society. The power to oppress at multiple levels of government and society. As we’re talking about the United States, the only people in this country with such power are white people. As a group, white people wield the vast majority of power in the United States, and that’s why black people cannot be racist against them. They can be bigoted. They can have racial prejudices. Either get onboard and comprehend this of just shut the fuck up.
petrander @221:
What thread have you been reading? Frankgturner was corrected shortly after he first started commenting, yet refuses to understand the points made. He’s continued to dodge, deny, ignore, and make it all about him. And you’re defending him? And complaining about the commenters?
I don’t see anyone being mean because they can. I see people using words that others don’t like or think of as hurtful, yes. But that’s in the context of yet another discussion on the subject of race where a white person comes in and needs or demands to be educated. It’s tiresome and your apologetics for the poor, abused white person (aka frankgturner) are fucking insulting.
@239 ceesays
Delurking once more to say thank you for that post, i had never considered that perspective (surprise!) and it’s tremendously thoughtprovoking!
@ Ceesays
Thanks for the Stokley Carmichael quote, that’s going in the bank. Thanks to all the others who have to explain over and over what racism is to people who don’t like the answer they have been given.
petrander @221
The problem is not asking questions to try and gain a better understanding. The problem is asking questions and then refusing to accept the answers to those questions. Sally Strange, Ceesays, Tony!, rq, and all the others know what the fuck they are talking about and they answered the questions. Don’t like the answers? Tough shit. The hostility comes when people like Frank come up with weak ass previously deconstructed “counter points” that don’t forward the discussion. If you were honestly seeking answers you would accept the ones you have been given. Not whine about people being mean.
The Prejudice + Power thing isn’t new,but it’s amazing how white folks fight it. Like in many of the feminism threads it is the height of privilege to argue about definitions instead of focusing on real people being hurt today. “Shut up and Listen” isn’t an insult, it’s a learning opportunity.
HappyNat @248:
Quoted For Truth.
Thanks.
Petrander:
I’m curious, how do you think people should be responding to frankgturner? Clearly you think we’re doing it wrong, so what is the right way?
HappyNat@248 Your comment reminded me of this part of the article that I posted @147
The rest of that paragraph is pertinent to the disagreement on the definition of racism (which this thread has been a microcosm of the larger discussion going on out there) and alludes to what the author believes is a resolution to this disagreement, which may be helpful to all sides on this thread.
@ dõki & Intaglio
From dõki:
Moreover, the way that Intaglio brought it up was about prejudice and not racism:
This is exactly the problem that we are trying to address. Anti-accountability activists have poisoned the well by asserting that any bad feeling by one person towards someone who happens to be of a different race = racism. Because of the widespread existence of white people in the US, and because so many of us (of any race) have an aversion to accountability), anti-accountability activists/advocates have been far too successful in creating confusion.
Intaglio could have brought up this point from a huff-po article I read about environmental issues in china related to hydropower:
THAT is a good jumping off point for talking about how racism isn’t the sole domain of whites in the US.
Some Han, or even many Han, calling caucasians hairy and smelly isn’t.
Likewise with Intaglio and Japanese prejudice when examples of actual Japanese racism are more than easily available.
Your writing is contributing to a problem, Intaglio. You aren’t getting called out because we have telepathically divined you have bad thoughts. You aren’t being called out because you expressed a fine idea using politically unpalatable language.
You are being called out because **your observable behavior** (i.e. your writing in this thread) not only shows you don’t understand the problems at issue, your observable behavior is **contributing to the problems at issue.**
@Seven of Mine, #236 & Saad, #237:
Yep. Total agreement.
Part of what is disappointing is that the folks who are currently so concerned with prejudice the world over are failing to notice the title of this OP: How can a black person be racist?
Intaglio’s answer: Call a white person hairy.
Doesn’t it even ring a little tiny warning bell in you that you aren’t doing anything at all to challenge Crowder’s assessment of Rock as racist?
So for Intaglio:
What the fuck is the criterion or set of criteria that you’re using such that
??
I’ve made clear mine. Therefore I’m not afraid that I’m failing to contribute to the discussion. People can assert mine are wrong and maybe I’ll refine or change my ideas, but hey, I’m contributing to the discussion.
You’re just blathering, “Oh, Crowder goes too far but, hey, if I get called hairy or smelly, it’s a global issue!” Not only does that fail to do anything to answer the original question, it’s so Crowder-esque (“Look, comedy shouldn’t be criticized, b/c that makes me uncomfortable, but Chris Rock made me uncomfortable, and dammit that is racism!”) that I’m having a real hard time figuring out why you don’t just come out and say, Stephen Crowder was right.
@ceesays, #239:
For Zimmerle:
Even more important: Have any of these nationalists ever dominated your state legislature or city council, making fucked up laws that take decades to clean up after later? Have any of them dominated the health insurance industry, sabotaging your health care (especially but not only reproductive health care) and singling out non-nationalists for greater health care costs in a way that still isn’t fixed today? Have any of them taken over all the major media in your area, making it impossible to get reasonable attention paid to non-nationalist priorities or reasonable portrayals of non-nationalist persons?
I fucking thought not.
But just in case, as a last saving grace, how many times have you been bought or sold by such a nationalist? Was it just your great grandparents? Okay, but then they still didn’t let you vote, right?
Un-be-lee-va-bull
This is a bit of a follow-up to what ceesays wrote at @239 re: Stokley Carmichael.
And really, honestly – it cuts right through that whole idea that the civil rights movement was for black people, the more you think about it. They passed civil rights laws to let black people know they were people too, because black people themselves hadn’t somehow figured that out for themselves already?
Just… no.
No.
It’s the white people who didn’t understand, who didn’t know, who still don’t. The people who most need to be educated about the humanity of others (in this case, spec. black people) are not listening. Still not listening. How dumb do you have to be not to understand?
parasiteboy @251
It’s interesting as a academic debate, if that’s your thing. It’s not mine. Removing power from the equation just leaves the door open for white people to whine how they are oppressed too. It opens the for all the bullshit reverse racism complaints from spoiled white people that don’t want to see their own privilege. If you want to call it racism when a black person says white people can’t dance(they can’t) or that all white people smell like cucumbers(they do) then go ahead, I don’t have the patience of others on here. However, telling white people they smell like cucumbers doesn’t fucking matter. This will not get them shot by police, or keep them from getting a job or apartment or getting into university, or any of the other millions things where current society shits of people with a darker skin tone. The power is what makes it destructive for an entire group of people, not one person’s hurt feelings.
Also on the subject of civil rights laws being for white people: white people made conscious decisions to disenfranchise black people in the first place. Racial animosity was actively cultivated out of fear of poor white people allying with slaves and native people against the landed elite and was also a handy tool to get poor white people to be complicit in their own exploitation. It’s not just a thing that sort of got out of hand that nobody intended.
HappyNat
If white people smell like cucumbers, then I smell like a pretty darned old cucumber, not one of those fresh-from-the-vine ones. Sorry about that. (Still won’t get me shot by police!)
Seven of Mine
I think that’s a weird sort of (uneducated) preconception about this, that the whole systemic racism thing happened by accident because slavery and then they never really caught up or something. I know I used to think along those lines, mostly just because I never thought much about it at all.
But the more I read and find out about the stupid fucking systemic and societal barriers placed in front of black people their entire lives and for how many generations already – goddammit, white people, can we do something that makes me less ashamed to be so pale?
@ rq
I’ve had the same experience. That’s why I’ve kind of been harping on that point a little bit lately: because I’ve been reading a lot about the racist history of the US and so have just recently been disabused of that idea myself. I had never previously realized how absolutely deliberate this state of affairs is. The oppression of black people (and all people of color) is a feature of our culture; not a bug.
Ever since I first became conscious of how monstrously prevalent racism really is in society, I have been repulsed by the ‘reverse racism’ blather I keep running across from clueless twits. At first it mystified me – even before I had a formal understanding of the concept, I still had a vague notion that racism wasn’t merely ‘being mean’ with regard to someone elses’ skin colour or culture; I understood that there had to be more there, that society had to already be skewed in such a way that racial bigotry magnified and reinforced existing inequality, and that this meant that saying something racially prejudiced about a member of the dominent group in society (while admitedly still perhaps hurtful and bigoted) was fundamentally different than saying an equivalent thing about a member of an oppressed group. I didn’t understand why this idea would be seen as so often seen as so controvercial or counter intuitive. It only really began to make sense to me once I realised what stake the proponents of ‘reverse racism’ really had in the discussion. This wasn’t an honest failure to understand – this was about preserving the unearned privilege conferred upon White people by society, and to hell with the consequences visited upon everyone else.
As I became more socially conscious, and grew to understand more about the various intersectional forms of wholly unearned privilege I had been born into (a process dramatically accelerated after I found my way to these very hallowed virtual hallways), I understood that I had a moral obligation to reject that privilege and work, in whatever way I was able, to dismantle it. I understood that the system was toxic, but I never experienced people pointing out how broken and oppressive the system was as some kind of attack on White people in general, still less on me personally because of my pasty hue of skin. if I did or said something stupid or offensive and was called on it, I deserved that, and should take the opportunity to learn and become a better person.
People who possess social privilege are often poorly placed to detect the fact. In my experience, such as it is, the best counter to privilege blindness is to offset your lack of perception by listening to people who don’t share your privilege. A man should listen to women, a White person should listen to Black people, a straight person should listen to gay people, a cis person should listen to trans people – and if you benefit from many intersectional forms of privilege, then it pays you to do a lot of listening before you open your mouth/place finger to keyborad at all, and you should always be prepared to immediately modify your behaviour should you act problematically without argument. While I suppose it is conceiveable that someone from a less privileged group might decide to start misleading you for their own amusement, in the unlikely event that you meet such a person it is very likely that there will be other people present who are knowledgeable about how privilege operates in our society and who will call them on that unhelpful behaviour.
As for ‘racism’ against melanin-deficient persons like myself, while I imagine there are some people out there who might despise me for my skin tone, I have personally never met any, and whatever animosity such a person may feel toward me, and whatever bigotry or prejudice it is based upon (or whatever experiences lead them to an entirely reasonable mistrust and resentment toward White people), that does nothing to alter my obligation to reject the unfair privilege society confers upon me, and it is certainly not racist because, as pointed out upthread, racism = power + prejudice, and there is no system of authority in place where I live that oppresses people like me. And if some people think I smell like cucumbers (or even like elderberries) or consider me unpleasently hairy because of my skin colour, then that is their perogative, and it hardly amounts to a terrible injustice.
When being called ‘honkey’ is the worst form of prejudice you are likely to encounter in your life, you need to realise that you are almost obscenely fortunate, and that whining about it is incredibly self-centered and downright offensive.
German, BTW, has translated it literally as it often does: Vorurteil, “fore-judgment”.
No, 50 tops.
Yep, pretty much this for myself as well – and also for sexual harassment.
Gaijin literally means “foreign people”.
…If sociology isn’t a science in your eyes, what is it? An art? A religion?
I love this. :-)
I wonder – Have any of you watched a documentary called Black Power Mixtape? I remember wanting to see it in the theater when it first came out but it didn’t play in any screens in my city, but when it came up on Netflix I finally got the chance. (It might still be up but netflix won’t load for me right now – oh there it goes! yes, it’s still available for streaming.)
I’d be interested to know if anyone caught the same implication/subtext that I did, while watching it. I thought, “that’s kind of…conspiracist, isn’t it?” but the implication I saw was that the US started going anti-drug in order to have another excuse to imprison black people on flimsy charges as early as the 70s and never mind the “war on drugs” from the 80s. they’d already started with heroin in the late 60s and early 70s, and it was part of a systematic attack on the Black Power Movement.
[random] I like the term ‘melanin-deficient’. It has a lovely non-superior ring to it. [/random]
Thanks for the rec, ceesays, added to My List. When I’m vertical again later, I’ll watch it.
Rather than recover the ground so excellently dealt with already in the thread, ceesays and Tony! especially standing out, I’ll just add my usual nitpicking pedantry.
Regarding the situation in Zimbabwe, where white landowners had their land confiscated and given to Mugabe’s cronies, this was not because they were white per se, but because there was a near perfect overlap in the categories of ‘white landowners’ and ‘supporters of the [recently deposed] Smith regime’; AFAICT you, which is to say the white people in this thread who keep banging on about Zimbabwe, would not be treated any worse than any other tourist, resident alien, or naturalized citizen of Zimbabwe, should you choose to go there for whatever time. So, in other words, no, that’s not racism.
Intaglio
No one said only white people are capable of racism. People said that white people are not subject to racism. This is not strictly speaking be true, depending on local values of white people; specifically, there are parts of Eastern Europe where people most Americans would consider white are holding the shit end of systemic ethnic prejudice, which is to say that they are victims of racism, and the Travellers of the British Isles likewise. This is not, however, terribly relevant to the question of “How can a[n American] black person be racist?”. As others have noted, it’s actually perfectly possible for American black people to be racist, but not, as many others have noted, against whites, no matter how much the black person in question may categorically dislike white people.
ceesays239
I have encountered a black nationalist online, but I haven’t seen the documentary in question, so I can’t really compare. I’m not certain about the practicality of their ideas, but otherwise I didn’t really have anything to argue with other than the endless debates over quibbling details that anarchists are so fond of. And, for the benefit of the nincompoops who infest the thread, no, that person still was not being racist, in a meaningful sense.
#261
I haven’t seen the documentary you mention, but
Is true, but incomplete; a not-inconsiderable part of the movement to criminalize marijuana all the way back in the ’30s was an excuse to imprison black and hispanic people on flimsy charges (the other parts principally involved protecting monopolists and stirring up anti-immigrant fervor). But yes, every further step in the drug war has been another conscious effort to imprison PoCs and deprive them of their rights (what with drug offences being felonies and so many states denying convicted felons the vote, usually for life, for instance, or the rigamarole surrounding parole)
Well said and excellent advice. I want to echo the appreciation for those who have provided great insight into this stuff on this thread.
Wow, I must have skimmed past this comment @209 by Zimmerle:
How you can watch that video and come away thinking that
Aamer Rahman didn’t have a point is beyond me. His point was laid out in such a way that a caveman could understand it.
I guess I should be glad you didn’t comment much in this thread given your pathetic level of understanding re: racism in the US.
I think that Zimmerle thinks that because to think otherwise is threatening their comfort, the most important thing in Zimmerle’s universe.
ceesays @267:
You’re probably right. Privileged people do hate being forced to face the reality outside their comfort zone.
@ ceesays
The more I read, the less conspiracist this sounds. White people have been purposely criminalizing being black since slavery was abolished. Actual, free, black people able to fully participate in society was unconscionable so new laws were written and old ones resurrected to create excuses to throw black people in jail and then those convicts were leased to plantations or coal/iron mines mostly to work for free in absolutely brutal conditions for a certain term. When their term was up, they’d just be accused of having stolen the clothes they were wearing or some other nonsense and tossed right back to work. It’s actually possible to connect “crime waves” in certain areas to businesses that used convicts needing more hands: coal mine digs a new mine shaft and wouldn’t ya know it a bunch of black guys just existed at me not an hour gone. We didn’t manage to completely abolish the convict leasing system til 2 things happened in the 1940s 1) it began to occur to people in Washington that it sort of looks bad when you’re trying to condemn other countries for racial oppression and 2) the available technology really began to outstrip the productivity you could get out of humans no matter how mercilessly you worked them.
Slavery by Another Name is a must-read book, IMO.
I’ve never seen either the Black nationalist documentary or the Black Power Mixtape. I’ve never met a Black nationalist, I think. There was one guy I met during my hippie commune years who seemed to be pretty back-to-Africa but in a super woo-ish type of way. I didn’t know him very well though.
As far as conspiracies go–no, not irrational to see conspiracies there at all. I read a history of the drug war some years ago, called Smoke and Mirrors. It’s pretty outdated now, but it did make it clear that the drug war included or even centered around deliberate efforts to disenfranchise people of color from voting and politics, starting in the 30s and going right on through. Nixon in particular realized the political utility of being able to criminalize what he called “the young, the poor, and the black” via the association of marijuana with harder drugs and the vigorous prosecution of marijuana users, in terms of electoral strategy.
@Ceesays 239,
Thank you for that comment. That quote from Carmichael is so powerful and so true. Never really looked at civil rights laws from that perspective before but it makes so much sense.
I’ve really enjoyed this thread and learned a lot. I appreciate Sally Strange, Doki, Ceesays, rq, Tony! and the others who are so knowledgeable about social justice issues. I even enjoyed the derailment to the extent that it gave stalwarts the opportunity to provide links to the correct definition of racism. PZ may want to think about collecting the top comments and publishing them in a book.
qwints, after going back through all the links in this post, I realized that the article that I posted @147 was the same one that you posted @44. My apologies, I didn’t mean to steal your thunder…it also explains the feeling of deja vu when I came across the paper again later.
kayden @271, and everyone else, while I absolutely agree that a number of allies of PoC (as well as a couple of PoC themselves!) have done yeoperson’s work on this thread, I must most strongly recommend going by the “Later this morning in America” thread here on Pharyngula (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/17/later-this-morning-in-america/), wherein our own rq is leading several other people in curating loads of links to the righteous upheaval around the extrajudicial murders of Black people.
Why? Because many of her links are directly to PoC talking for themselves, and if you’re going to make a go of working against racism, you can only start with the people it hits hardest. Most of the above commenters, being good allies, have made a strong effort at providing some basics in this thread. But for the next step, start looking for and hearing the voices of people of colour. We who are white will get things wrong, miss things, fail to make links between phenomena, and so on, that will not be missed by people experiencing the sharp end of a racist system.
Beyond that, we need to read the words of people like lourde and Angelou and MLK and Coates, to see what came before all this, and recognize that, as an excellent piece at The Concourse said the other day, America’s not broken: it’s functioning just as it was designed.
This is not meant as a rebuke to anyone here, and I’m immensely grateful to those people of colour who’ve added their voices to this thread, but I want to be clear that here you’re mostly hearing the echoes of a magnificent and painful chorus, and you really need to hear the real thing.
Sorry, “many of THEIR links”, rq is by no means alone in the Later this Morning thread.
Thank you, CaitieCat for that link. While I am Black, I am not African American so I try to keep apprised of the historical and present context in which racism exists in this country. I also read AA social justice warrior tumblrs and blogs for additional insight. It’s always important to keep learning about important issues.
And there’s me, giving an example of screwing up.
Sorry, kayden, for assuming you were white. No excuse.
Damn, this shit is insidious. I’ll have to try and do better.
CaitieCat
Thanks for pointing out I am not alone on that thread, because I am by no means alone, and others catch lots of wonderful stuff that falls through the cracks for me.
Curating that information has been a massive, massive learning experience in and of itself, and has caused me to question a lot of my (hopefully former but still occasionally resurfacing, no doubt) views. And to really, really realize that I know shit about what I am talking about when it comes to racism – what I know, I can only express as well as a white person can, with no internal knowledge of what it feels like.
But every day I learn something more, and it pains me that other white people don’t take the opportunities and the advantages that they have to help those around them who are less fortunate, who are subject to vile views and active systemic discrimination within a country that is supposed to be free for all (on paper).
Anyway. Enough about me. There’s a world to learn about out there, and white people should stop sitting around with their heads up their supremacist asses and realize that. I’d say I’ve got mine about a quarter of the way out. Probably even less.
First off, Chris Rock has been spot on in everything I’ve seen from him about MO and NY and has unfailingly found a way to say it pointedly and concisely.
I have read through the bulk of the comments and a few things struck me re: the definition dispute. This thread appears to be dead, so I’m not to worried about derailing at this point.
1) Context matters when talking about the meanings of words. If I am talking about theories in a scientific context the word has a very specific meaning and saying ”just a theory” in reference to gravity or evolution is asinine. If I am in a different context the word has a more relaxed meaning. Likewise here, racism was being used in the specific context of the disparity of police violence against black men vs anyone else. It seems clear that the context here points to using the prejudice + power definition as we are talking about systemic abuse of power. Making semantic arguments about common usage of racism here is as asinine as using that same argument about theories when talking about evolution.
2) That said some of the comments that rightly shot down people who out of ignorance or intent were derailing the intended conversation displayed a fair bit of bigotry. While this isn’t a problem on anything approaching the scale of systemic racism it was still wrong and deserves to be reprimanded as well.
3) For those worried for some esoteric reason (or worse reason) that taking away the word racism to talk about anti-ingroup prejudice, the word bigot is still out there and carries all the same negative connotation without derailing the more important conversation.