The motive and effect of "Black people can't be racist"

[AthenaAwakened]

When you speak of racism in terms of interpersonal relationships, in terms of intentions, the racism in institutions tends to fade into the background. And you wind up with situation where the a couple of people get fired and the institutional policies and procedures that afforded the now ex employees to do whatever it was they did gets to continue on its merry way.

No one wants to think that they play a part in racism of any kind, and no one want to think they benefit of racism in any way. The victims of racism do not enjoy the experience but they do have to face it.

Now because people don't want to deal with the institutional aspects of racism, we have come up with "solutions" to the problem that are half assed and don't do enough. we get one time programs instead of changes in the paradigm. We get a chapter in a history for black history and Latino history instead be taught comprehensive and full integrated history. And the dominant group is expected to do nothing. The subordinate groups are told that respectability is the way to go, that if they were just more like "normal" people, their problems would go away. Which brings us to victim blaming.

That is the harm. That is why incarceration rates are what they are, unemployment is what it is, why the dropout rate is what it is, and that is why threads like this one are still being started in 2014.

Just call it institutional racism then. No one's gonna misunderstand it, and you will actually manage to make a clear point.

Remember, 99% of people dont know the definition of racism you use.

then maybe they need to learn it.

Maybe this is way to prod people to actually think about what they think they know about racism.

Maybe formulating an argument grows awareness.

What is posted here isn't just for members but for the people who read here and never post as well.

Ever think about that?

 

[thebeave]

The problem is that you continue to harp on a problem that's basically solved. As far as I'm concerned you are part of the problem, not someone working for the solution.

Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

So what you think of me, ...

Tell me what do you do?

That's what I thought




Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

And George W. Bush was President of the United States. Elected twice. And your point is?...

*ducks*

 

[crispy]

Just call it institutional racism then. No one's gonna misunderstand it, and you will actually manage to make a clear point.

Remember, 99% of people dont know the definition of racism you use.

then maybe they need to learn it.

Maybe this is way to prod people to actually think about what they think they know about racism.

Maybe formulating an argument grows awareness.

What is posted here isn't just for members but for the people who read here and never post as well.

Ever think about that?

Why do they need to learn it? What is lost by accepting that people dont use that definition of racism? Call it institutional racism and everybody gets the point - its not the definition of the word that makes institutional racism excist anyway.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

So what you think of me, ...

Tell me what do you do?

That's what I thought




Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

And George W. Bush was President of the United States. Elected twice. And your point is?...

*ducks*

And what are you doing?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

then maybe they need to learn it.

Maybe this is way to prod people to actually think about what they think they know about racism.

Maybe formulating an argument grows awareness.

What is posted here isn't just for members but for the people who read here and never post as well.

Ever think about that?

Why do they need to learn it? What is lost by accepting that people don't use that definition of racism? Call it institutional racism and everybody gets the point - its not the definition of the word that makes institutional racism exist anyway.

You are posting here in this thread multiple times and you don't know why people need to know what racism is, how other people see it, and how they react to the mere mention of the word? Really?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Athena, thank you for finally answering the OP. Now we are getting somewhere.

Now let me see if I understand. You feel that focus on individual racism masks or hides the problems of systemic or institutional racism, correct? You realize the powerful impact the word "racism" has, and you seek to redefine it to focus people's minds away from individual racism and onto systemic racism, yes? You realize that language is powerful (it is) and you feel that by erasing or diminishing individual racism from the English language, you will help to focus minds away from individual racism and onto systemic racism, correct?

Do you feel that this goal is yet to be realized or do you feel you have already accomplished it? I would suggest to you that it hasn't yet been accomplished, and point you to dictionary definitions, as well as to this very thread where a lot of people (starting with myself in the thread's opening post) have been confused. Do you see that a lot of us, most of us, don't yet use your definition, and still see the word "racism" as including individual racism, attitudes, etc, and not just systemic racism?

If you do see this, then do you also see how the phrase "Black people can't be racist" or "White people can't be the victims of racism" looks bigoted and indeed racist under this other definition? It implies that black people are immune from a psychological failing that white people are prone to. You can see that, right?

Do you see how that could backfire on efforts to combat racism, even as you define it?

Do you consider such problems to be collateral damage to your more important goal of changing the language use?

Do you think that it is important to say things like "Black people can't be racist" and "White people can't be victims of racism", because you think it will help them to change their definitions of the word, and focus of what they think about when they hear it? If so, do you think this is effective?

 

[crispy]

Why do they need to learn it? What is lost by accepting that people don't use that definition of racism? Call it institutional racism and everybody gets the point - its not the definition of the word that makes institutional racism exist anyway.

You are posting here in this thread multiple times and you don't know why people need to know what racism is, how other people see it, and how they react to the mere mention of the word? Really?

It is your definition of racism that is narrow - what you want people to learn is that racism does not also mean individual racism. I don't understand why you want to narrow it down. Racism emcompasses both individual and systemic racism.

People already know what racism is, what they don't know is that you want to narrow down the definition a little, and thats what people react to.

 

[laughing dog]

Can someone explain what the drawback would be with referring to individual race-based bigotry as racism? Note, this doesn't in any way.mess with the concept of systemic racism.

That's pretty much where I started on the opening post of this thread. It has yet to be answered. For some inexplicable reason Athena and her crew cling to a definition designed to exclude it, despite the obvious problem that creates.

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That's pretty much where I started on the opening post of this thread. It has yet to be answered. For some inexplicable reason Athena and her crew cling to a definition designed to exclude it, despite the obvious problem that creates.

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

We're not discounting the idea that institutional racism exists. I don't know where you're getting this.

 

[crispy]

That's pretty much where I started on the opening post of this thread. It has yet to be answered. For some inexplicable reason Athena and her crew cling to a definition designed to exclude it, despite the obvious problem that creates.

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

Words can have more than one meaning you know. For example you can be a facist even if you don't live in italy ca. 1940.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you continue to harp on a problem that's basically solved. As far as I'm concerned you are part of the problem, not someone working for the solution.

Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

So what you think of me, ...

Tell me what do you do?

That's what I thought




Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

Points #1 and #2 I consider negatives, not positives.

Point #3 is something of a negative--"expert" witnesses in court are very often hired guns who will say what they're paid to say.

#5 is a positive.

#4 could be positive or negative depending on what you're teaching them.

- - - Updated - - -

Just call it institutional racism then. No one's gonna misunderstand it, and you will actually manage to make a clear point.

Remember, 99% of people dont know the definition of racism you use.

then maybe they need to learn it.

Or maybe you need to learn the real definition. Language is determined by consensus, you don't just get to redefine words.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do they need to learn it? What is lost by accepting that people don't use that definition of racism? Call it institutional racism and everybody gets the point - its not the definition of the word that makes institutional racism exist anyway.

You are posting here in this thread multiple times and you don't know why people need to know what racism is, how other people see it, and how they react to the mere mention of the word? Really?

What we know is that you are trying to redefine the word in order to pretend that blacks can't be racist.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

So what you think of me, ...

Tell me what do you do?

That's what I thought




Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

Points #1 and #2 I consider negatives, not positives.

Point #3 is something of a negative--"expert" witnesses in court are very often hired guns who will say what they're paid to say.

#5 is a positive.

#4 could be positive or negative depending on what you're teaching them.

- - - Updated - - -

Just call it institutional racism then. No one's gonna misunderstand it, and you will actually manage to make a clear point.

Remember, 99% of people dont know the definition of racism you use.

then maybe they need to learn it.

Or maybe you need to learn the real definition. Language is determined by consensus, you don't just get to redefine words.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do they need to learn it? What is lost by accepting that people don't use that definition of racism? Call it institutional racism and everybody gets the point - its not the definition of the word that makes institutional racism exist anyway.

You are posting here in this thread multiple times and you don't know why people need to know what racism is, how other people see it, and how they react to the mere mention of the word? Really?

What we know is that you are trying to redefine the word in order to pretend that blacks can't be racist.

You know what, black people can be racist.

I have said REPEATEDLY that you can with truth and justice say anything horrible you wish about black folk. ONE WORD used ONE WAY i said was incorrect.

And now 21, 22 pages later you still demand that no, that is not enough. You have to be able to call black people racist, no other word will do. And you have to do it NOW! NOW! NOW!

Racist is a powerful word and one a member of the privileged group can't counter. There is no word more powerful. Now a white person can always go to nigger, or spic, or gook, but that really doesn't help with being called a racist. So the only thing left is to throw the word back. the only argument left to make is "I know you are, but what am I?" the only way to run is to deflect. And if that avenue is taken away, there is nothing left.

And like I thought

You actually do ...

nothing.

I'm done.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Athena, nobody here is posting because they want to equate black people and white people in terms of victimhood of racism. Nobody here is doing that, not even Loren.

I am pretty sure everybody here, except maybe Loren, sees systemic racism as a real problem in our society worth addressing, and worth taking on. Some of us may even agree with you that keeping the spotlight on individual racism may make it harder to get any change on a systemic level. So why not discuss that? You made one post that was actually engaging the topic. Why not keep that up?

Why not respond the posts people have already made that engage you on that, instead of reaching for the low hanging fruit? Emily, doubtingt, myself, Tom Sawyer, crispy, and others have all engaged you in good faith and asked intelligent questions, that you have ignored. You claim to have credentials and be a teacher of race relations, so why not take this opportunity to teach it as you see it?

 

[laughing dog]

Words can have more than one meaning you know.

Yes, I have been saying that for awhile. Yet there are quite a number of people here who feel otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

We're not discounting the idea that institutional racism exists. I don't know where you're getting this.

That makes us even because I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from that post.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Yes, I have been saying that for awhile. Yet there are quite a number of people here who feel otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

We're not discounting the idea that institutional racism exists. I don't know where you're getting this.

That makes us even because I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from that post.

You claimed that the definition of racism we accept is "counterfactual". In what regard is it counterfactual? With regards to institutional racism?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Athena, nobody here is posting because they want to equate black people and white people in terms of victimhood of racism. Nobody here is doing that, not even Loren.

I am pretty sure everybody here, except maybe Loren, sees systemic racism as a real problem in our society worth addressing, and worth taking on. Some of us may even agree with you that keeping the spotlight on individual racism may make it harder to get any change on a systemic level. So why not discuss that? You made one post that was actually engaging the topic. Why not keep that up?

Why not respond the posts people have already made that engage you on that, instead of reaching for the low hanging fruit? Emily, doubtingt, myself, Tom Sawyer, crispy, and others have all engaged you in good faith and asked intelligent questions, that you have ignored. You claim to have credentials and be a teacher of race relations, so why not take this opportunity to teach it as you see it?

What I've said is that by now systemic racism is not generally in a position to actually keep someone down. If company A is run by the KKK and won't hire a black then go apply at company B. Racism only becomes a substantial factor when the majority of companies in a field discriminate--and that is pretty rare these days.

The evidence for widespread discrimination is sorely lacking--again and again they fail to consider the possibility that race is a proxy, not a cause. Strangely enough the research that does look at this normally finds race drops out once the proper factors are included.

There are actual racists out there of all colors. Punish them when you find them. Don't tar everyone because of their actions.

 

[another1]

I experience cultural indifference daily and I don't chalk it up to racism. I try to tell an African American friend that continentally I am an African human on a large enough time scale. People spawned from there and whatnot. Why do people still say "blacks"? Maybe call them colored because that sounds just as insulting. Also I gotta point out that the culture indifferent to me is bitter. I can't blame it but God damn $200 Nikes aren't shackles and I'm in the same class. Maybe races shouldn't be strangled by their assumed culture and make new ones. Not these generations it seems but eventually. If I live next door and eat the same bleached bread after showering in the same fluoride, I am the same. Just stupid how things are but pointing that out without etiquette is racist of me. Tread lightly in less expensive shoes I suppose. So dumb

 

[Keith&Co.]

Racist is a powerful word and one a member of the privileged group can't counter. There is no word more powerful. Now a white person can always go to nigger, or spic, or gook, but that really doesn't help with being called a racist. So the only thing left is to throw the word back. the only argument left to make is "I know you are, but what am I?" the only way to run is to deflect. And if that avenue is taken away, there is nothing left.

So what IS the word?

When white supremacists say i'm a race traitor because of my wife's skin color, that's racism. Sure.

When Sheherezad Ali writes that the Blackwoman who marries a white man is a failure, she has failed to attract a mate of the correct skin color, what is that?
Yes, sure, i can call HER all sorts of names. Bitch, idiot, goof-face, whatever.
But what would the term be for this judgement she's making?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Racist is a powerful word and one a member of the privileged group can't counter. There is no word more powerful. Now a white person can always go to nigger, or spic, or gook, but that really doesn't help with being called a racist. So the only thing left is to throw the word back. the only argument left to make is "I know you are, but what am I?" the only way to run is to deflect. And if that avenue is taken away, there is nothing left.

So what IS the word?

When white supremacists say i'm a race traitor because of my wife's skin color, that's racism. Sure.

When Sheherezad Ali writes that the Blackwoman who marries a white man is a failure, she has failed to attract a mate of the correct skin color, what is that?
Yes, sure, i can call HER all sorts of names. Bitch, idiot, goof-face, whatever.
But what would the term be for this judgement she's making?

Dude, that is taking things a bit too far. Ali just wants racial purity because she thinks that her race is superior to all the other races. You can't just go and derail a discussion about racism by trying to shoehorn in unrelated concepts like that one.

 

[funinspace]

The problem is that you continue to harp on a problem that's basically solved. As far as I'm concerned you are part of the problem, not someone working for the solution.

Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

So what you think of me, ...

Tell me what do you do?

That's what I thought

I thought you might find this link interesting, as it seems to be getting more attention in my neck of the woods. It was pretty neat to see about 200 people show up when I saw it. I thought it was a good 1 hour documentary, from a somewhat different situation of blacks growing up as a very small minority in the community.
http://www.blackgirlinsuburbia.com/