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

[Togo]

Time to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons.

There is more than one definition of racism. This isn't new, illogical, unexpected, a change, or even very recent. It's just that is makes a difference when talking about racism whether you are dealing the issue from the point of view of the victims, or the perpetrators/accused.

If you're black, then racism is about its manifestations and power to do you harm. It's about looking at the different ways racism can do you harm, and how to avoid or mitigate that. In this case it's most definitely about power, not individual attitudes. A guy who hates black people isn't going to cause you any trouble unless he has power over you. A guy who has power over you can cause you trouble over your race irrespective of what his individual attitudes are.

If you're white, then racism is only encountered in terms of an accusation about an individual or group. In looking at individuals or groups it's most useful to work out whether they hate or habitually harm black people, a fairly reliable indicator that racial strife will occur. It's also very useful to relegate racial problems to being the personal problems of a sub-group, which are easy (for you) to identify and distance yourself from, thus 'solving' the problem without ever having to look at your own conduct.

Let's take an example. One of the most common forms of racism indulged in by white people with positive or neutral views about blacks as individuals, is to treat their own culture as default, and any variation on that as something that has to be justified. They can do that because they're part of the majority group, and their own ideas about what is fair and normal and what is not are shared by both their immediate peers and the wider culture. People of a different ethnic background have to learn these differences. This practice systematically discriminates against blacks, in favour of whites, and doesn't involve anyone disliking or wishing harm to blacks at all.

It's also fascinating to watch in action. Here on this very thread we have a couple of white people demanding that their own idea of racism, based around a definition used by perpetrators rather than victims of racism, be treated not just equally, but as the default for the discussion, rather than one more typically used by victims of racism (and academics). They're explicitly arguing for it on the grounds that the definition used by victims is 'uncommon, very unusual, not one most people understand', or to put it more simply, not the one they're used to. Which means, since they're part of the majority culture, that it must be wrong.

I think it would be better if all involved to specify what they mean by racism when they use the term. I'm not sure the split is really racism(individual) versus racism(institutional) though. I think it's more about whether you see racism as being an attitude you hold, or an effect that your behaviour has on others. If you're talking about the first, then you need to deal with Loren's contention that it's a solved problem - we simply don't have the widespread, socially accepted racial hatred and blatant discrimination that we used to, and while it's not as rare as it should be, it's not the major feature of most people's day to day lives that it was a few decades ago. If you're talking about the second, then you're dealing with a widespread and difficult issue.

 

[doubtingt]

This is very well said. And I will be very surprised, and very impressed if Athena (or laughing dog) actually addresses these points, instead of telling you that you are whining and that you are only saying any of the above because you want to claim to be a victim of racism too.

Racism shapes thought. No one alive today started white supremacy. But people alive today have been shaped by it. Even people who think the right thoughts first.

Institutional racism shapes thought, but inherently racist features of basic thought processes itself are what interact with power differentials due to various historical contingencies (many of them random) to create institutional racism and determine who it benefits. IOW, racist thought within individual minds precedes institutional racism and is the root of the problem. Unless you want to make the racist argument that the brains of blacks and white fundamentally differ in ways that make basic features of their cognitive processes differ, then blacks can and do have racist thought processes and the only reason they are not the beneficiaries of institutional racism are the largely random historical contingencies that interact with these thought processes.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem is NOT solved, Loren Pechtel. If you think it is, then perhaps you ought to take off your rose colored glasses and look around in the light of day.

Racism certainly exists. Racism enough to keep someone down, though--that I don't see the evidence for. Strangely enough when you include the proper variables you find race is a proxy, not a cause.

You also appear believe that there's no sexism left in the world - not enough to keep women down. This despite ample evidence that biased beliefs and different expectations of behavior and social mores are well established and abundantly clear.

The same is true for racism. Stereotypes exist, and are rampant throughout our culture - stereotypes about how black people behave (and other races). Some of them are culturally correlated, but others aren't. Most of them are very strongly reinforced by media - by TV, movies, music, magazines. Those expectations of behavior, those implicit bounds of what is acceptable and not acceptable for people of different colors, or cultures, or genders to do or to express, has a far greater effect of social mobility and opportunity than many people realize.

It is obvious that you haven't given a lot of thought to this. If you haven't been on the receiving end of it, it can be very difficult to perceive it. Mores are often invisible. But don't dismiss it out of hand. Give it some consideration, and take the time to see past the resentment and tedious argumentation. Try to think about the social dynamics of the larger picture. At least try to be open to the idea.

 

[Emily Lake]

Time to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons.

There is more than one definition of racism. This isn't new, illogical, unexpected, a change, or even very recent. It's just that is makes a difference when talking about racism whether you are dealing the issue from the point of view of the victims, or the perpetrators/accused.

If you're black, then racism is about its manifestations and power to do you harm. It's about looking at the different ways racism can do you harm, and how to avoid or mitigate that. In this case it's most definitely about power, not individual attitudes. A guy who hates black people isn't going to cause you any trouble unless he has power over you. A guy who has power over you can cause you trouble over your race irrespective of what his individual attitudes are.

If you're white, then racism is only encountered in terms of an accusation about an individual or group. In looking at individuals or groups it's most useful to work out whether they hate or habitually harm black people, a fairly reliable indicator that racial strife will occur. It's also very useful to relegate racial problems to being the personal problems of a sub-group, which are easy (for you) to identify and distance yourself from, thus 'solving' the problem without ever having to look at your own conduct.

Let's take an example. One of the most common forms of racism indulged in by white people with positive or neutral views about blacks as individuals, is to treat their own culture as default, and any variation on that as something that has to be justified. They can do that because they're part of the majority group, and their own ideas about what is fair and normal and what is not are shared by both their immediate peers and the wider culture. People of a different ethnic background have to learn these differences. This practice systematically discriminates against blacks, in favour of whites, and doesn't involve anyone disliking or wishing harm to blacks at all.

It's also fascinating to watch in action. Here on this very thread we have a couple of white people demanding that their own idea of racism, based around a definition used by perpetrators rather than victims of racism, be treated not just equally, but as the default for the discussion, rather than one more typically used by victims of racism (and academics). They're explicitly arguing for it on the grounds that the definition used by victims is 'uncommon, very unusual, not one most people understand', or to put it more simply, not the one they're used to. Which means, since they're part of the majority culture, that it must be wrong.

I think it would be better if all involved to specify what they mean by racism when they use the term. I'm not sure the split is really racism(individual) versus racism(institutional) though. I think it's more about whether you see racism as being an attitude you hold, or an effect that your behaviour has on others. If you're talking about the first, then you need to deal with Loren's contention that it's a solved problem - we simply don't have the widespread, socially accepted racial hatred and blatant discrimination that we used to, and while it's not as rare as it should be, it's not the major feature of most people's day to day lives that it was a few decades ago. If you're talking about the second, then you're dealing with a widespread and difficult issue.

This is an excellent post, Togo, and you make a very compelling point with respect to perspectives.

I am more interested in discussing the second, because that's by far the most difficult problem to solve. But it's also very difficult to nail down. I'd like to discuss it with as little finger pointing as possible. If it can be done with some compassion on all sides, that seems preferable to me, and more likely to provide consensus and progress.

I understand your point about cultural superiority, but I disagree that it is racism. I think that this specific dynamic (that of the culture of the majority population being accepted as the default and being "right", and any other culture being viewed as being inferior) is not bound to race by necessity. In the US specifically, it happens to also divide along lines of skin-color sometimes. But the dynamic is not specifically linked to race, and is common even among peoples who are of the same race.

Consider that the same dynamic occurs in many countries where the races of the participants are the same. The Kurds in the Middle East, Ashkenazi Jews in Europe, Irish immigrants in early US history. Even clashes of subcultures in modern times. The mores of a society are defined by the majority. Culture is defined by the majority.

In my view, this is not the largest issue, by any means. I'm sure that culture is a part of it, absolultely. But of more concern to me are the implicit and biased expectations of behavior created by racial stereotypes. It is the reaction cause when people do not conform to our preconceived subconscious notions of how they should act that cause the greater harm.

I have more knowledge of this from the view of gender equality, so I'll use that as an example. I would very much like to open the discussion to how this same concept applies with race.

There is an expectation that women be less aggressive than men. We are expected, subconsciously, to be more collaborative, more willing to give ground, more cooperative, and less invested in getting our own way than men are. If a man stands his ground in an argument, he is perceived as being strong, smart, determined, and purposeful. If a woman stands her ground in the same fashion, she is perceived as being pushy, domineering, bitchy, and uncooperative. The exact same behaviors, for the exact same goal, in the exact same scenario are perceived differently on the basis of gender alone. This is because the man is conforming to the social conventions expected of him - he is acting as our collective subconscious social expectations say he should. The woman, however, is not. She is defying those expectations and acting contrary to convention. Thus where his actions are perceived in a positive light, and as attributes for him, her actions are perceived as detriments and character flaws. The result of this is that in business, where one needs to stand one's ground and argue one's case, men have a distinct advantage solely on the basis of how their arguments will be perceived by their audience.

I am quite certain that the same is true for race, with the same disastrous effects. In this, however, my knowledge of the expectations is not as complete. I have less experience with them, as I am not on the receiving end. I know that there is an expectation for black men to be more prone to aggression, but I don't know how it translates itself into subconscious expectations of behavior, as well as what constitutes conformance and nonconformance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Racism certainly exists. Racism enough to keep someone down, though--that I don't see the evidence for. Strangely enough when you include the proper variables you find race is a proxy, not a cause.

You also appear believe that there's no sexism left in the world - not enough to keep women down. This despite ample evidence that biased beliefs and different expectations of behavior and social mores are well established and abundantly clear.

The same is true for racism. Stereotypes exist, and are rampant throughout our culture - stereotypes about how black people behave (and other races). Some of them are culturally correlated, but others aren't. Most of them are very strongly reinforced by media - by TV, movies, music, magazines. Those expectations of behavior, those implicit bounds of what is acceptable and not acceptable for people of different colors, or cultures, or genders to do or to express, has a far greater effect of social mobility and opportunity than many people realize.

It is obvious that you haven't given a lot of thought to this. If you haven't been on the receiving end of it, it can be very difficult to perceive it. Mores are often invisible. But don't dismiss it out of hand. Give it some consideration, and take the time to see past the resentment and tedious argumentation. Try to think about the social dynamics of the larger picture. At least try to be open to the idea.

Sure there are stereotypes. Being on the receiving end can be upsetting but that's not the same thing as proving that they are enough to keep one down.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I would like to bring this back to the original topic. This thread is about the motive and effect behind saying "black people can't be racist". Athena and others who say this know full well well that many, if not most well meaning reasonable non-racist white people hearing it, and many people from other races hearing it, likely including a lot of black people, hear it as a claim of racial superiority for black people, and yet they still find it important to say.

If you know full well that it comes across as a claim that black people can't be bigots or hate based on race... if you know full well that it will cause division and resentment where unity and empathy is needed.... why is it so important to say? How are you combating racism when you know very well your choice of words will inflame racial tension, rather than address it? If you want to change the system, why go out of your way to antagonize those who hold the reigns of power, and those you need most to change?

I think Athena suggested that it is the emotional impact of the word "racism" that she is after, and that by allowing it to refer to attitudes as well as systems, masks efforts to combat systemic problems. I tried to clarify this, but she swiftly went back to evading my posts. If this is the reason behind saying "black people can't be racist", despite the damage that causes, is the benefit worth it? How would you quantify and evaluate the trade off?

 

[laughing dog]

I would like to bring this back to the original topic. This thread is about the motive and effect behind saying "black people can't be racist". Athena and others who say this know full well well that many, if not most well meaning reasonable non-racist white people hearing it, and many people from other races hearing it, likely including a lot of black people, hear it as a claim of racial superiority for black people, and yet they still find it important to say.

That is your unsubstantiated assumption. Especially in light of the discussion in this thread where it is clear that definition is not meant to imply anything about moral superiority. You are insisting that your view is the better default view. I suggest you read Togo's post.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That is your unsubstantiated assumption. Especially in light of the discussion in this thread where it is clear that definition is not meant to imply anything about moral superiority.

I know that Athena is defining the word differently. But many listeners will not know that. How can you expect them to? And how many do you expect to hear Athena out, and redefine the word for people who she has already antagonized? You can't say she doesn't know how she comes off to people who only know the other definition. She's doing it on purpose, or accepting it as collateral damage. Why?

 

[laughing dog]

That is your unsubstantiated assumption. Especially in light of the discussion in this thread where it is clear that definition is not meant to imply anything about moral superiority.

I know that Athena is defining the word differently. But many listeners will not know that. How can you expect them to?.....

Whether I expect them to or not is not relevant. I would say that if the topic came up and someone observed what you observed, it would be cause for a discussion. Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I know that Athena is defining the word differently. But many listeners will not know that. How can you expect them to?.....

Whether I expect them to or not is not relevant. I would say that if the topic came up and someone observed what you observed, it would be cause for a discussion. Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

I don't need to assert that. It doesn't matter. What matters is that it is the definition that a lot of people hold and that the speaker knows that and still says what they know will sound bigoted.

We could also decide to define the infamous "N word" as meaning "people from Nigeria". But that isn't the definition most people hearing you say it will have in mind. You could use it in a completely non-racist way, talking about nationality, etc. But good luck getting anybody to hear you out. You may object that we already have a word for people from Nigeria, "Nigerian". Well we also already have a word for systemic racism, "systemic racism".

 

[laughing dog]

I don't need to assert that. It doesn't matter.

It does matter because you are making a claim about how you believe people react.

What matters is that it is the definition that a lot of people hold and that the speaker knows that and still says what they know will sound bigoted.

Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

We could also decide to define the infamous "N word" as meaning "people from Nigeria". But that isn't the definition most people hearing you say it will have in mind. You could use it in a completely non-racist way, talking about nationality, etc. But good luck getting anybody to hear you out. You may object that we already have a word for people from Nigeria, "Nigerian". Well we also already have a word for systemic racism, "systemic racism".

Technically, "systemic racism" is two words. But using your reasoning, we already have a word for individual racism, "individual racism". Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

 

[EricK]

It does matter because you are making a claim about how you believe people react.

What matters is that it is the definition that a lot of people hold and that the speaker knows that and still says what they know will sound bigoted.

Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

We could also decide to define the infamous "N word" as meaning "people from Nigeria". But that isn't the definition most people hearing you say it will have in mind. You could use it in a completely non-racist way, talking about nationality, etc. But good luck getting anybody to hear you out. You may object that we already have a word for people from Nigeria, "Nigerian". Well we also already have a word for systemic racism, "systemic racism".

Technically, "systemic racism" is two words. But using your reasoning, we already have a word for individual racism, "individual racism". Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

But is that what is happening here? Both sytemic racism and individual racism are specific types of the more general category racism. Nobody here (I think) is claiming that racism should only refer to individual racism, however some people are claiming it should only refer to systemic racism.

 

[laughing dog]

It does matter because you are making a claim about how you believe people react.
Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

We could also decide to define the infamous "N word" as meaning "people from Nigeria". But that isn't the definition most people hearing you say it will have in mind. You could use it in a completely non-racist way, talking about nationality, etc. But good luck getting anybody to hear you out. You may object that we already have a word for people from Nigeria, "Nigerian". Well we also already have a word for systemic racism, "systemic racism".

Technically, "systemic racism" is two words. But using your reasoning, we already have a word for individual racism, "individual racism". Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

But is that what is happening here? Both sytemic racism and individual racism are specific types of the more general category racism. Nobody here (I think) is claiming that racism should only refer to individual racism, however some people are claiming it should only refer to systemic racism.

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the argument is that we already have a "word" for systematic racism (i.e. "systematic racism) so we don't need to use "racism" to mean systematic racism, then the same holds true for individual racism.

 

[Derec]

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the argument is that we already have a "word" for systematic racism (i.e. "systematic racism) so we don't need to use "racism" to mean systematic racism, then the same holds true for individual racism.

Which is why "racism" by itself includes both the subgroups.
It's really not rocket surgery.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the argument is that we already have a "word" for systematic racism (i.e. "systematic racism) so we don't need to use "racism" to mean systematic racism, then the same holds true for individual racism.

It matters when you use the word in an exclusionary manner. Saying "An apple is not a fruit" is technically a true statement, since there is one definition of "fruit" which refers to a gay person. When the conversation revolves around what to put in a fruit salad, however, somebody using that definition of fruit just makes everything unecessarily confusing.

 

[laughing dog]

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the argument is that we already have a "word" for systematic racism (i.e. "systematic racism) so we don't need to use "racism" to mean systematic racism, then the same holds true for individual racism.

Which is why "racism" by itself includes both the subgroups.

Asserting your preferred view should be the default view is not much of an argument.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

It won't just be some people. It will be everyone who doesn't hold Athena's new definition of the term. It will be the vast majority of white people.

Are you saying that we should say "Black people can't be racist" for the shock value, to grab attention, and then open up an opportunity for discussion and to raise awareness of systemic racism? That would be an interesting tactic.

It would be like going around pointing at people and saying "Asshole". You are going to offend people doing that and look like a jerk. But I suppose it is an opportunity to say that you did that so you could talk about rectal cancer. "I didn't call you an asshole, I was pointing out that you have an ass hole; to raise awareness. Have you had your prostate examined recently?".

 

[EricK]

It does matter because you are making a claim about how you believe people react.
Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

We could also decide to define the infamous "N word" as meaning "people from Nigeria". But that isn't the definition most people hearing you say it will have in mind. You could use it in a completely non-racist way, talking about nationality, etc. But good luck getting anybody to hear you out. You may object that we already have a word for people from Nigeria, "Nigerian". Well we also already have a word for systemic racism, "systemic racism".

Technically, "systemic racism" is two words. But using your reasoning, we already have a word for individual racism, "individual racism". Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

But is that what is happening here? Both sytemic racism and individual racism are specific types of the more general category racism. Nobody here (I think) is claiming that racism should only refer to individual racism, however some people are claiming it should only refer to systemic racism.

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the argument is that we already have a "word" for systematic racism (i.e. "systematic racism) so we don't need to use "racism" to mean systematic racism, then the same holds true for individual racism.

And people don't use racism to mean individual racism. They use racism to mean either/both types of racism - and they specify which where it makes a difference.

Consider the example of rape. This comes in a few varieties - stranger rape, date rape, statutory rape etc. The word rape, by itself, can be used to refer to any of them, or to all of them. And if it is important to specify exactly which kind, then you can use the more specific term.

Quiz question: Why do many of the people who are keen to stress that all these different types of rapes should be included in the general term rape, also seem insistent that the term racism should be restricted to one specific type of racism?

 

[laughing dog]

It does matter because you are making a claim about how you believe people react.
Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

We could also decide to define the infamous "N word" as meaning "people from Nigeria". But that isn't the definition most people hearing you say it will have in mind. You could use it in a completely non-racist way, talking about nationality, etc. But good luck getting anybody to hear you out. You may object that we already have a word for people from Nigeria, "Nigerian". Well we also already have a word for systemic racism, "systemic racism".

Technically, "systemic racism" is two words. But using your reasoning, we already have a word for individual racism, "individual racism". Again, why do you feel the need to assert your view is the better default view?

But is that what is happening here? Both sytemic racism and individual racism are specific types of the more general category racism. Nobody here (I think) is claiming that racism should only refer to individual racism, however some people are claiming it should only refer to systemic racism.

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the argument is that we already have a "word" for systematic racism (i.e. "systematic racism) so we don't need to use "racism" to mean systematic racism, then the same holds true for individual racism.

And people don't use racism to mean individual racism.

Um, if you read enough of these threads, that some people deny that there is any of form of actual racism in existence.

[
They use racism to mean either/both types of racism - and they specify which where it makes a difference.

Actually, they don't.

Consider the example of rape. This comes in a few varieties - stranger rape, date rape, statutory rape etc. The word rape, by itself, can be used to refer to any of them, or to all of them. And if it is important to specify exactly which kind, then you can use the more specific term.

Quiz question: Why do many of the people who are keen to stress that all these different types of rapes should be included in the general term rape, also seem insistent that the term racism should be restricted to one specific type of racism?

I don't know that your predicate is true. But, clearly they see that all of those instances are rape while they do not see all types of what you refer to as "racism" as racism. For example, I do not think that calling someone a racial slur is necessarily an example of racism. But many people here do.

 

[laughing dog]

Personally, I would not bothered by what some people wrongly conclude. Those types of disagreement are opportunities for discussion and mutual education.

It won't just be some people. It will be everyone who doesn't hold Athena's new definition of the term. It will be the vast majority of white people.

That is your opinion. I am white and I don't think that. I know plenty of white people who do not think like you claim.

Are you saying that we should say "Black people can't be racist" for the shock value, to grab attention, and then open up an opportunity for discussion and to raise awareness of systemic racism? That would be an interesting tactic.

It would be like going around pointing at people and saying "Asshole". You are going to offend people doing that and look like a jerk. But I suppose it is an opportunity to say that you did that so you could talk about rectal cancer. "I didn't call you an asshole, I was pointing out that you have an ass hole; to raise awareness. Have you had your prostate examined recently?".

I am saying that postulating motives about the promotion of a particular definition and complaining that some people do not accept your preferred definition of racism has jack shit to do with dealing with "racism" (whatever that means to the reader). Reducing racism requires persistent vigilance and action - not arguing about definitions.