Are you racist?

[Dutch_labrat]

I think everybody is racist, and sexist, ableist and quite a few more-ists. To function in the modern urban interconnected world you need some methods to classify all the people you meet and our cultures and traditions are full of such modes of thought.

I think your level of racism though depends on three levels:
1. Your awareness of your prejudice
2. Your interest in avoiding your racism
3. Your interest in harming other with your racism

What is so sad is that a lot of people in current western societies are working on 2 and 3 and forgetting about 1. The first is the hard one, it forces you to address the cognitive dissonance of having modes of thought you know and believe to be wrong.

 

[repoman]

I am not sure it is so simple.

I view it more like this, if it slightly inconveniences a person to be fair or equitable (as in equality of opportunity, not outcome) to an out-group but they almost never do it does that add to conditions that lead to racism?

I myself think that this is the new frontier: "passive racism" and it is sort of aligned with "white privilege". But, I think that people actively helping outgroups is a historical anomaly and it actually has unintended side effects. To be too loving of out groups vs your own group is kind of fucked up if you think about it.

Self abnegation of white identity is a sickness.

To me, I like black folks like Boyce Watkins, he talks about white racism and he tells blacks to stop moaning and start be self sufficient and look after their own. He doesn't even blame whites, because I think he realizes it is just human nature to be concerned with your own first.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I read through much of the blog post here:

http://odinsblog.tumblr.com/post/127808197400/28-common-racist-attitudes-and-behaviors

It is frightening! Here is one thought that is unknowingly racist according to this Tumblr:

"I want to stop acting like a racist, so please tell me when I do something you think is racist."

It is racist, because:

"You can’t assume or act as though people of color should be so grateful for your attempts at anti-racism, that they will be willing to guide you whenever you are ready to be guided."

It is one among many. The thinking behind the long list of condemnations is: if we can root out and correct the many hidden racisms among whites that lead to the systemic disadvantage of minorities, then we can finally solve the problem of inequality. Whites thought they became anti-racist, but they really aren't, because the racist traditions continue unknowingly in their minds. Racism still lurks in their subconscious thoughts, and that is the reason minorities remain disadvantaged.

Continuing onward blind to systemic intelligence differences, or dogmatically hostile against the mere thought, has that logical consequence. It is an eternal war against thoughtcrimes.

 

[repoman]

some of those blogs may be run by very good white, rightwing trolls.

this is funny and on point:

 

[bigfield]

Racism = racial prejudice + acting on that prejudice in word or deed.

A definition elegant in its simplicity!

So "systemic racism" would be "racial prejudice + codifying prejudice as organizational policy."

The terms used in mainstream sociology are institutional racism and structural racism. Institutional racism is a distinct concept that exists independent of the concept of racist individuals.

An individual is racist if they hold a bias against a race; whether or not they act on this prejudice is irrelevant, and the racist can be any race themselves.

The concept institutional (or structural) racism is not a formula to determine which people can be racist and which people cannot.

Despite its popularity with bloggers, the definition of racism as prejudice plus power is, at best, a fringe definition, popularised by Judith Katz:

It is important to push for the understanding that racism is prejudice plus power and therefore people of color cannot be racist against whites in the United States. People of color can be prejudiced against whites but clearly do not have the power as a group to enforce that prejudice.

Katz's claim that 'people of color cannot be racist against whites in the United States' depends on the premise that POC cannot 'enforce' their prejudice. This added criterion is a groundless complication of the term that only serves to make the following distinction to the all-white audience: white people's prejudices are harmful; everyone else's are harmless and therefore are of no concern.

 

[iolo]

so it's got nothing to do with race then that virtually all white countries are richer than black ones?

Colonialsm, kid. We've been robbing everyone else ragged for centuries, as well you know.

 

[Hickdive]

I think everybody is racist, and sexist, ableist and quite a few more-ists. To function in the modern urban interconnected world you need some methods to classify all the people you meet and our cultures and traditions are full of such modes of thought.

I think your level of racism though depends on three levels:
1. Your awareness of your prejudice
2. Your interest in avoiding your racism
3. Your interest in harming other with your racism

What is so sad is that a lot of people in current western societies are working on 2 and 3 and forgetting about 1. The first is the hard one, it forces you to address the cognitive dissonance of having modes of thought you know and believe to be wrong.

Precisely so.

I'd go further and say that to a large degree humans have evolved as racists as a trait that offered specific advantages. For example, there is a suggestion of interbreeding between Homo Sapiens (or other precursor species) and Neanderthals and, put bluntly, that is not good for the development of humanity as it is today and thus there would be an advantage in our precursors being prejudiced against other hominids.

That trait continues down through not just being prejudiced against other hominids but against other tribes of our own species that are competing for resources.

Considering that Homo Sapiens have a very, very short evolutionary history and an even shorter period of civilisation it is not at all surprising to me that the trait of racism still exists and exists in almost all of us, regardless of our colour and despite there no longer being any evolutionary advantage in being prejudiced against outsiders.

The difference is that today our level of self-awareness allows us to recognise the trait of racism as undesirable and we can work to prevent its insidious effects. However, I suspect it will be many millennia before the inherent trait leaves us as a species. That's not to say we should shrug our shoulders and ignore it but I think it means we have to understand that we have an underlying desire that we need to take positive steps to overcome.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

The racism is there whether or not the racist has any power at all. Racially determined hate is racism whether it is empowered or not.

This is correct for formula only refers to a narrowed definition which does not apply to the overall concept of racism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

No.

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

 

[dismal]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

The racism is there whether or not the racist has any power at all. Racially determined hate is racism whether it is empowered or not.

This is correct for formula only refers to a narrowed definition which does not apply to the overall concept of racism.

The intent is that it does apply always and everywhere. It may not be the standard dictionary definition of "racism" but we have been asked to take it as a given in this thread. And others.

 

[dismal]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

If racism is defined as above then of course you need to have systemic, institutional power for something to be racism.

 

[Dutch_labrat]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

If racism is defined as above then of course you need to have systemic, institutional power for something to be racism.

Power is not needed for something to be racist but it is needed to make racism harmful.

Imagine majority group A enslaves minority group B (*). If a person in group B thinks that everybody in group A is stupid, lazy, ignorant, smelly, childish etc.. this has serious consequences because this will support the harmful social construct of slavery. Racism+Power=> injustice and suffering.

If on the other hand a person in group A thinks everybody in group B is evil, heartless, violent etc.. the generalization makes it racist but would you really hold this against this person? And because of their lack of power or influence the racism does not go anywhere apart from passive aggression and sabotage, which of course is also not something you could hold against them.

As I said in an earlier post racism lives in all of us, what matters is what you do with it. A more powerful person will do more harm with it.

(* The simple fact that any real life example would just derail the thread should mean something to you.)

 

[Metaphor]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

If racism is defined as above then of course you need to have systemic, institutional power for something to be racism.

Power is not needed for something to be racist but it is needed to make racism harmful.

Imagine majority group A enslaves minority group B (*). If a person in group B thinks that everybody in group A is stupid, lazy, ignorant, smelly, childish etc.. this has serious consequences because this will support the harmful social construct of slavery. Racism+Power=> injustice and suffering.

If on the other hand a person in group A thinks everybody in group B is evil, heartless, violent etc.. the generalization makes it racist but would you really hold this against this person? And because of their lack of power or influence the racism does not go anywhere apart from passive aggression and sabotage, which of course is also not something you could hold against them.

As I said in an earlier post racism lives in all of us, what matters is what you do with it. A more powerful person will do more harm with it.

(* The simple fact that any real life example would just derail the thread should mean something to you.)

It's the restrictive definition of 'power', solely along racial lines, that many posters have trouble with.

For example, a black magistrate could be systematically harsher to white defendants versus black defendants. Many people would say that her action is racially bigoted but not racism, because the judicial system and Washington is not run by black people.

Similarly, a city can have black people in all the major positions of power but nothing they can do is 'racist' because they don't have real power.

Similarly, a black HR manager could systematically be prejudiced against Asian applicants but because black people don't run all companies in America, what she's doing isn't 'racist'.

The social justice warriors don't want to let go of the rhetorical power of the word 'racism' as a weapon that can only be wielded against white people. But if the sentiment on this board is any indicator, they've lost that battle in the court of public opinion.

(Not the court of undergraduate campus opinion, obviously, where saying black people should not be excluded from having their actions described as racist, is a racist thing to say. And a microaggression).

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

If racism is defined as above then of course you need to have systemic, institutional power for something to be racism.

Power is not needed for something to be racist but it is needed to make racism harmful.

Imagine majority group A enslaves minority group B (*). If a person in group B thinks that everybody in group A is stupid, lazy, ignorant, smelly, childish etc.. this has serious consequences because this will support the harmful social construct of slavery. Racism+Power=> injustice and suffering.

If on the other hand a person in group A thinks everybody in group B is evil, heartless, violent etc.. the generalization makes it racist but would you really hold this against this person? And because of their lack of power or influence the racism does not go anywhere apart from passive aggression and sabotage, which of course is also not something you could hold against them.

As I said in an earlier post racism lives in all of us, what matters is what you do with it. A more powerful person will do more harm with it.

(* The simple fact that any real life example would just derail the thread should mean something to you.)

It's the restrictive definition of 'power', solely along racial lines, that many posters have trouble with.

For example, a black magistrate could be systematically harsher to white defendants versus black defendants. Many people would say that her action is racially bigoted but not racism, because the judicial system and Washington is not run by black people.

Similarly, a city can have black people in all the major positions of power but nothing they can do is 'racist' because they don't have real power.

Similarly, a black HR manager could systematically be prejudiced against Asian applicants but because black people don't run all companies in America, what she's doing isn't 'racist'.

The social justice warriors don't want to let go of the rhetorical power of the word 'racism' as a weapon that can only be wielded against white people. But if the sentiment on this board is any indicator, they've lost that battle in the court of public opinion.

(Not the court of undergraduate campus opinion, obviously, where saying black people should not be excluded from having their actions described as racist, is a racist thing to say. And a microaggression).

In America, Blacks have never been treated worse than they deserved. The civil rights laws were imposed against the will of the majority. The ruling class despises and fears all other White people. Anti-racism has snob value; this degenerate movement has always been part of class warfare by the 1%.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

If racism is defined as above then of course you need to have systemic, institutional power for something to be racism.

Power is not needed for something to be racist but it is needed to make racism harmful.

Imagine majority group A enslaves minority group B (*). If a person in group B thinks that everybody in group A is stupid, lazy, ignorant, smelly, childish etc.. this has serious consequences because this will support the harmful social construct of slavery. Racism+Power=> injustice and suffering.

If on the other hand a person in group A thinks everybody in group B is evil, heartless, violent etc.. the generalization makes it racist but would you really hold this against this person? And because of their lack of power or influence the racism does not go anywhere apart from passive aggression and sabotage, which of course is also not something you could hold against them.

As I said in an earlier post racism lives in all of us, what matters is what you do with it. A more powerful person will do more harm with it.

(* The simple fact that any real life example would just derail the thread should mean something to you.)

Obviously people with more power can do greater damage. However, the greater average power between ethnic groups does not translate into greater power for every member of one group compared to every member of another group.
Also, all people have sufficient power for their racism to cause some degree of harm. At the very minimum, any instance of racism breeds more racism in others, and thus increases the net harm done by racism. In addition, the total social power a person has is not what matters, but rather the power they possess at a moment in a particular context while interacting with others. They need not have more power than the other person, even in that situation, but merely needed any amount of power at all to act in a manner that does harm. If they use that power to do harm motivated by their racism while the other person (who may be less racist) chooses not to use their power, then who has more power is irrelevant, only who used what power they had to do harm.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Yes.

Let’s first define racism with this formula:

Racism = racial prejudice + systemic, institutional power.

Racism needs no systematic action or institutional power. A racist with no power or systematic action is just as racist as someone with all these trappings.

If racism is defined as above then of course you need to have systemic, institutional power for something to be racism.

Power is not needed for something to be racist but it is needed to make racism harmful.

Imagine majority group A enslaves minority group B (*). If a person in group B thinks that everybody in group A is stupid, lazy, ignorant, smelly, childish etc.. this has serious consequences because this will support the harmful social construct of slavery. Racism+Power=> injustice and suffering.

If on the other hand a person in group A thinks everybody in group B is evil, heartless, violent etc.. the generalization makes it racist but would you really hold this against this person? And because of their lack of power or influence the racism does not go anywhere apart from passive aggression and sabotage, which of course is also not something you could hold against them.

As I said in an earlier post racism lives in all of us, what matters is what you do with it. A more powerful person will do more harm with it.

(* The simple fact that any real life example would just derail the thread should mean something to you.)

It's the restrictive definition of 'power', solely along racial lines, that many posters have trouble with.

For example, a black magistrate could be systematically harsher to white defendants versus black defendants.

For how long? And how many of those decisions will stand on appeal? And outside of the those individual white defendents in front of that particular judge, how many white people will have there prospects lessened for justice because of this one person?

Many people would say that her action is racially bigoted but not racism, because the judicial system and Washington is not run by black people.

Not so much BY black people as FOR THE BENEFIT OF black people.

Similarly, a city can have black people in all the major positions of power but nothing they can do is 'racist' because they don't have real power.

They don''t have the power to lessen the life chances of white people in the larger community. They have all kinds of power to do all kinds of things, but they can not and will not over turn white supremacy, that peculiar and particular form of racism that people in the "Free West" live under.

Similarly, a black HR manager could systematically be prejudiced against Asian applicants but because black people don't run all companies in America, what she's doing isn't 'racist'.

How long before she is fired? Being prejudiced is not an exercise in power, discrimination is. How long do you think she will get away with actively discriminating against Asians? and will her acts of discrimination mean that all other asians in all other occupations or even in her company will suffer lessened job opportunities? Can one HR manager change company policy or state law or cultural pracitce to actively discriminate against a legally protected class?

The social justice warriors don't want to let go of the rhetorical power of the word 'racism' as a weapon that can only be wielded against white people.

Write another history where there is no white supremacy and you will have no problem. But the thing is, that is the history we live in. “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

But if the sentiment on this board is any indicator, they've lost that battle in the court of public opinion.

It isn't. and they haven't.

(Not the court of undergraduate campus opinion, obviously, where saying black people should not be excluded from having their actions described as racist, is a racist thing to say. And a microaggression).

In America, Blacks have never been treated worse than they deserved. The civil rights laws were imposed against the will of the majority. The ruling class despises and fears all other White people. Anti-racism has snob value; this degenerate movement has always been part of class warfare by the 1%.

Black people deserved slavery and Jim Crow? Why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the restrictive definition of 'power', solely along racial lines, that many posters have trouble with.

For example, a black magistrate could be systematically harsher to white defendants versus black defendants. Many people would say that her action is racially bigoted but not racism, because the judicial system and Washington is not run by black people.

Similarly, a city can have black people in all the major positions of power but nothing they can do is 'racist' because they don't have real power.

Similarly, a black HR manager could systematically be prejudiced against Asian applicants but because black people don't run all companies in America, what she's doing isn't 'racist'.

The social justice warriors don't want to let go of the rhetorical power of the word 'racism' as a weapon that can only be wielded against white people. But if the sentiment on this board is any indicator, they've lost that battle in the court of public opinion.

(Not the court of undergraduate campus opinion, obviously, where saying black people should not be excluded from having their actions described as racist, is a racist thing to say. And a microaggression).

The thing is all the examples you give show actual harm being done, how can they claim there's no harm?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In America, Blacks have never been treated worse than they deserved. The civil rights laws were imposed against the will of the majority. The ruling class despises and fears all other White people. Anti-racism has snob value; this degenerate movement has always been part of class warfare by the 1%.

Save it for the KKK meeting, we aren't buying it. The civil rights laws put things pretty much equal basis--of course the majority objected, they were benefiting from the inequality. Things have gone wrong since then because the anti-discrimination types can't accept that there was anything beyond discrimination going on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, a black magistrate could be systematically harsher to white defendants versus black defendants.

For how long? And how many of those decisions will stand on appeal? And outside of the those individual white defendents in front of that particular judge, how many white people will have there prospects lessened for justice because of this one person?

You're treating a very serious wrong as if it doesn't matter.

Many people would say that her action is racially bigoted but not racism, because the judicial system and Washington is not run by black people.

Not so much BY black people as FOR THE BENEFIT OF black people.

And how is that any different from the judge who decides the black person must be guilty?

Similarly, a black HR manager could systematically be prejudiced against Asian applicants but because black people don't run all companies in America, what she's doing isn't 'racist'.

How long before she is fired?

You complain that the white guys doing it aren't fired. The problem is worse when whites or Asians are the target because so many are unwilling to believe the discrimination is real.

Being prejudiced is not an exercise in power, discrimination is. How long do you think she will get away with actively discriminating against Asians?

Longer than if she were discriminating against blacks.

and will her acts of discrimination mean that all other asians in all other occupations or even in her company will suffer lessened job opportunities? Can one HR manager change company policy or state law or cultural pracitce to actively discriminate against a legally protected class?

One can when they are in the position of power for the only employer for a given position in the city. Routine in government.

 

[Metaphor]

For how long?

Who can say? Maybe the behaviour is so obviously egregious it's discovered quickly. Perhaps it's never discovered. That doesn't change the nature of the behaviour. Someone who commits a crime is still a criminal, even if they get away with it.

And how many of those decisions will stand on appeal? And outside of the those individual white defendents in front of that particular judge, how many white people will have there prospects lessened for justice because of this one person?

Why would that matter? Where's your concern for the white suspects who were discrimina

Not so much BY black people as FOR THE BENEFIT OF black people.

I wasn't aware that black people don't benefit from having criminals behind bars.

They don''t have the power to lessen the life chances of white people in the larger community. They have all kinds of power to do all kinds of things, but they can not and will not over turn white supremacy, that peculiar and particular form of racism that people in the "Free West" live under.

So how many white lives must be ruined before the injustices visited upon white individuals get to count?

How long before she is fired? Being prejudiced is not an exercise in power, discrimination is. How long do you think she will get away with actively discriminating against Asians?

It depends. If it's a medical schools admissions board, she'll probably be promoted.

and will her acts of discrimination mean that all other asians in all other occupations or even in her company will suffer lessened job opportunities?

Why do you look past the harm done to individuals? Harm to groups is made up of harms done to individuals in those groups.

Can one HR manager change company policy or state law or cultural pracitce to actively discriminate against a legally protected class?

Wouldn't you say the same thing about any HR manager? Or does a white HR manager have the power to change company policy or state law or cultural practice?

I've really been underestimating the magickal power of white skin.

It isn't. and they haven't.

Okay. Take a representative sample of 5,000 Americans and ask them

"Can black people be racist in America" and let me know the division of 'yes' and 'no'.