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

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've seen in a few places around the interwebs, and now here from Athena, the claim that for for "racism" to exist, it requires power. The logic seems to be that only white men can be racist because some old white men are who are in the echelons of power. Pretty much everybody else I have spoken to sees "racism" as simply people who discriminate or judge others based on race (usually negatively).

Why do people push the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric, why do they insist on that, and what do they think that will accomplish for them? Do they have any word for when black people discriminate and prejudge based on race. If it isn't racism, what do they call it? Do they define racism as they do so they can pretend this doesn't exist? We asked this in another thread where Athena was pushing this definition, and she declined to answer.

And what do you think the effect of hearing "black people can't be racist" will be on the listener? I think it quickly labels the speaker as somebody not to be taken seriously. Saying such things only undermines the valid points and calls to action these people may otherwise have. It seems to be a great way to lose support in fighting white racism, and yet it is done by those who claim to be the most dedicated to that cause. Is appears designed to backfire.... so why do it?

I don't get it. If you are trying to undo prejudice and tribal impulse, you shouldn't be doing it with prejudice and tribal impulse. The same goes for any feminists who would claim that women can't be sexist or are incapable of sexual assault against men (don't know if there are any). If you are not willing to look for prejudice and tribal impulse and acknowledge it in yourself, how can you demand others do so in regard to prejudice and tribal impulse against you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If racism requires power, then it means that the great racist icon, Archie Bunker, was not a racist. He had no power, he couldn't even keep George Jefferson out of his house.

 

[Trausti]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well, if the word, and it's definition bother you so, here is another, more exact, and perhaps more to your liking

The term white supremacy is used in academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or absence of racial hatred. Legal scholar Frances Lee Ansley explains this definition as follows:

By " white supremacy" I do not mean to allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups. I refer instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power and material resources, conscious and unconscious ideas of white superiority and entitlement are widespread, and relations of white dominance and non-white subordination are daily reenacted across a broad array of institutions and social settings.[11][12]

This and similar definitions are adopted or proposed by Charles Mills,[13] bell hooks,[14] David Gillborn,[15] and Neely Fuller Jr.[16] Some anti-racist educators, such as Betita Martinez and the Challenging White Supremacy workshop, also use the term in this way. The term expresses historic continuities between a pre-Civil Rights era of open white supremacism and the current racial power structure of the United States. It also expresses the visceral impact of structural racism through "provocative and brutal" language that characterizes racism as "nefarious, global, systemic, and constant."[17] Academic users of the term sometimes prefer it to racism because it allows for a disconnection between racist feelings and white racial advantage or privilege.[18][19]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And a black supervisor can't discriminate against a white employee???

Sorry, it happens. Even if you restrict racism to having the means as well as the desire there's no question blacks can be racist.


Now, if you really want to see racist my parents were arrested for being in a crowd while white. The idiot cop decided the only reason they possibly could have been in the crowd was to pass a message secretly thus they must be spies. The idea that someone might just possibly be trying to figure out what was of interest (turns out the center of the crowd was a snake charmer) didn't register with the cop. Fortunately his supervisor saw how stupid the whole thing was, they were released in a couple of hours.

Or the countries that wouldn't hire non-blacks, period. That meant that there was a 100% certainty that a non-black was not an undercover cop.

(Note: Both things were from a third of a century ago, the situation might have changed in the meantime.)

 

[Trausti]

Well, if the word, and it's definition bother you so, here is another, more exact, and perhaps more to your liking

The term white supremacy is used in academic studies of racial power to denote a system of structural or societal racism which privileges white people over others, regardless of the presence or absence of racial hatred. Legal scholar Frances Lee Ansley explains this definition as follows:


This and similar definitions are adopted or proposed by Charles Mills,[13] bell hooks,[14] David Gillborn,[15] and Neely Fuller Jr.[16] Some anti-racist educators, such as Betita Martinez and the Challenging White Supremacy workshop, also use the term in this way. The term expresses historic continuities between a pre-Civil Rights era of open white supremacism and the current racial power structure of the United States. It also expresses the visceral impact of structural racism through "provocative and brutal" language that characterizes racism as "nefarious, global, systemic, and constant."[17] Academic users of the term sometimes prefer it to racism because it allows for a disconnection between racist feelings and white racial advantage or privilege.[18][19]

This doesn't aid you cause. By this citation you've conceded that the meaning you chose is not the original or commonly understood meaning; but one concocted by ivory-tower academics to advance a political position.

 

[Trausti]

And a black supervisor can't discriminate against a white employee???

Metro’s affirmative-action plan notes that the 1.4 percent of its bus and train operators who are Hispanic and the 25 percent who are female of any race are “less than reasonably expected.” It does not make note of the 1.5 percent who are white.

Even in entry-level occupations typically dominated by Hispanics, there are virtually none at Metro. Only one laborer out of 67 is Hispanic; of 540 landscapers, carpenters and cleaners, only 22 are Hispanic. In the national capital region, Hispanics make up 13 percent of adults and blacks comprise 25 percent; white women constitute 29 percent.

“The odds of such a disparity occurring by chance are statistically infinitesimal,” Ronald A. Schmidt, a lawyer representing 12 white women exploring a class-action lawsuit, wrote in a 2003 letter. “There appears to be an entrenched network of African-American employees at WMATA that is able to steer jobs, promotion, training and other career enhancing benefit to persons of their own racial or ethnic group.”
...
White and Hispanic employees who allege discrimination have found a deaf ear at Metro’s civil rights office, whose 17 employees are black.

Whole article here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/metro-derailed-by-culture-of-complacence-incompete/?page=all

 

[Terrell]

Any person of any ethnic group can be racist in my opinion. Either a specific view (action) is an "ism" or it isn't. If a view (action) is wrong, power disparity doesn't change whether or not the view (action) is wrong. It can change the amount of harm done, if any.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And a black supervisor can't discriminate against a white employee???

Sorry, it happens. Even if you restrict racism to having the means as well as the desire there's no question blacks can be racist.


Now, if you really want to see racist my parents were arrested for being in a crowd while white. The idiot cop decided the only reason they possibly could have been in the crowd was to pass a message secretly thus they must be spies. The idea that someone might just possibly be trying to figure out what was of interest (turns out the center of the crowd was a snake charmer) didn't register with the cop. Fortunately his supervisor saw how stupid the whole thing was, they were released in a couple of hours.

Or the countries that wouldn't hire non-blacks, period. That meant that there was a 100% certainty that a non-black was not an undercover cop.

(Note: Both things were from a third of a century ago, the situation might have changed in the meantime.)

A black boss can make life hell for a white employee.

A pit bull can kill a man, but that doesn't mean canines rule the world. A circumstance doesn't negate history

Supremacy is a group dynamic, not an interpersonal relationship between two people.

Now I know you don't think groups exist, but your thinking doesn't change reality.

 

[Unbeatable]

I've seen in a few places around the interwebs, and now here from Athena, the claim that for for "racism" to exist, it requires power. The logic seems to be that only white men can be racist because some old white men are who are in the echelons of power. Pretty much everybody else I have spoken to sees "racism" as simply people who discriminate or judge others based on race (usually negatively).

You're looking at racism in an exclusively individualist way. Try zooming out and looking at groups, institutions, systems. Racism is definitely a synonym for race-based bigotry on an individual level, but it's also a synonym for a larger phenomenon.

Why do people push the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric, why do they insist on that, and what do they think that will accomplish for them?

Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.

Why do people push any rhetoric in the context of politics? People on every side of every issue have an agenda to push, and people on every side of every issue are prone to framing the issue in a way which suits their agenda, be it by pushing their own definitions, their own euphemisms(e.g. "job creators"), etc.. Sometimes they do it clumsily because they don't really understand the issue that well, or because they have poor rhetorical skills, or because they just don't care much about convincing the particular people they're talking to, so they don't bother wasting their energy on more persuasive wording. I believe the poster to whom you're referring has been a case of the latter for a very long time, and justifiably so given the subculture of PD.

Do they have any word for when black people discriminate and prejudge based on race. If it isn't racism, what do they call it? Do they define racism as they do so they can pretend this doesn't exist?

They know it exists; it's just not on the same scale as the thing that they're referring to when they speak of racism. It's not a social justice issue; it's not a group-level issue. In a way, bringing it up can be a distraction from the social justice issue, like those posts in rape threads where guys suggest ways for women to avoid being raped.

Saying such things only undermines the valid points and calls to action these people may otherwise have. It seems to be a great way to lose support in fighting white racism, and yet it is done by those who claim to be the most dedicated to that cause. Is appears designed to backfire.... so why do it?

In what contexts is it done? Arguments on internet forums where every poster involved in the discussion has been here for years, entrenched in their current positions, and will probably never change their minds? Are you really under the impression that people say things here for the sake of achieving some sort of political end in the real world? Political Discussions is nothing more than a text-based video game. I suspect the intelligent ones save their most persuasive rhetoric for audiences who are capable of being persuaded.

 

[NobleSavage]

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

The motive is well meaning. The effect is resentment and envy.

And a black supervisor can't discriminate against a white employee???

Sorry, it happens. Even if you restrict racism to having the means as well as the desire there's no question blacks can be racist.


Now, if you really want to see racist my parents were arrested for being in a crowd while white. The idiot cop decided the only reason they possibly could have been in the crowd was to pass a message secretly thus they must be spies. The idea that someone might just possibly be trying to figure out what was of interest (turns out the center of the crowd was a snake charmer) didn't register with the cop. Fortunately his supervisor saw how stupid the whole thing was, they were released in a couple of hours.

Or the countries that wouldn't hire non-blacks, period. That meant that there was a 100% certainty that a non-black was not an undercover cop.

(Note: Both things were from a third of a century ago, the situation might have changed in the meantime.)

A black boss can make life hell for a white employee.

A pit bull can kill a man, but that doesn't mean canines rule the world. A circumstance doesn't negate history

Supremacy is a group dynamic, not an interpersonal relationship between two people.

Now I know you don't think groups exist, but your thinking doesn't change reality.

So blacks don't have any institutional power? I worked for a black state senator 20 years ago. He has some power. So I guess the complaint is disproportionate institutional power?

Yes groups exist. So, do you think Obama's loyalties are to his elite friends from Harvard or Columbia? Maybe the Law Review clique? His fellow brothers and Jeremiah Wright? My money is on the Choom Gang.

 

[EricK]

You're looking at racism in an exclusively individualist way. Try zooming out and looking at groups, institutions, systems. Racism is definitely a synonym for race-based bigotry on an individual level, but it's also a synonym for a larger phenomenon.

So how does the larger phenomenon work apart from via a large number of individual interactions? Can somebody never experience any individual acts of racism but still be a victim of racism?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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

The motive is well meaning. The effect is resentment and envy.

A black boss can make life hell for a white employee.

A pit bull can kill a man, but that doesn't mean canines rule the world. A circumstance doesn't negate history

Supremacy is a group dynamic, not an interpersonal relationship between two people.

Now I know you don't think groups exist, but your thinking doesn't change reality.

So blacks don't have any institutional power? I worked for a black state senator 20 years ago. He has some power. So I guess the complaint is disproportionate institutional power?

Yes groups exist. So, do you think Obama's loyalties are to his elite friends from Harvard or Columbia? Maybe the Law Review clique? His fellow brothers and Jeremiah Wright? My money is on the Choom Gang.

Your black senator had no more power than the system under which he lived afforded him. One guy, (regardless of race, unless he can pass, enforce and interpret law, policy, and procedures on his own, not to mention totally rewrite the mores, norms and narratives of an entire society), can not negate nor propagate an ideological and structural system like racism (or sexism or ageism or classism or any chauvinism de jour)

 

[doubtingt]

And a black supervisor can't discriminate against a white employee???

Sorry, it happens. Even if you restrict racism to having the means as well as the desire there's no question blacks can be racist.


Now, if you really want to see racist my parents were arrested for being in a crowd while white. The idiot cop decided the only reason they possibly could have been in the crowd was to pass a message secretly thus they must be spies. The idea that someone might just possibly be trying to figure out what was of interest (turns out the center of the crowd was a snake charmer) didn't register with the cop. Fortunately his supervisor saw how stupid the whole thing was, they were released in a couple of hours.

Or the countries that wouldn't hire non-blacks, period. That meant that there was a 100% certainty that a non-black was not an undercover cop.

(Note: Both things were from a third of a century ago, the situation might have changed in the meantime.)

A black boss can make life hell for a white employee.

A pit bull can kill a man, but that doesn't mean canines rule the world. A circumstance doesn't negate history

Supremacy is a group dynamic, not an interpersonal relationship between two people.

Now I know you don't think groups exist, but your thinking doesn't change reality.

No one denies that groups exist. The problem is your worldview that denies the existence (or at least one worth paying any attention to) of individuals and the psychological processes that occur as a product of their individual brains. There is no such thing as a collective brain or even collective behavior, except in a very metaphorical and "poetic" sort of sense. All thought occurs within the confines of individual skull without directly impacting thoughts in other skulls. interpersonal influence occurs when thoughts within a skull produce actions that causally alter the physical environment in a manner that makes its way to the sense organs attached to other brains. Group dynamics are an epiphenomenon of interactions between individual persons.

Societal rules and even physical objects can be constructed to shape interaction and favor a certain group in those interactions. But unless those are accidental, then they were created by the output of individual brains with racist psychological processes. Thus, to call structural features that foster group supremacy "racist" while divorcing them from the actual racist psychological processes within individual brains is intellectually absurd and patently rooted in non-intellectual political motivations to manufacture group level equality by any means neccessary without any consideration of fairness and ethics of racism at the individual level.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Those pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric know that their definition of racism isn't the same as the common definition most people have in their heads, and they know that it makes them look like they are excusing themselves from a human failing and pointing the finger exclusively at others. And yet, they still do it. It genuinely baffles me as to why, when they also claim to be seeking equality and fair treatment.

I am starting to suspect that defeating white racism is not their goal. A rational person would not demand division or parade prejudice and tribal impulse to combat those very things.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why do people push the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric, why do they insist on that, and what do they think that will accomplish for them? Do they have any word for when black people discriminate and prejudge based on race. If it isn't racism, what do they call it? Do they define racism as they do so they can pretend this doesn't exist? We asked this in another thread where Athena was pushing this definition, and she declined to answer.

I have seen the word "racialist" used to describe when members of minority groups behave in a manner that any sane person would call racist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do people push any rhetoric in the context of politics? People on every side of every issue have an agenda to push, and people on every side of every issue are prone to framing the issue in a way which suits their agenda, be it by pushing their own definitions, their own euphemisms(e.g. "job creators"), etc..

But it does not suit their explicit agenda. Or if it does, how? It seems designed to create dismissal or resentment.

Sometimes they do it clumsily because they don't really understand the issue that well, or because they have poor rhetorical skills, or because they just don't care much about convincing the particular people they're talking to, so they don't bother wasting their energy on more persuasive wording. I believe the poster to whom you're referring has been a case of the latter for a very long time, and justifiably so given the subculture of PD.

This isn't a case of failing to find persuasive wording. This is a case of going out of your way to find unpersuasive wording.

They know it exists; it's just not on the same scale as the thing that they're referring to when they speak of racism. It's not a social justice issue; it's not a group-level issue. In a way, bringing it up can be a distraction from the social justice issue, like those posts in rape threads where guys suggest ways for women to avoid being raped.

But do they have a special separate word for it? They have defined "racism" so as to exclude it. That makes it look like they are trying to hide it. Bringing it up and overstressing it can be a distraction from a social justice issue sure, but going out of your way to fail to acknowledge it exists, is I think an even bigger distraction from that issue. You lose a lot of credibility when you fail to acknowledge in yourself what you look to address in others, even if the amount of it in yourself is tiny in comparison.

In what contexts is it done?

I have now spotted it in many contexts. The most common context is that of a black person complaining about white racists and demanding that white racism stop.

 

[laughing dog]

If it bothers some white people so much that black people in the USA cannot meet the definition of racism because they lack the institutional power to enforce and entrench their bigotry, they should simply cede the institutional power to black people for a 100 years and see what happens.

 

[doubtingt]

If it bothers some white people so much that black people in the USA cannot meet the definition of racism because they lack the institutional power to enforce and entrench their bigotry, they should simply cede the institutional power to black people for a 100 years and see what happens.

It bothers any honest and rational person when politically motivated ideologues twist definitions to the point of absurdity in manner that makes reasoned inquiry and discussion of the issue impossible.

Blacks do meet any reasoned definition of racism, just as much as whites do, because any definition that actually is a quality a person can have or demonstrate is a psychological one, and thus refers to the cognitions of the individual and not the structural power that may or may not enable those thoughts to harm others.
As for the more narrow concept of "structural racism", it cannot be something that whites or black have because it is not a quality of persons but of non-person features of the environment. As to whether blacks benefit from instances of structural racism that depends entirely upon where the lines are arbitrarily drawn to determine how locally or globally ones level of analysis is. There are local forms of structural racism that disfavor whites, but on an aggregate scale, there are many more that disfavor blacks, thus on a societal level the structure favors whites more.

In sum, for racism is a psychological variable and something that can be applied to a person, then blacks are racist and possibly even moreso than whites.
For racism as a non-psychological "structural" variable (much like locations of bridges in an area), then it its nonsensical to refer to it as a feature of whites or blacks, and instead it is something that can favor whites or blacks to different degrees and what is true at a local level may not be true at a more aggregate level.

 

[laughing dog]

If it bothers some white people so much that black people in the USA cannot meet the definition of racism because they lack the institutional power to enforce and entrench their bigotry, they should simply cede the institutional power to black people for a 100 years and see what happens.

It bothers any honest and rational person when politically motivated ideologues twist definitions to the point of absurdity in manner that makes reasoned inquiry and discussion of the issue impossible. ...

Methinks thou does protest too much.

No one disputes that the people of any ethnicity or color can behave like nasty bigoted asses on an individual level. But it does take some institutional power to do so at the group level, as any honest and rational person ought to be able to acknowledge.