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

[crispy]

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.

Wrong and right

Racism does need power. No, it does not only apply to white men.

Ok, i see that its not argued that only white people can be racist, but that doesnt change the fact that this is a redefinition of racism. Does this mean that if a white racist who moves to china is no longer a racist - or at least not when he's in china?

If you dont think 'white' or 'china' fits then feel free to replace it with whatever race/country you want.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What if only white people can be racist? What happens to the world if every other word that means prejudiced can be used for everyone EXCEPT this one?

You phrased this as an 'if' statement, so I presume (correct me if I'm mistaken) that you mean this is not the current state of affairs, i.e. most people use the word 'racist' in a way that can be used for everyone.

I am correcting you. You are mistaken.

That being the case, why does it need to be changed?

And now you are evasive.

Of course, to answer your question, nothing about the world would be different. People would just have another general word to use when talking about prejudice.

So what is the problem? Why all the hubbub, Bub?

But as it happens, in the actual world, the word most people use for that purpose is 'racist.' So it falls to those who want to introduce a more restrictive connotation to explain why it should be so.

I am not introducing anything. The definition has been around for quite some time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You know what, black people can be racist.

Anyone can be racist. Not necessarily can everyone be a victim of racism. Of bigotry, prejudice, race hatred, yes, but racism is a specific thing meant to privilege one group over all other groups based on race, working within a framework of supremacy (in this case white supremacy.)

This means the minority groups can do racist things to themselves and to each other. A black supervisor can promote only white people. An Asian teacher can be tougher in grading her Asian students than she is on her white students. Anyone and everyone can do all kinds of things that are permitted or even encouraged under white supremacy. What minorities can not do, is exercise institutional power through the system against the dominant group. Much the same way a driver, under orders from an overseer, could and would whip other slaves, but could not whip the overseer, so can out-group members can carryout the dictates of the racist system provided they do not try to turn on the system itself.

So a more accurate phrasing of the situation would be, white people can't be victims of racism, at least not in the traditional sense.

Dr. King used to say. "I get so tired of trying to save the White man's soul." Under any form of supremacy, the dominant group must subscribe to a variety of lies in order not to see the damage the system that privileges them is doing to the subordinate groups. The dominate group must hold still, say and do nothing while others suffer. The dominant group must see the subordinate groups as lesser than themselves, be it through genetics, culture, or some other group wide defect, in order to explain the subordinate group's plight.

Because if it is not (fill in blank group here) fault, then whose fault is it?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So a more accurate phrasing of the situation would be, white people can't be victims of racism, at least not in the traditional sense.

So, if a black guy shoots a white guy in the face because of the white guy's skin colour, the white guy wasn't just a victim of racism?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not introducing anything. The definition has been around for quite some time.

After having looked into it a little, I've found that the "Racism = Power + Prejudice" definition originated in the 1970s, so yes it does have a history. But no, it isn't what most people think of when they hear the word. If a persons goal is to combat racism, why would they go out of their way to invite the confusion and make themself look racist? It isn't like "systemic racism" takes much longer to say.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Racism is clearly defined in the various dictionaries as follows:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism

1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specificto that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

1.1 Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t
(Taken from RANDOM HOUSE dictionary.

noun
1.
the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristicsdetermined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races withan intrinsic superiority over others
2.
abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race onthe basis of such a belief

Also under the same reference
racism definition


The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually,or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them. In theUnited States, racism, particularly by whites against blacks, has createdprofound racial tension and conflict in virtually all aspects of Americansociety. Until the breakthroughs achieved by the civil rights movement inthe 1950s and 1960s, white domination over blacks was institutionalizedand supported in all branches and levels of government, by denying blackstheir civil rights and opportunities to participate in political, economic, andsocial communities.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source

END OF QUOTE.

Even though some people in power are racist and enforce racism, that does not mean Power is part of the definition

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Consider the word "Thug". It originally referred to a group of robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims. If you went around today saying "White people can't be thugs. Black people can't be thugs. Only Indians can be thugs" you may be correct under that definition of the term, but you'd also sound like a total racist to pretty much everybody that heard you.

"Black people can't be racist" isn't much different.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the black person shot a white man in the face because of his race then that would be racist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the black person shot a white man in the face because of his race then that would be racist.

It would also be somewhat rude.

It can be a new subclass we call "gauche racism".

 

[crispy]

You know what, black people can be racist.

Anyone can be racist. Not necessarily can everyone be a victim of racism. Of bigotry, prejudice, race hatred, yes, but racism is a specific thing meant to privilege one group over all other groups based on race, working within a framework of supremacy (in this case white supremacy.)

This means the minority groups can do racist things to themselves and to each other. A black supervisor can promote only white people. An Asian teacher can be tougher in grading her Asian students than she is on her white students. Anyone and everyone can do all kinds of things that are permitted or even encouraged under white supremacy. What minorities can not do, is exercise institutional power through the system against the dominant group. Much the same way a driver, under orders from an overseer, could and would whip other slaves, but could not whip the overseer, so can out-group members can carryout the dictates of the racist system provided they do not try to turn on the system itself.

So a more accurate phrasing of the situation would be, white people can't be victims of racism, at least not in the traditional sense.

Dr. King used to say. "I get so tired of trying to save the White man's soul." Under any form of supremacy, the dominant group must subscribe to a variety of lies in order not to see the damage the system that privileges them is doing to the subordinate groups. The dominate group must hold still, say and do nothing while others suffer. The dominant group must see the subordinate groups as lesser than themselves, be it through genetics, culture, or some other group wide defect, in order to explain the subordinate group's plight.

Because if it is not (fill in blank group here) fault, then whose fault is it?

Im just trying to understand here; is it, under your definition, racist for a black guy to shout racial slurs at a white guy, because he is white?

 

[PyramidHead]

So what is the problem? Why all the hubbub, Bub?

I don't have a problem with it, as I said in an earlier reply. I just happen to be among the people who has never heard of the word 'racist' being used specifically to talk about institutionalized oppression, and not ordinary individual-level discrimination. That doesn't mean it's an improper use of the word, just that maybe not everybody is aware of that definition. If I am the victim of racially motivated discrimination or prejudice, my first reaction to being told I was not a victim of racism would thus be confusion, and I'm sure plenty would feel the same way (or worse, anger and resentment; I don't usually get angry or resentful, but other people might).

You're essentially correct that it's a word game, but words are important in how people interpret messages about sensitive topics. I can easily carry on a conversation with somebody about professional musicians, and specify: "when I say pro, I mean somebody who gets all their income from music. Maybe there are people who have a CD on their own website and make some money on the side, but for the purposes of our particular discussion, let's say only the ones who do it for a living are professional." Most people don't have an emotional stake in who is called pro or not in music, so they have no problem re-calibrating their internal dictionary like that. With social issues, for better or worse, there is a huge chunk of people, made up of all kinds of opinions, ready to take offense at the drop of a hat. They will chase you around in circles over the words you use and never hear what you're actually saying. If you want them to hear you, it's easier to just use the words that don't rile them up, and say what you were going to say anyhow.

I don't disagree with anything you're talking about, I'm just thinking about the issue from really a marketing standpoint, if you like. When you say white people can't be victims of racism, two things can happen in whoever is listening. People with less of a chip on their shoulders might think, that's weird, what does she mean by that, listen a little more, and then come away having learned something valuable. The people with that hair-trigger reaction between them and knowledge will probably not be receptive. Bottom line, if you say 'institutionalized racial oppression,' or 'systemic racism' EVERYBODY gets what you mean, because there aren't multiple definitions in people's heads already.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Im just trying to understand here; is it, under your definition, racist for a black guy to shout racial slurs at a white guy, because he is white?

Under Athena's (re)definition of the word, it would not be racist for a white guy on the street to shout racial slurs at a black guy, since that isn't an abuse of power. Under her definition many white people (the poor and powerless ones) are incapable of racism. It is an odd definition to take on for the word "racism", especially if your goal is to fight against prejudice, bigotry, and unfair treatment based on race (what the rest of us mean by the word).

 

[Derec]

You know what, black people can be racist.

But only when they act in a racist fashion against other blacks, not when they act in a racist fashion against whites?

Anyone can be racist. Not necessarily can everyone be a victim of racism.

Bullshit.

Of bigotry, prejudice, race hatred, yes, but racism is a specific thing meant to privilege one group over all other groups based on race, working within a framework of supremacy (in this case white supremacy.)

You are still clinging to this redefinition of racism, championed by certain left-wing sociologists, as the only valid definition. It doesn't even work under it's own assumptions. Certain jurisdictions in US, for example City of Atlanta and DeKlab, Fulton and Clayton counties, are under complete black control. Why is it not possible for blacks within those counties to privilege blacks over whites within a framework of black supremacy?

This means the minority groups can do racist things to themselves and to each other.

But not to white people? I reject that definition entirely of course, but even if you accept it, white people are a minority in many jurisdictions. Does that mean white people can't be racist in DeKalb County, only black people can?

A black supervisor can promote only white people.

A black supervisor can also promote only black people. That is still racism.

An Asian teacher can be tougher in grading her Asian students than she is on her white students.

An Asian teacher can be tougher in grading her white students. That also is racism.

Anyone and everyone can do all kinds of things that are permitted or even encouraged under white supremacy.

What about things that are permitted or even encouraged under black supremacy?

What minorities can not do, is exercise institutional power through the system against the dominant group.

Of course they can. A black person can have power (for example a business owner, a manager in a larger business or government agency, a professor/teacher or prison guard/warden) over a white person even when he is not a member of a dominant group. Furthermore blacks can be the dominant group in certain jurisdictions or businesses. Lastly, things like affirmative action are institutional racism against white and Asian people that exist because of a sense of white guilt among many white "liberals" and "progressives".

Much the same way a driver, under orders from an overseer, could and would whip other slaves, but could not whip the overseer, so can out-group members can carryout the dictates of the racist system provided they do not try to turn on the system itself.

150 years hence, and slavery is still misused as a thought-terminating argument. While slavery was going on you might have had an argument but that is no longer the case when blacks are in many positions of power in both private sector and the government, including the most powerful office in the land.

So a more accurate phrasing of the situation would be, white people can't be victims of racism, at least not in the traditional sense.

Of course they can be, in any reasonable sense. The only sense that whites can't be victims of racism under is this redefined sense, finely calibrated to exclude whites and designed to ignore institutional power blacks do have in the modern world.

Dr. King used to say. "I get so tired of trying to save the White man's soul."

He also said that he had a dream that people would not be judged by the color of their skin. Unfortunately the modern "liberals" and "progressives" have all but abandoned that dream.

Because if it is not (fill in blank group here) fault, then whose fault is it?

It's always the fault of heterosexual white men, no matter what, at least according to faux-liberals.

 

[laughing dog]

Im just trying to understand here; is it, under your definition, racist for a black guy to shout racial slurs at a white guy, because he is white?

Under Athena's (re)definition of the word, it would not be racist for a white guy on the street to shout racial slurs at a black guy, since that isn't an abuse of power. Under her definition many white people (the poor and powerless ones) are incapable of racism. It is an odd definition to take on for the word "racism", especially if your goal is to fight against prejudice, bigotry, and unfair treatment based on race (what the rest of us mean by the word).

Whinging about one definition of a word with illogical straw men because the particular use does not fit with your ideology is pretty odd especially if your goal is to fight prejudice, bigotry and unfair treatment based on race. Actions speak louder than whinges. Still waiting for a rational explanation why one particular definition or understanding of racism reduces your credibility in fighting racism.

 

[PyramidHead]

Under Athena's (re)definition of the word, it would not be racist for a white guy on the street to shout racial slurs at a black guy, since that isn't an abuse of power. Under her definition many white people (the poor and powerless ones) are incapable of racism. It is an odd definition to take on for the word "racism", especially if your goal is to fight against prejudice, bigotry, and unfair treatment based on race (what the rest of us mean by the word).

Whinging about one definition of a word with illogical straw men because the particular use does not fit with your ideology is pretty odd especially if your goal is to fight prejudice, bigotry and unfair treatment based on race. Actions speak louder than whinges. Still waiting for a rational explanation why one particular definition or understanding of racism reduces your credibility in fighting racism.

Actually, I would say that using a term that means different things to different people, or insisting on a meaning that many people do not share, when talking about such a sensitive topic may also be antithetical to that goal. There are no language police. But if we can agree that the goal is to spread awareness of all kinds of racially motivated abuse, perhaps highlighting the kind that comes from entrenched power and influence, why phrase the message in such a way that large groups of people will get pissed off and close their ears? Sure, their reasons for doing that may not be laudable, but the goal is to get through their skulls, right?

 

[crispy]

Under Athena's (re)definition of the word, it would not be racist for a white guy on the street to shout racial slurs at a black guy, since that isn't an abuse of power. Under her definition many white people (the poor and powerless ones) are incapable of racism. It is an odd definition to take on for the word "racism", especially if your goal is to fight against prejudice, bigotry, and unfair treatment based on race (what the rest of us mean by the word).

Whinging about one definition of a word with illogical straw men because the particular use does not fit with your ideology is pretty odd especially if your goal is to fight prejudice, bigotry and unfair treatment based on race. Actions speak louder than whinges. Still waiting for a rational explanation why one particular definition or understanding of racism reduces your credibility in fighting racism.

So whats your answer to my question?

 

[Trausti]

Under Athena's (re)definition of the word, it would not be racist for a white guy on the street to shout racial slurs at a black guy, since that isn't an abuse of power. Under her definition many white people (the poor and powerless ones) are incapable of racism. It is an odd definition to take on for the word "racism", especially if your goal is to fight against prejudice, bigotry, and unfair treatment based on race (what the rest of us mean by the word).

Whinging about one definition of a word with illogical straw men because the particular use does not fit with your ideology is pretty odd especially if your goal is to fight prejudice, bigotry and unfair treatment based on race. Actions speak louder than whinges. Still waiting for a rational explanation why one particular definition or understanding of racism reduces your credibility in fighting racism.

You're just demonstrating your antidisestablishmentarianism.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, because first and foremost we should worry about causing resentment in white folks.

It really depends on whether your objective is to cast white people as your enemy, and seek vengeance against all white people, regardless of whether those individual people have taken action against you specifically.

If, on the other hand, your objective is to change the culture, and to have white people be your allies in that effort, then it certainly doesn't behoove you to insult them constantly, and to take steps that you know will cause resentment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, because first and foremost we should worry about causing resentment in white folks.

It really depends on whether your objective is to cast white people as your enemy, and seek vengeance against all white people, regardless of whether those individual people have taken action against you specifically.

If, on the other hand, your objective is to change the culture, and to have white people be your allies in that effort, then it certainly doesn't behoove you to insult them constantly, and to take steps that you know will cause resentment.

Does nominating a black woman to be the next Attorney General count as a "step that you know will cause resentment"?

 

[Emily Lake]

You know what, black people can be racist.

Anyone can be racist. Not necessarily can everyone be a victim of racism. Of bigotry, prejudice, race hatred, yes, but racism is a specific thing meant to privilege one group over all other groups based on race, working within a framework of supremacy (in this case white supremacy.)

This means the minority groups can do racist things to themselves and to each other. A black supervisor can promote only white people. An Asian teacher can be tougher in grading her Asian students than she is on her white students. Anyone and everyone can do all kinds of things that are permitted or even encouraged under white supremacy. What minorities can not do, is exercise institutional power through the system against the dominant group. Much the same way a driver, under orders from an overseer, could and would whip other slaves, but could not whip the overseer, so can out-group members can carryout the dictates of the racist system provided they do not try to turn on the system itself.

So a more accurate phrasing of the situation would be, white people can't be victims of racism, at least not in the traditional sense.

Dr. King used to say. "I get so tired of trying to save the White man's soul." Under any form of supremacy, the dominant group must subscribe to a variety of lies in order not to see the damage the system that privileges them is doing to the subordinate groups. The dominate group must hold still, say and do nothing while others suffer. The dominant group must see the subordinate groups as lesser than themselves, be it through genetics, culture, or some other group wide defect, in order to explain the subordinate group's plight.

Because if it is not (fill in blank group here) fault, then whose fault is it?

AthenaAwakened, I think it would greatly simplify this discussion if you drew a distinction between Institutional Racism and Individual Racism.

Both exist, but they are distinct. It seems to me that most of your discussion so far has really reflected Institutional Racism - the racism inherent in our system, that results in disparate privileges for one race over another (or all others, as the case may be). The problem here is that without that qualifier, when you only refer to it as "racism", it's far too easy for most people to assume you're talking about Individual Racism - the acts that one individual takes toward others, either individually or as a group.

I think a great many people think that the default "racism" is intended to mean Individual Racism. You appear to have a different default. If we could all agree to include the qualifier in our discussion, I think we'd have a lot less useless argument and a lot more constructive discussion.