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

[Emily Lake]

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

Why would it?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

What question is that?

 

[PyramidHead]

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"?

The people who would resent that are beyond changing their culture. Reasonable people can get misled when words are used differently than they are used to. I don't think it's a particularly good character trait, but I wouldn't write people off as allies for that. Hardcore racists (both definitions!) who don't think blacks should have any position of influence are too far gone to bother tailoring one's message.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

And how does saying that black people cannot be racist insult white people constantly?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

If the claim that "black people cannot be racist" truly pisses people off and closes their ears, my guess is that the goal of getting the message through their skulls is more utopian than realistic.

 

[PyramidHead]

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?

If the claim that "black people cannot be racist" truly pisses people off and closes their ears, my guess is that the goal of getting the message through their skulls is more utopian than realistic.

That's fine; I disagree. I know a lot of people who are well-intentioned, compassionate, and just a little stubborn. I think they are worth accommodating, and not a lost cause, when I engage them in discourse about subjects that may strike a nerve.

It's the same with religion. Same kind of people. Usually middle-of-the-road conservative, maybe never gave too much thought to the problem. If I tell them Christianity is a death cult, which it is, I've given up my ticket to have a two-way exchange with them. It's only when I start from a position they can latch onto that I'm able to open the lines of communication.

Your experience may be different, and I respect that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Why would it?

Obama knew it would "cause resentment". Go online, and you'd swear "Cousin Pookie" has been nominated to every position in Government, and are all sitting on the porch of the White House.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

And how does saying that black people cannot be racist insult white people constantly?

When most people's default assumption is that the unqualified term "racist" implies Individual Racism, then saying that "black people can't be racist" grants carte blanche to black people and excuses their individual racist acts. It goes hand in hand with taking the position that "all white people are racist" which is essentially the position that is being taken.

So it sets up a situation where a black person could call a white person by derogatory slurs based on the color of their skin, and could mistreat a white person based on the color of their skin, and it gets excused and overlooked - it's not "racist" because by definition, black people can't be racist. It sets black people up as being morally superior to white people by definition, and by comparison, it defines all white people as being morally inferior.

It intrinsically says "black people are incapable of this moral failing, but white people are susceptible to it all the time... therefore black people are morally superior to white people".

Which may cause just a small bit of consternation when we're supposed to be seeking equality.

 

[Trausti]

Which may cause just a small bit of consternation when we're supposed to be seeking equality.

Are you not aware that some are more equal than others?

 

[Emily Lake]

Why would it?

Obama knew it would "cause resentment". Go online, and you'd swear "Cousin Pookie" has been nominated to every position in Government, and are all sitting on the porch of the White House.

Not with everyone. Only with some people - specifically with racists

Which, by the way, not all white people are.

- - - Updated - - -

Which may cause just a small bit of consternation when we're supposed to be seeking equality.

Are you not aware that some are more equal than others?

No. I am not aware of that, nor do I accept that. Not without a significant amount of incontrovertible proof.

 

[laughing dog]

When most people's default assumption is that the unqualified term "racist" implies Individual Racism, then saying that "black people can't be racist" grants carte blanche to black people and excuses their individual racist acts.

There is no logic in that conclusion whatsoever.

It goes hand in hand with taking the position that "all white people are racist" which is essentially the position that is being taken.

That is another illogical conclusion.

So it sets up a situation where a black person could call a white person by derogatory slurs based on the color of their skin, and could mistreat a white person based on the color of their skin, and it gets excused and overlooked - it's not "racist" because by definition, black people can't be racist. It sets black people up as being morally superior to white people by definition, and by comparison, it defines all white people as being morally inferior.

Your example is silly. Calling people racial slurs does not make one a racist - it makes one a nasty prejudiced douche who is acting unacceptably.

It intrinsically says "black people are incapable of this moral failing, but white people are susceptible to it all the time... therefore black people are morally superior to white people".

Not at all. It says people with the institutional power can be racist and others who do not have the institutional power cannot. It does not say that black people with the institutional power cannot be racists. It says that blacks cannot be racists at this time in this place because they don't have the institutional power. Sorry, but the definition does not remotely imply what you are arguing.

Which may cause just a small bit of consternation when we're supposed to be seeking equality.

One would expect more than a small bit of consternation while we seek equality.

 

[Trausti]

Not at all. It says people with the institutional power can be racist and others who do not have the institutional power cannot. It does not say that black people with the institutional power cannot be racists. It says that blacks cannot be racists at this time in this place because they don't have the institutional power.

What the what? How are you defining institutional power? Does this count:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/national/05sheriff.html?_r=0?

Sheriff Hill was among a spate of black candidates elected last year in the county, which was once dominated by rural whites. The fired employees included four of the highest-ranking officers, all of them white. Sheriff Hill told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that their replacements would be black.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

No, Race hatred, bigotry, yes. But one white guy shot by one black guy will not change incarceration rates, infant mortality and life expectency for whites as a whole or blacks as a whole.

 

[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?

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.

Racism is institutional in its nature.

And understand, I know how people tend to use the word and I always explain how and why I use the word at the beginning of discussions, so there will be misunderstandings. Now I can say to a person, "Let's discuss organic products and by organic I mean

An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain carbon. For historical reasons discussed below, a few types of carbon-containing compounds such as carbides, carbonates, simple oxides of carbon (such as CO and CO2), and cyanides are considered inorganic.[1] The distinction between organic and inorganic carbon compounds, while "useful in organizing the vast subject of chemistry... is somewhat arbitrary."[2]

So we will not be talking about grass fed beef, or hemp purses, or free range whatever and how all those chemicals are poisoning us and if only we could have more natural things...

I have found that scientists and real food activists both hate the word organic when used the popular definition as being natural, or free of chemicals. Both groups know that the popular use of the word organic is wrong and that usage does more to cover up the truth than expose it.

The same is true of the word racism. When you use the word to describe acts among individual devoid of an institutional context, you allow racism to continue. If racism is a lynching party and black bodies swinging in the southern breeze. then all you need to do is round up the mob and put them in jail. but if the police are part of the lynching party and the only people allowed on a jury are white men, and black witnesses are not allowed to testify, how does rounding up the mob help or how does that even happen?

Individualizing racism allows people to concentrate on a single act and ignore the repetitions and patterns. sure you can fire the bigoted shop clerk, but what about the company policy that calls for the profiling of potential shoplifters? We can send the bigoted supervisor to a diversity training workshop, but what about the practices of nepotism and patronage used for filling jobs in upper management? If racism were just about hating people because of their color, then it would have gone the way of hula hoops and coonskin caps long ago.

 

[Derec]

No, Race hatred, bigotry, yes.

In other words, "racism" by most definitions of the term.

But one white guy shot by one black guy will not change incarceration rates, infant mortality and life expectency for whites as a whole or blacks as a whole.

Many factors go into those differences, and they do not even require racism. I.e. it is possible to have no racial discrimination whatsoever and still have differing incarceration rates, life expectancies and infant moralities. If group A has higher incarceration rates than group be because they commit more crimes, what's wrong with that? Should group A be discriminated for in order to have identical incarceration rates? If group A has lower average life expectancy than group B due to lifestyle choices, is that the fault of "racism" by group B or the fault of behavior by group A?

 

[Derec]

Racism is institutional in its nature.

For the 10,000th time: only according to a fringe definition devised by some ideologically left-wing sociologists. You can't pretend that it is the only, or even the most commonly used, definition. And your categorical statement "racism is ..." definitely implies that.

And understand, I know how people tend to use the word and I always explain how and why I use the word at the beginning of discussions, so there will be misunderstandings. Now I can say to a person, "Let's discuss organic products and by organic I mean
So we will not be talking about grass fed beef, or hemp purses, or free range whatever and how all those chemicals are poisoning us and if only we could have more natural things...

It just goes to show you that marketing terms do not exactly make sense. Another stupid thing: saying calorie when you mean kilo-calorie. But I do not think your definition of racism makes any more sense. There is sense in talking of "institutional racism" vs. "individual racism" but while your definition is in the ballpark of institutional racism, it's not the same thing. Again, it is carefully calibrated to exclude black people from racism even though blacks run many institutions these days and thus can definitely engage in institutional racism. When a black county sheriff fires white deputies because they are white and replaces them with black ones that is unadulterated institutional racism. I can appreciate that this is different than some Joe Shmoe without institutional power being a racist (although I still contend they are both forms of racism). What I however definitely cannot accept is the contention that even though blacks can have institutional power and abuse said power in a racist fashion they cannot be called "racist" because some of their ancestors may have been slaves 150 years ago. That is textbook special pleading.

I have found that scientists and real food activists both hate the word organic when used the popular definition as being natural, or free of chemicals.

"Chemical" is just as improperly used as "organic" in this context.

Both groups know that the popular use of the word organic is wrong and that usage does more to cover up the truth than expose it.The same is true of the word racism.

I agree, but in the opposite sense...

When you use the word to describe acts among individual devoid of an institutional context, you allow racism to continue.

No, you don't. You would rightly recognize that both individual and institutional racism are fruits of the same rotten tree. An individual racist without power can engage in institutional racism once he gets power. Victor Hill didn't become racist when he became sheriff. He was a racist already, and gaining power only allowed him to wield his racism with much more damage.
Thus recognizing forms of racism as such would allow us to nip racism in the bud.

If racism is a lynching party and black bodies swinging in the southern breeze. then all you need to do is round up the mob and put them in jail. but if the police are part of the lynching party and the only people allowed on a jury are white men, and black witnesses are not allowed to testify, how does rounding up the mob help or how does that even happen?

The two are intimately linked as institutions are made up of people. Police are individuals, elected officials are individuals, voters are individuals.

Individualizing racism allows people to concentrate on a single act and ignore the repetitions and patterns.

But repetitions and patterns are made up of single acts.

sure you can fire the bigoted shop clerk, but what about the company policy that calls for the profiling of potential shoplifters?

It depends. What if the policy was instituted because the company security found statistically significant trends among shoplifters? Let's remove it from the context of race. If for example they found that teenagers and young adults shoplifted 10x more frequently than older patrons it would make sense to give the former more scrutiny than the latter. If they showed people wearing athletic clothes shoplifted more it likewise would make sense to scrutinize that group more. That is common sense and not bigotry.

We can send the bigoted supervisor to a diversity training workshop, but what about the practices of nepotism and patronage used for filling jobs in upper management?

Nepotism is not really racism as you hire and promote family members, not some random people that share your skin color.
And what if it's a black-owned store? If the owner hires his nephew is he a racist?
And what if a black store-owner finds that his fellow blacks shoplifted more frequently that other groups? If he scrutinizes black patrons more closely, does that make him a self-hating racist or just a businessman eager to protect his bottom line?

If racism were just about hating people because of their color, then it would have gone the way of hula hoops and coonskin caps long ago.

It is certainly greatly diminished compared to the time when hoola-hoops and coonskin caps were a thing.

 

[laughing dog]

What the what? How are you defining institutional power? Does this count:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/national/05sheriff.html?_r=0?

A recently elected black official? No.

 

[Trausti]

What the what? How are you defining institutional power? Does this count:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/national/05sheriff.html?_r=0?

A recently elected black official? No.

How about this?

Linked on the first page of this thread:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/metro-derailed-by-culture-of-complacence-incompete/?page=all

Or will the goal post be moved further still?

 

[laughing dog]

A recently elected black official? No.

How about this?

Linked on the first page of this thread:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/26/metro-derailed-by-culture-of-complacence-incompete/?page=all

That is more likely to be the case.

Or will the goal post be moved further still?

Your desperation is pathetic.

 

[crispy]

So whats your answer to my question?

What question is that?

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?