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

[Emily Lake]

It strikes me that the issue here parallels the issue with respect to sexism and rape.

Consider that when we discuss a rape situation from the perspective of women's rights and sexism, there is invariably someone who responds by saying "well men get raped too". Certainly this is true, but it's rarely well received.

In both cases, the underlying topic is that of bigoted injury and hatred. It is hatred for no rationally defensible reason. In the case above the hatred is based on gender, and in this case it is based on skin color. That hatred and injury can flow in any direction. Men can hate women, and women can hate men. White people can hate Black people, and Korean people can hate Japanese people.

Although the hatred can and does flow in many different directions, it is also true that in some time periods and some geographic regions, there is a significantly stronger flow in one direction than in another. For the majority of discussions that we have here, we are discussing current and recent US history. In that context, the majority of racial bigotry flows from white people toward non-white people, with a heavy emphasis on black people. Similarly, the majority of sexual bigotry flows from men toward women.

I don't believe that anyone in this thread denies that racial bigotry exists. Nor do I believe that anyone in this thread supports the continuation of racial bigotry.

I do, however, believe that there is risk in how the topic is approached.

When we discuss sexism, there is a great risk of addressing the topic from the vantage of "women versus men". It is very easy to oversimplify language, and to speak as if it is all men perpetrating such bigotry against all women. Obviously, this isn't the case. But we are speaking to many men. And by lazily lumping them into the group that is being treated as purposeful oppressors, we rob them of their free will and we dismiss their actions on our behalf. We make them our enemies, without giving them the opportunity to be our supporters.

The same dynamic is a risk when we discuss racial bigotry. It is all too easy to speak of "white people" as universal oppressors and exploiters of black people. But in so doing, you cast all of us as your enemy, whether we will it or no. I am a white woman. But I am not a racist, and I am not your enemy. I will gladly fight alongside you... but I will not be asked to demean myself and accept the mantle of "exploiter" "racist" "oppressor" in order to do so.

Please don't resort to group dynamics on this topic. Don't cast all white people as the enemy. Allow me to fight alongside you.

 

[Malintent]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

 

[Trausti]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

Well, maybe. I think the larger issue is the special pleading to redefine words for a political purpose. This discussion reminded me of a brief but extraordinary exchange during oral argument at the Supreme Court for the Schutte affirmative action case. One of the lawyers for the group challenging Michigan's Prop 2, which removed race as a consideration for college admission, actually argued that white people did not fall within the definition of the Equal Protection clause; e.g., discrimination directly solely at white people does not violate the Constitution. She really argued that: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-682_l537.pdf. Page 41. If you have to redefine words to achieve your goal, then you probably have ill intent.

 

[doubtingt]

Not all oppression is systematic. Is that really so difficult to understand?

It isn't that its hard to understand, but that it undermines their political rhetoric and policies if they acknowledge it.
If racism and oppression only ever is practiced by whites as a group upon non-whites as a group, then racial group that a person belongs to can be used as though its a direct reliable measure of being a target of racism and disadvantage. Thus, racial group can be ethically used as the basis for policies that determine who gets what outcomes or who gets excuses for various actions, pretending that this is still merit-based and not itself racist as it only corrects for actual differences between persons in prior experiences and treatment. It allows for the pretense that such policies have no costs in terms of error rates (both false positives and false negatives). This is critical because most decent people do not think that it acceptable to knowingly harm innocent persons in order to help someone else, especially when that someone else may or may not actually need any help compared to most people.

Put another way, they want all the negative feelings about the word "racism" to be exclusively directed towards the issue that they care most about, which is group level inequalities. They don't want those negative feelings diverted to any of those meaningless trillions of instances of inter-personal racism and its harm that don't conform to the group level differences they want every issue to be about and everyone to focus upon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your conclusion does not follow.

Furthermore, if it is universal and deep rooted today, what was it back then? Even more universal and even more deep rooted?

I fail to see the relevance of those questions or the answers to those questions.

My conclusion follows directly from the logic of the quote: If racism is normal, then it is invisible. Therefore, if racism is visible, then it is not normal. Based the standard logical syllogism: If A then B. Not B, therefore, not A. Using these logical conclusions, racism was visible in the 1920's, therefore, it was not normal.

My other questions relate to the idea of over exaggeration. If racism is universal, widespread, and deep seated today, then what words would you use to describe the racism of the 1920's? I'm trying to understand how those words relate to the degree of racism that actually exists.

Buzz off! What do you think you're doing, trying to rebut the discrimination-is-rampant religion with logic?!?! That's blasphemy!

- - - Updated - - -

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

That's not how it's being used here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If you define racism as the system underwhich a society lives and not as interpersonal intentional acts between two or more individuals....

But that is not what most people think when they hear the word, or at the very least, there are a lot of people who don't think that. You know this. Please refer to the paragraphs I wrote earlier in the thread. If you use a term that you KNOW will be heard as excusing you from the very thing you want others to stop, that isn't going to draw empathy. It is going to draw division. You will entrench racist attitudes rather than changing them, and those racist attitudes are what prop up the racially biased system you refer to in your definition of "racism". I don't understand how this isn't obvious to you.

Emily makes a good point as well. If your goal is to change a system, change attitudes, and erode prejudice and division, you shouldn't start with prejudice and division. You can make the exact same points without such language, and actually bring white people along on your side, because after all, you are right on much of what you say. But white people won't see that if you insist on throwing mud in their faces.

doubtingt makes another excellent point. The confusion between group averages and individuals seems to come up again and again in these threads. We really need to keep it in mind. If you fail to do so, and especially if if you fail to do so deliberately as part of a political agenda, you lose credibility for what is otherwise a very credible cause.

 

[ksen]

Sure, I mean we wouldn't want to offend the white folk while trying to end racism and discrimination.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

That's really not what's going on. Instead people are using it to excuse - for political reasons - discriminatory behavior by people in minority groups.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Well of course people of all races discriminate and prejudge based on race. That's precisely why the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric insist on not using that as the definition of racism: using that definition will not accomplish what they want. By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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.

Well of course people of all races discriminate and prejudge based on race. That's precisely why the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric insist on not using that as the definition of racism: using that definition will not accomplish what they want. By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

As I checked (once more) which consensus is met among dictionaries in 3 languages regarding the definition of racism,

Larousse, France :

http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/racisme/65932

HOEPLI, Italy :

http://www.grandidizionari.it/Dizionario_Italiano/parola/r/razzismo.aspx?query=razzismo

British and American English :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/racism


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/racism?q=Racism


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Let's compare which definition I relied on, in my reply to the OP, with the above :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-be-racist-quot&p=82952&viewfull=1#post82952

I might be a novelty to you as I understand racism to be more specific than just "simply people who who discriminate or judge others based on race". The specific being about viewing ethnic groups as superior or inferior.Usually, the superior is attributed to one's own ethnic group and inferior to either other ethnic groups or one specific ethnic group.

The definition I relied on rather than the OP's is one I have always relied on in the course of my life. I am not sure you feel the need to attribute to folks ,who have consistently relied on such definition of the word "racism" when they discuss racism, the following motive :

By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races

Considering my reply to the OP undeniably relies on the definition of racism based on race hierarchy or race superiority versus race inferiority, do you somehow have mind -reading abilities which would enable you to apply the motive above to my communications?

 

[laughing dog]

My conclusion follows directly from the logic of the quote: If racism is normal, then it is invisible. Therefore, if racism is visible, then it is not normal. Based the standard logical syllogism: If A then B. Not B, therefore, not A.

Unfortunately you are misapplying logic. It is the same as saying if it snows then school is cancelled but it is not necessarily true if school is cancelled then it snowed. The quote does not claim that racism must be invisible to be normal, so your conclusion does not follow.

My other questions relate to the idea of over exaggeration. If racism is universal, widespread, and deep seated today, then what words would you use to describe the racism of the 1920's?

And that is relevant because....?

I'm trying to understand how those words relate to the degree of racism that actually exists.

Do you know the degree of racism that actually exists?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Well of course people of all races discriminate and prejudge based on race. That's precisely why the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric insist on not using that as the definition of racism: using that definition will not accomplish what they want. By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

This "analysis" is about as reasonable and logical as "People who decry the claim that "black people can't be racist" are deflecting from their own racism".

 

[Bomb#20]

The definition I relied on rather than the OP's is one I have always relied on in the course of my life. I am not sure you feel the need to attribute to folks ,who have consistently relied on such definition of the word "racism" when they discuss racism, the following motive :

By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races

Considering my reply to the OP undeniably relies on the definition of racism based on race hierarchy or race superiority versus race inferiority, do you somehow have mind -reading abilities which would enable you to apply the motive above to my communications?

Excuse me? Where the devil did I apply any motive to your communications? Do you somehow have mind-reading abilities which would enable you to conclude I was talking about you? I was perfectly clear who I was talking about: the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric. Did you say black people can't be racist? No, you did not. (Well, maybe you did somewhere else; but you didn't say it in this thread; and, not being a mind-reader and not having read every one of your 33681 posts, let alone everything you've asserted elsewhere, I wouldn't know that.)

 

[Sabine Grant]

The definition I relied on rather than the OP's is one I have always relied on in the course of my life. I am not sure you feel the need to attribute to folks ,who have consistently relied on such definition of the word "racism" when they discuss racism, the following motive :

using that definition will not accomplish what they want. By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

Considering my reply to the OP undeniably relies on the definition of racism based on race hierarchy or race superiority versus race inferiority, do you somehow have mind -reading abilities which would enable you to apply the motive above to my communications?

Excuse me? Where the devil did I apply any motive to your communications?

My reply to the Op which I linked you to in fact reflects an argumentation based on the definition of racism you appear to reject.(race hierarchy, superior versus inferior) Further, I did refer to history as a demonstration of the absence of a sense of "racial" superiority among people of Black ethnicity. People of Black ethnicity having been a group persistently subjected to exploitation, oppression, enslaving etc... My argumentation was in fact leaning towards an approach arguing in favor of what you refer to as a "rhetoric", meaning the why and how "Black people cannot be racist". I thought it would have been odd that you would describe the type of argumentation I relied on in my reply to the OP without including my own communications in your perception of the motive you attribute to people who follow the same reasoning and approach I followed. My apologies then as you have confirmed that it was not your intention.

Do you somehow have mind-reading abilities which would enable you to conclude I was talking about you? I was perfectly clear who I was talking about: the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric. Did you say black people can't be racist? No, you did not. (Well, maybe you did somewhere else; but you didn't say it in this thread; and, not being a mind-reader and not having read every one of your 33681 posts, let alone everything you've asserted elsewhere, I wouldn't know that.)

For starters, I do not consider an approach arguing in favor of "Black people can't be racist" to be a "rhetoric", approach relying on a specific definition of racism (race hierarchy/superior versus inferior) and what you referred to as a "constructing a narrative of history". Your response to such approach was one of attributing negative motives while you did not demonstrate that :

1) Such definition of racism is invalid.

2) The narrative of history is incorrect.

Meaning instead of challenging the argumentation they rely on, you attacked their intention by attributing to them a negative motive. The negative motive in question being :

they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

If such motive were to be revealed by someone arguing in favor of " Black people can't be racist", I would actually be the first one to debunk such claim. Considering that one could hardly argue that there is any "superior morality" at play when it comes to how, as a result of wars and conflicts in between various regional tribes in Africa, prisoners were "sold" to slave merchants to then be destined to the Northern American continent while transiting via the Island of Gorée in Senegal. Meaning that within the mercantile system of slavery, those African native tribes were complicit of the systematic exploitation of their own peers.

 

[doubtingt]

Well of course people of all races discriminate and prejudge based on race. That's precisely why the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric insist on not using that as the definition of racism: using that definition will not accomplish what they want. By defining racism as seeing some ethnic groups as superior and others and inferior, and by constructing a narrative of history in which the white race is collectively guilty of perceiving itself as superior and other races as inferior, while other races are innocent of such wickedness, they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

As I checked (once more) which consensus is met among dictionaries in 3 languages regarding the definition of racism,

Larousse, France :

http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/racisme/65932

HOEPLI, Italy :

http://www.grandidizionari.it/Dizionario_Italiano/parola/r/razzismo.aspx?query=razzismo

British and American English :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/racism


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/racism?q=Racism


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Let's compare which definition I relied on, in my reply to the OP, with the above :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-be-racist-quot&p=82952&viewfull=1#post82952

So, these English definitions quite clearly do apply to blacks as they only refer to psychological states of individuals and not at all to sociological or historical group-level power imbalances. So, the only way blacks could not be racist is if we make the racist assumption that blacks are not mentally capable of the psychological states that whites are.
Also note that the notion of superiority is a secondary aspect of the definition, with the primary aspect being merely the belief that individuals' qualities and characteristics differ by their race. For example, the Oxford definition starts with "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race," The notion of superiority isn't presented as neccessary but presented as a typical motive for presuming such differences ", especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
Also, individual beliefs (which is what all these definitions refer to) about superiority are not remotely neccessary nor sufficient for actual group level oppression which has much more to do with opportunity, strategic advantage, and practical motives than racial beliefs. Thus, the lack of historical group level oppression by blacks on whites implies nothing about the presence of racism beliefs among blacks, and the presence of such oppression by whites on blacks does not itself constitute evidence of such beliefs among whites. We have other evidence that such beliefs exist and have been used to rationalize such oppression, but those beliefs are not neccessary nor sufficient for such oppression to occur, so they can't be inferred from that oppression in itself.

 

[dismal]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

Michelle Obama told black voters that after they vote for Democrats they can eat fried chicken.

Ignoring for the moment I can't recall us electing her to tell us what we can and can't eat, and that are special provisos in what she dictates we can and can't eat that tilt in favor of democrats, I think this is the sort of thing she can say because she is black. It seems unwise for a white person to tell black people they could eat fried chicken as a reward.

I don't think this is a case do much of "black people can't be racist" as it is a case of a person not being racist.

Now, when light skinned black people make fun of dark skinned black people, that's black people being racist.

So, yeah, black people can be racist.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Michelle Obama told black voters that after they vote for Democrats they can eat fried chicken.

Well, it's about fucking time. The laws forbidding people from eating fried chicken after they voted were horrifically unconstitutional, not to mention nonsensical, and needed to be struck down.

We should all thank Mrs Obama for taking on the Supreme Court in this matter and restoring some of America's lost freedoms.

 

[Sabine Grant]

As I checked (once more) which consensus is met among dictionaries in 3 languages regarding the definition of racism,

Larousse, France :

http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/racisme/65932

HOEPLI, Italy :

http://www.grandidizionari.it/Dizionario_Italiano/parola/r/razzismo.aspx?query=razzismo

British and American English :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/racism


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/racism


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/racism?q=Racism


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Let's compare which definition I relied on, in my reply to the OP, with the above :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...t-be-racist-quot&p=82952&viewfull=1#post82952

So, these English definitions quite clearly do apply to blacks as they only refer to psychological states of individuals and not at all to sociological or historical group-level power imbalances.

I purposefully provided definitions in 3 languages not just "in English" to demonstrate that there is a consensus among all those dictionaries representative of not just one culture but at least 3, that the definition of racism relies on the concept of "race" hierarchy , superior versus inferior.

My point was to demonstrate that individuals who rely on such definition and from 3 different cultures are far from doing it with a personal agenda at play as Bomb was implying they are. I must say I am surprised that there should be such reluctance in this thread to recognize the authentic character of such definition. Am I to assume here that such consensus met by a variety of dictionaries in 3 languages was met by people who somehow have a personal agenda at play?

Let's add to my list the Dictionary of l' Académie Française :

http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/generic/cherche.exe?15;s=3292231050;

RACISME n. m. XXe siècle. Dérivé de race.
Ensemble de doctrines selon lesquelles les variétés de l'espèce humaine appelées races, principalement distinguées les unes des autres par leur apparence physique, seraient dotées de facultés intellectuelles et morales inégales, directement liées à leur patrimoine génétique. Par ext. Préjugé hostile, méprisant à l'égard des personnes appartenant à d'autres races, à d'autres ethnies.

My translation ,

Racism : XXth century. Derived from race :

Ensemble of doctrines holding the notion that the variety of categories within the human species referred to as races, primary distinct from each other via their physical appearance, would be endowed with unequal intellectual faculties and ethics, directly related to their genetic inheritance. By extension, hostile prejudice, contempt towards persons belonging to other races or ethnic groups.

Am I to assume that the members of the French Academy, by upholding such definition of the word racisme=racism, somehow have a personal agenda at play?

By the way, if you have any doubt as to the veracity of my translation, I will gladly ask Dx who is a native Francophone as I am and has demonstrated his proficiency in English (since he communicates and quite fluently in English on this board) to verify the semantic accuracy of my translation and resulting veracity.

So, the only way blacks could not be racist is if we make the racist assumption that blacks are not mentally capable of the psychological states that whites are.

Non. It is not a matter of "mentally capable" and has nothing to do with a matter of inferior capacity based on mental status. It has to do with a people conditioned via their history to be at the receiving end of doctrines which declared them as an inferior ethnic group to the dominant ethnic group endowed with the sense of being morally and intellectually superior, dominant ethnic group who empowered itself to exploit, enslave and oppress persons of Black ethnicity.

The response or reaction from folks of Black ethnicity to such persistent race superiority concept upheld by members of the White ethnicity cannot be fall under the definition of being racist.None of the African activists who advocated in favor of obtaining Independence in our now ex French colonies were motivated by any sense of racial superiority. And I am rather certain that when Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of a bus, it certainly was not based on being motivated by any sense of her ethnic group being superior to White oppressors.

What all those folks of Black ethnicity whether it be in Europe, the Northern American continent or African continent shared in common is their determination to be treated as equal in response to a variety of systems which institutionalized and legalized the exploitation and oppression of their persons and again systems fueling from the authentic definition of the concept of racism. Race hierarchy based, superior versus inferior.

Also note that the notion of superiority is a secondary aspect of the definition, with the primary aspect being merely the belief that individuals' qualities and characteristics differ by their race.

I disagree. Race hierarchy based ideologies are not "merely the belief that individuals' qualities and characteristics differ by their race". They contain the element of comparing races based on claims of one race or the other being inferior or superior. As I had noted in my reply to the OP, the dominant and self empowering ethnic group being the one who endorses the sense of being racially superior to the oppressed, exploited, enslaved ethnic group. If you wish we can expand on my contention in the World History Forum where I will demonstrate that European colonialism in Africa was indeed fueled by the belief of superiority of the White ethnicity while holding the belief of racial inferiority affecting African natives.

For example, the Oxford definition starts with "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race," The notion of superiority isn't presented as neccessary but presented as a typical motive for presuming such differences ", especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Yet, every other definition I submitted in 3 different languages and now duly upheld by the dictionary of the French Academy (if you are not familiar with the French Academy, their for life members are the guardians of the French language) convey the meaning of race hierarchy based or/and racial superiority versus inferiority based on ethnicity or "race". And I am rather certain that those definitions directly applied to the specific term in 3 languages : racism= racisme= il razzismo.

Also, individual beliefs (which is what all these definitions refer to) about superiority are not remotely neccessary nor sufficient for actual group level oppression which has much more to do with opportunity, strategic advantage, and practical motives than racial beliefs.

We can take your contention and compare it with mine, to the World History Forum, and see how it goes when expanding on European colonialism in Africa. Deal? I will add that I will also develop on post colonial mentalities in France still portraying our population of Sub Sahara origin and Norther African origin (all representatives of our ex French colonies) as individuals inferior in intellectual capacities while questioning their ability to abide to ethics. I will certainly document the ideology nurtured by the Front National party ( a party becoming more and more popular in France) of the "True French" expanding on the genetic inheritance of White/European origin French versus Black ethnicity/Arab ethnicity genetic inheritance French. The White/European ethnicity being the "True French" while the rest is a bunch of racially inferior morons whose genetic influence should be eliminated from the oh so precious "True French" genetic pool.

Thus, the lack of historical group level oppression by blacks on whites implies nothing about the presence of racism beliefs among blacks, and the presence of such oppression by whites on blacks does not itself constitute evidence of such beliefs among whites.

We definitely need to hash it all out in the World History Forum. You and I might have a different level of knowledge and resulting understanding of which dynamics were at play when Europeans undertook their first wave of exploitation of African natives via supplying the Northern American continent with African slaves, followed by their second wave of exploitation via colonialism. Further I will add my own personal life experiences having witnessed first hand, as a daughter of French colonials, the persistence of our sense of racial superiority which dominated our occupying presence in Africa. How the Senegalese were maintained in a state of blue collar labor reflecting the sole value we gave them, meaning as domestics and servants to us.

We have other evidence that such beliefs exist and have been used to rationalize such oppression, but those beliefs are not neccessary nor sufficient for such oppression to occur, so they can't be inferred from that oppression in itself.

And where do you think the frequent occurrence of comments observed by many here, whether it was in the course of FRDB or now TFT, comments portraying African Americans as "lazy", unreliable, etc...comments reflecting a "Pavlod dog" fear/threat based reaction at the sight of young Black males come from? Is it a coincidence that such comments always come from folks of White ethnicity on this board? Do you actually believe that the source of such comments is not related to a persistent sense of moral and intellectual superiority on the part of my ethnic group, my being Caucasian?

Do you actually believe that my ethnic group (White) has not been the claimant of detaining a copyright on character and morality over the course of human history?


Do you believe that the expansion of Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism in Africa was not motivated by the sense of detaining a copyright on character and morality and that by members of my ethnic group? Those "savages" had to be Christianized and Europeanized and trained into the mores and traditions of my ethnic group because they were such savages! Viewed as a tad bit superior to apes but certainly not as embraced members of our species.

Where do you think the persistence of imagery drawing analogies between people of Black ethnicity and a variety of apes and monkeys come from? It is a remnant of a long history of viewing people of Black ethnicity as inferior to us, White members of the human species.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Unfortunately you are misapplying logic. It is the same as saying if it snows then school is cancelled but it is not necessarily true if school is cancelled then it snowed.

No. Axulus said "If A then B. Not B, therefore not A". That's the same as saying: "If it snows then school is cancelled; school is not cancelled, so it must not have snowed." That is true and logical.

 

[Bomb#20]

My point was to demonstrate that individuals who rely on such definition and from 3 different cultures are far from doing it with a personal agenda at play as Bomb was implying they are.

Now that's interesting. When one person inadvertently misrepresents another person's statements, and the misrepresented person corrects her, and she sincerely apologizes, most commonly she doesn't later the same day make the same false claim about him to a third party. So I can't help but wonder why that happened in this case.