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

[laughing dog]

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?

First. it isn't my definition. Second, no it is not necessarily racist for anyone to shout any racial slurs at anyone else.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

Which has what to do with anything?

The question is about the definition, and you go to denying racism as factor in outcomes that skew racially.

Expected. But not relevant.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

It's not a fringe definition.

Let's get down to brass tacks.

If it is so important to you the white people be the victims of racism, just have the white people in question start passing for non-white.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

And that doesn't matter in the common definition of the word. Sure, one can have an alternative definition of the word which requires all of that stuff but not only is that an uncommon definition of the word, it is also a worse definition of the word.

Racism is a very descriptive word for the definition it has. The concept of race is central in both the word and in the definition. Adding qualifiers to it such as institutional racism or reverse racism or any of the rest make those concepts even more descriptive. Having the general term "racism" only mean one of the qualifiers and adding additional qualifiers to get back to the general term makes everything less descriptive. It's a poorer way of using the terms and not something that is happening with the terms or ever should happen with the terms since it's a worse usage of language.

It reminds me of another conversation that I had when someone told me that the word "homosexual" should only apply to men and women should be referred to as lesbians. I disagreed with her about that for the same kind of reasons. Homosexual is a very descriptive word for the definition it has and having it only apply to a subset of what the makeup of the word implies is a worse use of language.

It's fine to say that institutional racism is, by far, the worst and most damaging kind of racism. It's not fine to say that it's the only thing that "racism" applies to because that's just using a poorly constructed definition of the word.

 

[bigfield]

It's not a fringe definition.

Yes, it is.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's not a fringe definition.

Yes, it is.

No, it is a sociological definition. It is a scientific definition.

I know it. You know it,

But you don't like it.

But if we do not begin to see racism as systemic and institutional, stop being distracted by hurt feelings, then racism, classism sexism ageism and all hierarchies of social stratification aren't going anywhere.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

And that doesn't matter in the common definition of the word. Sure, one can have an alternative definition of the word which requires all of that stuff but not only is that an uncommon definition of the word, it is also a worse definition of the word.

Racism is a very descriptive word for the definition it has. The concept of race is central in both the word and in the definition. Adding qualifiers to it such as institutional racism or reverse racism or any of the rest make those concepts even more descriptive. Having the general term "racism" only mean one of the qualifiers and adding additional qualifiers to get back to the general term makes everything less descriptive. It's a poorer way of using the terms and not something that is happening with the terms or ever should happen with the terms since it's a worse usage of language.

It reminds me of another conversation that I had when someone told me that the word "homosexual" should only apply to men and women should be referred to as lesbians. I disagreed with her about that for the same kind of reasons. Homosexual is a very descriptive word for the definition it has and having it only apply to a subset of what the makeup of the word implies is a worse use of language.

It's fine to say that institutional racism is, by far, the worst and most damaging kind of racism. It's not fine to say that it's the only thing that "racism" applies to because that's just using a poorly constructed definition of the word.

And while I understand your point of view and I respect your opinions on a great many things, on this point I disagree.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Somewhere in this rambling thread I think someone suggested using the word racist only with regard to systems and institutions.

I think the idea has a great deal of merit.

Here is a quote from an essay I read a little white back.

WARNING: This is a Tim Wise quote and may cause sudden bursts of blind rage in some readers for no other reason than it is a Tim Wise quote. Reader discretion is advised.

“Be hard on systems, but soft on people.”

...

The facilitator for the session, who offered up many other insights throughout the course of the dialogue, repeated this one several times, and with good reason. First, he explained, we need to be soft on people because people make mistakes, we hurt each other, we are all works in progress, and each of us is capable of saying or doing the wrong thing at any time — indeed we all have, many times — and so we should essentially extend to others the patience and compassion we would want for ourselves, as growing, changing, and hopefully maturing people. But also, and more importantly, when it comes to the issues we were discussing, be soft on people and hard on systems because it is the systems (racism and white supremacy, sexism and patriarchy, classism and capitalism, heterosexism and straight/cisgendered supremacy) that have distorted us, taught us the biases with which we all walk around to one degree or another, and in some ways damaged our ability to see each other as fully and equally human sometimes.

http://www.timwise.org/2014/08/hard...ghting-for-social-change-as-if-people-matter/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Somewhere in this rambling thread I think someone suggested using the word racist only with regard to systems and institutions.

I think the idea has a great deal of merit.

Here is a quote from an essay I read a little white back.

WARNING: This is a Tim Wise quote and may cause sudden bursts of blind rage in some readers for no other reason than it is a Tim Wise quote. Reader discretion is advised.

“Be hard on systems, but soft on people.”

...

The facilitator for the session, who offered up many other insights throughout the course of the dialogue, repeated this one several times, and with good reason. First, he explained, we need to be soft on people because people make mistakes, we hurt each other, we are all works in progress, and each of us is capable of saying or doing the wrong thing at any time — indeed we all have, many times — and so we should essentially extend to others the patience and compassion we would want for ourselves, as growing, changing, and hopefully maturing people. But also, and more importantly, when it comes to the issues we were discussing, be soft on people and hard on systems because it is the systems (racism and white supremacy, sexism and patriarchy, classism and capitalism, heterosexism and straight/cisgendered supremacy) that have distorted us, taught us the biases with which we all walk around to one degree or another, and in some ways damaged our ability to see each other as fully and equally human sometimes.

http://www.timwise.org/2014/08/hard...ghting-for-social-change-as-if-people-matter/

I don't think he's offering a good premise at all. When he says that we should be soft on people and hard on systems, I think he's just wrong.

If two Asians drive by in a car and yell racial slurs at a group of Hispanics, that is not something we should be soft on. It's not something that we should trivialize or dismiss because we're works in progress who are maturing and we're going to make mistakes as a result. It's something that we should harshly condemn because the people in the car are assholes who's actions should not be excused in any way, shape or form. It's not an action that we should extend patience and compassion towards because they're growing, it's an action that we should extend impatience and condemnation for because it was a bigoted thing to do and it has no place in a civilized society.

The fact that the Hispanics aren't harmed by this action beyond having to hear a momentary passing comment from a couple of idiots doesn't mean that it's something to be soft on. It's still something to be wholely against in an extremely hard manner.

 

[thebeave]

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?

First. it isn't my definition. Second, no it is not necessarily racist for anyone to shout any racial slurs at anyone else.

Would you say this rant is racist, or not? If not, why not? Its a black woman saying nasty things about Asians, so there's not a black/white historical dynamic around it:



Do you understand now why people "not in the know" (and without that sociology degree ) are puzzled and annoyed when we hear others say "black people can't be racist?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Somewhere in this rambling thread I think someone suggested using the word racist only with regard to systems and institutions.

I think the idea has a great deal of merit.

Here is a quote from an essay I read a little white back.

WARNING: This is a Tim Wise quote and may cause sudden bursts of blind rage in some readers for no other reason than it is a Tim Wise quote. Reader discretion is advised.

http://www.timwise.org/2014/08/hard...ghting-for-social-change-as-if-people-matter/

I don't think he's offering a good premise at all. When he says that we should be soft on people and hard on systems, I think he's just wrong.

If two Asians drive by in a car and yell racial slurs at a group of Hispanics, that is not something we should be soft on. It's not something that we should trivialize or dismiss because we're works in progress who are maturing and we're going to make mistakes as a result. It's something that we should harshly condemn because the people in the car are assholes who's actions should not be excused in any way, shape or form. It's not an action that we should extend patience and compassion towards because they're growing, it's an action that we should extend impatience and condemnation for because it was a bigoted thing to do and it has no place in a civilized society.

The fact that the Hispanics aren't harmed by this action beyond having to hear a momentary passing comment from a couple of idiots doesn't mean that it's something to be soft on. It's still something to be wholely against in an extremely hard manner.

So we should do what to Asians? Since we should be hard on them, what hard thing do we do?

 

[Derec]

No, it is a sociological definition. It is a scientific definition.

No, it isn't. It's a definition advocated by some sociologists.

In sociology and psychology, some definitions only include consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5] However, some consider any assumption that a person's behavior is tied to their racial categorization to be inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity.[citation needed] Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][6] One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.[7][8][9]

Again, I see no reason why that should be viewed as "racism" itself rather than using a modifier to distinguish between institutional and individual racism.
Also again (and for the Nth time with N-->oo) if you apply this definition objectively it can include black people as blacks do have power in many settings, for example cities and counties with mostly black elected and appointed officials). Thus the conclusion of "blacks can't be racists" requires ideologically motivated fine-tuning that goes well beyond "prejudice plus power" or "institutional racism only" as neither lends itself to that conclusion naturally.

I know it. You know it,

No I don't and neither do you.

But you don't like it.

Me not liking it does not preclude it being a fringe definition.

But if we do not begin to see racism as systemic and institutional, stop being distracted by hurt feelings, then racism, classism sexism ageism and all hierarchies of social stratification aren't going anywhere.

On the contrary, as long as you measure races based on different criteria racism is not going anywhere.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So we should do what to Asians? Since we should be hard on them, what hard thing do we do?

You mean besides all of those things I said about how we should not trivialize their actions or make excuses for them? Other than condemning them and being impatient with their bigotry as opposed to writing it off as immaturity?

I think that's a good start instead of doing the exact opposite as that guy is suggesting.

 

[Derec]

It's not a fringe definition.

It most certainly is.

If it is so important to you the white people be the victims of racism, just have the white people in question start passing for non-white.

It's not "important" to me, it's an objective fact. When a black sheriff fires employees because they are white, these white employees are victims of racism. They do not need to pull a reverse Eddie Murphy for that.

 

[Derec]

Which has what to do with anything?

It has to do with your ignorant assumption that any statistical racial disparity must be result of racism.

The question is about the definition, and you go to denying racism as factor in outcomes that skew racially.

Your assumption that any racial disparity must be due to racism is very relevant to your misconceptions of what racism is.
Also, I am not denying that racism is ever a factor in "outcomes that skew racially", I am saying it cannot automatically be assumed to be a factor just because there is a racial disparity. Also, even if racism is a factor, you cannot assume it is the sole, or even the most important factor. For example, racism could play a minor role in life expectancy difference with bulk of the difference be due to individual lifestyle choices instead. But just stating that there are "outcomes that skew racially" by itself does not allow us to know why.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It most certainly is.

If it is so important to you the white people be the victims of racism, just have the white people in question start passing for non-white.

It's not "important" to me, it's an objective fact. When a black sheriff fires employees because they are white, these white employees are victims of racism. They do not need to pull a reverse Eddie Murphy for that.

No, it isn't fringe.

And we can do this all day.

How often do black sheriffs fire white officers? How often because they are white? How long do such sheriffs keep their jobs? how long do those officers remain unemployed?

Hypotheticals do not make me change my mind.

So how long do you want to do this, I need to fix my lunch

 

[crispy]

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?

First. it isn't my definition. Second, no it is not necessarily racist for anyone to shout any racial slurs at anyone else.

What would make it racist then?

 

[doubtingt]

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.

Like everything about institutions, institutional racism as a by-product of psychological properties (which occur at the individual level), specifically when psychological racism happens to occur within a context of differences in power between the races that precede and enable the creation of institutions to preserve and enhance this power differential.
For various historical, migratory, and evolutionary reasons whites wound up with superior weapons and this form of power differential enabled them to enslave blacks, then bring them into their own societies where there smaller numbers were another simple form of power differential that has continued to enable

IF it is not psychological in nature then it is not a concept that can be applied to any person or their behavior.

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.

No one is ignoring institutional manifestations of racism, it is merely that you are completely ignoring the psychological roots on those institutional manifestations and that such manifestations are not a neccessary outcome of psychological racism which precedes and can occur outside of those enhancing institutional structures. You are focusing exclusively on symptoms that then serve as enhancers of racism and ignoring the roots which are psychological. Ignoring the psychological roots (which like all psychology occurs within the brains of individuals) is what guarantees ineffective solutions.
An analogy is a person that never exercises and as a result gets chronic knee pain due to obesity and weak legs muscles. That knee pain then causes even more inactivity which serves as a feedback loop exacerbating the problem. The root problem of lack of exercise is akin psychological processes of racism, while institutional racism is akin to the knee pain that is a symptom of the root problem and an enhancer/enabler of the worse symptoms.

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.

Not remotely true. In-group bias and self-centered preferences for people that are more like oneself are inherent features of human cognition. They are merely enhanced but not rooted in culturally created ideas and institutions. Racism is merely one manifestation of this, and thus will always exist at the psychological level so long as there are more than two people in the world and each person varies in their degree of similarity with the others. These largely automatic racist tendencies in all people of all races can be limited in their influence on both personal and individual actions by conscious recognition of their default prevalence and deliberate efforts to control them in large part via a principled ethics that they are unacceptable by anyone. Any tacit endorsement of psychological racism, such as by denying its existence in non-whites or actively promoting racial bias and stereotype judgments such as inherent to AA policies, will undermine any efforts to control racism more generally. None of this precludes also recognizing particular institutional manifestations of racism that increase the relative harm done to members of different racial groups. In fact, recognizing that institutions are created and shaped by individual psycholgical processes that are prone toward in-group bias will only aid in identifying and understanding institutional racism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, it is.

No, it is a sociological definition. It is a scientific definition.

I know it. You know it,

But you don't like it.

But if we do not begin to see racism as systemic and institutional, stop being distracted by hurt feelings, then racism, classism sexism ageism and all hierarchies of social stratification aren't going anywhere.

Only by "scientists" who are interested in proving discrimination, not interested in the truth.

 

[laughing dog]

First. it isn't my definition. Second, no it is not necessarily racist for anyone to shout any racial slurs at anyone else.

What would make it racist then?

According to the definition, if blacks had the institutional power and the intent was based on the idea that blacks are superior (or whites are inferior).