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

[laughing dog]

Yes, I have been saying that for awhile. Yet there are quite a number of people here who feel otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

We're not discounting the idea that institutional racism exists. I don't know where you're getting this.

That makes us even because I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from that post.

You claimed that the definition of racism we accept is "counterfactual". In what regard is it counterfactual? With regards to institutional racism?

It is counterfactual because words do not need to have a single meaning. For example, racism can mean

: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

(source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism). I don't see people arguing that only one of these definitions is the only proper one, even though they are different.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Loren, your opinion and 2 bucks will get me a Starbucks on the way home.

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

So what you think of me, ...

Tell me what do you do?

That's what I thought

I thought you might find this link interesting, as it seems to be getting more attention in my neck of the woods. It was pretty neat to see about 200 people show up when I saw it. I thought it was a good 1 hour documentary, from a somewhat different situation of blacks growing up as a very small minority in the community.
http://www.blackgirlinsuburbia.com/

Yes, I have been saying that for awhile. Yet there are quite a number of people here who feel otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, you haven't given a cogent answer to why the only operational and acceptable definition of racism should be the one you prefer other than "It doesn't make me and others annoyed or confused". And, you haven't given a cogent answer as to why it should make you and others annoyed or confused other than "It does".

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

We're not discounting the idea that institutional racism exists. I don't know where you're getting this.

That makes us even because I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from that post.

You claimed that the definition of racism we accept is "counterfactual". In what regard is it counterfactual? With regards to institutional racism?

It is counterfactual because words do not need to have a single meaning. For example, racism can mean

: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race

: the belief that some races of people are better than others

(source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism). I don't see people arguing that only one of these definitions is the only proper one, even though they are different.

Except the definition Athena is arguing for excludes the commonly accepted definition which is more accurate. The point is there is no reason to ignore racism in other races and it does nothing to help us understand racism more.

 

[laughing dog]

Except the definition Athena is arguing for excludes the commonly accepted definition which is more accurate.

For some reason the concept that a word can have multiple meanings is an elusive one to grasp.

The point is there is no reason to ignore racism in other races and it does nothing to help us understand racism more.

I disagree. From this discussion in this thread, I think it is clear it does help to better understand racism.

 

[Derec]

For some reason the concept that a word can have multiple meanings is an elusive one to grasp.

Again, it is Athena who is insisting on a singular (and fringe) definition of the word 'racism'. I don't understand why that fact is so elusive to grasp either ...

 

[NobleSavage]

I have studied social stratification
I work in the field of corporate diversity training and reconciliation
I have given expert testimony in court and the state house
I mentor youth
I teach economic self defense workshops in churches across my region, black white brown and mixed
I organize and get out among the people

What does that entail? I couldn't find anything in Google.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Athena, I understand what you're saying, and I understand your concern. But I truly think your approach is causing more problems than it can possibly solve.

In the example you've provided, you are discussing the term "organic". In that case, a clear definition is probably sufficient for your purposes, because the two topics don't really have much in the way of overlap. The topic of carbon-based organic products certainly contains the much smaller subset of "hippie-dippie natural organic products", but the content and context of your conversation will almost inevitably be distinctly different and easy to keep partitioned in the mind of your audience. An introductory definition to set the stage is all that would be needed. In addition, this is a situation where the carbon-based definition of organic predates the "natural food" version by a significant margin of time, as evidenced by organic chemistry as an entire field of study. It's a well-understood distinction. It's like clarifying that you're talking about a run in your stockings as opposed to a run on the banks; they're two very different and non-overlapping definitions.

In the case of racism, however, the meanings aren't as distinct and separate. There is a significant amount of overlap, and the two are almost inseparable.

The institutional racism that concerns you (as well as me) most has at its base, the prejudice and bigotry of individuals. And a very great many people know that race-based prejudice and bigotry by the name "racism". The nepotism and disenfranchising policies that you point out exist because individual people made those policies at some point in time. It may have been a long time ago, but it was done. And it may have been done in a way that wasn't consciously racist or bigoted... but it was still done by individual people.

And that is where the disconnect and the difficulty appears to occur. The actions of individual people, many of whom are long dead, are being lain at the feet of every white person alive.

By the simple expedient of explicitly using the phrase "institutional racism" and allowing others to have their common term as "individual racism" then you can make progress with this discussion.

By insisting that individual racism doesn't exist, and that racism is attached to power, and that black people (even those who ARE in power) are incapable or racism, you will make no progress.

So what do you actually want to do? Do you want to have your way and insist on being right at any cost? Or do you want to make progress on a topic dear to your heart? Because I would certainly rather discuss the content of the topic itself instead of reading yet more pages of dithering about definitions

So be the avatar of wisdom engendered by your namesake, and concede the usage of this term. That way we can get on with the real topic

 

[ksen]

Because I would certainly rather discuss the content of the topic itself instead of reading yet more pages of dithering about definitions

Nobody's making you dither over definitions. If you want to talk about the topic itself nothing is stopping you.

 

[dismal]

This topic is about definitions.

The only way to make the statement "black people can't be racist" true is to define racism in such a way that black people can't be it.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Nothing to Asians categorically. Not all Asians took part in this action of unprovoked aggression and hatred. But every single person within hearing range should loudly and proudly voice their opinions on how unacceptable it was, and should make it abundantly clear to those specific Asian individuals that such behavior is shameful.

 

[Emily Lake]

Physical power that is not backed by institutional power is not as effective or long lasting.

Where does terrorism fit into your schema?

 

[Emily Lake]

Racism shapes thought. No one alive today started white supremacy. But people alive today have been shaped by it. Even people who think the right thoughts first.

Do you realize that your statement above claims that all white people think the wrong thoughts? They might think the "right thoughts" first, but by saying it that way, you implicitly claim that all white people think the wrong thoughts.

Once again, you have claimed that all white people are racist.

And you wonder why you aren't getting the support you seek on this topic?

 

[Emily Lake]

Can someone explain what the drawback would be with referring to individual race-based bigotry as racism? Note, this doesn't in any way mess with the concept of systemic racism.

When you speak of racism in terms of interpersonal relationships, in terms of intentions, the racism in institutions tends to fade into the background. And you wind up with situation where the a couple of people get fired and the institutional policies and procedures that afforded the now ex employees to do whatever it was they did gets to continue on its merry way.

No one wants to think that they play a part in racism of any kind, and no one want to think they benefit of racism in any way. The victims of racism do not enjoy the experience but they do have to face it.

Now because people don't want to deal with the institutional aspects of racism, we have come up with "solutions" to the problem that are half assed and don't do enough. we get one time programs instead of changes in the paradigm. We get a chapter in a history for black history and Latino history instead be taught comprehensive and full integrated history. And the dominant group is expected to do nothing. The subordinate groups are told that respectability is the way to go, that if they were just more like "normal" people, their problems would go away. Which brings us to victim blaming.

That is the harm. That is why incarceration rates are what they are, unemployment is what it is, why the dropout rate is what it is, and that is why threads like this one are still being started in 2014.

So your solution to this problem is to forcibly change the definition in an illogical and unreasonable way, instead of raising awareness of the larger and more pressing problem of embedded institutional racism?

We face the same problem with sexism. Do you think that redefining the term to exclude gender-based individual sexism, and insisting that it really only means institutional sexism paired with power will help our cause on that front? Somehow, I think that it will fail to address the social biases against women, the double standard embedded in our culture at the individual level, the misogyny that is inherent in our language and our media, and the disastrous discrepancies in domestic violence and rape (both of which are individual actions).

Sexism exists as both an individual expression and an institutional one. Ignoring the individual actors and pretending that the institution is somehow separate and apart from them will not succeed. Sometimes the battle feels Sisyphean. But you can't pretend that the problem is all about the hill, and that the stone plays no role in the burden we face.

The same is true for combating racism.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem is that you continue to harp on a problem that's basically solved. As far as I'm concerned you are part of the problem, not someone working for the solution.

The problem is NOT solved, Loren Pechtel. If you think it is, then perhaps you ought to take off your rose colored glasses and look around in the light of day.

 

[Emily Lake]

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

Au contraire, laughing dog. It is you and AthenaAwakened who insist that one, and only one, definition of racism is allowable. Furthermore, it is an uncommon, very strict, and very unusual definition of the term that is not one most people understand. You both insist that this sole definition be used, and that any other possible meaning of the word is not allowed.

Several of us have been arguing that there is more than one allowable meaning of the term, and that this discussion would be greatly facilitated if AthenaAwakened used the phrase "Insititutional Racism" or "Systemic Racism" to be clear.

 

[Emily Lake]

Because I would certainly rather discuss the content of the topic itself instead of reading yet more pages of dithering about definitions

Nobody's making you dither over definitions. If you want to talk about the topic itself nothing is stopping you.

I'd very much like to talk about it with AthenaAwakened. To accomplish that, however, entails me being able to find common ground with her, and to be able to get her off the defensive. To do that requires that the majority of people in this thread need to stop attacking her definition of racism. The most reasonable way to do this, from my perspective, is to agree to use an explicit phrase so we can discuss the content of the topic.

It would ameliorate the majority of the complaints present in this thread, and would allow progress to be made. Progress I'd very much like to be involved in.

 

[ksen]

You could already do that easily by accepting her definition just for the sake of this discussion.

People do that all the time who wouldn't normally accept a particular definition of a term. But in order to let the conversation progress they say, "ok, for the sake of this discussion let's say that's true . . ."

 

[laughing dog]

For some inexplicable reason, you and your crew cling to the quaint and counterfactual notion that a word must have only one approved definition.

Au contraire, laughing dog. It is you and AthenaAwakened who insist that one, and only one, definition of racism is allowable.

Obviously, you have not bothered to read this thread, because I have not argued there is only one definition. In fact, even if you hadn't read the thread, it should be obvious from the bolded section of the response you quote.

Furthermore, it is an uncommon, very strict, and very unusual definition of the term that is not one most people understand.

Not in my experience.

You both insist that this sole definition be used, and that any other possible meaning of the word is not allowed.

This is false (see above).

Several of us have been arguing that there is more than one allowable meaning of the term, and that this discussion would be greatly facilitated if AthenaAwakened used the phrase "Insititutional Racism" or "Systemic Racism" to be clear.

Or why not use "individual racism" to greatly facilitate the discussion?

 

[laughing dog]

Except the definition Athena is arguing for excludes the commonly accepted definition which is more accurate.

Perhaps from your view point. Certainly not from hers. Nor from mine.

The point is there is no reason to ignore racism in other races and it does nothing to help us understand racism more.

No one is ignoring what you consider "racism" in other races. Her definition has helped me to understand racism more, so I am not sure what you are claiming here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you continue to harp on a problem that's basically solved. As far as I'm concerned you are part of the problem, not someone working for the solution.

The problem is NOT solved, Loren Pechtel. If you think it is, then perhaps you ought to take off your rose colored glasses and look around in the light of day.

Racism certainly exists. Racism enough to keep someone down, though--that I don't see the evidence for. Strangely enough when you include the proper variables you find race is a proxy, not a cause.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You could already do that easily by accepting her definition just for the sake of this discussion.

People do that all the time who wouldn't normally accept a particular definition of a term. But in order to let the conversation progress they say, "ok, for the sake of this discussion let's say that's true . . ."

I tried that a few pages back. It didn't take. She'd rather reach for the snappy snark. This is why I suspect her motivation. After reading her posts here I do not believe she is actually out to combat racism, systemic or otherwise. She could prove me wrong, and I'd be glad to see that, but I won't hold my breath.