Defining Racism

[*Asterisk*]

Racism is Power Plus Privilege

I need a thread just to vent on how much I hate this phrase and everyone who supports it.

This is more than just an issue of if black people can be racist to whites.* If this actually does become the new definition of racism to the point of eradicating all others, it'll essentially means that every real or imagined grievance of any degree can be used as an automatic shield against racism by everyone on the planet. Fucking Donald Sterling could bring up black guys having bigger dicks than him as a means of deflecting racism accusations.

The same thing applies to sexism being redefined on these terms. Davis "Ramza" Aurini's subscribers could bring up women not needing to pay for Craigslist hookers every time they want to get laid as a means of deflection. Yet I only see the "power plus privilege" line pushed ever harder with not an ounce of regard for the logical conclusion it'll lead to.

That crap aside, I do think discussing what counts as racism isn't a total waste of time. I just hate it when people promote blatantly unworkable philosophies as guides for how the world works, and trying to supplant a word there's actually a use for in the process only makes it worse.

* Which can be refuted by anybody in three words, "Jean-Jacques Dessalines."

 

[ZehnBoat]

if it's only bigotry if it's done by someone who has power and privilege, then as a left hander, i can be an asshole and it's okay.

 

[QI 541]

It's only bigotry when your hipster overlords deem it as bigotry.

 

[Marvin]

It's extremely difficult to dictate language. Language evolves, it's not controlled. You have to influence people to adopt your language changes, you can't force it on them like tumblrites are trying to do here.

Even dictionaries are only seen as having authority because they generally make some attempt to document how language is actually used, not to impose correctness from on high. Could you imagine if the publishers of a dictionary drew a line in the sand, and refused to ever update the dictionary? How quickly would actual written/spoken language diverge from it?

You could certainly be skeptical if a white American claims to be the victim of racism. White people have significant advantages in the United States. But it's definitely not impossible for a white person to be discriminated against for being white. And trying to define away the entire concept of a white person being a victim of racism is completely retarded and without merit, linguistically.

Now, and for the foreseeable future, a solid definition of racism might be "prejudice or discrimination based upon race".

 

[Strelok]

I define racism like the US Government defines pornography. I can't give an exact description, but I know it when I see it.

 

[StallChaser]

It's a pet peeve of mine because it just sets things up for more racism. The definition itself is racist by being prejudiced against some races (the "privileged") over others. It gives the "underprivileged" a free pass to be as racist as they want. They just call it "punching up", as if it's somehow a good thing. The people being "punched" can then internally justify "punching" back. It sets up a vicious cycle that won't ever stop, as long as anyone keeps using a shitty one-sided definition to hide behind while attacking.

 

[Pikimon]

Academic Sociologists define it as "Prejudice + Power = Racism" and then go on to say that "All White People are Racist by that logic". I'm not kidding this was taught to us in 3 separate classes. However one other professor that talked about this did bring up a very important point, that this logic is very dependent on what kind of environment someone is in. He said that for example the race dynamics in a place like Southern California is vastly different than the race dynamics of New York, despite them both being large, cosmopolitan cities and that even if a person isn't "racist" that doesn't mean that they're excused from being prejudiced.

And he concluded by saying "Don't worry about being racist, worry about not being prejudiced"

In Psychology we learn its something thats learned and embedded in our mind at an early age from our parents and friends (racists don't just "happen" they're raised and taught by their parent's behavior), and in order to "solve" racist attitudes we need to emphasize empathy and compassion for all people.

 

[RepQuest]

Racism is noticing differences between races. While all racial hatred and racial prejudice are racist by necessity, not all racism is racial hatred and racial prejudice.

 

[AnOminous]

I'd say racism is essentially the false attribution of traits, usually negative, to individuals or groups based on alleged characteristics of a race.

So saying that those of African descent are more likely to have sickle cell genes isn't "racist," but simply a fact.

Saying "white men can't jump" or "black people have rhythm" or "Indians are good at math" is racist, though not horribly offensive.

The pernicious aspect of racism is applying presumed group characteristics to individuals, ignoring their individual characteristics. It not only often harms the individuals so judged, but leads to inefficient and incorrect decision-making.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Racism is Power Plus Privilege, is a pretty niche sociological stance which has unfortunately leaked into american common liberal and counter culture. The argument itself in academic usage isnt strictly speaking wrong, just debatable (and american centric as fuck). But it's horribly incorrect to try to apply it in common parlance in the same thread of trying to debunk evolution by stating it's a 'theory'.
This of coarse wouldn't be an big issue but you have retards like Franchesca Ramsey or everyday femmism pumping this out to the teen markets without any context, nuance or the admission it's subjective and debatable. So you have an entire generation of teens who don't know what Racism actually is using an academic reference they don't understand. The only real conclusion is that it will inevitably be used to muddle the issue of Racism and cloud issues of class and wealth.
On the bright side despite left wing delusions on the subject, linguistics cannot conceal content nor can it be used control thinking. It doesnt matter if we re-wrote the term Racism t0 exclude a rich influencial black supremacist at the expense of trailer trash. It would still be very obvious that you're talking about an evil poisonous shit and language would quickly adapt to articulate that. It would also de-fang the word racist since all it would mean is "member of entrenched obligarchy ".

 

[AnOminous]

Racism is Power Plus Privilege, is a pretty niche sociological stance which has unfortunately leaked into american common liberal and counter culture. The argument itself in academic usage isnt strictly speaking wrong, just debatable (and american centric as fuck).

It wouldn't be unreasonable to point out that most destructive racism does come from a position of power. However, pretending it isn't racism if it doesn't is completely wrong. It represents the same logical fallacy no matter who does it, and its evil derives from its wrongness, not who does it. It leads to irrational conclusions. Those irrational conclusions are more likely to cause harm when they come from large institutional structures or people with power.

Arguably, it is even worse and dumber to be racist if you are a minority yourself, because you're going to be the one who suffers for it, not your target of hatred.

 

[Organic Fapcup]

Racism is discriminating someone based on race. That's it. There's nothing more to it, nothing less to it. People spouting the "muh power plus privilege" line are just really, really stupid.

 

[AnOminous]

Racism is discriminating someone based on race. That's it. There's nothing more to it, nothing less to it. People spouting the "muh power plus privilege" line are just really, really stupid.

Racism is a kind of thinking. Discrimination is an actual action. You can be a racist and not actually discriminate against people, and you can discriminate against people without being personally racist.

You can't be sued for being a racist.

You can be sued for discriminating unlawfully. (And you can be sued for discriminating against white people, straight people where sexual orientation is protected, or against members of the majority religion, etc.)

 

[JU 199]

Racism is just assumptions. Most are small and benign and some can be much larger and more fundamental to that person's character.

 

[Red_Rager]

Racism is the belief that there is a natural hierarchy where some races are inherently superior to others. Racialism is the belief that race determines an individual's traits and capabilities. Racists are people who use race as an excuse to be an ass to others.

 

[Emperor Julian]

It wouldn't be unreasonable to point out that most destructive racism does come from a position of power. However, pretending it isn't racism if it doesn't is completely wrong. It represents the same logical fallacy no matter who does it, and its evil derives from its wrongness, not who does it. It leads to irrational conclusions. Those irrational conclusions are more likely to cause harm when they come from large institutional structures or people with power.

Arguably, it is even worse and dumber to be racist if you are a minority yourself, because you're going to be the one who suffers for it, not your target of hatred.

oh yes definatly I don't agree with the sociological argument for a lot of reasons, i was just pointing out that it isnt even meant to be used in common day to day usage. So saying Racism= power + privilege in a non-academic context just makes you look a total tard to anyone who actually reads.

 

[Wallace]

oh yes definatly I don't agree with the sociological argument for a lot of reasons, i was just pointing out that it isnt even meant to be used in common day to day usage. So saying Racism= power + privilege in a non-academic context just makes you look a total tard to anyone who actually reads.

Like most of the social justice lexicon, it's a magic word that makes you win an argument by default. Most of the SocJus rhetoric is designed to paint people who disagree with them in the most unfavorable light possible. e.g. Disagreeing whether or not something is racist makes you racist, and therefore evil, therefore any argument you make is worthless. Kind of like an ad hominem by association.

EDIT: I wanted to elaborate on this some more.

With regards to the OP, casting yourself as a victim of injustice is a very powerful stance to take. First, as you said, it shields your argument from criticism, since anyone arguing against you must be therefore arguing for racism. Second, it removes any blame from yourself. If you are a victim, then you have been subject to harm that is not merely unjust, but undeserved. Your assailant is attacking you due to some quality you have, such as your race in this case. Because of this, you are not responsible for the harm you have suffered; the blame must reside solely on the other party. Finally, being the victim entitles you to compensation, in the form of both sympathy from your peers and retribution against the enemy. You are merely seeking redress against your grievance, therefore any action you take is because you are seeking justice to balance the proverbial scales due to the unjust harm committed against you.

This is not to suggest that all people who adopt this stance are wrong. Acts of injustice across many axes can and do happen with alarming frequency, and these events generally go unpunished. It is only when someone becomes so deeply enamored with the victim mindset that it causes trouble. This creates magic words that are used to make you win any and all arguments by default by immediately assuming the stance of the victim.

Right now, what’s changing is that the people accused of committing acts of social injustice are being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion on Twitter. These acts of injustice are held up for public denouncement, and it is easy to draw in like-minded people who see this as an injustice against everyone who shares their identity (race/gender/sexuality/etc), and is therefore an injustice against themselves as well. What you wind up with is an angry mob that is convinced that they are morally justified in taking any and all action to strike back, even when such actions are vastly disproportionate to the perceived crime committed. To top it off, there is a social reward for participating in this crusade in the form of retweets or reblogs, and a corresponding social punishment for trying to speak out against it.

This, to me, is social justice. A system that rewards people for remaining perpetually aggrieved and delivering inordinate mob justice while failing to address the real problems that are happening right under their noses.

 

[TheMightyMonarch]

Saying "white men can't jump" or "black people have rhythm" or "Indians are good at math" is racist, though not horribly offensive.

With this, I feel like there are different degrees of racism. Like there's a difference between "Black people are good at basketball" and saying something "Black people are lazy apes and freeing them from slavery was a mistake." One comes a place of ignorance and nativity and the other comes from hatred. Thing is, "racist" and "racism" are pretty strong words, so someone might get very defensive if you point out that the former statement is, in fact, racist. I know these two are rather extreme areas and there is a lot in between. Some of it can even get pretty gray.

Overall, I don't think the whole "Power + Prejudice = Racism" is gonna be popular in modern culture for long, aside from academics. If you look at American history, the narrative has a history of changing political ideas a bit. Sure society might be more liberal now but 10 years it was more conservative. The 90s tended to be more liberal wheras the late 70s and 80s were conservative. It's weird. I wouldn't know but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar in other countries.

 

[Lefty's Revenge]

When it comes to topics of race and stuff I deliberately avoid the term racism or racist because A) It tends to shut down a conversation and B) As we're realizing in this thread it can be super hard to pin down what exactly it means. If anything, I usually just say someone has a problem with race.

Take for example something like the Cam Newton situation. Cam is a confident and very good QB who does a very black pose whenever he makes a touchdown. He gets called a thug by many a person. This is a guy who spends a tremendous amount of time giving back to his community and to young kids and in a league full of scumbags has a pretty squeaky clean record. Why exactly is he a thug when someone like Carson Palmer can bust out an actual crotch chop during a game and not get called a thug?

We can debate the merits of Cam Newton and that trash superbowl, but if we're being real he probably got called a thug because hes Black.

Now, what do we make of those who called him a thug? Do we call them all racists? I don't think so. While I think this happened because of the color of his skin I don't think most of the people who do this even realize that what they did was racially based. Our culture is full of narratives and some are so deeply ingrained into our culture and subconscious we don't even actually think about it. And in a country where barely 50 years ago segregation was still very much alive and thriving and King got shot it really shouldn't surprise any reasonable person that we still have some unresolved issues with race.

For me, the importance in instances like this is dialogue because thats the only way we can start to untangle all of this and when you even call an idea someone presents "racist" it usually shuts down any opportunity for dialogue and everything melts into a big pile of "I have black friends."

As far as the actual definition, in a word, I think a systems based approach is important to better understand how racism works and its long reaching effects. And its important to understanding why things are the way they are now. You often hear people say things like "Slavery was a long time ago" (for the record, historically speaking, it wasn't. Barely 150 years ago) but that skims over the fallout from slavery on both African-Americans and America at large. Slavery leads to Sharecropping which is essentially slavery part deux which goes on for at least a generation or two before African-Americans become a bit more educated. Sharecropping leads to reconstruction era terrorism (KKK etc). This leads to the great migration that happens from 1910 to 1970, Suddenly we just passed the end of the civil rights movement and if we want to be naive and assume everything is now copacetic thats not even 50 years since shit got significantly less fucked up.

Things don't stay fucked up that long because of some rednecks. This is a narrative that was hammered into our society pretty early on and it influenced and still is influencing Americans to this day. You have to understand the systems at work so yes, we need to get away from the view of racism as just someone not liking someone of a different color.

As far as the argument that disadvantaged groups can't be racist I don't agree with the idea but there is some practical merit to the thought process. A wannabe white kid getting jumped for saying the N word is very different from a potential employee getting skipped because they have a black sounding name. You need social and financial capital to be able to discriminate effectively and most blacks and latinos in particular cannot do that.


TL;DR: I try not to use the word. Everyone has issues with race. Racism should be viewed in a more systematic lens than an individual one and it is very hard for one to discriminate against white people without the money and businesses to do so.

 

[AnOminous]

As far as the argument that disadvantaged groups can't be racist I don't agree with the idea but there is some practical merit to the thought process. A wannabe white kid getting jumped for saying the N word is very different from a potential employee getting skipped because they have a black sounding name. You need social and financial capital to be able to discriminate effectively and most blacks and latinos in particular cannot do that.

Anyone can murder someone, though. It doesn't really matter to someone killed by, say, a black nationalist militant of some sort, that they were "privileged" at the time they were murdered. It's just that such events are rare. Much more violence is just motivated by simple criminality. When motivated by racism, though, it is no less racist and the motive is no less reprehensible.