Defining Racism

[Johnny Bravo]

Isn't racism the belief that a particular race is physically or intellectually inferior or otherwise morally corrupt? Or the opposite, that a particular race is superior?

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

There is no such thing as reverse racism...

this was used to "educate" a class of 9 year olds last week at a local school...enjoy!

 

[Lefty's Revenge]

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.

Wait...when did we start talking about murder? I may have missed something.

 

[AnOminous]

Wait...when did we start talking about murder? I may have missed something.

You mentioned a white kid getting jumped.

We're talking about things done with racism as a motivation. That ranges from things like someone visibly locking their car doors when they see a black person to skipping them over for a job, all the way up to assault, lynching, murder, and other extreme acts. Many of the latter of these do not require privilege at all.

 

[Lefty's Revenge]

You mentioned a white kid getting jumped.

We're talking about things done with racism as a motivation. That ranges from things like someone visibly locking their car doors when they see a black person to skipping them over for a job, all the way up to assault, lynching, murder, and other extreme acts. Many of the latter of these do not require privilege at all.

Getting jumped means getting beaten up, not murdered. Its still wrong, of course. But theres a difference between beating someone because they called you outside of your name and actually murdering them.

 

[SlayerOfTyranny]

You could certainly be skeptical if a white American claims to be the victim of racism.

 

[AnOminous]

Awwww, you're such a cute pony!

 

[Jack Haywood]

There is no such thing as reverse racism...

this was used to "educate" a class of 9 year olds last week at a local school...enjoy!

Good fucking God, that is so cringeworthy. There are about a hundred other ways the issue of racism could have been depicted better, but... THIS?!! It's no wonder plenty of people out there hate the hard left when they become associated with this shit, or even worse outright propagate it.

 

[fuehrer_dessler]

Racism is Power Plus Privilege[...]

Yes, this phrase is bullshit. Privilege based on race is racism in action, but racism is dividing humanity in superior and inferior "races" and everyone can do that kinda shit, privilege or not.

 

[*Asterisk*]

There is no such thing as reverse racism...

This is such a dumb phrase. What the hell is it even supposed to mean? The reverse of racism? Isn't that supposed to be fucking tolerance or something?

 

[Aquinas]

I do not believe Africans or Americans of African descent can be Racist.

Racism is something that only occurs in people

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that racism is simply ascribing traits to a person based on their ethnicity without sufficient backing. From this saying that estonians are HIV resistant is not an example of racism because it is very well documented. In addition the simple desire to help those of the same ethnicity and not another ethnicity wouldn't in itself be racism but it would be if one said that the other ethnicity were criminals as the justification. For this reason many europeans anti immigration activists would be racists because they use such justifications but saudi arabia just saying screw the syrians wouldn't be racist

 

[*Asterisk*]

I think that racism is simply ascribing traits to a person based on their ethnicity without sufficient backing. From this saying that estonians are HIV resistant is not an example of racism because it is very well documented. In addition the simple desire to help those of the same ethnicity and not another ethnicity wouldn't in itself be racism but it would be if one said that the other ethnicity were criminals as the justification. For this reason many europeans anti immigration activists would be racists because they use such justifications but saudi arabia just saying screw the syrians wouldn't be racist

Racism, Eye-Em-Oh, is when people --pardon the corniness of this term -- assign the gift of the Holy Spirit to themselves while believing that same ensoulment either doesn't exist, or is lesser, in other races for reasons beyond that which they as individuals can be blamed.

There must be no pastguilt anyone should be held to for reasons beyond the part they themselves played, unless it's something you could say about everyone from every time. Believing or behaving otherwise is contemptible no matter who lives up to that adjective.

 

[norrington]

People have pointed out that sociologists have defined racism as occurring only in a top-down institutionalized context (the power + privilege thing) and the term they have for the thing you guys are talking about is 'racial prejudice' which can happen in any context. Racism = punching down. And the goal of making that point was, for sociologists, to highlight this very issue, since white people in the past few decades love to pull the 'racism is over' card (which does sort of suggest an understanding of this definiton of the term on at least some level, I think, but whatever).

I don't think the power of the term racism comes from sociology or SJWs or black people, though, I think the power of the term racism comes from white people who shit themselves if it's suggested that they're racist or have benefited from the oppression of another race in some way. Call a white person a racist and they start backpedaling and explaining how they're not, rather than non-rhetorically, non-sarcastically asking how they were racist and having to actually listen to a black person talk about it with genuine understanding of the notion in their head that "what I said just hurt another person in some way, I'm not a sociopath and/or don't enjoy hurting others, I don't see how what I said was hurtful but I can't know because I'm white and don't have the same experiences/background, and I'd like to find out so I don't go around unintentionally hurting people from here on."

As far as that professor talking about Californians not being racist, they sort of still are, because they're brought up in a culture that esteems white culture as correct and proper and black culture as inherently negative and stupid and uneducated and black people as stereotypically aggressive, dangerous, physical, et cetera. Suggesting Cali doesn't have race issues when you have fucking LA and a huge hispanic population is bizarre, anyway.

The sociological definition of the term is trying to shed more light on the more invasive and institutionalized forms of racism that fly under the radar because they aren't overtly violent or even all that easy to put your finger on, or they aren't clear without first understanding the historical context. I don't see what's so strange about the idea that you can't be racist against white people in the United States. I can't think of a context where a white person would suffer some kind of oppression based on their race, would be prevented from some opportunity, would be held back by having white skin as opposed to some other color.

 

[Marvin]

I don't see what's so strange about the idea that you can't be racist against white people in the United States.

I think the linguistic argument is pretty solid. In non-academic conversation, with your average speaker of American English, the word "racism" pretty solidly means what you describe as racial prejudice. I'm pretty sure a study of speakers of the dialect would show that.

I can't think of a context where a white person would suffer some kind of oppression based on their race, would be prevented from some opportunity, would be held back by having white skin as opposed to some other color.

Jews in urban areas get lots of shit. Howard Stern and Ralph Bakshi come to mind.

I don't think anti-white racism is common enough to be a concerning problem. But you can certainly find examples of it.

 

[norrington]

I think the linguistic argument is pretty solid. In non-academic conversation, with your average speaker of American English, the word "racism" pretty solidly means what you describe as racial prejudice. I'm pretty sure a study of speakers of the dialect would show that.

Jews in urban areas get lots of shit. Howard Stern and Ralph Bakshi come to mind.

I don't think anti-white racism is common enough to be a concerning problem. But you can certainly find examples of it.

Yeah, but antisemitism is either a type of ethnic prejudice or prejudice based on religion, it's not based on the fact that they're white men.

As far as that being the normal way that it's used, I don't disagree, but I don't see a problem with changing the definition of the term to better reflect the realities of systemic racism that only marginalized groups face. If it's semantics, and you're in an argument with someone where you say they're racist and they go 'you can't be racist against white people because blah blah fuckin blah' I don't see what the big deal is with rolling your eyes and going 'fucking Christ, fine, it's racially prejudiced then.' If they contest the reality of that as a phenomenon, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about and they're just parroting what they heard someone else on the internet say to try and win an argument after they've already made an ass of themselves.

I don't get what invalidating a widely understood definition (a lot of people have said it's an academia-exclusive thing, but a large part of all this is the fact that they're teaching racism this way in high school/undergrad sociology courses today in an effort to change how the term is understood) is meant to accomplish. If you're arguing with an idiot and them dodging your accusations of racism upsets you because they don't know what they're talking about, then show them up by understanding it better than they do. It won't be that difficult, if their argument's as weak as most of the ones you guys seem to have heard. Trying to say 'that's not how racism is typically used as a word' or 'that's not what that means' just makes them think they won because they walk away assuming they know something from the one class they stayed conscious in during their bullshit 101 gen ed social sciences requirement.

 

[Marvin]

Yeah, but antisemitism is either a type of ethnic prejudice or prejudice based on religion, it's not based on the fact that they're white men.

With Howard Stern and Ralph Bakshi, I think it was primarily a racial thing. The fact that they're Jewish just meant they were more likely to live near black neighborhoods.

f it's semantics, and you're in an argument with someone where you say they're racist and they go 'you can't be racist against white people because blah blah fuckin blah' I don't see what the big deal is with rolling your eyes and going 'fucking Christ, fine, it's racially prejudiced then.' If they contest the reality of that as a phenomenon, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about and they're just parroting what they heard someone else on the internet say to try and win an argument after they've already made an ass of themselves.

Oh certainly, I can think on my feet, and for the sake of argument, I can switch to a different term. But when we're done talking, I'd just walk away from the conversation thinking that they're a dumbass.

I don't get what invalidating a widely understood definition (a lot of people have said it's an academia-exclusive thing, but a large part of all this is the fact that they're teaching racism this way in high school/undergrad sociology courses today in an effort to change how the term is understood) is meant to accomplish.

There's not a moral problem with it. I just believe that it'll ultimately be ineffective. It'll be a giant SJW fuckup that only serves to make activists look like dumbasses disconnected from the average voter.

Everyday language is much more useful of a tool than obscure, academic jargon. And especially when it looks like you're trying to play mind checkers by redefining everyday words.

 

[AnOminous]

Everyday language is much more useful of a tool than obscure, academic jargon. And especially when it looks like you're trying to play mind checkers by redefining everyday words.

Trying to "win" arguments by sneakily redefining words is just being a lying sack of shit. I don't take anyone seriously who pulls bullshit like that.

 

[norrington]

With Howard Stern and Ralph Bakshi, I think it was primarily a racial thing. The fact that they're Jewish just meant they were more likely to live near black neighborhoods.

Oh certainly, I can think on my feet, and for the sake of argument, I can switch to a different term. But when we're done talking, I'd just walk away from the conversation thinking that they're a dumbass.

There's not a moral problem with it. I just believe that it'll ultimately be ineffective. It'll be a giant SJW fuckup that only serves to make activists look like dumbasses disconnected from the average voter.

Everyday language is much more useful of a tool than obscure, academic jargon. And especially when it looks like you're trying to play mind checkers by redefining everyday words.

I don't know enough about Stern and Bakshi and the incidents you're referring to, honestly, but I don't know if dismissing antisemitism is that easy if Jews are the only examples you can come up with.

I don't think the point of changing the term is to help SJWs win arguments, SJWs refuse to acknowledge that they know exactly what the fuck you're talking about and pull this to change the conversation and that's absolute bullshit, and honestly, pulling the 'you can't be racist against white people card' in an argument between two white people is just capitalizing on racial issues to win an argument.

I don't think it's a necessarily political thing either. I live in the deep south, and talking about racism this new, somewhat redefined way has been really helpful in getting the concept of systemic and/or institutionalized racism across to white people; that's how it should be used, not as a checkmate move in an argument. It's a helpful tool in framing explanations to white people in positions of power (employers, gov't officials, teachers, etc) who equate racism with blatant prejudice and the KKK, and don't think that they're being racist when they automatically assume any black person they meet is thuggish, ghetto, on drugs, or cheating the welfare system unless they act white enough to pass. It's helpful in explaining affirmative action to white guys who think it means they'll get picked over in college/job applications unfairly for less qualified candidates. It's a redefinition meant to help broaden the scope of conversations about race issues, not to win an election or an argument or confuse white folks.

 

[TheAmazingAxolotl]

Racism to me has always been less about bigotry and more about how there's a belief mankind is divided into separate races. That's pretty much all it is - another -ism, a belief system like a religion or a philosophy; then again, this logic can be applied to sexism, which would make that the belief mankind is divided into sexes. tl;dr - if you're not sexist, you're a fucking moron!

Anyway, race in this sense is that mankind is only divided into race based solely on skin colour and minute differences that don't even mean much. HK Guenther, whose race philosphies inspired Hitler's regime, divided race into those who "create culture", those who "carry it forward", and those who "destroy it", which of course was used to mean the Germanic tribes of yore created culture, their Aryan children carried it forward, and the Jews were the ones to destroy it. Holding these beliefs about races are of course considered very bigoted and likely to get you clocked out for being a Trump supporter or something.

The more bigoted form of racism that SJWs cry foul over is none of this prejudice + power shit. If I have the power to be prejudiced as well as the power to be in charge of something, I have more than enough sense to fear taking in new people; you don't let strange sheep into the flock. Bigotry is taking that belief that mankind is divided into races and trying to create a hierarchy, usually with whites on top and the browns on the bottom where they belong. The only reason this works now is because it worked up until some 60 years ago, but with our current system of laws - 13th, 14th, 15th amendments,Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing act, Equal Pay Act - this system barely even exists. It's only alive because people who believe they are oppressed by this system keep it alive, and they're often helped by the media (inb4 "I DON'T BELIEVE THE LIBERAL MEDIA") to spread this viewpoint; imagine if the Michael Brown incident wasn't publicised as "WHITE COP SHOOTS UNARMED BLACK MAN". It would be "COP SHOOTS UNARMED MAN", where there would still be a shitstorm, but little to no race riots save for that small contingent of black folk who think the world revolves around them.

To put this as bluntly as possible, people who believe mankind is divided into several distinct racists are inherently bigoted and we're all just going to deny this because racists do not believe they are racist.