Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Racism = prejudice + power?

Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 3:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, I have now heard of this new definition of the word racism, called prejudice + power. For those reading this who are wondering what I'm talking about, it is a definition of it that is saying that only a privileged group in a society could perform racism, and that would only be against a less privileged group. As I've understood it, this definition is an American one. The American discussion regarding racism thus becomes that you can't be racist to white people, because they are the privileged ones there.

Myself, I'm European. And I can't do nothing but think this term is quite flawed. Why?

1. There already is a term describing this execution of racism. Structural/institutionalized racism. (http://www.intergroupresources.com... is an example of where they use this term).

2. Wouldn't this term of racism imply that white people using the N-word in countries, where black people are in power, not would be racists? Take Zimbabwe as an example, where President Mugabe's regime have stole farms from white people there, and also had their police force to kill white people, etc etc. I...doubt that someone would refrain from calling a white man shouting the N-word to a black man as a racist. This of both natural and correct grounds, haha.

And please, keep this discussion on a considerate level. I feel that I will get called a racist now, which would be totally wrong since you absolutely couldn't find any place in my post where I promote racial hatred.
If you still believe that only right wing extremists would denounce this definition, check out how the American liberal site RationalWiki also questions the definition:
http://rationalwiki.org...
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:30:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 3:58:05 PM, Jovian wrote:
So, I have now heard of this new definition of the word racism, called prejudice + power. For those reading this who are wondering what I'm talking about, it is a definition of it that is saying that only a privileged group in a society could perform racism, and that would only be against a less privileged group. As I've understood it, this definition is an American one. The American discussion regarding racism thus becomes that you can't be racist to white people, because they are the privileged ones there.

Myself, I'm European. And I can't do nothing but think this term is quite flawed. Why?

1. There already is a term describing this execution of racism. Structural/institutionalized racism. (http://www.intergroupresources.com... is an example of where they use this term).

There are also other terms that people should acknowledge, It is just like defining terrorism, there are multiple definitions, no one just settles on one for such a complex word. Either one can be used interchangeably, I just use racist.

I know you are also thinking about reverse racism <--- this is a myth. Black and brown people can be prejudice as hell, but never truly racist under the definition, because it requires a level of societal power. With the qualifier on racism, obviously it says the same thing, just different wording.

2. Wouldn't this term of racism imply that white people using the N-word in countries, where black people are in power, not would be racists? Take Zimbabwe as an example, where President Mugabe's regime have stole farms from white people there, and also had their police force to kill white people, etc etc. I...doubt that someone would refrain from calling a white man shouting the N-word to a black man as a racist. This of both natural and correct grounds, haha.

And please, keep this discussion on a considerate level. I feel that I will get called a racist now, which would be totally wrong since you absolutely couldn't find any place in my post where I promote racial hatred.
If you still believe that only right wing extremists would denounce this definition, check out how the American liberal site RationalWiki also questions the definition:
http://rationalwiki.org...

This is only one definition by black and white american critical theorists and philosophers. And technically it is true. Lets not argue on that though.

There are also definitions that acknowledge racism as being a social construct but having very real implications, ones that white people do not face, Under that definition you would be feeling racial prejudice. In European countries, white people do not experience systemic racism etc. because those systems were created for them, and by their ancestors.

Here is the catch with this. In counties that are hypothetically ruled by black people, white people still have power and here is why. Europeans have colonized damn near every country, therefore the countries colonized think differently. It isn't necessarily Black Power in black ran countries. Many of the citizens of those countries pride lighter skin due to colonization, so even there, white people would have more power socially. The definition obviously holds water because it is used under a white dominated and colonized world. Lines get blurry when races get mixed, and it's lighter skin versus darker skin, which is why those philosophers use it in the american context mainly. It can obviously be applied elsewhere though.

The one thing to remember is to never think at an individual stand point using these definitions. When people say white people and black people we aren't talking about trivial things like dating preference or calling people cracker's. When using the term racism, most likely we are talking about societal issues and their implications that manifest themselves though incidents, people and institutions.

So yes. If you need clarification I'll clarify.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:36:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 8:09:04 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's against policy to multi account Vi Spex

Given that Jovian is pretty new here, I don't think he'll get the reference, lol.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 5:52:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 10:30:32 PM, AFism wrote:
Here is the catch with this. In counties that are hypothetically ruled by black people, white people still have power and here is why. Europeans have colonized damn near every country, therefore the countries colonized think differently. It isn't necessarily Black Power in black ran countries. Many of the citizens of those countries pride lighter skin due to colonization, so even there, white people would have more power socially. The definition obviously holds water because it is used under a white dominated and colonized world. Lines get blurry when races get mixed, and it's lighter skin versus darker skin, which is why those philosophers use it in the american context mainly. It can obviously be applied elsewhere though.

How do you mean that white people have more power socially though? Sure, the race that is closest to being worldly privileged must be white people, but I don't know. Even if we exclude Zimbabwe, where white people clearly are treated as black people in the 50s US, Could white people easily become citizens of non-white countries and as easily receive high positions or maybe even power positions in those countries? Etc.

Regarding white peoples' acceptance in non-white countries, yeah I've mostly heard that tourists who went to such countries have been treated very good. Maybe it could just had been that these countries were hospitable in general though.

Japan is another example of where white people wouldn't have a good chance. This although seems to be the case for anyone who is not Japanese there, even their minorities like the Ainu people. Even the UN recognized in 2005 that Japan is a country where the racism is "deep and distinct".
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 2:50:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 5:52:02 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/6/2015 10:30:32 PM, AFism wrote:
Here is the catch with this. In counties that are hypothetically ruled by black people, white people still have power and here is why. Europeans have colonized damn near every country, therefore the countries colonized think differently. It isn't necessarily Black Power in black ran countries. Many of the citizens of those countries pride lighter skin due to colonization, so even there, white people would have more power socially. The definition obviously holds water because it is used under a white dominated and colonized world. Lines get blurry when races get mixed, and it's lighter skin versus darker skin, which is why those philosophers use it in the american context mainly. It can obviously be applied elsewhere though.

How do you mean that white people have more power socially though? Sure, the race that is closest to being worldly privileged must be white people

You just answered your own question bub.
Sharku
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:14:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think they're trying to differentiate between systematic racism that happens on a larger scale and individual racism.

One has a larger implication and limits opportunities, one sends someone home with hurt feelings.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:44:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 2:50:20 PM, AFism wrote:
How do you mean that white people have more power socially though? Sure, the race that is closest to being worldly privileged must be white people

You just answered your own question bub.

I might have been a little fuzzy.

When I said that whites are closest to worldly privileged, I just meant that there is a greater chance that they get treated well as tourists in non-white countries, compared to others. Plus that they and their culture are mostly well looked upon, since many countries have an understanding of them, whereas they have them in their history.

You said on the other hand that white people have more power than black people in seemingly black-run countries. Then I ask you again, is it really white people who have most of the high positions and the power positons? Or would they even have a good chance of reaching those? I wouldn't think so. I mean, allowing them in a higher level than the natives to have a good chance for them, that would be like...returning to colonialism?

That Country X look well upon people in other countries doesn't mean that these people have a chance of taking over Country X. As an example, the medieval Europe had an extremely positive look upon Muslims, at times when there wasn't any war with them (thus between the Arab expansion and Ottoman Turk expansion). They were seen as family men full of bravery and chivalry. Yet if they would come and settle down in Europe, they would probably be looked upon with high suspicion and be forced to convert to Christianity, immediately. And even if they became Christians, it would maybe not had been a higher chance that they would get well treated in that society. Roma people have always been Christians in Europe, yet they have faced severe oppression throughout history.

At 7/6/2015 10:30:32 PM, AFism wrote:

There are also other terms that people should acknowledge, It is just like defining terrorism, there are multiple definitions, no one just settles on one for such a complex word. Either one can be used interchangeably, I just use racist.

I know you are also thinking about reverse racism <--- this is a myth. Black and brown people can be prejudice as hell, but never truly racist under the definition, because it requires a level of societal power. With the qualifier on racism, obviously it says the same thing, just different wording.

I forgot to answer this one. Well, I just don't see any reason to make the word even more complex, especially when there already is the "structural"-prefix to it for describing it. Maybe people think that they save time by deleting that prefix though, haha.

To me, reverse racism exists just as well as majority-to-minority racism and racism between minorities.

At 7/6/2015 10:36:39 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/6/2015 8:09:04 PM, Wylted wrote:
It's against policy to multi account Vi Spex

Given that Jovian is pretty new here, I don't think he'll get the reference, lol.

Well, I do understand the suspicion of new accounts. I read about this guy at http://ddo.wikia.com... , and I can't see that reference as anything else than an ad hominem against me xD
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:10:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:14:41 PM, Sharku wrote:
I think they're trying to differentiate between systematic racism that happens on a larger scale and individual racism.

One has a larger implication and limits opportunities, one sends someone home with hurt feelings.

Yes, my thoughts too. You are right about that comparision too. The discussions about racism are so strong that it becomes a strong political flagship. This strategy of lifting the more remarkable execution of racism onto that flagship renders it a great way of making people listen. I just thought that this definition had flaws on the other side of the coin, as stated in OP.
Sharku
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:10:00 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:14:41 PM, Sharku wrote:
I think they're trying to differentiate between systematic racism that happens on a larger scale and individual racism.

One has a larger implication and limits opportunities, one sends someone home with hurt feelings.

Yes, my thoughts too. You are right about that comparision too. The discussions about racism are so strong that it becomes a strong political flagship. This strategy of lifting the more remarkable execution of racism onto that flagship renders it a great way of making people listen. I just thought that this definition had flaws on the other side of the coin, as stated in OP.

Yeah, it has its flaws. But if we lump two different things together into one definition it undermines racism talks into "Well, one time a black dude said mean things to a white dude, so why should I have to change?" completely missing the big picture.

Ideally, we'd just call non-systematic racism discrimination or prejudice. But it would get confusing to give one type a broad term and another type a more specific term.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 10:41:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:44:31 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/7/2015 2:50:20 PM, AFism wrote:
How do you mean that white people have more power socially though? Sure, the race that is closest to being worldly privileged must be white people

You just answered your own question bub.

I might have been a little fuzzy.

When I said that whites are closest to worldly privileged, I just meant that there is a greater chance that they get treated well as tourists in non-white countries, compared to others. Plus that they and their culture are mostly well looked upon, since many countries have an understanding of them, whereas they have them in their history.

this is what i'm talking about.

You said on the other hand that white people have more power than black people in seemingly black-run countries. Then I ask you again, is it really white people who have most of the high positions and the power positons?

your first point can function to helpt them. Also, for those countries, european countries have colonized them, and they are still in debt to them. So technically they still have a lot of power over the country regardless of what office they are in. You are thinking too narrow, the definition is to be used in general discussing the events that happen in history. No one says that systemic racism is in Africa because they won't let white folks in the office. People do day there is global systemic racism, because all of the european countries are pillaging Africa.

Or would they even have a good chance of reaching those? I wouldn't think so. I mean, allowing them in a higher level than the natives to have a good chance for them, that would be like...returning to colonialism?

We are already there...

That Country X look well upon people in other countries doesn't mean that these people have a chance of taking over Country X. As an example, the medieval Europe had an extremely positive look upon Muslims, at times when there wasn't any war with them (thus between the Arab expansion and Ottoman Turk expansion). They were seen as family men full of bravery and chivalry. Yet if they would come and settle down in Europe, they would probably be looked upon with high suspicion and be forced to convert to Christianity, immediately. And even if they became Christians, it would maybe not had been a higher chance that they would get well treated in that society. Roma people have always been Christians in Europe, yet they have faced severe oppression throughout history.

this point is moot.

At 7/6/2015 10:30:32 PM, AFism wrote:

There are also other terms that people should acknowledge, It is just like defining terrorism, there are multiple definitions, no one just settles on one for such a complex word. Either one can be used interchangeably, I just use racist.

I know you are also thinking about reverse racism <--- this is a myth. Black and brown people can be prejudice as hell, but never truly racist under the definition, because it requires a level of societal power. With the qualifier on racism, obviously it says the same thing, just different wording.

I forgot to answer this one. Well, I just don't see any reason to make the word even more complex, especially when there already is the "structural"-prefix to it for describing it. Maybe people think that they save time by deleting that prefix though, haha.

Not really. I mean it has facets to it. may as well.

To me, reverse racism exists just as well as majority-to-minority racism and racism between minorities.

I call that prejudice. The system that was built and perpetuated by white people though is racist. Just think about it, If white people were not here, no one would really care to be the brightest and lightest one with the straightest hair, if we were all just black. And please don't bring up egypt either, that skin difference is romantisized in the history books. Some egyptians were slaves or servants because they were born under a slave or had debt etc. No one said "omg i hate al those black people lets make em slaves". Anyways, All of this prejudice is a results of this westernized monstrosity of culture embedded with white supremacy. .I mean who colonized and fed them the idea? Under that definition, the real racists would be the people who feed the system, or oppress others under it. It doesn't mean that you are a bad person or you are calling black people slurs. It does mean that you are blind to the benefits that the system gives you, and that it is up to you to recognize it, and do what you feel is right.

People use these definitions to get others to realize this, and making it complex with prefixes, doesn't get the point across. Making it personal with just the word racism, is way more effective. When we start to use prefixes, people tend to remove themselves from the equation, when really that person's part of the problem.

No such thing exists to me. I believe "individual racism" is just prejudice. I don't think that such a strong word like racism should be used when you hurt peoples feelings only. when we get to systemic racism then yeah. But you never hear systemic racism against the majority because it doesn't exist.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:14:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 10:41:16 PM, AFism wrote:

because all of the european countries are pillaging Africa.

All of them? I...highly doubt that Iceland or Bulgaria had or have some part of the colonizations xD And, pillaging? How can you use that word for just being in debt to them? Anyway, I don't know about how high those debts would be. How much is it approximately, minus all aid and that?

At 7/7/2015 10:41:16 PM, AFism wrote:

I call that prejudice. The system that was built and perpetuated by white people though is racist. Just think about it, If white people were not here, no one would really care to be the brightest and lightest one with the straightest hair, if we were all just black. And please don't bring up egypt either, that skin difference is romantisized in the history books. Some egyptians were slaves or servants because they were born under a slave or had debt etc. No one said "omg i hate al those black people lets make em slaves". Anyways, All of this prejudice is a results of this westernized monstrosity of culture embedded with white supremacy. .I mean who colonized and fed them the idea? Under that definition, the real racists would be the people who feed the system, or oppress others under it. It doesn't mean that you are a bad person or you are calling black people slurs. It does mean that you are blind to the benefits that the system gives you, and that it is up to you to recognize it, and do what you feel is right.

Well. If white people never existed, let's imagine they all were extinct in the bubonic plague, then there would had been some other people who aimed for the world instead. I mean, Europe was a subject for an outer invasion three times. First by Arabs, then by Mongols, and then by Ottoman Turks. So, if that would happen, there would just had been some other people colonizing the Americas + the rest of the world and putting their own beauty standards on the world instead. Any people on Earth, no matter of race, would had done that if they had the resources. Don't you agree? If not, then you are deeply misunderstood of the nature of mankind.

Although if we are were black...well...differences have always and will always exist. There would had been fights over those too. There are prejudice and racism between black tribes in Africa today. The genocide in Rwanda 1994 is an example. And it's not like European history is full of people who were hugging each other all the time for celebrating their mutual skin colour.

I don't really understand what you are saying Egypt? Did they have black slaves? Well, all people have done slavery throughout history.

P.S. Of course I'm not trying to justify any colonization or slavery at all.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 2:29:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:14:55 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/7/2015 10:41:16 PM, AFism wrote:

because all of the european countries are pillaging Africa.

All of them? I...highly doubt that Iceland or Bulgaria had or have some part of the colonizations xD And, pillaging? How can you use that word for just being in debt to them? Anyway, I don't know about how high those debts would be. How much is it approximately, minus all aid and that?

It's called NGO pillaging google it. Don't forget to take in account for globalization , cheap trade, and IMF loans :)
And
Yeah really you get the point you are just nit picking with Iceland. Don't think they aren't benefitting from it with cheap coffee and diamonds though since good ol America and UK loves it's to market what isn't theirs. They don't have to colonize to benefit from the people who did and opened the flood gates to their resources

At 7/7/2015 10:41:16 PM, AFism wrote:

I call that prejudice. The system that was built and perpetuated by white people though is racist. Just think about it, If white people were not here, no one would really care to be the brightest and lightest one with the straightest hair, if we were all just black. And please don't bring up egypt either, that skin difference is romantisized in the history books. Some egyptians were slaves or servants beycause they were born under a slave or had debt etc. No one said "omg i hate al those black people lets make em slaves". Anyways, All of this prejudice is a results of this westernized monstrosity of culture embedded with white supremacy. .I mean who colonized and fed them the idea? Under that definition, the real racists would be the people who feed the system, or oppress others under it. It doesn't mean that you are a bad person or you are calling black people slurs. It does mean that you are blind to the benefits that the system gives you, and that it is up to you to recognize it, and do what you feel is right.

Well. If white people never existed, let's imagine they all were extinct in the bubonic plague, then there would had been some other people who aimed for the world instead. I mean, Europe was a subject for an outer invasion three times. First by Arabs, then by Mongols, and then by Ottoman Turks. So, if that would happen, there would just had been some other people colonizing the Americas + the rest of the world and putting their own beauty standards on the world instead. Any people on Earth, no matter of race, would had done that if they had the resources. Don't you agree? If not, then you are deeply misunderstood of the nature of mankind.

Lol not even going to respond to this one... I'm just gonna say go read up on The ancient civilizations while Europeans were in the cave.

Although if we are were black...well...differences have always and will always exist.

This is a given

There would had been fights over those too. There are prejudice and racism between black tribes in Africa today. The genocide in Rwanda 1994 is an example. And it's not like European history is full of people who were hugging each other all the time for celebrating their mutual skin colour.

Yeah yeah yeah. Don't see your point with this. Maybe I should clarify: that no one has succeeded in their supremacy to the extent of the Europeans and americans. Hello hitler and slavery and colonialism. If this never existed, that mindset to this degree wouldn't be here for anyone to model.

I don't really understand what you are saying Egypt? Did they have black slaves?
First Egyptians are black . Second skin color was an issue in that culture sometimes

, all people have done slavery throughout history.

P.S. Of course I'm not trying to justify any colonization or slavery at all.

Then don't :)

Getting off topic. That is what the term means. Good day to you.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 5:30:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 2:29:39 AM, AFism wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah. Don't see your point with this. Maybe I should clarify: that no one has succeeded in their supremacy to the extent of the Europeans and americans. Hello hitler and slavery and colonialism. If this never existed, that mindset to this degree wouldn't be here for anyone to model.

You brought up that this wide systematization of racism wouldn't had been here if white people never existed, thus I begged to differ. I thought that you described white people as the only ones who could possibly do this, and I just thought that it was a little weird modus operandi to fight prejudice with - prejudice. Can't see any reason why any other empire wouldn't have done the same, if they had the fleet size and labour pool. If some culture had, but didn't, it would guessably had been because they didn't feel a need for new territories, whereas they weren't threatened by overpopulation.

I read somewhere that race biology evolved among white people at times where many of them had started to question religion a

Getting off topic. That is what the term means. Good day to you.

Yes, my bad. I just think this is an interesting topic, and I saw a possibility to ventilate my thoughts on all similar arguments. Great of you though to keep it considerate enough, even on such a delicate topic like this. Nice information you gave me too, even some if it seems quite disputed to me right now, since I'm not well read on it. Not saying you're wrong though, because I have no grounds to label it such. Good day.
slo1
Posts: 4,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:15:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 3:58:05 PM, Jovian wrote:
So, I have now heard of this new definition of the word racism, called prejudice + power. For those reading this who are wondering what I'm talking about, it is a definition of it that is saying that only a privileged group in a society could perform racism, and that would only be against a less privileged group. As I've understood it, this definition is an American one. The American discussion regarding racism thus becomes that you can't be racist to white people, because they are the privileged ones there.

Myself, I'm European. And I can't do nothing but think this term is quite flawed. Why?

1. There already is a term describing this execution of racism. Structural/institutionalized racism. (http://www.intergroupresources.com... is an example of where they use this term).

2. Wouldn't this term of racism imply that white people using the N-word in countries, where black people are in power, not would be racists? Take Zimbabwe as an example, where President Mugabe's regime have stole farms from white people there, and also had their police force to kill white people, etc etc. I...doubt that someone would refrain from calling a white man shouting the N-word to a black man as a racist. This of both natural and correct grounds, haha.

And please, keep this discussion on a considerate level. I feel that I will get called a racist now, which would be totally wrong since you absolutely couldn't find any place in my post where I promote racial hatred.
If you still believe that only right wing extremists would denounce this definition, check out how the American liberal site RationalWiki also questions the definition:
http://rationalwiki.org...

I'm very conflicted on this one. The new definition is one of pragmatism because it defines a cultural time, place, majority, but I also believe it to be short sighted.

In my mind anytime anyone consciously or unconsciously exhibits a behavior which is detriment to the other person because of the individuals race is racist.

All these redefinitions of racism just muddies the waters, makes it more difficult to understand, and makes it hard for people to care. Even though the purpose of redefining racism may bring forward very good point, it hinders quite simply what needs to happen to end it.

How are we as a society going to address each individual's racist tenancies so the aggregate level of racism, overt and hidden, is reduced? It has to be at an individual level.

IE: I can't come into a police department and start telling officers that we are not to be racists and then suddenly expect results. Someone who supports these convoluted definitions of racism, may say to me, "Yeah, but without implementing a no-racial profiling policy it means nothing."

Well, that is true, but again we have to go back to the individual. When cops of all races are told to randomly stop and frisk people and not use race, that is also meaningless. It is meaningless, until I hold the person accountable, meaning they have to track the race of individuals they are randomly stopping to ensure their bias is not causing harm.

Racism has to be addressed at an individual level and policy and training needs to be implemented to help and hold individuals in power accountable.

All these convoluted hard to follow arguments simply keeps us away from beginning meaningful changes which would truly get us to a state where color of skin has no conscious or unconscious bearing on decisions and judgement. We are just trying to wrap our heads around whether it is possible for an African American to be racist.

How stupid are we?
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 9:15:14 AM, slo1 wrote:

I'm very conflicted on this one. The new definition is one of pragmatism because it defines a cultural time, place, majority, but I also believe it to be short sighted

Not a new definition. And really what does your opinion have to do with with it. Most definitions are pragmatic. And it shouldn't be a problem if the definition is used in that way.

In my mind anytime anyone consciously or unconsciously exhibits a behavior which is detriment to the other person because of the individuals race is racist.

Very broad definition there. I honestly think that is part of the problem. This is why we have people yelling reverse racism when someone calls them a cracker.

All these redefinitions of racism just muddies the waters, makes it more difficult to understand, and makes it hard for people to care.

So a different definition of a systemic problem that disenfranchises, and dehumanizes a people makes you care less of the out comes? Real logical. No one ever says this about more complex economic definitions, because in the end every one in some shape or form cares about money and society. Honestly if you are confused by this definition, there are sites that break it down. It is a pretty simple concept.

Even though the purpose of redefining racism may bring forward very good point, it hinders quite simply what needs to happen to end it.

Once again these definitions have been around for a long time, these definitions furthered the discourse on race and race as a social construction. These definitions work within the social constructions in America. THese definitions made history when Black and "radica;" philosophers started to write more on race in the 20th and 19th centuries.

How are we as a society going to address each individual's racist tenancies so the aggregate level of racism, overt and hidden, is reduced?

We don't need to address every single living being, and tell them not to be racist. Policy makers, need to stop treating other peoples as if they aren't human. Scholars need to spread more words on race as a social construction, and actually say what racism and terrorism is. The media and media outlets need to stop portraying stereotypes, etc. Justice needs to be served for those who suffered from institutional racism, sexism and classism. Human rights need to be the top priority, and everything else will follow suit. No one would need to tell someone to stop being racist because there will be no room for it, if we all teach to treat each other the way we want to be treated, and reflect our government in that manner.

It has to be at an individual level.

Sure, but we shouldn't wait around for that to come. Which is why we ned a full social reform.

IE: I can't come into a police department and start telling officers that we are not to be racists and then suddenly expect results. Someone who supports these convoluted definitions of racism, may say to me, "Yeah, but without implementing a no-racial profiling policy it means nothing."

Lol sounds like your argument is just saying lets just let people come to their own conclusions. Look where that got black people for the last 500 years or so.

Well, that is true, but again we have to go back to the individual. When cops of all races are told to randomly stop and frisk people and not use race, that is also meaningless. It is meaningless, until I hold the person accountable, meaning they have to track the race of individuals they are randomly stopping to ensure their bias is not causing harm.

Yeah honestly don't care about your cop examples, I'm just going to leave to=hose be because you are making a lot of stretches and assumptions.

Racism has to be addressed at an individual level and policy and training needs to be implemented to help and hold individuals in power accountable.

Everything needs to be addressed at an individual level. All bigotry. Racism calls for social reform.

All these convoluted hard to follow arguments simply keeps us away from beginning meaningful changes which would truly get us to a state where color of skin has no conscious or unconscious bearing on decisions and judgement.

Like I said this discourse helped further rights and accomplishments for black people in academia, when there was no such thing. And how can we change something that we don't know how to articulate, and we are still using terms like "reverse racism, race baiting, race card, etc." People need to see the full spectrum, because the masses are stupid.

We are just trying to wrap our heads around whether it is possible for an African American to be racist.

Then you are kind of late because it isn't possible in America.

How stupid are we?

Not smart enough, since we can't learn simple definitions.
slo1
Posts: 4,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:53:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM, AFism wrote:
At 7/10/2015 9:15:14 AM, slo1 wrote:

In my mind anytime anyone consciously or unconsciously exhibits a behavior which is detriment to the other person because of the individuals race is racist.

Very broad definition there. I honestly think that is part of the problem. This is why we have people yelling reverse racism when someone calls them a cracker.

Calling any race a derogatory name will always complicate the matter. If you want to have an honest open discussion about racism, don't use derogatory terms that offend people. How about we just call it being a good decent human to avoid the use cracker, nigger, dego, mc, spic, etc.

All these redefinitions of racism just muddies the waters, makes it more difficult to understand, and makes it hard for people to care.

So a different definition of a systemic problem that disenfranchises, and dehumanizes a people makes you care less of the out comes? Real logical. No one ever says this about more complex economic definitions, because in the end every one in some shape or form cares about money and society. Honestly if you are confused by this definition, there are sites that break it down. It is a pretty simple concept.

Even though the purpose of redefining racism may bring forward very good point, it hinders quite simply what needs to happen to end it.

Once again these definitions have been around for a long time, these definitions furthered the discourse on race and race as a social construction. These definitions work within the social constructions in America. THese definitions made history when Black and "radica;" philosophers started to write more on race in the 20th and 19th centuries.

How are we as a society going to address each individual's racist tenancies so the aggregate level of racism, overt and hidden, is reduced?

We don't need to address every single living being, and tell them not to be racist. Policy makers, need to stop treating other peoples as if they aren't human. Scholars need to spread more words on race as a social construction, and actually say what racism and terrorism is. The media and media outlets need to stop portraying stereotypes, etc. Justice needs to be served for those who suffered from institutional racism, sexism and classism. Human rights need to be the top priority, and everything else will follow suit. No one would need to tell someone to stop being racist because there will be no room for it, if we all teach to treat each other the way we want to be treated, and reflect our government in that manner.

We are not in disagreement, but you can do all the things above, but if at the individual level it does not impact the individual's conscious and unconscious process in how they make judgements, it is not going to change anything.

Hey, I've given examples of the recent movie, "Let's be cops" where Damien Williams plays a room mate who get pulled over by his buddy, pretending to be a cop, and is freaking out because he is getting pulled over for "being black".

Now think about that for a moment. A mainstream movie that is making humor on the fact that African Americans get harassed by the police because the police have racial bias. That is not something that we should be making light of. Being stopped and assumed guilty because of color of skin is terrible.

Yet, if I go and write this up and declare how terrible it is trying to change the societal lexicon, it will not do a thing. I will be accused of being politically correct and a joy kill. Even that part of it is only part of the problem. Anyone who studies psychology and science, understands that the brain is designed to discriminate. There are good discrimination such as something not appetizing because I got sick from it once to bad discrimination, such as having a predisposed unconscious reaction to blacks that puts my amygdala on response for greater threat.

In other words this isn't just an issue that requires a TV ad campaign, it requires individual training to eliminate subconscious brain functioning.

It has to be at an individual level.

Sure, but we shouldn't wait around for that to come. Which is why we ned a full social reform.

IE: I can't come into a police department and start telling officers that we are not to be racists and then suddenly expect results. Someone who supports these convoluted definitions of racism, may say to me, "Yeah, but without implementing a no-racial profiling policy it means nothing."

Lol sounds like your argument is just saying lets just let people come to their own conclusions. Look where that got black people for the last 500 years or so.

You just stopped reading when in the next sentence I said the sentiment was "True". We obviously need no-racial profiling policies in the US, but again on its own it will not stamp out racism.

Well, that is true, but again we have to go back to the individual. When cops of all races are told to randomly stop and frisk people and not use race, that is also meaningless. It is meaningless, until I hold the person accountable, meaning they have to track the race of individuals they are randomly stopping to ensure their bias is not causing harm.

Yeah honestly don't care about your cop examples, I'm just going to leave to=hose be because you are making a lot of stretches and assumptions.

It would be easier to reply if you were specific with your alleged stretches and assumptions. It is scientifically proven that people have unconcious biases that impact their behavior towards others. Google "In and Out groups". There is a vast knowledge of experiments where people in In groups treat people in Out groups differently. There is nothing I have said that I can't substanciate.

Racism has to be addressed at an individual level and policy and training needs to be implemented to help and hold individuals in power accountable.

Everything needs to be addressed at an individual level. All bigotry. Racism calls for social reform.

All these convoluted hard to follow arguments simply keeps us away from beginning meaningful changes which would truly get us to a state where color of skin has no conscious or unconscious bearing on decisions and judgement.

Like I said this discourse helped further rights and accomplishments for black people in academia, when there was no such thing. And how can we change something that we don't know how to articulate, and we are still using terms like "reverse racism, race baiting, race card, etc." People need to see the full spectrum, because the masses are stupid.

I agree with what you are saying here. Reverse racism is often used as a cover or an excuse. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is only racism. However, again it is a good example of how a new definition was created to obfuscate the problem of racism. It needs to get simplified.
We are just trying to wrap our heads around whether it is possible for an African American to be racist.

Then you are kind of late because it isn't possible in America.

We already established that because you have defined the term in a social, place, and time context. However, your very definition assumes that blacks in America never hold power over a white person, which is inherently racist in itself. You are perpetrating the problem of racism against blacks by your definition.

Thus why we need to have discussions like this which takes the eye off the real prize which is establishing environments and protocols to eliminate racial discrimination.

How stupid are we?

Not smart enough, since we can't learn simple definitions.
True that. Racism is racism. It is simple as that. Add on points to its definition which should stand on their own obfuscate the issue, such as it is impossible for African American to be raci
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 3:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM, AFism wrote:
At 7/10/2015 9:15:14 AM, slo1 wrote:
How stupid are we?

Not smart enough, since we can't learn simple definitions.

Even if we exclude the American perspective on racism, it is still a very broad and complex definition anyway. It was first based on race, while it today is used on discrimination against people of religions, and also on people who just hate all people from another country, even if the people in the target country are of the same race is the hater. It is also sometimes used on people who disapproves of the cultural attributes of an ethnic group. And much more.

At 7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM, AFism wrote:
Everything needs to be addressed at an individual level. All bigotry. Racism calls for social reform.

When you say this, I came to think of another thing, isn't it implied in the "prejudice + power" definition that individuals never can be racist? Thus, it would even render a white man in USA impossible to be racist to someone, unless he has a position of power, by which he at a societal scale reduces opportunities for people of colour. At least I've read this from some people who use the "prejudice + power" term. But only some of them.
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:02:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:53:49 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM, AFism wrote:
At 7/10/2015 9:15:14 AM, slo1 wrote:

Calling any race a derogatory name will always complicate the matter. If you want to have an honest open discussion about racism, don't use derogatory terms that offend people. How about we just call it being a good decent human to avoid the use cracker, nigger, dego, mc, spic, etc.

Some people do not want to have a discussion, Hence the discourse on the definition among scholars. And there will always be bigots who just use the terms sparingly, that was my point of saying that. They think there is nothing wrong with it.

All these redefinitions of racism just muddies the waters, makes it more difficult to understand, and makes it hard for people to care.

So a different definition of a systemic problem that disenfranchises, and dehumanizes a people makes you care less of the out comes? Real logical. No one ever says this about more complex economic definitions, because in the end every one in some shape or form cares about money and society. Honestly if you are confused by this definition, there are sites that break it down. It is a pretty simple concept.

Even though the purpose of redefining racism may bring forward very good point, it hinders quite simply what needs to happen to end it.


We are not in disagreement, but you can do all the things above, but if at the individual level it does not impact the individual's conscious and unconscious process in how they make judgements, it is not going to change anything.

That very well may be true, but the point I was trying to make that if we have social reform, there would be no more room for racism, and affect an individuals consciousness as well. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

Hey, I've given examples of the recent movie, "Let's be cops" where Damien Williams plays a room mate who get pulled over by his buddy, pretending to be a cop, and is freaking out because he is getting pulled over for "being black".

Now think about that for a moment. A mainstream movie that is making humor on the fact that African Americans get harassed by the police because the police have racial bias.

Of course it would lol....

That is not something that we should be making light of. Being stopped and assumed guilty because of color of skin is terrible.

Yes it is very horrible. It affects the black family in ways you can not imagine... And you don't want to believe me lol.

Yet, if I go and write this up and declare how terrible it is trying to change the societal lexicon, it will not do a thing. I will be accused of being politically correct and a joy kill.

I beg to differ, Writings on people who analyze pop culture manifest themselves through social media in very interestingly hilarious ways, It may take time for it to grow on people, but with all the "hate" you get, you get a fraction of people who question themselves on what they think humor and race is. Movies like that are just Blaxploitation movies anyways, it isn't like the director was black, and made money off of it. They are just trying to humor and glorify things that happen to black people, while making money off it.

Even that part of it is only part of the problem. Anyone who studies psychology and science, understands that the brain is designed to discriminate. There are good discrimination such as something not appetizing because I got sick from it once to bad discrimination, such as having a predisposed unconscious reaction to blacks that puts my amygdala on response for greater threat.

The difference between the two though is one is natural, or in their nature, using epistemology or their experiences, while the other is using learned behavior, prejudice, and stereotypes.

In other words this isn't just an issue that requires a TV ad campaign, it requires individual training to eliminate subconscious brain functioning.

Absolutely, though with social reform i wasn't just talking about t.v. ads. But also making more colleges safe schools, and talking about race. Right now I go to a safe school, and It is actually an eye opening experiences when people fro


You just stopped reading when in the next sentence I said the sentiment was "True". We obviously need no-racial profiling policies in the US, but again on its own it will not stamp out racism.

Glad you recognize that then.


It would be easier to reply if you were specific with your alleged stretches and assumptions. It is scientifically proven that people have unconcious biases that impact their behavior towards others. Google "In and Out groups". There is a vast knowledge of experiments where people in In groups treat people in Out groups differently. There is nothing I have said that I can't substanciate.

I may have misunderstoond your point. I agree with this sentiment now that you have explained further. The last sentence confused me a bit.

Racism has to be addressed at an individual level and policy and training needs to be implemented to help and hold individuals in power accountable.

Everything needs to be addressed at an individual level. All bigotry. Racism calls for social reform.



I agree with what you are saying here. Reverse racism is often used as a cover or an excuse. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is only racism. However, again it is a good example of how a new definition was created to obfuscate the problem of racism. It needs to get simplified.

I think that you are think that using this definition isn't the most simplified. You see when we simplify the definition, we get shitty discourse. But as soon as I bring up racism= Prejudice + power, we get better discourse on the topic.

We already established that because you have defined the term in a social, place, and time context. However, your very definition assumes that blacks in America never hold power over a white person, which is inherently racist in itself. You are perpetrating the problem of racism against blacks by your definition.


This is what we are tackling here okay. The scholars also account for that, but if you notice, there aren't many black faces in that position of power, and if there are you never hear about the ones who discriminate against white people etc. The prejudice happens mostly among themselves with light skit versus dark skin thing, THe black people in this country are so busy trying to emulate white people to be successful that they also have no room to be prejudice against white people, or any one that is socially readable as white, so what do they do? Glorify white people culture, and become as "white" as they can to get an office job etc. Its called assimilation. In "black culture, there really isn't room for you to be a flaming prejudice person if you want to sustain your self and have money in America, which is why it isn't prevalent in the black communities or popular culture. So while it may seem like that at face value, it isn't really like that. And the definition obviously also cannot account for every individual who is prejudice as hell. The definition is talking about the races as a group, as a monolith in away that people can understand.

The racism definition becomes even more complex when we acknowledge that race is a spectrum (which you are subconsciously hinting at) and that blackness isn't just one thing. You do notice why i don't bring that up though, because that has way more gray area and accounts more for the individual.

True that. Racism is racism. It is simple as that.

At some point we need to get past that though, so we can live in a true individualist society. Right now in America we only have the mirage of individual freedom and social identity.

Maybe when people read this, they won't think they same thin
AFism
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:07:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 3:49:59 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM, AFism wrote:
At 7/10/2015 9:15:14 AM, slo1 wrote:
How stupid are we?

Not smart enough, since we can't learn simple definitions.

Even if we exclude the American perspective on racism, it is still a very broad and complex definition anyway.

Oh yeah I could go own for days giving you other definitions that addresses race as a social constuctiona AND spectrum and talk to you about social readabillity and etc. If you're up for it i'll explain.

It was first based on race, while it today is used on discrimination against people of religions, and also on people who just hate all people from another country, even if the people in the target country are of the same race is the hater. It is also sometimes used on people who disapproves of the cultural attributes of an ethnic group. And much more.

At 7/10/2015 1:04:18 PM, AFism wrote:
Everything needs to be addressed at an individual level. All bigotry. Racism calls for social reform.

When you say this, I came to think of another thing, isn't it implied in the "prejudice + power" definition that individuals never can be racist? Thus, it would even render a white man in USA impossible to be racist to someone, unless he has a position of power, by which he at a societal scale reduces opportunities for people of colour. At least I've read this from some people who use the "prejudice + power" term. But only some of them.

Right it would be prejudice if a poor white man called you a nigger, but racist if a white man fired you because you were black. Yes you got it. But it gets murky because white people also inherently have white privilege in America, and can unconsciously strengthen white supremacy, or systemic racism by using that privilege at the detriment of others. I mean it is their birth right, and it takes time to understand that, but it happens a lot.

I will keep reiterating that these definitions are meant to talk about races as a whole and how race identity functions in American society.