Racist Parents Question

[Era Might]

An attempted definition:

 

Race-ism...key part is "the -ism," implies a structural worldview or systematic thought. In American racism, for example, blacks were (at different times in history) slaves, "separate but equal," economic leeches, social barbarians, etc. Racism implies a sort of division of roles in society. In contemporary times "race" is defined by color, but it could just as well be defined by nationality, ethnicity, etc.

 

Prejudice is not structural / systematic but arbitrary. One can dislike a black person because they don't like black features, or dislike an Irishman because he doesn't have the manners of a WASP, in the same way one can dislike mayonnaise because they don't like how it tastes, or dislike a coworker because they have an annoying voice.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Era Might

[KnightofChrist]

We are defining racism differently. Give me a specific definition of racism and I will tell you if black people can be racist based on your definition.
 
You said, "Racism is prejudice."
 
I said black people can be prejudice. So it appears, yes, based on your definition of racism, black people can be racist.
 
I'm not quite sure why there is a need for two separate words if racism and prejudice mean the same thing, but whatever.

Yes we are but the actual, true definition of racism is as I stated. It is a form of prejudice, unjust discrimination, bigotry, and/or hatred of any ethnic group(s). Any individual or group is capable of racism of any ethnic group. There is no need for me to ask you if black people or any ethnic group is capable of racism. Because there is no ethnic group that is incapable of racism. To say that a certain ethnic group is incapable of racism is to imply (knowingly or unknowingly) that a certain ethnic group is somehow superior to other ethnic groups.

And many English words have the same meanings. Hate for example has basically the same meaning as antipathy, enmity, contempt, loathing, detest, repugnance, racism, bigotry, prejudice... and on and on and on.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The 5 percenter's racism has no actual affect because they are not in a position in which their racism means anything. In other words, nobody is being affected by the 5 percenter's racism because they have no real power. 

 

It's like if I hated people with hair, I would never allow people with hair sign up for this phorum. Everyone with hair would be affected--because I am the boss.

 

Now, if a noob signed up and said they hate bald people, and said bald people should not be webmasters, I'd simply ban them. I would not be affected in any way.

 

My prejudice has real consequences. Their prejudice does not.

 

That's why there is the philosophical idea that black people cannot be racist.

 

I agree with the spirit of your argument but I don't know if I would agree that black people nowadays are powerless in comparison to whites. We have a black president whose prejudices could affect a bunch of people. While many whites are more privileged than blacks, society seems to favor blacks over whites in some respects. For example, I can say I hate white people in front of 90% of people I know without much of a reaction. If I say anything close to that about black people, even jocularly, I will get crucified by at least 30% of my friends. That's a lot of nails. 

 

There is a trump card that is rarely mentioned. White guilt. Do some black people take advantage of this? Yes. Is this exclusively a black thing? No. There are whites who still feel bad for the misdeeds of their ancestors. Some take advantage of this weakness. I believe the fact that such a situation exists is proof that minorities in America are not as disadvantaged as we might believe. Though there are racists in American society, I believe racism in America is dying. The fact that Paula Deen is in the position she's in is proof that someone cannot afford to be openly hateful in American society... at least not towards anything nonwhite.

Edited July 12, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

I think what a lot of people are missing is that structural racism isn't usually interpersonal. We live in a representative(ish) democracy where political leader to jockey in ways that permit them to both form coalitions of citizenry to grant them formal power through elections and private moneyed interests that give them that practical means to form and influence those coalitions. In America, for a number of reasons, both class and historical (the electoral college and the ways partys structure their primary proccess) the white, more traditionally orientated, portions of the selectorate wield disproportionate influence in national politics. Or at least they have traditionally. This isn't a one way street. A lot of politicians have seen racial tensions as a convenient resource to tap into for politican gain:

 

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

 

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

 

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "nice black person, nice black person, nice black person." By 1968 you can't say "nice black person" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "nice black person, nice black person."

 

So while black people can have racial animosity you can't compare the systemic effects of black racism to white racism. I mean, you can compare them. But if your try to equivocate them in terms of the systemic effects you're comparing applies to oranges. It also means that Obama being President doesn't really alter that structural reality much because 1-Domestically, the executive is far less powerful than most people believe, particularly in the current climate 2-He's still just one actor who depends on a selectorate coalition that must incorporate policies and policy programs that can incorporate white Americans, many from more conservative states, like Virginia or Colorado, into their coalition to achieve power.

 

tl:dr--> Yes, saying 'black people can't be racist' is a simplifications but it get's at the basic truth that racism in the black community doesn't impact white Americans to nearly the degree that racism in the white community impacts black Americans.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hasan

[Era Might]

I think what a lot of people are missing is that structural racism isn't usually interpersonal. We live in a representative(ish) democracy where political leader to jockey in ways that permit them to both form coalitions of citizenry to grant them formal power through elections and private moneyed interests that give them that practical means to form and influence those coalitions. In America, for a number of reasons, both class and historical (the electoral college and the ways partys structure their primary proccess) the white, more traditionally orientated, portions of the selectorate wield disproportionate influence in national politics. Or at least they have traditionally. This isn't a one way street. A lot of politicians have seen racial tensions as a convenient resource to tap into for politican gain:

 

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

 

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

 

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "nice black person, nice black person, nice black person." By 1968 you can't say "nice black person" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "nice black person, nice black person."

 

So while black people can have racial animosity you can't compare the systemic effects of black racism to white racism. I mean, you can compare them. But if your try to equivocate them in terms of the systemic effects you're comparing applies to oranges. It also means that Obama being President doesn't really alter that structural reality much because 1-Domestically, the executive is far less powerful than most people believe, particularly in the current climate 2-He's still just one actor who depends on a selectorate coalition that must incorporate policies and policy programs that can incorporate white Americans, many from more conservative states, like Virginia or Colorado, into their coalition to achieve power.

 

tl:dr--> Yes, saying 'black people can't be racist' is a simplifications but it get's at the basic truth that racism in the black community doesn't impact white Americans to nearly the degree that racism in the white community impacts black Americans.

 

But the farther you go into abstraction, doesn't it just make race an incidental factor. It becomes, then, a social and economic phenomenon where, undoubtedly, minorities are going to be on the losing end of the stick, but you can swap in and out any minority in that case. We can observe the same effects in other societies where black-white relations are not a factor, but where power gets concentrated and others lose out.

 

I guess affirmative action tries to deal with this by treating minorities as they do in countries with a bunch of differing political parties and forming a coalition government with representation from each sector. Or, as the Constitution deals with unequal states, and creates separate representation systems in the Senate and House. But as you point out, power is structural, and regardless of the national diversity, the power system has boiled down to red states and blue states.

 

What's the end game here, would be my question. To create a society where race does not exist? To create a society where there is a sort of racial balance of power in government? To create a society where minorities are proportionally representative in business? Would that change the fundamental interpersonal root of race relations which is the natural differences in human experience and society, whether it's racial, national, ethnic, religious, etc?

[Era Might]

Just want to append this to the end, too late to edit:

 

Does racism exist as a system of strict division of social roles, which IMO was a defining characteristic? In America blacks and whites were eternally separate (according to the ideology of social roles). In Latin America the Indian and the European were eternally separate. I could be wrong, but I don't see this kind of concrete division in mainstream existence anymore, though things like fear, prejudice, etc. still exist and structural inequalities still exist. 

Edited July 12, 2013 by Era Might

[4588686]

But the farther you go into abstraction, doesn't it just make race an incidental factor. It becomes, then, a social and economic phenomenon where, undoubtedly, minorities are going to be on the losing end of the stick, but you can swap in and out any minority in that case.

Race is a social phenomena. So you saying that abstraction leads us to understand that social and economic factors underlie the role of race plays in our politics is true but it's a truism.

I don't know how and why you would be able to 'swap out any minority in that case.' The asymmetry I mentioned is totally dependent on American historical contingencies. The role that selectorate theory is contingent to the degree that game theory is contingent.

We can observe the same effects in other societies where black-white relations are not a factor, but where power gets concentrated and others lose out.

Not the same effects because America's political logic is unique to it but speaking very generally, sure, similar behavior probably happens in all sorts of different societies. I don't understand why that's significant.

I guess affirmative action tries to deal with this by treating minorities as they do in countries with a bunch of differing political parties and forming a coalition government with representation from each sector. Or, as the Constitution deals with unequal states, and creates separate representation systems in the Senate and House. But as you point out, power is structural, and regardless of the national diversity, the power system has boiled down to red states and blue states.

I don't think the system of power boils down to red and blue states, but those coalitions are major forces.

What's the end game here, would be my question. To create a society where race does not exist? To create a society where there is a sort of racial balance of power in government? To create a society where minorities are proportionally representative in business? Would that change the fundamental interpersonal root of race relations which is the natural differences in human experience and society, whether it's racial, national, ethnic, religious, etc?

I'd just settle for people being honest about the difference between white racism and black racism and to stop pretending that race is no longer a factor in American politics, because it certainly is.

[Era Might]

Race is a social phenomena. So you saying that abstraction leads us to understand that social and economic factors underlie the role of race plays in our politics is true but it's a truism. 

I don't know how and why you would be able to 'swap out any minority in that case.' The asymmetry I mentioned is totally dependent on American historical contingencies. The role that selectorate theory is contingent to the degree that game theory is contingent.[/quote]

 

We're talking about a specifically American context, so I think we have to establish clearly what racism was in America, to really determine whether it still exists substantially in our political system. When I say abstraction takes us away from race, I mean specifically American racism. To observe that minorities today in America get the short end of the stick does not mean racism exists substantially as it once did in America (as I define it, anyway, as an ideology of social roles). When I say you can swap out anyone is that, when we get into abstraction, we are no longer talking about the historical American system, but any system. I'm not arguing that racism does NOT exist as it used to (or that it does), but I don't think abstraction (i.e., moving from "keep blacks down" to "reduce food stamp dependence") by itself is a very good indicator.

 

Not the same effects because America's political logic is unique to it but speaking very generally, sure, similar behavior probably happens in all sorts of different societies. I don't understand why that's significant.

 

I'd just settle for people being honest about the difference between white racism and black racism and to stop pretending that race is no longer a factor in American politics, because it certainly is.

 

A factor, certainly, but what I'm trying to get at is "racism" rather than race, and specifically American racism. It goes without saying that minority identities are going to be a problem, whether it's blacks / immigrants in the United States, Muslims in Myanmar, etc. But in the context of the American discussion, there is the subtext of a narrative. That kind of "honesty" that you refer to is difficult because not everyone agrees that racism exists in a linear narrative...there are probably a lot of whites who wouldn't deny that race is still a factor today, but might get defensive because they believe something has changed, something fundamental in the narrative.

 

That's why I think defining racism, and American racism specifically, is crucial.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Don't have time to fix quotes, you can figure them out.

[dUSt]

[tinytherese]

And then there's the case going on right now about Trayvon Martin who was shot. There's  been talk that even if George Zimmerman gets off, that he won't be able to show his face in public again.

[HisChildForever]

And then there's the case going on right now about Trayvon Martin who was shot. There's  been talk that even if George Zimmerman gets off, that he won't be able to show his face in public again.

 

I saw a picture of a Trayvon supporter in a t-shirt with a lovely insignia - Zimmerman's face in the middle of a bull's eye. Talk about irony.

[Guest]

Zimmerman is an idiot. Even if he is innocent he is beyond stupid for how he handled things that night. He's a wannabe cop who's own stupidity led to a killing that didn't need to happen.

[Norseman82]

Here we go again.....

[Guest]

I'm just stating what ever rational person knows. Like I said he may be innocent but 100 percent things could have prevented if he wasn't a wannabe cop who was trying to get the a##h***s who always get away. O and he could of identified himself and that pry would of helped. So if he gets found innocent he will have to look over his shoulder the rest of his life. And I don't feel sorry for him.