Prejudice Plus Power and Racism and Sexism

[chess-z]

I'm not arguing you have to campaign on this issue. I'm arguing that you shouldn't dismiss it, or turn a blind eye to it, out of fear of somehow devaluing the efforts of groups such as BLM. When examples are raised, the response shouldn't be to groan and hand-wave away, but to condemn.

That wasn't made clear. I don't really have much to say to that.

Now that that's been cleared up can we stop bringing up anecdotes?

 

[Bananarama]

It's kind of ironic that I only see "prejudice plus power" being trumpeted by white folks, considering it seems to exist primarily to say that only white people can be racist.

Interesting how you think you can see the color of my skin from your screen.

Like, I know that in America it looks that way because, statistically speaking, there are more white people here than anything else, but it is perfectly possible for oppressed groups to fight with and degrade each other over who they are. (Granted, my best examples are not race-related, so maybe I'll save picking at those for a bit...)

Of course minority groups can degrade each other, but that in and of itself doesn't put them at any disadvantage because it isn't systemic. Like I've said before, white people in America haven't gone through half of what the black community has struggled with. Systemic racism is the dominant and most damaging form of racism right now, so I think it's pretty important to fight that.

 

[chess-z]

When we're talking about systemic racism I would rather not deal with or talk about anecdotal racism because it distracts from the points being made about systemic racism. What a concept.

 

[Scammel]

When we're talking about systemic racism I would rather not deal with or talk about anecdotal racism because it distracts from the points being made about systemic racism. What a concept.

'I'm not prepared to say lung cancer is bad, because I'm more of a pancreatic cancer kinda guy'.

 

[chess-z]

'I'm not prepared to say lung cancer is bad, because I'm more of a pancreatic cancer kinda guy'.

That analogy is stupendously wrong, but I'll roll with it. "We aren't talking about lung cancer right now, if you had been paying attention you would've noticed the cues thst this was a lecture about pancreatic cancer. Of course lung cancer is bad, but this isn't the place to talk about it."

 

[Scammel]

It's a thread about

how to define racism... views of racism across the board... (racism) at the individual level

Just ask the OP. I'm quite happy to butt out of any specific discussion on, say, BLM, but this isn't one.

 

[The Admiral]

Interesting how you think you can see the color of my skin from your screen.

I didn't say anything about you, did I? Especially considering I haven't seen any of your posts in here on the matter. So, uh, sorry, change "only" to "mostly" I guess which is probably what I actually meant but forgot to change it to anyway.

I don't exactly think that continuing to push it is good because that begins to create an "only systemic racism is ~real~" narrative, which is probably not good for anyone.

 

[snorlax512]

We aren't talking about systemic racism though. The question posed by this thread is basically "Is racism only practiced through institutions", to which the answer is no.

I don't see what the debate is about since we all agree that individual black people can be racist, but systemic racism is the larger problem.

 

[Scammel]

We aren't talking about systemic racism though. The question posed by this thread is basically "Is racism only practiced through institutions", to which the answer is no.

I don't see what the debate is about since we all agree that individual black people can be racist, but systemic racism is the larger problem.

About as succinct and accurate an answer as we can hope for. I fear some people want to focus on the highlighted text to the exclusion of all else, in order to drive home the

"only systemic racism is ~real~" narrative

 

[Baba Yaga]

There was a post on freethoughtblogs that I'm really annoyed I can't find. It made a lot of sense in regards to defending the prejudice + power definition. If I remember correctly, it opined that racism is too strong of a word to refer to simple prejudice. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it, either. We don't have specific words to describe prejudice based on anything else, like taste in videogames, clothing, etc. Skin, poverty, or sex shouldn't be any different. Adding an "ism" to refer to harmful policies based on individual prejudices makes much more sense because it offers greater clarity, since racism, sexism, etc have strong connotations. It's not because it's a secret agenda on behalf of academics to make minorities not racist.

When you hear the word "racist" there's a **** ton of imagery that comes with that word, lynchings, separate water fountains, voter intimidation, churches being set on fire, etc. It's too loaded a term to also simply refer to someone having a shitty attitude about you because of your skin. Hence, the need to do away with "institutional racism" and simply have racism alone refer to institutional prejudice based on skin color. Everyone thinks of institutional racism when they hear the word racism anyways, so why not just say racism? Where is the big loss? Under this definition, minorities cannot be, or only very rarely racist. They can still be prejudiced jerks, though. It seems like why this redefinition is being resisted is because white people are fully aware of the immense connotations racism has, and if it's merged institutional racism, they won't have a word to put clearly oppressed minorities on equal footing with them anymore.

And thumping the dictionary in this debate makes you a tool because 1) Language evolves overtime and 2) It's okay to redefine things! Sometimes, we redefine words because the new definitions are useful or have greater explanatory power. There's nothing wrong with it. If redefinitions don't catch on, they don't catch on. The prejudice + power definition may fail, but it's not vaccuous just because it's a redefinition.

 

[snorlax512]

This is a dangerous and unhelpful redefinition. You are telling black people (keep in mind the everyday definition is racism = belief that one race is superior to another) that it is impossible for them to be racist. Do you truly think this will benefit society?

You are implying that acts such as beating up a white guy because of his skin colour is "weak" simply because it doesn't involve institutions, and therefore is only sufficient for the word "prejudiced". This is not true.

Go onto the street and call black people "stupid n*****" and see how society reacts. It's strong. It's not just 'someone has a shitty attitude about your skin', and degrading it to 'prejudice' is almost insulting.

To be perfectly honest, I think what you describe as 'prejudice' is in some ways, worse than systemic discrimination. We're in 2017, systemic discrimination typically stems from stereotypes like 'black people are joining gangs and are probably unintelligent.'

On the other hand, individual racists are often worse. There are people who believe that other races are inferior or even sub human, and that is despicable.

Systemic racism affects more people, but to the individual, what is worse really? The police pulling you over because he assumed you were dealing drugs, or getting beat up by a bunch of racists who see you as beneath them?

 

[Scammel]

We don't have specific words to describe prejudice based on anything else

Ageism, classism, ableism, anti-Semitism?

When you hear the word "racist" there's a **** ton of imagery that comes with that word, lynchings, separate water fountains, voter intimidation, churches being set on fire, etc.

There isn't, actually, not least because any number of posters could be from nations where these things never happened.

Hence, the need to do away with "institutional racism" and simply have racism alone refer to institutional prejudice based on skin color.

We have these words to provide additional granularity and clarity to forms of prejudice. You're not describing anything like evolution, but an attempt to make language less useful based on a very patronising view of minorities.

 

[Sadib]

Here's an article I wrote about this subject a few years ago. Ignore the title. It was supposed to be Trivializing Discrimination.

Here's something interesting. Look at this excerpt from Wikipedia's article on rape.

Until 2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) still considered rape a crime solely committed by men against women. In 2012, they changed their definition from "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" to "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Isn't it shocking that the FBI was using such a biased and exclusionary definition of rape? That's how I feel when I hear people say that the definitions of racism and sexism have a power component. The difference is that those people aren't even technically correct. They're just flat out wrong. There's no dictionary that defines those words that way.

 

[Baba Yaga]

This is a dangerous and unhelpful redefinition. You are telling black people (keep in mind the everyday definition is racism = belief that one race is superior to another) that it is impossible for them to be racist. Do you truly think this will benefit society?

You are implying that acts such as beating up a white guy because of his skin colour is "weak" simply because it doesn't involve institutions, and therefore is only sufficient for the word "prejudiced". This is not true.

Go onto the street and call black people "stupid n*****" and see how society reacts. It's strong. It's not just 'someone has a shitty attitude about your skin', and degrading it to 'prejudice' is almost insulting.

To be perfectly honest, I think what you describe as 'prejudice' is in some ways, worse than systemic discrimination. We're in 2017, systemic discrimination typically stems from stereotypes like 'black people are joining gangs and are probably unintelligent.'

On the other hand, individual racists are often worse. There are people who believe that other races are inferior or even sub human, and that is despicable.

Systemic racism affects more people, but to the individual, what is worse really? The police pulling you over because he assumed you were dealing drugs, or getting beat up by a bunch of racists who see you as beneath them?

Your first line doesn't contain an argument, just proclamations. And honestly, it kind of pisses me off that you thumped the dictionary again right after I explained it was stupid.

Regarding your second actual retort, I said the connotations of racism are "too strong" to use to describe that because its loaded with institutionally racist imagery, that doesn't make a white person being beaten up based on the color of his skin a "weak act" That's a complete distortion of what I said. I don't know what fallacy name it is, but it's like accusing me of saying mighty mouse is weak because I claimed superman is stronger. Mighty mouse is still strong. Superman is just stronger. Acts of prejudice can still have gravity and emotional weight, but racism is stronger.

Your third line is a poor example because the use of the N word only has the power it has because of 400 years of institutional racism. It's strong because it's not just prejudice. If someone calls you cracker, does that remind you of the stories your grandfather told you about sitting in the back of the bus? Or that your last name is probably the name of the slave master your ancestors had? Probably not. Racism packs too much of a punch to describe that.

Ageism, classism, ableism, anti-Semitism?

I wasn't clear enough. The reason we have an ism attached to all of those things in the first place is directly because of all the institutional horrors that came a long with those specific prejudices. We don't have a word like "Musicism" to describe prejudice based on music, even if there likely has been really horrible things done to people based on their music taste. We wouldn't have a word like that until there was history of people being rounded up for it, envlaved for it, etc. The words already make the hearer think "institutional" making the separate description of institutional to modify these words redundant.

There isn't, actually, not least because any number of posters could be from nations where these things never happened.

Wow, Scammel! I mean, really. Most countries have a dominant racial class. The imagery will clearly change depending on the country we're talking about.

We have these words to provide additional granularity and clarity to forms of prejudice. You're not describing anything like evolution, but an attempt to make language less useful based on a very patronizing view of minorities.

No argument, more proclamations. And bite me.

Some of the comments on this reddit thread do a really good job in explaining the prejudice + power take:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyvi..._i_think_that_redefining_racism_as_prejudice/

Namely,

You have to be careful about dictionary definitions. Words have definitions, but they also develop connotations. By a strict reading of the dictionary, you might be correct in your assertion

To me, if you hate white people because they are white, you are a racist.

But without context, this is an extremely unhelpful statement. (By the way, is there a specific person/situation you're referring to?). If you have a poor black person who has in his life been ignored or treated like crap by literally every white person he's met, he's probably going to have some pretty distorted views about white people. Then maybe you have an otherwise well educated white guy who thinks that black people are an inferior race and aren't good for anything but manual labor. Maybe you think both of these people fit the strict definition of "racist". But when you call them racist, you're evoking very specific ideas that are not contained within that strict definition, and its these ideas that tend to not make any sense when applied to the minorities being prejudiced against the majority. So if you use a word that while arguably technically correct by the dictionary definition, but has centuries of baggage and associations that don't really apply to your use case, are you really using language in a constructive way, assuming that the purpose of language is to clearly communicate an idea?
The effort to "redefine" racism like you're talking about is just an attempt to describe the situations where the usage of the word and the connotations that the word has developed have a reasonable amount of overlap.

"It's an SJW plot to make black people not racist," displays an astonishing amount of ignorance regarding the real discussion that's taking place. If that's your impression, go read things. Seriously, it takes my breath away that all of you were sitting here refuting an academic definition with a ton of research behind it (WITH A FUCKING DICTIONARY. ARE YOU SERIOUS?) without even the slightest clue of why it was actually made.

Incredible.

 

[The Admiral]

There's no dictionary that defines those words that way.

Do you spend that much time reading dictionaries?

 

[Scammel]

Your first line doesn't contain an argument, just proclamations.

No, it's simply an argument you don't want to engage with. The onus is on you to disprove or challenge statements made by other parties.

Wow, Scammel! I mean, really. Most countries have a dominant racial class. The imagery will clearly change depending on the country we're talking about.

You're dismissive, which helps betray your initial generalisation. Many countries do not boast a recent history of state-sanctioned or legislative racism, which scuppers your suggestion that these are the primary forms of racism that occupy the minds of most people. The world doesn't revolve around Jim Crow.

Some of the comments on this reddit thread do a really good job in explaining the prejudice + power take:

Some of the comments also do a fantastic job of supporting the argument some of us are making. Thanks!

 

[chess-z]

IF (and this is a big if) you stepped out of your bubble, you would find that most western european nations (and their colonies) have had Jim Crow laws or have turned a blind eye to rampant racism. So yeah, you're wrong.

 

[Scammel]

Ah, then you'll be able to tell me about West German segregation laws? The British rules on public transport? The Spanish legislation on water fountains? I await my education on Western state-mandated segregation in recent history.

 

[chess-z]

Scammel, I guess you're gonna ignore how bad it is to be aboriginal in Austrialia, or part of the First Nations in Canada. Not everything has to be a direct analogue to American Racism because these countries aren't a direct analogue of America. Institutionalized Racism takes different forms depending on the country.

In order for this conversation to become more productive we need to define what we're talking about and stop moving the goalpost. Lord know you've already moved it too many times to be considered reasonable.

 

[Scammel]

Not everything has to be a direct analogue to American Racism because these countries aren't a direct analogue of America.

Oh, I know that. I just wasn't sure Baba was when they claimed that high-profile examples of American, state-mandated racism spring to everyone's mind at the mention of the word. Many Western countries don't have that history, or even an analogous one in the same timeframe, so there's a whole lot of assumptions going on about popular perceptions of racism.

In order for this conversation to become more productive we need to define what we're talking about and stop moving the goalpost.

No goalposts have moved an inch. I've identified the exact point I was responding to.