How do you define racism?

[Nessie]

My definition is a hatred, dislike, negative attitude towards another group of people because they are of a different race.

That means if a person comes across a rude and nasty person from a different race, if the person reacts by making rude and nasty comments about the others colour, that is not racism. It is just being rude back to an individual who is being rude.

But, if a person is habitually nasty and rude to others from another race and only because of their race, no matter how the other person behaves, that is racism.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

My definition is a hatred, dislike, negative attitude towards another group of people because they are of a different race.

That means if a person comes across a rude and nasty person from a different race, if the person reacts by making rude and nasty comments about the others colour, that is not racism. It is just being rude back to an individual who is being rude.

But, if a person is habitually nasty and rude to others from another race and only because of their race, no matter how the other person behaves, that is racism.

Sorry, no.

This sounds like a way of creating a rationalization for racism to be allowed under certain conditions. That condition seems to basically boil down to the hopelessly immature 'but they started it!'

 

[Nessie]

Sorry, no.

This sounds like a way of creating a rationalization for racism to be allowed under certain conditions. That condition seems to basically boil down to the hopelessly immature 'but they started it!'

There was a change in the law in Scotland that means if someone uses racial language it is not necessary a race hate crime. For example, the Asian driver of a car knocks a white cyclist off his bike. If the white cyclist shouts "stupid Paki bastard" back at the driver, as he is lying in pain on the ground, that is not deemed to be a racist crime. If the cyclist had been knocked down by a fat person, a female or someone with red hair or wearing glasses, he may have remarked on that physical aspect and shouted "stupid speccy bastard" or "stupid cow, bloody women drivers".

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2002/05/14608/3653

"First, the behaviour described in the report may not be criminal in itself. Using racist language, for instance, only becomes a criminal matter under the new offences created by the Crime and Disorder Act (section 50A) if it causes or is intended to cause a person alarm or distress. Where such behaviour is regarded as likely to cause a person alarm or distress then it may form the basis of a common law charge with racial aggravation (section 96). But if none of these elements are present then no criminal offence has been committed.

Second, there may be insufficient evidence to prove elements of the offence. The section 50A offences require that racial aggravation be proved by evidence drawn from two different sources (the requirement of corroboration). If, for instance, only the complainer heard the racist remarks corroboration is lacking and the case falls. Third, the behaviour may be criminal (for example, vandalising cars) but it may not be possible to prove, for the purposes of section 96, that it was racially aggravated. The fact that only people from one minority ethnic group had their cars vandalised may suggest that the offences were racially motivated but a court might require more concrete evidence, such as racist graffiti or racist language immediately before, during or directly after the offence."

To show racism, it would have to be proved the cyclist was racist and not just being rude because he had been knocked off his bike.

 

[phiwum]

There was a change in the law in Scotland that means if someone uses racial language it is not necessary a race hate crime. For example, the Asian driver of a car knocks a white cyclist off his bike. If the white cyclist shouts "stupid Paki bastard" back at the driver, as he is lying in pain on the ground, that is not deemed to be a racist crime. If the cyclist had been knocked down by a fat person, a female or someone with red hair or wearing glasses, he may have remarked on that physical aspect and shouted "stupid speccy bastard" or "stupid cow, bloody women drivers".

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2002/05/14608/3653

"First, the behaviour described in the report may not be criminal in itself. Using racist language, for instance, only becomes a criminal matter under the new offences created by the Crime and Disorder Act (section 50A) if it causes or is intended to cause a person alarm or distress. Where such behaviour is regarded as likely to cause a person alarm or distress then it may form the basis of a common law charge with racial aggravation (section 96). But if none of these elements are present then no criminal offence has been committed.

Second, there may be insufficient evidence to prove elements of the offence. The section 50A offences require that racial aggravation be proved by evidence drawn from two different sources (the requirement of corroboration). If, for instance, only the complainer heard the racist remarks corroboration is lacking and the case falls. Third, the behaviour may be criminal (for example, vandalising cars) but it may not be possible to prove, for the purposes of section 96, that it was racially aggravated. The fact that only people from one minority ethnic group had their cars vandalised may suggest that the offences were racially motivated but a court might require more concrete evidence, such as racist graffiti or racist language immediately before, during or directly after the offence."

To show racism, it would have to be proved the cyclist was racist and not just being rude because he had been knocked off his bike.

Surely, we shouldn't set the bar so high that racism is equivalent with hate crime.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

The history of it.

See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States
For a little more global flavor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

Africans enslaving Africans and selling them to Europeans or people living near other people similar to them aren't examples of any people having "power" over any other people. People who separate themselves generally do so to preserve a culture or way of life that is precious to them that has great value and meaning and that they do not want to lose. That's not an example of White "power."

See, I would have thought it was the centuries of systematically denying people access to political and economic power on the basis of race that was causing the divide, but it turns out it was pointing out that it happened that was the problem the whole time. Who would have thunk it?

Do you have any examples of systematic denial of access to political and economic power based on race? Don't just point to something like wealth inequality between African Americans and European Americans and presume it exists because Whitey is using his "power" to keep the black man down. Maybe White people have a higher average income, amass more wealth, hold more prestigious jobs, etc. Those individuals have more "power." That doesn't mean Whites, as a group, have "power."

You need to understand that people who are White having power doesn't mean that White people have power.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

There was a change in the law in Scotland that means if someone uses racial language it is not necessary a race hate crime. For example, the Asian driver of a car knocks a white cyclist off his bike. If the white cyclist shouts "stupid Paki bastard" back at the driver, as he is lying in pain on the ground, that is not deemed to be a racist crime. If the cyclist had been knocked down by a fat person, a female or someone with red hair or wearing glasses, he may have remarked on that physical aspect and shouted "stupid speccy bastard" or "stupid cow, bloody women drivers".

http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2002/05/14608/3653

"First, the behaviour described in the report may not be criminal in itself. Using racist language, for instance, only becomes a criminal matter under the new offences created by the Crime and Disorder Act (section 50A) if it causes or is intended to cause a person alarm or distress. Where such behaviour is regarded as likely to cause a person alarm or distress then it may form the basis of a common law charge with racial aggravation (section 96). But if none of these elements are present then no criminal offence has been committed.

Second, there may be insufficient evidence to prove elements of the offence. The section 50A offences require that racial aggravation be proved by evidence drawn from two different sources (the requirement of corroboration). If, for instance, only the complainer heard the racist remarks corroboration is lacking and the case falls. Third, the behaviour may be criminal (for example, vandalising cars) but it may not be possible to prove, for the purposes of section 96, that it was racially aggravated. The fact that only people from one minority ethnic group had their cars vandalised may suggest that the offences were racially motivated but a court might require more concrete evidence, such as racist graffiti or racist language immediately before, during or directly after the offence."

To show racism, it would have to be proved the cyclist was racist and not just being rude because he had been knocked off his bike.

First, you've moved the goalposts. I challenged your description of racially charged epithets as 'not racism.' Your reply now makes it an issue of whether or not it is a criminal act. You did not originally claim that it was not criminal, you claimed it was not racism.

You're also trying to side-step by now making it about whether the person hurling the abuse is racist. The act of invoking someone's race, especially by using a slur or reference to negative stereotypes is racist behavior. But I bet we could go around for pages arguing how many examples of clearly racist behavior or what frequency is required before concluding the person displaying racist behavior 'is' racist.

Quite honestly, the things people do in moments of hurt or upset usually have a lot more weight in my consideration of who they 'really are' than the way they act when they feel safe and stable.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

For some definition of athletic, this may well be true from a genetic standpoint.

vs

If you aren't making a positive claim about it definitely due to genetics, then you can probably turn that into a defensible argument. If you mean that intrinsically black people are less intelligent due to, say, genetics... then I think you will have a hard time on your hands.

Genetics may be a factor in athleticism but not intelligence?

 

[shuttlt]

Genetics may be a factor in athleticism but not intelligence?

That's not what I said. I think he will have an easier time arguing that some races have a genetic advantage against some definition of athleticism, than making the same argument about intelligence. I make no claim about the underlying truth of the question. It's just that, so far as I'm aware, the intelligence question is substantially more difficult to answer conclusively either way. I guess I'd agree that there is likely to be some such difference, but who it flavors and to what degree seems like a hard problem.

 

[John Jones]

Sex and race are totally different.

To compare them is slightly stupid IMHO.

[...]

*scoffs*

 

[Nessie]

First, you've moved the goalposts. I challenged your description of racially charged epithets as 'not racism.' Your reply now makes it an issue of whether or not it is a criminal act. You did not originally claim that it was not criminal, you claimed it was not racism.

You're also trying to side-step by now making it about whether the person hurling the abuse is racist. The act of invoking someone's race, especially by using a slur or reference to negative stereotypes is racist behavior. But I bet we could go around for pages arguing how many examples of clearly racist behavior or what frequency is required before concluding the person displaying racist behavior 'is' racist.

Quite honestly, the things people do in moments of hurt or upset usually have a lot more weight in my consideration of who they 'really are' than the way they act when they feel safe and stable.

The example I gave and the quote from the Scottish Government is meant to show that racist language does not a racist make, especially when it is uttered in a moment of stress or anger.

Stupid, off the cuff moments where racist language is used does not a racist make. A football manager called Ron Atkinson was over heard saying about a black French player "He's what is known in some schools as a *********** lazy thick ******." But he was one of the first managers to consistently sign and promote black players in England and so there was nothing in his actions to say he really had racist attitudes. He was just angry at the performance, or lack of it by that footballer.

My attitude is that if Atkinson had consistently refused to sign black players and regularly referred to black players with racist comments, then he would be proven to be a racist. Otherwise the comment is a stupid, rude one on the same level as, calling someone fatty.

That is the differential I am trying to make.

 

[phiwum]

The example I gave and the quote from the Scottish Government is meant to show that racist language does not a racist make, especially when it is uttered in a moment of stress or anger.

With due respect, it doesn't show that. It shows that, at least in Scotland, such language doesn't necessarily constitute a crime.

I'm no saint. I'm sure I have the racial biases that many of us have. But I can't imagine calling a man a ****** in a fit of passion. Were I to do so, it would undoubtedly be evidence of racism, intentional or otherwise. It would be utterly obvious that there's some distinction based on skin color.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The example I gave and the quote from the Scottish Government is meant to show that racist language does not a racist make, especially when it is uttered in a moment of stress or anger.

You shared your opinion and demonstrated a similar opinion being used as the basis for a law. Those aren't proof, those are opinions.

Again, your original claim wasn't about the person being racist or not, but the behavior.

Stupid, off the cuff moments where racist language is used does not a racist make. A football manager called Ron Atkinson was over heard saying about a black French player "He's what is known in some schools as a *********** lazy thick ******." But he was one of the first managers to consistently sign and promote black players in England and so there was nothing in his actions to say he really had racist attitudes. He was just angry at the performance, or lack of it by that footballer.

My attitude is that if Atkinson had consistently refused to sign black players and regularly referred to black players with racist comments, then he would be proven to be a racist. Otherwise the comment is a stupid, rude one on the same level as, calling someone fatty.

That is the differential I am trying to make.

Ah, so if one engages in racist behavior, but can point to other behaviors that appear not racist, they weren't being racist.

Not signing people because of race would be discrimination predicated upon racist outlook. That would be using one's authority ('power') to enforce their prejudices through policy. One can have a racist mindset yet still hire the most qualified individuals they can regardless of race, then go on to make denigrating comments about their race. Maybe they do it to avoid institutional punishment, maybe because their win/loss record is a higher priority to them than their bigotry, who knows. People are inconsistent.

But sorry, good behavior in one area doesn't excuse despicable behavior in another and 'being really angry' about something doesn't excuse turning into a dick-bag no matter what form the dick-baggery comes in.

 

[Nessie]

With due respect, it doesn't show that. It shows that, at least in Scotland, such language doesn't necessarily constitute a crime.

I'm no saint. I'm sure I have the racial biases that many of us have. But I can't imagine calling a man a ****** in a fit of passion. Were I to do so, it would undoubtedly be evidence of racism, intentional or otherwise. It would be utterly obvious that there's some distinction based on skin color.

If you are knocked off your bicycle by an Asian driver and you call him an abusive term based on his ethnicity, have you just become a racist, were you always a racist, will you forever more be a racist?

 

[Nessie]

You shared your opinion and demonstrated a similar opinion being used as the basis for a law. Those aren't proof, those are opinions.

The thread title is about how "you" define racism. It is not what is the definitive one and only proven definition.

Again, your original claim wasn't about the person being racist or not, but the behavior.



Ah, so if one engages in racist behavior, but can point to other behaviors that appear not racist, they weren't being racist.

Not signing people because of race would be discrimination predicated upon racist outlook. That would be using one's authority ('power') to enforce their prejudices through policy. One can have a racist mindset yet still hire the most qualified individuals they can regardless of race, then go on to make denigrating comments about their race. Maybe they do it to avoid institutional punishment, maybe because their win/loss record is a higher priority to them than their bigotry, who knows. People are inconsistent.

But sorry, good behavior in one area doesn't excuse despicable behavior in another and 'being really angry' about something doesn't excuse turning into a dick-bag no matter what form the dick-baggery comes in.

I am not seeking to excuse being abusive, whatever the term used. I am saying that in the heat of the moment, stupid comments do not make a person a racist. Like Scots Law decisions, I need to see more than just a nasty comment before I will say a person is racist.

 

[Belz...]

Not entirely. The point folks are trying to make is that the everyday feelings of a person towards another person of a different race/ethnicity is one thing, but the systemic oppression certain races/ethnicities experience on a daily basis for their entire lives is something else entirely. Calling them by the same name does a disservice to both. So, sociologists tend to call the former "prejudice" or "discrimination". Racism, then, is the systematic kind of oppression.

That's a nonstandard definition, however. Racism is defined as the view that one race is superior to the other.

Also, what systemic oppression? We're talking in the US, remember? The existence of racism and discrimination is one thing, but systemic?

 

[baron]

I don't much care what the official version of racism is, not least because nobody takes much notice. Our Labour party, when in government, informed us that a racist statement is any statement that the recipient deems to be racist; thereby, of course, rendering the term impotent. What I will always speak out against is the attribution of negative ethnic stereotypes to an individual, either directly or as an agency of harmful action. This, to me, is the only aspect of racism I care about or deem worthy of discussion; it is always damaging and it is never warranted. All other racist behaviour, real or imagined, stands or falls on its merits.

 

[phiwum]

If you are knocked off your bicycle by an Asian driver and you call him an abusive term based on his ethnicity, have you just become a racist, were you always a racist, will you forever more be a racist?

Seems to me that if this is your immediate response, you must have some racist tendencies. Maybe they are fairly deeply suppressed and only show in times of great distress, but the fact is that you used a racist term as a reflex, so there must be some racist feelings there.

 

[Belz...]

I don't much care what the official version of racism is

It's not "official". It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different because it makes them immune to accusations of racism.

 

[baron]

It's not "official". It's the one in use. A small minority wants to make it mean something different because it makes them immune to accusations of racism.

If it was 'in use' then this thread would have one reply followed by posts saying, "I agree." There is no definition 'in use'.

 

[baron]

Seems to me that if this is your immediate response, you must have some racist tendencies. Maybe they are fairly deeply suppressed and only show in times of great distress, but the fact is that you used a racist term as a reflex, so there must be some racist feelings there.

It doesn't show that, although it may be the case. An aggressive reflexive reaction tends to focus on some obvious attribute of the target. If the person is black that may manifest as a racist comment. If the person is 500lbs the outburst is likely to include the word 'fat', which is of course passed off as just an insult and not a 'fairly deeply suppressed' hatred of fat people.

As regards suppressed intuitive racism (where racism is a tendency to unconsciously associate negativity with skin colour), that is inherent in almost everybody, even you.