How do you define racism?

[paulhutch]

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?

My definitions are:
prejudice based on race = racism
prejudice based on sex = sexism
prejudice based on age = ageism
etc.

So to me the example is absolutely a racist comment. There is insufficient information to determine if this was the genesis of the persons racism. If this was the very first time they made a racist comment then they may have just become racist (they could also have been racist longer but never let it show). If they have made racist comments previously then they've been racist longer. If they learn that being prejudiced against a race is wrong and stop doing it then they will no longer be racist.

 

[phiwum]

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.

Sure, I said as much a couple of posts ago. I think that's very likely true.

 

[Belz...]

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

So you are, in fact, denying the very concept of language?

How do you think you're able to communicate with posts and words?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A definition being in use does not mean no other definitions are.

Trying to assert any given one as 'the' definition is going to go exactly nowhere.

So the options are to take a risk by using the term and hoping your context reveals the particular applied meaning or use a more expansive array of terms like systemic bias, institutional oppression, racially-motivated hostility, etc. when discussing different forms of racism.

ETA: on the other side of the coin is that as a reader of someone else's statements, try asking for clarification if something seems off to you rather than instantly going "AH-HA! GOTCHA!" when something seems incongruous.

 

[Belz...]

A definition being in use does not mean no other definitions are.

Trying to assert any given one as 'the' definition is going to go exactly nowhere.

So the options are to take a risk by using the term and hoping your context reveals the particular applied meaning or use a more expansive array of terms like systemic bias, institutional oppression, racially-motivated hostility, etc. when discussing different forms of racism.

ETA: on the other side of the coin is that as a reader of someone else's statements, try asking for clarification if something seems off to you rather than instantly going "AH-HA! GOTCHA!" when something seems incongruous.

It's not a gotcha, if you're refering to me. It's the conclusion I reach from his statements.

 

[baron]

So you are, in fact, denying the very concept of language?

How do you think you're able to communicate with posts and words?

Very weak. Try again.

 

[Belz...]

Very weak. Try again.

Those are your words:

There is no definition 'in use'.

This can only mean that language is useless because there is no way for people to understand sounds to mean the same thing.

Of course there's a definition "in use". "Cow" refers, for example, to a specific thing that you immediately understand when you read the word. That's what we call a "definition".

 

[Nessie]

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.

I must also be fattist, anti-ugly people, bastards, rude people and the unintelligent.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Exactly. The context was to be rude to an individual as a person because they have done something wrong. It is not an indication of hatred to everyone who is fat.

 

[phiwum]

I must also be fattist, anti-ugly people, bastards, rude people and the unintelligent.

Perhaps so. For whatever reason, good or bad, we don't generally consider those particular prejudices as on par with racism.

 

[TomB]

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?

It's not that simple.

Obviously, a racial slur is racist. But the person saying it can be more complex. It could very well be that the person saying the slur is a racist who is saying these things out of his dislike or prejudice against Asians. That's the simple answer.

The more complex one is illustrated by arguments between family members. Teenagers yelling "I hate you!" at their moms or in anger bringing up that one thing that your spouse is most sensitive to. When we are angry and in an argument, the objective is often to make the other person hurt (emotionally) by whatever means available. We grab hold of whatever we can use (fat/ugly/stupid) etc. and throw that at them. It's not rational, and sometimes what is said is not true. (I've seen smart, attractive, skinny people called stupid fat and ugly.)

Sometimes in anger people say things that they don't mean or even believe. With strangers, race and appearance are easy targets, because you don't know them well enough to find the stuff that will REALLY hurt them.

So, yes, racial slurs in anger are racist statements. It doesn't necessarily follow that the person who said them in anger actually holds those opinions or is actually really racist, though.

Not an excuse, of course. Bad behavior due to emotional reactions is still bad behavior.

 

[Brainster]

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

But superior in what? It is pretty apparent in the US at least that the fastest black men are faster than the fastest white men. Thus they are superior in speed. Is it racist to point this out?

I do tend to believe that in the US, the mean level of intelligence of whites is higher than that of blacks. This does not mean that every white is smarter than every black. And before I get accused of white superiority, I also tend to believe that whites lag Asians and Jews in the US in terms of the mean level of intelligence.

This information is of limited value, I admit, since the variance of intelligence within all groups is fairly high.

 

[Belz...]

But superior in what?

As people.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But superior in what? It is pretty apparent in the US at least that the fastest black men are faster than the fastest white men. Thus they are superior in speed. Is it racist to point this out?

I do tend to believe that in the US, the mean level of intelligence of whites is higher than that of blacks. This does not mean that every white is smarter than every black. And before I get accused of white superiority, I also tend to believe that whites lag Asians and Jews in the US in terms of the mean level of intelligence.

This information is of limited value, I admit, since the variance of intelligence within all groups is fairly high.

The ethnicity of the person who holds the record does not mean the ethnicity holds the record.

There are many similar such examples in regards to music genres. The record labels actually marketed what was essentially the same music (early traditional blues and classic folk) to different audiences by race. Despite the differences being largely contrived (and admittedly having drifted their own directions over time), you'll still see jealous guarding of the mantle of ownership or authorship being claimed at the racial level.

Yet another way in which we all are often guilty of falling for the embedded assertion.

 

[seayakin]

That is to say that it is a political move to re-purpose the word? If there are endless debates on the meaning of the word "racist" caused by this definitional change, I fail to see how it is a more useful definition. It's not like during the anti-slavery movement, or the civil rights era they struggled to say that they thought institutional racism was a bad thing.

What is the problem that is being solved by this change? I see no good and lots of harm. You create a bunch of people who think there its OK to hold and act out on bigoted racial opinions because they can't be racist, you get the backs up of a lot of people who would otherwise agree with you, and you create a bottomless pit of sophistry where people pretend that they are entirely ignorant of the definition that has been in play for 100 years.

This is a really important point. I am concerned that the term racism has been redefined in academic circles and picked up by people to justify bigotted behavior regardless of race. In the vernacular, racist and racism are very loaded and pejorative terms that should not be flung loosely.

I also agree with previous posters that it is important to distinguish behavior that is prejudicial and behavior that is prejudicial with the use of power.

In this thread, I have seen the discussion progress to essentially discussing what is an accurate trait attributable to a racial group and what is a trait attributed due to prejudicial intent. For instance, a simple and accurate trait attributed to African Americans is that they have a darker skin tone that those of European descent. It gets more complicated because we have lots of people with a recent ancestry that comprises Africans and Europeans as well as other populations.

In some ways this is the most interesting point of discussion. At what point, can a trait be attributed to a population without being bigoted? Brainster offered his opinion:

I do tend to believe that in the US, the mean level of intelligence of whites is higher than that of blacks. This does not mean that every white is smarter than every black. And before I get accused of white superiority, I also tend to believe that whites lag Asians and Jews in the US in terms of the mean level of intelligence.

This information is of limited value, I admit, since the variance of intelligence within all groups is fairly high.

If this were testable and provable in some way to be an accurate opinion, would this still be bigoted (racist)? (IMHO, it tends to be bigoted without evidence.)

Personally, I think you can only make accurate factual statement along racial lines when it comes to physical appearance. Difference in wealth, academic achievement, etc. is more frequently better explained by socioeconomic and historical conditions than racial/genetic lines. I can't find it at the moment but there was an article in Scientific American a few years back that demonstrated the genetic differences between race are really just about non-existent.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I want to talk correctly. Not politically correctly. And IMHO there is no conflict in correct and moral here.
Take any two groups. One will be on average taller, one will be on average fatter, one will be on average, the horror, less intelligent.
Thing is - so what ? Does it say something about individual ? No, it does not.
Can you base discrimination upon such statement ? I guess you could, but it wouldn't be logical. It will make you wrong .. not the statements about groups being on average different.

 

[baron]

Those are your words:



This can only mean that language is useless because there is no way for people to understand sounds to mean the same thing.

Of course there's a definition "in use". "Cow" refers, for example, to a specific thing that you immediately understand when you read the word. That's what we call a "definition".

Maybe if you asked yourself why there is a thread asking 'How do you define 'racism'?' and no thread asking 'How do you define 'cow'?' you wouldn't be tempted to write such absurdities.

 

[Mumbles]

I just realized that I never actually defined the damn word in my post...

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

I fully agree with Argumemnon's definition, as far as general conversation goes. My post was referring to the nonstandard "prejudice + power" definition, which I can accept someone else is using, but I never use myself.

 

[Brainster]

As people.

Still potentially problematic. If I were to state that the Irish are better people than the French, would I be accused of nationalism (at least arguably similar to racism) or of overstating the obvious?

Let me add here that I am being nit-picky because that is the point of the thread; to nail down a definition that is easily agreed on. I despise most of the people we can all agree are white supremacists, like David Duke, the Stormfronters, etc. Indeed, if the purity of the race is important, most folks like that would be the first under any eugenics policy to have their genes ruled defective, and thus be subjected to severe restrictions on breeding.

My definition? I would say that anybody who treats an individual like they were the worst stereotype of their larger biological grouping (without evidence) is guilty of one of the isms--sexism, racism, nationalism, etc.

 

[shuttlt]

If this were testable and provable in some way to be an accurate opinion, would this still be bigoted (racist)? (IMHO, it tends to be bigoted without evidence.)

If one accepts IQ as a measure of intelligence, then it's pretty well established. The only question is about whether and to what extent genetics are involved.

Personally, I think you can only make accurate factual statement along racial lines when it comes to physical appearance. Difference in wealth, academic achievement, etc. is more frequently better explained by socioeconomic and historical conditions than racial/genetic lines. I can't find it at the moment but there was an article in Scientific American a few years back that demonstrated the genetic differences between race are really just about non-existent.

I'm not sure to what extent saying that the genetic differences are small is helpful. The genetic differences between humans and chimps are pretty small. The genetic differences between men and women are tiny. The question is what those differences are.