Racism is contextual

[Belz...]

No...? Should it matter? If so, why?

Racism is a belief, so if the actions are not deliberate, it's not racism. You can't be racist unwittingly.

Yeah, but the issue is that they turn up even more than their representation in the overall population.

Sure but you're never going to get exact representation. It will vary wildly one way or another. As I said earlier, would it be a problem if blacks were overrepresented in movies? I don't think it would be. Is it a problem only when it's whites?

Sorry, Belz..., I disagree. We doubt get a free pass at making straw men on the grounds someone else did it first.

Dude, you're over-thinking it.

 

[Mycroft]

1. There's plenty of people who will absolutely tell that's not true, that white people can never hope to understand the plight or perspective of non-whites. That's literally the point of the entire "Check your privilege" movement.

I was talking about entertainment, where a narrative is fed to you from the perspective of a main character. "Check your privilege" is more about making people aware they speak from a position of privilige they may not be aware they have, but could certainly also be abused to just silence white people.

2. Why does this work only one way? If white people are capable of understanding the perspective and experiences of non-white people, why do non-white people need representatives of their own demographics?

Who says it only works one way? People of colour have been enjoying white-centric entertainment forever.

 

[Mycroft]

Racism is a belief, so if the actions are not deliberate, it's not racism. You can't be racist unwittingly.

Can you cite some examples so I better understand what you're talking about?

I would tend to think if the result were systematic disadvantagement of a group of people, it should be included as racism (sexism, whatever), but maybe I'm not understanding your point of view as well as I could?

Sure but you're never going to get exact representation. It will vary wildly one way or another. As I said earlier, would it be a problem if blacks were overrepresented in movies? I don't think it would be. Is it a problem only when it's whites?

I don't think the goal needs to be getting the representation to match demographics exactly, but just being inclusive in who gets represented. Maybe even tolerating a period of overcorrection.

 

[Belz...]

Can you cite some examples so I better understand what you're talking about?

I'm sorry, examples of what? I'm talking about the definition. Racism is a belief in the inferiority of another or other "race(s)". It's not incidental actions that just happen to disadvantage these groups.

I don't think the goal needs to be getting the representation to match demographics exactly, but just being inclusive in who gets represented.

In general you might be right, but I remember the outrage at the Oscars two years ago because no black person was nominated, something you'd expect statistically once in a while given their population, and the implication that it wasn't about representation at all.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm sorry, examples of what? I'm talking about the definition. Racism is a belief in the inferiority of another or other "race(s)". It's not incidental actions that just happen to disadvantage these groups.

Examples where actions unmotivated by feelings of superiority or hate systematically disadvantage people of colour, but shouldn’t be labeled as racist.

Let me cite an example from my personal life:

When my sister fell in love with and married an Arabic man, my grandmother cried for days and opposed the marriage strenuously.

My grandmother, born in 1902, didn’t hate Arabic people, but she was fearful that their children would face the same discrimination towards children of mixed race couples she had witnessed in her life.

I would say her reaction was racist even though I understand it wasn’t motivated by feelings of superiority or hatred. I would say her reaction was motivated by love of her granddaughter and concern for the wellbeing of her potential great-grandchildren.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The goal of whom? People who want to continue to perpetuate racism? I want to be more charitable than that and assume that people have legitimate blind spots and don't always see racism.

The goal is to prove that they are not racist. So actions that they could perpetrate with out ever thinking about it and realizing that race had a strong influence on their actions have to be discounted as not racist because then they would be racist.

So the HR person who outright says they won't hire a black is racist, but the one who hires a less qualified white because he was so much more nice and relateable is of course not racist.

The goal is to not recognize their own racist actions.

I think you're right. There is a spectrum and everybody is on it somewhere. By that same token we need to take the stigma out of racism so we can talk about it and address it without blame and condemnation.

Absolutely, we need to talk about how to be aware of your racism and less influenced by it. But to do that we need to get under peoples skin by identifying actions that race has a strong effect on as having racist principles, and that gets under their skin and makes them fight for a binary racist/non racist where they are better than neonazis so they can't be racist.

Because we still want to stigmatize racist behaviors.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I mean, the thing with this discussion is that you perfectly well can accuse someone of being racist, even if they're not. That's because, we have the ability to conclude in our minds that the decision someone made, was out of racism. But of course, we don't really know how someone really feels about something, unless you're a neurosurgeon literally looking into their brain to see if the parts of the brain associated with, say, disgust, light up when they see a black person.

So, the discussion gets tricky because there's a lot of people who really believe that other people are racist, and that their decisions were made out of racism, when that could very well not be the case. So in that sense, the discussion may never get anywhere.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So, the discussion gets tricky because there's a lot of people who really believe that other people are racist, and that their decisions were made out of racism, when that could very well not be the case. So in that sense, the discussion may never get anywhere.

Add to this the "privilege" or "blind spot" or similar arguments where not admitting you are racist is seen as further evidence that you are racist and this become near epidemic.

 

[Belz...]

Examples where actions unmotivated by feelings of superiority or hate systematically disadvantage people of colour, but shouldn’t be labeled as racist.

Again, that's by definition. If they're unmotivated by racism, they shouldn't be labeled as racist. Otherwise we're broadening the definition of that word to the point of worthlessness, and I have a thing about excessively broad definitions.

When my sister fell in love with and married an Arabic man, my grandmother cried for days and opposed the marriage strenuously.

My grandmother, born in 1902, didn’t hate Arabic people, but she was fearful that their children would face the same discrimination towards children of mixed race couples she had witnessed in her life.

I would say her reaction was racist even though I understand it wasn’t motivated by feelings of superiority or hatred.

That's why examples are irrelevant; this is all a matter of definitions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I mean, the thing with this discussion is that you perfectly well can accuse someone of being racist, even if they're not.

But the point is everyone is a racist. Their refusal to see that race does influence their actions and so their actions can be defined as racist is the problem. How do you talk to someone who is dead set that they are not a racist about the racist acts they have done?

 

[Belz...]

The goal is to prove that they are not racist.

Most ironic statement ever.

But the point is everyone is a racist.

Please stop projecting your own failings onto others.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Add to this the "privilege" or "blind spot" or similar arguments where not admitting you are racist is seen as further evidence that you are racist and this become near epidemic.

Then how do you talk to this non racist person about their racist actions and the racist actions of others that they don't notice and are advantaged by?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then how do you talk to this non racist person about their racist actions and the racist actions of others that they don't notice and are advantaged by?

Unless one has taken it upon themselves to assume the title of "Super Progressive Man: Most Progressive of the Progressive, with the magical ability to psychicly spot racism with 100% accuracy at a hundred yards" there's no functional difference between "A racist who isn't aware of their racism" and "Someone you've up and decided a racists who isn't."

In other words if Bill says he's not racist and you say he is, why should I automatically believe you?

 

[Lithrael]

Absolutely, we need to talk about how to be aware of your racism and less influenced by it. But to do that we need to get under peoples skin by identifying actions that race has a strong effect on as having racist principles, and that gets under their skin and makes them fight for a binary racist/non racist where they are better than neonazis so they can't be racist.

This is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing yeah. A great big chunk of it is a prescriptivist language problem where racist = hatefulness/superiority to person B because that's the traditional interpretation. But to person A 'racist' means more like, negatively affecting members of Group based strictly on membership in Group. So person A is trying to discuss the effects person B's non-hateful, non-superiority based actions have on Group, and person B is just hearing 'you're calling me hateful/supremacist! which is the worst! I am not that thing! You are insulting and not understanding me!'

Language drift itself seems like something that the same people are opposed to. WORDS MEAN THINGS! they say. It doesn't matter that drifting is one of the things languages do. The dictionary that they had when they were a kid is what Words Really Mean.

Right here in this thread we have clear disagreements about what the word means - some say they mean racism as institutional and unintentional, and others say you can't be unintentionally racist.

I hope we can at least agree that the word is not currently nailed down, and you can't currently assume that anyone is calling anyone else a hateful supremacist when they say "that's racist". It has to be unpacked.

 

[Belz...]

In other words if Bill says he's not racist and you say he is, why should I automatically believe you?

Because you should respect his strong desire to broadcast his moral superiority. He really, really really really doesn't want anybody to think they're a racist, so he calls everybody else one.

 

[phiwum]

Examples where actions unmotivated by feelings of superiority or hate systematically disadvantage people of colour, but shouldn’t be labeled as racist.

Let me cite an example from my personal life:

When my sister fell in love with and married an Arabic man, my grandmother cried for days and opposed the marriage strenuously.

My grandmother, born in 1902, didn’t hate Arabic people, but she was fearful that their children would face the same discrimination towards children of mixed race couples she had witnessed in her life.

I would say her reaction was racist even though I understand it wasn’t motivated by feelings of superiority or hatred. I would say her reaction was motivated by love of her granddaughter and concern for the wellbeing of her potential great-grandchildren.

Good point. I'm torn over whether this is racist, but the more personal, the more difficult it is to argue that these opinions aren't racist.

 

[Lithrael]

In other words if Bill says he's not racist and you say he is, why should I automatically believe you?

You shouldn't, you should have a discussion where the guy calling racism explains why he thinks so. The word isn't the important part. The actions and consequences it's trying to describe are the important part.

 

[phiwum]

Unless one has taken it upon themselves to assume the title of "Super Progressive Man: Most Progressive of the Progressive, with the magical ability to psychicly spot racism with 100% accuracy at a hundred yards" there's no functional difference between "A racist who isn't aware of their racism" and "Someone you've up and decided a racists who isn't."

In other words if Bill says he's not racist and you say he is, why should I automatically believe you?

This is a bit unfair. There are tests for unconscious racism that are very suggestive. I was shocked to see that I scored poorly, to be honest.

I think it's fair to say that one can have racist biases without being aware of these biases. That doesn't make them bad people, but victims of their environments.

I certainly try not to allow racial stereotypes to influence me, but I believe they do.

 

[Belz...]

This is a bit unfair. There are tests for unconscious racism that are very suggestive. I was shocked to see that I scored poorly, to be honest.

But that's the problem: we've redefined racism to make everyone racist. Biases aren't racism. "Unconscious racism" is an oxymoron.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

But the point is everyone is a racist. Their refusal to see that race does influence their actions and so their actions can be defined as racist is the problem. How do you talk to someone who is dead set that they are not a racist about the racist acts they have done?

Same way that you talk to someone who is dead set convinced that you're a racist, even though you're not: You don't.