How do you define racism?

[rdwight]

For the purpose of this discussion I am talking about the USA specifically.

It seems there is an ongoing debate about how we define and view racism. I personally adhere to the standard dictionary definition of racism which simply requires the belief in racial superiority or inferiority. I thought this was a straightforward topic that wouldn't need debate but it appears there is an ongoing discussion on how this word should be used and what it applies to exactly.

For example, there are sociology circles that stand firm that racism is only applicable in relation to an overall power structure. So within the confines of the US, only white people are capable of being racist as they control the overarching power structure that minority groups live in.

It would seem institutional racism is a clearer term to use for something like this, but I've been told that phrase is redudant since all racism is institutional. The idea that racism requires power doesn't seem new, but it seems that the term power is now required to be in totality within that society. So while a white business owner only hiring white employees would be both racist and practicing racial discrimination, a black business owner only hiring black employees would simply be using racial discrimination. Funnily enough, a black owner hiring only white employees would be racist and practicing racial discrimination.

I know that language evolves but I don't like the idea of the meanings of words changing unnecessarily. To me that seems to completely change the usage and purpose of the words, and confuses what exactly someone is trying to convey when describing the actions of others. Whether it is necessary or not is ofcourse a personal view though.

So how do you view the usage and definition of the word racism? Is power a requirement, and if so to what degree?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

For the purpose of this discussion I am talking about the USA specifically.

It seems there is an ongoing debate about how we define and view racism. I personally adhere to the standard dictionary definition of racism which simply requires the belief in racial superiority or inferiority. I thought this was a straightforward topic that wouldn't need debate but it appears there is an ongoing discussion on how this word should be used and what it applies to exactly.

For example, there are sociology circles that stand firm that racism is only applicable in relation to an overall power structure. So within the confines of the US, only white people are capable of being racist as they control the overarching power structure that minority groups live in.

It would seem institutional racism is a clearer term to use for something like this, but I've been told that phrase is redudant since all racism is institutional. The idea that racism requires power doesn't seem new, but it seems that the term power is now required to be in totality within that society. So while a white business owner only hiring white employees would be both racist and practicing racial discrimination, a black business owner only hiring black employees would simply be using racial discrimination. Funnily enough, a black owner hiring only white employees would be racist and practicing racial discrimination.

I know that language evolves but I don't like the idea of the meanings of words changing unnecessarily. To me that seems to completely change the usage and purpose of the words, and confuses what exactly someone is trying to convey when describing the actions of others. Whether it is necessary or not is ofcourse a personal view though.

So how do you view the usage and definition of the word racism? Is power a requirement, and if so to what degree?

The idea that only White people can be racist because they control the overarching power structure that minority groups live in is unadulterated hogwash. Power doesn't have anything to do with racism. Racism is having negative opinions about identifiable groups of people.

If racism was dependent upon power, racism wouldn't exist because White people don't have any more power than any other group of people. Individual people might have control over the reigns of power. Some of those individuals might be White. But that is irrelevant to having power..

 

[madurobob]

For example, there are sociology circles that stand firm that racism is only applicable in relation to an overall power structure. So within the confines of the US, only white people are capable of being racist as they control the overarching power structure that minority groups live in.

I've certainly bumped into this definition a lot lately. The argument is that racism can only exist where there is a power differential that cuts along racial lines, and racism can only exist among members of the more powerful race.

As you point out, it seems folks have fixated on one aspect - institutional racism - and claim that is the only correct use of the term. I think thats hogwash and its gotten me into a few heated discussions with a few high school and college kids. When I ask what its called when one person dislikes, distrusts, or thinks inferior another person/people for no other reason than outward appearances of race/ethnicity, I am referred back to the "correct" definition of racism. That is, in the USA, if its a Caucasian having those thoughts its racist; if its a black person having those thoughts it justified negative sentiment based on white people's racism.

This causes me to pull my hair out.

 

[applecorped]

With a reputable dictionary

 

[madurobob]

The idea that only White people can be racist because they control the overarching power structure that minority groups live in is unadulterated hogwash.

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. Racism is the obvious lack of privilege that every ethnic minority person has simply because they are an ethnic minority.

Its semantics, really, to me. But, I agree the distinction is important.

 

[popoi]

If racism was dependent upon power, racism wouldn't exist because White people don't have any more power than any other group of people. Individual people might have control over the reigns of power. Some of those individuals might be White. But that is irrelevant to having power..

It has at various times and places been an explicit prerequisite for access to power, and in many more times and places an implicit one. This is the wrongest take I've seen in quite some time.

With a reputable dictionary

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

 

[sadhatter]

It has at various times and places been an explicit prerequisite for access to power, and in many more times and places an implicit one. This is the wrongest take I've seen in quite some time.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Here is the problem.

You take the known meaning of racisim then track on your own definition, and expect it to have the same impact. You are *********** your own branding, and don't realize it.

The problem with sjws isn't the goals is the complete lack of awareness or any knowledge of how to successfully go about making change. They walk in like toddlers with an uzi and those who actually know how to affect change just take cover and try to fix the **** storm.

 

[fuelair]

How do you define racism?
A silly and artificial assumption of inferiority of persons of different skin color and minor other features based purely on your ignorance of human evolution/micro evolution and the effects of sunlight as your ancestors stayed in or moved away from the equator - north or south either way (if you moved your skin got lighter over thousands of years the further North or South you moved). We have a thread or five already operating (no offense, they are not that obvious mostly). Note, the your above is being used as third person, not referring to you here.

 

[madurobob]

It has at various times and places been an explicit prerequisite for access to power, and in many more times and places an implicit one. This is the wrongest take I've seen in quite some time.

Mighty wrong indeed. But, perhaps just a misunderstanding of "power".

In the USA, racism (as opposed to prejudice - as above) is seen in the lack of privilege that every minority person has by simply being a minority, and the corollary privilege of being in the majority. In general, white folks are born being far more likely to have connections and money, are born into better neighborhoods, are treated better by teachers at school and standardized tests are biased in their favor, are far less likely to have relatives in prison and find themselves in prison someday, their families haven't had to struggle to get out of the poverty caused by slavery, etc...

Thats the "power" at play in defining racism as systemic oppression, as opposed to any individual belief or thought process.

I still laugh sadly when my SJW progeny tell me black people in the USA are not and cannot be racist. But, I can understand what they're trying to say.

 

[fuelair]

For US racism, power is a requirement - which is why racists often seek it while trying to hide that they are part of it. Trump for a perfect example. I am, if it matters, white but not stupid. And, last weekend I was one of two whites at a wonderful Christmas party at the house of the parents of (Wendy) our across the street neighbors who are good friends as are me and her parents who are black and from "the islands" (since more than one island involved)!!. Party was great and that I cook hot like they do certainly helps - I wound up monitoring the kitchen while singing and dancing was going on (I do neither well!!!!!)

 

[shuttlt]

For the purpose of this discussion I am talking about the USA specifically.

It seems there is an ongoing debate about how we define and view racism. I personally adhere to the standard dictionary definition of racism which simply requires the belief in racial superiority or inferiority. I thought this was a straightforward topic that wouldn't need debate but it appears there is an ongoing discussion on how this word should be used and what it applies to exactly

This definition bothers me, at least when expressed without further elaboration. Are we saying that any comparison by which we compare races and find one superior is racist? Say on the basis of height? Endurance? Alcohol tolerence? Resting testosterone level? Some metric of cognitive ability? Or must we claim there is one true objective measure of superiority that we are discriminating against in order to be racist?

So how do you view the usage and definition of the word racism? Is power a requirement, and if so to what degree?

I suggest it is pretty easy to construct examples of people with no power who hold opinions that traditionally would be regarded as racist. If I think of some steriotypical civil rights era racist from the movies, talking about "miscegenation", I personally don't have to ask whether he or she holds any sort of institutional power to feel comfortable that "racist" is being properly applied. Are we saying if he was shipwrecked on a deserted island, he would cease to be a racist?

 

[popoi]

Here is the problem.

You take the known meaning of racisim then track on your own definition, and expect it to have the same impact. You are *********** your own branding, and don't realize it.

I don't recall endorsing any particular definition of racism but ok.

I don't think the people who define it as prejudice+power are changing it as much as the people who would define it as just prejudice. The classic example of the pre-war American south wasn't bad for black people just because white people were prejudiced, it was bad because there wasn't a bad chance the man in the white hood burning that cross on their lawn was the sheriff. More generally it was bad because legal, economic, and social power were being exercised according to that prejudice. The power definition encompasses things that are way less severe, but I think it correctly recognizes that they're the product of the same tree. The prejudice only definition confuses the situation by lumping in a lot of things that have little to no impact beyond the individual.

The problem with sjws isn't the goals is the complete lack of awareness or any knowledge of how to successfully go about making change. They walk in like toddlers with an uzi and those who actually know how to affect change just take cover and try to fix the **** storm.

As usual, I'm curious who these mysterious activists are, and what they would propose we do differently.

Mighty wrong indeed. But, perhaps just a misunderstanding of "power".

I don't think there's any definition of power where that position makes sense. The legal sense was just the most immediately obvious and seemed the least likely to trigger a fit of "let us define what we mean by 'power'" beard stroking.

 

[sadhatter]

I don't recall endorsing any particular definition of racism but ok.

I don't think the people who define it as prejudice+power are changing it as much as the people who would define it as just prejudice. The classic example of the pre-war American south wasn't bad for black people just because white people were prejudiced, it was bad because there wasn't a bad chance the man in the white hood burning that cross on their lawn was the sheriff. More generally it was bad because legal, economic, and social power were being exercised according to that prejudice. The power definition encompasses things that are way less severe, but I think it correctly recognizes that they're the product of the same tree. The prejudice only definition confuses the situation by lumping in a lot of things that have little to no impact beyond the individual.


As usual, I'm curious who these mysterious activists are, and what they would propose we do differently.


I don't think there's any definition of power where that position makes sense. The legal sense was just the most immediately obvious and seemed the least likely to trigger a fit of "let us define what we mean by 'power'" beard stroking.

Do you want to know the root of your problem (sjws in general).

You asked who the social advocates who disagree with your methods are, while talking to one. You are in such an echo chamber you can't see an alternate opinion in front of you.

 

[rdwight]

This definition bothers me, at least when expressed without further elaboration. Are we saying that any comparison by which we compare races and find one superior is racist?

I agree with your sentiment. I don't think there is a general metric that one could subscribe that is all encompassing. That's why belief of superiority does not need a break down of each specific way in which it is ascribed. That would be trying to rationalize an irrational mindset. Would a person be racist for believing asians are superior in intelligence but inferior physically? I don't think each subcatagory is a necessity. Saying 'those asians are good at math' can be said in full honesty while still holding a solid belief that white people are the superior race. Belief does not have to be rational.

I suggest it is pretty easy to construct examples of people with no power who hold opinions that traditionally would be regarded as racist. If I think of some steriotypical civil rights era racist from the movies, talking about "miscegenation", I personally don't have to ask whether he or she holds any sort of institutional power to feel comfortable that "racist" is being properly applied. Are we saying if he was shipwrecked on a deserted island, he would cease to be a racist?

That is one of the issues I have in regards to power being a prerequisite. When removed from power, are those racist beliefs simply negated? I don't feel a belief structure can be altered by changing location or circumstances. It is what it is.

 

[popoi]

Do you want to know the root of your problem (sjws in general).

Actually if you read closely, you can see that what I wanted was "what they would propose we do differently"

You asked who the social advocates who disagree with your methods are, while talking to one. You are in such an echo chamber you can't see an alternate opinion in front of you.

Your opinion so far seems to consist of "You're doing it wrong!" What do you expect me to do with that?

 

[rdwight]

I don't think the people who define it as prejudice+power are changing it as much as the people who would define it as just prejudice. The classic example of the pre-war American south wasn't bad for black people just because white people were prejudiced, it was bad because there wasn't a bad chance the man in the white hood burning that cross on their lawn was the sheriff.

I don't like lumping prejudice and racism together as if they are equal. They are different words with difference meanings. As well, I don't feel a scale of how bad things need to be for them to be considered racism is necessary either. How much does a racist have to affect you for it to be considered racism?

If one lone nut in a town burns a cross on your lawn, but otherwise holds no power to influence your life in any other way, is he not capable of being considered racist? I don't think there should be barriers of severity to describe racism. I feel like the phrase institutional racism is the perfect description when it is in fact an instiutional use of it. There shouldn't be a need to bring levels of power and severity into the mix to weigh whether a person or deed is racist.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A friend made a long winded post the other day about the increasing frequency of seeing statements that ridicule his ethnicity/gender/orientation. If it is discussions about white/male privilege and such, I get that it is referencing a system that does exist and accept it. Bold declarations of judgment against entire identities is another thing, however. In some cases, it isn't even hastiness, there are specific clarifications that the statement is being applied universally (#yesallmen tagged on or "don't even claim you're one of the good ones, either" type preemption). Now I get not waltzing into a discussion of oppression and finger-wagging over terminology, but this is in reference to one-liner statements of '<people with a given immutable quality> are <description of undesirable behavior>' or rants laden with rebuke for a given identity group. So I hit like, since I've made a similar statement of my own on the subject before.

I was hanging out with two friends later that night who requested that I explain myself. I spent several minutes clarifying that I have no issue with discussions about social issues and terms that identify that various identities I have enjoy benefits I didn't earn. I reminded them that I have personally assisted them in events and actions to raise awareness they've asked me to help with. I only specifically object to someone saying that my behavior is being 'governed by' a handful of chromosomes that determine my skin pigmentation or what organs I come equipped with. Being judged for things you have no choice or control over has kind of a nasty history, right?

I'm pretty sure my repeatedly framing the narrow and specific target of my objections was never really understood. I pretty much acknowledged and re-acknowledged the same broader social disparities and historical record over and over again. I also agreed that my life is not particularly damaged by this in the way that others face.

I think my most used phrase was "I absolutely agree with you and that is an important issue that shouldn't be dismissed, but it's also not what I'm referring to..."

I think the most heard response I was faced with was "Well don't get so offended."

One of my biggest issues with this trend is that if the form of the argument is allowed in one instance, then they can't credibly denounce it any more if it is going the other way. They've handed their enemy a reason to dismiss their objections going forward.

 

[madurobob]

That is one of the issues I have in regards to power being a prerequisite. When removed from power, are those racist beliefs simply negated? I don't feel a belief structure can be altered by changing location or circumstances. It is what it is.

I don't disagree, and have argued along those same lines with my kids. Their answer is that if there is no power dynamic. then what you have is not racism but prejudice. So, when removed from power those prejudiced beliefs are still just as prejudiced as ever, but they are not steeped in racism.

As I said before, its semantics - trying to highlight the difference between an individuals prejudiced beliefs on one hand and the racism inherent in a given society on the other. Frankly, I see no benefit to the average joe in knowing which word to use in which situation, but for folks having in-depth discussions on the topic its important to know what folks mean when they use specific words.

To me, its much the same with some terms in logic. "Beg the question", for instance, has a *much* different meaning in general conversation than it does to logicians. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that 90% of the general public uses the term wrong, but it won't have any effect on how they use it. I have no qualms with folks using "racism" as a general term that includes individual prejudice, because I'll know what they mean with context. But, if the conversation is about society, culture and institutional bias, then it becomes important to differentiate between prejudice and racism and understand the dynamics of power.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am an econ major. Words that have a common meaning there sometimes have a completely different meaning in the social sciences.

Neither definition is wrong. The definition of words are axioms themselves.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't think the people who define it as prejudice+power are changing it as much as the people who would define it as just prejudice. The classic example of the pre-war American south wasn't bad for black people just because white people were prejudiced, it was bad because there wasn't a bad chance the man in the white hood burning that cross on their lawn was the sheriff. More generally it was bad because legal, economic, and social power were being exercised according to that prejudice. The power definition encompasses things that are way less severe, but I think it correctly recognizes that they're the product of the same tree. The prejudice only definition confuses the situation by lumping in a lot of things that have little to no impact beyond the individual.

I don't understand this argument. You begin by stating that you think the meaning of racism has always been prejudice+power. You then give an example of prejudice+power being a bad thing. I don't see how the two relate. Don't you need to show that that was the common meaning in what ever period you are talking about?