What we mean when we talk about racism

[Minoosh]

Sometimes it seems to me that people are envisioning different things when discussing racism. Is a person a racist? Or does it speak to a certain configuration of society, which makes any systematic "othering" racist, whether it literally has to do with skin color or not? An article in The New Yorker talked about two recent books. One is "How to be An Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi. He has a towering reputation as a scholar. I question some of his conclusions, though.

The fight to redefine racism

According to Kendi, Barack Obama was being racist when, as a candidate in 2008, he spoke of the "erosion of black families."

Although Obama noted that this erosion was partly due to “a lack of economic opportunity,” he also made an appeal to black self-reliance, saying that members of the African-American community needed to face “our own complicity in our condition.” Kendi saw statements like these as reflections of a persistent but delusional idea that something is wrong with black people. The only thing wrong, he maintained, was racism, and the country’s failure to confront and defeat it.

He sees racist thinking in his parents, and, as a high school student, in himself:

Kendi’s parents taught him black pride, and he took these lessons seriously. As Kendi tells it, his parents’ belief in black pride led them to embrace black self-reliance, a doctrine that urged black people to overcome the legacy of racism by working hard and doing well.

He came to believe this thinking implies that there's something wrong with black people. And I see his point. But does that mean his parents were wrong to stress self-reliance? Isn't it a positive for individuals to aspire to self-improvement?

By the time he got to college, Kendi was outspokenly pro-black: he “pledged to date only Dark women,” as a personal protest against standards of beauty that favor lighter skin.

He was at a historically black college, so I'm thinking he's saying that he wouldn't date a light-skinned black woman. Which kinda strikes me as ... racist. His dates had to be black enough, no matter what other qualities they might have.

Moving on from him, we have Robin DiAngelo, "a white workplace-diversity trainer." She wrote "White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism."

In the sanctuaries she creates, one of the rules is that white people, especially white women, should not cry. It attracts too much attention, and it may upset nonwhite participants, by evoking the “long historical backdrop of black men being tortured and murdered because of a white woman’s distress.” If DiAngelo herself can’t resist, she performs a ritual of abnegation. “I try to cry quietly so that I don’t take up more space,” she writes, “and if people rush to comfort me, I do not accept the comfort.”

That seems ... like a reach.

The author of the piece, Kelefa Sanneh, gently mocks DiAngelo's nobilization of "people of color," and he puts the phrase in quotes, saying it conveniently boils the world down into 2 categories, white and nonwhite. He also has criticism of Kendi, but it's quite respectful. Both of these authors have put a lot of thought into how they define racism and I was wondering if forum members have their own definitions and perhaps their own remedies, if any are needed.

 

[luchog]

A lot of that reads to me as muddying the waters, or self-serving idiosyncratic re-definition.

Racism: Discriminating against, or holding negative or stereotyped beliefs about, a particular individual or group based on their ethnic heritage.

Anything beyond that, for all practical purposes, is hair-splitting and not particularly useful for the vast majority of discussion.

The racism=prejudice+power, aka the racism+, definition is also not especially useful except in a self-serving way.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm actually glad you started this topic. This has been an ancillary topic in multiple discussions that leads to a lot of people accidentally (and on purpose I time I have a sneaking suspicion) talking around each other.

Right now there are (vastly over simplifying this) multiple versions of the word "racism" being used in the popular discourse.

- Racism meaning "personal racism" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y." I don't like this person because he's this.

- Racism meaning "personal racism plus power or action" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y and I'm in a position of power/influence/authority/etc to actually affect them on a level beyond direct 1:1 encounters." This is where the "You can't be racist against white people" version of racism comes in.

- Racism meaning "You aren't racist, but you aren't NOT racist enough and tolerating racism is a form of racism"

To what degree any of those is the "correct" version is a job for the pedants, but the fact that some much discussion about racism shifts between those definitions, often within the same person or argument, is not doing anyone any favors.

And those are just the biggies that are being argued... somewhat honestly. Add in nonsense like the "It's not racism because it's not cartoonishly over the top racism" or "talking about racism makes you the racist" and it gets even worse.

 

[theprestige]

I'm actually glad you started this topic. This has been an ancillary topic in multiple discussions that leads to a lot of people accidentally (and on purpose I time I have a sneaking suspicion) talking around each other.

Right now there are (vastly over simplifying this) multiple versions of the word "racism" being used in the popular discourse.

- Racism meaning "personal racism" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y." I don't like this person because he's this.

- Racism meaning "personal racism plus power or action" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y and I'm in a position of power/influence/authority/etc to actually affect them on a level beyond direct 1:1 encounters." This is where the "You can't be racist against white people" version of racism comes in.

- Racism meaning "You aren't racist, but you aren't NOT racist enough and tolerating racism is a form of racism"

To what degree any of those is the "correct" version is a job for the pedants, but the fact that some much discussion about racism shifts between those definitions, often within the same person or argument, is not doing anyone any favors.

And those are just the biggies that are being argued... somewhat honestly. Add in nonsense like the "It's not racism because it's not cartoonishly over the top racism" or "talking about racism makes you the racist" and it gets even worse.

Don't forget:

- Racism meaning "you may think you're not racist, but you're benefiting from an institution of racism so you're effectively racist anyway."

- Racism meaning "you may think you're not racist, but actually everything you do and say is racist because that's just how people of your color are all the time."

And my favorite:

- Racist meaning "you say you're not racist, but you're disagreeing with a person of color different from yours, so obviously you're a big ******* racist."

 

[jimbob]

I'm actually glad you started this topic. This has been an ancillary topic in multiple discussions that leads to a lot of people accidentally (and on purpose I time I have a sneaking suspicion) talking around each other.

Right now there are (vastly over simplifying this) multiple versions of the word "racism" being used in the popular discourse.

- Racism meaning "personal racism" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y." I don't like this person because he's this.

- Racism meaning "personal racism plus power or action" as in "I don't like person X because they are of race Y and I'm in a position of power/influence/authority/etc to actually affect them on a level beyond direct 1:1 encounters." This is where the "You can't be racist against white people" version of racism comes in.

- Racism meaning "You aren't racist, but you aren't NOT racist enough and tolerating racism is a form of racism"

To what degree any of those is the "correct" version is a job for the pedants, but the fact that some much discussion about racism shifts between those definitions, often within the same person or argument, is not doing anyone any favors.

And those are just the biggies that are being argued... somewhat honestly. Add in nonsense like the "It's not racism because it's not cartoonishly over the top racism" or "talking about racism makes you the racist" and it gets even worse.

I'd say that the non-highlighted versions generally are made in good faith, and as you say might have validity in particular circumstances.

The highlighted ones, especially the "talking about racism makes you racist" tends to be in bad faith, and often by people who tend to make comments about the inferiority of non-whites, whilst denying that they're racist.

 

[Minoosh]

Don't forget:

- Racism meaning "you may think you're not racist, but you're benefiting from an institution of racism so you're effectively racist anyway."

- Racism meaning "you may think you're not racist, but actually everything you do and say is racist because that's just how people of your color are all the time."

And my favorite:

- Racist meaning "you say you're not racist, but you're disagreeing with a person of color different from yours, so obviously you're a big ******* racist."

DiAngelo seems big on the second in your list. White people who say they don't think about race are seen as proving her point - it's only the luxury of being white that allows them not to think about race.

In a talk with a somewhat conservative cousin recently we discussed allegations of racism against Trump, with him taking the position that "Go back where you came from" is not necessarily racist. He sees it as a common sentiment against any type of newcomer that can hinge on other perceived differences. Trump's remarks were bigoted, ignorant and wrongheaded, but those labels aren't as potent as "racist." It's become one of the worst things you can call someone.

My personal take is that most people are or have been "racist" about something. But you won't hear very many people admit it, even if they do admit to prejudices or believing in stereotypes. That makes it harder to talk about, IMO.

Kendi doesn't treat "racism" as something radioactive or irredeemable - it's a learned attitude that can be unlearned. He goes so far as to say racism is only about 600 years old, which already means he is working with a different definition than I am. His seems to hinge on colonialism, though I am only going by the article I read, not his book.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is the definition of racism that I use exclusively

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

This keeps things very simple. It means that...

- a black person calling another black person the n-word is not racist
- a white person calling another white person a redneck is not racist
- criticizing a person who is a different race or skin colour from you is not necessarily racist unless that criticism is based on their race or skin colour

 

[theprestige]

Here is the definition of racism that I use exclusively



"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."



This keeps things very simple. It means that...



- a black person calling another black person the n-word is not racist

- a white person calling another white person a redneck is not racist

- criticizing a person who is a different race or skin colour from you is not necessarily racist unless that criticism is based on their race or skin colour

Unless that criticism is based on a belief in racial superiority, you mean.

 

[d4m10n]

Here is the definition of racism that I use exclusively

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Suppose there was a group of [insert race] nationalists who privately believed and publicly maintained that some other group were generally superior in Machiavellian craftiness, book learning, and monetary policy, and that they must be removed from society as a result. That's not racist, by this definition.

 

[smartcooky]

Unless that criticism is based on a belief in racial superiority, you mean.

Based on the criticizers belief in their own race's superiority.. yes

 

[smartcooky]

Suppose there was a group of [insert race] nationalists who privately believed and publicly maintained that some other group were generally superior in Machiavellian craftiness, book learning, and monetary policy, and that they must be removed from society as a result. That's not racist, by this definition.

Can you provide an example?

 

[wareyin]

And my favorite:

- Racist meaning "you say you're not racist, but you're disagreeing with a person of color different from yours, so obviously you're a big ******* racist."

That one is a favorite of a lot of conservatives. I can't recall ever seeing that scenario occur, but lots of "I'm not racist, but..." people do maintain that it does occur. Do you have any examples of your favorite actually happening, or is it your favorite not because it happens but because it's such a good story?

 

[luchog]

Suppose there was a group of [insert race] nationalists who privately believed and publicly maintained that some other group were generally superior in Machiavellian craftiness, book learning, and monetary policy, and that they must be removed from society as a result. That's not racist, by this definition.

Which is why the common definition that I use is more defined by stereotyping based on race, not necessarily a sense of superiority over a particular race.

 

[luchog]

Don't forget:

- Racism meaning "you may think you're not racist, but you're benefiting from an institution of racism so you're effectively racist anyway."

- Racism meaning "you may think you're not racist, but actually everything you do and say is racist because that's just how people of your color are all the time."

And my favorite:

- Racist meaning "you say you're not racist, but you're disagreeing with a person of color different from yours, so obviously you're a big ******* racist."

Those are certainly very popular with conservatives, but I can't recall hearing or reading anyone other than conservatives using them. Sounds like straw men to me. Can you provide examples.

 

[psionl0]

That one is a favorite of a lot of conservatives. I can't recall ever seeing that scenario occur, but lots of "I'm not racist, but..." people do maintain that it does occur. Do you have any examples of your favorite actually happening, or is it your favorite not because it happens but because it's such a good story?

Aboriginal AFL player Adam Goode had a way of doing outrageous things on the football field such as doing a "war" dance and pretending to throw spears at the crowd when he kicked a goal. In one infamous incident, he singled out a 13 year old female spectator for yelling out "monkey" (an offensive term for Aboriginals) when his team ran out on to the field.

Needless to say, these actions didn't make him very popular with the spectators who booed him every time he touched the football. Ultimately this hostility from the crowds saw him retire from AFL football.

In the ensuing public discussions, Goode was never described as "racist" (though many had other nasty words to describe him). However, the acts of booing saw the crowds constantly labeled as "racist".

 

[d4m10n]

Can you provide an example?

"Suppose" though.

Which is why the common definition that I use is more defined by stereotyping based on race, not necessarily a sense of superiority over a particular race.

I think that's a move in the right direction, but I'd go further and say that if you treat people differently merely because of their remote ancestry, that is racist per se, without regard to whether you've invoked ethnic stereotypes or tropes about superiority/inferiority in the process.

 

[smartcooky]

"Suppose" though.

I'll deal with it when I see it.

It may be that I would need to modify the definition I use.

 

[BrooklynBaby]

Democrats and their leadership at the New York Times use "racists" as a synonym for "Republicans".

 

[smartcooky]

Democrats and their leadership at the New York Times use "racists" as a synonym for "Republicans".

...and some of them have thoroughly earned that title.

 

[dann]

In a talk with a somewhat conservative cousin recently we discussed allegations of racism against Trump, with him taking the position that "Go back where you came from" is not necessarily racist. He sees it as a common sentiment against any type of newcomer that can hinge on other perceived differences. Trump's remarks were bigoted, ignorant and wrongheaded, but those labels aren't as potent as "racist." It's become one of the worst things you can call someone.

Except that it isn't any type of newcomer, is it? Trump wants fewer immigrants from “******* countries” and more from places like Norway (Vox, Jan. 11, 2018)

Edited by Kmortis: 

Autocensor augmentation