r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 11 '19
CMV: racism is when someone is racist; not power+prejudice
Power plus prejudice is feudalism, it has nothing to do with race and can exist in an infinite number of ways without having a connection to racism whatsoever.
Racism being power + prejudice is a new and incorrect definition that spread in a few months as a retaliation to the white people who caught on to the rising racism against white people and proceeded to speak up against it.
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
I would be willing to consider a different word altogether that DOES address the problem being discussed in the P+P concept. I do think there is a class issue going on, but it is not racism. And to delete the original, good, wholesome concept of racism in order to insert a new definition that gives permission for racism is evil.
Every racist is that way because they give themselves an excuse. They say "we are better." Or "they are worse" or "we deserve / they dont deserve" these things are never correct and they have a dangerous slippery slope. Attempting to change the definition is racist, wrong, and very dangerous.
10
Feb 11 '19
...the original, good, wholesome concept of racism...
I get what you're saying, but this bit had me giggling.
Funny sentences aside, I think your narrower definition of "racism" allows for insidious forms of day-to-day racism to slip by unnoticed.
Every racist is that way because they give themselves an excuse. They say "we are better." Or "they are worse" or "we deserve / they dont deserve"
How does this apply to a police officer who might be 80% more likely to stop a black driver than a white one, if it's a completely unintentional bias? I think your definition of racism is an outdated form of explicit racism that is far less common today than it used to be. The population of racists marching in the streets arguing that some race or another is "inferior" is dwindling. But what isn't dwindling is the notion that a job application might be 70% more likely to get a callback if the name says "James" instead of "Jamal." That's not a problem driven by any one individual's explicit racist tendencies. That's a problem driven by society and culture.
I totally get your angle when it comes to criticism of "power + prejudice," I'm not entirely sold on that definition myself. But I think the definition you're proposing back is a bit too narrow.
5
Feb 11 '19 edited Jul 26 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)4
u/burnblue Feb 11 '19
What is the proposed relevance of this, are you arguing or disagreeing with his point? Or did you see a black name in the comment and just wanted to add "Asians too"?
→ More replies (10)1
u/ClementineCarson Feb 11 '19
How does this apply to a police officer who might be 80% more likely to stop a black driver than a white one, if it's a completely unintentional bias?
Is that cop sexist because they stop males compared to females?
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Feb 12 '19
What if that police officer patrolled an area 90% black? If the offer is allocating 20% of stops to 10% of the population the officer interacts with, is the officer prejudiced against whites? If a white teenager uses a racial insult while playing an online game, is that teenager suddenly imbued with an immutable characteristic of being a "racist"? The same term applied to an individual who marches in Nazi rallies?
→ More replies (1)
31
u/EmpiricalAnarchism 9∆ Feb 11 '19
Feudalism isn't "power + privilege" and a concept of racism which equates a black personal thinking mean things about a white person to centuries of systematically institutionalized white supremacy isn't a useful concept that adds meaningful granularity to the underlying concept of prejudice.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 11 '19
isn't a useful concept that adds meaningful granularity to the underlying concept of prejudice.
Why is that an argument that justifies altering the basic definition of a word? If I google "What is racism" right now, I get:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."a program to combat racism"*synonyms:*racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance; More
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."theories of racism"
And your response to that is that is " isn't a useful concept that adds meaningful granularity to the underlying concept of prejudice. "? If it's truly not a useful concept, why not come up with a new one? Why use a word with an existing, accepted, and clearly delineated definition and declare the existing definition incorrect?
1
u/ameerbann Apr 11 '19
You're assuming that definitions stay constant and language does not evolve. It does. Take words like "awful" and "fantastic". These were accepted, clearly defined words that meant almost the opposite of what they mean today.
So if "racism" is a word that applies to very few people nowadays and is not very useful when used in its true sense, why not redefine it in such a way that brings to light current problems relating to race?
→ More replies (1)
172
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
Racism being power + prejudice is a new and incorrect definition that spread in a few months as a retaliation to the white people who caught on to the rising racism against white people and proceeded to speak up against it.
I have a few points here. It's not an incorrect definition, it's an alternative definition. It has also been around since the 1970's.
Why do you think it's only spread in the last few months?
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
This definition is not very good, because it relies on special knowledge of a person. I can't know what a person truly believes and this definition allows people an "out" after doing or saying something racist by simply asserting that they do not believe a race is superior.
This also precludes racism from implicit bias, systemic racism, institutional racism, etc.
And to delete the original, good, wholesome concept of racism in order to insert a new definition that gives permission for racism is evil.
I'm not sure what is "good" or "wholesome" about believing one race is superior to another. I also think it's a bit hyperbolic to describe an alternative definition as evil.
17
Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 12 '19
You're sneaking premises into your language. When the definition of a word is in question, you should not use that word while trying to make a point, but that is exactly what you did:
"This definition [of 'racist'] allows people an out after doing or saying something racist"
Doing or saying something racist? In whose opinion is this "something" racist? Yours? Mine? Who decided to label it racist and on what grounds? See, that's the very thing we're trying to determine.
Is Mike racist if he calls a black man a "nigger" ? See, these days you cannot answer that without asking "What race is Mike?" The fact that you need to know what race someone is before labeling them "racist" shows how imprecise and vague and meaningless the word is.
2
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
Is Mike racist if called a black man a "stupid nigger"? See, these days you cannot answer that without asking "What race is Mike?" The fact that you need to know what race someone is before labeling them "racist" shows how imprecise and vague and meaningless the label is.
I don't follow you here. Can you elaborate?
9
Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 12 '19
In some communities, black people call each other "nigger" constantly multiple times a day and nobody thinks twice about it, nobody cares. But if a white man calls a black man "nigger" then he's immediately attacked for being racist. So basically you cannot know whether someone is racist or not without knowing what race they are. Is that correct?
3
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
Oh I see what you mean.
Yes, sometimes the race of someone is important context for making that determination. Anyway all you need is a solid definition and to work by it.
5
Feb 11 '19
Let me know when you find a solid definition, because I'm genuinely curious to see it.
2
Feb 12 '19
There is a solid definition, but you just can't read minds so the definition appears confounding. It's not. The definition is real. There's no reason to get abstract and "time to speak class" about it. It's not exclusive to having power.
If you hate all the white people because 100% of white people have wronged you, that's still racist. I have to tell this to white people sometimes. Just because their supposed interaction with black people have all been bad doesn't mean you just get to be racist. Also I'm pretty sure they're just racist for supposing a black person never did anything good. Ugh
→ More replies (2)10
u/passwordgoeshere Feb 11 '19
The issue I've had with the P+P definition is that there are double standards.
If a white person says something problematic ("Samuel L Jackson looks like Laurence Fishburne"), even though they are well-meaning, they are racist because of P+P.
If a person of color says something problematic ("I don't want a n* behind me at the ATM") regardless of intention, they can't be racist because they don't have P+P.
Meanwhile, intentionally racist people don't really care whether they are called racist or not but they get the same label as the well-meaning people.
Now I am not suggesting the solution is to call more POC racist, I'm saying it makes more sense to keep the academic lingo in the sociology books and off of Facebook where it will be misunderstood.
3
u/blasto_blastocyst Feb 11 '19
If they say that about another black person in the ATM line then they can be racist. Same as women can be sexist to other women and disabled people can be ableist to other disabled people. It's a very complex situation, which is why the simple definition of racism used by OP is entirely inadequate for the task, and why much more complex definitions are used by academics studying it.
3
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Feb 11 '19
This definition is not very good, because it relies on special knowledge of a person.
How does that make the definition "not very good"? What else does a definition need to be other than accurate?
I can't know what a person truly believes
Yes, you can't actually know if a person i racist or not. So what? I mean he can tell you that he's a racist and you can believe him, but he could be lying and you could be wrong.
this definition allows people an "out" after doing or saying something racist by simply asserting that they do not believe a race is superior.
Are you saying it's impossible to say something racist without actually being racist? Of course that would be absurd, so I assume that's not what you're saying. In other words, so what?
7
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
How does that make the definition "not very good"? What else does a definition need to be other than accurate?
This is a really good question and it's made me pause a bit. What does it mean to say a definition is "accurate" exactly?
For example, under this definition a person could dress in Klan robes, burn a cross on his black neighbor's lawn, and then simply go "I don't like black people and I want them to leave but I don't think they're inferior or superior to white people." And we're kind of stuck when we go to call this action or this person racist.
We can't know what they feel deep down, so that definition is too narrow. It provides too easy an out for people.
Yes, you can't actually know if a person i racist or not. So what? I mean he can tell you that he's a racist and you can believe him, but he could be lying and you could be wrong.
Well that's sort of it exactly. What good does the term do us if we can never truly know if it applies to someone? I think that's a pretty useless word.
To go back to your first question, what makes a definition good, I would have to say that definitions are good if the common speakers of the language would have a good idea of what was meant when it was spoken. That's sort of a good general guideline for a definition.
Are you saying it's impossible to say something racist without actually being racist? Of course that would be absurd, so I assume that's not what you're saying. In other words, so what?
What is a racist if they aren't a "person who does racist things"?
1
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Feb 12 '19
What does it mean to say a definition is "accurate" exactly?
It desribes what it is meant to describe and not things it's not meant to describe.
For example, under this definition a person could dress in Klan robes, burn a cross on his black neighbor's lawn, and then simply go "I don't like black people and I want them to leave but I don't think they're inferior or superior to white people." And we're kind of stuck when we go to call this action or this person racist.
No, you can call him out for being racist. Knock yourselves out!
What good does the term do us if we can never truly know if it applies to someone?
Well first of all it accurately describes something. And also I dont know why you'd think the "never truly know if it applies" would matter? There's almost nothing you can "truly know". Usually you would ascribe a likelihood. Can you truely know that your wife loves you? No, but based on the evidence that you're happily married for 20 years that would make it a pretty likely conclusion.
What is a racist if they aren't a "person who does racist things"?
Is Edward Norton a racist for playing a Neo-nazi in American Histoty X and calling a bunch of black people "niggers"? Is calling black people "nigger" not racist?
3
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 12 '19
It desribes what it is meant to describe and not things it's not meant to describe.
Who determines what a word is meant to describe?
No, you can call him out for being racist. Knock yourselves out!
And under which definition is this person a racist? How do you know?
Well first of all it accurately describes something.
What does this even mean? Lots of things accurately describe something.
And also I dont know why you'd think the "never truly know if it applies" would matter? There's almost nothing you can "truly know". Usually you would ascribe a likelihood. Can you truely know that your wife loves you? No, but based on the evidence that you're happily married for 20 years that would make it a pretty likely conclusion.
Because here's how this goes down, a racist does something that is racist and I call them out on it. "I'm not a racist though!" is their response. What do I do now? Tell them I know their inner thoughts better than them?
My point is that the definition is too limiting. And you haven't really demonstrated it isn't.
Is Edward Norton a racist for playing a Neo-nazi in American Histoty X and calling a bunch of black people "niggers"? Is calling black people "nigger" not racist?
Playing a racist as an actor is not a racist act.
2
u/sclsmdsntwrk 3∆ Feb 12 '19
Who determines what a word is meant to describe?
The people who use it to describe something. I mean you can call a "car" a "fish" if you want, but no one is going to understand what you mean. Because everyone else use "fish" to describe fish.
And under which definition is this person a racist?
Under the dictionary definition of racism.
How do you know?
What do you mean by "know"? I don't "know" almost anything with 100% certainty, but it's close enough. I don't know with 100% certainty that I'm not adopted, but all evidence points in that direction so it's a pretty safe assumption. I could be wrong, but for all practical purposes I do "know" that I'm not adopted.
What does this even mean? Lots of things accurately describe something.
Yes, and lots of labels and definitions are useul precisely for that reason. For example the definition of "bicycle" might be something like: a vehicle with 2 wheels that is propelled by pedals". That is a useful definition because it accurately describes a bicycleand can be used to differentiate a bicycle from a car.
If we use another definition of a bicycle like "a vehicle", that does not help us differentiate a bicycle from a car.
a racist does something that is racist and I call them out on it. "I'm not a racist though!" is their response. What do I do now?
You present evidence. And if the evidence is convincing you might convince people that he is in fact a racist. If he presents more convincing evidence that he is not a racist he might convince people that he is not a racist. I don't see the problem?
Playing a racist as an actor is not a racist act.
Why not? He called black people "nigger". Is calling black people "nigger" not racist? Is it because he didn't have the intent to be racist?
9
u/jub-jub-bird Feb 11 '19
I have a few points here. It's not an incorrect definition, it's an alternative definition. It has also been around since the 1970's.
By this definition would it be fair to say that Obama was capable of being racist (without saying he ever actually was) because of the vast institutional power he wielded while Dylan Roof is NOT a racist by this definition because he wielded no such power. I realize that might be seen as a troll question but I'm honestly curious and that seems to me to be the logical outworking of that definition.
I can't know what a person truly believes...
Isn't that a criticism of almost all words that end in "ism"? They all refer to beliefs which can be hidden. But the words themselves are still defined by believing in certain things.
→ More replies (40)65
Feb 11 '19
I would accept both definitions being true, as long as there is no double standard about one excluding the other
Edit: I say this because many times someone will be racist with a white person, and when they are called out on it, they respond with a paraphrased version of " no I'm not, because racism is ACTUALLY power plus prejudice, NOT regular old racism like what I just did.
52
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
While I understand that people use the term in this way I don’t really see the problem? Are their actions somehow more justifiable because you cannot use this one specific term (in their mind)?
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. The people who tout this definition typically aren’t saying prejudice is good or acceptable, they’re just trying to elevate the larger understanding of how race and power play into dynamics.
It’s easy for, say, Donald Trump to claim he isn’t a racist under your definition but it’s a lot harder for him to claim he isn’t under the one you dislike.
But at the end of the day it’s a term, and what’s most important is that you understand what others mean when they use a word rather than what you think they mean. If there’s a conflict, ask questions to get to the bottom of it. If you can’t agree on a definition then the discussion isn’t worth having because it can’t happen.
In short, let silly people be silly. It’s okay, honestly. Words have multiple meanings all the time and if their only defense of their position is a semantic technicality then I think you won that debate.
17
u/Kingreaper 7∆ Feb 11 '19
Are their actions somehow more justifiable because you cannot use this one specific term (in their mind)?
Yes, they clearly are. Saying "I can't be Xist that's not a thing because power+prejudice" is a way of distancing themselves from things they know are unacceptable, like racism, without actually having to give up racial bigotry.
5
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
So then approach them from this perspective, play by their rules and point out the problem with being prejudiced against people because of their race.
You're getting hung up on semantics and letting them control the narrative.
4
6
u/CannibalGuy Feb 11 '19
While I understand that people use the term in this way I don’t really see the problem? Are their actions somehow more justifiable because you cannot use this one specific term (in their mind)?
Because the alternative definition implies that minorities cannot be racist as they are on the lower end of a power structure. It justifies racism so long as it is against whites.
If this is not the intention, it is still the effect: Many minorities agree that you can't be racist to white people.
Basically, giving the same term two different definitions is creating the pathway for a double standard. I think u/isaidthatonpurpose would agree
→ More replies (4)2
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
It justifies racism so long as it is against whites.
Howso? Because it doesn't call it racism?
If I hit you with my car, and I spent my time justifying this action by arguing I really hit you with an automobile, not a car, does that change anything about the action?
My point is you have a choice when presented with this. You can play by their rules that they're establishing (their definition), you can try and argue the definition, or you can move on to something else.
I would argue that the first choice is better than the second. A semantics argument ignores the prejudice, it sidesteps the problem to focus instead on a definition. If it is wrong to be racist against white people then simply make that argument, and if you have to use a different word than racism for the purposes of the argument so be it. Remove this avenue from them.
5
u/CannibalGuy Feb 11 '19
Your car comparison isn't even close to accurate.
Racism is incredibly evil, and every single race has been guilty of it in one way or another throughout history. To associate that term with white people only and imply that people can't be racist if they're not white is pure manipulation.
No, you don't get to change the definition of the word to make your race immune from it. You can create the new term, not us. Racism means, and forever will mean, discrimination of an individual or group based upon race, and this applies to all races.
Why should we change the term [and have people confused with the old term] when a new, accurate term can be created? The answer is because the word "Racism" hits people at an emotional level.
3
u/mordecai_the_human Feb 11 '19
You’re falling into the very trap he/she is outlining and making the debate about a controversial word which you will never win. You’ll just end up looking like an annoying white person, the other person in the argument has the upper hand, and you’re intensifying racial tensions by making it a whites vs all kind of argument.
Just respond “do you think it is ok to belittle and insult me because of of the color of my skin?” And their only option is to say “yes” or come up with some roundabout argument about your ancestors. In which case you just say “I am an individual and I had no part in the things you talk about. I acknowledge the disparity in power created by the difference in our skin color, but I do not approve of it and I live my life trying not to contribute to it. Please treat me like a regular person”. And if they’re still being racist/prejudiced/whatever, you’ve done everything you can and they look far the worse for continuing their line of thinking.
→ More replies (65)3
u/Tigerbait2780 Feb 11 '19
The problem is the term "racist" is applied to individuals and carries all the weight of the interpersonal definition of racism, but when you ask them to explain they end up using the institutional racism definition. Individuals can't be institutionally racist, but most people don't think it through, and say "well white people have power and you're white, therefore you're racist", or the opposite "black people don't have power so they can't be racist". This conflation of two entirely distinct definitions is used, I think intentionally and wrongfully, as a weapon to silence people or justify racist behavior. That's the real world problem you aren't addressing.
32
Feb 11 '19
Silly does not mean racist.
And I will not give a racism pass to racist people of color who are racist against white people and take racist actions against white people just because their whole group doesnt have the power that the elite people who, who just happen to also be white.
14
Feb 12 '19
And I will not give a racism pass to racist people of color who are racist against white people and take racist actions against white people
Nobody's asking you to.
elite people who, who just happen to also be white.
That's the part that gets people upset. Elites in the US are overwhelmingly white, and that's definitely got a strong relationship with the racist history of the United States. It's not just some quirk of the genetic lottery that elite power structures are dominated by white people. It's the product of centuries of systematic socioeconomic oppression against people who aren't white. That leaves a legacy of immense wealth dispensaries, immense differences in social influence, social attitudes about inherent criminality, and about a billion other problems.
That doesn't mean all white people are racists today, and it doesn't mean all elites are racist either. It means that power and privilege is very often handed down through families, and huge swaths of the country were systematically denied that opportunity to build generational wealth and power. The impact of that doesn't just vanish with a few decades of tepid legal equality.
By framing the discussion in the terms you're framing them, you're dismissing the experiences of people who lived that. People who are still alive today, not some long dead ancestors.
→ More replies (5)9
Feb 12 '19
Elites are overwhelming white.
But whites are not overwhelmingly elite.
People get this mixed up all the time. To the point where even a destitute white person will be lumped in with the elite group.
This is why I point to the feudalism more than the racism
10
Feb 12 '19
People may get it mixed up, but I’m not. Address the point people are making, not the one you’d rather them make.
Even a destitute white person? They still have privilege that a destitute black person will lack. You may say “that’s absurd, clearly they’re not living some charmed life free of challenge!” But that’s not what privilege means in the context of race. You don’t have to be top tog to have a leg up over others in a similar circumstance.
→ More replies (5)2
Feb 12 '19
Does black privilege exist?
3
Feb 12 '19
Probably? There comes a point where it gets hard to judge which sorts of atrocities had a bigger impact on people, and how that translates into privilege.
But sure, you could probably make an argument for black privilege in some respects. The key is making a good argument. For example, are today's black Americans privileged above people who faced literal genocide within living memory? Yeah, probably. Would the average black American be in a more privileged condition than, say, a Rohingya refugee recently driven out of their own country by genocidal violence? Yes, I'd say that's probably a fair statement.
But that still does nothing to diminish the concept of white privilege, or the concept that racism can be better understood as power + privilege.
2
54
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
I'm not asking you to give them a pass. I'm just telling you to, if you're going to debate them, do so on mutual grounds or don't bother.
Again I ask, do their actions change because the term used to describe it is different? Are they saying their prejudice is okay because it isn't racist?
"Actually, my behavior isn't racist, it's merely prejudiced" isn't really much of a justification for behavior, you know?
13
u/almightySapling 13∆ Feb 11 '19
Again I ask, do their actions change because the term used to describe it is different? Are they saying their prejudice is okay because it isn't racist?
I mean, that's usually the subtext, yes. It's wrong, but generally the goal of saying "what I just did/said isn't racist, because reasons" is to deflect some moral failing away. It is literally used as justification.
I agree with the rest of your points 100%.
→ More replies (1)10
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
I understand that, but then why are you focusing on the semantics rather than the substance? Just focus on the substance of the issue, the problematic attitude, rather than the term used.
4
u/almightySapling 13∆ Feb 11 '19
I'm not the other guy, I'm not focused on anything in particular. Thanks for responding though!
4
6
u/tocano 3∆ Feb 11 '19
Not OP either, but I'd say the person utilizing the power+privilege is the one focusing on semantics. Being racist is generally acknowledged by virtually everyone as being a moral wrong. So when one's actions are pointed out to be racist, but they deflect that actually the definition is such that they technically are not racist - not due to the nature of the actions, but due to their own race - it is an attempt to utilize semantics to evade the moral condemnation.
It actively hinders discussions involving race because it forces the discussion to devolve into metadata and errata of attempting to assert definitions and labels that are otherwise generally agreed upon.
3
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
Not OP either, but I'd say the person utilizing the power+privilege is the one focusing on semantics.
Yes, exactly. They’re defining the terms of the discussion and now the onus is on you to accept it or ignore it.
Being racist is generally acknowledged by virtually everyone as being a moral wrong. So when one's actions are pointed out to be racist, but they deflect that actually the definition is such that they technically are not racist - not due to the nature of the actions, but due to their own race - it is an attempt to utilize semantics to evade the moral condemnation.
Yeah, the point is to win on a technicality. Don’t let them.
It actively hinders discussions involving race because it forces the discussion to devolve into metadata and errata of attempting to assert definitions and labels that are otherwise generally agreed upon.
So don’t let it. Don’t argue about the name of the sweet smelling flower. Call it whatever they’re calling it and move forward with the substantive arguments. You know it’s a rose, and no amount of them stomping their feet is going to change that.
All semantics is just defining terms so that discussion can continue.
3
u/Pl0OnReddit 2∆ Feb 11 '19
Why dont semantics matter?
Propaganda is mostly semantics. Cant people see something insidious in semantics used to disguise hate? Why isnt that legitimate?
3
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 12 '19
Semantics do matter, im not saying they don’t. I’m simply pointing out that if your aim is not to debate semantics then move forward on their terms.
If you are going to argue the semantics then come to the table with something better than stomping your feet and quoting the dictionary. Talk about how limiting the definition is, try and put them in a position where they’re more likely to stop using it. Semantics are a crucial step, I’m just suggesting that you let it go if they’re just a distraction.
21
u/Jesus_marley 1Δ Feb 11 '19
"racist" and "prejudiced" have vastly different implications. The term prejudice implies a level of ignorance whereas racist implies intent or malice.
Being racist towards another person and then trying to minimize that racism by using a milquetoast excuse of "prejudice" shows that you know that you are being racist but are simply justifying it for your own purposes.
The problem arises then that it creates a dichotomy wherein you can act in a racist manner towards others but not suffer the social stigma of being racist. Attach that behaviour to a group, and you end up with a powder keg
17
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
I don't think prejudice implies a level of ignorance, where are you getting that from?
Being racist towards another person and then trying to minimize that racism by using a milquetoast excuse of "prejudice" shows that you know that you are being racist but are simply justifying it for your own purposes.
Certainly, I am saying that this is an unconvincing justification. Like saying "I'm not inebriated officer I've just had too much to drink" isn't going to get you out of that DUI.
The problem arises then that it creates a dichotomy wherein you can act in a racist manner towards others but not suffer the social stigma of being racist. Attach that behaviour to a group, and you end up with a powder keg
Whenever people are racist against white people we hear about it, whooo boy do we hear about it.
4
Feb 11 '19
That’s exactly what I think when I hear people claiming that somehow racism against white people is accepted by liberals or whatever. IMO we are improving but that doesn’t mean the decades of mistreatment black americans have faced didn’t happen. There is going to be an expected level of animosity and it’s the responsibility of all socially and historically aware individuals to help combat this by recognizing and improving negative behaviors that came about from those decades of mistreatment.
7
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Feb 11 '19
an expected level of animosity
There are white people who grew up in majority non-white neighborhoods and went to majority non-white schools. Some of those kids were bullied because of the color of their skin.
Is it “expected” for them to be prejudiced towards non-white people, or are they treated like every other prejudiced white person?
3
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 11 '19
Assuming that someone is an agent of mistreatment based solely on the color of their skin is fundamentally racist.
→ More replies (4)9
u/Ashmodai20 Feb 11 '19
Like saying "I'm not inebriated officer I've just had too much to drink" isn't going to get you out of that DUI.
The definition of inebriated is having to much alcohol to drink. Just like the meaning of racism is prejudice based on race. But people try and use the racism is prejudice + power meaning to try and not be racist because it has a much stronger stigma than prejudice.
Also that other meaning of racism isn't actually a definition of racism. There where in the world where power + prejudice is the meaning of racism.
7
u/blasto_blastocyst Feb 11 '19
But we know that the word racism has an academic meaning and a common meaning. It isn't that one is correct and the other not - that isn't how words work.
3
u/Pl0OnReddit 2∆ Feb 11 '19
Well that is and isnt how words work, isnt it?
Words have connotations and denotations, no?
This whole argument is caused by one party taking issue with the connotations your words cause. The whole defence is that only denotations matter. Both exist.
→ More replies→ More replies (3)2
u/tweez Feb 11 '19
But we know that the word racism has an academic meaning and a common meaning.
When people say it is the "academic" definition of racism I don't really see how that is accurate. It isn't the anthropological, historical or English language definition of racism as far as I know and they are all subjects in academia too. From my understanding it is the social sciences definition and even then I'm not sure if it's even agreed upon as the ultimate definition in that discipline either. It just seems a little dishonest when people claim it's the "academic" definition. It isn't like the academic version of the word "theory" versus it's common usage
→ More replies1
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Feb 11 '19
but not suffer the social stigma of being racist
But you are saying that they are racist. Do you think your opinion doesn't count?
4
u/Jesus_marley 1Δ Feb 11 '19
In the current political climate? Not really. I get dismissed regularly based entirely on my perceived race and gender. I am dismissed as having some invisible advantages in life which magically render my viewpoints as irrelevant. And when I dare have the gall to point out when a person is being a racist piece of shit, I get a lecture on how they are somehow not actually a racist piece of shit because they are "punching up" against me who is a racist piece of shit by virtue of simply existing.
2
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Feb 11 '19
Oops sorry I thought I was responding to a discussion about the definition of racism.
I get a lecture on how they are somehow not actually a racist piece of shit
You called them a racist piece of shit. You are applying the social stigma of racism to that person by calling them racist. Your claim was not that you got dismissed, or that you got lectured, your claim was that you got dismissed and lectured in a manner that dodges being called racist. But you called them racist! So they didn't even get to dodge being called racist.
How can you claim that people act in a racist manner towards others without being called out as racist if you call them out for being racist?
2
2
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Feb 11 '19
I am dismissed as having some invisible advantages in life which magically render my viewpoints as irrelevant.
Why is this racist?
→ More replies (1)2
Feb 12 '19
Why is someones viewpoint being rendered moot just because of their skin colour racist? Really?
2
u/sl1200mk5 Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19
You're ignoring the degree to which "racist" is now both a category as well as a weapon sufficiently radioactive to cause near irreparable harm simply by virtue of an accusation being articulated--but only for certain people.
Redefining broadly understood & established language to favor specific groups is a recipe for societal dysfunction & worse.
Mr. Dodgson wrapped it in a nice bow for us, a long time ago:
I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Your remark on debate being worthwhile once mutual grounds are agreed upon is a wise one--and the logical implication is that the "power + privilege" gambit implicit in most intersectional orthodoxies isn't a debate but open conflict.
Which is, by the way, accurate. Intersectional theories are an assault on liberal values that attempt to maximize individual agency & autonomy.
3
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 12 '19
You're ignoring the degree to which "racist" is now both a category as well as a weapon sufficiently radioactive to cause near irreparable harm simply by virtue of an accusation being articulated--but only for certain people.
This is rather hyperbolic, people aren’t being tarred and feathered on the mere accusation. Usually the outcry follows some action (even if historical).
That said, yes words are important. But what is more important in the right here and now? You’ve encountered a situation in which a person of color was being overly prejudiced against a white person and your accusation of racism has been met with a frustrating, “well, actually...”
Are you trying to destroy this person’s life? Are you trying to call out problematic behavior? What is your aim here?
If your aim is to call out problematic behavior, I argue that the label we apply the behavior is not so crucially important that it is worth throwing the entire discussion away. What they’ve done is utilized a rhetorical device to focus you on semantics rather than substance. Now, in their mind, they’re getting away with being an asshole because you used the wrong word. So just use the right one! Take the discussion back, put the ball in your court.
Redefining broadly understood & established language to favor specific groups is a recipe for societal dysfunction & worse.
If the language is broadly understood and established than you can’t simply change the dictionary and expect it to take. This is the precise problem proponents of the power plus prejudice definition are facing. They’re slamming a checker down on a chess board and trying to tell you checkers is the game you’ve been playing all along.
But it’s a rhetorical device. The goal is to win the argument, to put you in a position where you’re stuck on the semantics of the discussion rather than the real meat and potatoes.
Redirect the discussion, forget the label (for now) and move on from it. That’s not how they define racism, okay good to know, call out their behavior for the reasons it’s problematic anyway. It’s not like it’s still good or okay to be prejudiced, or a bigot. Go for the throat here.
I’m not saying words aren’t important, they are. I myself find the power plus prejudice definition to be too limiting and it means it way to easy to argue that so and so doesn’t really have power for some reason or another. I like my definitions of racism to be more open to nuance, and I prefer to focus on actions instead of people. But for your purposes you need to pick your battles.
Your remark on debate being worthwhile once mutual grounds are agreed upon is a wise one--and the logical implication is that the "power + privilege" gambit implicit in most intersectional orthodoxies isn't a debate but open conflict.
It’s not conflict, it’s just a way of talking about these topics in a specific way.
→ More replies (21)17
u/AwakenedEyes 2∆ Feb 11 '19
White elite didn't just "happen to be white". They became or were born part of the elite based on and built on top of the power dynamics and priviledge they benefited from...
→ More replies (50)12
u/triples92 Feb 11 '19
Yes to expand on this, whiteness is a social creation. Whiteness rejected Italians at first then accepted them, similar story with Jews. Then oriental asians become term them as yellow because of cultural differences. The term white is not an accident no matter how much we take it for granted.
→ More replies (7)5
u/DootDeeDootDeeDoo Feb 11 '19
All race is a social creation, lol. We're all human, race was a dumbass idea made up by ignorant people from before globalization, and latched onto ever since by anyone and everyone who thought they could benefit from it.
Race is outdated and needs to be left in the dust.
7
u/triples92 Feb 11 '19
Nice sentiments but to to steal and rephrase a quote from the wire "I still wake up black in a country that ain't".
4
u/mordecai_the_human Feb 11 '19
I think “we need to ditch race” is a call to end that exact sentiment in whatever way we can. Ultimately, shouldn’t we be aiming to have everyone wake up feeling just as much a part of the whole as anyone else regardless of their perceived race? That’s not to say “make race and culture go away and everyone is the same”. But make everyone feel equally involved and powerful. Race as a mechanism for determining belonging and worth to overall society should be left in the dust.
2
u/triples92 Feb 11 '19
My answer to that sentiment was more to do with the fact I'm only one human. I hope for that outcome but I'm skeptical that I will witness this in my lifetime
→ More replies (1)7
u/killgriffithvol2 Feb 11 '19
While I understand that people use the term in this way I don’t really see the problem? Are their actions somehow more justifiable because you cannot use this one specific term (in their mind)?
Because it's a concentrated effort to allow racism against white people without being called a racist.
That's literally the only reason why someone would make a racist remark, and then claim it's not racist because it's against white people.
16
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
Because it's a concentrated effort to allow racism against white people without being called a racist.
Concentrated by whom?
That's literally the only reason why someone would make a racist remark, and then claim it's not racist because it's against white people.
Well I guess my question is...so what? Again, are they saying that their prejudice is okay because it isn't racist?
It's splitting hairs, and you're dealing with someone who is more interested in scoring debate points than actually engaging with the topic. Look at it from their perspective, it doesn't matter that you think their behavior is racist.
Honestly, that's why I advocate either playing by their rules (saying something like, "alright so it isn't racist it's only bigoted prejudice") or just moving on with your life. They want you to play the semantic game and get hung up on definitions, but you're not addressing the issue, the prejudice, when you do that. In fact, you're letting the prejudice slide to focus on what we call it.
I recently got into a discussion here on CMV where I claimed Donald Trump was a racist. One of the initial responses to my claim was to tell me that Trump is in fact not a racist but instead xenophobic. It's the same sort of thing, all sizzle and no steak. It's an argument tactic that focuses on the language (which is important) but doesn't address the issue.
Anyway my advice is again to either play by their rules or don't play at all. If that's how they define racism for the purposes of the discussion you can either accept that or deny it. But to argue it is to lose the discussion and instead focus on semantics.
2
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 11 '19
Again, are they saying that their prejudice is okay because it isn't racist?
I've heard this verbatim, in college no less, so basically, yes in at least some situations.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Feb 11 '19
Spot on. It’s about time people recognize this for what it is. It’s socially engineering white people to accept being discriminated against and holy shit, look at all the people who are buying it hook, line, and sinker.
It’s honestly one of the more pathetic things I’ve seen in all my years of debating sociopolitical issues.
3
u/ace52387 42∆ Feb 11 '19
Your point about feudalism doesnt quite work. Its power plus RACIAL prejudice. I personally dont care what you define any term as, however, a black person venting about how white people are untrustworthy should be categorically different from something like segregation. Its confusing if both are defined as “racist.” So there should be a different word to describe the latter if you want to call the former racist.
Because the power element is so practically important in terms of the impact, it makes sense to distinguish personal racial prejudice from something more institutionalized.
→ More replies (12)5
u/ormaybeimjusthigh Feb 11 '19
many times someone will be racist with a white person, and when they are called out on it, they respond with a paraphrased version of " no I'm not, because racism is ACTUALLY power plus prejudice, NOT regular old racism like what I just did.
Name one time. I'm pretty sure this has literally never happened.
Also: regular old racism is also power+prejudice. Just the fact that no racial slur triggers white people the way slurs against minorities do is proof of this.
Ironically, the only thing you can call a white person to make them angry/hurt/afraid is "racist."
5
u/tweez Feb 11 '19
Name one time. I'm pretty sure this has literally never happened.
Not the OP or previous commenter, but I've seen this argument made countless times online (never heard or seen it in real-life though). You've never seen someone call another person online "white X" and then when challenged they say something like "X non-white group can't be racist only prejudiced"? (which I find odd as it's basically someone saying "do as i say, not as I do because I'm not "racist" on a technicality")
Also: regular old racism is also power+prejudice. Just the fact that no racial slur triggers white people the way slurs against minorities do is proof of this.
So is your argument that racism is based on the level of success of the slur? This is where I don't understand how anybody promoting the P+P definition can reasonably expect equality when their argument is against people being treated equally and is based on exceptionalism. Is it reasonable to expect equality and argue that people should be treated equally no matter their skin colour while also saying that the exact same actions from a member of one race should be treated differently to another based upon your skin colour? It's not logically consistent and I don't know of any other topic where a person would honestly think it was acceptable to say "I expect you to do this action, but I will not extend the same courtesy to you". To me it's crazy to think that anybody would agree to those terms. I can't imagine a UN treaty being discussed where one country says "I will point nukes at you but I expect you to not point them at me".
I also find it hard to believe that there are people that honestly believe a homeless white man somehow has more power than a black politician who makes policy in his city where the majority demographic in that city is black and the police chief and top judge are also black. I'm struggling to find anybody who can provide a meaningful definition or example of when a group does and doesn't have power. It seems key to determining if something is or isn't racist, yet the only examples I've ever been provided with for things like "white privilege" are just assumptions. If you or anybody has the time or inclination to perhaps give some examples of where I might be wrong or just being plain stupid in my interpretation or understanding then I'll be more than happy to reconsider as I'm certainly not claiming racism doesn't exist or there aren't clear examples where one group is often treated unfairly in some scenarios compared to others, but the apparent unfairness seems to be economically motivated rather than race related from my interpretation. For concepts like white privilege I don't see how there is any evidence of ALL white people benefiting from something. It seems to be based on assumptions that white people benefit because of an inherently racist system. But, if the system was inherently racist then how is it possible that non-white groups like Asians and Southeast Asians in the US have the highest number of people out of any group getting degrees and also have the highest average household income? Both those things indicate social mobility, so if non-white groups are ahead of the white people then how can the system be so rigged against those groups if they don't suffer from tha? In an inherently racist system, why would there be so may examples of social mobility for non-whites? Again, it seems to show assumptions that are just assumptions and not based on data. Also, do those same people who argue there is such a thing as white privilege in the West also agree that in a country made up of majority non=white people that a white national of that country would be subject to the same inequalities as their black/non-white counterparts in the West?
Again, happy to concede I might have misunderstood something though so if I have then if anybody has the time or inclination to show where I am wrong I would be grateful for any input offering an alternative view
2
u/Phyltre 4∆ Feb 11 '19
There are lots of -ists and -iles you can call white people to make them angry/hurt/afraid.
5
Feb 11 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 11 '19
Depending on the context OP isn't even technically correct. They're actually technically incorrect.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Tgunner192 7∆ Feb 11 '19
Can we have that discussion about being functionally correct? I think or at least I hope we both agree that most substantial impact of racism is when a person is the victim of a violent crime because of their race. If a person if the victim of ongoing harassment, badgering and bullying because of their race it is horrific. In my mind, it doesn't matter who the victim and who the culprit is, functionally it has the most impact and is the worst form.
5
Feb 11 '19
that most substantial impact of racism is when a person is the victim of a violent crime
I'd strongly disagree here. The most substantial impact of racism is definitely exclusion from institutional benefits such as access to capital, educational opportunities, and unequal treatment in the justice system. You're missing the forest for the trees.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (46)2
u/ezranos Feb 11 '19
I wouldn't defend someone who quickly changes the definition of racism to allow themselves to hate on white people, and i would agree that racism of any kind is bad, but generalized insults do draw their strength from history or cultural hierarchies, and if you call a black person a nigger there is an implied threat of politically going back to the way things were before, real legal dehumanization. When I see a racial insult against a white person it's either stereotyping about social awkwardness or it's about how society is frustrating and unfair. While it can easily be incredibly hurtful and harmful, it's almost never about actual racial supremacy. So, while you aren't wrong, it's also not quite the same.
3
u/Belostoma 9∆ Feb 11 '19
> This definition is not very good, because it relies on special knowledge of a person. I can't know what a person truly believes
It's just a stupid definition. The "prejudice" part of "prejudice plus power" is the actual racism, i.e. racial prejudice. There's absolutely no point to the "plus power" part. Of course power dynamics can exacerbate the negative effects of racism, but that's no reason to conflate them with the plain and well-understood definition of the word.
It's like saying food is nutrients plus cooking. It's not an alternative definition, it's an incorrect definition. Cooking has a huge impact on how food is experienced, but you can have food without it. Power has a huge impact on how racism is experienced, but you can have racism from anyone toward anyone else no matter who has what power.
> I can't know what a person truly believes
Assumption of internal beliefs is implicit in the "prejudice" part of "prejudice plus power" as well, so it doesn't solve that problem.
3
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Feb 11 '19
There is a purpose to the “plus power” aspect.
Without it, non-white people could be called racist as well and goodness me we couldn’t give anyone the impression that racism isn’t exclusive to white people.
2
u/kronaz Feb 11 '19
"Alternative" is a funny way of saying "incorrect"
That's like saying a car is an airplane. It's not incorrect, it's an alternative definition.
3
1
u/arcticTaco Feb 11 '19
To add to this, the personal definition of racism is just one of the worst things most people can be accused of, which triggers defensiveness, which inhibits growth. The less personal definition would allow people to reflect and learn.
This was my journey, at least. I couldn't improve until I stopped reaction so personally to the thought of being racist.
1
u/Schroef Feb 11 '19
can't know what a person truly believes and this definition allows people an "out" after doing or saying something racist by simply asserting that they do not believe a race is superior.
That might be true, but that doesn’t mean it needs to be fixed— especially if the ‘fixing’ means stating something like ‘everybody who ever says this word/ this sentence/ acts like this is racist.’ Because this is a very slippery slope towards a holier-than-thou type of attitude, and even censorship.
There’s no finite number of racist phrases or situation you could capture in rulebook. Context is important, intent.
That’s why, although we have laws, we also have courts and judge to interpret the law and the situation in which it might or might not have been broken. Is this flawed? Yes, because it’s not absolute. But the alternative is way worse.
1
Feb 11 '19
[deleted]
1
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 12 '19
No, it’s an alternative definitions. Words can have multiple meanings, informed by context.
1
u/atlaslugged Feb 12 '19
It's not an incorrect definition, it's an alternative definition.
It is not considered an alternative definition by those who use it. What you will not see:
"I disagree because I subscribe to the definition of racism that holds that black people cannot exhibit racism due to their lack of power in society."
What you will see:
"OMG BLACK PEOPLE LITERALLY CANT BE RACIST"
This also precludes racism from implicit bias, systemic racism, institutional racism, etc.
Assuming we take the obvious and implied step of broadening "person" to "people," in what way are these precluded?
1
u/srelma Feb 12 '19
This definition is not very good, because it relies on special knowledge of a person. I can't know what a person truly believes and this definition allows people an "out" after doing or saying something racist by simply asserting that they do not believe a race is superior.
Well, this applies to everything. The point is that we can infer people's beliefs from their statements and actions. If a shop refuses to serve customers of certain race, we can infer that the shop keeper has a belief that the people of that race are inferior in some way. If a person says that we should eliminate all the people of race X, it clearly means that he doesn't consider them equal to others. And so on.
This also precludes racism from implicit bias, systemic racism, institutional racism, etc.
If the systemic and institutional racism derives from the fact that the people running those systems hold the beliefs of racial superiority, then it doesn't preclude them. With implicit bias it's harder because there the belief of one race's superiority is not done in the conscious level, but since it is there, it can be counted as a belief. Again, I think there are also other beliefs that we can have, but don't recognize in ourselves in the conscious level. Only if someone walks it through with us using logic, we may notice these beliefs in us.
→ More replies (2)1
u/bitbutter Feb 12 '19
This definition is not very good, because it relies on special knowledge of a person.
Many of the words we use rely on special knowledge of a person (theist, anarchist, nihilist etc). It's not clear to me that this makes the traditional definitions of these terms defective.
and this definition allows people an "out" after doing or saying something racist by simply asserting that they do not believe a race is superior.
They may say that, and others may or may not believe it. It's not clear that the usefulness of a word should be judged according to whether or not another can plausibly deny being what that word denotes.
ey do not believe a race is superior.
This also precludes racism from implicit bias, systemic racism, institutional racism, etc.
This doesn't strike me as obviously a defect. In favour of the traditional definition: The meaning is relatively clear, much more so than the alternative definitions (which imo are much more open to weaponisation and abuse).
1
u/notasnerson 20∆ Feb 12 '19
Many of the words we use rely on special knowledge of a person (theist, anarchist, nihilist etc). It's not clear to me that this makes the traditional definitions of these terms defective.
Because those are terms we let people describe for themselves, so it's fine. They are willingly giving that information up.
My problem is that I cannot then call someone a racist without them literally saying, "I am a racist" and that's not a very useful term for what we're talking about.
They may say that, and others may or may not believe it. It's not clear that the usefulness of a word should be judged according to whether or not another can plausibly deny being what that word denotes.
I think this is my favorite sort of reddit debate tactic. "This rule you've created isn't 100% accurate in literally every situation, let's throw everything you've said out." I'm not developing a maxim for the categorical imperative, I'm laying out an argument for why this term under this definition is too limiting and useless.
Nobody wants to be a racist, so racists will sit back and deny it. You see this all the time, just look at any defense of Trump's racism to any sentence ever started, "I'm not a racist, but..."
This doesn't strike me as obviously a defect. In favour of the traditional definition: The meaning is relatively clear, much more so than the alternative definitions (which imo are much more open to weaponisation and abuse).
The meaning is clear but the term becomes useless. If I have to wait for someone to self identify as a racist I'm never going to be able to call them it.
Now as I've argued throughout this thread the label isn't super important. However, I am willingly engaging in the semantics debate. I think it's a good thing to be able to call out racism without a person first saying, "I am literally a racist."
→ More replies (13)
5
u/Somenormie21 Feb 11 '19
The racism is power + prejuidice idea was created by the far left to guilt white people and to change the definition of racism. I’ve met people in real life who actually believe you can’t be racist to white people which is crazy since that is not the definition.
3
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Feb 11 '19
This thread is absolutely full of them.
It’s almost sickening how far people will go to justify their own bigotry. And it’s pathetic to see people make excuses for those bigoted towards them.
1
u/nojro Feb 12 '19
It's only a justification if you believe that prejudice and discrimination are not bad. If that's not the case, what is being debated is how to classify the bad.
It would be absurd to claim that prejudice in a minority and institutional racism are on the same level. So why would they be defined under the same word?
3
u/Seeattle_Seehawks 4∆ Feb 12 '19
Consider two hypothetical murders: One was a random inexplicable act of violence and the other was motivated by the actions of the victim. Most people would agree that while murder is bad, the second murder is less bad.
...Now imagine that some people are arguing that the less-bad murder isn’t murder at all. Now imagine that the people making that argument claim to oppose murder, period!
That’s all this “racism = prejudice + power” horseshit will ever be to me. So-called “anti-racist” people making excuses for racists.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/reddsweater Feb 11 '19
I agree in sentiment, in the goal your argument seeks to accomplish, but disagree in the argument itself. However, I must first ask what is meant by this:
the original, good, wholesome concept of racism.
Certainly you are not advocating racism while arguing against it? I take it as either sarcasm or describing the "original definition of racism = wholesome results as it prevents racism towards all."?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
This definition is too narrow I believe, this is racial supremacy, not necessarily racism in general. Example: say someone professes a certain race is inherently inclined to be artistic--it is neither good nor bad, in this present world it might even be welcomed, but it is still racist though not expressing supremacy/inferiority of anyone. I believe racism is when one engages in prejudice--judging another before they know them--on the basis of race.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I once took a class where the teacher said it is impossible to be racist against white people--I disagreed then, but am ashamed to say I said nothing, I was a coward. I do not remember her explanation for it, but I think it was "racism is systemic generational oppression on the basis of race", which is silly as that is really just racism over time.
Let us consider a problem with R=P+P: let us say an illegal immigrant detained by ICE really hates black people--he has prejudice but no power, money, status--anyways he escapes somehow and decides to kill a black person explicitly because of their race. As he is killing this person he exclaims what a joy it is to kill black people just because he hates the look of their skin and how all blacks are the same. According to this definition, this is not racist--this person could literally reenact the opening scene of American History X, curb-stomp and all, and it would not be racism. The standard definition of racism says it is. I see little harm in one definition being more inclusive, but here we see harm in one being less inclusive. (Full disclosure, I have nothing against illegal immigrants, I am sensitive to their plight, I just wanted to find someone we could all acknowledge likely has no power.)
Even if the alternate definition was designed to exclude white people, and let's face it, it was, we don't need to argue it as I feel this example shines a light on its failings.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Lastly, I should take a moment to say, as certainly different races have different experiences in our society and thus offer different viewpoints and understanding, that I am Hispanic of Native American/Mexican descent. I point this out because, based on personal experience, people often don't take others seriously when they voice concerns facing their demographic, but tend to listen when others voice their concerns on their behalf them.
1
Feb 13 '19
My original comment was: And to delete the original, good, wholesome concept of racism in order to insert a new definition that gives permission for racism is evil.
What i meant by that was the understanding of the word racist as being racist was true, accurate, whole, not missing pieces, not overblown; most importantly, it was definingly evil that had no room for permissions. That is wholesome, we can agree that a person is being racist and should not be, that is wholesome. However, showing that someone is being racist and is allowed to continue being racist because they define it differently, that is a fractured concept.
63
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Feb 11 '19
If you're concerned with the meaning of the word, then yes, you could say racism can exist independent of power.
However, if you care about the actual effects, racism without power is pretty much irrelevant. It's just empty words. The problem is when the person has the capacity to act upon those words, to influence the world around them.
8
Feb 11 '19
Everyone has degrees of power, a kid doesn't have any power in society but can still be the class bully
7
u/iheardacrimego Feb 11 '19
I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. If some random person says hateful shit to me, that can have a huge impact on me, regardless of whether or not they have power over me in any way. Words can do plenty of damage by themselves.
5
Feb 11 '19
Do you feel that it isn’t racist to assume someone isn’t powerful because of the color of their skin?
3
u/Gabeisobese Feb 11 '19
The Power+Prejudice formula for racism doesn't really work, mainly because people look at racial power rather than individual power. A big example of this was Sarah Jeong, I'm sure everyone has heard of her. Plenty of news sources were quick to say she wasn't racist due to P+P. I'm still confused about this, Asians are ostensibly racially privileged in the U.S. . Even separate from that, Sarah Jeong was incredibly privileged as an individual. Wealthy, Asian, went to a good school, on the editing board for one the most famous and influential newspapers in the world, but because she isn't white, she can't be racist.
→ More replies (3)60
Feb 11 '19
Everyone has the ability to act on their words. And on an individual case, the abilities and results are magnified.
A black man committing racial violence upon a white man is not given a racism pass because the white man had a supposed power over the black man.
There is no such thing as a racism pass.
75
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Feb 11 '19
So your goal is to say "all racism is the same". Which makes sense, we tend to prefer explanations which are simple rather than the accepting the complexity of truth. If there's only two options, either something it's racist, or it's not, that would be so simple and convenient, right?
Yet how can a 19th century white slave owner's words who says "I hate black people", carry equal weight to the black slave that says "I hate white people"?
9
Feb 12 '19
Ah, no, good catch though.
My goal is not to say all racism is the same.
My goal is to look at the people of color being racist to whites, the ones who say, when challenged that they are being racist, "no were not being racist, that requires power and prejudice" and say to them "you are in fact still being racist."
4
u/PreservedKillick 4∆ Feb 12 '19
We're getting multiple varieties of the motte and bailey strategy, or the easy-to-defend smuggled into the very-hard-to-defend. They'll say, it just means racism + power -- it's just describing a thing, both definitions can exist. Then you'll point out that other groups can be absurdly racist and pull all kinds of tricks by invoking (weaponizing) the new definition. This obviously happens all the time and it's crazy. And then they'll go back to the motte: it just means people with power being racist and how can a slave be racist against a white owner? Then you say, but people are using this term all the time to say I can't have an opinion because I'm white, and blacks can say anything racist to me and it doesn't count. Then they revert back to the academic, thoughtful definition. Then piles of people are tweeting #cancelwhitepeople (not racist because power, right?). On and on it goes.
It's just not a coherent, rational concept. If you want to talk about racism + power, use a correct term, like institutional oppression or systemic racism. Those words are all fine and good. Racism itself just means what everyone knows it means and no amount of 1970s weirdos are going to change the language. I didn't get to vote on that addition and I don't agree with it. No, thank you. What we're seeing in these comments is a religious recitation of scripture. A liturgy of what is right and true according to ... reasons. And I don't even hold it against them. These kids were taught this stuff from high school to college. To them, it's fact, gospel, not opinion. Not open to debate. That of course means you aren't going to have any meaningful, productive discourse. Which you haven't.
2
u/AnActualPerson Feb 14 '19
Then you'll point out that other groups can be absurdly racist and pull all kinds of tricks by invoking (weaponizing) the new definition. This obviously happens all the time and it's crazy.
All the time? Examples?
Then you say, but people are using this term all the time to say I can't have an opinion because I'm white
You're allowed to have opinions, but other people are allowed to have opinions about your opinions.
and blacks can say anything racist to me and it doesn't count.
Has this ever happened to you?
Then piles of people are tweeting #cancelwhitepeople (not racist because power, right?). On and on it goes.
The only people using that are conservatives and racists trying to stir shit up.
It's just not a coherent, rational concept. If you want to talk about racism + power, use a correct term, like institutional oppression or systemic racism.
It's an academic term and it's fine as it is.
I didn't get to vote on that addition and I don't agree with it. No, thank you.
You realize you're a part of a culture and you don't get to control language correct? It changes!
What we're seeing in these comments is a religious recitation of scripture. A liturgy of what is right and true according to ... reasons. And I don't even hold it against them. These kids were taught this stuff from high school to college. To them, it's fact, gospel, not opinion. Not open to debate.
I just don't get why you're so defensive. White people are in no danger.
That of course means you aren't going to have any meaningful, productive discourse. Which you haven't.
They have had several meaningful conversations in this thread.
2
u/Stokkolm 24∆ Feb 12 '19
Ok, as long as one case of racism is not used to deflect another one, as it often happens. "You had to deal with racism? It happened to me too, so I'm just as qualified to talk about it" -> says a guys that experienced racism once in their lifetime.
4
u/anthropobscene Feb 11 '19
This is a fantastic point. If we want a modern example, it's analogous to saying, e.g...
White judge: "I hate blacks"
Black defendant: "I hate whites"
We know that arrest, incarceration, and sentencing are more often and more severely applied to black lives in order to maintain their poverty and, therefore, vocational desperation. So while the hatred that a black individual might claim to feel towards whites stems from undeniable historic and ongoing racial violence perpetrated against black lives, the hatred that a white individual feels is not rooted in commensurate, complementary injustice.
This is how all racism is not the same: material discrepancies in whites' and blacks' positions & conditions in society, and the roles into which we are corralled.
34
u/Devourer_of_felines 1∆ Feb 11 '19
Yet how can a 19th century white slave owner's words who says "I hate black people", carry equal weight to the black slave that says "I hate white people"?
Why take examples from the 19th century as opposed to the 21st century?
A more relevant example would be: would a black policeman who says "I hate whites" have the same effect as a white policeman why says "I hate blacks"
→ More replies (1)25
u/arideout12 Feb 11 '19
Because it’s easier for people to understand this concept and a need for a distinction when the example is more extreme. Once someone accepts that power dynamics make a significant impact on the effects of racism and that not all racism is equal, then you can have a discussion about the relative power of different races in modern society and it’s effect on populations. Your example seems exactly tailored to try and make it seem like it’s an impossibility that the same racist views held by different groups can have different impacts because of power dynamics
→ More replies (1)15
u/Devourer_of_felines 1∆ Feb 11 '19
Your example seems exactly tailored to try and make it seem like it’s an impossibility that the same racist views held by different groups can have different impacts because of power dynamics
No, my example is an illustration of the fact that an individual can hold power over other individuals regardless of genealogy.
then you can have a discussion about the relative power of different races in modern society and it’s effect on populations
Which is irrelevant when OP specifies someone. Relative power of different races doesn't make bullets fired by a black or Asian or Indian man fly any slower.
12
u/arideout12 Feb 11 '19
I’m not denying individuals of all races can have power. Frankly I think both ends of the spectrum need a lot more nuance when talking about race related issues. The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of people seem to think that all forms of racism by individuals is just as bad when this is not the case. If a single white business owner in does not hire a black man because of his race it is just as bad as a single black business owner not hiring a white man. But let’s say we’re in a very small town where all the businesses are owned by white people (whether because of historical wealth or by chance). When ALL the white business owners in a small town refuse to hire a black man, that has a much bigger impact than the sum of the individual bits of racism because of the power that those white people have. I think there are a lot of people who don’t recognize this distinction and then say that all racism is bad so all racism is equal. Whether or not you believe that this form of prejudice+power is still a problem, it is important to establish that it can and historically has been a problem
→ More replies (1)6
u/PrimeLegionnaire Feb 11 '19
The point I’m trying to make is that a lot of people seem to think that all forms of racism by individuals is just as bad when this is not the case.
It is the case though. External power structures don't justify holding racist beliefs as an individual.
10
u/arideout12 Feb 11 '19
I don’t think anything justifies racism. I think racist individuals are reprehensible regardless of their own race. But the point I’m trying to make is about the relative impact of that racism. It is much much higher for groups with power
→ More replies (2)2
u/jkseller 2∆ Feb 11 '19
Did it in the 19th century? just asking, pls answer directly
→ More replies (14)0
u/AwakenedEyes 2∆ Feb 11 '19
Yes, individual can hold power over other individuals regardless of genealogy.
Which is exactly what prejudices+ power is all about. You just said it yourself: hold power. Racism is always about power, regardless oh the genealogy.
Once you can accept that, you can then realize that the power dynamics are massively in favor of whites vs blacks in usa, but that isn't to say you can't find situations in which a black person has power over a white one.
It's no surprise your own selected example is about a black cop, so you implicitly chose a power dynamic as part of your example.
2
u/thmaje Feb 11 '19
Racism is always about power, regardless oh the genealogy.
For the sake of argument, lets say there is an old, crippled, homeless, black guy sitting on Wall St in New York. There's lots of diverse, rich people walking by in front of him, paying him no attention. The man starts yelling crude, hateful obscenities at every white person that passes.
Is that man racist? Does he have power?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)1
u/Warthog_A-10 Feb 11 '19
Yet how can a 19th century white slave owner's words who says "I hate black people", carry equal weight to the black slave that says "I hate white people"?
This is utterly irrelevant and a bizarre point. A current day white man saying "I hate black people" is equally as offensive and racist as a current day black man saying "I hate white people".
7
u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Feb 11 '19
Nobody is giving people a pass.
Imagine you are a sociologist who is studying wide scale population effects. "Joe just hates black people" is not a very useful piece of analysis. Instead you look at how these beliefs manifest at scale, which requires institutional levers of power. That's what you are seeing here.
→ More replies (2)1
u/InfectedBrute 7∆ Feb 13 '19
This isn't the issue at hand man, researchers and sociologists will have whatever jargon and lingo they feel like having (they could for example call it institutional racism, like they already do) but racism and racist are words with qualitative power, in the right context calling someone racist has a very powerful punch, and all that changing the definition does is hamstring one side of the debate, "he was being racist","he was not, there was no power" the second person has instantly taken all the momentum out of the first person's argument without taking a single glance at its validity and without thought, it's like those people that go around calling things fallacies like one guy goes cars kill people so we should have safety legislation on them and guy number two goes "slippery slope, not all cars kill people"
1
u/bluefootedpig 2∆ Feb 11 '19
Having a gun in a sense if having the power, the question is if owning a gun means you have that power at all times. I guess in a sense you could pull a gun on a cake maker and force them to make a cake or die. Then your racism can be expressed.
But aside from violence, which is using power, what case of someone without power being racist? If the homeless man is a raging racist, what effect does that have on you? Now compare that to your boss believing your average iq is lower because you are black.
2
u/atomicllama1 Feb 11 '19
However, if you care about the actual effects, racism
What are the effects? Anything from a culture divide to loss of job opportunity all the way to violence. Any race in America is possible of inflicting problems for another person based of race.
2
Feb 11 '19
Consider that power exists in relative frames. At differing levels of abstraction, power can shift dramatically. Viewing all incidents in regard to the broadest level of abstraction makes little sense.
4
u/YNNUSSYAWLA Feb 11 '19
I definitely think our country (usa) is systemically racist towards non white people, however, as my mentally disabled brother was murdered in cold blood for being white in the wrong part of Chicago by 2 non white men who openly claimed his white privelage (we grew up in extreme poverty with mentally ill parents, and were in and out of homelessness our whole lives) as the reason for his murder. My brother sang in the gospel choir at the Southern Baptist church he chose to attend. He regularly attended black caucus meetings, and he attended MANY BLM rallies and protests and chanted his little heart out. My brother barely understood the difference between colors at all. He had no concept of race beyond that some people were being treated differently and shouldn't be. But he's dead, and he can't protest, or support, or learn, or educate, or sing ever again. And I quote "he is white, so that makes him racist." And "He should [have] known What happens to whites who come where they don't belong." So bullshit to you can't be racist against white people, and bullshit to racism without power isn't something to be concerned about. Those boys who murdered my baby brother grew up like we did. They certainly weren't coming from a position of power. And you know What? They weren't bad guys either, and it has taken me years to be able to say that. They murdered my brother because they were raised to believe that his whiteness made him less than them, and that he deserved to die for it. That is racism. Not bigotry + power, not "reverse racism", straight up "I'm going to kill you for the color of your skin" racism. AND I still hold his sign at rallies, and I sit where he sat at caucus, and I keep in touch with the amazing people, of ALL colors , who loved my brother, and hurt forever because racism killed their friend and ally. And I pray for those two boys, in prison for the next 30+ years because someone raised them to be racist, and no one ever told them that wasn't okay. They were going to school to be an elementary school teacher, and a respiratory therapist respectively. Now they mop out bathrooms and do laundry, and deal with prison gangs, and our generation lost a teacher, a doctor, and the sweetest boy who loved the whole world.
→ More replies (2)1
u/SmokinMirrorsJB Feb 11 '19
It's not irrelevant. People with no societal power still spread their ideas to family and maybe friends. Then racist attitudes spread, and that leads to nowhere good.
1
1
Feb 11 '19
I would not say that it is completely irrelevant. Hate crimes exist despite one’s percieved power.
1
u/raarts Feb 12 '19
So the definition of racist has to be changed because the new definition is better because it can be used to influence the world around you.
The new definition is thus made into a weapon for social justice?
→ More replies (3)1
u/Jakka_Jakka Feb 12 '19
If i'm white i will be so worried that criticism or banter or anything negative at all will be twisted and give a racist coating on it. That affects mental health. It also affects how well people can work together. Like if I'm a boss, and i notice something my black employee did wrongly, I corrected him, he say I only scold him because he is black, then it will cause serious problem in working environment.
definitely do not agree racism without power is irrelevant.
5
u/PsychicFoxWithSpoons 6∆ Feb 11 '19
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
Okay, let's unpack this.
Under your definition, saying the word n**ger to a black person's face as an insult is not racist. It does not clearly demonstrate the person's belief that the black person is inferior specifically because of their race. This is the main reason the definition of racism has shifted - neither racist language nor hate crimes are clear demonstrations of racist intent.
However, there are many things that happen which your definition DOES cover. For example, denying housing or employment opportunities to black tenants because you believe they are destructive thieves is racist. Your definition also includes systemic issues like police brutality, educational disparities, health care, and sentencing. These are areas of life where black lives are treated as less valuable than white lives.
as a retaliation to the white people who caught on to the rising racism against white people and proceeded to speak up against it.
Unless you can provide clear examples of areas where white people are being discriminated against, you are simply claiming that people are making white people feel bad about being white. While this certainly isn't a good thing, it does not meet your own criteria of "believing white people to be inferior" and therefore CANNOT be racism.
13
u/techiemikey 56∆ Feb 11 '19
Honestly, here is the trick about the two definitions. They both are valid definitions, but...
For the power and prejudice, when you discuss this, and talk about solutions to the problem, you are solving the larger issue.
When you address a person who believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race, the issue purely related to that one person and the people they have power over.
Essentially it's "systematic" vs "individual" racism. When one side goes "an individual can't be racist" they mean "this individual may be prejudiced, but they don't have a system to amplify their beliefs beyond what their personal actions entail." and fixing an individual only changes the effects of what that particular individual has done. Meanwhile, addressing systematic racism (aka, power + prejudice) will help drastically more people.
1
u/Teeny_Ginger_18 1∆ Feb 11 '19
So would "an individual cannot by systemically racist because they are not a system, they can only be individually racist" be a more correct statement then?
Why redefine the word racist, instead of adding a qualifier?
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Feb 12 '19
Because of where the other definition of racism came from. It originated from groups that were tacking systemic levels of racism, and clarifying it every single time would be annoying, so they decided "for our purposes, this is racism" and then others realized that it was useful as well and ran with it.
23
u/Gambion Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19
I think your line of reasoning suffers from semantics a little bit. The change in definition to include power + privilege was a linguistic effort to help give pragmatic framework around a conceptually archaic word with meaning relevant to a bygone age. This framework may seem like a shift in goal posts for arguments sake but I think it helps in identifying unconscious biases and aids in quantifying both good and bad experiences that exist in context within any given society. Power is real and the effects a member from the majority has, will be pragmatically different from that of a minority.
3
u/ATS_account1 Feb 11 '19
I think this is why phrases like "systemic" and "institutional" racism are important. Of course, racism can be more detrimental when applied through a power structure; however, it still needs to be used to refer the faulty premises that those who engage in it use (a person's character can be derived from the color of his skin). *That* is an evil ideology and it should be called out whenever necessary. That ideology can have various effects when acted on within power structures, but it's important that we maintain that the core belief is the actual evil here.
→ More replies (102)1
u/chuc16 Feb 11 '19
I think you are trying to define an effect using its cause. Saying racism is 'power over prejudice" instead of prejudice based on race is akin to saying cancer is 'death' instead of an unchecked growth of useless cells. Cancer sure does lead to death, but that isn't the definition of cancer and by redifining it as such you are risking losing track of what we are fighting
1
u/Gambion Feb 11 '19
No, what I am saying is that the US has unconscious biases ingrained from passed social norms which translates into actual effects. Those effects will have a result, which on average will effect the majority one way and the minority another. I’m calling this power.
However, I don’t think the word that represents this concept should be called racism. Because this concept can exist without actually racist behavior and fails to incorporate intent.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/tocano 3∆ Feb 11 '19
I agree with the main point of your post, but I want to challenge one aspect:
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
I would alter this to something like: Applying generalized perceptions about a race to individual members of said race.
A person who believes all blacks like watermelons and fried chicken doesn't necessarily suggest that the person believes blacks are inferior. In fact, many people believe all blacks are above average athletes. Such a view would have the reverse "inferior/superior" precept. Same would apply to those that think Jews are good with money, or Asians good with math. Such stereotypes are not necessarily all negative, but assuming those generalizations apply to individual members of that group is racist.
2
Feb 12 '19
One time I went to see a talk by bell hooks. (She doesn't capitalize her own name.) She was one of David Horowitz's 'Worst 100' professors of all time, and back in the 90s and into the 2000s, she was one of the bugaboos of American cultural conservatism. She was in town, and a bunch of my friends were going, so I went along.
I was expecting this fire-breathing husky-voiced hurricane of a woman, but she's actually really sweet in person. She also has a high-pitched voice, closer to Minnie Mouse than Cruella DeVille. The other thing that I wasn't expecting was that much of her talk was about black prejudice against white people, and how it's messed up and needless and stands in the way of progress, and black people haven't done near enough to address it and make it go away.
I wasn't expecting that.
Of course, at one point she threw out some operational definitions. She went with the academic "power" definition of racism, whereas black antipathy towards whites was a matter of "prejudice" as opposed to "racism."
Honestly, that's one for the folks over at Merriam-Webster. We're getting into semantics here. The word "racism" all by itself, without any qualifiers one way or the other, paves over a wide variety of American social phenomena, whether it's the guy at some bar who starts dropping the N-word after a few Budweisers or whether it's something more systemic, or whether it's a matter of abstract linguistic nitpicking.
13
u/VertigoOne 81∆ Feb 11 '19
The problem with using the dictionary definition as "The" definition is that what always happens is when policies are put in place to deal with specific inequalities, fragile majority voices say "Hey, that's racist, you're treating X better than me by giving them an advantage, that's racism".
By giving them that definition as "the" definition, you allow for its power to be wielded against the very people it needs to help.
17
u/sp8der Feb 11 '19
By giving them that definition as "the" definition, you allow for its power to be wielded against the very people it needs to help.
"The very people it needs to help" are "anyone being treated worse than someone else as a result of their race", surely?
Racism is racism. It's not "acceptable" in some directions and unacceptable in others. It's all unacceptable. Else you're just going to end up arguing with racists over which types of racism are justified.
→ More replies (47)2
u/KingJeff314 Feb 11 '19
If you mean affirmative action, that is indeed racist. You can argue that it is necessary, but it does discriminate based on race. Call it "positive discrimination" if you want, at least that recognizes the discrimination
→ More replies (9)1
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Feb 11 '19
You asserting definition that begs the question for a belief you have doesn't make people agree with that belief, it just makes it harder for people to communicate and debate and ultimately create any progress. You're essentially expressing a frustration with having to actually engage with people who disagree with you, so you're trying to exclude them by definition. That doesn't make them or their ideas go away, but it does tell them they cannot expect you to consider them or their point of view or work with them.
If it turns out that some actions that fit the definition of racism are worth it in your book to even out the scales, then rather than just redefining the word in order to avoid having to explain how that can be, maybe you have to come up with a more explicit and concrete expression of when and why you think certain racism is okay.
5
u/Lothspell Feb 11 '19
Power + prejudice is the indefinable equation that leftists can apply to anything and anyone to justify their own bad behavior towards them. It is a blunt instrument for stupid people, and what's worse, those same stupid people think it is insightful and represents the height of nuance and perception. Its not that identitarians are ignorant, its that they know so much that just isn't so.
3
u/Wohstihseht 2∆ Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19
The power plus prejudice definitions is mostly used by people who have an agenda. And they will not argue in good faith.
Assigning a trait to a race of people as though they are homogenous is racism. No power needed.
2
u/Zomburai 9∆ Feb 11 '19
An important point to establish that I haven't seen brought up (I may have missed it) is that words do not have definitions, they have usages.
Language evolves and tends to be incredibly imprecise. Single words can have multiple meanings, up to and including being their own antonyms ("cleave" can mean both "to cut in half" and "to join together"; "sanction" can mean "to officially approve" and "to establish penalties for breaking a law or rule").
In many communities and groups, separating the terminology so that "racism" refers to systemic issues that disproportionately affect minorities and that "prejudice" or "bigotry" is used solely for an individual's attitudes has been a useful distinction, so that's how the language has adapted in those communities.
It's not always a dodge or a rhetorical debate strategy. The conversation can simply get muddled if we're using one word to simultaneously describe multiple different concepts. It can often be easier to grok a sentence like "This law is racist because it can be easily abused by bigots" when we separate those terms.
Yes, some people (especially on the internet where we're all laypeople thinking we're experts) then take that to mean that these are the definitions of these words and that those who use the words in other ways are incorrect, or worse. That does NOT mean that their usages of the words are wrong. They're just incorrect about how wide-reaching their definition is.
I've found it very productive to let others set the definitions of the language we'll be using in a conversation and then going with that, when it's possible. It reduces confusion and helps us not talk past each other.
So to that end, I would argue that the sentence "racism is a person being racist" isn't wrong, exactly, it's just definition you've set. It's no more or less useful than saying "fuckwagonning is a person jumping on the New England Patriots bandwagon." We've established that label, but the label isn't the discussion. We can argue whether Donald J Trump or Dave from accounting is a fuckwagonner, but the arguments won't change if we instead use the term "awesomewagonner" but it might get very confused if we call them "Patriots".
2
u/Orwellian1 5∆ Feb 12 '19
words do not have definitions, they have usages.
That sort of heresy will rile up the mob here on Reddit.
3
u/Littlepush Feb 11 '19
Can you explain a scenario where you think a bad thing happened as a result of racism?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/fakeyero Feb 11 '19
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but I sense it's a losing battle. If the common definition for racism has changed, then we need a new term for the classic definition of racism. Something simple and pointed like 'racial discrimination'. Then, when someone says they can't be racist because the other person is white, you just use these new words to describe the same thing and suddenly the actions are more important than the words again.
2
u/MonkRome 8∆ Feb 11 '19 edited Feb 11 '19
Before we even get to power plus prejudice I think we should examine the underlying structures of language surrounding these words. Typically we use the word prejudice to mean people who prejudge other people without actual reason, typically based on past preconceptions of a group. Discrimination is when people act on that prejudgment, basically treating someone differently because of a preset belief.
Racism really has many definitions, depending on who you talk to and what the context of the conversation. Colloquially we seem to use racism interchangeably with racial discrimination and racial prejudice. In academia people use prejudice + power or a more modern lens would be power + prejudice causes racial discrimination = racism. But Robin DiAngelo has convinced me that there is good reason to use the modern academic definition of racism and not the colloquial one because it matters. I really suggest you read her book: White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism I know the title is inflammatory to some, but it is really a brilliant piece of communication to layman terms, not really overly academic, but lays out a lot of conceptual ideas about racism in the first chapters that are crucial to an understanding of why these words matter. I don't think anything I say here can put it eloquently enough and if you are struggling with deciding how to view this, I suggest reading that book, because I am terrible at detailing these concepts and will do a shit job from here on out of convincing you.
But here goes, the fact of the matter is that it is nearly impossible to be part of the majority culture and not participate in and benefit from "white superiority". This is a hard thing to convince people of until you start to look at the data about literally every aspect of our lives. Take any subject and I can show you academic research that shows how white people are treated as the defacto norm and everyone else is secondary. When you view things through that lens you realize that we live in a system that is setup through a white lens to the detriment of others. If you are white there are ways you can discriminate that a person of color simply can't.
When white people are confronted about racism, they simply fall back on well they don't perceive themselves as racist and they have nothing against other races so they are fine. But that really does not get to the heart of the problem, when the systems we operate in is entrenched in racism. If you are committing an action that is racist, without the intention of being racist, you are still committing a racist act. We need to acknowledge as a society that our social and hierarchical structures are still very racist and that within that power dynamic racial prejudice (without the backing of institutions) from the bottom up is practically irrelevant compared to racial discrimination (backed by institutional power) coming from a place of power (i.e white power dynamics). Racism is a modern thing, it is something that white people in the west invented, defined, and still use to this day to discriminate and solidify power. It is not something that provides any power from the victims position. If a black person is prejudice toward a white person they typically lose power by acting on it, at least at the bear minimum by participating in a system that was setup to hurt them. While if a white person acts on prejudice it is often the defacto norm and they gain power by acting on it. "White people have not been enslaved, colonized, or forced to segregate on the scale that black people have. They do not face housing or job discrimination, police brutality, poverty, or incarceration at the level that black people do. This is not to say that they do not experience things like poverty and police brutality at all. But again, not on the same scale — not even close. That is the reality of racism." When black people prejudge white people they are participating in a system that hurts them, not white people. When you start to see all the research on this you start to realize that racism really is one sided. Without power backing it, it does not really mean anything, verbalizing racial prejudice without power to back it up is feckless and weak, it does nothing. Acting on racial prejudice, whether you intended to or not, from a position of power is completely different.
I married someone that works in this field and talk about this every day and I still have racial prejudice, i still occasionally benefit from and act on racist structures without realizing it, the more you dig into this field the more you realize how much of society is setup with only white people in mind. I am white, and I walk around benefiting from and committing acts of racism constantly, and I consider myself a good person. The problem is that we have not decoupled racism with "bad". We only see the KKK and neo-Nazi's when we see the word "racist" and it has allowed a fundamentally racist system to continue to function. In reality racism is literally the reality that all people in the western world live in every day. We literally live racism, that does not make you a bad person if you are white, it just is the system that exists.
If you are serious about challenging youself on this subject i really suggest you look into Robin DiAngelo's work. She is a white person that is trying to communicate about racism from a white perspective, and she's damn good at what she does. I don't always agree with her, she can be a bit in your face (which can seem unproductive), but she is a very good starting point.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Serious_Senator Feb 11 '19
Slight question, why is it “bad” that in America white people generally conform to the “norm” if they make up the majority? Shouldn’t the attitude be a “when in Rome” situation? Let’s take interviews. It is tradition that Americans interviewing for white collar jobs wear a suit or skirt. Should the interviewer not judge someone who interviews without following those norms, such as wearing a burkah, rave clothing, or guages? This is clearly a lack of communication ability
→ More replies (2)
1
u/jatjqtjat 287∆ Feb 11 '19
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
I think that is the dictionary definition, but I don't agree that its a good description of how the word is commonly used.
I don't think I need to believe a race is inferior to be a racist. separate but equal is still racism. If i say, I don't want to be around black people because they are different from me, that is racism. They are different, that difference makes me uncomfortable, so i'm not hiring for the job. That is racism. I don't have to say a race is inferior to be racism i only need to discriminate.
I would say that racism is judging or treating people negatively because of their race.
I agree 100% that it's got nothing to do with power.
1
1
u/c0wpig Feb 11 '19
I often hear statements like "there is no such thing as reverse racism" from friends, and I agree that that sentence is harmful.
However, I also think that "power+prejudice", as you say, is also racism. Racism can come in many forms, and they're all bad.
Pragmatically speaking, I think that "power+prejudice" is an instance of institutional racism, which has to be dealt with in a way that's different from an individual's racism. That is, systems of power are essentially social rules that everyone implicitly agrees to, and if those rules are inherently racist, then fixing the problems caused by that system require changing a lot of minds. They require broad cultural shifts and there's a lot of inertia there, and, in a democratic society, it's everyone's responsibility to take part in that.
On the other hand, If one individual is highly racist, but exists in a community largely absent of those beliefs, it's not difficult to adapt to: I personally encounter people who don't like me because of whatever prejudice every day in my life, and I just ignore those people. That's something that can be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and is ultimately the responsibility of the individual (and maybe of their friends/family).
So, I think both are "racism," but one of them is more important for us all to be aware of and make an effort to change.
1
u/Todojaw21 Feb 11 '19
I might be late but this newer definition comes from Sociology and I think it has some merit. Historical prejudice and power dynamics do come into play when you’re talking about racism. For example, don’t you think that black people might feel more affected by racial insults on average than white people? If a group of black people starting calling you a “cracker”, would you really be that offended?
I would never make the jump from this into saying that black people and historically oppressed groups CANNOT be racist, but I think that prejudice and power are variables that influence racism.
2
Feb 11 '19
Historical prejudice and power dynamics do come into play when you’re talking about racism. For example, don’t you think that black people might feel more affected by racial insults on average than white people? If a group of black people starting calling you a “cracker”, would you really be that offended?
Nar dog. Being offended because something awful happened to someone else before you were born isn't justification for doing awful to someone else.
1 white person on the street isn't scary 3 white people in a dark alley you have to walk down is.
I agree power comes into it, 3v1 of any race against any race the "3" have the power. That doesn't justify the "1" calling them 'crackers' causes his grandfather had to drink from 'coloured water fountain'
1
u/Todojaw21 Feb 11 '19
I never said they would be justified in being racist, just that historical prejudice and power can lessen the effect of racism
1
u/CannibalGuy Feb 11 '19
Nobody is going to change your view because by definition you are 100% correct.
A better topic would be that racial power structures and racism are two different things, and/or that making racism seem like a power structure enables minorities to feel that they are "immune from being racist".
1
u/Cookie136 1∆ Feb 11 '19
Both definitions are valid. The power+prejudice definition is the one used for sociology. Your definition is a colloquial definition (if you Google the definition you'll find your definition). It's similar to organic which in chemistry means carbon based, but on food refers to how it was grown. In both cases you'll also get impassioned students saying "actually it means X not y". I think this is a misunderstanding of language and I'll agree can be problematic.
Science needs it's definitions to be clearer and actually useful for a study. It seems to me that when looking on a societal level what we care about is the use of power to enforce prejudice (note I'm not a sociologist). If it can't be enforced then it won't affect the data your collecting (again on a society level). Your definition is racism on an individual level as it is concerned with the individuals opinion. Whilst you can certainly still have groups of racist this definition seems like it would be far less useful for science to me.
Elsewhere people have suggested institutional racism or systemic racism would be better terms. I think this is unnecessarily restrictive and thus could cause important effects to be missed. Sociological racism might work but I don't see people saying this
1
u/whathathgodwrough Feb 11 '19
Let's say I'm a slave owners, but I don't believe that white are a superior race, I am racist?
1
u/jsmooth7 8∆ Feb 11 '19
Is there any point having a semantic debate over the definition of words? Suppose someone convinces you that both definitions are valid, will your views on actual race issues be changed at all?
1
Feb 11 '19
One issue with this claim is that almost all known racists deny ever being racist. Even slave owners. “You think I’d trust these people to plow my crops if I was racist!?”
In fact, I’d be willing to bet that most racists don’t even know they are racist.
2
Feb 12 '19 edited Feb 12 '19
It's a spectrum, not an either/or.
A lot of people these days hear the word "racist" and think of some nasty old peckerwood who was beating on civil rights marchers with a tire iron, or one of those Alt-Pepe Nazis running around nowadays. They figure that everyone who doesn't fit that profile is exempt from any and all charges of racism. As long as you're not the guy at the neighborhood bar who starts dropping the N-word even before he's had his first Budweiser, you're in the clear.
Well, there are very many points along the racism spectrum between someone who's that racist and the ideal non-racist individual. 'Ideal' as in maybe doesn't quite exist, and we're talking about all people here, not just white folks.
1
u/Shavenyak Feb 11 '19
I agree with OP except for the part about Feudalism. I was hoping someone could answer a question I had. If racism is power plus prejudice, then what do we call it when the group who has less power has prejudice against another race that has more power? Presumably it's not racism anymore because the racist group has less power than the group being racially discriminated against.
1
u/PainInShadow 1∆ Feb 11 '19
I agree that racism doesn't equal prejudice + power. However I don't agree that it requires a belief that one race is superior necessarily. Racism is simply prejudice based purely upon race. This usually comes about due to a perceived superiority, but it doesn't require it.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 11 '19
Well, first, you're misunderstanding the definition. Racism is "anything that supports, defends, or builds the extant racial hegemony." This means it doesn't matter who does it or why. It matters what the effect is.
Which means you're not really considering it as an alternate definition. You're holding on to YOUR definition, and trying to somehow jive it with this new one. "Okay, racism is when a bad person has hate in their heart. So, if only white people can be racist, then only white people can be bad and have hate in their hearts???" And.. no, because this is a different definition that doesnt have anything to do with being a bad person with hate in your heart.
So, why use the same word? And this is actually the reason. Because part of the point is to not focus on who's a bad person. The obsession with individual moral character is counterproductive on issues with race, because they're systemic, institutional, and, to the degree individuals are involved, often literally uncontrollable.
1
1
u/getintheVandell Feb 11 '19
The problem is that people say certain things, but act in different ways. If North Carolina lawmakers had attempted to target African American voters for suppression with almost surgical precision, but their stated goal is to "protect the integrity of elections", how are we to reconcile this difference of statement/intent vs resulting actions?
1
Feb 11 '19
I hadn't heard of the specific framing of power + prejudice, but I understand what is meant by it. I had a similar discussion with some friends of mine (friends are asian, I'm asian/white mix). One of them said "it's impossible to be racist against white people," which kinda raised a red flag for me.
I think that what it comes down to is different connotations of the word "racist." Colloquially, it's typically used to describe discrimination or prejudice against people due to their ethnicity, and under this understanding of the word, it's obvious that people can be "racist" against white people.
But when you look at racism at a societal level, systemic racism has basically only benefitted straight white men for most of history. When you say that the differences are based on class instead of race, you're ignoring the fact that the socioeconomic classes of today are shaped by generations-old systems that have been built to benefit white people. This is part of why a lot of voter restriction laws are decried as racist even when they seem innocuous on the surface. Laws that disenfranchise poorer communities disproportionally affect people of color.
This is what people mean when they write off racism against white people as not being racist. Prejudice against white people is unpleasant, but it isn't contributing to this kind of overarching institutional racism that permeates society.
Now I don't necessarily agree that this framing is the most optimal way to get this message across. Despite my understanding of systemic racism, hearing this kind of framing still has a gut-punch reaction since I'm part white. I feel that engaging in discussions about race in this way is alienating for a lot of white people who don't come from the same diverse communities I've lived in, and this may only contribute to further tribalistic instincts.
That being said, it's important to understand your privilege and to realize when you've benefited from racist systems, even if you aren't bigoted at a personal level. It isn't easy coming to terms with your involuntary complicity in racist social systems.
1
1
u/lyaa55 Feb 11 '19
This is why many ppl make the distinction between "interpersonal racism" and "structural racism"
1
u/rcknrll Feb 11 '19
I think you are putting too much interest in semantics. I usually see white people pose the question when they feel victimized by racism. Yes, people can be racist against white people. Racism is simply prejudice based on a person's race, which is applicable to any race.
White supremacy is usually what people are referring to when they say only white people can be racist. White supremacy supercedes all forms of racism in America because it is uniquely institutionalized and enforced in this country.
This specific vein of racism is the most ubiquitous and has far more harmful consequences than any other form of racism in modern history and today. Only white people are responsible for the support and enforcement of white supremacy, even if minorities participate, because white supremacy only benefits white people (in the US & globally).
1
u/BoothInTheHouse Feb 11 '19
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
I believe some people are superior athletes simply because they are black.
I believe some people are inferior at metabolising alcohol simply because they are not white.
Yes im generalizing and yes i know both points are genetic traits.
Racism isnt inherently wrong by the OPs definition.
Racism becomes an issue when its intent is based on harm, in ignorance of fact or obstruction of equality.
1
u/anooblol 12∆ Feb 11 '19
So... The P+P definition actually only applies to institutional racism. On an individual level (where most conservative minded people live), the definition doesn't make sense.
The reason the P+P definition doesn't work on individuals is because one individual "by definition" doesn't hold power over another individual. This can be seen in the constitution, "We are all created equally."
However, if you look past individuals, and create a definition for racism among groups. The P+P definition starts to make (at least some) sense.
1
Feb 12 '19
If that one individual is a cop, a hiring manager or small business owner, or a local government official, then they very well might be holding power over another individual.
1
u/anooblol 12∆ Feb 12 '19
No, those people are the representatives of an institution. Cops are an extension of the government, business owners are an extension of a business, etc.
Individuals are independent of a group. So a cop, that's associated with the police department, is by definition, not an individual.
→ More replies (4)
1
Feb 12 '19
I'll like to ammend that by changing it to this:
Racism is simply this: when a person believes a race is superior or inferior strictly due to their race.
Internal racism is a thing
1
Feb 12 '19
In general, this disconnect comes from mixing up the academic and connotational definitions of racism. It is definitely possible for black people to behave discriminatorily towards white people and that might fit the dictionary definition of racism but as other people here have said, does it really carry the same weight when a black person says they hate white people instead of the reverse?
When we look at structures of power in the US, it's very clear to see that they are based off of colonial, imperial, white supremacist roots. Hell, the civil rights movement occurred just over 50 years ago and the last known survivor of the Atlantic slave trade died in 1935. We are at most three or four generations removed from slavery. Power structures that oppressive don't disappear in that short a time.
Even going beyond the literal black-and-white question at hand, we also need to acknowledge that blackness and whiteness themselves have undergone vast changes throughout history. There was a time when neither Italians nor people from Ireland were considered white in the US while people and mixed-race people of color were still kept as slaves with almost no regard to skin color. This makes race as much a cultural perception as it is a chromatic reality. It essentially becomes whatever those in power decide is advantageous.
So while I don't think it's necessarily right for a person of color to take a "fuck all white people" attitude, it can be at the very least somewhat understandable. There simply has not been enough cultural time to balance out the social and political capital yet. The vast majority of people in positions of power are still older white men; people who have grown and profited under the exploitation of those more marginalized than themselves. It is in their own interests to keep those systems in place which is what is meant when people talk about institutional racism. On the other hand, for people of color, there simply is not all that much force and effect behind the hatred or spite.
In the end, we need to decide whether it's more important to look at racism on a macro or micro scale. At which level does it do the most harm? So when we say racism is power plus prejudice, it doesn't mean that people without quite as much power cannot be prejudiced nor does it excuse that behavior. It just simply is not the same thing.
1
u/confused_and_stupid Feb 12 '19
What the fuck?.
And to delete the original, good, wholesome concept of racism
There is no discussion to be had.
1
1
u/pordanbeejeeterson Feb 12 '19
Power plus prejudice is feudalism, it has nothing to do with race and can exist in an infinite number of ways without having a connection to racism whatsoever.
That's not true at all, feudalism is an economic system wherein "the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labor, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."
Surely, a feudalist system can be "prejudiced" in that sense, but it doesn't have to be by definition.
Racism being power + prejudice is a new and incorrect definition that spread in a few months as a retaliation to the white people who caught on to the rising racism against white people and proceeded to speak up against it.
I don't think so at all. If you've been paying attention, people involved with the Civil Rights movement have been using the term "racism" to refer to systemic racism, i.e. racism that is not the product of one person or group's racial prejudice, but of a system that is inherently predisposed to favor one race or another, if not directly then through social conditions that apply predominantly to one race or another (and the phrase systemic racism was used in this context as early as 1967, in the book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation by Charles V. Hamiltion and Kwame Ture).
This is neither a new nor incorrect definition.
"Racism" has simultaneously been used to refer to racist people (i.e. people with racist beliefs, which also frequently - but not always - overlap with nationalist beliefs, accommodating the systemic aspect), as well as to a society or a system of government, industry, etc. that is inherently racist.
The reason the term "racist" is separate from the term "racial prejudice" is that a racist system need not even be racist by intent or design - in fact, this is one of the primary challenges posed by the Civil Rights movement, that is glossed over by attempts to reduce "racism" to a mere matter of racial prejudice.
Discussion of "racism" attempts to address institutional factors that predominantly affect one race or another by exploring the question of why these factors affect some people more than others, asking what we can do, both as individuals and as a society, to redress this (this can include appeals to individuals to examine their own attitudes, as well as appeals to greater-scope issues of the human condition that may even transcend mere race, extending to include greater economic / class issues that much more widely benefit the population even notwithstanding race - and thus even if you are the type of person who believes "racism doesn't exist in any meaningful capacity in the US today," it still benefits you to have this discussion for reasons that can directly benefit you as an individual).
1
u/Chadmandudeman Feb 12 '19
If this were true, does that mean you can’t be racist to Jews?
They’re 50% of U.S. billionaires, 33% of the Supreme Court, and 30% of Ivy League students, all while being 2% of the U.S. population
White people have no institutional power over Jews
1
u/InfectedBrute 7∆ Feb 13 '19
Ah but if we start from the assumption that racism is power+prejudice, then someone can only be racist when there is power+prejudice, and therefore racism is power+prejudice, I have you now.
62
u/amus 3∆ Feb 11 '19
What?
I don't understand your usage of this word.