Being discriminated against

[persephone325]

(Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to start any type of argument, or instigate any kind of fight. Staff can lock this thread at any time to prevent such incidents, or move it to another section if need be. It is purely for discussion, and I realize it is a very sensitive subject. Anyone is welcome to share their opinions and experiences. But please do so in a civil manner, and provide clarification if needed.)

Now that that's out of the way...

I, personally, feel like not many younger kids today truly understand what "racism" or "discrimination" is. (I say younger. I'm 23, and I realize that's still rather young. I'm talking more along the lines of young teenagers, and people still in high school.) It's especially prominent on social media sites because people are still upset over the Ferguson case.

What I'm seeing from these younger people, is that they are focusing on the fact that a white police officer killed a young black man and suffered no legal consequences for his actions. "He got away with it because he was white." or "He's a police officer and abused his power." and "He used lethal force without needing to."

What irritates me, though, is I'm seeing an unnerving trend in younger people claiming that only black people suffer from discrimination. I get downright upset about it, because it couldn't be further from the truth. My first thought is: what the hell are you learning in school, if you think that only black people were ever discriminated against?

Have you not heard of the Holocaust? What about when the white men drove the Native Americans off their land? How about when the Irish were refused services nearly everywhere? Or back when HIV and AIDS first came to light, infected people were treated like disgusting lepers? Did you know that people can be discriminated against for even stupider things than race? Hair color, age, what language they speak, religion, social class... The list goes on.

I think I'm also very shocked in the fact that some younger kids just flat out refuse to believe that this is the case. I can't find the picture now, but there was an exchange between two people on Facebook, where the poster pointed out the exact same things and one of their friends commented about how the poster didn't know what they were talking about.

I seriously hope it wasn't real, because one of the exchanges was something along the lines of this:
Poster: Everyone can be the victim of discrimination. The best, and most well known, example I can give you would be the Holocaust.
Friend: What? What does a heavy metal band have to do with what black people go through?
Poster: ....Uh... No, no. I mean the Holocaust. World War 2? Germans killed millions of Jews?
Friend: Didn't that happen a really long time ago? Why are they still complaining about it?

I'm just...I seriously worry about the future of humanity.

I was told that I couldn't be discriminated against because I'm white. I was told that my suffering would never be as terrible as someone else's. Says who? You can't "measure" suffering. You can't compare your suffering to someone else's. I've been discriminated against because of my looks, my weight, my mental illnesses, the scars on my wrists, my choice in music and clothes, and (this is the most ridiculous one in my opinion) my breast size.

I know nobody here is so closed-minded that they'll just refute everything I say. But I'm just...so confused as to why people think someone's suffering can be compared to someone else's. Why they feel like someone's suffering will never be as bad as someone else's. Everyone can be discriminated against. Narrow-mindedness is not just limited to being directed at a specific race.

What is happening in our school system now, that younger kids don't seem to comprehend this fact? I'm just confused, and felt the need to vent. I mean, surely not every younger person thinks like this...do they? I'd like to think that humanity is moving forward, not backward...

[Oreo]

Interesting topic, but I am moving it to the Politics Forum. ; )

[persephone325]

Interesting topic, but I am moving it to the Politics Forum. ; )

I was debating whether it would go in the B&U, or in the Politics one. Sorry about that! ^^

[Oreo]

No worries.

[Oniya]

I, for one, am waiting for when the little Oni's class reads 'Anne Frank' later this year.  The kids in her class throw around 'racist' almost like a joke, and I would love to be a fly on the wall when the Holocaust is detailed to them.

An example of how head-desking their attitude is:  Class is reading 'Flowers for Algernon'.  The sentence 'Maybe white mice are smarter' comes up in the text.  One of the F'ed-up Foursome calls out 'That's racist!'

[Beguile's Mistress]

It isn't just one ad.  Thousands of help wanted ads and notices posted in shop windows carried this message that the Irish were not wanted.  The same claims by some historians that this is a myth exist much as those that state the Holocaust never happened or was not as bad as repoted.

[Valthazar]

I believe that racism and prejudice affect all individuals.  However, one can argue that the terms "racism" and "sexism" refer to systemic hierarchies of oppression, meaning that while individual instances of black-on-white prejudice may be present, effort should be purely directed at institutional discrimination (a.k.a. against people of color).  I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning, since it fails to account for socioeconomic hierarchies within the white community itself.

Speaking from direct experience, part of the issue is that K-12 education today teaches the concept of "white privilege" as being an empirical reality of society, rather than as one (of many) sociopolitical interpretations of reality.  Religious and cultural pluralism is emphasized in today's classroom - as I agree it should be.  However, the self-maturation process for white students and minority students differs in significant ways.  Ethnic minorities are encouraged by the education community to develop both an individual identity (as an American citizen), as well as a group identity (a Black American, a Hispanic American, an Asian American, etc.).  To the contrary, many White Americans graduate lacking any semblance of shared "ethnic" identity as European Americans (apart from vague ideological patriotism or country-of-origin specific identity).

Some may argue that white Americans originate from such culturally diverse countries, and have "melted together" so much in the US that the notion of a shared "European-American" identity is silly.  To the contrary, I would assert that Korean-Americans, Japanese-Americans, and other Americans tracing their lineage to culturally diverse Southeast and East Asian countries share an ethnic kinship identity as "Asian-Americans."  Issues affecting the Asian-American community affect all its constituents.  On the same token, Indian-Americans, Pakistani-Americans, and other South Asian-Americans share a ethno-racial kinship as "Desi" - even though culturally, religiously, and politically, marked differences exist.  Issues affecting the "brown" community affect all its constituents due to a healthy ethnic identity.  For example, when Michael Page went and killed six members of a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, this was an issue that deeply hurt the South Asian community as a whole - regardless of religion or nationality - due to a shared ethnic identity.

I would argue that the infrastructure that perpetuates the belief that "one can't be discriminated because they are white" is based on deep seated feelings of white guilt.  As a non-white individual, I sometimes find it rather remarkable that European Americans cry racism from even considering the notion that certain issues may be negatively affecting the white community in measurable ways, unique from other American ethnic communities.

[AndyZ]

This is something I've been thinking about a lot.  I'm going to take a risk and start posting just on this thread.  Pers, if you hadn't started it on B&U, I wouldn't have seen it.

The concept of privilege and that you can only be discriminated against if you're not heterosexual Caucasian cismale has been going around for quite some time.  In my experience, though, it's not quite how it works.  Our current society seems to reward you provided that you fit seamlessly into whatever stereotypes and categories already have presented themselves.

I may be wrong on this.  If I am, let me know.  It's an idea I've been playing with for a while.

Regardless of your race, sex, gender, orientation or whatever, people seem to do the best when they fall right into the expectations of our society.  Professional people are expected not to have tattoos, men are expected not to wear dresses and to ask the woman out, all the various stereotypes that we know are wrong but still expect people to fall into.

The ironic thing is that by pushing these particular concepts of crooked cops, acceptable racism and so on, that becomes what is expected and thus becomes reality.  New people signing into the force just figure that they can do whatever, and it becomes acceptable.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/cleveland_police_union_defends.html

SNL did a skit recently where a company wanted to make an Asian-American doll.  People talk about a lack of diversity, but when something does happen, someone inevitably complains.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/asian-american-doll/2836284

I have an RL friend who considers it sexist when video game characters do something to a woman when they do the exact same thing to a man.  I've spoken to people who consider it perfectly acceptable for non-white people or females to start up groups wholly composed of their particular group, but for Caucasians or males it would be unacceptable.

In my experience, though, the vast majority of people want outright equality.  Things don't have to end up equally but you have to be given the same shot.  That means not dismissing people, but it also means not coddling people.


Another trend I've noticed, though, is the idea that only people of a particular category can stand up for others.  People have repeatedly told me this one, but I can't find it in my heart to believe it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/26/white-supporters-stay-in-background-during-ottawa-vigil-for-michael-brown/#__federated=1 has a good example. 

I've heard people using particular words and told them to cut it out even when they don't apply to me.  If people are doing stuff against me, you are welcome to step in.  When I was being bullied as a kid, I would have been very grateful to have someone step in and help me.  If I met up with some sort of bigoted Amazon or something who honestly believed that men were inferior, I'd be happy to have a woman stand up and say otherwise.

I don't always feel comfortable doing so, though, because people have taken offense and said that I'm white knighting for them.  I usually end up feeling bad if I hear people say something and am not sure if it's one of the things that it's acceptable for me to stand up against.



Some of this is stuff that I've been wondering about for some time.  If I'm wrong, please tell me.  I learn best when things are pointed out.

[la dame en noir]

Whenever someone says that blacks face more discrimination...its usually based on their own experiences.

As a black female I have come across a mess of racism. I have been told and read, countless times that black people (especially women) are the most undesireable people on the planet. I have read that apparently all black people are stupid and that my people are unintelligent by nature. I have seen the way police have treated black citizens for no other reason other than the fact that they think young black men are a threat. It has been known that white males are more likely to get out of heinous crimes before a black male would. Why is that? could someone please explain that to me?

What I find more annoying is that people seem to think that others don't know of other struggles that are out there. I know what happened with the Irish, but did you also know about the slaughter fest that happened between Irish and black citizens in New York? simple because the Irish thought that blacks were being treated better, therefore they wanted them gone? http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society/nyc_riots.htm

Or how about how completely racist the Natives are to everyone, including white people. How they owned dozens of slaves and to this day deny any interaction with them.

Whats even worse is that schools lie about American history...they always lie, they never tell the truth. Maybe if they did and stopped watering down what really happened, people could get along better.

I'm just here to say that humans are terrible...

[consortium11]

The "white people can't suffer from racism/only whites can be racist" (which are slightly different but similar enough to be conjoined for the purposes of this) logic comes about from an attempt to redefine "racism" to mean prejudice plus power; while "traditionally" hating someone due to their race was enough to be considered racist this new version means that unless you hate someone and your race has institutional power.

I dislike it for a couple of reasons.

The first is one that frequently comes up in discourse on social justice; it's redefining a well known existing term and giving it a different meaning. It is exactly uncommon to see a "debate" (and I lose the term loosely) go like this:

"That's racist!"
"No it isn't"
"Why not?"
"Non-white's can't be racist"
"Why not?"
"Racism is prejudice + power and non-white's don't have institutional power"
"Since when has that been the definition of racism?"
"Since I/a scholar said so"
etc etc

I've worked in law and have an interest in philosophy; I'm well aware of jargon and its uses. But jargon also has considerable drawbacks. When you want to discuss something with someone you need to be speaking the same language (used in the general sense). Redefining existing terms (and especially redefining them to suit your position) is not a good way to communicate and far too often comes across as a "gotcha!" style of debating.

2) Even if we accept this new definition (and limit it to institutional power) then to extrapolate from it that "only whites can be racist" is incredibly western-centric. One can look across the world and (tragically) see thousands of examples of non-white groups that have power being prejudiced against other non-white groups. It fits the prejudice + power definition perfectly. The "only white people can be racist" thing may have some power when limited to discussing Europe, North America and Australia... but the rest of the world? Not so much.

3) It's a pointless definition where the only purpose is to avoid having the negative label of "racist" attached to certain actions. If one person sees another person of a different race walking down the street and decides to attack them because of their race does it really matter if that attack is "racist" or only bigoted/prejudiced? It's pretty much the definition of a semantic point.

[la dame en noir]

Anyone can be racist/bigot/prejudiced...

But is it easier for white people to get away with it? Yes, I think it is.

[Kythia]

I don't think it's unreasonable, consortium11, for various domains to use specific words in a "technical" manner that doesn't 100% gel with their lay meaning.  Making up new words is hard and serves little point if everyone knows that within this discussion, "racism" means x,y,z. 

The problem is of course that there's no doorman there checking that everyone who joins a conversation is using the word in the same way.  I think in the end a lot of the problem with the "only whites can be racist" statement comes down to a similar situation to:

I control my computer with a mouse
What?  How the hell do you do that?  I have a pet mouse and he's utterly incapable of controlling a computer
Why the hell would you have a pet mouse?  it just sits there and does literally nothing until you push it or click it.
etc.

Neither side is using the word incorrectly, but there is still a gap in understanding and usage that makes the other's position seem nonsensical.

Of course, that's only related to your point 1. 

Point 2 - yeah, a lot of discourse is Western centred.  Can't argue that. 

Three, I think to some extent it does matter, in a slightly wider sense than that individual attack.  Reactions - media or whatever - will be different depending on the races of the parties involved and that redefinition/narrowing of "racism" to make it different to "bigotry" helps that conversation and analysis happen by allowing one to split out, to some extent, institutional factors from personal ones.  Hell, that's the very purpose of jargon, isn't it.  Making distinctions within a domain that are not commonly referenced outside it.

[gaggedLouise]

Reframing a word to fit a different kind of concept is okies, but I think one should be open about it when it's happening - and unfortunately that doesn't really happen very often with "racist" because the powerful stigma carried by that word is what some people really want to use. Same with "fascist" - when people say "those cops are fascists", "this is a fascist party", "fascist oppression" often it's clearly not about X being like the movements of Hitler or Mussolini, or their ideas, in any definite way, but pointing that out can get you branded as a hypocrite or, occasionally, even hinted to be a friend of the fascists.

I think the word "norm" (and normativity) has been pulled into a similar process of redefinition, or multiple definitions, but often people who are calling out others for having a "white norm", "lean body norm", "patriarchal normativity" etc are deliberately gliding between the different senses the word has acquired. It's used in the sense of

Norm = the way the majority of people (all people, or some large subgroup of people in a country, or the world) think or act about something. It's the norm not to show your nipples in public, to think all children should be schooled, to consider love an important part of life.

Norm = an ideal that people strive for, and feel compelled to strive to conform to, perhaps feel secretly ashamed of failing to reach but which is really unattainable for most people. Often used in discussions of body ideals, skin colour (dark people's children feeling that "real beauty", the highest kind of real star quality is something that one needs to be white to attain, comparing themselves with white models and so on...), sexuality, age (only people under forty being marketed as quite iconically beautiful) etc.

Norm = a yardstick or an ideal image - or a whole subset of ideas, expectations, silently enforced behaviour - being the expression of the power of an apex group. The male order dictating to women what they should look like, should wear, or trying to culturally brainwash women into the ideas desired. Blacks being made to feel guilty or shown up as criminals in the media by the whites, impoverished or jobless people being talked about in belittling ways or excluded from some spaces in society, their children facing high obstacles in getting higher education, LGBTs being excluded and silenced by social occasions where the premise is that you have to bring a partner of the opposite sex or you don't go, and so on.

All of those senses of the word norm are legit, but often they get used to cover up for one another, or by people who slip from one meaning to the other within the same conversation, loudly and without owning up to it. Or saying "Whiteys are forcing X on us", "men force X on all women" and framing it in a way that makes it appear as if it's all Caucasians, all males as individuals, when the sense argued really is "white society", some mechanisms of white or masculine domination force the others to conform and obey.

[consortium11]

I don't think it's unreasonable, consortium11, for various domains to use specific words in a "technical" manner that doesn't 100% gel with their lay meaning.  Making up new words is hard and serves little point if everyone knows that within this discussion, "racism" means x,y,z. 

The problem is of course that there's no doorman there checking that everyone who joins a conversation is using the word in the same way.  I think in the end a lot of the problem with the "only whites can be racist" statement comes down to a similar situation to:

I control my computer with a mouse
What?  How the hell do you do that?  I have a pet mouse and he's utterly incapable of controlling a computer
Why the hell would you have a pet mouse?  it just sits there and does literally nothing until you push it or click it.
etc.

Neither side is using the word incorrectly, but there is still a gap in understanding and usage that makes the other's position seem nonsensical.

Of course, that's only related to your point 1. 

Point 2 - yeah, a lot of discourse is Western centred.  Can't argue that. 

Three, I think to some extent it does matter, in a slightly wider sense than that individual attack.  Reactions - media or whatever - will be different depending on the races of the parties involved and that redefinition/narrowing of "racism" to make it different to "bigotry" helps that conversation and analysis happen by allowing one to split out, to some extent, institutional factors from personal ones.  Hell, that's the very purpose of jargon, isn't it.  Making distinctions within a domain that are not commonly referenced outside it.

But the two versions of mouse 1) have been in common usage for decades at this point and 2) refer to completely different things so it would take artificially inflicted stupidity or a rather bizarre context for there ever to be much confusion between the two. Moreover the appearance of "mouse" in computing didn't replace the definition of "mouse" to mean that someone who used "mouse" to refer to the animal were (supposedly) wrong in using the term; it added to the definition, not replaced it. In contrast this new definition of racism replaces and invalidates the previous definition.

The use of "mouse" to refer to a pointing device that detects two-dimensional motion relative to a surface doesn't mean that someone who uses "mouse" to relate to a animal is wrong.

The use of this new definition of racism does mean that someone who uses the term without sticking to the prejudice + power narrative is wrong.

That's a pretty clear difference.

Moreover... and this applies to the last point as well... there already was an accepted term for referring to racism by institutions (which is essentially what prejudice + power refers to); institutional racism, which has been widely used since the 90's.   

[Kythia]

Sure, maybe the mouse example could have been stronger, but you get the point.  If you'd rather a better one, take "belief" as its used in theology vs. as its used (as I gather it) in atheist circles.  Quite a lot of conversations here on E break down because people are using that word differently.  But yeah, don't get too hung up on the example.

This:

The use of this new definition of racism does mean that someone who uses the term without sticking to the prejudice + power narrative is wrong.

I disagree with though.  They are using it wrongly within a given context, that's not the same as using it wrong.  A meaning has grown up around it - deliberately or otherwise, I don't know the history - within "social justice" type conversation that isn't the same as the everyday meaning.  That's fine.  You likely mean something very different when you say "the bar" at work as opposed to when you say it after a long day at work.  That's fine, neither usage is wrong, the word just means different things in different situations.  We, as a species, are smart enough to deal with that.  By and large.  The confusion for want of a better word here is solely because the fact that "racism" has two linked but different meanings in two different contexts isn't as well known as the fact that "bar" does.  The issue is education and expectation-setting.

I clearly confused the issue by using "institutional".  "Racism by institutions" is institutional racism, yes.  But that's not what people mean when they use P+P racism.  The difference is that an individual can be bigoted without that falling in to a wider (and I hate myself for saying it) meta-narrative.  P+P racism refers to that meta-narrative, not to what you and I agree is correctly called institutional racism.  Sorry for the poor word choice there.

[gaggedLouise]

Sure, maybe the mouse example could have been stronger, but you get the point.  If you'd rather a better one, take "belief" as its used in theology vs. as its used (as I gather it) in atheist circles.  Quite a lot of conversations here on E break down because people are using that word differently.  But yeah, don't get too hung up on the example.

This:

I disagree with though.  They are using it wrongly within a given context, that's not the same as using it wrong.  A meaning has grown up around it - deliberately or otherwise, I don't know the history - within "social justice" type conversation that isn't the same as the everyday meaning.  That's fine.  You likely mean something very different when you say "the bar" at work as opposed to when you say it after a long day at work.  That's fine, neither usage is wrong, the word just means different things in different situations.  We, as a species, are smart enough to deal with that.  By and large.  The confusion for want of a better word here is solely because the fact that "racism" has two linked but different meanings in two different contexts isn't as well known as the fact that "bar" does.  The issue is education and expectation-setting.

I clearly confused the issue by using "institutional".  "Racism by institutions" is institutional racism, yes.  But that's not what people mean when they use P+P racism.  The difference is that an individual can be bigoted without that falling in to a wider (and I hate myself for saying it) meta-narrative.  P+P racism refers to that meta-narrative, not to what you and I agree is correctly called institutional racism.  Sorry for the poor word choice there.

Yep, I see what you're after, but the outcome of this seems to be that a person can legitimately get shouted down for being "racist" without him/her ever having done or said anything substantial that would have fit the label racist acts, racist language in any meaningful way - it's enough that somebody on the other side of the game table has felt offended and feels X is a suitable guy to pin the blame on, or a suitable messenger to shoot down - and is in a place (a role or a debate position) where they can make people listen to that slur.

The same would go for "anti-semitic", one of the most damaging allegations you can make about anyone in public talk after the age of Hitler - someone could be tagged antisemitic, or flirting with antisemitism, just because somebody else wants them to be such and has found a way to cook up a reason to say it (and this actually happens, I've heard intelligent people claiming that somebody can be an anti-semite precisely when he admires Jews and Jewish culture, because those person/s were hinting an idea that Jews are powerful and smart)  ::) As long as "X is antisemitic", "X is a racist, his choice of words shows that he buys into an ideology of white supremacy" or "X is constantly sexist" can be decked out with a suitable meta-narrative or guilt-by-association story, it becomes harder to challenge within this kind of talk - and as soon as it gets quoted second hand, it's likely to begin to drift towards the sense that X is racist, an antisemite or whatever in the ordinary sense of "bigoted and vengeful on grounds of race".

(And of course allegations that somebody's language is racist or sexist sometimes rely on their not being as relentless in the other direction as the person who was calling them out in that way. X is anti-black or anti-women simply because he doesn't buy into every single flame blame narrative without questions.)

[Kythia]

Yep, I see what you're after, but the outcome of this seems to be that a person can legitimately get shouted down for being "racist" without him/her ever having done or said anything substantial that would have fit the label racist acts, racist language in any meaningful way - it's enough that somebody on the other side of the game table has felt offended and feels X is a suitable guy to pin the blame on, or a suitable messenger to shoot down - and is in a plave where they can make people listen to that slur.

The same would go for "anti-semitic", one of the most damaging allegations you can make about anyone in public talk after the age of Hitler - someone could be tagged antisemitic, or flirting with antisemitism, just because somebody else wants them to be such and has found a way to cook up a reason to say it (and this actually happens, I've heard intelligent people claiming that somebody can be an anti-semite precisely when he admires Jews and Jewish culture, because those person/s were hinting an idea that Jews are powerful and smart)  ::) As long as "X is antisemitic", "X is a racist, his choice of words shows that he buys into an ideology of white supremacy" or "X is constantly sexist" can be decked out with a suitable meta-narrative or guilt-by-association story, it becomes harde to challenge within this kind of talk - and as soon as it gets quoted second hand, it's likely to begin to drift towards the sense that X is racist, antisemitic or whatever in the ordinary sense of "bigoted and vengeful on grounds of race".

(And of course allegations that somebody's language is racist or sexist sometimes rely on their not being as relentless in the other direction as the person who was calling them out in that way. X is anti-black or anti-women simply because he doesn't buy into every single flame blame narrative without questions.)

Well, sure.  But that's not an issue with a P+P Racism definition.  As you say yourself, it applies equally well to anti-semitic or any other type of politically incorrect "ism".  Allegations can be made that are incorrect.  Even under the "old" definition of racism that could happen using exactly the logic you use in your anti-semitic example (or, to put it less accusingly, your example of anti-semitism(which my spellcheck is desperate to dehyphenate(which my spellcheck insists isn't a word(my spellcheck feels similarly about "spellcheck"))))

[gaggedLouise]

I do feel (as you may have sensed) that allegations of racism (in this new sense, but with the semantic reference frame often blanked or only being stated by a vague implication) are sort of parallel with drive-by allegations of sexism, antisemitism (hyphenated or not) or even "anti-gayism" (hetero-normativity) in the same "new sense". They all rely on a semantic playing field with one group being seen as steadily victimized and oppressed and another group being seen as always in power and making the rules, therefore in the counter-narrative always getting cast as the bad guys.

Also, the cleft of power and war stories of the feud seem to take on much more importance than the actual arguments, differences of opinion, or what kind of input any individual member of those groups have made into forcing the other side down, articulating oppression, articulating liberation, enslaving others etc. Tagging somebody, or some group, with "X is racist!" (with a quote or a link attached) becomes much more important than coming up with any serious reason for it.

[Kythia]

I do feel (as you may have sensed) that allegations of racism (in this new sense, but with the semantic reference frame blanked or only being stated by implication) are sort of parallel with drive-by allegations of sexism, antisemitism (hyphenated or not) or even "anti-gayism" (hetero-normativity) in the same "new sense". They all rely on a semantic playing field with one group being seen as steadily victimized and oppressed and another group being seen as always in power and making the rules, therefore always being cast as the bad guys.

Also, the cleft of power and war stories of the feud seem to take on much more importance than the actual arguments, differences of opinion, or what kind of input any individual member of those groups have made into forcing the other side down, articulating oppression, articulating liberation, enslaving others etc. Tagging somebody, or some group, with "X is racist!" (with a quote or a link attached) becomes much more important than coming up with any serious reason for it.

Only when used as a blunt tool.  Sure, one could cry "whitey is oppressing me".  Or "all men are pigs" or whatever you want.  But your issue there isn't with the concept, the idea, of racism or sexism or whatever.  Your issue there is with people using that idea as an attack (implicitly when its not warranted).  That can and will happen regardless of the precise semantic load - see Oniya's anecdote above, do you really think the kids in question were aware of this sort of debate? 

Sure, decry that behaviour.  Its unhelpful let alone anything else. But I don't think its exacerbated in any way by definitions, whatever they are.

[gaggedLouise]

Only when used as a blunt tool.  Sure, one could cry "whitey is oppressing me".  Or "all men are pigs" or whatever you want.  But your issue there isn't with the concept, the idea, of racism or sexism or whatever.  Your issue there is with people using that idea as an attack (implicitly when its not warranted).  That can and will happen regardless of the precise semantic load - see Oniya's anecdote above, do you really think the kids in question were aware of this sort of debate? 

Sure, decry that behaviour.  Its unhelpful let alone anything else. But I don't think its exacerbated in any way by definitions, whatever they are.

People are not likely to take the talk of schoolyard kids seriously as a guide to what racism is about. If this kind of "shortcut-to-saying-You're-racist!" talk gains common currency in the media and in the academy, then it's a problem of a whole different order. Maybe I'm naive to think grown-ups who are talking and writing in the public circulation media, or writing books and articles, and who get paid for it, should be more careful.

[Kythia]

Well, a little.  People will use words imprecisely, or will assume a context is understood that isn't or one of a host of other things that lead to their intent not being fully clear (or, possibly, them not being fully clear of their intent).  That's just gonna happen, and I think we might just have to suck it up.  The sole criterion for talking, writing in the media or writing books or articles is being allowed to do so.  There's no vocabulary test beforehand, nor should there be IMHO.

Again, I don't see this as overly/at all related to the narrowing of the definition of racism, but in general terms: yes, people will use words wrongly. 

[TheGlyphstone]

If racism requires prejudice + power, how much power do you need for it to qualify? If, just to pick two minorities at random, a black person hates Native Americans, that is prejudice. But if that person, say, owns a small restaurant and intentionally overcooks/undercooks/otherwise ruins the meals of any Native American who orders one, is that racism? It's definitely on a petty scale, rather than the societal level, but in that moment the chef does have a small bit of power over the customer, the power to make their meal enjoyable or unpleasant.

[AndyZ]

In my experience, if I'm trying to set terms, I'll look at the dictionary definition and try to make sure that it fits.  I agree that trying to change words without changing the dictionary is only going to cause confusion.

I have been told by a black person that he can't be racist.  If I knew the guy better, I'd start asking the type of questions, but I kept quiet on it to ask others.  When I did so, it came about that the person was himself racist for that belief.

Abbott and Costello routines do happen in real life, just not the way Abbott and Costello did them.

It's not really fair to use a word that's been around for centuries, give it a new meaning, and expect laypeople to understand what you mean without it being obvious in some way.

Anyone who sees a computer mouse can see that it's different.  Anyone who hears the word racist doesn't instantly realize that having power is a requirement to the new definition.

People are not likely to take the talk of schoolyard kids seriously as a guide to what racism is about. If this kind of "shortcut-to-saying-You're-racist!" talk gains common currency in the media and in the academy, then it's a problem of a whole different order. Maybe I'm naive to think grown-ups who are talking and writing in the public circulation media, or writing books and articles, and who get paid for it, should be more careful.

We have all kinds of this kind of problem in America.

Penn Jillette has talked about how racism is the magic word, because once you say it, you win the argument.

I've had people where I mentioned how I didn't like President Clinton, and nobody cared.  I didn't like President Bush, and nobody cared.  I didn't like President Obama, and suddenly I was racist.  After saying all that, the person I was talking to agreed that it somehow made me racist.  (Clinton, Bush and Obama were the last three presidents we had)

We do end up with the type of situation where dialogue is stifled, leading to people making assumptions.  One of my black friends who has openly stated being okay with my asking such questions has jokingly said that because I didn't automatically assume, "Are you sure you're white? ;-)"

I'm very curious about the culture thing Valthazar has mentioned.  Eventually I will work up the courage to ask.

[Valthazar]

I'm very curious about the culture thing Valthazar has mentioned.  Eventually I will work up the courage to ask.

As an example, most white Americans are unaware of the ongoing attacks against white farmers in South Africa.  The South African government literally turns a blind eye on these matters, with a South African president even singing songs about "shooting the Boers" (notice how enthusiastic the crowd is).

Yet, because white people (as a generalized group) are reluctant to even realize that there may be collective matters that disproportionately affect them, rarely ever will this receive media limelight (and also likely due to fears of being called "racist").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NVkRmBTB7k

[la dame en noir]

I mean...the colonizers came to South Africa and took over...put a majority of natives into servitude and even went as far to call them racial slurs....

Do you honestly think a backlash wouldn't have happened? And when is the last time anyone has seen a black Miss South Africa?

[Kythia]

AndyZ

Thinking we shouldn't change words without changing the dictionary is...its not a particularly sustainable position.  There's a debate in dictionary-maker circles between prescriptivism and descriptivism.  It's precisely as interesting as the phrase "debate in dictionary maker circles" makes it sound, but in brief its whether dictionaries are/can be/should be laying down rules about how words must be used (prescriptivism) or reflecting how words are actually used (descriptivism).

I bring this up because the point is that not even dictionary makers agree that trying to change words without changing the dictionary should be discouraged.  Generally, the presciptivist viewpoint doesn't gel with reality because people don't take their usage from dictionaries.  Look at local dialect words for example. 

Essentially, I don't think thats a particularly good viewpoint to hold in the long term.  Look at how people use words then check to see if the dictionary has been updated to reflect that yet.  Doing it the other way round is incredibly reductionist.  Words change meaning and they do so faster than new editions of dictionaries are economically feasible.

Further, "racism" hasn't been around for centuries, its been around since the thirties.  Literally, albeit not by much, within living memory - there's no long standing tradition to overthrow.  It's a new word.

All that said, though, it doesn't actually matter because if you did go to the dictionary (depending heavily on which one you chose) you may well find that it is a given definition.  Wikipedia's section on definitions of racism - and note the plural there - does a pretty decent job as an intro.

EDIT:  Grammar is hard.

[Valthazar]

Do you honestly think a backlash wouldn't have happened? And when is the last time anyone has seen a black Miss South Africa?

Perhaps you could clarify your thoughts a little more.  It is scary thought to suggest that the actions of white colonizers in the past justifies the South African president to openly call for the murder of white farmers today. 

What concerns me is that most white people today don't see such acts as a "collective hit" to their identity as Anglo-Saxons or European-Americans, or what have you.  Because for minorities like us, I would argue that we feel a healthy sense of camaraderie in our ethnic identity - that allows us to unite in times of crises.

[AndyZ]

As an example, most white Americans are unaware of the ongoing attacks against white farmers in South Africa.  The South African government literally turns a blind eye on these matters, with a South African president even singing songs about "shooting the Boers" (notice how enthusiastic the crowd is).

Yet, because white people (as a generalized group) are reluctant to even realize that there may be collective matters that disproportionately affect them, rarely ever will this receive media limelight (and also likely due to fears of being called "racist").

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NVkRmBTB7k

I mean...the colonizers came to South Africa and took over...put a majority of natives into servitude and even went as far to call them racial slurs....

Do you honestly think a backlash wouldn't have happened? And when is the last time anyone has seen a black Miss South Africa?

I know there's a lot of this kind of thing that happens all over the world.  Admittedly I don't really follow it.

I've heard a number of things where someone's "blackness" is brought into question, though, which is something that's always puzzled me.  I watch anime, but I've never felt as though I'm giving up my racial status in order to be more Japanese.

It ends up reminding me a lot of what people have said regarding gender expression, where men allegedly do X and women allegedly do Y.  I could very well be wrong on that, though.

AndyZ

Thinking we shouldn't change words without changing the dictionary is...its not a particularly sustainable position.  There's a debate in dictionary-maker circles between prescriptivism and descriptivism.  It's precisely as interesting as the phrase "debate in dictionary maker circles" makes it sound, but in brief its whether dictionaries are/can be/should be laying down rules about how words must be used (prescriptivism) or reflecting how words are actually used (descriptivism).

I bring this up because the point is that not even dictionary makers agree that trying to change words without changing the dictionary should be discouraged.  Generally, the presciptivist viewpoint doesn't gel with reality because people don't take their usage from dictionaries.  Look at local dialect words for example. 

Essentially, I don't think thats a particularly good viewpoint to hold in the long term.  Look at how people use words then check to see if the dictionary has been updated to reflect that yet.  Doing it the other way round is incredibly reductionist.  Words change meaning and they do so faster than new editions of dictionaries are economically feasible.

Further, "racism" hasn't been around for centuries, its been around since the thirties.  Literally, albeit not by much, within living memory - there's no long standing tradition to overthrow.  It's a new word.

All that said, though, it doesn't actually matter because if you did go to the dictionary (depending heavily on which one you chose) you may well find that it is a given definition.  Wikipedia's section on definitions of racism - and note the plural there - does a pretty decent job as an intro.

EDIT:  Grammar is hard.

My mistake.  Decades and not centuries.  You also make valid points.

I'm going to narrow my claim that we should avoid word changes to things which can mess up someone's life if a label is placed upon them.  For example, I would consider both "pedophile" and "racist" to be some horrendous things and a mark that someone should generally be avoided.  If I change the word "pedophile" to mean someone who is sexually attracted to feet, though, and call someone that in a public conversation, it's going to seriously mess up their life.

[la dame en noir]

Perhaps you could clarify your thoughts a little more.  It is scary thought to suggest that the actions of white colonizers in the past justifies the South African president to openly call for the murder of white farmers today. 

What concerns me is that most white people today don't see such acts as a "collective hit" to their identity as Anglo-Saxons or European-Americans, or what have you.  Because for minorities like us, I would argue that we feel a healthy sense of camaraderie in our ethnic identity - that allows us to unite in times of crises.

The saying is "Sins of a father" I believe. No one wants this to happen, but there isn't much you can do...especially for a place like South Africa.

[Valthazar]

The saying is "Sins of a father" I believe. No one wants this to happen, but there isn't much you can do...especially for a place like South Africa.

I think it's unfair to demand equality and fair treatment of all races in predominantly white countries (in Europe, Australia, and the USA), while at the same time sweeping race issues that heavily affect white people "under the rug" in majority non-white countries.

Just imagine how Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians would feel if white people threw up their hands and said, "there isn't much we can do to improve race relations."  It would be an outrage - so it confuses me why we are okay ignoring these issues when the institutionally oppressed happen to be white people.

[Kythia]

My mistake.  Decades and not centuries.  You also make valid points.

I'm going to narrow my claim that we should avoid word changes to things which can mess up someone's life if a label is placed upon them.  For example, I would consider both "pedophile" and "racist" to be some horrendous things and a mark that someone should generally be avoided.  If I change the word "pedophile" to mean someone who is sexually attracted to feet, though, and call someone that in a public conversation, it's going to seriously mess up their life.

Funnily enough - and I'm not sure if you knew this or its just a weird coincidence - but there's a strong argument that pedophile does mean someone who likes feet.  It's the difference between πόδι (podi) - foot and παιδί (paidi) - child.  Generally it's made by dickheads, in my experience, who think US American is somehow a bastardisation that must be resisted with every breath.  I just thought I'd mention in case it was a coincidence.

In general, though, I don't 100% agree with you, but I don't 100% disagree.  If you wake up tomorrow and decide that from now on you're going to use "rapist" to mean "someone who likes Doctor Who" and point out rapists accordingly then sure, it could cause problems.  That's not the situation we have here.  First, noone has redefined racist/ism from good to bad - it was a negative and still is.  So that issue is minimised and possibly even removed.  Second, this isn't some random nutjob using a word in a way at odds with the rest of the world.  The definition is known within the domain where it is commonly used - sociology/race studies/etc.  The problem is that you're not familiar with its meaning within that field.  Or, rather, weren't.  Now you are.  If you hear two sociologists discussing racism, you know there's a decent chance they're using it in that jargonised context, rather than in the context you're more familiar with in every day life. 

No word has had its meaning changed, is the point.  Words mean different things to different groups.  That's not a terribly controversial point.

[la dame en noir]

I think it's unfair to demand equality and fair treatment of all races in predominantly white countries (in Europe, Australia, and the USA), while at the same time sweeping race issues that heavily affect white people "under the rug" in majority non-white countries.

Just imagine how Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians would feel if white people threw up their hands and said, "there isn't much we can do to improve race relations."  It would be an outrage - so it confuses me why we are okay ignoring these issues when the institutionally oppressed happen to be white people.

They're already doing that though.

Like I said, no one wants this to happen but we pay for what our ancestors did and didn't do. Their ancestors went into foreign territory and took over and the children must pay for their stupidity.

[Valthazar]

Their ancestors went into foreign territory and took over and the children must pay for their stupidity.

I am shocked at your suggestion that "revenge through murder" against white people is a justifiable result in South Africa's modern day government.  The whole concept of anti-racism is that peaceful race relations is something that all races should embrace - with programs put in place so that historically disadvantaged groups can be at a somewhat equal footing.  I don't think "no one wants this to happen" - as clearly prominent members of the ruling class of South Africa wants to kill white people (and receive rousing applause for making such remarks).

What shocks me even more is that this is not making mainstream international news, and that even if it did, those of European descent would likely feel no passionate desire to defend/support the white farmers of South Africa (in a manner similar to the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin rallies).

[la dame en noir]

I am shocked at your suggestion that "revenge through murder" against white people is a justifiable result in South Africa's modern day government.  The whole concept of anti-racism is that peaceful race relations is something that all races should embrace - with programs put in place so that historically disadvantaged groups can be at a somewhat equal footing.  I don't think "no one wants this to happen" - as clearly prominent members of the ruling class of South Africa wants to kill white people (and receive rousing applause for making such remarks).

What shocks me even more is that this is not making mainstream international news, and that even if it did, those of European descent would likely feel no passionate desire to defend/support the white farmers of South Africa (in a manner similar to the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin rallies).

I'm shocked that you took it as such when I did not say that. I'm saying this is what happens. Its not right, but when one human thinks that their better than another for whatever reason, there is always something to comes back to bite you in the ass. But okay, I want murder.

[Blythe]

I am shocked at your suggestion that "revenge through murder" against white people is a justifiable result in South Africa's modern day government.  The whole concept of anti-racism is that peaceful race relations is something that all races should embrace - with programs put in place so that historically disadvantaged groups can be at a somewhat equal footing.  I don't think "no one wants this to happen" - as clearly prominent members of the ruling class of South Africa wants to kill white people (and receive rousing applause for making such remarks).

What shocks me even more is that this is not making mainstream international news, and that even if it did, those of European descent would likely feel no passionate desire to defend/support the white farmers of South Africa (in a manner similar to the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin rallies).

...I think la dame en noir is pointing out that this is a cultural backlash that has built up over time, and she doesn't see a way that it can be stopped at the moment? I'm uh, pretty sure she's not advocating the murder of whites in South Africa--she's just saying that this is going on and is really horrible because of other horrible things that happened in the past. Her statement isn't the best worded, maybe, but...better to try to apply a principle of charity when reading someone's statement rather than make this kind of assumption. :/

[la dame en noir]

...I think la dame en noir is pointing out that this is a cultural backlash that has built up over time, and she doesn't see a way that it can be stopped at the moment? I'm uh, pretty sure she's not advocating the murder of whites in South Africa--she's just saying that this is going on and is really horrible because of other horrible things that happened in the past. Her statement isn't the best worded, maybe, but...better to try to apply a principle of charity when reading someone's statement rather than make this kind of assumption. :/

Thank you. Its always hard to completely get a point across over the internet. I do not advocate violence...even though in some ways I agree more with Malcom X's methods over MLK's. Trust me, if I hated white people or wanted them all dead...I would not using anything white man made, roleplay on this website or even step outside lol.

I'm better with my words in roleplays.

[Valthazar]

I apologize for misreading your quote, la dame en noir - I did not mean to accuse you of anything.  I think I accidentally misunderstood your remarks to mean that you were supporting the people cheering on Jacob Zuma during his speech.

[la dame en noir]

Its all good...I know the internet is not the best place for opinions or debates without being mis-read.

[Oniya]

Funnily enough - and I'm not sure if you knew this or its just a weird coincidence - but there's a strong argument that pedophile does mean someone who likes feet.  It's the difference between πόδι (podi) - foot and παιδί (paidi) - child.  Generally it's made by dickheads, in my experience, who think US American is somehow a bastardisation that must be resisted with every breath.  I just thought I'd mention in case it was a coincidence.

This is one of the reasons that I like the unambiguous spelling of 'paedo-', although Wikipedia lists the term 'podophilia' for the scientific term for 'foot fetish'.  Also rather unambiguous (since we talk about podiatrists and pediatricians and everyone knows the difference.)

[Kythia]

This is one of the reasons that I like the unambiguous spelling of 'paedo-', although Wikipedia lists the term 'podophilia' for the scientific term for 'foot fetish'.  Also rather unambiguous (since we talk about podiatrists and pediatricians and everyone knows the difference.)

We talk about paediatricians - http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/careers-in-medicine/paediatrics/

[AndyZ]

Funnily enough - and I'm not sure if you knew this or its just a weird coincidence - but there's a strong argument that pedophile does mean someone who likes feet.  It's the difference between πόδι (podi) - foot and παιδί (paidi) - child.  Generally it's made by dickheads, in my experience, who think US American is somehow a bastardisation that must be resisted with every breath.  I just thought I'd mention in case it was a coincidence.

In general, though, I don't 100% agree with you, but I don't 100% disagree.  If you wake up tomorrow and decide that from now on you're going to use "rapist" to mean "someone who likes Doctor Who" and point out rapists accordingly then sure, it could cause problems.  That's not the situation we have here.  First, noone has redefined racist/ism from good to bad - it was a negative and still is.  So that issue is minimised and possibly even removed.  Second, this isn't some random nutjob using a word in a way at odds with the rest of the world.  The definition is known within the domain where it is commonly used - sociology/race studies/etc.  The problem is that you're not familiar with its meaning within that field.  Or, rather, weren't.  Now you are.  If you hear two sociologists discussing racism, you know there's a decent chance they're using it in that jargonised context, rather than in the context you're more familiar with in every day life. 

No word has had its meaning changed, is the point.  Words mean different things to different groups.  That's not a terribly controversial point.

I'd heard someone mistake pediatrician for podiatrist, and it was an easy enough jump to make ^_^

The more I think on it, though, the less I see importance in being in a position of power in regards to prejudice.  Perhaps you can explain that one?



Regarding history, I think the vast majority of people want to let the past stay in the past.  We learn from it, we make sure it doesn't happen again, but we don't judge people just because others of a particular persuasion who may not have even been related to those particular people did something terrible.

Other countries are rather difficult to do something about, though.  Generally we end up trying to walk the line between America being the "World Police" and America just staying back and allowing atrocities because we can't be held responsible for everything.

For example, there's a lot of stuff going on in the Middle East concerning women.  We know that it's NOT indicative of all Muslims, but it's bad all the same.  Our choices are either to invade or not to invade, unless someone can design a third choice.

It feels hollow simply to decry something when we could do something about it and don't, even if that something is an unreasonable course of action.

[Kythia]

The more I think on it, though, the less I see importance in being in a position of power in regards to prejudice.  Perhaps you can explain that one?

Sorry, I'm not sure I quite get what you're asking?  You don't see how being in power makes the nature of prejudice different - is that it?  Or...I dunno, sorry.  It's late here (and I'm actually going to bed in a bit) and tiredness has obviously hit my reading comprehension.  Could you say what it is you wanted me to explain but in terms that an idiot would understand - I think that's what I'll need.

[AndyZ]

Sure ^_^ Why exactly is a position of power important with regards to prejudice?

I realize the effects are different.  We had a case in my state several years ago where a guy was standing outside of a voting booth brandishing a nightstick and yelling racial epithets, and should have gone down on voter intimidation cases (they even had him on video) but the Department of Justice stepped in to have charges dismissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case if you want details there.

Other than in scope, though, is the question of whether the Department of Justice sympathized with a particular race any different from whether a police officer used excessive force because of a particular race?

Basically, why is the person's power important for this kind of thing?

[Caehlim]

The more I think on it, though, the less I see importance in being in a position of power in regards to prejudice.  Perhaps you can explain that one?

I'm not one of those who thinks that racism, sexism, etc requires being supported by systems of power. Personally I dislike the current usage of these words and feel that it does a poor job of communication. However...

Imagine that I insult you for using American spelling and through prejudice believe negative things about you because you use it. Let's say for this example that I'm an employer and I turn you down for a job because of it. What I'm doing would be wrong, it would be prejudicial and it could certainly hurt you.

However imagine instead that you're gay, living in an area where anti-gay bigotry is more common and I'm applying the same prejudice. It's still wrong, still prejudicial and could still hurt you. However in addition to all that, you know that the next employer you go to is likely to say the same thing, you've probably encountered lots of insults on the same point before, you know that if you complain you might add to the judgement against gay people "wanting special interests", you know that mainstream opinion isn't necessarily going to side with you. All of these things can make the situation more difficult for you and I, by my own actions of judging you for it, am adding to the environment of anti-gay bigotry that exists within the area reinforcing it as okay for others to do.

People shouldn't do either form of prejudice, but one is operating from a position of power and thus its effects are multiplied.

[Kythia]

I'm not one of those who thinks that racism, sexism, etc requires being supported by systems of power. Personally I dislike the current usage of these words and feel that it does a poor job of communication. However...

Imagine that I insult you for using American spelling and through prejudice believe negative things about you because you use it. Let's say for this example that I'm an employer and I turn you down for a job because of it. What I'm doing would be wrong, it would be prejudicial and it could certainly hurt you.

However imagine instead that you're gay, living in an area where anti-gay bigotry is more common and I'm applying the same prejudice. It's still wrong, still prejudicial and could still hurt you. However in addition to all that, you know that the next employer you go to is likely to say the same thing, you've probably encountered lots of insults on the same point before, you know that if you complain you might add to the judgement against gay people "wanting special interests", you know that mainstream opinion isn't necessarily going to side with you. All of these things can make the situation more difficult for you and I, by my own actions of judging you for it, am adding to the environment of anti-gay bigotry that exists within the area reinforcing it as okay for others to do.

People shouldn't do either form of prejudice, but one is operating from a position of power and thus its effects are multiplied.

This^

But also, the next employer might not hold any anti-gay bigotry but could well still not employ you because of the effect having a gay employee would have on his customers - they'll probably go to the shop across the road instead of his.  Prejudice from that position of power spreads its effects wider and more insidiously.

[AndyZ]

In a parallel discussion I'm having, I've had it said that if people block someone not because of they themselves are prejudiced but because other people they know would have problems with it.  You would, however, say that they themselves are still prejudiced by doing so?

May I request a way in order to explain how that is?  I don't disagree but I do the "mail carrier" thing a lot.

To explain the mail carrier thing, if I was playing chess against two grand masters simultaneously and playing white on one side and black on the other side, I could beat one of them.  I'd just completely copy the moves that one of them made, and they'd effectively be playing against each other.  I love doing that with discussions because I learn so much as a result, the same way I'd learn all kinds of chess strategy playing mail carrier to chess grand masters.

[Kythia]

In a parallel discussion I'm having, I've had it said that if people block someone not because of they themselves are prejudiced but because other people they know would have problems with it.  You would, however, say that they themselves are still prejudiced by doing so?

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me or Caehlim?  If me, though, no I wouldn't say they're prejudiced. I'm not sure where I gave that impression, sorry - throw me the quote and I'll rephrase it.

[AndyZ]

Oh, anyone and everyone who wants to respond to my stuff can do so ^_^ I learn best that way, and I love having a large sample size to compare from.

It wasn't a specific thing you said, just that I'm trying to work it all through my brain.

Is there a particular word for when someone attempts to capitulate to what they perceive as unspoken bigotry?

[Kythia]

Is there a particular word for when someone attempts to capitulate to what they perceive as unspoken bigotry?

I doubt it very much  ;D

I'm for bed.  G'night guys.

[AndyZ]

Sleep well ^_^

[Beguile's Mistress]

Prejudice, no matter what the form, hurts someone, the one discriminated against and the bigot as well.

[AndyZ]

La Dame en Noir, I've been thinking a lot on this one.

It has been known that white males are more likely to get out of heinous crimes before a black male would. Why is that? could someone please explain that to me?

I've spent a lot of time in places like Philadelphia, and I've thus had firsthand experience that it's not the color of the skin of the person but the locale.  I'm curious, though, whether that statistic puts in consideration for that kind of issue.

This is only a hypothesis on my part.  I don't know if it's accurate, but I would like to know, and you're obviously very educated on this issue.

Crime is pretty nasty in Philadelphia, not because of any race stuff but because it's not a good area.  So when you isolate a particular area like Philadelphia and apples-to-apples compare the races and crimes, is there a notable difference?

[consortium11]

I disagree with though.  They are using it wrongly within a given context, that's not the same as using it wrong.  A meaning has grown up around it - deliberately or otherwise, I don't know the history - within "social justice" type conversation that isn't the same as the everyday meaning.  That's fine.  You likely mean something very different when you say "the bar" at work as opposed to when you say it after a long day at work.  That's fine, neither usage is wrong, the word just means different things in different situations.  We, as a species, are smart enough to deal with that.  By and large.  The confusion for want of a better word here is solely because the fact that "racism" has two linked but different meanings in two different contexts isn't as well known as the fact that "bar" does.  The issue is education and expectation-setting.

But the change in the definition of racism isn't limited to ivory tower/academic discussions about social justice. Take the first section of this article (from everydaysexism which is intended to be the exact opposite of ivory tower/academic discussion... the inspiration for that article was a facebook discussion) for example; it goes all out with the "racism is prejudice + power" definition and attempts to explain why people who disagree (again in an everyday context) are wrong and just don't understand. The article actually does some good work in pointing out that just because something isn't racist under the new definition it can still be prejudicial or bigoted... but that runs into the "so what's the point/difference?" issue. Or this article from the same source which sticks to the same "racism is prejudice + power and if you're not saying that then you're using the word incorrectly" position and was inspired by discussion and posts outside of social justice circles (I actually agree with certain parts of the article; history means that racial terms against non-whites have far more power then those used against whites, but how and why it gets there is still wrong).

I clearly confused the issue by using "institutional".  "Racism by institutions" is institutional racism, yes.  But that's not what people mean when they use P+P racism.  The difference is that an individual can be bigoted without that falling in to a wider (and I hate myself for saying it) meta-narrative.  P+P racism refers to that meta-narrative, not to what you and I agree is correctly called institutional racism.  Sorry for the poor word choice there.

But the meta-narrative is that you have the backing of institutions and thus have power. An unemployed white "redneck" (to go with a stereotype) living on a trailer park has far less power in every meaningful sense I can think of then say Jay-Z or Barrack Obama or Aliko Dangote or Mike Adenuga or Robert L. Johnson. For the P+P definition to lead to said unnamed "unemployed white "redneck" (to go with a stereotype) living on a trailer park" being able to be racist against those figures and them not to be racist to him it can only be because he has the support of institutions. The "power" part of P+P refers to institutional power.

[TheGlyphstone]

But the meta-narrative is that you have the backing of institutions and thus have power. An unemployed white "redneck" (to go with a stereotype) living on a trailer park has far less power in every meaningful sense I can think of then say Jay-Z or Barrack Obama or Aliko Dangote or Mike Adenuga or Robert L. Johnson. For the P+P definition to lead to said unnamed "unemployed white "redneck" (to go with a stereotype) living on a trailer park" being able to be racist against those figures and them not to be racist to him it can only be because he has the support of institutions. The "power" part of P+P refers to institutional power.

Do you then disagree with the concept of petty-scale racism, as I asked about in an unanswered post upthread?

If racism requires prejudice + power, what degree of relative power do you need for it to qualify? If, just to pick two minorities at random, a black person hates Native Americans, that is prejudice. But if that person, say, owns a small restaurant and intentionally overcooks/undercooks/otherwise ruins the meals of any Native American who orders one, is that racism? It's definitely on a petty scale, rather than the societal level, but in that moment the chef does have a small bit of power over the customer, the power to make their meal enjoyable or unpleasant. Substitute white cook and black customer, Asian cook and white customer, or whatever you prefer - the concept remains the same.

[consortium11]

Do you then disagree with the concept of petty-scale racism, as I asked about in an unanswered post upthread?

My apologies; missed it above.

For me the example you give is clearly racism and is one of the issues with the P+P way of looking at things; individuals can (and do) have power completely separated from their race and how their race is doing overall. To go to the most basic level we'd all probably admit that an extremely rich white man has more power than an unemployed, bankrupt black man... but if the pair are about to have a fight and the white man is Stephen Hawking while the black man is Mike Tyson (even the old, broken down Tyson of today) then I think the power dynamic is very different.

It's why for the "it's not racism against whites/only white people can be racist" thing when looked at through P+P almost always means power in an institutional sense; the individual power dynamic between the two in a given situation is ignored for favour of the wider dynamic between the two races. It doesn't matter that Aliko Dangote is the richest person in Africa, the 43rd richest person in the world (at least in 2013) and absolutely dominates West Africa in general... because he's black and as a general rule blacks have less institutional power than white people, he can't be racist against whites. He can be prejudiced, bigotted etc etc (I should stress I'm simply using him as an example; I have no idea about Dangote's views on race) but not racist, whatever difference that makes.

[Kythia]

On my phone so forgive brevity. I'll expand later. I think the issue is that individuals within an institution can be racist without the institution being institutionally racist. Imagine if that chef wasn't the owner and the owner would in fact be horrified by his behaviour. Institutional power supporting racism but not institutional racism.

[Silk]

I don't really care for subjective views on the word racism, we have a professions set up that gives words their official meanings as far as language is concerned. With most of the results stored within Dictionaries. Here is the one from Oxford in particular: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism

It is this sort of example that matters only, if professional consensus view of the word ends up being altered then so be it. But saying Racism outside of that/ means something else is about as useful as saying a Burger is a type of drink.

[Kythia]

Hi Silk,

I go in to this in a little more depth in the first post of page 2, but to briefly recap:

No, you're mistaken.  We don't have "professions set up that gives words their official meanings as far as language is concerned" - that's pure and simple not a thing that exists.  Or not in English at least, some languages - French for example - do.  But in English there's no professions who define precisely what words officially mean.  Whether there should be or not is a different matter, I say no, some would say yes, but as it stands you're mistaken.  We don't.

[Zakharra]

My apologies; missed it above.

For me the example you give is clearly racism and is one of the issues with the P+P way of looking at things; individuals can (and do) have power completely separated from their race and how their race is doing overall. To go to the most basic level we'd all probably admit that an extremely rich white man has more power than an unemployed, bankrupt black man... but if the pair are about to have a fight and the white man is Stephen Hawking while the black man is Mike Tyson (even the old, broken down Tyson of today) then I think the power dynamic is very different.

It's why for the "it's not racism against whites/only white people can be racist" thing when looked at through P+P almost always means power in an institutional sense; the individual power dynamic between the two in a given situation is ignored for favour of the wider dynamic between the two races. It doesn't matter that Aliko Dangote is the richest person in Africa, the 43rd richest person in the world (at least in 2013) and absolutely dominates West Africa in general... because he's black and as a general rule blacks have less institutional power than white people, he can't be racist against whites. He can be prejudiced, bigotted etc etc (I should stress I'm simply using him as an example; I have no idea about Dangote's views on race) but not racist, whatever difference that makes.

I've mostly stayed quiet in this thread, I've just been reading and thinking about it, but your example made me want to post. If Dangote's views are prejudiced and he is anti-white (or at least anti anyone not African -his- type of African), I would consider that racist as well as prejudiced. The power one has as an individual is NOT a requirement to make ones views racist. All that affects is how many people your racist views (meaning a general 'you', not anyone here) impact on a daily basis. Joe Redneck from Trailortown USA could be just as racist and prejudiced as Mr. Refined and Cultured in charge of a multi-billion dollar company. Their impact in who they affect is obviously different, but they can still be both as racist as the other.

For me at least, it doesn't matter what race/gender you are, anyone can be prejudiced and racist by their actions and views. The power/influence the person might have is irrelevant to that. It's the person themselves that is racist.

[roleplaying dave]

I've mostly stayed quiet in this thread, I've just been reading and thinking about it, but your example made me want to post. If Dangote's views are prejudiced and he is anti-white (or at least anti anyone not African -his- type of African), I would consider that racist as well as prejudiced. The power one has as an individual is NOT a requirement to make ones views racist. All that affects is how many people your racist views (meaning a general 'you', not anyone here) impact on a daily basis. Joe Redneck from Trailortown USA could be just as racist and prejudiced as Mr. Refined and Cultured in charge of a multi-billion dollar company. Their impact in who they affect is obviously different, but they can still be both as racist as the other.

For me at least, it doesn't matter what race/gender you are, anyone can be prejudiced and racist by their actions and views. The power/influence the person might have is irrelevant to that. It's the person themselves that is racist.

I agree with you. I grew up with a racist father who was a truck driver with no real social standing who admitted his position. I held the same thoughts until I actually met those of color and found they were just normal people. Experience is the best teacher. Unfortunately some people never have or take the opportunity to get to know others.

I do believe being discriminated against is different than racism. I work in education and there are groups of people who are institutionally discriminated against, not based on race, but rather based on their economic status and where they live. There are some places where kids go to schools which are 40 to 60 years old while brand new schools are built in the same city. While it is true many of those neglected areas are were minorities live, usually black and Hispanic, there are many rural areas which are predominately or all white which get the same treatment. This type of neglect is as damaging as the isolated occurrences of racism which are highlighted in the news.

[Scribbles]

And when is the last time anyone has seen a black Miss South Africa?

Ziphozakhe Zokufa would be the most recent (2014) but there's also Jacqui, Basetsana, Peggy-Sue, and so on and so forth...

Oh, it pains me to think that an entire year might pass before another black South African might be chosen to hold the title, curse those "stupid" settlers! ;)

I don't believe it's intentional or racist and I certainly don't mean to offend La Dame en Noir but your words do convey a more slanted view rather than a neutral one, so I can understand Valthazar's confusion.

I'm sad this line of thought was so promptly quashed, I would really enjoy more talk of places outside the popular Western world. I've tried working up the courage to post on areas such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Italy, Portugal, India but I always fear that it would end up an unanswered topic, quick to sink to the bottom of the board.

Back on topic...

What is happening in our school system now, that younger kids don't seem to comprehend this fact? I'm just confused, and felt the need to vent. I mean, surely not every younger person thinks like this...do they? I'd like to think that humanity is moving forward, not backward...

I actually feel the young have the best view on race and culture, there is none...

I know that's not the "young" you meant but a sight which has always left me unnerved was when I looked upon a kindergarten class and saw children mingling freely while a class pushing on their final year had a shockingly apparent line, cut right down the middle. Mind you, this may have been a unique circumstance of the schools I visited, or at least I hope so.

As for how I feel power affects racism, I prefer the simpler meaning. I'm not fond of attempts by people to create exemptions for races and cultures by applying subtle requirements to established definitions. I suppose you can argue that the English language is ever-changing and that people are free to pick and choose their own meanings but I feel that such attempts have a disturbing ripple effect, especially on the young. We're all human, we're all capable of nasty thoughts and deeds, better to embrace this fact and teach it than attempt to manipulate languages to suit your own ends...