What, to you, are racist actions?

[poppy]

White people who show scorn for other white people who are wearing the anti Trump pins as a gesture of support , or calling it 'white self hatred' is absurdly racist in my mind.

 

If just about every person of color thinks racism exists and half the white folks do, the white folks telling allllllll those people how wrong they are is misguided at best.

[quark]

.

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by quark

[Daria]

As a white mother with an adopted African American teenage son, and as a special education teacher in an urban area, I've had many opportunities to see racism up front.

 

We've had a few incidences of in your face hatred.  Like the time my toddler son and I were alone on a subway car, stuck in a tunnel, with a very drunk man who asked me repeatedly, in a very hostile tone, "Did you sleep with a black man?"  "Is that where he came from, you f____ed a black man" and when I finally said "Actually no, he's adopted . . . " (because I was afraid of violence if I continued not to answer) got very apologetic, and told me he was glad to know that I was a "good woman after all".  

 

More frequently, much more frequently, my son has experiences where members of the general public treat him as "scary".  For about 6 years my mom lives in a tall apartment building that is almost all elderly white people.  My son and I visit her regularly, and almost always arrive separately.  Once, when my son was about 13, and just beginning to look like a "young man" rather than a "little boy", I arrived in the lobby and saw him picking up the phone to be buzzed in.  I was surprised.  I've never once used that phone.  Every time I come, the concierge smiles and waves me in.  It doesn't matter who is working at the front desk, even if it's a substitute I've never seen before, they smile and wave me in, and say "Hello" as I walk to the elevator.  So, I said to my son "Why do you bother Nana?  You know it's hard for her to get up and answer the phone.  Just have the concierge let you  in."  He looked at me like I was crazy "They only let people who live there in.  Otherwise you have to be buzzed in, and then stop and explain where you're going so they don't chase you down at the elevator."  

 

But those incidents, aren't the kind of racism I worry about most when raising my son.  Instead, I worry about the systematic racism in things like employment, housing, and education, that have potential to be so harmful to my child and to my society.  Here are some examples:

 

Employment:  I used to work at a small private school that had a reputation for paying more than other schools in the area and as a result got far more applicants than we could interview.  The first year I worked there, I'd watch the director go through stacks of resumes and find reasons to interview or not.  Colleges were often a reason to reject.  If the director had a friend or relative who went to the school that was a good sign.  Of course, the director didn't have any friends or relatives who went to HBCU's so those went into the "no" pile.  Once I watched her sort a resume from Agnes Scott into the "yes" pile ("my cousin went there, lots of sweet hard working women") and one from Spelman into the "no" pile ("never heard of it, not sure it's a very good school"). Addresses were another reason.  Unfamiliar streets or areas of the city were rejected with the reason "What if there's a snow day?  I'm not sure there's a good route from that part of the town."  or "That commute will surely wear her down, she'll probably only stay a year." Whereas candidates from more distant white suburbs were accepted because "I know it seems far away, but I've been to a party on that street.  It's right off River Road, they always plow that first.  She'll be fine." I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.  

 

Education:  Low expectations for students of color, and a failure of our educational institutions to take responsibility for the education of students of color, are an enormous issues in our country.  I could offer so many examples, but I'll give just one. When my son was in elementary school, his school failed to meet targets for reading achievement for black and Hispanic children.  Rather than looking at what was happening in their classrooms, and making changes to their curriculum, they responded by creating an afterschool club for children "in danger of failing".  Every black and Hispanic child in his classroom got a sealed envelope with a letter stating that "Your child has been identified as in danger of failing, and is thus invited to the afterschool reading club."  When one of my son's white classmates asked "Why don't I get a letter?"  The teacher answered, in front of the class "Those are just for children we think are going to fail the test. We think you are going to pass."  Not knowing all this (it came out later), I signed my son up for the club.  On the first day, my son came home and reported that the teacher had spent the entire club period reading aloud to the students from the book Bunnicula.  Since my son had already read the book, he asked me if he had to keep going to the club, so I called and asked for more details.  I was told that the plan was to continue to read aloud each week.  When I asked how listening to a novel aloud once a week was going to change scores on a test where students read short passages and answered questions, I was told that "We believe that the reason these children are failing is because those parents don't care enough to read at home.  Well, except you of course.  This class isn't for families like yours."  

 

Justice: In my previous job, I worked as a behavior specialist, helping educational teams plan interventions for students with serious behavior problems.  I wrote plans for white children, and for black children, for very similar behaviors.  When I wrote plans for white children, teachers expressed a lot of empathy.  They embraced and advocated for strategies like sensory breaks, positive reinforcement systems, preferential seating etc . . . When I wrote plans for black children exhibiting similar behaviors, teachers expressed frustration and fear.  They advocated for strategies that removed kids from the classroom, or provided consequences, or "communicated that X wasn't a choice."  When I suggested sensory breaks they told me they couldn't waste any more time on that child.  When I suggested positive reinforcement they told me that the kid didn't deserve reinforcement.  The difference was heartbreaking.  

 

Housing:  A few years ago, I went to look at an apartment for rent.  I was excited because the apartment was reasonably priced, despite being in a neighborhood with good schools, and an easy commute downtown.  When I came in, a Hispanic family was finishing the tour.  The landlord asked me if I would mind filling out the paperwork before beginning my tour.  He said it was more convenient for him, and we could tear up the paperwork if I didn't like the apartment. He quickly gave me the forms, and a pen.  Then he told the other family that they could use the clipboard and pen when I was done.  The other family caught on more quickly than I did, I am embarrassed to say, and produced their own pen and a book to write on, and with hesitation, the landlord handed over the paper.  When I finished first, he announced that in accordance with the Fair Housing Act, he was forced to consider my application before the other, since I had, after all, submitted it first.  At that point, I figured it out and withdrew my application.  

 

These are few examples, but I could write many many more.  I could write about the teachers who saw my kid's red eyes during allergy season and assumed drug use.  I could write about the fact that I've been offered every apartment I've ever applied to where I didn't happen to bring my son to the tour.  I could write about the difficulty my black students have finding jobs compared to my white students.  I could write about kids whose lives were ruined by the criminal justice system.  But I'll stop because this post is far too long already.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Daria

[hornblower]

 

These are few examples, but I could write many many more.  I could write about the teachers who saw my kid's red eyes during allergy season and assumed drug use.  I could write about the fact that I've been offered every apartment I've ever applied to where I didn't happen to bring my son to the tour.  I could write about the difficulty my black students have finding jobs compared to my white students.  I could write about kids' whose lives were ruined by the criminal justice system.  But I'll stop because this post is far too long already.

 

I liked your post not because I liked it but to thank you for sharing. 

[debinindy]

To get to the point where we can live that dream, we have to acknowledge reality and not bury our heads in the sand. If you refuse to see that race does continue to affect how people are treated - often through unintentional bias that is proven in various studies - then you can't help dismantle the problem. We all want to get there, but refusing to talk about race won't help us do so. Martin Luther King talked a whole lot about race and racial issues actually.

 

Can we acknowledge that this is what we are trying to do here?  Not bury our heads in the sand and not refuse to see that race does continue to affect how people are treated.

 

Discussing the words (racism, bigotry, etc.) and the definitions some are used to as well as exploring each others' experiences are an attempt to learn more and hopefully deepen our understanding.  I am appalled at how these folks have been treated and spoken to in their lives. I can't imagine doing that to someone and don't hang out with people who do either.  I admit that hearing these stories can deepen our empathy and help us see things from others' perspectives.  

 

I think this discussion is actually trying to help dismantle the problem.  We all just approach/see it from so many different angles.  I, too, have always thought (was taught) that the content of someone's character and their actions were more telling than their skin color.  I didn't realize that was offensive.

[Carol in Cal.]

Okay, even if we acknowledge that all acts of dislike based on race or ethnicity are racism (which I don't, but let's just say)... does anyone really want to argue that one of my corner homeless guys calling me a cracker is somehow on the same level of societal problem as the deep, institutional bias faced by African-Americans in this country?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

 

The negative institutional bias faced by African Americans in this country is deep, longterm, pervasive, utterly wrong, and completely unacceptable.  It is also unAmerican and unChristian.  It needs to be addressed strongly societally and individually.

[Farrar]

Can we acknowledge that this is what we are trying to do here?  Not bury our heads in the sand and not refuse to see that race does continue to affect how people are treated.

 

Discussing the words (racism, bigotry, etc.) and the definitions some are used to as well as exploring each others' experiences are an attempt to learn more and hopefully deepen our understanding.  I am appalled at how these folks have been treated and spoken to in their lives. I can't imagine doing that to someone and don't hang out with people who do either.  I admit that hearing these stories can deepen our empathy and help us see things from others' perspectives.  

 

I think this discussion is actually trying to help dismantle the problem.  We all just approach/see it from so many different angles.  I, too, have always thought (was taught) that the content of someone's character and their actions were more telling than their skin color.  I didn't realize that was offensive.

 

Absolutely. I hope it's useful to many of us. I think we need conversations like this. While there have been a lot of them here, and many have devolved, many have been productive exchanges as well. And I've thought that it's mostly positive.

 

And it's not that someone's character is less important or telling... it's that we're imperfect judges of those things so espousing to colorblindness makes it too easy for our own implicit biases to cause us to *think* we're just seeing the facts when in reality we're exhibiting bias. The blind orchestra auditions is the perfect example of this - how when you remove race you get a truly "colorblind" audition. But we have to acknowledge that the racism and bias in there in the first place (in ourselves) before we can get to the point where we do anything about it. So sticking to "I don't see color" or "I try not to see color" when that's impossible to do, doesn't help solve the problem. We have to have these conversations and listen to PoC tell about their experiences and be willing to acknowledge that racism is real and prevalent.

[goldberry]

Okay, even if we acknowledge that all acts of dislike based on race or ethnicity are racism (which I don't, but let's just say)... does anyone really want to argue that one of my corner homeless guys calling me a cracker is somehow on the same level of societal problem as the deep, institutional bias faced by African-Americans in this country?

 

I was raised with the dictionary definition of racism.  There is a definite shift in the definition toward what others have posted as the socialogical definition, but I understand that when people say "all racism is wrong" what they mean, and mostly don't mean anything bad by it.

 

It is only when refusing to acknowledge that yes, while all prejudice/bias based on race is wrong, that when combined with a power differential it becomes another more potent thing.  The comment above is spot on. Everyone not agreeing with the definition of the word is a problem, but don't most people surely agree that there is a difference when there is a power differential?  

 

I think maybe that changing the definition of a long existing word perhaps adds an unnecessary complication and useless arguing point into the mix. 

[Farrar]

I was raised with the dictionary definition of racism.  There is a definite shift in the definition toward what others have posted as the socialogical definition, but I understand that when people say "all racism is wrong" what they mean, and mostly don't mean anything bad by it.

 

It is only when refusing to acknowledge that yes, while all prejudice/bias based on race is wrong, that when combined with a power differential it becomes another more potent thing.  The comment above is spot on. Everyone not agreeing with the definition of the word is a problem, but don't most people surely agree that there is a difference when there is a power differential?  

 

I think maybe that changing the definition of a long existing word perhaps adds an unnecessary complication and useless arguing point into the mix. 

 

See, I asked the question - in part because I'd like to think that the posters who are defending the idea that there's anti-white "racism" understand that it's not actually a real problem. And, I think, to find some common ground. I mean, I hope no one here thinks that anti-white racism is some massive problem in America. Because there's just nothing objective to suggest that.

 

But I do think we need to clearly move to understanding racism the word as a system of privilege that includes implicit bias. In part because if we go around only saying "implicit bias" and "microaggressions" it's yet another way of whitewashing things - of insisting we can be colorblind when we can't. Race is inexorably tied up in these concepts. We have to acknowledge the role of race in order to understand implicit bias and how to eliminate it.

 

You're so right that people who are going by the dictionary definition mostly don't intend anything bad. But intention is just not everything - and that's something that's hardest for many people to accept. 

 

And the dictionary is changing. Mirriam-Webster's has "racial prejudice or discrimination" as a definition. A lot of the current definitions do include phrases like "unfair treatment" - which is, I think, a definition that doesn't speak to intention. Language changes. You don't have to believe that one group is superior in order to cause discrimination and further racism.

[Tanaqui]

See, guys, this is why I don't even use the term racism (and also why I think it's a good idea not to respond to people who aren't interested in learning). We start off talking about racist actions, and we end up having another tiresome argument over the definition of the term.

 

Maybe because I live in the south, but I had no idea that black people made up such a small percentage of the population.

 

People do this weird thing where they simultaneously overestimate and underestimate the percentage of minorities in the population. Lots of people, when asked directly, will tell you that there are way more blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, transgender people in the USA than there really are, though in other situations they don't act like they think that's the case.

 

Re: Colorblind - that's right up there with Person First Language. If you can't see me as a person unless you ignore the fact that I have a disability, that's on you - and not something I'd admit to, frankly. Likewise, if you think you can't see people or the "content of their character" unless you ignore their looks, their culture, and their experiences, then that's disgusting and also not something I'd admit to openly.

 

In part because if we go around only saying "implicit bias" and "microaggressions" it's yet another way of whitewashing things - of insisting we can be colorblind when we can't. Race is inexorably tied up in these concepts.

 

Well, it is when the bias or microaggressions are racial in nature. They can revolve around sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion... really lots of things. I suppose we can shove the term "racial" in there. "Implicit racial bias." "Racial microaggressions" or perhaps "Microaggressions based on race". Starting to get a bit wordy, but I see where you're coming from.

 

[regentrude]

For the OP, if you need more examples: sending group chat messages to African American students under the group name "N--- lynching". Sickening.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/11/university-pennsylvania-investigating-racially-charged-group-thread/93669194/

Edited November 13, 2016 by regentrude

[Daria]

Yep, me too. 

 

Ask your black friends to tell you of their experiences in your community.  I'm sure they can point out the storekeeper who yells at their child for looking for a price tag on the merchandise, or the teacher who excuses behavior from some kids but not others, or the employer where they can't even get an interview. 

 

Or, if you don't have any black friends, ask yourself what patterns in your society make it that way.  

 

Either way, it will give you a clue of where the racism exists in your community, because it exists in every community in this country.  

[bibiche]

For the OP, if you need more examples: sending group chat messages to African American students under the group name "N--- lynching". Sickening.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/11/university-pennsylvania-investigating-racially-charged-group-thread/93669194/

 

Accompanied by vile pictures of lynchings. People should really have a look. It will churn their stomachs, as it should.

 

At this point, I think people who are denying that there is systemic racism in addition to godawful overt racist incidents should probably just admit that they are racist, because there is really no other way to explain it. Stop denying it, especially to yourselves (to the rest of us, it's obvious).

Edited November 13, 2016 by bibiche

[heartlikealion]

Yeah, guess we're not all on the same page about the word racism lol. I don't think racism always has to do with power at all. I mean, you could assume someone is good at dancing because they're black or good at math because they're Asian and that's a stereotype you believe. But, what does that have to do with power?

 

I can't believe people are suggesting that racism can only exist against whites if whites are the minority in that area. You wanna believe that, fine. But to me, racism (in the way I use the term, not necessarily Webster or a sociologist) is making claims or believing things based on a person's race. Anyone remember that episode of How I Met Your Mother where Lilly's dad said the neighbors surely had an umbrella because they were a certain race (I think Asian)? Lilly told her dad that was racist. It wasn't mean spirited at all and didn't seem to have anything to do with superiority, but I think it's an interesting example of various things that can be seen as racist. On that note, I guess technically I've made conclusions that could be perceived as racist many times. Like if someone asked me what religion a particular Hispanic was, I might guess Catholic, just because it's so common. But I know that not all Hispanics are, of course.

 

I honestly don't really think to use the word bias in the contexts listed up thread. Not that it's wrong, just when I hear bias I often think of it from a journalism point of view. "That news station is so biased. It's so left/right winged." I guess you could use bias or racism to describe some examples. Semantics.

[goldberry]

I live in a not-very-diverse area.  I'm sure things are said, but if you asked me I couldn't think of them right now.  When Obama was elected there were racist comments off the charts.  There was someone protesting on the corner with a horrible billboard/poster of a monkey/ape representing Obama.  There was an actual billboard rented for a similar thing, that was up for about a month.  (I live in a red county of a blue state).

 

Oh, when I was concerned about the police shootings, I was told I was "buying into all that craps the blacks were whining about.."

 

When I am in Texas I hear more casual racist comments.  The "speak English" thing is big, I hear about "Mexicans taking over the grocery store with all their food", I hear about "lazy Mexicans" and "blacks complaining about getting shot".  

[heartlikealion]

Okay, even if we acknowledge that all acts of dislike based on race or ethnicity are racism (which I don't, but let's just say)... does anyone really want to argue that one of my corner homeless guys calling me a cracker is somehow on the same level of societal problem as the deep, institutional bias faced by African-Americans in this country?

 

This.

 

[heartlikealion]

It really isn't semantics. 

 

Maybe I used the word wrong. I meant arguing over the definition of the word (in this case racism or heck even bigotry, bias, whatever else people said).

[Spryte]

My DD is Puerto Rican. Before she was born, when we were getting ready to bring her home, a very close family member was very preoccupied with continually asking, "Is she black? She must be black. She's black." And once she came home, I was told in no uncertain terms that, "She's black." Ummmm. Ok. She's my daughter, your family member. Sure. Fine. Statement of the obvious? It was like they were saying, "I told you so." That family member rarely sees us now, though I'd hoped that it wouldn't unfold this way. I wouldn't have pegged that particular person as racist prior to this, they never said anything overt, I never saw anything covert. But there was such a need, such a drive, to peg DD into a hole. The fact that DD is biracial just threw this person completely off. It's like they needed a label for DD, to move forward. This thread brought that all back to me.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Spryte

[heartlikealion]

Well, defining terms is essential for a conversation to progress. And honestly, using the most simplistic definitions doesn't advance understanding all that much. 

 

There's not much to say if every act of bias, bigotry, dislike or even discrimination is 'racism'. 

 

If you want understanding then ask more specific questions? I don't know what to tell you. No, I don't think every single time someone shows bias it's racism. Or every single time someone discriminates, it's racism. Because I know cases in which those have nothing to do with race. Is there overlap? I believe so.

 

I took this thread as someone asking for observations/opinions. If I was the OP and I found out that person A felt that action X was racist, I would want to know and maybe the OP would. It wouldn't matter to me that person B said, "that doesn't fall under the heading 'racist'." What would matter to me is that it was seen that way by someone, so I could make a mental note. Learning how people view things may not change anything you do in your daily life, but it may be enlightening to the person that asked or someone else reading.

 

I see a lot of this on baby wearing posts arguing about cultural appropriation. What I care about is who is offended and why, regardless of whether others are not. I want to learn.

[MistyMountain]

Not all racism is overt but it is there. After civil rights were gained real estate practices blacklisted black neighborhoods and you could not get mortgages there. This caused a flight of the middle class people in the neighborhood and a lot of the community places. Then the highways were built to cut off these neighborhood and make it harder to get to jobs which are harder to get even if getting there was not a factor. Undesirable stuff does get built in neighborhoods with high minority populations. Minorities in stores get watched closer and are trusted less. White people do drugs as often as minorities but poportionately more minorities get arrested. Even the kinds of drugs they did got targeted harder. I even heard police who work in drug enforcement admit they do go in poor neighborhoods and go after the low hanging fruit.

 

I have heard plenty of outright racist comments over the years. I had people make very negative comments on people wearing hijab or that minorities moving in the neighborhood ruined it or people make comments on mixed race marriages etc etc. This is in areas where people would claim are not racist.

Edited November 14, 2016 by MistyMountain

[wendy not in HI]

We live in an area with a large racial and economic divide. You would not call this place racially diverse at all, but there is a large white population and a smaller but large native american population.  I think ignoring the history of this area in public schools is a shameful act of discrimination.  Some of it is painful, and embarrassing, but there is also a lot of fascinating and enriching history that is forgotten.  

 

And this is not as dramatic as the history thing, but one thing I often hear from people around where we live, that I think is racist, is: "I would never shop at Walmart - you should see the people in there.  And especially avoid going on (?date) when welfare checks are distributed."  I shop at Walmart about once a week, and do you know who shops there? Native Americans. It is my favorite place to see NA families together.  I love it!  For what ever reason, I don't see a lot of NA in my usual daily life. I know that when someone who is new to the area says "I hate that Walmart" what they are really saying is,"I feel a little afraid at Walmart because most of the people shopping there are poor and NA."  (Though maybe not, it is an older Walmart and I know from this board that many people prefer Target, but you get the feeling that there's some uncomfortable "other" that people pull away from.)

 

[Guest]

Nm

Edited November 14, 2016 by Kinsa

[Carol in Cal.]

See, I asked the question - in part because I'd like to think that the posters who are defending the idea that there's anti-white "racism" understand that it's not actually a real problem. And, I think, to find some common ground. I mean, I hope no one here thinks that anti-white racism is some massive problem in America. Because there's just nothing objective to suggest that.

 

 

Actually, I think that there is anti-white racism that IS a real problem.

 

I can easily think of a bunch of incidents recently where white people have been physically attacked by African Americans specifically because they are white.  In one of them, about which I heard from a relative who I know personally, a veteran in his late 60s was bringing his sister home from the hospital after surgery and their car was set upon.  No question if a window or door could have been opened before they got away he would have been beaten up, and maybe she would have as well.

 

The white guy who was pulled out of his car and beaten up in Charlotte in September is another example.

 

There are quite a few more associated with the anti-Trump rallies.

 

These are actual, racist incidents, they are actually wrong, and they are, of course, actually illegal.  

 

No comparison in proportion to the legacy and current behavior that has limited African American progress, families, and safety.  But still out there.

 

So I'm not willing to say that either that the problem levels are equivalent or that only one of them is wrong.  And I would assert that no American should be.

[Ausmumof3]

Well, defining terms is essential for a conversation to progress. And honestly, using the most simplistic definitions doesn't advance understanding all that much.

 

There's not much to say if every act of bias, bigotry, dislike or even discrimination is 'racism'.

I'm not arguing semantics or whatever myself I've just always understood racism in a more general sense I'm not familiar with the term as applied only to white supremacist type understanding. I definitely don't buy the argument that they are equivalent or just as bad I just haven't heard that they would be defined as racism. Edited November 14, 2016 by Ausmumof3

[ebunny]

I'm surprised to see posters compare hate crimes to racism or worse- reverse racism.

There is no phenomena called reverse racism in the U.S- given the history of slavery and then seggregation at all levels until 50 years ago. Crimes based on prejudice/anger/frustration against the dominant and powerful race *is not* racism.

 

Unfortunately, innocent non-racist individuals can become victims of hate crimes, but these incidences cannot be called racist attacks.

 

A non-academic article that talks about the myth of 'reverse racism'-

 

http://m.huffingtonpost.in/entry/reverse-racism-isnt-a-thing_us_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm surprised to see posters compare hate crimes to racism or worse- reverse racism.

There is no phenomena called reverse racism in the U.S- given the history of slavery and then seggregation at all levels until 50 years ago. Crimes based on prejudice/anger/frustration against the dominant and powerful race *is not* racism.

 

Unfortunately, innocent non-racist individuals can become victims of hate crimes, but these incidences cannot be called racist attacks.

 

A non-academic article that talks about the myth of 'reverse racism'-

 

http://m.huffingtonpost.in/entry/reverse-racism-isnt-a-thing_us_55d60a91e4b07addcb45da97

Just asserting this over and over is neither convincing nor establishing it as a fact rather than an opinion.

[heartlikealion]

Lots of people like myself reject the term "reverse racism" simply because we believe there's just "racism." And that racism can exist regardless of who is the minority/majority. If you're treated differently based on race, that's enough. This doesn't have to the accepted definition by all, but it is by many.

 

We watched Hotel Transylvania a lot lately. Dracula says he wants Johnny to pretend he's not human and he'll be fine around the other monsters. Johnny says that's kinda racist. This has nothing to do with majority/minority. But it is based on race and fear (the monsters fear humans).

 

Ds was watching Littlest Pet Shop once and one dog took a jab at another breed because of its breed. Ds found that to be racist (his own observation).

 

I don't care if we're talking about monsters, dogs, or humans. People do point out racism in lots of scenarios and it is a mainstream thing. It was basically the whole theme in Zootopia. This article http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/03/how-disneys-zootopia-gets-racism-wrong/

says Zooptia got racism wrong and goes on to describe two ways of defining racism. One is the "general public" way and that is the way in which I think I have been using it. So, if I'm wrong, I'm with the general public. I'm far from a race scholar.

[ebunny]

Just asserting this over and over is neither convincing nor establishing it as a fact rather than an opinion.

 

Then, it begs the question- what constitutes as a fact for you? How do you (as in people who believe in reverse racism or anti-white-ism) define a "fact" vs an "opinion"?

 

Maybe this 'reverse racism' is a symptom of progress, however small. When the historically disenfranchised begin to assert their voice; the privileged classes/races are likely to be threatened by the notion of equality and thus- reverse racism.

 

India has a long and sordid history of caste-ism where the Brahmins sit at the top of the totem pole and the 'Dalits/Hairjans' are at the very bottom. The Atrocities Act is like your affirmative action, where a certain % of seats/vacancies in govt positions/universities are reserved for the historically oppressed.

I belong to the historically powerful caste and I have been adversely affected by the Atrocities Act and lost out on admissions into certain universities. I have faced discrimination, of all sorts, from disgruntled non-brahmins.

 

Yet, I cannot, in all fairness, claim anti-brahminism- given the long long long and extremely horrific history of oppression against a whole section of society.

 

 

ETA: Reservations is but small aspect of the Atrocities Act not the whole.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Ebunny

[Carol in Cal.]

Then, it begs the question- what constitutes as a fact for you? 

 

Upthread you can see that I don't use the term reverse racism.

I use the term racism, and I use the dictionary definition of it. 

 

The fact is that the assertion that only white people (in the US) can be racist is a recent innovation, and it is not reflected in the definition of racism in standard dictionaries.  This novel redefinition of racism is not standard.  That is a fact.  You're the one asserting the novelty.  

 

And the novel assertion concerns me, because it takes away the moral roots and moral force and moral argument against racism.  If racism is bad, it's bad no matter who does it.  If it's going to be redefined as only bad if white people do it, you really have to figure that the assertion that it's bad is going to be rejected by just about everyone.  Because then you don't have a moral argument; rather, you have a 'whose ox is being gored' one.  I strongly urge you and others who hold it to reconsider this stance.  It's inevitably going to boomerang badly--in fact, you see this starting already, and that concerns me a great deal.

[goldberry]

 

I don't care if we're talking about monsters, dogs, or humans. People do point out racism in lots of scenarios and it is a mainstream thing. It was basically the whole theme in Zootopia. This article http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/03/how-disneys-zootopia-gets-racism-wrong/

says Zooptia got racism wrong and goes on to describe two ways of defining racism. One is the "general public" way and that is the way in which I think I have been using it. So, if I'm wrong, I'm with the general public. I'm far from a race scholar.

 

That article says

 

there’s a very big difference between systemic racism and simply holding bigoted views. 

 

But don't most people agree with that?  Even if people describe other prejudice as racism (which some people feel is erroneous), I think most people recognize there is a difference.  Why make it a big deal?  Based on the long history of the word, isn't it just as easy to differentiate between racism and systematic racism?  

 

When someone says a black person is showing racism to a white person, arguing about the word doesn't accomplish much.  Simply saying, yes, but we're talking about systematic racism, or yes, but we're talking about the behavior of those in power...  Jumping in to tell that person, you're wrong, that's not racism, just cuts off the conversation.

 

I'm fine with the "newer" definition, and I'm glad to be more educated about it.  But really, jumping on the why the word is wrong with people who already are defensive is not productive.  Just sayin!

[Daria]

Upthread you can see that I don't use the term reverse racism.

I use the term racism, and I use the dictionary definition of it. 

 

The fact is that the assertion that only white people (in the US) can be racist is a recent innovation, and it is not reflected in the definition of racism in standard dictionaries.  This novel redefinition of racism is not standard.  That is a fact.  You're the one asserting the novelty.  

 

And the novel assertion concerns me, because it takes away the moral roots and moral force and moral argument against racism.  If racism is bad, it's bad no matter who does it.  If it's going to be redefined as only bad if white people do it, you really have to figure that the assertion that it's bad is going to be rejected by just about everyone.  Because then you don't have a moral argument; rather, you have a 'whose ox is being gored' one.  I strongly urge you and others who hold it to reconsider this stance.  It's inevitably going to boomerang badly--in fact, you see this starting already, and that concerns me a great deal.

 

Can you link a dictionary that uses this definition you're talking about, because looking at the online dictionaries I usually use, I see definitions that include the notion of one race being superior, and those that include notion of political and social power, but I don't see any dictionaries that have just one definition that leave both of those concepts out. 

 

Maybe my dictionaries aren't "standard" though.

[Ausmumof3]

This is the first online definition that comes up

 

 

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

 

This is how I have always understood it.

[Carol in Cal.]

Can you link a dictionary that uses this definition you're talking about, because looking at the online dictionaries I usually use, I see definitions that include the notion of one race being superior, and those that include notion of political and social power, but I don't see any dictionaries that have just one definition that leave both of those concepts out. 

 

Maybe my dictionaries aren't "standard" though.

No need for snark, and I didn't say that the notion that a race is superior or preferred is not part of the definition.  I already quoted Merriam Webster above.  

 

It would be nice if you would address the substance of my concern, which is that telling white people that they are the only ones who can be called racist in the US is both counter to the definition of the term and extremely counter-productive.  

[Daria]

This is the first online definition that comes up

 

 

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

 

This is how I have always understood it.

 

But people who reference "the dictionary definition" seem to leave the bolded part out.  In my experience, when people of color express negative feelings towards white people, or act negatively towards white people, it's not based on a feeling of superiority.  It's based on a feeling of anger at having been treated as inferior, whether by an individual, or by society as a whole.  According to that definition, those actions are therefore not racism.  

 

Have you had different experiences?

[bibiche]

Watch this: http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/can-black-people-be-racist/

[ebunny]

Upthread you can see that I don't use the term reverse racism.

I use the term racism, and I use the dictionary definition of it. 

 

The fact is that the assertion that only white people (in the US) can be racist is a recent innovation, and it is not reflected in the definition of racism in standard dictionaries.  This novel redefinition of racism is not standard.  That is a fact.  You're the one asserting the novelty.  

 

And the novel assertion concerns me, because it takes away the moral roots and moral force and moral argument against racism.  If racism is bad, it's bad no matter who does it.  If it's going to be redefined as only bad if white people do it, you really have to figure that the assertion that it's bad is going to be rejected by just about everyone.  Because then you don't have a moral argument; rather, you have a 'whose ox is being gored' one.  I strongly urge you and others who hold it to reconsider this stance.  It's inevitably going to boomerang badly--in fact, you see this starting already, and that concerns me a great deal.

 

Its obvious this conversation isn't going anywhere, or maybe it wasn't a conversation to begin with. This is my last post on this thread.

 

Maybe dictionaries and standard definitions are not the be-all and end-all? They're updated frequently anyway.

Maybe people get to decide the meaning for themselves, through dialogue, and without bringing out 'standard definitions'

 

As to the underlined- no one in this thread has claimed that 'non-white' aren't racists. What is refuted is 'reverse racism'.

[Tanaqui]

Carol, there are two definitions. I'm aware that only one definition is in Merriam-Webster right now, but that is because lexicocography is always behind the times.

 

Using the definition most of us are working with, NOBODY can be "called racist". People can be bigots. They can commit hate crimes. But only societies or organizations can be racist. That's why we sometimes call this "structural racism" or "institutional racism". In the US, we are all - no matter our race, no matter our intentions - caught up in a web of structural racism. This affects every aspect of our lives, whether we like it or not.

 

But, of course, people of all races can be racial bigots.

[Carol in Cal.]

But people who reference "the dictionary definition" seem to leave the bolded part out.  In my experience, when people of color express negative feelings towards white people, or act negatively towards white people, it's not based on a feeling of superiority.  It's based on a feeling of anger at having been treated as inferior, whether by an individual, or by society as a whole.  According to that definition, those actions are therefore not racism.  

 

Have you had different experiences?

Actually, yes.

But you know what?

I don't look at them as representative of African American people as a whole.

And I don't justify anger toward African Americans based on those.  I know people who do, but I don't.

 

Additionally, and not to your point but to another, the argument is not against the term 'reverse racism'.  It is against the use of the term 'racism' to apply to racist actions against white people in the US.  And that's what I disagree with.  I don't use the term 'reverse racism' but I also reject the idea that only white people in this country can be racist, by definition.

[bibiche]

I think this might also be helpful, Carol, in understanding what racism is: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/racist-against-white-people/

Edited November 14, 2016 by bibiche

[Daria]

No need for snark, and I didn't say that the notion that a race is superior or preferred is not part of the definition.  I already quoted Merriam Webster above.  

 

It would be nice if you would address the substance of my concern, which is that telling white people that they are the only ones who can be called racist in the US is both counter to the definition of the term and extremely counter-productive.  

 

I went back and looked at the Merriam Webster definition, and now I'm completely confused by your point.  

 

If you're using this definition:

 

1. 1:  a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2.  

3. 2a :  a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principlesb :  a political or social system founded on racism

4.  

5. 3:  racial prejudice or discrimination

Then I don't see how "reverse racism" fits with either #1, or #2.  

 

#1 is very clear that it's about belief and not actions, and yet when people describe "reverse racism" or "racism" against white people, they aren't generally talking about people's beliefs.  If they are talking about beliefs and not actions, the concept of superiority isn't usually the central belief.

 

As to the notion that "only white people can be accused of racism", I haven't heard that said on the thread, or in general.  What I have heard said is that racist behavior and feelings are behavior and feelings that align with the racism in society (e.g. 2b) and that reinforce the social and political system founded on racism.  People of color can absolutely act, both intentionally and unintentionally, in ways that reinforce that social system.  It's just that when they do so the victims are other people of color, because that's the way racism works.

 

I don't really understand how you get to cherry pick 1 out of 4 definitions, and claim it's "The dictionary definition".  

 

As for your notion that it's not productive to explain how I view racism, I would argue that it's not very productive when people of color try and explain a problem that pervades every aspect of their life to try and devalue their experiences by claiming that white people in America experience anything remotely similar. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Daria

[Carol in Cal.]

I think this might also be helpful, Carol, in understanding what racism is: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/racist-against-white-people/

I am familiar with this line of argument.

I use the call it out call them in tactic quite a bit myself.

But I don't think it's helpful to put people into a box, and especially when class issues intersect with racial/ethnic ones in a non-overlapping way.  And in general, using pejorative terms more broadly (like, for instance, the old adage that 'all men rape' which is both literally untrue and deeply offensive), while defending indefensible behavior (like, for instance, Eldridge Cleaver saying that he raped WHITE women specifically, out of his rage at white people (especially IIRC at white men)) based on prior oppression, is a recipe for far worse relations between groups.  It's bad morals and it's bad strategy.  

[Tanaqui]

Carol, have you seen anybody on this thread "defending indefensible behavior"? Because I haven't - and I really doubt you'll find anybody other than Eldridge Cleaver defending those actions. It looks to me like a derailment from the original topic, which is "what looks like racial bigotry to you?"

 

Yes, raping specifically people of a certain race is racial bigotry. I'm glad we could clear that up.

 

Edit: And I'm not sure you saw my previous reply to you. It's on the last page.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Tanaqui

[bibiche]

Maybe try replacing the word racism by the word oppression. Does that help you come to the realization that this word (racism) does not have equal meaning when used to describe bigoted behavior by minorities towards whites?

 

Do try to watch the short video I posted earlier. I think it will help you understand the meaning of the word racism.

Edited November 14, 2016 by bibiche

[Carol in Cal.]

  

 

As for your notion that it's not productive to explain how I view racism, I would argue that it's not very productive when people of color try and explain a problem that pervades every aspect of their life to try and devalue their experiences by claiming that white people in America experience anything remotely similar. 

I never said this, quite the contrary.  I've said pretty much the exact opposite.

 

And you're not reading the thread as a whole if you're not seeing the assertion that white people are the only ones who can be racist.  

[Carol in Cal.]

Carol, there are two definitions. I'm aware that only one definition is in Merriam-Webster right now, but that is because lexicocography is always behind the times.

 

Using the definition most of us are working with, NOBODY can be "called racist". (snip)

You're right that I didn't see this.  I'm sorry to have missed it.  

 

So are you saying that the whole premise of the thread is flawed because you view the word racist as not referring to specific actions or people?

[Carol in Cal.]

Why is so much energy going into 'proving' that white people are also the victims of 'racism' ?

 

Given this discussion in taking place in a US context, where no-one can possibly argue equivalence or anything close to it, why so desperate to make it clear that 'whites are victims too' ? 

 

Some of you really should watch the videos Bibiche and I posted, which actually, you know, have black people speaking.

It's a semantic question rather than an equivalence one.  I, at least, and IIRC most others, have argued that the issue of l racism against African Americans is FAR greater in scope and consequence than other type of racism in this country.  I don't see anyone denying that, and if I did, I would be among the first to argue about it.

[bibiche]

Because articles don't get exasperated and I do:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/

[Carol in Cal.]

It's not only greater in scope and consequence...

 

Ah, you know what ? I'm done. 

 

There's no point discussing. 

 

Insisting that racism against whites must be in the conversation is just...ugh...just no. 

 

Imagine if I tried that at home. "Oh hon, I know those nasty racist white people screamed at you and called you a black poofter, after you've lived a lifetime in a context of being considered too dark, untrustworthy (yep, followed around in stores - he's a PROFESSOR), blah blah one hundred actually racist things, but I hear that there was once a black man who raped only white women, so you know, maybe you could listen to my pain as a white person too.'

 

Bloody ridiculous. 

 

That's what this conversation sounds like to me.

What it sounds like to me is entirely different.

 

It started with, what racist stuff have you seen? What does it look like?  Because I can't see it from where I am.

 

And a bunch of really cogent examples being given.

 

It's people pretty much all saying, racism against African Americans is really, really awful, the worst and most far reaching around in the US.

 

And then other people say, yes, it's so bad that there is no other racism. 

 

The first people then say *in response only* wait, no, there IS other racism; of course it's not nearly as bad, but let's not be imprecise.  But at the same time let's keep the focus where it should be, on the worst, most far reaching racism of all.

[bibiche]

Please read this article, Carol. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/reverse-oppression-cant-exist/

 

And step away from your dictionary.

Edited November 14, 2016 by bibiche

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm focussing where I should, Bibache, which is on the worst racism of all and how to be effective at working on it.  Care to join me?