rolling "Is This Racist?" thread

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/fladj11/Signs%20Pics%20and%20Sayings%202/GeorgeCastanzaEatingPopcorn.gif

is "yank" even a racially loaded word? you can call me a stupid cracker and it wouldn't be racist. my feelings might be a lil bit hurt but not because of racism, just cause you would be acting kind of a dick.

insert that louis ck bit about this. like, you can do a million little things against me that appear to be based off my race, but in the end of the day i will still have racial privilege and power.

That's crazy.

zach just took this thread in a weirder direction than even frogbs had. congratulations!

GEORGE IS GETTING UPSET!! xxxp

Or, in the interest of fairness, possibly some awareness of the difference, but no concept that it should stop you making grand pronouncements?

i don't think "can't be racist against whites" is a grand pronouncement, i think it's just true.

this whole thing comes out of "post-racial" thinking, which is all about ignoring the fact that different races are in different places in the power structure. and that white people are still at the top by a couple miles. there's nothing someone can do or say to me that would make me lose this power.

I don't understand why people seem to be reacting like zach said something crazy. It makes sense to me?

haha i'm sorry for regurgitating some words commonly spoken from pretty much every single anti-racist writer or thinker from the past forty years.

Is racism really about power rather than hatred?

yes

Laurel, he didn't say anything crazy at all.

So like, a poor black person hates a poor latino person because they're latino and it's not racism becaues they're both poor?

without a doubt

i mean most white people who say racist things deny the fact that they're racist because what they said wasn't hateful. pretty broad misunderstanding

this whole thing comes out of "post-racial" thinking

No no, tell me more - you have a reading list?

So like, a poor black person hates a poor latino person because they're latino and it's not racism becaues they're both poor?

what i said was "you can't be racist against white people." neither the black person or the latino has racial power and power is at the center of racism. i'm not sure what anyone said about being poor.

there's nothing someone can do or say to me that would make me lose this power.

We could drop you in North Korea?

Well, I was thinking poor in terms of class equality.

So like, a poor black person hates a poor latino person because they're latino and it's not racism becaues they're both poor?

it's racism because it's about asserting one's position within a racial hierarchy/power structure

this whole thing comes out of "post-racial" thinking, which is all about ignoring the fact that different races are in different places in the power structure. and that white people are still at the top by a couple miles. there's nothing someone can do or say to me that would make me lose this power.

Have you ever been to Japan?

xp: lol Andrew

again this is just some argument where people are coming at the same word w/ different meanings. can white people be discriminated against? yes. it is not very hard to imagine a situation where white people are discriminated against. is that the beginning and end of your definition of 'racism'? if it is, then yeah, we're done. if it's not, then blah blah something zachlyon said.

Like, you can hate a white person because of their race or perceived racial characteristics, regardless of whether or not they are a good person.

Have you ever been to Japan?

this is why I said it's wise to restrict this generalization to America. when you get into other cultures where "white" is not the dominant, empowered ethnicity it doesn't apply, obviously.

So basically people are piling on and wilfully misunderstanding zachlyon's post simply because he didn't emphasise the fact that his statements are a contingent rather than necessary property of society? Jesus fucking Christ.

welcome to ILX, tho

I'm not willfully misunderstanding anything. I don't understand.

zach's working def of racism is pretty useful I think. maybe it's a little narrow, but why not keep in mind things like power and racial priveledge when discussing racism?

I think people can be racist against whites, but when you factor in priveledge and power, it's rare around these parts.

i mean most white people who say racist things deny the fact that they're racist because what they said wasn't hateful. pretty broad misunderstanding

That's why this thread is pretty boring, because like 90% of white people have said racist shit at some point, the discussion of "how hateful is this" is way more interesting. Because most stuff ITT so far is racist but not really harmful, which is kind of like "ok, whatever"

(I mean, I actually agree with what zach said, I just wanted to interject the whole "point doesn't scan globally" thing)

So basically people are piling on and wilfully misunderstanding zachlyon's post simply because he didn't emphasise the fact that his statements are a contingent rather than necessary property of society? Jesus fucking Christ.

i don't think "can't be racist against whites" is a grand pronouncement, i think it's just true.

xp it should be restricted to america and other places that were affected by white colonialism.

racist but not really harmful

All racism is harmful, jesus wtf. It's not intentionally malicious maybe, but that is not the same thing.

anyway frogbs, it is not possible for white people to be the victims of racism, because racism is systemic and requires power.

eh, that's only one way of defining racism, and it's a particularly rigid and extreme interpretation of that definition. i mean, i agree that the less powerful don't typically have the power to oppress the more powerful, but i don't think that this means they can't be bigoted, racist, w/e. we need more precise language for this.

another important caveat is that large-scale social power imbalances aren't necessarily reflected in every area of society. a single white kid at an otherwise all-black school might well experience severe, oppressive anti-white racism, even if the society at large is white-dominated.

it should be restricted to america and other places that were affected by white colonialism.

That reminds me, if Italians aren't white, what are Spaniards then?

eh, that's only one way of defining racism, and it's a particularly rigid and extreme interpretation of that definition. i mean, i agree that the less powerful don't typically have the power to oppress the more powerful, but i don't think that this means they can't be bigoted, racist, w/e. we need more precise language for this.

We have more precise language for this! "Bigoted", "prejudiced", etc.

I mean, you yourself used "bigoted" in your post

there are 101 ways to say it's cold in some languages

a single white kid at an otherwise all-black school might well experience severe, oppressive anti-white racism

the exercise of power, while inverted from the dynamic of America society at-large and within the limited milieu of the school, is still the key factor in this scenario though.

i'll continue taking shit for it, though i will concede to the fact that it isn't the same globally (just MOSTLY globally) -- i think it is derailing to suggest that racism against white people exists, in that it distracts and subtracts from fighting anti-POC racism which is a million times more relevant than a white person feeling oh-so victimized for something they are likely capable of running away from and never having to deal with again. racism isn't just about microaggressions, it's about the fact that people who are non-white (throughout most of the globe) will never be able to escape racism and its effects.

rolling "where would this be racist?" thread

So basically people are piling on and wilfully misunderstanding zachlyon's post simply because he didn't emphasise the fact that his statements are a contingent rather than necessary property of society?

Yeah, but it's not like we're saying "Oh yeah but if you imagine a magical land where white people don't have systemic power", we're pointing out that there are quite a lot of them that he's completely ignoring in favour of making sweeping statements that only work if you add "in the following countries" after them. And we're probably being generous by assuming there are multiple countries in the silent proviso,

If you measure the most human beings whose lived experiences you're ignoring, that might actually be the most racist thing on this thread <- NB I am straight trolling here.

Also I'm aware that "some countries are racist against whites" is generally tricky territory, which is one of the many reasons I don't actually want Momus back.

Impressive that ILX can STILL go through this argument. zachlyon otfm throughout today and I don't understand whats difficult about it.

don't misread that though, it's not only harmful because it distracts, but because it ignores the systemetic...ness and power involved in anti-POC racism. the point is that i shouldn't have to say "anti-POC racism," it should just be assumed that "racism" is anti-POC.

xp

nobody can win an argument over the definition of a word that has multiple definitions

We have more precise language for this! "Bigoted", "prejudiced", etc.

bigotry and prejudice aren't necessarily race-related. racism is conventionally understood as race-related negative prejudice. academic attempts to redefine it as race-related negative prejudice that reflects and enables social power imbalances strike me as profoundly misguided. we do need language to talk about the prejudice that relates to power imbalances (whether race-related or not), but it's be better, imo, to find some words that don't already have commonly understood definitions.

We have more precise language for this! "Bigoted", "prejudiced", etc.

exactly. it's important to have a word that specifically refers to systemic racism, and trying to whitewash it isn't helpful to anyone.

exactly. it's important to have a word that specifically refers to systemic racism

you p much undermined your whole point in your use of the word here

All racism is harmful, jesus wtf.

Sorry but I don't really agree with this.

(I mean, I actually agree with what zach said, I just wanted to interject the whole "point doesn't scan globally" thing)

Yeah, I agree with his point of view! But the fact that he's brushing off any attempts to actually introduce nuance* with "yeah yeah but you know what I mean" makes him look like some dumb bastard who read a book.

*Small things. Like China.

Those Asian country examples don't really refute anything zach said imo. AFAIK, white people aren't systemically discriminated against by powerful institutions in Japan (i could be wrong...? i have not been there), and a white person dropped into North Korea's main problem wouldn't really be racism, would it? I mean, NK isn't a racist state, it's a totalitarian one. If you guys could find a country where white people live and are discriminated against in a widespread, systemic fashion, you'd have a point, but I can't think of one. Certainly, white people can experience bigotry though--humans are good at that shit.