rolling "Is This Racist?" thread

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.

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.

but you're specifically referring to a definition of racism that was selected by white people. those are the definitions that always seem to win out, somehow! again, i'm just regurgitating 101 stuff that is assumed in anti-racist communities/writing, where your definition of racism has never been accurate. and i think when it comes to matters of racism, it should be the marginalized making the decisions, not the oppressing class.

See what Zachlyon's talking about is Systemic Racism or Institutional Racism. His take on those types of racism being the only types of racism feels like one of those things that may get adopted in academia or whatever, but won't really fly when it leaves the classroom and you have to actually, you know, communicate with real people.

When is racism helpful frogbs?

fyi North Korea is very racist xxxp

xp - not what I was implying

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

again, shouldn't have to qualify "racism" with "systemic" to get to its actually-relevant usage, just doing it for sake of clarity in this discussion

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

― zachylon (zachlyon), Friday, January 27, 2012 9:55 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

exactly! the word (phrase) you're looking for is systemic or institutional racism. that's a sensible way to describe racism (negative racial prejudice) when it has been granted destructive agency by social power imbalances. attempting to redefine the useful and flexible word "racism" so that it can only possibly describe systemic/institutional racism strikes me as foolish.

tumblr latinos

fyi you definitely experience this to some degree in Mexico as well. not saying I was really hurt by it but it's not like the concept of being looked down upon or being treated different because of your race isn't just an American thing

like the concept of being looked down upon or being treated different because of your race isn't just an American thing

You don't say?

and i think when it comes to matters of racism, it should be the marginalized making the decisions, not the oppressing class.

serious question - can we talk about why they made that decision, or do we just have to accept it? like, why would it be so bad to just say "systemic racism" when that's what we mean? so far we've just been fighting over this piece of turf without discussing why it's valuable.

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.

what about countries where groups of people who would all be considered "white" in America discriminate against each other. cuz these places exist.

AFAIK, white people aren't systemically discriminated against by powerful institutions in Japan (i could be wrong...? i have not been there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_issues_in_Japan#Ethnic_issues

Anecdotally, when I was there in 1993, my two best friends in the group I went with were blue-eyed blondes who caught people staring at them, crossing the street when they approached, following them in stores, and making "wide-eye" gestures about them. They complained to me about how uncomfortable and out of place they felt and I, with some amount of satisfaction because it was a true statement, said "Really? This feels just like being in the US to me."

See what Zachlyon's talking about is Systemic Racism or Institutional Racism. His take on those types of racism being the only types of racism feels like one of those things that may get adopted in academia or whatever, but won't really fly when it leaves the classroom and you have to actually, you know, communicate with real people.

"academic" tho? i was a silly english major, i was never academically into anti-racism. i don't see audre lourde or bell hooks or even like, the bs of tim wise to be academic, i see that stuff as communicating with real people. i can see the distinction... i wouldn't say the same about spivak. but when dealing with "real people" i find it important to share, if it's relevant, the fact that the anti-racist community defines "racism" in a specific way and that it's important to spread that usage. and then, "real people" can either choose to agree with it or disagree. nothing academic about it.

and i think when it comes to matters of racism, it should be the marginalized making the decisions, not the oppressing class.

just reposting that bc i think it's hugely otm

That's totally, totally academic : D

Agree 100% with zachlyon and Shakey. I wrote a blog about Diane Abbott a couple of weeks ago (for US readers: a black British MP who was accused of anti-white racism after a careless tweet) making just this point and was amazed how many commenters took this bogus post-racial line that racism was all the same and had nothing to do with power. Even more amazed to see it coming from smart people on ILX.

You don't say?

He didn't say! There was a 'not' before there ... which he probably regrets.

but you're specifically referring to a definition of racism that was selected by white people. those are the definitions that always seem to win out, somehow! again, i'm just regurgitating 101 stuff that is assumed in anti-racist communities/writing, where your definition of racism has never been accurate. and i think when it comes to matters of racism, it should be the marginalized making the decisions, not the oppressing class.

― zachylon (zachlyon), Friday, January 27, 2012 10:00 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't know that this is true. it seems to me that the definition of racism that you're pushing reflects the attitudes of a specific group of liberal academics. i get the reasoning and i think the underlying POV is admirable, but the push to redefine the word in this manner nevertheless strikes me as unnecessary and counterproductive. why make this word a battleground when the phrase "systemic racism" is perfectly adequate? don't we already have enough to fight about?

i agree that the racism we need to worry about is the racism that enables large-scale social oppression, and in this society, that's almost always the racism directed by whites at people of color.

lol whoops, this is why i hate talking in negatives

good point, Shakey, I did not consider that.

i'm a blue-eyed blond and have experienced that too DJP (in Mexico and India), but I felt like that was as much anti-foreigner/American/colonialist-oppressor sentiment than the way people of color are treated in the US

i agree that the racism we need to worry about is the racism that enables large-scale social oppression, and in this society, that's almost always the racism directed by whites at people of color.

But the racism that is discussed in this thread is usually the other kind. Bigtroy and stereotypes and such.

fyi North Korea is very racist xxxp

― Mordy, Friday, January 27, 2012 1:01 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

Can you elaborate on this? (Like, if this opinion comes from Brian Myers's book, I think Brian Myers says a lot of useless shit and is himself very culturally condescending toward both North and South Korea).

IMO, the nationalism that NK and SK and JP present come from very specific historical circumstances of war and military occupation by the West and mostly the US, and is a common form of cultural nationalism that has emerged in postcolonial societies.

When I was in Korea, I had a white friend who compared the constant stares she got to being a black woman in America, which is so fucking not true.

xxp - thats true but its a little hard to compare since those countries are very monocultural (as is nearly everywhere outside of America)

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.

― zachylon (zachlyon), Friday, January 27, 2012 5:55 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

DJP, quit trying to whitewash racism, dude.

xps: which is to say "i too agree that systematic racism is the most important type to be worried about."

I wrote a blog about Diane Abbott a couple of weeks ago (for US readers: a black British MP who was accused of anti-white racism after a careless tweet) making just this point and was amazed how many commenters took this bogus post-racial line that racism was all the same and had nothing to do with power. Even more amazed to see it coming from smart people on ILX.

― Meme Rogers (DL), Friday, January 27, 2012 10:10 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i would never say that racism is "all the same" or that it has nothing to do with power. i am not "post-racial". it is power that gives racism the ability to do harm on a large, social scale. i understand that. i nevertheless feel that the word "racism" is best understood as describing any sort of negative, race-related prejudice, whether or not it reflects larger, systemically racist power structures.

Automatic Systematic
Full of color self contained
Tuned and gentle to your vibes

exactly! the word (phrase) you're looking for is systemic or institutional racism. that's a sensible way to describe racism (negative racial prejudice) when it has been granted destructive agency by social power imbalances. attempting to redefine the useful and flexible word "racism" so that it can only possibly describe systemic/institutional racism strikes me as foolish.

why don't you think about where your definition is coming from? why do you think it inherently holds more weight than mine? because it was put in the dictionary that way by a bunch of old white dudes? why are you under the impression that your definition is set in stone when there are clearly huge amounts of people who disagree with it?

serious question - can we talk about why they made that decision, or do we just have to accept it? like, why would it be so bad to just say "systemic racism" when that's what we mean? so far we've just been fighting over this piece of turf without discussing why it's valuable.

i think it's important to not say "systemic racism" because racism is systemic and saying "systemic racism" is essentially putting anti-POC racism as a subset and putting the anti-white distinction at the very top.

IMO, the nationalism that NK and SK and JP present come from very specific historical circumstances of war and military occupation by the West and mostly the US

You sure about that?

based on that wikipedia link, Japan does sound like it complicates the broader argument. The implication seems to be that in Japan there is general xenophobia as well as specific racism toward Koreans. I didn't get the sense that white foreign nationals are the victims, though reading one random wikipedia article is obv insufficient.

again, contenderizer, you're asking me to defend why ppl in the anti-racist community use their definition of "racism," but you're not actually defending why you use your definition. who was it that determined that your usage is the correct one? is it because you were brought up that way and you've always assumed that to be the right definition? what about all the people who are brought up with the other definition?

You sure about that?

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.), Friday, January 27, 2012 1:17 PM (54 seconds ago) Bookmark

I mean I can qualify it by saying that what's going on currently? And also I was talking about what white people often perceive as racism towards whites. But it sounds like you disagree, so why don't you elaborate?

those countries are very monocultural (as is nearly everywhere outside of America)

where do you get this bullshit from

the anti-racist community

Ah, xenophobia makes an appearance!