rolling "Is This Racist?" thread

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!

I get the impression that JP is like Ancient Rome--no one from there can fathom why anyone else would ever leave or not want to be Japanese (/Roman). Outside the walls of citizenship and belonging, there be nothing but barbarians.

Still waiting to hear frogbs' times when racism is not harmful.

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

Suggest visitng London

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?

― rayuela, Friday, January 27, 2012 1:20 PM (42 seconds ago) Bookmark

And just to add again, I wasn't talking about issues between Korea and Japan, or the very real racism that exists inside those cultures toward migrant workers, ethnic minorities, etc. I was responding in the context of the discussion about racism against whites.

All racism is harmful, jesus wtf.

Sorry but I don't really agree with this.

― frogs you are the dumbest asshole (frogbs), Friday, January 27, 2012 12:57 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You gotta just stop making statements like this and just leaving it. I mean you may (I don't really see how personally but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) have a point in there somewhere but at least try to explain. Or maybe don't. Maybe never ever post on threads about race or gender if you're gonna just drop those sort of bombs but not try to explain yourself in any way. Dude,don't make me regret my earlier posts! >:O

My understanding from friends who live there is that Japanese people love to put white people who can speak Japanese on television, but there is a definitive glass ceiling in terms of upward movement in companies. Although again, a lot of this is info verging on a decade old by this point.

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?

things are not put in the dictionary to further the interests of old white dudes, they are put in the dictionary because that is the way people use those words. that is what a dictionary is for.

you know, the GOOD kind of racism

xp

I was responding in the context of the discussion about racism against whites.

Don't think you can blame the US for that tbh

why make this word a battleground when the phrase "systemic racism" is perfectly adequate? don't we already have enough to fight about?

bc as soon as you start saying "systemic racism" in place of "racism," you're going to get giant swathes of white people saying that they're also victims of systemic racism. this whole argument isn't about semantics as much as it's about white people making themselves the center of the racism discussion. which is why i say it's derailing more than anything else.

Ah, xenophobia makes an appearance!

― Charles Kennedy Jumped Up, He Called 'Oh No'. (Tom D.)

is this a contested or problematic term? honestly not sure what you mean here. are you saying there's no reason to distinguish b/t xenophobia and racism?

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.

― zachylon (zachlyon), Friday, January 27, 2012 9:51 AM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

there's a condescending tone here that really sticks in my craw. the blanket insistence that any racism that any white person experiences is necessarily trivial and something that can be easily escaped strikes me as contemptibly arrogant and (yes) prejudiced. on a large, social level, sure, i agree. but demographic truths don't define or limit individual experience (or vice-versa). i'm sure that in this world there are people of every race who have been racially oppressed in some form or another. all victims of racism are equally deserving of sympathy. this is not to plead "boo-hoo" for the many angry white assholes who live to whine about "reverse racism" or whatever. those fuckers can go to hell. this is simply to plead for sympathy, compassion and an open-minded willingness to understand that human experience cannot be confined either to politics or demographics.

No, just that I don't think it had been mentioned so far (xp)

Like, if we wanted to all agree to zachlyon's definition of the word, we should probably change this thread title to rolling "Is This Stereotypical?" thread, because this thread mostly deals with youtubes and bottle openers more than institutional oppression.

this whole argument isn't about semantics as much as it's about white people making themselves the center of the racism discussion.

This deserves highlighting.

the anti-racist community vs old white dudes

wtf is the anti-racist community? first i thought we were talking about idk fanon and said. now we're talking about what? livejournal anti-racists?

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.

i think that makes sense when you're talking to people among whom it's already understood that racism means that. obviously that kind of community understands, as everyone should, that racism in that sense is the big problem, not individual prejudice.

but there are other communities where not only is that not the prevailing definition of racism, but it's not even well understood that systemic racism is still a huge problem. and i think it would be valuable to keep saying "systemic racism" over and over in those communities to help people understand that it is.

in a sense this is a means vs ends discussion - i think we have the same ends (ending racism) but you object to my means (using the traditional white definition of racism to make myself understood.) in a larger sense you could object, in a totally valid way, to me organizing my whole rhetorical frame around people clueless enough to not understand the still-existing magnitude of institutional racism.

many xps which i guess is exactly this point this whole argument isn't about semantics as much as it's about white people making themselves the center of the racism discussion.

zach is pretty otm here but like I think part of the issue with the liberal academic/anti-racist activist definition of racism := institutional/systemic racism is that for many Americans in recent decades in many communities calling someone a racist is like one of the *worst things you can accuse someone of*. Like plenty of people who hold implicitly biased attitudes towards people of X race would also tell you that they are not racist, because they were told/brought up to not be racist, not hate black folks, whatever. The elementary school version of the civil rights movement is that America/the South discriminated against black folks, and then we had lots of peaceful marches and now we don't do that anymore, and see this multicultural pack of crayolas? You shouldn't hate black people! Now let's celebrate Columbus Day drawing some Indians!

the anti-racist community fans

contenderizer is otm across the board

I know it seems like you're on the side of the oppressed when you say that racism should only mean XYZ, even though XYZ is the less frequent use of the word today, but in narrowing the definition of the word you're not 'taking sides' you're just ensuring that even more people will be having pointless semantic arguments instead of actually talking to each other.

can someone link me to an author or text that makes a case that the OED's definition of racism is in fact racist or is this just signaling how open minded and awesome we all are and really just a stack of nonsense?