rolling "Is This Racist?" thread

as i understood it, you were arguing that a) white people cannot experience racism as directed towards them and b) that is because the very word racism only refers to institutional racism and since white people are always institutionally privileged that means (a) is true

u mean 'centre'

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?

― zachylon (zachlyon), Friday, January 27, 2012 10:19 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the word racism was originally designed and used to describe theories of racial superiority and inferiority (e.g., nazi bullshit). in such usage, the thing described was not the power imbalances that such racialist thinking embodied, but rather the component of race-related bigotry as a specific thing in itself. this is why the word "racism" was chosen, as opposed to "powerism" or "race-powerism" or w/e.

the attempt to redefine racism seems to have arisen as a preventative response to white claims of oppression. the sensible response, however, would not be to unilaterally claim to have redefined the term, but rather to point out that racial prejudice (racism) absent the power granted by a single race's social dominance has very little power to meaningfully oppress.

contenderizer otm

Again, you're assuming that most people will be alive to that crucial distinction instead of just hearing "RACISM!!!" and acting like it's all equally pernicious.

what contenderizer said

yup

this is going too fast and i feel like i have to respond to every single post, but i have a lot of cooking to do, so i'm out. i look forward to reading 700 new posts when i come back.

to whoever wanted sources supporting the usage of the word i'm familiar with, i don't keep a working bibliography on me, though i clearly should. i feel pretty confident that i could just recommend that you start reading any book from a notable recent anti-racist writer and this topic will come up. but most of it comes from talking to individual ppl about it irl.

I will say, it's amazingly alienating to have gone through a college experience where every black person I talked to when the subject came up, both student and faculty, followed Zach's definition, and then to see a bunch of white ppl 15+ years later being all "no no, people are racist against us too" on a messageboard.

That's not what's going on.

That's basically what it looks like.

^ agree

Again, you're assuming that most people will be alive to that crucial distinction instead of just hearing "RACISM!!!" and acting like it's all equally pernicious.

Not sure the kind of people you're talking about would be alive to the difference between 'racism', 'bigotry' and 'prejudice'. Had Abbott been called out for 'bigotry' against white people, would the reaction have been any different?

Not saying that there isn't a value to the idea of defining racism in terms of power structures but i am not sure what practical difference it's going to make in this context. White people with power claiming victim status illegitimately need to be set straight but the grievance isn't bound up in semantics.

There is a commonly accepted understanding of how racism operates (particularly in America today, but also wrt post-colonialism) that sees racism as being a tool of systemic control and supporting implicit hierarchies. Often when people talk about racism, this is what they are referring to. It is not controversial, I don't think, that there are numerous economic/political/social systems in place that either explicitly or implicitly discriminates against people of color. However, that doesn't mean that the word racism only refers to this understanding and has no other meaning. It also doesn't mean that racism against white people is impossible definitionally (even though, as many people have written on this thread, discussing racism against white people in America tends to be a way of eliding/avoiding actual racism in favor of scoring political points).

should I read this thread before I start trolling it

zach has been really clear that he cares about who defines words, no one has engaged him on that, this is boring now.

I meant to say - it's not controversial, I don't think, to acknowledge those structures. Obviously those structures themselves are very controversial. xp

the important thing here is that ppl who agree 99.8% with each other argue dictionary definitions while the TERRORISTS WIN

It's more that zach was saying that all racism is institutional or derived from it, and we were saying that the odd outliers do exist and there are other definitions (outside of validity in what WE THINK about how racism actually affects people) in play.

But yeah, you just said "in college," right? I don't think anyone has ever been racist against me, and I think the majority of "racism" against supposed white people is a prejudice supposing that the white person in question either holds racist beliefs or conforms to a certain profile and is not, in fact, racism.

I will say, it's amazingly alienating to have gone through a college experience where every black person I talked to when the subject came up, both student and faculty, followed Zach's definition, and then to see a bunch of white ppl 15+ years later being all "no no, people are racist against us too" on a messageboard.

if you are reading contenderizer's posts and coming off w/ this take I have no idea what to tell you other than maybe you should consider rereading them

frogbs otoh sure yeah nobody's defending frogbs

a prejudice supposing that the white person in question either holds racist beliefs or conforms to a certain profile and is not, in fact, racism.

Except that it is.

I think the institutional definition of racism is the most important to be addressed, but acknowledging that there's some variation in the use of the term is really an effective way to get people who are skeptical about the detrimental effects of society-level racism to accept that racism at the personal level comes from somewhere, and that it's endemic, and then you point to systemic racism and they understand that what they thought was only person is in fact the big picture.

um, in fewer words:

Racism in your face is really just the local version of racism all over the place

thanks, I'll be here all night

It is not controversial, I don't think, that there are numerous economic/political/social systems in place that either explicitly or implicitly discriminates against people of color. However, that doesn't mean that the word racism only refers to this understanding and has no other meaning. It also doesn't mean that racism against white people is impossible definitionally (even though, as many people have written on this thread, discussing racism against white people in America tends to be a way of eliding/avoiding actual racism in favor of scoring political points).

― Mordy, Friday, January 27, 2012 11:05 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

mordy OTM

and then to see a bunch of white ppl 15+ years later being all "no no, people are racist against us too" on a messageboard.

lol

tbf, people have been racist *in my favor* my entire life, thinking that I am somehow more capable of doing things because I'm white

cosign. i'm aware as a straight white guy that i've been granted tons of breaks i haven't earned and that anyone else would likely have been denied.

Mostly, this was the internet.

FIN

funny thing about all this is that i do generally agree with zachylon's underlying point. it's at least worth considering the idea that the establishment of "official definitions" might be inseparable from the social mechanisms by which existing power structures perpetuate themselves. it seems reasonable to suggest that the seeming objectivity of texts like newspapers and dictionaries might be complicit in the means by which institutional power presents itself as normalcy. was attempting to make precisely this point in the pitchfork thread the other day (and clashing with iatee as a result).

nevertheless, i think that the attempts to redefine and restrict the usage of "racism" are misguided. [shrug]

The clash in this thread in this thread, as I have read it, boils down to defining racism very broadly and purely as an idea, or defining it with greater reference to how it is propagated and experienced. The white ppl tend to go with the first, while non-whites have a much stronger affinity for the latter.

Both approaches have some validity. The experience of racism predates the term and obviously belongs to those who suffer under it, but its modern form and the term itself were invented by white ppl, so we feel a somewhat proprietary interest in its definition.

Wait - is zachlyon black?

funny thing about all this is that i do generally agree with zachylon's underlying point. it's at least worth considering the idea that the establishment of "official definitions" might be inseparable from the social mechanisms by which existing power structures perpetuate themselves. it seems reasonable to suggest that the seeming objectivity of texts like newspapers and dictionaries might be complicit in the means by which institutional power presents itself as normalcy. was attempting to make precisely this point in the pitchfork thread the other day (and clashing with iatee as a result).

nevertheless, i think that the attempts to redefine and restrict the usage of "racism" are misguided. (shrug)

― his hands are a dirty fountain through which lives spurt (contenderizer), Friday, January 27, 2012 11:31 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

jesus christ ur a wormy motherfucker

zach so obviously otm. hilarious to see so many shlubby whitetards cry about the ways it may be possible if they can just fly away w their imaginations they can be racised against.

Matt P, are you a little illiterate?

shlubby whitetards

u ____ist

He's certainly cranky, at the very least.

a lot illiterate, just did a lot of sb-ing, now i'm a lot done with this thread but your book recommendation above looks a lot good mordy, i'll have to practice being illiterate with it some time. xp

the important thing here is that ppl who agree 99.8% with each other argue dictionary definitions while the TERRORISTS WIN

Terrorists would've won anyway, dude.

did you sb me, Matt P?

The clash in this thread in this thread, as I have read it, boils down to defining racism very broadly and purely as an idea, or defining it with greater reference to how it is propagated and experienced. The white ppl tend to go with the first, while non-whites have a much stronger affinity for the latter.

― Aimless, Friday, January 27, 2012 11:32 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

making this into a race thing in such cut-and-dried terms strikes me as absurdly presumptive (and horribly counter-productive besides). are we really so certain that most people of color people share a common definition of the term? asians, non-white hispanics, native americans, etc? can we say with any confidence that they collectively agree that only people who enjoy a significant social power advantage can be racist? i kind of doubt it. i've known many people of color to complain about the racism of other people of color.

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

among friends, talking shit to each other?

I mean there's a permeating attitude around here that says "anytime you use a stereotype or put down someone based on their culture, then you are a racist, and racism is always wrong and hurtful", which is okay in theory, but in practice this kind of shit happens all the time. Obviously this discussion has turned a bit but I wasn't a fan of how nobody tries to distinguish between things that are actually harmful and demonstrate our culture divide vs. someone making a joke in bad taste without any real malicious intent, kind of implying that it's all equally bad

well if u ever come back maybe u can c/p a post that shows shlubby whitetards cry about the ways it may be possible if they can just fly away w their imaginations they can be racised against.

eh that's basically every contenderizer post itt?

making this into a race thing in such cut-and-dried terms strikes me as absurdly presumptive (and horribly counter-productive besides). are we really so certain that most people of color people share a common definition of the term? asians, non-white hispanics, native americans, etc? can we say with any confidence that they collectively agree that only people who enjoy a significant social power advantage can be racist? i kind of doubt it. i've known many people of color to complain about the racism of other people of color.

― his hands are a dirty fountain through which lives spurt (contenderizer), Friday, January 27, 2012 11:44 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Mostly, I blame myself - I didn't manage to contribute to the last funds drive, and I understand that stet was just under the level where he was going to write that filter, the one where you can write [racist1] and [racist2], and depending on your setting you see them as "institutionally racist"/"racist" and "racist"/"bigoted".

so absurdly presumptive

Ah, you are a little illiterate.

fuck off limey