rolling "Is This Racist?" thread

zach, it's okay if you had something else in mind. these words mean something tho -- at least in some context and ferreting out the accepted meaning helps avoid confusion.

racism is an american institution

even though I guess it technically is racism, I'm arguing that this is basically harmless.

But the thing is, even if it doesn't leave that room, its still perpetuating racism!

like, "this is semantics," ok, but semantics are important

zach, that's being disingenuous, because he asked about a sociology (as in the field, as in the academic field) text that used the word in that way.

Really, it sounds like a well-meaning common use of discussion where racism as a social undercurrent has been discussed in many forums and the term "institutional racism" has been confused with the idea you're talking about. We're just wondering if what you're describing -- which is just as valid as the reference we're making -- is actually described as "institutional racism" in academia.

why does this matter? I will totally cop to having laughed at racist stuff (Long Duk Dong even!) when I was younger and stupider - that doesn't mean it isn't racist, it just means that I was enough of an idiot to find racist things funny.

this is all questionable humor really, I'm saying it matters b/c I feel like people are too eager to blanket everything under the blanket of "you racist asshole" when it's like, let's save that for those who actually deserve it

oy frogbs.

hahaha you guys really took off while I was in an impromptu meeting

the institution is a "fundamental part of a culture" but not the culture itself

of all things, why is this important to nitpick? yes, our culture is not made up entirely of racism, but racism plays such a huge part in western society that it affects every part of it. our society is based on a lot of things, and one of those things is colonization, and like a bunch of other things, the effects of colonization still influence everything. that's all i'm saying.

I like how this thread now has two streams, one where we are trying to figure out what the "institution" in "institutionalized racism" is, and another where frogbs is arguing that people who tell racist jokes a lot aren't racist assholes

where by "like" I mean something other than "like"

The reason why it's important to nitpick is that people were accused of being racists in this thread because you said something that everyone here (except frogbs maybe) agrees with, but you used language carelessly and when people disagreed with you because they misunderstood your fundamental point, you misunderstood what they were disagreeing with. I disagreed that institutional racism is the only kind of racism. I didn't disagree that Western society contains racism at almost every level. But you didn't understand my point of contention because of "semantics." Semantics, or to be more exact, using words in their proper context, is important because of this. xxp

I can't even count how many words I used because I read them in one book that wasn't in my field of expertise and I got a reasonable take on what a word meant and used it in discussion -- and maybe even talked to other friends using it this way -- and eventually found out that I had created something similar that wasn't common usage in the actual field.

I think this happens often, and there are concepts in philosophy that get abused by sociologists, and some cross-pollination between fields where you end up with different meanings for the same thing.

A big example would be the skepticism a lot of philosophers have for the works of Karl Popper, which a lot of scientists find intriguing because he wrote about science and falsifiability. The thing is, science doesn't really use falsifiability per say, and it's not really a philosophical construct in the way he used it, either.

god contenderizer is always wrong

so I guess what we're saying is we believe we understand what you mean, zach, we just want to know if "institutional racism" is actually used this way in an academic or written context, and if so, by whom.

I mean, you can define it however you want, but the conversation was so confusing is because we're using a specific meaning and you are saying all meanings are valid when it'd be easier just to use a different phrase.

like maybe "endemic racism?"

ooh catchy

The reason why it's important to nitpick is that people were accused of being racists in this thread because you said something that everyone here (except frogbs maybe) agrees with, but you used language carelessly and when people disagreed with you because they misunderstood your fundamental point, you misunderstood what they were disagreeing with. I disagreed that institutional racism is the only kind of racism. I didn't disagree that Western society contains racism at almost every level. But you didn't understand my point of contention because of "semantics." Semantics, or to be more exact, using words in their proper context, is important because of this. xxp

Zach's usage wasn't "incorrect", it was just different from what you are used to. It's been in common usage since the 60s:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/g/inst_racism.htm

The term was coined by Stokely Carmichael (later known as Kwame Ture) at some point during the late 1960s.

Carmichael felt that it was important to distinguish personal bias, which has specific effects and can be identified and corrected relatively easily, with institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent. Carmichael made this distinction because, like Martin Luther King Jr., he had grown tired of white moderates and uncommitted liberals who felt that the primary or sole purpose of the civil rights movement was white personal transformation. Carmichael's primary concern, and the primary concern of most civil rights leaders, was and is societal transformation--a much more ambitious goal.

DJP, that says exactly what I said. There are two forms of bias - personal and institutional. Zach has argued from the beginning of this thread that all racism is institutional.

Well, not exactly what I said. But he's working with the definition that I am.

you can't be 'racist' against white people because 'white' is just 'something people who are at the top of the racial caste system call each other' -- it's not, like, an ethnicity, or something.

Because you are not making the link that the society is generating the people with the personal issues.

That's not what institutional racism means tho! I do agree with that link, but the argument isn't that these inert institutions are generating personal racism. Actually what is happening is that the society is generating institutional AND personal racism.

deej, that ground has been covered like 100x today itt already.

DJP, that says exactly what I said. There are two forms of bias - personal and institutional. Zach has argued from the beginning of this thread that all racism is institutional.

― Mordy, Friday, January 27, 2012 3:22 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude you cant seperate systemic from personal like that. when a white person is personally racist against a POC they are using systemic power to make that point

yo i continually recognize the irony of me arguing for multiple definitions, but i don't think there was anything wrong in me saying "institutional racism" and expecting people to not assume i'm talking about exactly what wiki editors use to define it. from my experience, both that usage (ie the institution of the police system) and the one i was referring to (the institution of culture) are equally valid and not all that distinct. it all derives from the institution of our culture and colonial history.

and i don't think everyone here agreed with me and it was all just a semantics confusion. everyone was saying "racism against whites happens" and i was saying "no, whites have the power." if you want to say that racism is built into our culture and it's a part of our lives from birth to death, but you also want to say that racism against whites occurs in our culture, i still disagree.

Deej, I think it's nice that you're interested in this conversation and want to join in but honestly I'm not going to start answering your questions too.

But the thing is, even if it doesn't leave that room, its still perpetuating racism!

Yes, and this is exactly my point. I realize that many people have moments of stupidity where they do/say/laugh at things without considering the greater subtext and that this happens with many sensitive topics (i.e. the jokes in the Joe Paterno thread). What I have a problem with is those who insist things like "if you find a racist joke funny, it's probably because you subconsciously agree with the stereotype", when most people in my generation likely heard these stereotypes through jokes in middle school in the first place!

dog stop posting

Ugh you are just not getting it dude, not at all.

hey frogbs go check out http://implicit.harvard.edu let me know what you learn abt yourself

DJP, that says exactly what I said. There are two forms of bias - personal and institutional. Zach has argued from the beginning of this thread that all racism is institutional.

i'm sorry that i wasn't clearer, but i thought the kwame definition was better-known and that ppl would assume i was using it within the context of everything else i was saying.

you can't be 'racist' against white people because 'white' is just 'something people who are at the top of the racial caste system call each other' -- it's not, like, an ethnicity, or something.

blazing otm, and important when arguing with people who talk about "white pride" but don't consider themselves neo-nazis

Ugh you are just not getting it dude, not at all.

then explain

i guess to be more OTM i should say its what is generally agreed to call people at the top of the racial caste system, a system set up to support the people at the top of it

Zach, Kwame is saying the opposite of what you said. You do realize that, right?

it was important to distinguish personal bias, which has specific effects and can be identified and corrected relatively easily, with institutional bias, which is generally long-term and grounded more in inertia than in intent.

He's not saying that everything is institutional. He is saying the opposite. That we need to distinguish between the two forms.

What I have a problem with is those who insist things like "if you find a racist joke funny, it's probably because you subconsciously agree with the stereotype", when most people in my generation likely heard these stereotypes through jokes in middle school in the first place!

wow so it's almost as if there is a (wait for it)... institutional factor at work in perpetuating racist humor across generations. garsh.

xp

I realize that many people have moments of stupidity where they do/say/laugh at things without considering the greater subtext and that this happens with many sensitive topics (i.e. the jokes in the Joe Paterno thread)

Joe Paterno also completely irrelevant here wtf

Are you racist against Nittany Lions now too?

xp except in the exact way that I mentioned, yeah

no. there is no parallel there.

xp i was talking specifically about his usage of "institutional." separating institutional from personal is something different. but i don't think he's saying that they are unrelated, just that we can't only look at personal racism (esp impt to note in the 60s)

obv i can't speak for him

then explain

This is what multiple people have been doing in multiple threads now, I just don't think you're ever going to get it.

but please to explain what the "greater subtext" is with making fun of a guy who facilitated/perpetuated the abuse of children, I would love to hear it.

xp

ok OFFICIALLY LEAVING NOW to cook for a month-late christmas party, everyone plz redirect your attention to the frog

basically that saying "you're an asshole if you don't consider all the implications of what you're actually laughing at" makes the whole world an asshole

again, what are the implications of laughing at an asshole like Joe Paterno

uh yeah you're pretty much an asshole if you don't consider the implications of what you're actually laughing at

willing to believe that the whole world are assholes

He's not saying that everything is institutional. He is saying the opposite. That we need to distinguish between the two forms.

He is more saying that people are focusing on symptoms and ignoring the root cause.