Proper and improper uses of the term "racism"

Sociological definitions

Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism David Wellman (1993) has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities," (Wellman 1993: x). Sociologists Noel Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as "...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry," (Cazenave and Maddern 1999: 42). Sociologist and former American Sociological Association president Joe Feagin argues that the United States can be characterized as a "total racist society" because racism is used to organize every social institution (Feagin 2000, p. 16). More recently, Feagin has articulated a comprehensive theory of racial oppression in the U.S. in his book Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression (Routledge, 2006). Feagin examines how major institutions have been built upon racial oppression which was not an accident of history, but was created intentionally by white Americans. In Feagin's view, white Americans labored hard to create a system of racial oppression in the 17th century and have worked diligently to maintain the system ever since. While Feagin acknowledges that changes have occurred in this racist system over the centuries, he contends that key and fundamental elements have been reproduced over nearly four centuries, and that U.S. institutions today reflect the racialized hierarchy created in the 17th century. Today, as in the past, racial oppression is not just a surface-level feature of this society, but rather pervades, permeates, and interconnects all major social groups, networks, and institutions across the society. Feagin's definition stands in sharp contrast to psychological definitions that assume racism is an "attitude" or an irrational form of bigotry that exists apart from the organization of social structure.

IMO African-Americans in our society cannot be guilty of racism as racism requires the institutionalization of beliefs that one race is superior over another.

Those who think in terms of race will see everything in terms of race, perception becomes reality. Another person's perception is not mine, their reality is not mine, and I would be dishonoring myself and my experience if I accepted someone else's other than my own as my own. For this reason the views of others have a right to exist and to be expressed, but no right to expect me to cater to them.

Re historical racism.....I am not responsible for the sins of my father. If somebody has a problem with what my ancestors did they should feel free to take it up with them in the after life, but leave me out of it. if they have a problem with me then by all mean come and talk to me about it, lets see if we can work it out. I am however not predisposed to accept race as an excuse, a reason, or a justification for much of anything. The one with the problem with me will probably need to have a different argument if they want me to take them seriously.

blatham wrote:

I find that a very tempered and thoughtful post, aidan.

We've just moved away from new york to oregon. We were in the upper east side of manhattan for three years. I reallllly miss it.

You mean there is no other city that offers a walk like from 116th Street, south along Broadway, to Broadway/West Houston?

But I am curious what makes Manhattan so attractive, in your opinion?

You are just being silly. How did I attempt to "redefine" the word racism? By referring to the established definition as listed in popular dictionaries? How does one redefine a word by referring to an established definition?

If there is anyone attempting to redefine the word here, it is you.

As compared to the "trick" of ignoring definitions and only using those that fit some skewed political agenda?? Shall we apply the same logic to "crime"? Let's keep rape and murder but jeez, petty theft isn't on the same scale so let's not call that one a crime any more, ok?

But no, it isn't "just as bad" to have laws that are racist to redress past racism. There are various shades of grey and your attempt to paint them all as being the same is intellectually dishonest. That's propaganda on your part.

But you see, your idea here has flaws as well. If you call it something else then it also allows the more sublte forms of racism to continue and be swept under the rug.

You seem to have your own bit of propoaganda going here. Even amongst popular groups that advocate for the necessity of AA programs, there is an implicit admission that the programs are racist/sexist. Every time they state that AA is necessary "until there is equeal opportunity/pay/etc..." it is an admission that they are aware that the programs themselves discriminate. It is an admission that at some future point, when those issues of racism/sexism are eliminated, the program should go away. If the AA programs are seen by their own advocates as temporary then how can anyone claim that they aren't exactly what they are?

If the programs aren't "bad", then why would there be an "until"?? (And there is. I offer the NOW WWW site as but one example.)

While legal, the entire concept of AA violates the entire spirit of equality. Yes, AA is seen as necessary to compensate for past injustices but that doesn't mean that it isn't racist/sexist.

By pretending that all racism isn't a negative you also undercut attempts to weed out the more subtle forms of racism that others readily recogniize. Your definition undercuts the efforts to show raciism in the death penalty debate for example. It also flies in the face of numerous claims of racism as a factor in the concept of "white flight" from urban areas.

These are not overtly racist activites in the sense of slavery or "whites only" bathrooms and luncheon counters however they are widely recognized as examples of racism and to deny that they are, also allows people to ignore attempts to eliminate them.

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, recently gave a speech at Harding University that deserves an enthusiastic amen from every Christian in the land.

…An African-American from California, who came from an impoverished background, Janice Rogers Brown has thrown down the gauntlet to the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the rest of their ilk.

The man who was chosen to head the Federalist Society state judicial selection project is a chap named Clint Bollick, who wrote a book called The Affirmative Action Fraud and edited another book called Unfinished Business: Civil Rights Strategy For the Next Century. Again, it is not coincidental that the introduction to Unfinished Business was by Charles Murray, who wrote The Bell Curve, arguing basically that African Americans had a lower IQ than white people, and therefore were basically forever limited in how far they should get, making affirmative action programs useless.

fishin said:

Quote:

You are just being silly. How did I attempt to "redefine" the word racism? By referring to the established definition as listed in popular dictionaries? How does one redefine a word by referring to an established definition?

If there is anyone attempting to redefine the word here, it is you.

And your mother has yellow teeth. You are being dishonest regarding how language works. Definitions are seldom coherent or comprehensible in isolation and with a term such as this one, there are central elements of meaning which, if absent, render the term relatively vacuous.

Quote:

As compared to the "trick" of ignoring definitions and only using those that fit some skewed political agenda?? Shall we apply the same logic to "crime"? Let's keep rape and murder but jeez, petty theft isn't on the same scale so let's not call that one a crime any more, ok?

Inappropriate analogy. Unless you wish to argue that there is positive or socially/morally desireable 'crime'.

Quote:

But no, it isn't "just as bad" to have laws that are racist to redress past racism. There are various shades of grey and your attempt to paint them all as being the same is intellectually dishonest. That's propaganda on your part.

Using this conception, you have racism defined (correct me if I'm wrong) as big social bad down to small social bad (shades of grey). Where, if anywhere, do you allow that 'racism' (or racial discrimination) in your sense of the term may produce a positive social good? The ML King point sits here.

Quote:

But you see, your idea here has flaws as well. If you call it something else then it also allows the more sublte forms of racism to continue and be swept under the rug.

Subtlety has no relevance here except that it might hide a social evil. If you hold that any and all discriminations based on race must be socially negative or destructive, then a program like affirmative action must be a social negative. That's precisely the legal tact taken by the modern right (see the prior notes on Clint Bollick, etc)... Discrimination based on race is a social negative or 'we ought never to engage in racial discrimination because it is a social negative'. Therefore, AA must be bad. It's merely a tricky or self-deluded way to continue racism (which ought not to be continued in any manner because it is an evil always).

Quote:

You seem to have your own bit of propoaganda going here. Even amongst popular groups that advocate for the necessity of AA programs, there is an implicit admission that the programs are racist/sexist. Every time they state that AA is necessary "until there is equeal opportunity/pay/etc..." it is an admission that they are aware that the programs themselves discriminate. It is an admission that at some future point, when those issues of racism/sexism are eliminated, the program should go away. If the AA programs are seen by their own advocates as temporary then how can anyone claim that they aren't exactly what they are?

Of course such programs "discriminate". And they discriminate in this case based on race. But the only way you get to "a social evil" from the use of discriminatory categories is if you hold as I've described in my paragraph above, that discrimination based on race is always a social evil.

Quote:

If the programs aren't "bad", then why would there be an "until"?? (And there is. I offer the NOW WWW site as but one example.)

Because 'bad' or 'good' aren't properly established through the circular means you hope to establish good and bad here... "all racial discrimination is bad because it is racism". Where racial discriminations actually promote equality where inequality existed previously, that is hardly a social evil merely through the circularity of your definitions.

Quote:

While legal, the entire concept of AA violates the entire spirit of equality. Yes, AA is seen as necessary to compensate for past injustices but that doesn't mean that it isn't racist/sexist.

Yes, legality tells us only about what laws are presently in place. That any law might actually align with justice or morality or equality is clearly a different matter.

To say that AA 'violates the entire spirit of equality' is morally incoherent. Would you rather flip it around and say that disallowing any/all forms of AA matches the entire spirit of equality? Why not?

Quote:

By pretending that all racism isn't a negative you also undercut attempts to weed out the more subtle forms of racism that others readily recogniize. Your definition undercuts the efforts to show raciism in the death penalty debate for example. It also flies in the face of numerous claims of racism as a factor in the concept of "white flight" from urban areas.

You answer some of my questions in your first sentence. But your second sentence does not follow. How is racism hidden in the death penalty debate using my understanding of the term 'racism'?

Quote:

These are not overtly racist activites in the sense of slavery or "whites only" bathrooms and luncheon counters however they are widely recognized as examples of racism and to deny that they are, also allows people to ignore attempts to eliminate them.

How does this ignore either perception of racism or attempts to eliminate it in these places it shows up (prison populations, sentencing figures, credit applications, etc)?

How would these inequalities even show up if people weren't looking to see if they might exist through establishing research criteria based on racial discriminations?

Is it racist to search for racial inequality using a discrimatory framework?

Joe Scarborough recently said...

Quote:

Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, recently gave a speech at Harding University that deserves an enthusiastic amen from every Christian in the land.

…An African-American from California, who came from an impoverished background, Janice Rogers Brown has thrown down the gauntlet to the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the rest of their ilk.

He notes (that is, he discriminates) Brown's race. Is he being racist?

hawkeye10 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

For instance, I can't tell you how many times someone has asked me if I'm Chinese, and I respond "no, I'm Japanese." I can't tell you how many times I've recieved a following "Whatever" afterwards.

If you knew how many Americans don't know the difference between China and Japan you would be very afraid for the human race.

As bad as it is for me, I feel even worse for my Cambodian, Vietnamese, and Malaysian friends.

T
K
O

Yeah I hate the O-word, but for greater reasons that the PC one. As for the comfort in IQ, I registered at 141, but it doesn't seem to make differential equations any less maddenning. I think I experiance the same degree of struggle as any person of any race.

LOL.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Yeah I hate the O-word, but for greater reasons that the PC one. As for the comfort in IQ, I registered at 141, but it doesn't seem to make differential equations any less maddenning. I think I experiance the same degree of struggle as any person of any race.

LOL.

T
K
O

In my humble opinion, age will mellow your feelings. In the meantime get good grades, as best you can, and life will fall into place. And, many people do not even know how to solve the equation: 5X + 9 = 34. So, again, you are way ahead of the pack in IQ.

I'm being dishonest? lol Tell me, which "central elements" are necessary to understand the meaning of the word? Your claim here was that I (amongst other's) was attempting to redefine the word. It simply isn't possible to redefine a word by referencing an alreday established definition. The definition you prefer is (from my perspective) a subset of the definition I prefer - a subset that allows you to pretend that an entire range of racism either doesn't exist or is "good racism".

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The thing with racism is no one wants his/her group to be at the bottom of the proverbial barrel. Historically, racism corrected this, since the poorest, illiterate Caucasian could feel superior to a Black person, based on the myth of Caucasian superiority. Christianity did the same thing towards non-Christians, since only good Christians could go to Heaven.

Considering we're all humans, and can interbreed, what, other than racism, maintains the separation of groups (I won't say race, since that is an artificial construct to a biologist, I thought).

Who or what is keeping us from all mixing? The answer, I believe, is fairly obvious, but like the Kings New Suit of Clothes fable, no one wants to say.

fishin said

Quote:

I'm being dishonest? lol Tell me, which "central elements" are necessary to understand the meaning of the word? Your claim here was that I (amongst other's) was attempting to redefine the word. It simply isn't possible to redefine a word by referencing an alreday established definition. The definition you prefer is (from my perspective) a subset of the definition I prefer - a subset that allows you to pretend that an entire range of racism either doesn't exist or is "good racism".

The central element of what this word refers to is clearly understood by you. Again:

Quote:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

If the history of black/white relationships in the US did not contain this superior/inferior, hatred/intolerance element, then the subject of race or racism in america would be unnotable and unimportant (for simplicity in argument, I'm obviously dealing with only blacks here). Discrimination, with this element removed, becomes benign. A man, out of personal preferences, discriminates in his choices for a mate based on whether they are blonde or brunette. Not a big deal.

But you are being dishonest (or insufficiently clear-headed) here in a second manner as well regarding how language operates and how the human mind operates. The term "racism" contains all its (justifiably) negative associations precisely because of the definitional element I point to. To call a person a racist or a program racist is to apply those negative associations. To call a person or program racist is an attempt to utilize all those negative associations AND the emotional responses they will generate in a US listener. We, you or I, will respond with some ferocity if someone calls us racist precisely because of all of this. "NO", we'll respond, "I don't want to lynch anyone and I don't think blacks are inferior!"

And that's the trick being used when you or someone else labels AA as 'racist'. It is a legal strategy and it is a PR/propaganda strategy. It's been effective. But it is morally incoherent.

The ML King point, which Occam Bill seemed to be the only one to appreciate, was that such slipshod use of the term 'racism' must also apply to King, to his statements, policies and goals because they were inextricable from discriminations based on race.

To end up in a position where Strom Thurmond and ML King are both placed in the category of 'racist' is where you end up, fishin. That is both morally and intellectually incoherent.

I can freely admit that when I get on a train and the car is full of black teens I don't have the same level of comfort as I do when it is full of white middle-aged men. There is no rationale reason for the discomfort - none of them have done anything to me. Is that not still racism?
-fishin

I dunno, that uneasy feeling might not be a result of racist feelings. But an example of what some call "statistical discrimination," or as author Dinesh D'Souza put it, "rational discrimination."