Racism

[soupnazi]

With this definition you make all whites the evil oppressors.

You say this, but you don't actually explain it. In what way am I making white people evil oppressors? By saying that we as a culture discriminate against people of color more than we discriminate against white people? Because, um, that's a fact, and it's still not making white people out to be evil oppressors because they're not always the ones being discriminatory.

 

As Angelkitty said, with this definition, not only do you make it where whites cannot have someone be racist against them, but they are the only ones who are racist

First, no, they are not the only ones who are racist, but secondly, that... doesn't make white people considered subhuman.

 

But it is discrimination, people get up in arms when the word racism is used. Do you honestly think that people will treat the same crime the same if the word racism isn't used?

I've never noticed any connection between the word "racist" and the outcry over a crime. I've noticed outcry over racist crimes, but the word "racist" is irrelevant to how it's treated. Unless you're saying that people don't get up in arms over cases of discrimination against white people? In which case, 1) they do, and 2) the word racist is still not relevant.

 

This isn't making things equal by bringing up oppressed people, it is trying to bring others down instead

How are white people brought down by having discrimination against them not called racism? Cases of crime? Okay, so, I'm game--how does the word "racist" effect how people view a crime?

 

If it doesn't affect the way you think of a crime, then why do you care whether or not someone can be racist towards whites?

My point from the very beginning was that I prefer my definition because I view it as more useful, as my definition is a more common phenomenon. It has nothing to do with how people "think of a crime."

 

EDIT: Looks like Nectaris (pretty sure it was Nectaris--her avatar is similar to Shienvien, so I'm not entirely sure) deleted her post. I haven't quoted it in full here, so it's not fully indicative of what she said, but since I'm not sure why she deleted it I'm not deleting this.

Edited May 24, 2013 by soupnazi

[AngelKitty]

It's not really being altered. My preferred definition has been in use for quite some time, especially in academic areas.

 

Yes it is being altered, because you're trying to tell everyone else that "racism means THIS because academia uses it that way" when the rest of the English-speaking world is using it to mean something else.

 

Once again, the "power" element refers to the societal power against the victim, not the societal power of the perpetrator.

 

This is just like...making things up to make the "power + prejudice" argument make sense. Saying that racism is power and prejudice implies that somebody involved requires power. And anyway, white society doesn't back a black person who hates a Hispanic person, so how is it racism if a black person hates a Hispanic person? By your definition, it's not.

 

How are white people brought down by having discrimination against them not called racism?

 

Because it implies that they're somehow not a race?

Edited May 25, 2013 by AngelKitty

[Blue Nadir]

See: people trying to justify Trayvon Martin's murder, or people of color being primarily targeted by police--such as in New York, where they're vastly more likely to be searched than white people, even though white people statistically more often have something to hide. Discrimination against people of color permeates our entire society, and is something that needs to be widely stopped. Discrimination against white people are localized incidents in the context of our culture.

Really? Could you please post your source material on this?

[Alpha1]

Well, no, because we as a culture (and I'm basing this off of the US or the UK) justify and dismiss it when it's against people of color, but get up in arms about it when it's a white person.

 

There's a good portion of the US that fights for POC. In fact, you gave a good example right after you typed this.

 

See: people trying to justify Trayvon Martin's murder,

 

There was only outrage because it was a black kid that was killed by a “white” person. The media kept referring to Zimmerman as being “white Hispanic”, and the original photos were a poor representation of the two.

 

There are about 400 justifiable homicides in the U.S. each year. This is kind of a grey area, so I don't see why it's surprising to see people thinking that Zimmerman was justified.

 

Really? Could you please post your source material on this?

 

http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/stud...gs-than-blacks/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct...g-arrests-claim

 

They get arrested much more for drug use, but it's out of proportion. For one reason, police departments focus on high crime areas that often have large black populations.

[Shienvien]

First, no, they are not the only ones who are racist, but secondly, that... doesn't make white people considered subhuman.

In cases where a person starts to think that racism against whites is OK, whites become considered subhuman. And in cases, that is exactly what has happened. The world is not the US/UK.

 

I've actually most commonly seen "racism is racial prejudice and that's it" from people who justify discrimination against people of color. Does that mean it's what you're doing?

No - there's clear difference in the claims, you see. You are specifically singling whites out, whereas my "discrimination based on race is racism' is absolutely all-encompassing. You say that racism against whites is not racism, I say that all racism is racism, no matter whether it is white->POC, POC->white, white->white, POC->POC ... whatever instance you can come up with.

 

Singling one race out is what makes your claim inherently racist.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Shienvien

[soupnazi]

Yes it is being altered, because you're trying to tell everyone else that "racism means THIS because academia uses it that way" when the rest of the English-speaking world is using it to mean something else.

The rest of the English speaking world isn't, though. I said especially, not exclusively.

 

This is just like...making things up to make the "power + prejudice" argument make sense.

...No? This is how it's always been defined.

 

Saying that racism is power and prejudice implies that somebody involved requires power.

Okay. That's what it implies. But it is not what it means. I am saying that.

 

And anyway, white society doesn't back a black person who hates a Hispanic person, so how is it racism if a black person hates a Hispanic person? By your definition, it's not.

Define "back". If you mean that society at large wouldn't support the racism, it would, regardless of the perpetrator. Again, it's not about the power of the perpetrator, but the lack of power of the victim. If you mean that not-racist people wouldn't back them, well, of course. They're not the racists.

 

Because it implies that they're somehow not a race?

My definition of racism specifically defines it as being against races that have societal power against them. Arbitrarily excluding white people from your definition would be saying they're not a race, but my definition does not say that.

 

Here. (It's an anti-stop and frisk thing, but it does have sources.)

 

There's a good portion of the US that fights for POC. In fact, you gave a good example right after you typed this.

Note that it's not the majority. That's the point.

 

There was only outrage because it was a black kid that was killed by a “white” person. The media kept referring to Zimmerman as being “white Hispanic”, and the original photos were a poor representation of the two.

The gist of what I was trying to say is the way that people handle cases such as these, but it's difficult to quantify so I'm not going to try. Not trying to dismiss you; for all accounts and purposes, I'll let you be right.

 

In cases where a person starts to think that racism against whites is OK, whites become considered subhuman. And in cases, that is exactly what has happened.

How does not using the word racism to describe discrimination against white people lead to thinking that discrimination against white people is okay?

 

No - there's clear difference in the claims, you see. You are specifically singling whites out, whereas my "discrimination based on race is racism' is absolutely all-encompassing.

That's not the point you were making.

 

I have almost exclusively heard the phrase "whites cannot experience racism" from people who are actively justifying racism against whites.

I've actually most commonly seen "racism is racial prejudice and that's it" from people who justify discrimination against people of color.

You're saying that my definition leads to people thinking discrimination against white people is okay because most people you see using my definition think it's okay. I'm saying that that argument holds no water because most people I've seen who hold your position think discrimination against people of color is okay. If both sides are doing the same thing, how is one worse?

Edited May 25, 2013 by soupnazi

[Shienvien]

How does not using the word racism to describe discrimination against white people lead to thinking that discrimination against white people is okay?

It is implied.

 

That's not the point you were making.

I have always been on the standpoint that all racism is wrong and should be treated equally. My point is and has always been that you cannot exclude one form of racism from the definition, because again, all forms of racism are wrong and should be treated equally.

 

You, however, are insisting that racism against whites be excluded. Doing so is inherently racist and marginalizes the suffering of people who live in regions where whites actually are the minority. The world is not all the US/UK.

 

If both sides are doing the same thing, how is one worse?

Because one claim implies racism of one kind justified, but another does not.

 

One can say that discriminating whites for being white is OK because it is not racism without contradicting oneself.

One cannot say that discriminating a [insert race] up for being a [race] is OK because all racism is bad without contradicting oneself.

 

[TikindiDragon]

The rest of the English speaking world isn't, though. I said especially, not exclusively.

 

 

...No? This is how it's always been defined.

Alright then - go out on the street and ask the first 10 people you meet what the definition of racism is. Go ask the first 50. Or the first 100. I guarentee you that the higher proportion will think it means 'discrimination based on race', and not the extended definition you are suggesting.

 

Please also see: The Cambridge Dictionary, The Oxford Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Merriam-Websters Dictionary and Websters Dictionary.

 

So, yeah, if you want proof you can both ask the average Joe on the street, and go check what multiple Dictionaries have to say. The definition you are attempting to use is neither common, nor accepted.

 

At least Sock was trying to argue that it *should* be changed, not that it already had been. I didn't agree with the whole idea, but at least it didn't try to change established fact.

 

Edit: Coding fail.

Edited May 25, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[AngelKitty]

The rest of the English speaking world isn't, though. I said especially, not exclusively.

 

Yeah, it is. If it didn't, then the definition of racism that's most common wouldn't be in dictionaries, because dictionaries records words as they're most often used.

 

Okay. That's what it implies. But it is not what it means. I am saying that.

 

According to you. I've seen plenty of people who DO use it that way.

 

Define "back". If you mean that society at large wouldn't support the racism, it would, regardless of the perpetrator.

 

That is what I meant, and no, it wouldn't. Racist people and white society were fighting for Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's case because he appeared white. If he hadn't appeared white, racists and white society wouldn't have cared or supported Zimmerman in his racism.

[soupnazi]

It is implied.

How so? I see no connection. You answered a question with "because it is."

 

I have always been on the standpoint that all racism is wrong and should be treated equally. My point is and has always been that you cannot exclude one form of racism from the definition, because again, all forms of racism are wrong and should be treated equally.

Erm, the part you quoted was in reference to what I then quoted. I wasn't talking about your general point, I was talking about that point.

 

You, however, are insisting that racism against whites be excluded. Doing so is inherently racist and marginalizes the suffering of people who live in regions where whites actually are the minority. The world is not all the US/UK.

How does it marginalize it? By calling it something else in a language that probably isn't even in use in these areas where there's widespread discrimination against white people? I'm using the English-speaking world as my basis for this because this is an English word.

 

One can say that discriminating whites for being white is OK because it is not racism without contradicting oneself.

One cannot say that discriminating a [insert race] up for being a [race] is OK because all racism is bad without contradicting oneself.

That doesn't stop people from doing the latter, or saying that what they're doing isn't unjust. "I'm not racist, but..."

 

And I mean, saying something isn't racism is hardly a reason to do it. "Hey, murdering this person isn't racism, so it's okay to do it!" Just because a person doesn't have to contradict the definition of a word to do something doesn't mean they will.

 

Alright then - go out on the street and ask the first 10 people you meet what the definition of racism is. Go ask the first 50. Or the first 100. I guarentee you that the higher proportion will think it means 'discrimination based on race', and not the extended definition you are suggesting.

...Okay? More people use the word one way than the other. That doesn't mean that I'm altering the word in a way that it hasn't already been altered. My definition is already in use. Just because the majority doesn't use it in my way doesn't mean nobody does.

 

I think you missed the context of "...No? This is how it's always been defined." That was in regards to the prejudice + power definition.

Edited May 25, 2013 by soupnazi

[AngelKitty]

...Okay? More people use the word one way than the other. That doesn't mean that I'm altering the word in a way that it hasn't already been altered. My definition is already in use. Just because the majority doesn't use it in my way doesn't mean nobody does.

 

The problem is that if you go out and suddenly start saying "you can't be racist against white people!" to the rest of the world, they're going to look at you like you're nuts, because with the way most people define it, yes, you can. Just because academics use it a certain way doesn't mean it's more correct or that the definition should be changed. The language of academia is different from that of the real world, and that's okay.

 

Let's look at this mindset on another word that's used differently in academia than it is in real life: adaptation. I might as well be telling all of you to stop using the word "adaptation" to refer to an individual acclimating to their environment. As a biologist, I know you are WRONG in using the word that way - in biology, adaptation occurs over generations, it is an end product of evolution, and makes a population more suited to its environment. An individual adjusting to a change in their environment within their lifetime is acclimation, not adaptation.

 

Likewise, you also can't use it to refer to altering nonliving things to make them more suitable for a particular job or environment, since nonliving things can't evolve and thus can't possibly adapt or be adapted.

 

No no no, I don't care if the dictionary says it's the proper definition. Evolutionary biologists use "adaptation" to refer to populations only. The proper word to use for individuals is "acclimation." Your child doesn't adapt to a new school, it acclimates. You don't adapt to radical changes in your life, you acclimate. Obviously there can only be one definition of a word, and we're academics, so ours is right.

 

Anybody who's not a biologist would look at me like I'm nuts if I seriously went around telling people to stop using the word the way it's been used for hundreds of years because academics use it differently.

[soupnazi]

The problem is that if you go out and suddenly start saying "you can't be racist against white people!" to the rest of the world, they're going to look at you like you're nuts, because with the way most people define it, yes, you can. Just because academics use it a certain way doesn't mean it's more correct or that the definition should be changed. The language of academia is different from that of the real world, and that's okay.

I've always made a point to suggest my definition based on its usefulness, not based on who uses it. That's how I presented it in the post that sparked this debate. I've not once tried to argue for its use because academics use it that way. (And I might add that I mostly see it used in the social justice sphere on Tumblr, which is obviously not academia.)

 

Unless your point is that the word is being altered since I'm suggesting the academic definition be used as the regular definition, but I'm pretty sure that my definition isn't an academic definition. It's just my understanding that it's often used in such cases. (Again, I mostly see it used in non-academic situations.)

[AngelKitty]

I've always made a point to suggest my definition based on its usefulness, not based on who uses it.

 

Okay. But how is using a word that excludes one race more useful than using one that encompasses everything? You're basically removing usefulness from the word by excluding white people. There's already a word for power + prejudice - oppression. White people are not oppressed for being white. So white people are already excluded from that definition. Why not just use that instead of trying to change the meaning of a different word?

 

(And I might add that I mostly see it used in the social justice sphere on Tumblr, which is obviously not academia.)

 

Mmhmm. Tumblr is literally the ONLY place I've seen it used. I learned about it from Tumblr. And a lot of the people on Tumblr using it are white people, not people of color. A white person invented that definition. White people trying to be SJAs are who I mostly see using it. I see people of color calling it ridiculous. I see white people telling people of color they're wrong, thus silencing the opinions of people of color, while telling the rest of us we should only listen to people of color regarding these issues.

 

The tumblr SJ sphere is full of hypocrites and gaslighters and wannabe-activist posturing. That's why I don't take it seriously.

[soupnazi]

But how is using a word that excludes one race more useful than using one that encompasses everything?

I'm not going to reiterate something I already said, sorry. You can check my post towards the end of the last page if you want to see my position.

 

There's already a word for power + prejudice - oppression. White people are not oppressed for being white. So white people are already excluded from that definition. Why not just use that instead of trying to change the meaning of a different word?

Oppression is a general term that would require the qualifier "racial" to make it "racial oppression." I have the same response to that that I do to "systemic racism."

 

Tumblr is literally the ONLY place I've seen it used. I learned about it from Tumblr. And a lot of the people on Tumblr using it are white people, not people of color. A white person invented that definition. White people trying to be SJAs are who I mostly see using it. I see people of color calling it ridiculous. I see white people telling people of color they're wrong, thus silencing the opinions of people of color, while telling the rest of us we should only listen to people of color regarding these issues.

Tumblr is a diverse place with a lot of cesspits. I primarily see the definition used by people of color, myself.

 

The tumblr SJ sphere is full of hypocrites and gaslighters and wannabe-activist posturing. That's why I don't take it seriously.

Sounds to me like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[AngelKitty]

Personally, I view it in a "what definition is more useful" sort of way; white folk being discriminated against because they're white is simply less common than black folk being discriminated against, and that combined with "prejudice + power" being a more complicated concept than "prejudice", I simply find using the word racism to mean discrimination based on race, with societal power, more useful.

 

It might be less common but it isn't nonexistant. Again, "oppression" already fits the bill.

 

Oppression is a general term that would require the qualifier "racial" to make it "racial oppression." I have the same response to that that I do to "systemic racism."

 

But if you change the definition of racism you'd be doing the same thing! Racism against whites would become "racial discrimination," "prejudice against whites," etc. instead of just racism. Again, how is this solving anything?

 

And in a debate with racial context, people are already going to know what you mean when you say "oppression." If we're discussing race I'm not suddenly going to start referring to oppression of women or homosexuals and if I did, I'd specify it as such.

 

Sounds to me like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

More like a barely-developed fetus, really. There are some really good SJ blogs - I follow them when I find them - but most of them consist of "Here's a sassy GIF instead of a counterargument or even direction to a place with an effective counterargument."

[soupnazi]

It might be less common but it isn't nonexistant.

The whole point is that it's more common.

 

But if you change the definition of racism you'd be doing the same thing! Racism against whites would become "racial discrimination," "prejudice against whites," etc. instead of just racism. Again, how is this solving anything?

The point is about usefulness. As "prejudice + power" is a more complicated definition, and is also more common, it is in my opinion more useful to have racism be used for that. It's not exactly a large change. It's meant to be more convenient, not to "solve" something.

 

More like a barely-developed fetus, really. There are some really good SJ blogs - I follow them when I find them - but most of them consist of "Here's a sassy GIF instead of a counterargument or even direction to a place with an effective counterargument."

Okay. In your experience, the majority of social justice blogs aren't useful. ...I know this is going to sound testy, but that's not my intent: what's your point?

Edited May 25, 2013 by soupnazi

[AngelKitty]

The point is about usefulness. As "prejudice + power" is a more complicated definition, and is also more common, it is in my opinion more useful to have racism be used for that. It's not exactly a large change. It's meant to be more convenient, not to "solve" something.

 

I just can't see how it's more convenient to change a word to describe a concept than to use a word that already describes the same concept, sorry.

 

I know this is going to sound testy, but that's not my intent: what's your point?

 

I'm just saying I tend to side-eye anything that comes out of the tumblr SJ sphere, because in my experience it's full of hypocrisy (racism and sexism when it claims to be fighting those things) and people making blanket statements or trying to change words to suit an agenda (for example, that whites can't be victims of racism, or that men can't be victims of sexism).

Edited May 25, 2013 by AngelKitty

[Alpha1]

Note that it's not the majority. That's the point.

 

Who was the audience that the media was targeting? It wasn't just blacks. They're only 13% of the population.

 

“George Zimmerman, charged in the shooting death of a 17-year-old Florida boy, is suing NBC Universal for using "the oldest form of yellow journalism" by editing an audio tape of his 911 call to make him sound racist,”

 

You know, 70%+ of people 30 and under support gay marriage. You’ll have the bigots bunched up in certain places, but still….

 

Racist people and white society were fighting for Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's case because he appeared white. If he hadn't appeared white, racists and white society wouldn't have cared or supported Zimmerman in his racism.

 

If Zimmerman had killed a white person, we wouldn't have even seen it in the news.

 

Anyone looking at him could tell he’s Hispanic or “white Hispanic” as some of the media was putting it. I think he did it in self-defense, and the prosecution has a weak case. Does that make me a racist? No, it’s a self-defense case. Go look at the cuts to the head and broken nose he had. Martin had nothing but the gunshot wound. Martin also texted about fighting, and there was other unsavory things about him.

 

[soupnazi]

I just can't see how it's more convenient to change a word to describe a concept than to use a word that already describes the same concept, sorry.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then.

[TikindiDragon]

...Okay? More people use the word one way than the other. That doesn't mean that I'm altering the word in a way that it hasn't already been altered. My definition is already in use. Just because the majority doesn't use it in my way doesn't mean nobody does.

 

I think you missed the context of "...No? This is how it's always been defined." That was in regards to the prejudice + power definition.

Go back and read those dictionary links. The definition you are using is not in any of them - which means you *are* altering the way the word is understood by the population at large.

 

I, for example, could insist that a door had to be made only of solid wood in order to be called a door. I would be attempting to change the definition of the word 'door' by doing so - as my definition would not appear in the dictionary, and nor would it be in use by the general population.

 

Forgive the somewhat silly analogy, but really that is how it comes across.

 

I would also like to point out that saying whites cannot experience racism because historically they have had the power is a bit like saying men cannot suffer from domestic abuse for the same reason.

[Alpha1]

I would also like to point out that saying whites cannot experience racism because historically they have had the power is a bit like saying men cannot suffer from domestic abuse for the same reason.

Or sexism. It makes no sense.

 

[Syaoransbear]

I just don't understand why one would want to redefine racism to mean only institutional racism when saying institutional racism does the job fine.

 

I think redefining racism to mean "all racial discrimination except against whites" doesn't help with creating more racial equality values because it's basically supporting the belief that whites are somehow special and different from everyone else purely because of their race. Racism to mean discrimination against all races just seems a lot better for breaking down racial inequality.

[Alpha1]

I just don't understand why one would want to redefine racism to mean only institutional racism when saying institutional racism does the job fine.

It doesn't just mean "institutional racism" either since it's still leaving out whites. You can argue that a black person with a 300 point lower SAT score taking the place of a white person in a university is a racist policy. You can say the same about employers overvaluing a bilingual person.

[soupnazi]

At this point, I am repeating myself as you guys continue to make the same argument over and over again. This conversation is not going anywhere, and the segmented nature of this (with four different people carrying on against one person) means that no individual thread is getting anywhere because they keep going through the same stage. Not to mention that I'm having trouble even figuring out what you guys mean in some cases. I'm backing off.

[CleanMyWounds]

There's a group of neo nazis in my area. What are your guys opinions on that?