Who can be a racist?

[Cynon]

Recently on TV (and in the past) I've seen a couple of black people state that it was impossible for a black person to be a racist, and this statement was usually followed by a statement that said that the white person they were arguing with was a racist for such and such a reason. I've seen these scenarios on the news, on sitcoms and realty TV shows before and every time I see it I’m very puzzled. I don't mean to say that all black people feel or think this way (I'd even guess that most don't), but I have seen it many times in the media, so I can only assume it's at least partially an attractive and accepted idea by the some black people. Do any of you feel it is actually possible for one race to be exempted from being a racist? I know this can be kind of a touchy issue but I’d like some feed back from this question, Its always puzzled me when someone has stated this. Personally I’ve always been apposed to the idea of race exemption from being a racist, but how does everyone else fell about it?

Rob

[nicholmere]

Originally posted by Cynon
Who can be a racist?

I'll take dictionary* definitions for 100, Alex:

racist
"A person believing in, advocating, or practising racism."

racism
"(Belief in, adherence to, or advocay of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc., specific to that race, esp. distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race or races;"

Originally posted by Cynon
Personally I’ve always been apposed to the idea of race exemption from being a racist, but how does everyone else fell about it?

I think individuals can be racists.


*Dictionary definitions courtesy of The New Shorter Oxford

[hadassahchana[$]]

I agree, no one can be exempted from being a racist based membership in a particular group, even if that group has traditionally been the victim of racism.

There is a weekly call-in talk show on our local NPR station, and a year ago, a local politician was going on and on about how in his opinion the Jews control the media, the banks, and blah blah blah. He used the word 'Whitey' to cover everyone else who wasn't Jewish, and was, in my opnion, a fine example of sheer pig-ignorance.

Which I felt compelled to discuss when I called in - something I never ever do! I was told by both the politician (AFrican-American) and the talk-show host (white suburbanite) that I was a racist for even implying that poor oppressed Mr. B. could be considered racist in his views. They both told me in no uncertain terms that "African Americans by definition cannot be racist - you can't be a racist unless you hold the power".


Needless to say, my call was not welcome and was cut short.

Cindy

[Cynon]

Originally posted by hadassahchana

Which I felt compelled to discuss when I called in - something I never ever do! I was told by both the politician (AFrican-American) and the talk-show host (white suburbanite) that I was a racist for even implying that poor oppressed Mr. B. could be considered racist in his views. They both told me in no uncertain terms that "African Americans by definition cannot be racist - you can't be a racist unless you hold the power".


Needless to say, my call was not welcome and was cut short.

Cindy

Wow I would never had the guts to call in and attempt to debate with a politician, I'm glad you did though, even though you were shot down by them. Thanks for sharing.

Rob

[vania]

Originally posted by hadassahchana
They both told me in no uncertain terms that "African Americans by definition cannot be racist - you can't be a racist unless you hold the power".

Yes, this is the exact argument I've heard over and over again. It irritates me. This was certainly a valid argument 200 years ago-- even 50 years ago-- but now (even though there is still discrimination around, but on both sides), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that one mass group of people (ie, whites) have some kind of all-encompassing power over another. I think that these days power tends to be on a person-by-person basis.

I, personally, can think of many black people who hold more power in this world than I do.

So maybe I can't be racist either??

[poseidon]

Do any of you feel it is actually possible for one race to be exempted from being a racist?

Absolutely not.

If blacks need an example of racists, they should look at Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakahn.

Native Americans can proudly claim Russell Means.

I've gotta be honest, I don't know of any high-profile asian racists.

But to claim that one race can't be racist? What would they prefer to call it? Oh yeah... racial activism.

[kurt_messick]

It is a common definition in some circles that racism has as an implicit facet a power-imbalance. Therefore, no power = no racism.

This, however, is a social construct that attempts to avoid the issue of reverse racism, for some good and some not-so-good reasons.

One of the good reasons is that frequently racists try to derail the conversation by talking about reverse racism; they try to shift the focus so that people will stop pointing at them.

One of the not-so-good reasons is the attempt to maintain one's own prejudices while blaming others for theirs.

I tend not to use the word racist; prejudices are far more broad ranging. One can be prejudiced without being racist.

[Dani257]

I never understood the whole racist=power thing. To me, if you have negative/demeaning/nasty whatever attitudes towards someone because of race, you're racist.

[realtraveller]

Anyone.

Racism is treating someone negatively because of his or her race.

So having one set of standards for college admission, for example, for one race and another set of standards for another race is racism.

Recently there was a long article in the L. A. Times on racism in housing, The article showed that Hispanics wanted to rent only to other Hispanics, Armenians to other Armenians, Cambodians to other Cambodians etc. While the liberal Times tried to soft-peddle this as "cultural and language preference" in renting, to the black woman who was trying to find an apartment, it was racism.

In fact, I think it's racist for one race to say that only the white race can be racist.

[drmomentum[$]]

According to the definition, of course, anyone can be racist.

Fr. Kurt makes an excellent point.

I'd say that the power issue has more to do with the effects of racism, rather than the actual feeling of racism. It is possible for a person to beprejudiced and racist as a part of their personality. It is possible for a person to act in a way motivated by those prejudices. However, it is only possible for a group in power to institutionalize racism and to build prejudice into a system.

-JP

[poseidon]

The so-called power issue is meaningless IMHO when you discuss the definition of racism. Here's a perfect example:

1. Black man hates white man sitting next to him for the only reason being that he is white. He gets up and leaves. Is he racist?

2. Black man hates white man sitting next to him for the only reason being that he is white. He then pulls out a knife and says he's going to kill him because he is white. Is he racist?

In statement one, there is no power struggle. In statement two all of the power is held by the black man. In either case, the black man is a racist because he hates the white man for no other reason than the color of his skin.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I think the issue of racism is getting intermingled with racial discrimination, where power is definitely part of the equation. Anyone can be racist in viewpoint and/or behavior with or without power, but someone who uses power and racism together can be found guilty of racial discrimination (like the landlords who won't rent to me once they see my husband's skin tone).

Similarly, in our trainings here Sexual Harassment is defined as a power issue, whether the power is overt, implicit, or understood.

mj

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I think it's a semantics problem.

There are two distinct concepts, both being signified by the same word, "racist."

Concept # 1: A person who is prejudiced against people of other races.

Concept # 2: A person in a dominant group who is prejudiced against people in a subordinate group.

These are very different meanings, and both meanings are currently in use, and both share the same word.

So you get a lot of conversations like this:

Person A says to Person B, "You are a racist." A is using the first definition of the word. Person B replies, "It's impossible for me to be a racist." Person B is using the second definition.

People are talking at cross-purposes because they're not using the same definitions, and these conversations just go around and around in circles. There's really no communciation going on.

It would help if we had two separate words for the two separate concepts. Both concepts, in my opinion, are valuable -- they're just not the same thing.

[mtbat]

EVERYONE IS RACIST in one way or another. we all have a dislike for someone, somewhere that is based either on their religion their color or their culture and that is racist. NOONE is exempt from racism. not Black people, not White People, not JEwish People not Catholic People ect----

it is not okay and it is not true for someone to say that they are not a racist because they are X color or X religion. if they said that-they are most certainly a racist.

Fridai

[pisces]

All right. Here we go. I don't like the words "racist" or "racism" because I think these two words don't capture the complexity of the whole situation and what's really going on.

I don't like words that are used to stamp, mark, label, and stigmatize otherwise good people for life.

We all have stereotypes and ideas in our heads based on past experiences with this or that group, even though, intellectually, we know it's wrong. Some of us refuse to admit it because we don't want to be branded with the term "racist" for life. None of us is perfect. And, I think that's what the those African Americans on that program were trying to get at.

I sense that part of what they were trying to express was that White America is very smug (we are) and just won't admit certain feelings of racism, but rather it comes out sort of in a sort of a passive-agressive, tacit (silent) manner through actions or veiled insults.

I think that Black America would like White America to perhaps admit its flaws, admit that we are not perfect, that we ALL have things that we are not proud of and can improve upon, and are basically, all an evolving people.

It's just that White America isn't willing to do that for fear of having its reputation destroyed by being forever marked "racist."
If only there was another word to describe a very human condition, one that didn't have such harsh, lifelong implications.

I think there's a basic fear that no one is willing to admit. I think the way these African Americans used the term "racist" was to describe who holds the power. And, I do think they are allowed to define the term for themselves based upon their own personal truths.

I never like to deny another person's own personal experience, even though theirs may not be mine.

The definition of racism for them, their definition of racism includes the standard dictionary definition, but also includes the situation we have in this country where White America runs the corporations, runs the government, runs Hollywood, and is not too eager to let Black America in.

White America has one definition of the term "racism," and Black America has a different definition based upon their own observations and experiences which we all ought not to invalidate!

[mshawpyle]

Sigh.

'Socrates! White courtesy phone! Socrates! White courtesy phone, please!'

Let us define our terms.

AuntieEmma saith,

There are two distinct concepts, both being signified by the same word, "racist."

Concept # 1: A person who is prejudiced against people of other races.

Concept # 2: A person in a dominant group who is prejudiced against people in a subordinate group.

These are very different meanings, and both meanings are currently in use, and both share the same word.

These two phenomena may share the same word in common usage, but they ought not. Racism is, simply, a prejudice against persons of other races, and based solely on race. The prejudice of '(a) person in a dominant group who is prejudiced against people in a subordinate group' is - if that prejudice is predicated upon the subordination and not on race - not racism. It is wrong, yes. But it is not the particular wrong that the word racism is meant to define. (Historical example: the disdain of Romans of the Republic and still more the Empire for slaves, not because the slaves were of another race - they weren't, almost without exception, except insofar as 'race' in one old sense meant 'nationality,' as it still may in British usage ['the bulldog virtues of our island race']; they were Greeks or Gauls, Parthians or Thracians, but almost none were from Black Africa - the disdain was for their being slaves. It is not wholly dissimilar to the disdain felt by Japanese soldiers in the PTO for surrendered Allied POWs, not because they were Caucasian [not a few weren't: many were Sikhs, Hindus, or even Gurkhas], but because their having surrendered seemed to the bushido viewpoint of the IJA a debased thing to do.)

Fridai, meanwhile, quoth,

Everyone is racist in one way or another. We all have a dislike for someone, somewhere, that is based either on their religion, their color, or their culture, and that is racist. No one is exempt from racism.... It is not okay and it is not true for someone to say that they are not a racist because they are X color or X religion. If they said that - they are most certainly a racist.

It may be true that each of us dislikes someone, somewhere, based upon that person's pieties, pigmentation, or pop music tastes. But if the basis is something other than race, I submit again, it is simply improper to call that prejudice 'racism.' To do so is to cry wolf, thus weakening what should be a serious charge that demands to be taken seriously.

As to the other matter raised.... I agree that it is foolish for anyone to claim an inability to be prejudiced simply because he or she is a member of a certain racial group or follows a certain religion. I am leery of suggesting that a denial of racism is eo ipso proof of racism, even if the basis of that denial is the foolish assertion that 'I'm a [fill in the blank,] and no [ditto, ditto] can as a matter of definition be a racist.' Both the assertion I label foolish and the suggestion that denial is admission involve logical fallacies I'd as soon not deal with.

[pisces]

What gives me the right to decide how another group, people, etc. should and should not use a term?

Certain groups of people, persons, whatever, have decided they are going to expand on the term/s, "racist" "racism" to include a whole range of related issues. I think they have that right based on the totality of their experiences in society.

I am not going to tell a whole group of people how they should and should not use a term, even though I may disagree with the group, their experiences, and their interpretation. I think we, and they, are all free to interpret, in general, certain words any way we see fit.

[mshawpyle]

Originally posted by pisces
What gives me the right to decide how another group, people, etc. should and should not use a term?

Certain groups of people, persons, whatever, have decided they are going to expand on the term/s, "racist" "racism" to include a whole range of related issues. I think they have that right based on the totality of their experiences in society.

[***] I think we, and they, are all free to interpret, in general, certain words any way we see fit.

Then you advocate the death of all communication, much less of all reason. Unless we agree upon terms, unless there are objective meanings, we are all unwindowed monads making meaningless noises at one another, in a sort of Liebnizian-by-Wittgensteinian dystopia.

[pisces]

We are not talking about ALL COMMUNICATION-the world over, and you know it. We are talking about a certain group of people who took a very specific (to them) term and expanded upon it based upon what they perceived to be their related issues and experiences with that term.

Nobody is under any obligation to accept as gospel, the dictionary definition of a word/words, especially one as highly charged as the word/s we are talking about. Besides, I'm sure those African Americans would argue, who wrote the dictionaries? White folks, of course!

There are many dictionary words in society that certain groups have coined, changed the meaning of, and adopted over time. The word "gay" was adopted by a certain group as their own and meant to describe a people, even though the traditional dictionary definition of "gay" is not used like that.

[poseidon]

Besides, I'm sure those African Americans would argue, who wrote the dictionaries? White folks, of course!

This is exactly why people who have an axe to grind will keep twisting their failed argument until it becomes something that they want it to become so that it doesn't appear to be a failed one at all. If someone doesn't want to consider themselves to be racist, they will twist the definition to mean that in order to be racist you must weild some power.

Racism is, simply put, hatred of another based solely on race.

[mtbat]

Originally posted by pisces
What gives me the right to decide how another group, people, etc. should and should not use a term?

Certain groups of people, persons, whatever, have decided they are going to expand on the term/s, "racist" "racism" to include a whole range of related issues. I think they have that right based on the totality of their experiences in society.

I am not going to tell a whole group of people how they should and should not use a term, even though I may disagree with the group, their experiences, and their interpretation. I think we, and they, are all free to interpret, in general, certain words any way we see fit.

okay, so if a three year old African American child Calls me A "White Honkey Bitch" when I walk by her in the grocery store, that is okay?

and if the guy in the white sheet wants to call the same little girl a N**** that's okay too? Since they are both free to "interpret, in general, certain words" any way they see it?

I've delt with racism/prejudic in many forms from both sides of the fence. When I lived in Oakland I was one of a few white folks who lived in an area that was mostly Black. I got nasty looks, I was called names, but hey, I guess that was okay cause I was white and they were black right? forget that I had been raised to respect ALL people no matter what their color was.

I've been with my husband when he's been followed around stores simply because he is hispanic. I've gotten in arguments with clerks because they demand I show ID when using my debit card because a blond haired blue eyed woman can't possibly have a hispanic last name right?

Tell me something-if a group of young black or hispanic men dressed in clothes with the names of assorted sports teams and baggy pants came down the street what would you do? would you hold your purse a bit tighter? would you make sure you were not in their way? would you assume that they were criminals or that they were just a group of young kids out for a walk? if they tried to make eye contact would you meet their eyes? Or would you look away and hope they moved on?

Fridai

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by mtbat
Tell me something-if a group of young black or hispanic men dressed in clothes with the names of assorted sports teams and baggy pants came down the street what would you do? would you hold your purse a bit tighter? would you make sure you were not in their way? would you assume that they were criminals or that they were just a group of young kids out for a walk? if they tried to make eye contact would you meet their eyes? Or would you look away and hope they moved on?

What do you plan to conclude from the answer to this question?

Let's say a woman decides not to get in their way. Perhaps she doesn't like being outnumbered. I don't make it a habit to go barreling through a group of people no matter what they are wearing.

I don't see a reason to assume they are criminals, and more than you would assume a bunch of suited men in a group were white-collar criminals. But you can't jump to conclusions just because this woman decides to make sure she's holding her purse.

There also might be non-race related reasons for someone to alter their behavior in the above situation. If a woman is in an alley at night and sees a group of people who she can't make out clearly but can tell are men and decides to back out of the alley, does that make her sexist? What if her behavior was different if it were a group of women?

Late last year many people confessed that they would be uncomfortable getting on a plane with a group of "middle-eastern-looking" men. Are those people racist?

I think it has to go beyond that to be called racism. People are naturally a bit uncomfortable in unfamiliar situations. If they're confronted from someone from a different religion, culture, or subculture they might have a number of emotions. They might be curious, agitated, or even frightened. Reacting to this person's differences is not racist. But hatred based on race differences is. And lesser treatment based on only those differnces is discrimination. So is better treatment.

If someone wants to believe they can't possibly be a racist, they're incorrect. If someone wants to believe that everyone is racist, that is incorrect, too. I dare anyone to tell me how I am a racist.

-JP