Not unfrequently, you’ll see someone stating that he’s not racist, and someone else respond that everybody is racist to some extent.
Some months ago, in a thread in GD, I was reading such an exchange, where the anti-racist activist was stating that even him had hints of racism, because it was unavoidable in his/our culture, that he reflected a lot about his thoughts, behaviour, etc…to fight against his inner racism, etc…
Then suddenly, something struck me. It reminded me of those Christian preachers who argue that homosexuality is a choice, that people should fight against their deviant tendancies, that everybody suspect to be repressed homosexuals themselves projecting their inner turmoils on other people.
I began to wonder if those people stating that everybody is somehow racist aren’t precisely the people who have the most deeply ingrained racism they have to fight against and assume that everybody else is like them (which is pretty common, and generally wrong, assumption that a lot of people tend to make about pretty much everything), while plenty of people who state they aren’t racist aren’t deluding themselves but truly aren’t racist at all at any level or at least are less innately racist than the people truly convinced that everybody is racist.
It’s difficult to peer into people’s inner minds, so I can’t really speculate on that and haven’t seen any evidence of it. I do think however that people who think that only some races are inherently racist are racist.
Yeah, there is currently a movement to redefine racism from “a belief that racial groups have specific genetically inherited personality traits and intellectual abilities” (or however you want to phrase the way the term has almost always been used) to “prejudice with power” so that only white people can be called racist. (When faced with a dictionary, some accuse the dictionary of being racist.)
I basically agree with this. Like I’m thinking of the multiple studies that have been done where identical resumes have been sent out with either white or black names on them, like either Roger or Jamal, and the resumes from white names get more responses. I’m guessing that the vast majority of the hiring managers aren’t actively racist, and honestly believe in equality and that they wouldn’t prefer a candidate who was white. But they have unconscious biases that make them think that the white candidate would be better, despite the identical resume. But if you realize that everyone has biases and keep that in mind when looking at the resumes, you could take a second look and think about if you are basing your decision on the right criteria.
I absolutely believe we all have biases and that racism has become an overused term. I also don’t believe people who say they don’t notice color / ethnicity.
It’s racist to not notice someone’s color and to not realize that that affects how they view their background. To answer what I think you’re asking, yes, I think the ones who claim everyone is racist have the actual most deep-seated prejudices.
That’s not a “current movement.” I was taught precisely that in college over 30 years ago. If that’s the definition of racism, then black people in American can’t be racist, but can be prejudiced. I always do a double take when someone accuses a black person of being a racist, and I have to remind myself of the more common definition of the term.
To the OP’s question, I don’t believe all people, or even all white people, are racist (or prejudiced)
This might be OT (or perhaps not) but I’d like to see a test using more “conventional” black-sounding names, as opposed to Jamal. Or someone otherwise indicated to be black but not named something like Jamal.
Because I suspect the bias might be against people with those types of names more than against black people generally.
Correct. For good or evil (obviously evil) names like Demarquez and Shiranda sound “ghetto” and ghetto is not an asset in the white collar (no pun intended) world.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but I don’t see how bias against more black sounding names is much better or different than if they were only a little black sounding. Also, the study had to go with obviously black names that are rare for white people, and vice versa, otherwise the study couldn’t study the racial biases.
But I was also just offering that as one example. Someone can have non racist views, but still have a biased view of the world, and not realize it, and it can manifest in various ways.
It’s not “more” or “less” black. It’s a specific subculture within the black ethnic group.
In very rough terms, “ghetto” is to black as “redneck” is to white (for purposes of this issue). A person who holds certain stereotypes about rednecks is not biased against “white people”.
OK. But the fact that it’s difficult to conduct a rigorous study doesn’t make the non-rigorous one more valid. It is what it is, and it’s appropriate to point to its flaws, if any.
I began to wonder if those people stating that everybody is somehow racist aren’t precisely the people who have the most deeply ingrained racism they have to fight against and assume that everybody else is like them (which is pretty common, and generally wrong, assumption that a lot of people tend to make about pretty much everything), while plenty of people who state they aren’t racist aren’t deluding themselves but truly aren’t racist at all at any level or at least are less innately racist than the people truly convinced that everybody is racist.
What do you people think?
[/QUOTE]
I think that one thing I can’t abide is an ethnocentric racist.
If I were sorting names into ghetto and non-ghetto black columns, the name Jamal would definitely fall into the latter column. It’s certainly a name often used by black people, but it’s quite conventional.
I do think the OP makes a good point, but there are people in that group who can work on overcoming their racism and end up being a lot less racist than the folks who claim they don’t see color, or that some of their best friends are _____.
I see that definition goes all the way back to 1970. Somehow, I managed to never hear it until no more than 2 years ago at most. I think the redefinition is a steaming pile of crap.