Hi. I’m interrupting to make, for me, a quick point.
SoooOOoo much can be cleared up if people would learn to recognize gray areas for what they are. Sometimes you don’t have enough facts to make a clear judgement. And at the hint of coached language and racial bias against blacks, many whites seek other explanations, many blacks are convinced of the very worst. If whites are in denial, it’s because blacks tend to convict on overall scanty evidence.
Most racism these days is hidden, circumvented, veiled, alluded and needs to be ferreted out to be seen for what it is. In the meantime, you need to use terms like racially biased, bigoted, insinuated, prejudiced and discriminatory and apply them accordingly as you prove your case.
Here’s an interesting litmus test: are the opinions in this news video clip racist or the exercise of first amendment speech?
Words are funny things. By themselves, they have no meaning. We assign meaning to them. And, over time the meaning we assign to them, collectively or individually, can change. The word “Liberal” (in a political context) is one example.
Another example–and relevant to our discussion—is the word “racist.” Some time ago a small group of people concluded that it wasn’t necessary for whites to abuse the advantage they had; there didn’t need to be proof that whites acted in a racist way. The simple fact that there was a disparity —as in wealth, for example—was prima facie evidence of racism.
Most thought, “Hold on a second. There are many, many possible reasons for any given disparity, racism simply being one. This definition assumes that there can be no other reason but racism! It’s absurd!”
And of course, it is. Yet there have been many who bought into this nonsense. As a result, there are some who will state, “Black people can’t be racists because they do not have economic power.” (Ignoring that many blacks do have economic power and aren’t called racists, and conversely, many whites live in poverty and are.)
Defining racism in this way isn’t just disengenuous, it serves to expand the reach of racism. It [artificially]amplifies racism. It raises it in our conciousness. It’s fraud.
I think tomndebb has bought into the same silly mindset with his use of the term “institutuonal racism.” Now “institution” and “institutional” have more than one application. It is commom to call marriage an institution, as well Congress, Colleges and Universities, Prisons, the Military and so forth.
While the statement “That is how the phrase was coined and that is how it has been used for 40 years” sure sounds impressive , he gives us no background on it’s origin. It might be interesting to some that wikipedia says …**“it was coined by black nationalist, pan-Africanist and honorary prime minister of the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael.” **
Sounds like there might be an agenda here? Me thinks yes, too.
tomnbebb, to quote Forrest Gump, “Sorry to break up your Black Panter Party.”
Even then, while tomnebb’s definition is foreign to me (and most others uninclined to see Mr. Carmichael as unbiased) I still would use it to discuss this; even though it seeks to artificially amplify the nature and pervasiveness of racism in America.
As racism has receded in America, those who wish to continue the fight have expanded the definition of words like “racist” and “institutional racism” to give the appearance that we’re still in 1960. Most of know better.
Surely tomndebb doesn’t think that his and Mr. Carmichael’s interpretion of “Institute” or “Institutional” within the context of racism doesn’t invalidate the more common and accepted use of the word. In other words, tomndebb could have answered me, “The correct terminology should be, “Does Institutional Racism exist withing the institution of …?””
But it appears to me that he would rather take us through The Ohio Revised Code than find the real level of racism in America.
(Wiki on Black Panters ,Stokely Carmichael, and if you really want to see how we went from King’s message to the Victim Class and the race baiting we see today, see the evolution of Carmichaels’s group, SNCC )
Raindog, you can flounder all you like but you’re not realizing the effect you’re having. The question before us is “are white people in denial?” and the effort you’re putting into denying racism answers the question.
While “institutional racism” of this sort no doubt exists in some cases, it is often very difficult to determine - as those measures intended to track race-neutral subjects (such as class or income distribution) may also track race. The issue them becomes why this is so - for example, why are Black people more likely to be poor in some geographic areas?
The difficulty (at least, I would contend it is a difficulty) arises when one is tempted to answer that question with ‘Black people are more likely to be poor … because of institutional racism’ [I’m not saying you are doing this, but some definitely do].
That may be true or it may not be. I’d say that a history of deprivation and unequal treatment, combined with cultural traits arising from that history, are much more significant.
Why is the issue important? Because it will have an effect on one’s proposed solutions to the problem of entrenched inequality. If institutional racism is to blame, then remove the institutional racism and the problem will be solved. If it is not, then measures intended to remove institutional racism will not solve the problem.
The question however is then flawed - it resembles the famous “have you stopped beating your wife/husband yet?”. No matter how you answer, you are still a hubby-beater.
Let’s suppose there are two possible approaches in answering in the negative. This way:
“No, I don’t believe whites are in denial and here’s why…”
and this way:
***“No!!! Racism is a exaggerated myth. Anyone who says otherwise is actually racist, themselves!! Afterall, look at how much athletes make!!! And those bling-bling rapper people, too! They’re rich and they’re black! So the fight is over, can’t ya see? Good guys won!” ***
What style strikes you as being something that a person in denial would likely say? Me, I go with number 2.
Not being in denial implies acknowledgment of some fact, rather than assertion that the “fact” is actually false. And your second example is either meaningless or clumsy well-poisoning.
I’d say that both could well be forms of being “in denial” - the second more heated than the first.
To my mind, the answer to the question really requires two issues to be analysed:
The relative importance of racism, objectively (presumably to the well-being of Blacks generally); and
The relative importance assigned to racism, as a factor, by Whites.
Both need to be answered, because in order to be “in denial” #2 must be less than #1.
A thought has occurred to me, and it is this. Perhaps one way of looking at the question is as follows: many Whites look at the question #1 in in what they believe to be concrete terms - that racism isn’t the major factor in (say) relative poverty (assuming that is correct) - and thus, in answer to #2, assign a low value. However, Blacks may assign a higher value to #1, because to them “well-being” includes subjective feelings of insult and alienation as well as things like income level [for example, a famous celebrity making insulting racist comments does little to affect concrete well-being of Blacks generally but may have a large effect on subjective well-being]; thus, when Whites assign a low value to #2, it merely adds fuel to the fire … in short it isn’t about “denial” as much as it is about the choice of what is important.
As others have stated, I disagree. People can refute a position and offer reasonable evidence on why they’re doing so. Other people may disagree with them and offer counter-evidence but nobody is going to say anyone’s in denial.
Denial is when a person holds a position on the support of the weakest of evidence and in the face of the strongest of counter-evidence.
I think blacks are commonly portrayed as blaming whitey for present-day disparities, when in my experience that’s not the case. Talk to black people and you might be surprised how many don’t go around thinking the white man is out to get them.
What I do see is many whites operating under the assumption that because racism is no longer as blatant civil rights-era racism, then everyone should be at equal places in society, so “stop blaming things on racism!”. Which is why we see threads topics asking “What went wrong with African-Americans?”, as if a little thing called history…well, is a little thing.
When black people–like myself–step up to remind these white people why slavery and its sequela have contributed majorly to what we see today, what I often see is a refusal to accept that as an answer. This to me is what I think about when I think of white denial. Not just the inability to call a duck a duck when someone does or says something racist. But the inabiltiy to even consider that blacks are disproportionately poor because of things that happened in the past. This manifests itself in specious comparisons to non-enslaved, voluntary immigrants; patronizing lectures about how blacks are wallowing in self-victimization; and my personal favorite, opinions about how slavery wasn’t all that bad.
Perhaps white people wouldn’t have to hear about racism so much if there weren’t so many among them that downplayed it so much. Not just the presentday stuff. But the past.
the raindog, does it not bother you that yopu keep avoding addressing the things I have actually said and that you have to keep inventing things to pretend that I have said in order to attack your imaginary version of my position?
No. What is fraud is pretending that everyone who identifies institutional racism has “bought into” that belief. I never have. I have any number of posts on this board (including posts in this thread) that establish that I do not “buy into” the notion that all black suffering is the result of white actions. Pretending that I have espoused that position is your fraudulent attempt to shape the discussion by lying about what I might believe.
There are, indeed, some people who believe that any bad thing that has harmed (some portion of) the black community is a sign that racism has occurred. Clearly, I have never made any such claim. If you want to pretend that that is the meaning of institutional racism, then you ought to call it by some neologism of your own invention instead of making up definitions to attack that are not the definitions intended by people who use the phrase.
It is good to see that you finally are admitting the point you attempted to discredit pages ago.
Ahh, so you’re simply going to ignore how the phrase was coined and how it has come to be used by poisoning the well by slurring Mr. Carmichael? That does not really address the issue, of course, it simply means that you are willing to make up excuses to avoid the issue. Since you have brought up its original author (Oh! Horrors! Hide the children; he was a Black Panther!), let us look at what he actually said (as quoted in your Wikipedia link),
Note that the definition includes the condition that it was the race of the persons affected that contributed to the cause of the problem. In other words, the levee failures in Katrina were not part of institutional racism. The utter incompetence of FEMA was not institutional racism. In neither case were decisions made to decline to provide common services based on the race of those who needed it. On the other hand, redlining was institutional racism, because in carrying out their legitimate task of ensuring good returns on their loans, instead of actually examining the properties or regions where blight was occurring, the bankers simply looked at the color of the people in surrounding neighborhoods and used the color test to draw their loan rate lines. DWB and most profiling is institutional racism, because it is based on the asumption that the color of a person’s skin is as good an indicator of criminal intent as actually observing behavior. The discriminatory laws regarding cocaine were probably not institutionally racist when they were passed, (evidence of idiotic panic in Congress, but not racist), but the continued maintenace of the discrepancies after the twin facts that crack is no more addictive than powder and that the sentencing rules were more severe for blacks is racist. It is probably not mailiciously racist–I doubt that many Congresscritters are rubbing their hands in glee at the black incarceration rates–but the failure to adjust sentencing rules despite our current knowledge indicates that the Congress does not care if blacks are disproportionately harmed.
It seems to me that what you are actually saying is that if you can rant loudly enough that Mr. Carmichael was a terrble person, then you can avoid actually addressing the content of his phrase and its definition as it has been used by a lot of different people for the past 40 years.
Playing false semantics is dishonest. You finally admit that marriage can be an institution, then hurry to proclaim that no one is really allowed to use it that way. Institutional simply means that a phenomenon is prevalent, probably even arising from some internal dynamic, within an institution. The institution, generally, is the institution of society, although it may have specific applications such as in the institutions of the police, the legislatures, or the financial community. Racist is that having to do with race. Carmichael’s point, adapted and enlarged upon by later speakers, is that some decisions are not intended as deliberately hostile, but that they do negatively target people based on race. Why this is such a frightening concept that you have to dance around avoiding it for three days, then post nonsense and ad hominem attacks in order to avoid the issue, I do not know.
If I had ever claimed that every possible bad thing that ever happened to any black person was obviously the result of current racism, either overt or institutional, I could see your point, (although I would hope that you would present the rebuttal in a more honest and more logical way). However, your entire argument is a tissue of straw man logic in which you attribute to me things I have never said and then make up false claims for the meaning of the words, now resorting to avoiding the issue by lying about what Carmicheal said while simultaneously trying to defeat the argument by claiming that he was bad.
It is also intersting that you make false asociations in your arguments. You have attempted to claim that people are looking to invent new problems at a time when racism is fading away, yet the term you are dismissing was actually coined at a time when racism was still being actively promoted in the legislatures of several states and was still a source of hatred and violence. The concept of institutional racism is not a late invention to make white people feel bad, it was a central part of the understanding that developed in the middle of the Civil Rights movement that was the cornerstone of much of the effort to purge the effects of racism from our society, your attemps at revisionist history notwithstanding,
I have mentioned pieces of the following statements in passing throughout this thread. I will post them together in one place, now, so that if you continue to attribute false beliefs to me, everyone will be able to see that your efforts are deliberate and not simply having “not noticed” the repeated statements I have made.
Most blacks have gotten out of poverty into the middle class.
Many blacks who are poor, (as many whites), suffer from self-inflicted problems.
Many of the problems that poor blacks have difficulty escaping are generational and not the result of current racism.
Racism, today, is less a problem than it was even 20 years ago and much less of a problem than 40 years ago.
Nevertheless, actual racism does occur in this country as several studies in which pairs of blacks and whites are sent to the same employer or realtor with whites receiving much better treatment and more offers of employment or housing. The extent of this sort of racism is difficult measure, and people of good will may overstate or understate its importance without deliberately trying to make a political point.
In addition, there are examples of a real phenomenon known as institutional racism that has a real effect on minorities. It is not responsible for every problem that exists in this country, but it is real and it has an effect.
Very true. Howewver, note that the issue only came up at all because the raindog, instead of saying “I do not believe that institutional racism is as much a cause as other factors” started off with the claim that there is no such thing as institutional racism and anyone who uses the phrase is just trying to play victim. He then went on at length to play word games and mischaracterize (and invent) the arguments of others.
I do not believe that institutional racism is the only (or single most important or even a significantly important) aspect of the problems that U.S. society faces today. I do reject the notion that it is imaginary–particularly when the arguments to support that belief are badly reasoned and supported by dishonest tactics.
You’re not one them, it would appear. It’s particualrly ironic, when you report you’ve never been vicimized by racism.
Have you ever had a traffic ticket? Given that you’re black, many here would see this as prima facie evidence that you’ve been targeted, in spite of the fact you were actually doing 70 in a 55.
Will the irony never end? You would note threads like “What went wrong with African-Americans?” in the “Are White People in Denial?” thread?
What we see? What we see? We? I know what you see:
That’s exactly what you with the face sees today.
On the contrary. We want to see the duck.
Exactly! Exactly! “…because of things that happened in the past…”
