I would say “yes”. People are complicated. No one is “all good”, and no one is “all bad”. We all are just a jumble of idiosyncrasies!
They would be correct. And likely racist.
Stating statistics is not racist (assuming it’s true). Using statistics to justify racist assertions or actions (like “Aboriginals are criminals!” or “don’t hire Aboriginals because they’re dangerous!”) is racist.
Does this really surprise anyone?
You can talk about “them” over the dinner table and still be a good person.
Not so much if you’re posting daily spittle flecked rants on inclement weather forums.
This discussion is unhelpful without a firm definition of what is meant by “racist”.
Is it harboring stereotypes based on visible personal characteristics? Many people hold to stereotypes to a certain extent; many people also know that doing so can lead to flawed conclusions. Relying on stereotypes (particularly in the face of actual evidence that contradicts them in specific cases) is a sign of immaturity or inferior intelligence, rather than immorality.
Is it acting on negative stereotypes to hold others in contempt, or worse, actively do them harm? That’s more in the realm of morality.
What’s the difference? To my mind, it is that the one may be “educated” but not the other. Someone who sincerely believes (for example) that Blacks are “inferior” based on a lot of negative stereotypes can, at least in theory, learn better. One who has the same belief, but as a result holds (fir example) Blacks to contempt or does them harm, are not just demonstrating ignorance - they are demonstrating that they are the sort of person who will hold others to contempt or do them harm if they think the others are inferior.
Convince such a person that Blacks are not inferior, and they will simply transfer that bad behavior to others they think inferior (say, Jews, or the disabled, or whomever).
I agree, and also what’s meant by ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person. It’s apparent that to some people ‘good’ in this context is conforming to a certain set of beliefs which can be orthogonal to morality as traditionally defined*. Then it’s a tautology: if you accept the (then) standard beliefs, you’re good, otherwise you’re bad.
Not necessary as defined by or in a religion. I just mean the general idea of morality, as it relates to other people (again not your one on one relationship with a deity, the universe, your deceased ancestors, etc.) as being about what you do* to other people. If you ‘do unto others as you’d have them do unto you’, how is it immoral exactly to believe in your own mind that it’s better if people marry other people of their own race? Or ethnicity, etc. or alternatively why would it be ‘immoral’ to believe in ‘marrying within the group’ when it came to race it if wasn’t immoral to believe it about ethnicity or other community, where I think it’s a less likely accusation (eg. a Jewish family who’d prefer their child to marry another Jew would rarely be called immoral IME). And if bad doesn’t mean immoral, what does it mean?
**in fact in a religious context, some religions at least notably including Christianity, what you think is part of being moral, completely aside from your actions. But it’s strange IMO if highly secular people, the ones probably more likely to find somebody a ‘bad’ person for being a ‘racist’, to base that on thoughts alone.
At it’s core, I don’t think racism is all that different from any other incorrect belief.
We eat cows because most of us believe that cows are not people and that it’s OK to eat non-people. But let’s say that the Animal Lives Matter movement of 2400 AD redefines that perspective. If a person from 2500 AD looked back on us, should they conclude that we’re all irredeemably evil for eating hamburgers? And what about the Plant Lives Matter movement of 2600 AD that relegates us all to eating synthesized food because wheat has rights too? I don’t think that’s a reasonable standard for them to hold us to, and I’m not going to apply my 2000 AD standard to someone from 1500 AD.
For modern racists, I am a little bit less forgiving and I’m a whole lot less forgiving for those who are willing to kill, assault or otherwise harm people based on racist beliefs.
Yeah, it depends on how you define racist. By my definition, no. That’s why racist is seen as such a horrible thing.
Yes, everyone occasionally thinks racist thoughts or even does racist actions. But that doesn’t make you a racist. The question is what you do when you discover this. Do you double down and stick to it? Or do you try not to be that way?
A non-racist fights it. A racist doesn’t. They make excuses for how they aren’t really racist. They just get angry and attack people.
Even if they are otherwise nice people, the fact that they hold on to racism shows the real color of their heart. They can even be someone you love, but they aren’t good people. Good people care about others more than themselves, which pretty much precludes racism.
ISTM that there are several different questions being conflated in this discussion.
[ol]
[li]Are all forms, manifestations, and levels of racism evil?[/li][li]Does racism always outweigh any other positive attributes that a given racist might have?[/li][li]Does a person’s being racist prove that they must be evil in other ways as well?[/li][/ol]
The answer to these questions might be different.
Last I checked, I was a member of everyone, and I am not “a little bit racist”, at all, and I find it offensive for anyone to make assumptions about my character without knowing anything about me. YOU may be a little bit racist, and I applaud you for acknowledging it, but just because you cannot conceive that anyone can be completely unbiased when it comes to race does not mean it isn’t possible for such people to exist.
Whenever someone says “everyone’s a little bit racist” what I hear is “I admit that I have racist thoughts from time to time that I don’t act on, so everyone else must as well.” I obviously cannot speak for everyone, and it may be true that most people have racist thoughts, I don’t know, but I can certainly speak for me.
The above stated, I would be interested in examples of racist thoughts everyone ostensibly harbors. You may change my mind. Who knows?
Back to the OP, if a person believes they are better or more deserving than someone else solely by virtue of their race, I don’t see how such a person could possibly be considered good. A racist may be kind, even to those he considers inferior to himself racially, but that does not make him a good person.
I don’t think people can truly know all the possible racist thoughts or impulses they might harbor. If you see a black person in a tux at an event, and assume they’re a waiter or valet or something, that’s probably a racist impulse. It’s not harmful assuming you don’t treat them poorly, but it’s something you should recognize within yourself as probably a tiny bit racist, and strive to improve. If you assume that a black person you are talking to won’t like or know about a certain book, tv show, or song because they’re black, then that’s probably similarly a bit racist. Same (a bit racist or bigoted) for assuming someone speaks a certain language because of the way they look, or assuming they eat or don’t eat certain foods, or assuming they have specific political beliefs, etc.
Not a huge deal and it doesn’t make anyone a bad person for having these sorts of feelings. Good people, IMO, try to recognize and ferret out these feelings within themselves so they can improve themselves. Stubborn people, IMO, refuse to accept that they might have these sorts of feelings sometimes.
I don’t think they’re making assumptions about your character; I don’t think the kind of racism that means is necessarily a matter of character. I think the point has been made by someone else upthread, but a Good Person isn’t defined by the unconscious, automatic thoughts and perceptions they have, but by how they act. Kind of like how courage doesn’t mean lack of fear, but rather doing the right thing despite one’s fear.
You may or may not have a trace of racism in you; I don’t know. But the idea that, for everybody, other people’s race colors their perceptions or expectations of those other people, at least a little tiny bit, is something that I find to be at least plausible.
You have touched on an interesting point for me. I think if you make an assumption about someone else based solely on their race, such as, expanding on iiandyiiii’s example above, assuming a black person is not well-read, although you may believe internalization of the thought means you have not acted on it, you in fact have acted on it by how you choose to engage the other person. Although possibly subconscious, I believe your assumption(s) will cause you to treat the person in this example somewhat dismissively, even if only at an almost imperceptible level.
From an observer’s perspective, I think racist thoughts, regardless how supposedly innocuous they are, cause changes in decision paths that can impact your target even if it is not meant to. Choosing not to look someone in the eye when you otherwise would, placing less import on something said, or even incorrectly assuming someone’s role, such as in iiandyiiii’s tuxedo example, all have a perceptible impact.
But you haven’t expressed why you find it plausible. If I find it plausible that the core of the moon is composed of cheddar cheese, does that mean my contention should be taken seriously? Not a great example, but I think you get the point.
I find it hard to assess whether I’m ‘a little bit racist’, indeed I know nothing of you, with no objective standard as to what ‘racist’ actually means. I’m sure any number of people could immediately chime in with a dictionary definition, but the actual application is a lot trickier. That is illustrated in a number of posts by the concept that one’s ‘subconscious’ is influencing their actions, but that’s another term and concept (your ‘subconscious’ and how it affects your actions) difficult to nail down so everyone is on the same page.
What navel gazing about whether one or other people are ‘racist’ tends to amount to again IMO is that a certain catechism about race is required, and if you don’t recite it faithfully, you’re a bad person. That is then rationalized as your ‘subconscious’ surely causing you to act wrongly if you won’t recite the catechism. Again the counter could be given in terms of ‘facts are OK if they are facts’, but the actual relevance of facts about race is often a matter of opinion. Eg. the rate of crime or standardized test scores of member of different races vary on average, that’s a fact. What causes that? That’s not really in the realm of fact. ‘Social science’ is very imprecise, and there’s really no more reason to think it’s objective in its findings (or lack of findings) now relative to social pressures than it was in say the 19th century with a different set of biases.* A lot of what people perceive as ‘fact’ on such questions is a function of what they choose as the default hypothesis and what burden of proof they set to overturn it, which is a matter of opinion not fact.
That’s excluding cases where people are actively malicious to people of other races, not subconscious, not subtle, but that’s a fairly small proportion of cases of accusation of ‘racism’ in recent times IMO. Note, I’m not saying all other applications of the term are false, just that it’s basically impossible to nail down at the threshold level what ‘a little bit racist’ actually means.
*one of the remarkable things about the actually very good book ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ but the late Stephen Jay Gould is how he could go through the whole history of 19th early 20th century social scientists’ fingers on the scale to find evidence of genetic racial superiority/inferiority without it ever seeming to occur to him that modern social scientists might have a bias against such a finding, or really looking for it.
Have you ever taken a look at the implicit bias test? It’s interesting and discomfiting. I’d be interested in knowing what results you get when you take it.
My results: Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for African American compared to European American.
I also took the Native American test. My results were: Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Native American compared to European American.
Both results are surprising to me, especially considering I made no mistakes. Perhaps I was slower when selecting European Americans. Who knows?
I think a lot of racism has to do with who we view as “us” vs “them”.
Imagine two people… one of them is constantly aware of and thinking of others. She will always stop to help someone change a flat tire, volunteers at a soup kitchen two nights a week, is always the first to help out a neighbor in need, and generally spends large portions of her life doing things to make life better for other people. Her most defining charater trait is empathy.
The other person is absolutely selfish in all things, and never gives a fig for anyone else.
The first person is a white person living in lower middle class all-white neighborhood in apartheid South Africa, and all of her friends and neighbors are whites. She’s polite to blacks, and in fact one of the two soup kitchens she volunteers at is in a poor black neighborhood, but has no real black friends and never questions the societal view that they are inferior.
The second person lives in an extremely multicultral society in 2016, and is as close to free from racial bias as possible.
Which is a better person?
This. Take a person in toto; say that they are a loving parent and spouse, active in charities throughout their community and church, kind to strangers and small, furry animals.
And say also that they are racist.
Obviously a major character flaw, but on balance, that’s still a good person.
Actions on their racism can sway the balance considerably. If the racism manifests itself merely as “distance” or separation from the disliked group, well, that’s not good, but it’s much better than acts of violence against the group they are racists against.
IMO, active hostility, much less violence, pretty much negates any “good” qualities that that person may otherwise have. I don’t care how good a parent you may be (probably not the best, considering what you may be filling your children’s heads with!), how much money you raise for your schools, church, or community through charity fundraisers, or how nice you may be to strangers, and lost kittens and puppies; if you raise your hand in hatred against your fellow man based upon racism, even if you only condone others doing it in your stead, you’ve forfeited any consideration to the title of “good person.”
I hear what you are saying, but I completely disagree. The degree to which one actively participates in the disenfranchisement of others solely because of their race should not be (and I say is not) determinative of one’s pass or fail status as a good person. Someone with racist beliefs who sees but does not participate in the perpetration of racist acts by others may be less complicit in their perpetuation but is complicit nonetheless.
I reject the contention that one can offset their concurrence of the perpetuation of racism by being kind to others or performing X number of good deeds. Believing such things is, in my opinion, an insidious attempt to excuse it.
I get that. It may be a fine distinction on my part, one so fine that it’s a distinction without a difference to most, but I’ve learned to at least try not to deal in absolutes.
As such, I try not to focus on a singular negative about a person, however reprehensible I may find it, and to try to judge a person on the sum of their parts. But that doesn’t come natural to me. As I approach the half-century mark of my life, it’s a skill I still have to consciously, deliberately exercise.
Some individuals make that harder than others; some make it nigh impossible. And if there is a God in heaven, I think those people are perhaps long overdue for a little one-on-one face time with Him, and that I’d be happy to take part in arranging that particular “career counseling session.”
At a bare minimum, they could at least use a swift, hard pop in the snotbox.