Definition of Racism

[Hibbins]

Kabbes, I agree, but not fully. While I agree that technically it could be reduced to such a simple definition.
My confusion stems from the differences between the general social perception of what racism is and this “simplified” or basic definition.

Is a statement such as “I prefer brunettes” racist? I don’t think so, and I am reasonably sure that general society wouldn’t think so either. Is something like “Black hair turns me off” racist? It’s not usually seen as such. Yet such statements meet the basic definition put forth by Biggirl.

I don’t think the definition is wrong, I think it is too simple. Shouldn’t malice, negative intent, or some other emotional response be a part of the definition?

celestina said:

The discriminator may at times be unaware that his/her actions are offensive to minorities.

The quote was in regard to covert racism. Again, doesn’t some sort of intent have to be included in the definition? I the person uttering the statements is unaware that they are offensive is it necessarily racism, or just ignorance? In the naming example, how do you determine whether it is racism or simple an indication of familiarity?

[Hibbins]

Apparently the glue on the “f” hadn’t yet dried when I stuck this up. Second to last sentence should start with the word “If”.

In the last sentence please replace the “e” in “simple” with a “y”, or if it is less work read it with a long eeeeeee sound.

[cuauhtemoc]

How can you presume to reduce the concept of racism to one sentence? Volumes upon volumes have been written on the subject of racism. It’s an extremely broad theoretical concept that includes both objective and subjective experience, so it means an infinite number of things. It’s like any much-encompassing abstraction, like religion or love.

Racism in the academic sense refers to a systematic stratification of society based in whole or in part on race, where members of one race have a separate set of standards and mores from another (let’s not get started on the “How do you define race” question, huh? Just this once?)

Some people define a racist as anyone who benefits from this system and has an interest in keeping it, that’s why you hear people sometimes saying that black people and other minorities can’t be racist. They can be prejudiced, and unfairly so, against people on the basis of race, but prejudice does not equal racism. Prejudice, and instances of prejudice are quantifiable entities, whereas racism is a branch of sociological theory.

But if you define “racist” as someone who subscribes to an ideology which perpetuates a racially stratified condition of society, which I think is a more appropriate definition, then anyone can be a racist regardless of their race. A black person who internalizes common perceptions about black people in our society could be considered a racist by that definition. Reggie White is a great example of this.

[glee]

*Originally posted by Hibbins *
Is a statement such as “I prefer brunettes” racist?

No, but a statement such as “all brunettes are inferior” is.

*Originally posted by Hibbins *
I don’t think (Biggirls) definition is wrong, I think it is too simple. Shouldn’t malice, negative intent, or some other emotional response be a part of the definition?

What about my definition:
‘discriminating against someone for no other reason than the colour of their skin (or the size of their nose etc)’

I don’t think malice needs to be part of the definition - what about e.g. religious groups that command their followers to be racist?

*Originally posted by Hibbins *
If the person uttering the statements is unaware that they are offensive is it necessarily racism, or just ignorance?

I don’t think it matters much. If you explain to somebody that they’re offensive, but they keep doing it, then they are definitely racist.

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
How can you presume to reduce the concept of racism to one sentence? Volumes upon volumes have been written on the subject of racism. It’s an extremely broad theoretical concept that includes both objective and subjective experience, so it means an infinite number of things. It’s like any much-encompassing abstraction, like religion or love.

Well you’re welcome to come up with an example of racism that conflicts with my definition above.
The volumes you refer to discuss the subject, not its definition.
Clearly you don’t know what infinity means.

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
Racism in the academic sense refers to a systematic stratification of society based in whole or in part on race, where members of one race have a separate set of standards and mores from another (let’s not get started on the “How do you define race” question, huh? Just this once?)

So you can’t define race, huh?
It’s so easy. Racists define race as obvious physical characteristics, usually skin colour. They then make assumptions about people based on that.
In your example, we could take Northern Ireland, where there has been a history of conflict between two populations that differ only in their religion. I assume this satisfies your ‘separate set of standards and mores’. That would be a racist conflict then? I would call it discrimination.
You can discriminate in many ways - location, school, accent, job, sex etc.
Racism is one specific example of discrimination.

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
Some people define a racist as anyone who benefits from this system and has an interest in keeping it, that’s why you hear people sometimes saying that black people and other minorities can’t be racist.

Well those ‘people’ are wrong. (smugly) My definition allows for blacks to discriminate.

[celestina]

---

celestina said:
" . . . people who self-identify with a certain culture that the discriminator views is inferior to his/her own . . ."

Grem0517 replied:
“Isn’t it more relevant that the discriminator identifies them with that culture?”

---

That’s a good question. Whether the discriminator identifies the person with a certain culture or the person self-identifies with a certain culture, I think what’s more important is that the discriminator VIEWS THE PERSON AS INFERIOR to him/her and ACTS on that notion either in a social, economic, or a political realm.

---

Hibbons said:
“The quote was in regard to covert racism. Again, doesn’t some sort of intent have to be included in the definition? I the person uttering the statements is unaware that they are offensive is it necessarily racism, or just ignorance? In the naming example, how do you determine whether it is racism or simple an indication of familiarity?”

---

Well, this is where covert racism gets tricky. It could be ignorance or it could be ignorant and racist. In the example I provided, it’s ignorant and racist when the supervisor ASSUMES a familiarity with the minority worker, whom s/he really does not know that well, while maintaining a level of professional distance with the other white workers. It could be in the way the supervisor looks at the minority when he addresses him as “Bob.” It could be in the way that s/he holds his/her body either in a defensive or standoffish way while addressing the minority by his first name. Or, it could be in the intonation pattern and nuance of disrespect in the supervisor’s pronunciation of the minority’s name. Unfortunately I can’t adequately simulate the body language or intonation and tone patterns on this message board. However, the assumption on the supervisor’s part could be that the minority’s culture is laidback so he wouldn’t mind being addressed by his first name, or that the minority is not deserving of the same professional respect that the supervisor reserves for the other white workers under him/her. The minority may not feel comfortable raising his discomfort with the supervisor for fear of alienating the supervisor and/or losing his job. There is always the risk that the supervisor does not realize his/her actions are offensive, and after the minority addresses his concerns with him/her, the supervisor may still feel that his/her behavior is not offensive and continue to call the minority by his first name. This is covert racism because it is disrepect wrapped up in the facade of politeness. I thought of this example because historically in the South and probably other places in America white employers or just whites in general would address black employees or just blacks in general–it didn’t matter how old they were–by their first names, but blacks were required to address all whites adults with some kind of title, for example Mr. Smith or Mrs. Smith, or for children Miss Anne or Mr. Bill.

The example is ignorance on the supervisor’s part if the supervisor’s intonation and tone as s/he pronounces the the minority’s name is respectful, but there’s still the assumption of a level of familiarity that is not there. And again the supervisor is still maintaining a formal, professional distance with the other workers. The minority may feel that the supervisor’s intentions are good, but that s/he does not understand that his/her assumption of familiarity is offensive to him, and he may sit down with the supervisor and inform him/her of that. The supervisor can then revise his/her behavior and either start addressing all the workers by their first names or start addressing the minority as Mr. Green. I think that as far as ignorance goes, sometimes people repeat the same patterns of behavior they may have viewed their parents or other relatives engage in without realizing it AND without understanding that those behaviors are offensive to others. Once they are informed that their behavior is offensive, then they can act to modify it.

I hope this makes sense. I could bore you with many more examples, but I don’t have the time, and I don’t think folks want to hear them anyway.

[cuauhtemoc]

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
How can you presume to reduce the concept of racism to one sentence? Volumes upon volumes have been written on the subject of racism. It’s an extremely broad theoretical concept that includes both objective and subjective experience, so it means an infinite number of things. It’s like any much-encompassing abstraction, like religion or love.

The volumes you refer to discuss the subject, not its definition.
Clearly you don’t know what infinity means.

Yes, clearly. You’re obviously very well read, glee, so maybe you’d care to elaborate on your theory that discussing a subject is completely divorced from defining it. Does it have anything to do with being so infinitely satisfied with oneself that one never feels the need to listen to anyone else?

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
Racism in the academic sense refers to a systematic stratification of society based in whole or in part on race, where members of one race have a separate set of standards and mores from another (let’s not get started on the “How do you define race” question, huh? Just this once?)

It’s so easy. Racists define race as obvious physical characteristics, usually skin colour. They then make assumptions about people based on that.
In your example, we could take Northern Ireland, where there has been a history of conflict between two populations that differ only in their religion. I assume this satisfies your ‘separate set of standards and mores’. That would be a racist conflict then? I would call it discrimination.
You can discriminate in many ways - location, school, accent, job, sex etc.
Racism is one specific example of discrimination.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this, but I didn’t say that races are defined by different standards and mores, I said that in a racist society, members of different races are expected to conform to different sets of standards and mores. It wouldn’t be reading comprehension that you teach, would it?

And, forgive my boundless ignorance once again, but regarding your assertion that “racism” cannot exist unless members of different groups differ in “obvious physical characteristics”, and that otherwise you have to call it something else (discrimination): exactly where are you pulling this from? Have you ever heard someone refer to the Celtic race or the Germanic race? It must be comforting to know that you’re right and all those people are wrong.

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
Some people define a racist as anyone who benefits from this system and has an interest in keeping it, that’s why you hear people sometimes saying that black people and other minorities can’t be racist.

Well those ‘people’ are wrong. (smugly) My definition allows for blacks to discriminate. **

Congratulations. Rather than discussing the meaning of concepts like racism to get an idea of other people’s experiences of them, why don’t we all just make up our minds about what they mean and be done with it? I can just hear you saying “Exactly! Why can’t people be more like me?”

[RickJay]

When I was in university, the student government decided to draft a definition of “Racism” that would fit their needs. It took two weeks and two pages of text for them to define “Racism.” The final product had no comprehensible meaning.

I’ll do it in a two-part definition using fewer than thirty words:

RACISM: 1. The belief that persons are inherently superior or inferior, or deserving of different treatment or expectations, due to percieved racial differences. 2. Behaviour or circumstances based on such a belief.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
**

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**A racist is a person who feels that a certain combination of surface traits defines the whole person.
**

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
Hmmm. So if, for example, I see a person at the mall (for argument’s sake, let’s say she is “white”) who is shriekingly loud, uses obscene language and pokes fun at passersby, and I conclude that this person is inconsiderate, vulgar and stupid, am I then racist?
**

Are you basing this assumption on her surface traits or on her actions?

If you think she’s inconsiderate, vulgar and stupid because she is white then you are a racist. **

My point was that your definition of racism was too sweeping. In my example, I was defining someone’s character on the basis of certain undesirable surface traits - loud, vulgar, moronic behavior. But what if our subject at the mall is a teenager desperate for acceptance by her in-group and adopts this behavior to this end, while actually being a considerate, decent person in other settings? In that case, I’ve wrongly judged her personality. But I’m hardly racist, unless I then say “See, that’s how white people behave in public.”

[glee]

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
How can you presume to reduce the concept of racism to one sentence?

Well I took one sentence, and RickJay took two.
Please feel free to tell us why you disagree with either.

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
Volumes upon volumes have been written on the subject of racism. It’s an extremely broad theoretical concept that includes both objective and subjective experience, so it means an infinite number of things.

I have objected to your use of infinite here. Do you want to defend it or change it?

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
…maybe you’d care to elaborate on your theory that discussing a subject is completely divorced from defining it.

I didn’t say this. I said:
‘The volumes you refer to discuss the subject, not its definition.’
I could rephrase to:
‘The volumes you refer to discuss the subject, not state its definition.’

Your definition of racism

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
Racism in the academic sense refers to a systematic stratification of society based in whole or in part on race, where members of one race have a separate set of standards and mores from another (let’s not get started on the “How do you define race” question, huh? Just this once?)

doesn’t even include a definition of race.

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
And, forgive my boundless ignorance once again…

You’re forgiven

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
…but regarding your assertion that “racism” cannot exist unless members of different groups differ in “obvious physical characteristics”, and that otherwise you have to call it something else (discrimination): exactly where are you pulling this from? Have you ever heard someone refer to the Celtic race or the Germanic race?

Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press
Race:
1 … having distinct physical characteristics
2 a tribe, nation … regarded as a distinct ethnic stock
3 the concept of division into races (discrimination based on race)

Yes, I’ve heard of the Celts (I’m about 25% Scottish). That’s definition 2 above.
A racist uses definition 1.

cuautemhoc,
if you’ve read this far, then let me change tack.

I find this whole subject distressing.
I’ve put a lot of effort into a similar thread (where Autumn Wind Chick has finally exposed herself as a racist)
I found your first post rather contentious.
Therefore, I may have reacted too strongly. I apologise for any offence and hope we can continue the discussion.

[RickJay]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
**

[quote]

Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
How can you presume to reduce the concept of racism to one sentence?*

Nobody is suggesting that the ENTIRE CONCEPT be reduced to one sentence. It can certainly be defined in one or two sentences, which is not the same thing.

** Volumes upon volumes have been written on the subject of racism.**

But it doesn’t take an entire book to define racism. There’s a difference between writing a book that discusses racism, which presumably is done to advance ideas, and writing a 1500-word definition of racism, which is (at least in the case I cited) done to cut off discussion. The whole purpose behind the two-age definition was to prevent anyone from discussing the issue so that the school could do ludicrous things like decide that Chinese people cannot possibly be the victims of racism, or that racist literature wasn’t racist as long as it was printed in an alternative newspaper. If you play with definitions, it allows you to semantically control debate. Open, honest language is the enemy of people who want to control things.

Jillions of books have been written about baseball, but I could define “Baseball” in two sentences. Jillions of books have been written about astronomy, but would it take two pages to define “star”? I could write for hours about stellar phenomena, but I’m sure you could DEFINE “star” in a sentence. How many books have been written about the history of Great Britain? But I could define “Great Britain” in one sentence: “A nation, comprisng the island of England, several smaller islands, and Northern Ireland, lying off the coast of France.” All the discussion of Great Britain you can write in fifty billion volumes will not change that definition.

If you want a useful definition of “Racism,” keep it under twenty-five words. THEN you can discuss the concept. You can discuss the nature of racism today, its historical underpinnings, its effects on society and the economy, the morals and ethics of discrimination, etc. But that’s not “defining” it.

[Pjen]

*Originally posted by RickJay *How many books have been written about the history of Great Britain? But I could define “Great Britain” in one sentence: “A nation, comprisng the island of England, several smaller islands, and Northern Ireland, lying off the coast of France.” All the discussion of Great Britain you can write in fifty billion volumes will not change that definition.
**

Except that it would be wrong. Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland, nor the Islands lying of the coast of France, nor the Isle of Man. GB is merely England Wales and Scotland. Sorry

[cuauhtemoc]

**Originally posted by glee
I find this whole subject distressing.
I’ve put a lot of effort into a similar thread (where Autumn Wind Chick has finally exposed herself as a racist)
I found your first post rather contentious.
Therefore, I may have reacted too strongly. I apologise for any offence and hope we can continue the discussion. **

Weird. All I was trying to say was that racism is a complicated subject and it means different things to different people. And it was not specifically directed at your definition either. I’m sorry I didn’t make it clearer.

[glee]

*Originally posted by cuautemhoc *
All I was trying to say was that racism is a complicated subject and it means different things to different people.

Yes, this is a frequent problem. I note that all sorts of organisations can get themselves classified as religions (for tax purposes).

Would you like to give your comments on my definition of racism? I feel pretty confident about it. However an example of racism, which my definition failed to cover, would mean I would have to redefine.

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by Pjen *
**Except that it would be wrong. Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland, nor the Islands lying of the coast of France, nor the Isle of Man. GB is merely England Wales and Scotland. Sorry **

LOL! I meant to say “United Kingdom.”

But I was right - I COULD define it that way. It would just be wrong.