I am aware of the concept and that it is being taught in some of our universities.
I still laugh at it.
It promotes the logical fallacy of, oh heck I forgot the name of it, but using a word in two ways. “John is white. John has power. Therefore John is a racist. Therefore John hates blacks. Stop hating blacks, John!”
Notice that “racist” is used in two different contexts here, and the first definition is used to assume the second definition. I am not saying that race theorists use this tactic that blatantly, but if you mouth out about “racist” policies, when the general public hears you they will assume you mean prejudicial policies, and not those policies created by the power elite (redundant?)
I can internally use the term “racist” to mean “anyone who spams me”, and then issue complaint against racist spammers. Does this mean I am right in doing so, when the spammers ISP’s have no idea what I mean by racist?
That said, I am a relativist, linguistically, so if everybody gradually used “Racist” to refer to the perpetuation of a power structure, I would agree with this shift in use.
“Prejudice” is a bias towards one group over another. Anyone can be prejudiced.
“Racism” is a prejudice based along racial lines, with the belief that one race is superior to another. Anybody can be racist.
“Institutional racism” occurs when a power structure favors one race over another. This can go on with or without the explicit consent of the individuals within the power structure. Blacks in this country (as well as hispanics, asians, and any other minority) cannot be guilty of institutional racism because it is not our institution.
I think the problem is that when these people say “racism”, what they mean is “institutional racism”.
I think it’s absurd to say that a member of a minority group (a victim of racism) cannot him/herself be racist.
Louis Farrakhan is a racist, period.
Racism is not fundamentally based on any intellectual argument, but on a psychological/emotional condition, and any person, regardless of race, may suffer from that condition.
yeah, these guys seem to be playing a linguistic power game. Co-opting the term “racism” to fit their political agenda. I did a little seraching on Critical Race Theory, though. It doesn’t seem to be EXACTLY the same thing, but pretty similar. The idea seems to be that ourt society is so inherently racist that EVERYTHING must be seen (or “deconstructed”) thru the prism of race theory. For example, the 1st ammendment of free speach cannot be seen as “race neutral” since it was fomualted in a racist environment. I guess that is the reasoning behind such concepts as hate crimes or hate speach.
Biggirl:
You are right. The OP is so open ended as to mean absolutely nothing. Hence the fleshing out by others.
I suppose they would say that although he personally doesn’t have much power, he is a member of a powerful group, and therefore can be racist.
Here’s another question for this position: if minorities cannot be racist, does that mean that the whites in apartheid South Africa were not racist since they were the minority?
Going back to the OP, I don’t think that it’s racist to say that integration is not a good thing. In fact, I believe that some forms of integration aren’t good things. For instance, forced busing tries to address the symptoms of demographic forces without doing anything about the forces themselves, or indeed without considering whether those forces are really harming black people. If black people choose, on their own, to live in communities with black majorities, what right does the government have to try to counteract that decision?
If by integration you mean the forced redistribution of people based on the color of their skin (as in bussing in public schools) then I think it is possible to be against integration w/o being a racist.
Ludovic -
I think you are correct; relating racism with power is not only illogical but an attempt to redefine the term while carrying along with it the entire negative connotation.
There are many in the black community that maintain their power base by pitting blacks against whites and as racism in America diminishes their power does also, this redefinition allows them to identify new areas of racism an thus maintain their power. Words are not only redefined but also replaced by similar terms as in ‘people of color’ instead of just black, overnight you have increased you minority base to include everyone who is not white. These are the Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the Louis Farrakhans. Then you have those like Spike Lee who have bought into these ideas for whatever reason, most likely for the same reason most blacks are democratic.
As for me I think such political games are not only absurd, as lout has pointed out, but careless and destructive behavior for a society that holds the key to the future of mankind… Excuse me I didn’t mean to rant.