Let's define "racism"

Great Debates
1

I think “racism” is one of those terms that people don’t bother defining because everyone “knows” what it means. But after a few go-rounds in different debates we often see that different people mean very different things.

So, let’s define it. I’ll start.

I think “racism” means the following: **the conscious belief that at least one race is inherently and irredeemably inferior to at least one other race. ** A “racist” is someone who holds this conscious belief.

Some aspects of this definition:

  1. “Belief” is what matters here. There are lots of reasons why one person may support or not support a particular policy, and I don’t think it’s helpful to call a person a racist just because they don’t support a policy that is likely to help people of a race different than theirs.

  2. The word “conscious” is in there because I think we should only condemn people for the beliefs they choose to hold. If you think that every single person has an unconscious aversion to races that are different than their own, then I don’t think that makes every single person a racist. “Inherent aversion to other races” is just a different phenomenon than “racism” and may be interesting to discuss on its own in certain contexts–but it shouldn’t get lumped into racism.

  3. The “inherently and irredeemably inferior” part is to get at the Bell Curve idea. That is, I don’t think that people who perform studies that show that certain characteristics vary along racial lines are racists for that reason alone (and same goes for people that don’t automatically reject those studies). Stated another way, it is perfectly OK to think that white people on average have a lower IQ than Asian people on average if that is what is shown by legitimate scientific research, and thinking that doesn’t make one a racist.

  4. I have made the definition neutral as to one’s own race. Therefore, if a black person has a conscious belief that Asians are inherently and irredeemably inferior to white people, then I think that black person is a racist. I don’t think there’s a lot of value in this aspect of my definition, but it’s in there so far nevertheless.

  5. Some people like to think that “race” doesn’t exist. So, one part of my definition is that “race” does exist, at least in the mind of the person that we are trying to determine is a racist.

OK, there’s my definition. Please feel free to fiddle with it or propose your own.

2

On the other hand, that belief is the one thing that it is the biggest waste of time to argue about, since, hey, you’re a racist! No I’m not! Yes you are! While your definition is a reasonable one, for the purpose of talking about things on the internet it doesn’t advance the ball much because it hinges entirely on things that only one person can truly claim access to.

Same problem with requiring a conscious belief. If they’re doing something that’s rooted in the idea that one race is inferior to another, it might be fun to argue about whether they have that purpose or not, but it’s ultimately useless because no one is ever going to concede either side of that argument. Accusation, denial, rinse, repeat.

I think it would be far more useful to define racism in the contest of racist beliefs or practices. We’d also have to agree whether a racist practice is definitely a bad thing. If we had those two things ironed out, a conversation about whether this or that is racist might actually get somewhere.

3

OP, didn’t you say in another thread that people’s dating preferences are racist? That wouldn’t fit the definition you gave here.

I could be remembering wrong though.

4

I agree with you. I think it’s useless and wrong to call someone a racist just because they support a particular policy. That is, your example shows the uselessness of the conversation you posited, not my definition of racist.

OK, so what’s a “racist practice”?

I know what thread you are talking about. I think the definition above squares with what I meant to say in that thread, as I currently remember it. Which is that some people don’t get turned on by people of certain races (so that people of those races are inherently and irredeemably inferior for the purpose of dating and marriage). I think that’s OK.

So perhaps what we should add to my definition is “for all purposes” or at least “for important non-personal purposes” after “inferior.”

5

Your definition only covers belief. Separate from belief is intent, and separate still is action. It is conceivable that a person may act in a way that a reasonable third party observer would deem “racist”, even if the actor does not carry the belief, or the intent. I would submit that the legendary German soldier in WWII, in just following orders, would act toward Jews in a way that would qualify as “racist”. However, we can not know the actors belief or intent.

6

I guess I don’t see any benefit in defining an action as racist. I think we can condemn someone who kills people and/or forces them into concentration camps without also saying “oh yeah, by the way, although this person is not a racist as defined by Rand Rover, he is killing people and/or forcing them into concentration camps solely based on their race because he was ordered to do so by someone else who is racist as defined by Rand Rover.”

7

Well, by your definition “racism” exists purely in the private mind of the individual. Without an outward manifestation, there is no possibility of a consensual understanding of the meaning of the word, which is, after all, what “meaning” is all about.

8

Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that they are racists, in the sense that most people use the term: that is, harboring a belief in the superiority of one race over another.

It serves no purpose — actually, scratch that. It serves the purposes of the politically active to equivocate between actions and beliefs. If you were to use the loaded term of “racist” to describe someone’s actions, even those of a violent nature (if ordered to do so at risk of their lives), you imply that they believe in racism.

And that suits the purposes of those who use the term out of both ends of their mouths just fine. Just like people who refuse to call Pelosi anything but a “Democrat politician” and protest that “well, that’s what she is – a Democrat!!!1 ha!! ha!!”, most of them are just FINE with the implication that those who are either prejudiced (or merely insufficiently multicultural) in their actions harbor prejudice in their heart.

9

Perhaps,…my only intent was to extend the confines of Rand Rover’s definition beyond the private mind into something the rest of us could observe…

10

I disagree. I think we should take responsibility for all our beliefs, and assigning negative beliefs to some sort of “unconscious” sphere is just a sign of living an unexamined life, which I’m pretty condemnatory of.

11

I think i’d agree with you. We have a responsibility to try to understand the entirety of ourselves, not just the obvious parts. Yes, a person may not choose to hold the views they do in their subconscious. But they can choose to examine those views.

12

What wrong with the American Heritage…

…or dictionary.com…

…definitions? Both seem to be on the ball.

13

But consider a different comparison:

“Oh, I wasn’t ordered to do this by anyone; I personally want to discriminate against black people. I don’t want them dating my daughter or living in my neighborhood – and I don’t want 'em in any positions of authority, from schoolteacher to cop. They can shine my shoes or work in my fields, but I don’t want 'em joining my country club or sitting in the front of the bus sure as I don’t want 'em whistling at a white woman; I vote accordingly, sure as me and my pals privately ‘bully’ any blacks we think need to be taught a lesson.”

Isn’t that guy a racist regardless of whether he thinks blacks are inferior to whites?

14

There isn’t “a” definition of racism. Like most of our words, it’s used various ways.

I find the two American Heritage definitions above to be the most useful ways to use the word.

Usage 1: Racism is a belief that there are differences among races which are immutable (in modern terms, a fundamental result of nature and not nurture).

Usage 2: Racism is a prejudicial judgment based on race instead of actual ability.

,

15

And at what point does “race” slop over into “culture?” Can you hold a belief that a culture is inferior without holding that those that practice that culture are inferior?

16

Problems exist when differentiating between conscious and unconscious racism. When we limit racism to conscious beliefs, we throw out a whole array of motivations that we know very little about. I believe these are two very large, difficult to define, and sometimes overlapping sources of racism. These unconscious prejudices can be just as pernicious as conscious beliefs when applied in real life.

Well-intentioned, predominately unconscious racists can cause much more harm than bile spewing, conscious racists for many reasons. They could be policy makers, judges, police chiefs, managers, hiring agents, etc. These decision makers do not receive criticism for their decisions because we do not say they are acting based on a conscious belief of racial superiority, but acting reasonably based on other, defensible reasons. We use the pejorative “racist” term for the person with malicious intent and excuse decisions not based on a belief of racial superiority. My reply is that intent matters little, as the outcomes are the same for conscious and unconscious racist decisions.

The problem is “racist” has become such a poisoning the well term, it is almost a thought terminating cliche. People immediately become defensive when called a racist. Conscious racists defend their racism on account of being correct in their racism. That is something you can combat with exposure, education and information. But unconscious racists defend their racism on other grounds, such as genetic differences. This type of racism is much harder to combat because, since we only view conscious racism as anathema, unconscious racists feel justified in their beliefs because they are based on facts and data, and not a conscious racist belief.

Take Chief Pendant, for example. In no way do I mean to suggest s/he is a racist in any way. He is an educated person in a respectable position in medical education. Not a single conscious racist bone in his body. However, his beliefs are indistinguishable from a card carrying KKK member who thinks blacks are behind in society due to being physically less capable in mental capacity compared to the white brain. We can show the Klansman some examples of high achieving blacks when put into a different environment. We can tell him blacks have a very unique history in this country, and we are still at the nascent level of our understanding of psychology and intelligence combined with race. In a few decades, perhaps we will be able to uncover the psychological reasons for differences in abilities at this time. And maybe, just maybe, the Klansman will eventually think his beliefs were based on incorrect preconceived notions of race. But what will Chief Pendant do when confronted with the incredibly arrogant opinion that his beliefs are being driven for reasons that he has no control over? And these reasons have a solid foundation in an unconscious belief that whites are mentally superior to blacks, while blacks are physically superior to whites? My guess is this confrontation only makes his opinion stronger because his beliefs are backed by science, after all, and not racist sentiments. Therefore he is noble in his position. This does not change the fact that his position is ultimately the same as a Klansman, and has real life consequences.

The more we learn about race, the more we realize we do not understand what it is. The same goes for racism. Our brains are incredibly complicated, and I think it is nearly impossible to define racism because of the nearly impossible task of actually knowing where our thoughts come from. Racism should be looked at like an emotion, such as jealousy. We have a good idea where it comes from and we can sometimes combat it with knowledge. But that does not change the fact that it is often times predominately behind many of our decisions even though we would never admit it, even to ourselves.

17

I see what you did there.

18

Empirical evidence would suggest that West Africans are inherently and irredeemably inferior to East Africans at long distance running, whilst the reverse could be said about the sprints.

19

Ludovic is correct: Defining “racism” is useful only inasmuch as it can predict future behavior. Labeling an action “racist” is an indirect way to label the actor. However, the example of the German soldier is flawed because the soldier can present a strong motive other than racism for actions which–in the absence of that motive–could be attributed to racist beliefs. He may be implementing a racist policy, but I’m not sure calling him a racist (leaving aside the perjorative connotations of that term) is justified.

By contrast, The Other Waldo Pepper’s example is strongly predictive of future behavior that nearly everyone would consider racist, so I have no problem calling this example a racist.

20

That’s a very good way to put it, certain actions are so indicative of future actions that to not label them racist would be illogical.