Racism and Sexism: It's Complicated

Great Debates
61

There is nothing stupid about the editors’ decision. Language changes and dictionaries present usage. They are descriptive not prescriptive.

I will note that definition the change was to include a definition 2.

Definition 2 does not replace definition 1 or make it incorrect.

Using definition 2 in order to insist that “racism” is only accurate if it includes a power component is only true for a limited number of speakers in certain conditions.
Insisting that definition 2 cannot be true and is only inserted for purposes of political correctness avoids reality and is silly.

62

nm, don’t want to contribute to a hijack.

63

You claimed he made threats, but his only threat was to film the lady in her rant.
She was fired for what she said in her videoed rant.
If her dog was taken, (I don’t recall that), it probably had more to do with the dog appearing out of control while off the leash in a proscribed area. (Lots of readers excoriated that lady for her dog’s behavior and her handling of it.)

64

“I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it is” is a threat. Depending on the way he said it and the timing, he could have been threatening to report her to the authorities, or to poison her dog.

65

What power does the hypothetical black man have over the object of his racial slurs?

66

Why don’t you watch the fucking video so you can see just how bad her behavior was. And, as I suggested, maybe start a new thread.

67

In the case of the OP, it’s a benign statement, so it’s not immediately obvious that the “power” argument is a non-starter.

But switch in something offensive and it becomes clearer. “You’re probably a violent, chauvinist asshole because you’re a man” is certainly sexist, and the power disparity doesn’t change that (though we might feel less inclined to call it out than an equivalent statement with gender and stereotypes flipped).

68

? I think you’re misunderstanding the role of “power” here. The point is that the perception of racist slurs is influenced by their connotations of racial power imbalance. That’s what makes them racist slurs rather than just random yelled words.

If the black man calls the Asian man “ibble” or “snelk” or “leonidas”, it may be intended in a hostile manner but it just comes across as weird rather than racist, because those aren’t racial epithets. If the black man calls the Asian man “asshole” or “dumbfuck”, that’s more obviously hostile, but still not racially specific.

But if the black man calls the Asian man “chink” or “gook”, that comes across as specifically disparaging not just of this particular Asian person but of Asian people in general. And that’s because those terms connote a long history of discrimination and oppression specifically against Asian people by white people. That discrimination and oppression is inextricably bound up with power disparities.

The fact that the nonsense word “chink” is perceived as an appalling racist insult, while the nonsense word “snelk” is not, is due to the historical disparity in (and abuse of) power in which the former word originated. That perception doesn’t go away just because the person using the anti-Asian racist insult happens to be black rather than white. As I already pointed out, that perception wouldn’t go away even if the person using the anti-Asian racist insult happened to be Asian themself.

69

Sure, but taking something into account as an important factor, is not the same thing as suggesting it is a necessary requirement.

In the OP, the implication is that it’s a necessary requirement because the argument is that the power disparity runs the opposite way, therefore it’s not sexist.

70

Well, yeah. If you define terms like “sexism” or “racism” as necessarily involving that sort of power disparity, then expressions of prejudice/bias/bigotry/etc. don’t qualify as “sexism” or “racism” if the power disparity is reversed.

Like I said, I think it’s useful to have a term that means “racial bias/discrimination/etc. (or gender bias/discrimination/etc.) reflecting a systemic pattern of inequality/oppression/etc.” We can still use all the other words like bias, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, stereotyping, etc., to refer to unjust action or speech that doesn’t reflect that systemic pattern of inequality/oppression/etc.

71

Fine, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Personally, I think it’s fine (indeed, appropriate) for the definition of racism or sexism to include “…*especially *when it is punching down and/or there is a history of repression”. Many words are defined this way, where the “especially” clause is almost always the case in everyday speech. But I don’t think it should be a necessary requirement.

For me, it’s more a matter of intention and I think racism can be called what it is without needing to first see a photo of who said it.
If I, as a black, British man, were to go use racial slurs against Indians in the UK, I would be rightly called out as a racist saying racist things. Even though there’s no specific history of Indians oppressing blacks in the UK.

72

If there’s a type that’s not “systemic” and a type that is “systemic”, and it’s useful to have a term that means the latter, then wouldn’t “systemic racism” fit?

73

I would argue that racism can be racism regardless of which side holds the power, and that all racism is bad, but that racism backed up by power is worse. A good person can use power to do more good, and an evil person can use power to do more evil, but a person can be good or evil even without power.

74

No prob.

Once again, including a “power/oppression” component in the criteria for calling a slur “racist” has nothing to do with the power/oppression background of the person USING the slur. It has to do with power/oppression background that CREATED the slur.

Yes, by this criterion, if you as a black British man used racial slurs against Indo-British people, that would be racist, because those slurs qualify as racist no matter who is using them. In fact, they’d still be racist even if an Indo-British person used them against other Indo-British people.

Same thing if an Indo-British person used anti-black slurs against you. Those terms qualify as “racist” in this more restrictive sense, irrespective of the race of the person using them. So “needing to see a photo of who said it” is completely irrelevant here.

75

Ah I see. I did think you were talking about the power disparity of the people involved (some people do in this context).

But I would also disagree with this other criterion. Because now the implication is that if it’s not a specific racial slur, or a known stereotype, then it would not qualify as racist.
So if a person were to say “I’m not going to let an Indian near my children; they’re all pedophiles”, we’d have to weasel around and call it “prejudiced” or “bigoted” or whatever, and not racist. Because “pedophile” is not a racial slur, nor is there a history of stereotyping Indians as being pedophiles that I’m aware of.

76

I think the racism there is in the ‘they’re all’ part. There’s no need for a specific racial slur, all you need is to make a blanket statement condemning somebody based on a judgment of their apparent racial characteristics that fits with a culture of discrimination against those bearing these characteristics.

77

…which is not the case for the example I just gave, which is the reason for giving that example.

If you’re saying racism should just be defined as discrimination on the basis of race…I agree, that’s my position too. Though, of course, not all flavors of racism are equal.

I’m arguing against the position that racism itself must be defined as including a history of power disparity / oppression of either the people speaking or the slurs themselves.

78

OK, then I don’t get it. Saying ‘all Indians are’ is a blanket statement based on racial characteristics, and ‘pedophile’ is a condemnation. And Indians are culturally discriminated against. Not for being pedophiles, but that’s not the relevant part.

There’s a relevant difference whether there is such a power disparity or not, though. It’s not nice if I maliciously stereotype a white person for being white, but it certainly doesn’t carry the same implication as if I did the same to a black person—because after all, there is a history of systemic oppression of blacks, and we can’t help but act, and speak, within that context. In the former case, that’s something that could essentially occur in a vacuum; in the latter, it furthers and deepens an existing disparity.

You might want to uncouple the term ‘racism’ from that, but that’d just mean we’d have to invent a new term for ‘racism in the context of systematic oppression’ to describe that.

It’s a fact/value kind of distinction. The facts of my act against another may be the same, whether that somebody is black or white, but that doesn’t mean they’re evaluated equivalently, because context matters for valuation. It’s a bit like with art: whether something is art isn’t solely inherent to the object—the artifact—itself. A urinal, in itself, isn’t an object of art, but if transferred into the right context, it can be.

It’s the same with acts against others. Acting against somebody on the basis of their overt characteristics—skin, hair color, weight, age—is rarely nice, but it’s not necessarily racism; at least, if you understand it as contextual. And I think, as this is where the systematic problem lies, this is what ought to be the thing considered in these discussions. It’s fine to find a different way of speaking—nothing is inherently wrong with calling any act against another based on the color of their skin ‘racism’, it’s just a convention after all—but we should strive to find a shared idiom, and I think current use leans heavily towards racism being picked out by a context of systematic oppression. And again, I think it’s this thing, whatever you want to call it, that we as a society need to urgently address.

79

The reason that chink is perceived as a racist insult while snelk and jerk are not is because chink is a racist insult. It is insulting and applied to one race. Power has nothing to do with it. A person using it in China would be just as racist as one in the US even though everyone in power there is Chinese.

An ethnic slur is only racist if it refers to a group of people that have been oppressed at some point in history? If you look widely enough, every group has been oppressed. It would just be easier, and consistent to say that all racial slurs are racist.

Racism and sexism are not complicated, people try to complicate them to excuse racism or sexism that they approve of.

80

What you’re not getting is that my post #75 is the last in a discussion between me and Kimstu. The example “All Indians are pedophiles” is supposed to be *obviously *racist, as a counter to the way that Kimstu is currently defining racism.
To read the full discussion, see the first couple lines of #59, then #69, #70, #71, #74 and #75.

I’ve also said exactly this.