Racism and Sexism: It's Complicated

Great Debates
81

I know that’s how you intended it, but I agree with Half Man Half Wit that it’s the disparagement of Indians as a group that constitutes the racism part, due to the history of white-supremacist discrimination against Indians. That’s irrespective of whether the specific term “pedophile” has traditionally been an anti-Indian slur, which AFAIK it hasn’t.

Sure it does: power disparity is the reason that viciously insulting people of the “Chinese race” became such a popular sport among white Americans in the first place. When an entire race of people can be effectively labeled with a word that is universally recognized as seriously insulting and degrading, that happens because a significant power disparity resulted in an entire other race of people thinking that they were better than the people they were insulting.

No, by this definition an ethnic slur is only racist if it refers to a group of people whose historical oppression is still having a significant impact on the social, cultural, and linguistic norms of the present.

For example, ISTM that a case could be made that several centuries ago in England the Norman word “villein”, as applied to the “base” Saxon peasants, had morphed into a racist slur because of its contemptuous associations and ethnic connotations.* But the Norman/Saxon power differential has faded so far into the past that the modern form “villain”, although it’s still an insult, has lost any ethnic specificity and thus is no longer racist.

Many people do apply the term “racist” in just that way. The problem with it, IMO, is that it permits a “bothsidesist” false equivalence where some people can pretend that ethnic slurs against a historically oppressed group are no different from ethnic slurs against a historically dominant one.

And that kind of bothsidesism is closing our eyes to an important aspect of reality. It’s just not true that there’s no difference in impact between calling a black person the N-word and calling a white person a “honky”. We can certainly disapprove of both insults, but we shouldn’t try to pretend that they’re equivalent.

Nonsense. Nobody here is trying to excuse ethnic or gender slurs against historically dominant groups. If you reserve the technical terms “racism” and “sexism” specifically for slurs against historically oppressed groups, that doesn’t mean that you think other types of ethnic or gender slurs are okay.

*Note that “villein” was not originally a term of disparagement but simply a class/rank category designation.

82

How is that consistent with your earlier statement:

These things don’t go together at all. No power/oppression created the slur “pedophile” here. So why, by your definition, does it pass as racist?

I just don’t see why we’re trying to take a simple, self-consistent definition of “racism” e.g. “Discrimination on the basis of race, especially using established racial pejoratives or stereotypes” and trying to redefine it into something amorphous and inconsistent.

83

In fact, let’s just simplify it. Could you please write your (ideal) definition of racism? That would help to clarify a lot.

84

No, but as Half Man Half Wit pointed out, it’s the power/oppression background that created the derogatory force of the “All Indians are…” generalization.

That’s why, by this definition, any statement of the form "All Indians are… [uncomplimentary term]" qualifies as a racist remark, whether or not the uncomplimentary term is one that has traditionally been used to stereotype Indians.

Actually, I think your version is much more amorphous and inconsistent than mine: you’ve ended up with a definition of racism in which a statement like “All Indians are curry munchers” qualifies as racist but a statement like “All Indians are pedophiles” does not. :confused: :dubious: :rolleyes: Hmmm, I don’t think so.

85

Eh, it’s not like racists were ever going to deal with this issue in a sincere and well-intentioned way anyway. I don’t think we should be determining our approach to confronting racism based on how racists are going to react to it.

The point of changing the dictionary definition of a word is not to micromanage people’s use of “excuses”, but rather to provide a more accurate description of how the word is used and a better representation of its various shades of meaning. I think that’s a positive result in and of itself.

ETA: I don’t mean to misrepresent TriPolar here, but I could have sworn that there was a post from him in this thread that I was replying to in the above remarks, but now I don’t see it. Mods, if this is not the case, could you please take whatever corrective and/or disciplinary action is appropriate to change this? Thanks!

I don’t think I have an ideal definition of “racism”, any more than I have an ideal definition of “society” or “war” or “bias”. Those are all pretty big and complex concepts, and can all be used in a wide variety of ways. I think the way I’ve been using “racism” in this discussion is pretty consistent, though.

86

Back to the OP, what would does his wife think about women’s pro football?

Kansas City has the Force, and the Storm. There used to be some other womens pro football teams.

87

Looks like post #50, the last post on the first page.

88

Thanks Waldo! Musta missed that on the first go-round and not remembered where I saw it. I will stand down the Mods.

89

That’s not what Half Man Half Wit said. He said that power/oppression was a “relevant difference” but not the thing which makes something racist. Which is exactly my position too.

My definition of racism was “discrimination on the basis of race”. Under this definition “All Indians are X” is racist for any non-tautological X. So, no, I am saying both of those statements are racist.

The example of “All indians are pedophiles” was intended to be obviously racist, and was a counter to your previous definition which depended on the history of the slur itself.

So your reasoning here for saying my definition is inconsistent is based on a misunderstanding on your part.

90

Then I misunderstood him, based on his remark that “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”. That sounds to me as though the existence of “a culture of discrimination” is a key part of what makes such a “blanket statement” racist, but I could be wrong.

I see. But no, what you call my “previous definition” doesn’t in fact depend on the history of the term “pedophile”: it depends on the history of generalizing about “all Indians”.

91

No, I get that, but I was trying to point out how it doesn’t follow from Kimstu’s stance that they can only consider racist what recapitulates a prior offence. It only needs a malicious blanket condemnation of a group that’s systematically discriminated against, not that the condemnation follows established lines of attack. Just because all murders so far have been carried out with knives, doesn’t mean the first shooting isn’t a murder; the means of attack isn’t relevant, its context is.

Almost no concept of any interest has a simple and crisp definition. Beauty, goodness, wisdom, even knowledge—there’s no simple intensional characterization of any of these that holds in every case, and insisting there ought to be is just the Socratic fallacy. Try to define ‘human’, and you’ll just end up with Diogenes shoving a plucked chicken into your face.

These concepts are elements of discourse, and are refined and perhaps even redefined in its course. That’s not a shortcoming, it’s a strength: we get to clarify our reasoning in an iterative process. Sure, that means that there’ll always be disagreements, edge cases, and the need to circle back to earlier points and examine them in a new light; but not everything can be settled in a game of twenty questions.

Sorry if I expressed myself poorly. I meant to say that it’s this relevant difference that’s usually used to adjudicate between what’s racist and what’s not, and that, were we to accept your definition, we’d have to find a new way to talk about this difference (or rather, about what’s picked out by ‘racism in the context of systematic oppression’ in your way of speaking), and that new way would pretty much just end up replacing the role filled by ‘racist’ in current debates. So I don’t see any reason to do so.

92

But the point is, the only reason I got involved in this thread was because Kimstu and others were arguing that a history of oppression should be a necessary part of the definition of racism.
So what I meant by “ideal” was just “if it were entirely up to you”.

At first, the suggestion being given by Kimstu was that the history of oppression referred to the slurs themselves. When I pointed out an example that is clearly racist, yet is not an established racial slur, the suggestion that both you and Kimstu have made is that the history of oppression actually refers to the *target *of the slur – I’m denigrating Indians, and Indians have a history of being denigrated by some groups.

I think this is a shift of the goalposts, but regardless, I’m waiting for someone to define racism as including this new requirement, because once again I think I can give examples that don’t fit, or highlight other issues with defining racism in that way.

I disagree that we’d necessarily need a second word – many words can be used in lesser or more severe contexts. And, bear in mind, the way I’m defining racism is consistent with the dictionary definition as it stands, trying to add a history of oppression or marginalization as a necessary requirement, would be a change.

So the crazy world where racism is defined as I put it in post #82 is the world you’re living in.

93

Yes, you probably always can. Indeed, that was my point—it’s a matter of discourse, not one of giving a one-size-fits-all definition, some compact formula such that everything making that formula come out true is classified as ‘racism’. In the end, the human brain simply doesn’t work with concepts in that way, and insisting that it does just creates unhelpful sideshow discussions.

Sure. The problem is just that, if you use ‘racism’ without any connection to historical and systemic context, you’re opening up the doors to the old ‘but whites can be subject to racism, too’-defense, which just muddies the waters, in that it talks about something relevantly different to the type of racism that’s the target of BLM and the like.

Many people, myself included, feel that this is a significant enough difference to be reflected in terminology, much like there’s different terminologies for physical attacks of different severity—‘assault’ for harming/hurting someone, ‘murder’ if they end up dead.

As has, I think, been pointed out, dictionaries are meant to reflect current usage, not prescribe it; they’re the outcome of discussions such as this one, not the means by which they are settled.

94

Honky comes from hunk, a derogatory name for Hungarian and other central European immigrants. Immigrants were poor and powerless, so by your definition calling someone Honky is racist, regardless of what race the person saying it is.

There is a remarkable agreement in society that racism is bad. That is because it is a simple definition and people applying the golden rule can see why it is bad. No one wants to be judged because of their race or the actions of people who share their race. Thus everyone agrees racism is bad.

If you say racism can only be directed toward certain groups it starts to sound like special pleading. You are trying to redefine racist and redefine power so people can’t make an argument that is true.

If hatred and discrimination against certain groups is not racism because of historical context, then what should it be called?

95

Undetermined.

Racial (or ethnic) hatred and discrimination. Other terms such as “bias”, “bigotry”, “prejudice”, etc., can also be qualified by “racial” or “ethnic” in the same way. It really isn’t anywhere near as complicated as you’re trying to make out.

96

Sure whites can be the target of racism, under your definition or mine, since there are white groups that experience discrimination. In the US we could say Jews, for example, and there are many examples of persecuted groups from around the world.
There are lots of ways to push back against bad faith arguments like “whites suffer racism too!”, I don’t think changing the definition of a word is appropriate or effective.

Sure, but statements like your earlier “…were we to accept your definition, we’d have to find a new way to talk about this difference” strongly imply that I am the one suggesting a change in the definition. I am not.

97

So if Honky comes from a slur directed toward immigrants than it is racist but if it comes from an African word it is merely racial bigotry which is less objectionable. Since we don’t know for sure which one it is, it is impossible to know if calling someone honky is racist or not.

98

Is it, though? Is anti-Hungarian prejudice actually producing any significant effect towards oppression of or discrimination against white people in the modern world? I don’t think so.

Look, you personally don’t have to like the inclusion of a concept of systemic power disparities and historical oppression in the criteria for what qualifies as racism. But you don’t need to make up a bunch of hypothetical complications to make out that this approach is somehow unworkable or incomprehensible. It’s really not that difficult an idea.

99

How are you measuring the effect of oppression or discrimination? Compared to Chinese Americans, whom we have agreed one can be racist towards, Hungarian Americans make significantly less money, are less educated, get arrested and imprisoned more often and are killed by police more.

It is not about whether I personally like it. It has been a while since I studied 1984 in school, but my recollection is that the people trying to change the language to win political arguments were the bad guys.