I don’t think that follows. I think actions and systems can be racist as well (without making participants in them racists). For instance, a police officer who self-identifies as black but is tougher on black civilians than on white civilians probably doesn’t think white people are superior but is nonetheless engaging in racist behavior against black people.
Wait, are you under the impression I didn’t think Reagan was a racist? I thought I was pretty clear on that point, and my record on this board puts me at the diametric opposite of Reagan-supporting types. I have no interest in “defending” him, but I do have an interest in defending the proper use of language, especially terms like “white supremacist” that are highly loaded. I’m also interested in defending an accurate historical record, even with regard to people I greatly disliked. I’m sure that the Perkins appointment was politically motivated, as all such appointment always are. My position here all along was simply that Reagan was not a white supremacist according to common definitions and available evidence, and that Reagan’s foreign policies – with regard to South Africa and everything else – were heavily influenced by his fanatical anti-communist ideology above all.
I think we’re venturing off into imagination-land with this hypothetical, but no, even in this case, the black officer who hypothetically treats black civilians worse isn’t engaging in racist behavior unless there is something that establishes racist intent. That’s the whole point of racism: words and actions manifest racist intent.
On Racism vs White Supremacy
Here is the problem: At Thesaurus.com, I see that “superiority” is a synonym of “supremacy”.* If one accepts that racism necessarily includes the belief that one race is superior to the other, as I do, then you could make the argument that racism = white supremacy. Now, as wolfpup has pointed out, the most common definition of white supremacy requires that the white race be dominant over the other race. In this case, it is possible to be a straight up racist, while having no particular opinion on one race dominating the other, and in fact being of the opinion that you want nothing at all to do with them, dominating or otherwise. In this case racism does not equal white supremacy. Therefore, whomever coined the term “white supremacy” should have used a different word for “supremacy”, and we would be having this discussion in the first place!
- As we all know, “synonym” can mean exactly the same, or just very, very close to the same. In this case, the above argument would have to take this into account and be reworded somewhat. I leave this as an exercise for the reader.
Is not discrimination based on race, racist? And intentionally so?
There’s a difference between being a racist and having a tendency to shoot off one’s mouth.
On the contrary, a lot of folks interested in fighting social inequality have taken to the mantra, It’s not about intent, it’s about impact.
This is really important, because of a variety of reasons:
- A person who’s being screwed over isn’t less screwed-over if the intent of the screwer is benign. They generally want the effect on them to change.
- People get super defensive about their intent. You don’t know me! they shout to Jerry Springer, and to people who point out that their words/deeds are racist.
- Indeed, we don’t have a window into anyone’s deepest soul; we can’t determine intent. But we for sure can determine impact.
and we are all just THRILLED that you’ve ridden that hobby horse straight into this thread about something else, instead of starting a new thread about how IMPORTANT it is that language be DEFENDED by people like you!
Edit: In the interest of proper use of language, I should say “hobby unicorn,” because horses are real.
Well, actually, you seem to be the only one getting thrills out of this, or at least, the only one reacting with a ridiculously hyperactive tantrum to an argument that you don’t seem to agree with. Turns out, the fact that words have meaning is not actually just a personal opinon of mine, it’s kind of the basis of all language. I really don’t understand why it has to be a subject of such intense conflict for you either in this thread or anywhere else.
Reagan and the cold war was a time of growth for American exceptionalism which, while not really racist, is the worst kind of xenophobia there is. Anything from “don’t drink the water” to “have ransom money ready” when considering foreign travel.
And no, I don’t think there was racism or supremacism in Reagan’s statements. Just rash word of an ex-actor.
Like I said, the statement I was responding to was venturing off into imagination land: a black officer is “racist” against his own people.
Like how fucking stupid is that?
Pretty much this ^
The terms are synonymous, which may or may not mean they’re exactly the same thing, but close enough. If you say a Donald Trump is a racist, they’ll assume you mean he’s a white supremacist, and vice versa.
Are you saying that it’s stupid to be prejudiced against your own in-group? Or are you saying it’s stupid to think that’s it’s possible for a person to be prejudiced against their own in-group?
What was “rash” about Reagan’s words? It was responded to with a hearty laugh, and didn’t come to light until well after his death.
More germane to this thread, is there a context in which a person can refer to another person as a monkey that YOU would perceive as racist? What would it be?
Racist is not to give people the right to vote, or equal job opportunities, because you think they’re monkeys and say it in a matter of fact way. Calling people you hate monkeys is a different thing. I’d call someone who pisses me off that (or several of them.)
Yes, that’s racist, in the same way that elephants are mammals. If you turn around and say, well, obviously yaks aren’t mammals, because elephants are mammals, you’ve got some basic issues with your categorization scheme.
And if you turn around and consider private expressions of dehumanizing racial stereotypes not racist, because they’re not denying folks the right to vote, you’ve got the exact same issues.
Come on. If you referred to someone who pissed you off using a string of stereotypes that had been part of an ideology that had violently oppressed those folks for centuries, that’s just a little different from saying, “well, what’s a good totally random insult I could use against them! Hmm, hmm, just randomly I’m choosing monkeys.”
Monkeys do look ridiculous and oftentimes I see humans who fit the description, whether by looks or action. It’s a low blow by any rating and you don’t tell it to someone in the face, unless you’re ready to draw. And it’s been used on so many nationalities and ethnic groups that I don’t believe it could be descriptive of just one victimized group.
Reagan could have chosen to call them “clowns and midgets” and he’ll still come out bad.
Reread what he said:
You’re seriously claiming that’s just him saying they look funny?
Sorry, not far from the Reagan I knew in life. As Time used to put it, “Something he says or does while he’s in the office.”
No idea what you’re apologizing for, or what you mean. If you’re saying that he liked to make racist jokes in private, I find that plausible, but if you’re saying something else, no idea what it means.