What does it mean to be racist?

Great Debates
1

In the last two episodes of Friday Night Lights, there has been a storyline regarding one of the assistant coaches expressing some not-very-PC ideas about how the abilities & talents of the black players differ from those of the white players. I think, specifically, he said the black players don’t have the leadership skills of the whites and the whites don’t have the athleticism of the blacks. (As far as I know, unfortunately, these opinions are not what you would call unheard of in the football world…although I do wonder how much they are spoken out loud these days in the inner circles of the sport.). During the defense of this assistant coach, the head coach says repeatedly, “I know the guy, he is not a racist,” and the assistant coach himself says “I love all these kids like they were my own,” etc. etc. I guess the point being…what? That he doesn’t think any less of them, thinks they are all great kids, and so on. And THAT sentiment, I’m thinking, is supposed to make him “not a racist.”

I hope this doesn’t get moved into Cafe Society, because my question isn’t so much about the show itself, but this idea of what makes a racist. Is a racist someone who believes that there are inherent differences between the races? Or do you have to believe that one race is inferior, or have antipathy towards a certain race to be a racist?

My personal opinion is that the first one is true…that if you believe that there are specific, inherent differences between the races, that makes you a racist. Am I off base here? If your opinions aren’t necessarily negative, does it make a difference, or mitigate it in any way?

2

I disagree, sort of. The sort of comes from my belief that there is one race, the human race.

Having said that, to deny differences in what is commonly termed “races” is silly, at least physically. If there were no physical differences, the distinction would be impossible.

I go with your second definition.

3

Seems to me a such a coach could care about them personally even if he still gave more or less weight to a player’s ideas based on his skin color. Compare it to a biological family in which the father loves his daughters, but won’t teach them to drive because women don’t make good drivers, or won’t help them pay for college because they should be out finding a husband and making him some grandbabies. Would you say that such a father could accurately be described as sexist? Would you agree that sincere affection and prejudice are not mutually exclusive?

To be glib, racism is not necessarily hoods and burning crosses. There’s a more insidious form that exists when someone dismisses the potential of another out of hand based on a superficial, yet inherent characteristic.

4

That’s pretty much my thought on it…you expressed it better. Clearly, as Contrapuntal points out, there are differences between the races. But they are superficial at best. Seems to me it is racism to assume a person doesn’t have the capabilities to achieve goal X, because of their race, no matter how much of a fine person you think they are.

5

I would say racism, like all other “isms” of that type, are ascribing characteristics to the entirety of a population as a baseline that you could not or have not actually measured, or that has nothing to do with things you can know. That way, it includes both the “Those <insert slur here> are all bastards!” as well as “My <group> are great people at heart”, plus the tendency for people to say “Generally, all <group> are bad people, but So-and-so who I know is an exception”.

6

What do you mean by superficial? And how are you so sure the differences stop at something like skin color? I’ve never understood how one assumes that all the differences would be on the outside. Can you help me here?

7

It’s quite clear to me that both whites and blacks have excelled in every area of life, so how can these genetic differences be assumed to have much of an impact on one’s abilities?

8

Not to speak for magellan01, but there are obvious genetic differences, at least superficially. Furthermore, there are certain predispositions that come with being a certain race. Blacks, for instance, are more predisposed to get sickle-cell anemia. Other races are more predisposed to be lactose intolerant. These are predispositions that are caused by being a certain race. Is every black person going to get sickle-cell anemia? Of course not, but your chance of developing it as a black person is much higher than your chance of developing it as a white person.

So, obviously, there are physical predispositions that are different between the races. Does that mean there are genetic predispositions caused by race that affect atheltic ability, success in school, etc.?

9

You need a better example than that. Sickle-cell anemia is a trait that is highly associated with membership in the Black race, but that is a relationship which is confounded by geographical origin. There is nothing special about black people that makes them susceptible to the disease. The sickle-cell gene is more prevalent in populations that originate from malaria-prone areas, like sub-Sahara Africa. There just happens to be a lot of black people with this particular ancestry.

10

Yes, I agreed with that when Contrapuntal said it, and magellan01 is questioning how I know they are just superficial.

True.

I don’t know if there are or not. I tend to doubt it, but let’s say for argument’s sake that there are. Isn’t it still racist to make assumptions about an individual, based on your observation of the group that they are a member of?

11

Usually when people talk about inherent differences between the races, some degree of inferiority is implied, at least when it comes to character and ability (and not just appearance). For example, the coach in the OP was basically saying that blacks are inferior with respect to leadership, while whites are inferior when it comes to atheleticism. He might not be saying that blacks overall are inferior to whites, but the implication is that he thinks one is naturally better suited for one particular area than another.

Slaveowners used to think pretty much the same thing. Blacks, with their brute strength and high endurance, made quality field hands. Whites, with the bigger brains and gentile refinement, were best suited for the aristocracy. They saw it as the natural order of things.

12

It depends on what populations we’re comparing. A white person of Mediterranean stock is more likely to carry sickle-cell trait than a black person of South or East African stock.

13

I’ll tell you what we learned in my “Contemporary Moral Issues” Philosophy class.

There is racism and there is prejudice.

Prejudice exists when someone makes broad generalizations about a group of people based on their race or ethnicity. A good example of this would be what you cited in the OP, or a belief like, “Most black people are poor and lazy” – or even “Black people are tall.” Generally if you were to present evidence – say a Statistical analysis, a scientific report, or even a prodding, “Come on, be logical,” a prejudiced person would be forced to acknowledge his/her conclusion is not based on reality–they might still go on saying stupid things, but when confronted with evidence would not be likely to argue with it.

A racist, on the other hand, is someone who believes there is an inherent value difference between different ethnicities, someone who believes for example, that all blacks are fundamentally inferior just by nature of having been born that race. It is less about specific undesirable characteristics and more about judging the worth of the person as a whole. Racists, as we were taught, are psychologically incapable of accepting evidence to refute their claims, because for whatever reason they are unable to handle the truth. A fundamental part of a racist’s identity is racism – you might as well ask him to stop believing in God or disown his family.

That’s the way it was presented to us in this class–I don’t remember whose standards these were–some philosopher of course. Anyways, I do find it an interesting way to look at things.

14

I would say yes.
I watched a PBS type of special when I was taking a multi-cultural class in college and according to the scientists on that show genetically speaking we are more alike than different. In fact they did a DNA screening of a racially mixed classroom and there were more similarities between two people of a different race than there were between two people of the same race.

15

I think the definition of racism is largely a definition of convenience, modified to fit the argument to which it’s being applied.

For example, I believe that it’s racist to treat people differently because of their skin color or ethnic background. Everyone gets exactly the same chance. I’ve been accused of being a racist in “affirmative action” discussions because I believe your race shouldn’t affect hiring decisions.

16

I don’t believe most of us can view differences in races without a value-laden implication being attached. I think it’s human nature to balance a strength with a negative. It reasonates with our concept of fairness and equilibrium. Ecologists tend to do this when they look at adaptive traits in populations. If one population has a particular “strength”, then it “must” be balanced with a trade-off, since populations have limited allocations and can’t afford to be a jack-of-all trades.

So if the black guy is naturally a superior athlete, the trade-off is that he’s not very smart. If the white guy is a superior thinking machine, the trade-off is that he’s a wimp physically. For most of us, the trade-off is implicit. We would never say, “Blacks are too stupid to coach”. But I think that’s what we would be thinking subconsciously if we believed in those stereotypes, even if we were bombarded with contradictory examples.

However, I don’t believe simply believing in racial differences is enough to make one a racist. I believe there are inherent differences in the sexes–not just physical differences but mental ones–but I don’t think that alone means I’m sexist. However, I do think putting a lot of importance on racial differences makes one vunerable to racist thinking and action. So in the example given in the OP, I would say the coach is exhibiting racist thinking.

17

I define “racism” as that thing that causes people to experience things differentially based on their race.

One example of racism is that a disproportionate number of poorly-paid, insecure and physically demanding jobs in this city are filled by people of colour, and that a disproportionate number of jobs with six-figure salaries and nice benefit packages are not.

Note that this definition does not imply any mechanisms - i.e. it does not require any people to be racist. The reason I feel this way is because I have never met anyone who I could consider racist by any definition I have ever heard, yet the effects of racism are incredibly pronounced (there are a million examples, if the one above isn’t suitable). In order for such excessive racism to be caused by racist people, there must be either a whole lot of ordinary racists, or a small number of extremely powerful racists, who I simply have not had the opportunity to meet. (I don’t doubt that there are some, or many, people who are racist by any definition - however, I simply don’t believe they are powerful enough to maintain all the racism in this world in the face of the substantially larger number of people who are not racist by those definitions.)

Racism works through institutions, attitudes, habits, social constructions, etc, in ways that are constantly being debated and not yet remotely understood. It is simply too complicated to attribute to “racists,” or even “racist things that people say,” especially considering the number of people who will hotly deny ever having a racist thought.

It is also important to note that there is, in many cases, strong disagreement on what constitutes “racism” and what doesn’t, so someone claiming to be anti-racist could be accused of racism by someone else. I quickly get extremely fed up with discussions that turn into defensive finger-pointing. (“No, I’m not racist for being against affirmative action - you’re racist for supporting it!”)

So my position is this:

  1. Racism works in society through a mechanism that we don’t understand.

  2. Society is made up of people.

  3. Racism therefore works through people, but we don’t understand how.

  4. Therefore it is impossible to determine if any particular person is racist. Yes, this includes me, and other white people, and people of colour, and white people whose best friends are people of colour, and people who believe there is only one race (the human race), and people who donate to the NAACP, and so on. All of us. Let’s collectively get over it and create some space where we can talk about it without getting all defensive about being called racist.

So I think we should abandon discussions of whether and which people are racist, and acknowledge that we all harbour “racism” inside us - as we are all products of, and contributors to, a society that is unquestionably racist for reasons we don’t understand. And we are better off to recognize this and bring it out in the open so we examine it, than to devise metrics of who is racist and who is not.

Back to the OP: I would call that a racist statement in so far as it contributes to people experiencing things differentially based on their race.

18

Speaking for myself, I meant superficial in the sense that a difference can by very noticeable and yet not have any bearing on whatever qualities are under discussion. As this applies to race, it’s superficial to use someone’s ancestry as a basis for assessing their character and ability, rather than base our opinion of someone on the manifestation of their character and ability. It is an unfortunate fact of our existence, but we have prejudices. What separates this from bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. is whether we’re willing to know as individuals members of a group about which we are prejudiced. The alternative is to hold to our prejudices as knowledge and insulate ourselves.

19

There is a problem in labeling a person as simply a racist or non-racist. There are obviously degrees of racism. This guy doesn’t sound like he is very close to the neo-nazi skinhead who might regard it as fine entertainment to torture and lynch black people. To lump him with these people would be extremely misleading.

Applying the label of “racist” to someone is not so much an exercise in description as it is an attempt to punish the person (and warn others who might be similar) by expressing our contempt. This technique may be pretty useful when we’re trying to change somebody’s behavior - calling someone a scumbag because they cheated somebody may make them feel guilty and not do it again. However it isn’t so effective when trying to alter somebody’s opinion since you haven’t provided any evidence that the opinion is wrong. However it may have some benefit by discouraging them from expressing the opinion to others and making them more bigoted.

In practical cases (it won’t do much good with a fictional character) the best policy would be to explain to them that science has shown races are not very distinct and that the differences between individuals of a single race are far greater on the average than whatever differences there are between the averages of races.

20

I once had a coworker at a party express the opinion that he was not biased against blacks. He didn’t think they were born with less potential, but that they just didn’t get enough protein in their diet. He was shocked and embarrassed when everyone else told him that he was indeed biased. And he suddenly recalled the time and left early.