What does it mean to be racist?

Great Debates
21

An earlier discussion on this topic, (provided as a reference, not to pre-empt this discussion), was posted just about a year ago: Can we come to a consensus what racism is, and what a racist believes?

My own definition of racism (which differs from that postulated in the OP of the linked thread) is any idenitification of superiority or inferiority based on purported races.

On the other hand, I recognize (as some others do not) a category of institutional racism. There are people who have grown up in situations where racial categories and stereotypes (and simple misinformation such as the sickle cell issue) have colored peoples perceptions and I do not believe it is fair or correct that a charge of “racist” (which is currently one of the worse insults that can be hurled in our society) should be hurled at every person whose views have been tainted by institutional racism.
(This would directly bear on the TV show of the OP, where the assistant coach is clearly expressing ideas infused by racism, but who may not, himself, make a point to engage in racist behavior.)

22

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

My own definition of racism (which differs from that postulated in the OP of the linked thread) is any idenitification of superiority or inferiority based on purported races.

[/QUOTE]

I think your definition of racism needs a little work (not being snarky).

Currently, Asians score better than whites who score better than blacks on the SAT. One would say that Asians are superior at the SATs. It is not racism to note this. It would be racism to say that this is an inherent and unchangeable biological difference.

23

Hence my reference to “purported races.” An observation that a particular (generally identifiable) group demonstrates proficiency in a specific activity is not the same thing as saying that “this race” is better or worse than “that race.”

24

So, if I’m reading you right, you’re differentiating an inherent superiority (being “better”) from an situational superiority (“demonstrates proficiency”)?

25

To expand on that, a bit: which “Asians” score better than which “whites”? I suspect that what has actually been measured has been a general overall score among some select groups of immigrants to the U.S. when placed in a particular cultural setting. And the tests being used to provide the measurement carry their own baggage.

I am aware that there have been claims that all “blacks” in all situations in the world appear to test lower. The eveidence I have seen for this has been underwhelming. So what we usually mean is that blacks in North America (who were taken from a particular region of Africa and who have interbred with descendants of Europeans and North American Indians over a period of several hundred years are currently producing overall test scores that are lower than those of groups of people from a wide range of European (and some Middle Eastern) ancestry with a rather different mix of cultural experiences and interbreeding.
I don’t see a “race” in that evaluation.

On the other hand, if one makes a claim that “whites can’t jump” or “blacks don’t make good leaders” the observation is nearly always made on the basis of perceived sociological groups to which we have arbitrarily assigned the label “race.”

26

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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?
[/QUOTE]

“Racism” is such a politically charged term, used so indiscriminately, that it is rendered essentially useless. The use of the term, even as an admonishment, perpetuates the condition the admonishment is trying to eliminate.

In the family of humans there is within us all an atavistic response to outsiders. This response reflects a period in our evolution when competition for scarce resources rewarded closed, local grouping at the expense of any broader sense of fairness to the survival of a species as a whole. In our genetic codes we all have a tendency toward personal survival, family survival, tribal survival and species survival, more or less in that order. In modern times our intelligence has allowed us to gain insights that bring perspectives beyond selfishness and extend privilege way beyond our personal or tribal interests. Altering my personal behaviour because I believe it will contribute to global warming is an example (assuming I’ve decided that global warming is bad for everyone).

On average, we are reflexively “anti-outsiders” and culturally “embracers.” On average our intellect can trump our reflexive behaviour. That’s why we don’t give in to base instincts, and we don’t think it’s OK to shoot people you don’t like. We are fortunate (my opinion) to live in a time where our culture values a reversal of the tendency order I listed above.

It’s more productive to encourage the cultural value of judging one another on the content of individual character and specific talent than trying to prove races are inherently equal.

We are not long away from being able to tie specific genes to specific physical, mental and personality characteristics, and settle once and for all nature versus nurture. A blind hope that nature has been completely fair in her distribution of genes across the broad continuum of the human species runs the danger of turning out to be unrequited. The evidence that a given genetic pool within a species (of any kind) varies from a separate genetic pool is overwhelming. Think dog breeds, for example. Traits such as personality predispositions, various types of intelligence, physical characteristics, and motor skills vary widely among isolated pools. It may be comforting to suppose this does not apply to the human species, but it would be unscientific to do so.

A more productive approach is to enourage us all to live, and act, (and breed) as if we are all mutts, regardless of whether or not our particular genetic heritage was an isolated pool. Trying to prove that Phydeaux’ poodle group is genetically identical to Fido’s terrior group is foolish on so many counts it’s beyond the scope of this post.

We should move away from the concept of race, period. It needs to become irrelevant, and only a determination to ignore it will allow our tribal instinct to be relegated to the same category as a bad temper.

27

The problem with defending someone who reveals racist thinking by swiftly saying “he is not a racist” is that such a defense implies that merely describing that person’s view(s) as racist is akin to calling that person Hitler.

People need to get out of the habit of thinking that racist beliefs are monopolized by fire-breathing Hitler wannabees. The idea that regular everyday people (of any color) are somehow unable to think in racist ways is probably one of the top five reasons why discussions about racism (at least on this board) are so difficult to manage.

Racism, in my belief, is the natural by-product of a society that categorizes people by race. In-group, out-group dynamics kick in whenever people see others as being different from themselves based on some arbitrary condition. These dynamics influence how we view and interact with one another, and it would be naive to think people as a whole would be able to overcome these natural tendencies and be purely egalitarian.

Pointing out the obvious (i.e that a particular view is the product of a racist line of thinking) should not be taboo. It should be treated as what it is. Skirting the truth, IMO, will only make it more difficult for people to spot the errors in their beliefs and go on thinking its okay to think X, Y, and Z as long as none of those beliefs cross the line into genocide-lynching-slave trade territory.

28

As the term is generally employed, a racist is any white person currently drawing breath, and racism is a kind of state of disgrace for all whites, no matter how noble their stated views or intentions. I, a white southerner, tend to reject this view out of hand, although I see evidence of it now and then.

Personally, I think of racism as less of an organized conspiracy (“Let’s lynch all the Negroes”) and more of an involuntary reflex (“Why can’t those people just get decent jobs and quit bothering me?”).

29

[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker]
Currently, Asians score better than whites
[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I thought you were wrong for sure till I looked it up.

30

Boy, sometimes I do miss Collounsbury

(look up some of his posts, he was an excellent speaker on this topic)(I wonder how he is doing these days?)

Thing about racism is that it is intrinsically statistical, but superficially stupid. “Blacks are more athletic…” OK, uh, but, wait…I just saw a fat black guy that would have a hard time climbing stairs, let alone running a marathon. Oh, you mean that if he just ate properly, exercised a lot and committed himself to running marathons he would be ahead of the game?

Isn’t that true of everyone? Eat well, work hard, yadayadayada…Or are you trying to make a link at the very cutting edge of athleticism? That at the PRO level, those 1 out of every 1000 blacks are going to be just that much more talented than the 1 out of every 1000 white folk? What a concept.

Actually, I’ve heard a supporting argument on this that I wonder if it is true…Meletonin genetics are fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. But, frankly, blacks do happen to come from the cradle of civilization and thus have been diversifying a bit longer than most other races. Otherwise put, there could very well be MORE genetic diversity amongst dark skinned folk than lighter skinned folk. This genetic diversity could, in fact, be the reason why there are more statistical outlying differences amongst blacks than other races. Thus, you could see a few blacks being more X than their counterpart whites being X. But are all blacks X and all whites less-X? NO.

So trying to put ALL of race ABC into a neat box fails because there are many examples where it is just not true. There are 1 billion+ Chinese…are they all better at math and science than you? No, but, realistically, if 0.0001% of all races are god-like at math, then in China that means there are 100,000 people that are as good at math as Einstein was.

-Tcat

31

[QUOTE=Krokodil]
As the term is generally employed, a racist is any white person currently drawing breath, and racism is a kind of state of disgrace for all whites, no matter how noble their stated views or intentions. I, a white southerner, tend to reject this view out of hand, although I see evidence of it now and then.
[/QUOTE]
Piffle.

There are a limited number of blacks (often associated with Louis Farrakhan’s outfit and similar orgainzations), a tiny number of white “radical chic” liberals who support those groups, and a similarly small number of whites with martyr complexes who use those definitions of racism and racist. Interjecting a false definition into a discussion onto a message board that clearly does not use such a definition generally (as noted by the fact that in the 26 posts that preceded yours, no one, white or black, employed such silly definitions), does nothing to promote serious discussion.

32

[QUOTE=Krokodil]
As the term is generally employed, a racist is any white person currently drawing breath, and racism is a kind of state of disgrace for all whites, no matter how noble their stated views or intentions. I, a white southerner, tend to reject this view out of hand, although I see evidence of it now and then.

[/QUOTE]

Is descriminating against a man made from straw considered racism?

Most racism these days takes the form of stereotyping races based on preconceived notions about that race. For example, we have black admins at work who are complete imbeciles and have a terrible attitude problem. It would be easy to assume all black women were like this because these two pretty much are the embodiment of the black female negative stereotype - loud, lazy, hyperdefensive, poor diction, dullwitted girlfriend!!. Except we used to have a black woman who was an exceptional admin.

So the trick is to evaluate people on a person by person basis. To not fall into the trap of reinforceing your negative stereotypes and assuming people who don’t conform are “the good ones”.

33

[QUOTE=msmith537]
Is descriminating against a man made from straw considered racism?

Most racism these days takes the form of stereotyping races based on preconceived notions about that race. For example, we have black admins at work who are complete imbeciles and have a terrible attitude problem. It would be easy to assume all black women were like this because these two pretty much are the embodiment of the black female negative stereotype - loud, lazy, hyperdefensive, poor diction, dullwitted girlfriend!!. Except we used to have a black woman who was an exceptional admin.

So the trick is to evaluate people on a person by person basis. To not fall into the trap of reinforceing your negative stereotypes and assuming people who don’t conform are “the good ones”.
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s exactly it. I believe that we are all “racist” in the sense that we tend to lump people into groups and make assumptions about them. Moreover, I think this is a fundamental part of how humans deal with the world around them, try to understand the unknown, etc. BUT, our duty as people who are part of society is to rise above that instinct, and, as you say, evaluate people individually.

34

[QUOTE=Tomcat]
Thing about racism is that it is intrinsically statistical, but superficially stupid. “Blacks are more athletic…” OK, uh, but, wait…I just saw a fat black guy that would have a hard time climbing stairs, let alone running a marathon. Oh, you mean that if he just ate properly, exercised a lot and committed himself to running marathons he would be ahead of the game?

[/QUOTE]

I think you’re sort of misunderstanding the argument here. The people who say “Blacks are more athletic than whites” aren’t saying that the fat guy you’re talking about doesn’t exist, and they’re not saying that, regardless of your race, if you eat well and exercise, you’ll be in better shape than if you don’t. But they’re saying that there’s something intrinsic about black people that makes them more athletic than white people. This intrinsic advantage might be overwhelmed by environmental factors, but they’re saying that if you take a random group of blacks vs a random group of whites, and control for environmental factors (make sure they eat the same, exercise the same, are the same age, etc), the blacks in your group will, on average, be more athletic than the whites.

I’m not saying that this is true, and I suspect it isn’t, but the actual argument made isn’t as prima facie silly as the way you’re characterizing it.

35

[QUOTE=Khan]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I understand what you’re saying but the fact is that we’re different. Some of us, as groups, are taller, shorter, or have different skin color and type of hair. The problem I have is that it seems rather dismissively assumptive to say that only these plainly visible characteristics exist. That seems incredibly odd to me. Then we have some evidence that points to other differences. There was a thread a while back that argued that speed was linked to race. And if you look to Olympic stats and the NFL, that seems to be real. Of course this doesn’t mean that the fastest man in the world will always be black.

I think a problem arises in the discussion because people fear that if any racial differences are acknowledged that means that some of the worst prejudices will be reinforced. I think there is validity to that, but it doesn’t change the facts.

Since I don’t won’t to rehash those arguments again, I steer you to these past threads:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=341625&highlight=west+african+runners

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=358328&highlight=west+african+runners

36

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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?
[/QUOTE]

Please see my post preceding this one.

37

[QUOTE=According to Pliny]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Minor point in this interesting thread, but how exactly was this guy biased? Childhood malnutrition seems a plausible explanation for some poor blacks’ underperformance in school.

38

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.”

[/QUOTE]

(Haven’t read the rest)

If he’s basing this opinion on his experience and if he doesn’t label every black player “notaleader” and every white player as “needsmoretimeinthegym” before actually finding out, then he’s not a racist. Would it be sexist for someone in my team to say “the girls are shorter than the guys”? No, we have a couple guys who are also c. 5’4" but they’re the short end of the male distribution, my 5’4" make me the tallest girl in the team. It’s a silly division if you want, but it’s also a scientific fact.

To me X-ist (in the discriminatory sense) is someone who has different expectations of people’s abilities and performance based on pre-existing, unchosen trait X (color, height, culture) and who needs to have his face rubbed in it before changing his mind about a specific individual (if ever); they change their minds about that specific person but insist that it’s an exception and stick to their little mental boxes. The “if ever” is dedicated to the people who’ve told me “you can’t be an engineer, you’re a girl” - even after I showed them my DIN A2 diploma saying ENGINEER in a font about 2" high.

39

Oh, remember that thread we had when Luis Aragonés, then coach of the Spanish National Soccer Team, yelled at some guy something like “joder, ¿vas a dejar que un puto negro te quite la pelota?” (fuck man, you gonna let some two-bit black* steal the ball away?)

Like I said in that thread, Aragonés would have told a black guy “you gonna let some two-bit white steal the ball from you?”… he’s an equal-opportunity insulter who uses badmouthing as a whip, not a racist.

Just mentioning someone’s race doesn’t make someone a racist.

  • The word “negro” is not an insult, reporters insisted in mistranslating it as nigger to make it more spectacular. The one word that’s an insult but which does not mean what it seems to mean is the one right in front.
40

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I think you’re sort of misunderstanding the argument here. The people who say “Blacks are more athletic than whites” aren’t saying that the fat guy you’re talking about doesn’t exist, and they’re not saying that, regardless of your race, if you eat well and exercise, you’ll be in better shape than if you don’t. But they’re saying that there’s something intrinsic about black people that makes them more athletic than white people. This intrinsic advantage might be overwhelmed by environmental factors, but they’re saying that if you take a random group of blacks vs a random group of whites, and control for environmental factors (make sure they eat the same, exercise the same, are the same age, etc), the blacks in your group will, on average, be more athletic than the whites.

I’m not saying that this is true, and I suspect it isn’t, but the actual argument made isn’t as prima facie silly as the way you’re characterizing it.
[/QUOTE]

But…that is what I go into in my next paragraphs.

With athleticism, it is pretty clear cut. My buddy is 10 years older and slimmer than me and in better shape…and that is mainly because I only work out once a week and he works out every day. Now, if we control our environmental factors, the age difference will account for some difference, but there is also something that very well might be in our genetics that will still make him more fit than me. Our skin tone as whiteys has nothing to do with it.

Same with blacks. You cannot take that guy fighting to climb the stairs, control his environment, and expect him to perform better than others…his genetic makeup might not allow that. But within the whole black population, as an argument I heard goes, there are more significant statistical outliers because their genes have more variance because of their history, and that just happens to keep the meletonin gene present, too. So, in the end, the meletonin gene has squat to do with their performance, but, it might have a higher correlation to other traits. It is not ‘they are black and have these better athletic traits, but more, they have these athletic traits and are black.’

And this doesn;'t even go into the cultural differences that I can certainly see. I am not the best Thai boxer because I am lazy. It’s fun, but, I’d rather be pursuing other dreams. But I’m white, I grew up white, I’ve never had anyone every talk down to me because I was white. Nor was I denied any serious job because I was white or anything like that. Thus, me protecting myself with my favorite sport of thai boxing comes down to “Yeah, I could handle a drunk if I had to.” But take a thai from some small thai village that sees thai boxing as a way to get ahead in life…damn, I bet he’s going to be pretty good. Now, I’m probably bigger than he is, and if I trained REALLY hard, I just might beat him. But it would take commitment and a lot of pain. Fuck that.

So, racist differences can exist…but the skin color has little to do with it.

-Tcat