I’m not on the couch Sigmund. There was no substance to respond to, it was just you re-iterating what you’d already said. Your mode of discourse won’t persuade me that I’m racist because I know that I am not racist. I’m left then with the opinion that you don’t know what you area talking about or are too closed-minded to consider you might be wrong. I could be proved wrong by me showing observable racist behaviour, what about you? Would my lack of observable racist behaviour not suggest you are wrong?
the phrase, I’ve never heard that construction before, I don’t know what it means.
that’s big factual claim for a non-science discipline to make.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that. What would convince you that it has, in fact, happened…somewhere…to someone?
I didn’t read it that way at all. The language is less absolute and leaves room for discussion.
It specifically states as well that it is not helpful to talk about racist people but rather ideas and behaviours and is open to a debate on the definition of racism.
I don’t agree with everything but it is definitely a position that invite debate rather than shutting it down.
I don’t think it is particularly novel. The possibility of differing definitions of racism being valid for different people has popped up on many similar threads.
His commentary on acts rather than people was in this very thread, in his first post. That’s precisely the starting point for his comments. He said it again, plus other stuff that he had also already said. You then quoted him and said he should have started where he actually started.
I see, I somehow missed his first comment. I skimmed back to the beginning of the thread but simply didn’t see it. No matter, but had I seen that at the start I’d have pushed sooner on the discrepancy between what was written in that first message and his later posts with me.
In my interactions with him I gave ample opportunity for him to agree with me that I am not racist, or at least that it is possible for me or someone like me to not be racist in any meaningful way. For someone who has claimed that it should be actions rather than people that are labelled as such I think that would be a simple thing to say. It hasn’t been forthcoming but his final post suggested to me a movement on that.
In fact, implicit in his responses to me is the accusation that I must be undertaking racist actions, that I can’t avoid it and no-one ever has.
It is weasel words to say that only actions are racist and not people but then going on to assert that everybody must be taking racist actions even if they don’t realise it. That is simply another way levelling the charge of “everyone is racist”
Saying that racism is about ideas and behavior and not about people is a distinction without a difference. The people who hold those ideas and act in those ways are racist. Ideas and behavior are not separate from people.
As I’ve said twice now, I don’t think people have an identity that is racist. Racism is a thing people do. It’s perfectly cromulent English to say that someone who has committed racism is a racist, like a person that has shoplifted is a shoplifter. But it’s just not an especially helpful. People are messy and contradictory. And using racism as a single term flattens what is actually a hugely varying terrain. It’s like grouping together people have smoked pot, drove over the speed limit, and committed armed robbery, and insisting we label them all criminals subject to identical moral condemnation.
But people nevertheless still talk about someone being a racist or not a racist. It’s how I talk sometimes when I’m not being careful. So all you can do is try to faithfully translate what people are saying into a more useful conceptual framework. In the context of this thread, when you say “I don’t think I’m in any meaningful way racist,” what I understand you to mean is, “I don’t have any racist ideas and do not engage in any racist behavior.” I think that’s an absurd thing to say on its face. It’s like people who say they aren’t influenced by advertising or gender roles. It’s just not something people ever say when they’ve actually put a lot of time and effort into understanding these topics.
It’s bizarre to interpret that as some kind of insult. I am explicitly not differentiating you from anyone else living in your society, including myself! It would be like being insulted because I told you that you’re not immortal. Or that your memory has failed you sometimes. Or that sometimes you do not perfectly uphold your own moral values. My argument is that living in societies that are highly influenced by racism means that you’re gonna hold some racist ideas and do some racist things. Agree or disagree with that claim–and obviously you disagree, though notably very little of the discussion has gotten to the precise source of that disagreement–there’s nothing insulting about it.
As for the instrumental claims about whether this way of talking about racism is useful or not, I’m not persuaded by the two standard arguments that this somehow detracts from handling the “real racists,” or that this somehow excuses racism. It doesn’t do either of those things. We can all still believe Richard Spencer is a terrible human being. We can still put societal resources toward battling whatever we think the worst manifestations of racism. But we can do so much more effectively when we broaden the terrain to include things like racist errors people make even when they think they are acting in good faith. It doesn’t excuse racism to observe that not all acts of racism require depraved character, or to observe that they require little more than not devoting enough of your time and effort to learning and self-examination. As a society, we are capable of recognizing that some racist ideas and acts require depraved character, and others don’t. It’s not that complicated.
40 years ago I would have been mortified to be called a racist or rape apologist or homophobic or xenophobic or a bunch of other is/ics.
These days…meh…IMO those words have been so diluted and so overused as to almost be meaningless…could well be I am a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10…and pretty much everyone is a 1 at least.
Given the current trend…in another 20 they might actually be positive labels.
What is absurd about not engaging in racist behaviors or having racist ideas? It is an outrageous claim that you have not tried to defend. What racist behaviors or ideas do think are so common place that you find it absurd to deny them?
I find it bizarre that in this society where anti-racism is taught in every school and by every media outlet, and where any act or expression of racism can end the career of even the most powerful people that merely existing in society is sufficient to be a racist.
I don’t think it’s absurd if you aren’t using the word “racism” in the same way. In this case, I don’t think you and Novelty Bobble are. From my reading, you are using the term as a broad descriptor that includes behaviors of explicit racial superiority and also unconscious bias. Novelty Bobble appears to be using the term more discreetly, to only include things on the former end of the spectrum. Basically the gist of the thread.
Whereas the OP proposes a numeric scale, for a lot of folks there is already a scale that is represented by using different words.
Here’s a short list off the top of my head focused on ideas and behaviors common in the United States. Most of the ideas also have associated actions that I’ve omitted for brevity:
[ul]
[li]The tendency to make racial minorities representatives of their group while racial majorities are seen as individuals;[/li][li]Increased perception of dangerousness in black men;[/li][li]Selective belief in the existence of meritocracy when racial outcomes are being explained as compared to explaining one’s own circumstances or non-racial outcomes;[/li][li]The tendency to praise members of racial minorities when they do not match racial stereotypes;[/li][li]Tendency to overestimate age of black male youth;[/li][li]Prejudice against African-American names;[/li][li]Pathologizing of cultural values or practices that aren’t inherently harmful/problematic but just different from majority cultural values (much movie theater behavior criticism);[/li][li]Belief that the burden of fixing racism rests on the people harmed by it;[/li][li] Reluctance to discuss racial issues out of belief that they are too sensitive;[/li][li]Acceptance of racial stereotypes to explain results of historical racism (e.g., black culture doesn’t value education, black men are just more prone to homicide); [/li][li]Increased sensitivity to whether racial minorities participate in patriotic rituals (e.g., flag lapel pins);[/li][li]Selective disbelief about the ways in which things that happened one or two generations ago can affect the current generation;[/li][li]Exoticizing common traits of the racial outgroup (e.g., hair types);[/li][li]Belief that the U.S. black-white wealth gap reflects a lack of effort on the part of Black people (which over half of white people believe);[/li][li]Increased perception of sexual aggressiveness (or prowess) in black men;[/li][li]Conflation of the impacts of poverty or trauma with racial characteristics;[/li][li]Denial of the benefits of white privilege;[/li][li]Omission of racial labels when the speaker is talking about white people, but inclusion when the speaker refers to people of color–and the narratives that creates (e.g., the “working class” meaning white working class);[/li][li]False equation between different forms of oppression even when they vary significantly in degree and effect in order to downplay white supremacy;[/li][li]Racialized ignorance and propaganda about history (good minor example);[/li][li]Profiling of people of color as likely to be a service worker or other low status profession (often unconsciously);[/li][li]Beliefs that rap music is non-musical or uniquely obsesses with material fortune.[/li][/ul]
It’s also really hard to keep yourself from being influenced, even in some very small degree, by extremely prevalent racial stereotypes about laziness or intelligence. (To say nothing of the 30%+ of white people who outright believe the stereotypes!) Even if you consciously deny them and know intellectually why they are false, when you exist in a culture that is utterly saturated in them, you cannot help but be influenced by them, even if that influence is just subtle things like finding actual laziness in a person of color to be more salient than it would otherwise be (or the converse as a form of overcompensation).
On odd claim to make in 2017, IMHO. I’ve seen a bunch of careers ended recently by expressions of anti-racism. Not that many by expressions of racism. Jemele Hill is suspended. How is Rep. Steve King doing?
Yeah, except, it is or should have been clear for pages what definition I’m using. So to continue to be offended by my claims in light of my clear definition is what is absurd.
This would make sense if the effort to fight racism was imposed on an unwilling populace. But we live in a democracy. A society with ubiquitous racism would not be producing such a volume of anti-racism. Think of a group in society that is truly hated such as pedophiles, would anyone dare to produce anything with a message that society needs to be nice to pedophiles? They would be shunned.
Is it any more absurd than saying “I don’t think I’m in any meaningful way a criminal”?
I’ll just leave that little gem hanging there.
And do I live and was I brought up in a society that is “highly influenced by racism”?
of course I do.
Either societal influences do not guarantee behaviour or they do. If they do you’d have to deal with the possibility of nullifying a problematic behaviour through exposure to equal and opposite societal influences or education. Either way I come to the conclusion that it is entirely possible for someone to claim they are not, in any meaningful way, racist.
I don’t think you get to decide what another person finds insulting do you?
Almost none of the things on your list are actually racist. Take for example your example Increased perception of sexual aggressiveness or prowess in black men. Isn’t this an empirical question? It may be that black men are better in bed, it may be they are worse, or exactly the same as every other race. Why would we expect them to be exactly the same? For instance we know that size is greater among africans and some people think size matters. If it does then it would be empirically true that black men are better in bed. Is believing the truth racist?
You first need to define racism and to convince people why your definition is better than the current one. Most people today would define racism as animus toward a group of people based on their race. Almost all of your list would fail based on that definition.
Jemelle Hill was suspended for suggesting a boycott of a network partner. Anyone of any color would have been suspended for that.
I don’t know how Rep King is but I will ask him next time I see him.
As I acknowledged earlier, this is a thing that varies from country to country and within countries. I have tried to be more clear in my later posts that my comments are directed at the US, which is the society and culture I know best. I suspect it quite likely that things are worse here than England, or whatever country you emigrated from to get to England if that’s not where you were raised. That said, I am doubtful that whatever social influences you have are free from racialized ideas, even if they are not the US-centric ones I have focused on here.
Perhaps you’d like to explain to me how the culture of wherever you were raised lacks these racial ideas?
I don’t know what it means to “decide what another person finds insulting.” Obviously I can no more decide that than I can decide what any other person does. What I can do is opine on whether such decisions are reasonable or not. You’re perfectly free to find something insulting and I’m perfectly free to point out why that’s not reasonable, and is in fact a reaction stemming from other emotions.
