Actually studies have been done that show that racism is more common in places where ethnically heterogenous populations live in close proximity. I have heard more racism in New Jersey than anywhere else.
I agree with this. I think we’re all just a little bit racist, if only because we all hold prejudiced views about people of all types.
But I’m not really talking about the low-grade prejudice that represents the baseline of human nature. I’m talking about people emailing each other nigger jokes or making a stink if a family member marries outside of their race. I’m talking about the hatred exhibited as some of the political rallies, and people choosing not to vote for Obama because he’s black. These are not natural behaviors.
I’m also talking about the dissonance in our awareness which allows us to see and hear racist stuff all the time without shaking our resolve that racists are a tiny, insignificant portion of the population.
monstro How do you feel about people who are voting for Obama because he’s black?
I think that’s a piss-poor way of selecting a candidate and yes, I would consider it racist. I think his race has made him especially popular among black people (despite the media concerns that he wasn’t black enough), but it’s not like they would be voting for McCain if Obama were a white guy. Black people have a long history of voting for white candidates. I don’t know if the reverse is true.
But I’ll be honest. I think there’s a difference between selecting a candidate because of his ethnicity and voting against him for the same reason. I don’t think most of the pro-Obama racists are driven by hatred and fear, but rather the softer “yay for OUR guy!” mentality that we all share to some extent. But it’s hard not to think, based on the footage and quote in the OP, that the same can’t be said for some McCain supporters.
That supports her OP, saying racism isn’t ‘insignificant’, IMO.
For what it’s worth, I read about a CNN poll from Friday, where the CNN pollster says the two effects (“For Obama soley because of race” and “Against Obama solely because of race”) would cancel each other out:
The article went on to identify “those polled <who> said race will be the single most important factor in their choice for president” as about 5 percent.
This wasn’t addressed to me, but I would say that if we’d had nothing but black presidents for the past 200 years, if white people had been enslaved and marginalized throughout U.S. history, and if black people overwhelmingly controlled the political power and wealth, then yes I would call voting for Obama because he’s black racist.
Otherwise, it’s a historical opportunity.
I believe strongly that Obama has a hell of a lot more going for him than his skin color.
But saying that black people are racist because they’re excited about voting for a black, Democratic president – really, that’s just not a very well-thought out statement.
Monstro, it seems to me this definition mixes up individual and group characteristics, and that mix-up goes to the heart of the issue. My own observation is that “racist” is applied rather too broadly. It also seems to imply a concomitant immorality of some sort–it’s a negative appellation–even though an individual’s behaviour toward another individual or group might be quite distinct from a personal position on racial differences. To give you an example, I might hold a personal belief that women sulk more than men (I am then a “sexist”) but if I give every woman I meet the benefit of the doubt around that, have I exhibited a moral failure?
Groups can be “accurately judged and ranked based on the qualities associated with them.” The cohort of all women is shorter and stronger than the cohort of men. They sulk longer too…oh; wait a minute–I’d need some data for that last remark, but I bet I could find studies that do find sex-based differences in groups that are not just differences of physical description. And if it’s a good study, those differences would be accurate for the group.
Now it’s quite a different thing to infer from a group difference that “whether by biological or cultural means, (group difference) endows recognizable and permanent qualities on (an) individual’s character, intellect, and worth.” For most human groups, including the very coarse category of race, there is enough individual variation to render stupid an effort to apply a difference observed at a group level onto an individual.
If people who believe there are differences between “races” are racist, then I am a racist. There are a great many studies to back that notion up of course, and more commonly the sensitivity over the issue comes down to whether or not such a person believes those differences are innate or cultural. Perhaps for such a definition you might want to have a sub-category limiting racists to those who believe a given observed difference between races might have a genetic underpinning. (I would qualify there as well, but that’s another thread.)
In any case, I caution you to avoid simply trying to define the term “racist” so broadly that everyone becomes one. All of us (in my opinion, of course) carry within our human heritage a tendency toward clannishness. We can’t yet define the genome well enough to decide if this character trait is genetic or cultural, but it doesn’t really matter: it’s there. It’s there if you are black, or white, or Episcopalean or Tutsi. There’s no fundamental moral difference between defining another clan by race or creed or geography. The core moral principles, whatever they are, are unchanged. Given our propensity toward clannishness, then, even though some may be “racists” because they define the key cohorts as “races,” all are clannish, and all are guilty of the same crime. There’s no particular increase in moral turpitude for the guy who’s a racist over the guy who uses a different cohort to divvy up the world.
And that brings up a last point: is it morally criminal to believe that there are “recognizable and permanent (i.e. genetic) differences between races” at a group level ? If an individual has such a belief based on analysis of available information–and presumably therefore earns a label of “racist”–does such a belief make him morally wrong? Or does it just mean he’s a bozo, for instance, but not immoral? Do we reserve “racist” for a belief, or must there be inappropriate behaviour?
I agree. But your definition of “racism” had a “worth” component to it too. You chose to insert that requirement, not me.
First, I made a reasonable and pertinent request that you define your terms. I don’t see how that’s in any way inappropriate.
Second, I would define racism as (1) any belief or action based on a belief that members of different races are signficiantly different (on average) in terms of conduct or behavior; or (2) treating people differently based on their perceived race.
What would that prove? Every POTUS is a target for assassination.
Somewhat - he thinks it might well be more like 4-5% of actual voters, though he quoted the “up to 6%” number here just a few days ago, so he’s not hardline about it. What he takes more issue with is the notion of a major Bradley Effect, which is white voters disguising their anti-black vote.
I suppose you could read the comment that way. It’s not what I said or what I meant, though. Do you disagree that popular cultural references (movies, music, standup comics) tend to punch up ethnic differences in a way which promotes a sort of common wisdom that the differences are fundamental and biological, rather than incidental and cultural? My point is that this is a product of separation. If we had a truly integrated society the perception of fundamental differences would be nonsensical. Since we in fact have a non-integrated society with separate ethnic groupings, the innate “groupism” John Mace talks about leads to continued racist perceptions.
I would disagree with this. I think it’s exactly the cultural differences that are being played upon. Hence, Chris Rock’s infamous routine, or the numerous comments I’ve heard over the years along the lines of “Oh, he’s black, but he’s not black black; he grew up in the suburbs.” I’ve heard many variations of that in many different settings.
I know I’m piggy backing on things others have said, but I’ve always felt that it’s important to distinguish between the historical “racism” that assumes blacks are somehow genetically inferior, and this vague notion of modern racism that is really just white people not liking black culture.
I was probably in third grade when my school first started teaching racial tolerance. I remember being told that black people are no different from white people, and I remember thinking that was a really strange thing to say because I had never thought differently. But it was hammered into my head, and when I finally grew old enough to really look at the world, I was like, “Wait a minute… all the black people at my school hang out together, they listen to different music, they talk differently, they socialize differently, they live in different neighborhoods, they like different things.” But I had been told that they were exactly the same, and I honest to goodness felt like a racist for noticing that there were differences between black culture and white culture. My racial tolerance instruction fell short of explaining reality.
Anyway, it took me years before I finally figured out that it was OK to admit that there were cultural differences between the two groups, and that if I was ever going to be able to interact with black people in a way that wasn’t robotic and awkward to all parties involved, I’d have to recognize those differences and adapt to them.
I think the idea of 4 more years of Bush or the idea of McCain actually taking the reins will chip into the racist vote a little. I personally know a few republicans voting for Obama for this very reason, they think the pubbies are on the wrong track.
As for the Op, I am hoping the polls are at least slightly accurate, and an Obama presidency will mean a change for the black culture that is very much needed. No longer can young black youths say that they can’t hope to get anywhere in the world…it’s hard to say that with a black president.
I was asked for a definition of racism, not sexism. Gender is a total different animal than race, as I’m sure you’re aware. For one thing, our chromosomes reveal our gender quite obviously. You can test someone’s blood or urine sample and know right away what gender they are. The fact that you can’t do that with race shows that we’re dealing with a totally different concept.
You keep going to gender. I’m not talking about men and women. I’m talking about race. I did not explicitly say “racial groups” because I thought a reasonable person would understand that’s what I was talking about.
But you also missed the critical words in that quote. “Judged and ranked”. Are women inferior to men because they sulk more? And if you take an individual woman who you know nothing about, are you going to judge her as being more a sulker than a man you also know nothing about?
It’s stupid, but that doesn’t stop people from being prejudiced. Or are you saying that prejudice isn’t common?
Well, yes. You’re a racist. If you think my race tells you anything about my character, intellect, or worth, then I don’t know how else to describe you.
I don’t use the word broadly. I just refuse to make the word restrictive so as not to offend delicate sensibilities. I have a feeling people would love for me to define racism so that it doesn’t include them. They want to believe that people must use violence or that they must be in some power position in order to be sufficiently racist. Or that they have to believe that their own race is superior to qualify. Yeah, if you make those requirements, then almost no one is racist.
My parents are racists. In my father’s case, he’s anti-Semitic. In my presence, he has referred to people as “dirty Jews” and “kikes”. He will make mention of someone’s Jewishness when it is totally irrelevant. My mother is an anti-white racist. She thinks all whites are going to hell unless they repent for the sins of their forefathers. Mind you, if I brought home a white Jewish friend, they’d be nice and friendly. They might actually not talk about them behind their back, even. But I also know that within them, there would be discomfort and ill-feelings. Nope, you can’t legislate that away or run home crying about it. But if I have racists in my family and we belong to a minority group, then how can I conclude that racists in general are a tiny, insignificant portion of the population?
I’m too conscientious to fall for it now, but I’m sure if you had presented me with the “white doll, black doll” test back as a youngster, I would have chosen the white doll. On this board, I have talked about my own preconceived notions and erroneous thinking about whites and blacks… Am I racist? Yes, in that “everyone’s a little bit racist” kind of way. Am I going to leap off a building because I’m such an awful, bad person? No. I wish other people could be so, I dunno, liberated.
The “everyone’s a little racist” idea might be based in truth, but it shouldn’t be used as an excuse or justification for ignorance. I think there’s a big difference between a guy who hates blacks and a guy who hates corporate lawyers. I think there’s a difference between a guy who thinks blacks are different and a guy who thinks blacks are inferior. I even think there’s a difference between a guy who hates blacks because he was robbed by one and a guy who hates blacks because he just doesn’t like their big lips. So no, I will not refrain from judging and comparing the moralism of racists and other “groupists”. Some groupism makes sense, or is at least sympathetic. Other groupism is unexcusable.
Morally criminally? No. Scientifically indefensible? Yes.
If an individual has hard evidence that a racial group possesess recognizable and permanent qualities that mark the collective character or intellect of that group but they don’t extropolate to the level of the individual, then I suppose they aren’t racist. If they use that information to judge individual members of that group, (as in, "That Obama fella isn’t going to be a good prez, seeing as how blacks don’t score so high on IQ tests), then that person is guilty of faulty logic. If they’ve been presented with evidence that an individual is just as decent, smart, and worthwhile as anyone else and yet they still won’t change their minds, then that would be a moral failing as well as a sign of irrepairable idiocy.
Actually he wrote that if the study measured anything accurately, it was the general population, not likely voters would be less. It was an assumption for the sake of argument, not a statement of agreement.
So after saying it would be irresponsible to cite the study without explaining its methodology, he cites it without explaining its methodology. Interesting.
(Emphasis added.)
I believe we are all racists, just like we are all sexists,and like we are all nationalists. We can be these things for brief moments or pervasively. We can be these things intensely or mildly. We can promote these things or attempt to discourage them. But everytime we see someone who represents a group that is different than a group that you’ve learned represents yourself, some primal urge exists to consider if you are dealing with a friend or foe of the tribe.
Fair enough, and I certainly won’t argue that your experience is atypical.
But I don’t think it’s ever been difficult in this country to admit that cultural differences exist. And it’s been my experience that whether specific individuals are seen as representative of their ethnic group (“not black black” as in your example) due to background or upbringing, group stereotypes are commonly accepted as innate parts of the social makeup of the particular group.
A priori expectations for random individuals from any other discrete group are that they’ll behave in a way consistent with those innate cultural features most commonly referenced by popular perception. This is satirized over and over again in entertainment, and that’s not because it’s a rare occurence. You may not call it racism, but it’s certainly rampant groupism…
Seemed to me she was basing her comments on a belief that black people do act just like white people. She’s afraid that once black people believe themselves to have power and authority, they will start mistreating white people, just like white people did to black people.
-FrL-
My 2 cents:
I think people have been taught that being a racist is horrible, no good, very bad thing*. It’s like the worst thing you can call a person. So, whenever that call is made, people tend to haver and hesitate and excuse and hem and haw etc.
I have no problem saying I’m surrounded by racists. I also have no problem saying I think it’s disgusting. Now I have to work on being able to say it to the racist’s face. Examples:
Neighbor to the west of me. Lovely man. Sweet, wonderful, funny retired guy. Love him. Great to my kids, like another granddad. He’s everything I am against: NRA belonging, Bush loving, anti-gay marriage, even sexist. And yes, racist. I do call him on it; I protest and tell him he’s wrong etc–but I don’t call him a racist to his face. If that makes me a coward, so be it. I’m not going to change him (he is 70) and he’s my neighbor. To his credit, he thinks I’m misguided, but we’ve never had heated words about any of our opposing views. Maybe he’s learning from me. I dunno.
Other neighbor to the east. Don’t care for him, much. Creepy not as old guy. Can’t quite convey why I am creeped out by him, but I am. I’ve also heard him say racist stuff. Him I don’t confront–I avoid him. He knows I do not feel the same way about blacks/Asians/Hispanics etc as he does, but we don’t talk about it. I try very hard to never have to talk to him.
Inlaws–forget it. No hope. Maybe my FIL isn’t. I’d like to think he’d give a fair break to a black person who worked for him, but I am not sure. He’s very sexist and once you’re an “ist”, I tend to think you’re another “ist” as well. (probably some kind of “ist” myself, there!)
My MIL is a rabid racist. I did not know this (seriously) before our marriage. Then again, before (and after) our marriage, she was an active alcoholic, so I didn’t believe anything that came out of her mouth. She believes Rush Limbaugh speaks truth–Anne Coulter, too. Saddest thing is that she taught in a predominantly AA school for 20+ years. God knows what she did at work: at home she made fun of her students.
SIL and her husband–yes, and I have told them to not speak that way in my house.
I have one RN friend whom I need to confront about her (recent) racist remarks. Doing so will not change her mindset–all it does is stop her from saying it in front of me.
There’s too much of it for me to go all high-minded and say “you are dead to me now”–I’d have no family (no loss, really) and very few friends. Believe me, I’m considered “courageous” for working where I do (mostly black community and hospital). I don’t understand that POV–I work where I work because I want to work there.
There are lots of places in America where people live in a bubble. I live in one. It is changing and I think our community is better for it.
- and so it is. Of course it is. But demonizing the word has just driven it underground in a way. Now everyone denies any such tendency, despite evidence to the contrary. Hell, some degree of racism may be programmed into our genes. (by this I mean the “this is our group/tribe” vs “that is not our group tribe” mentality–not skin color or religion or whathaveyou).