In a recently locked MPSIMS discussion regarding sphincters, Liberal said:
And WhyNot replied:
I think both their definitions are overly specific.
To me, “bigotry” is simple prejudice. “Racism” is a philosophy in which race plays a central role as a defining characteristic of a person.
What say ye?
Pretty much what you say. “Bigotry” implies a or several falsely prejudicial views, nothing more or less. Racism is simply one form of bigotry, of which religious intolerane or ageism and the like are others.
I suppose if you really, really wanted to stretch the point, a “racist” might be defined as one who ascribes to one or another of the various idiocies and their moronic subsets. If such a person had no* personal * prejudices, that is to say, if his ideology had no impact on his interpersonal relations, you might be able to say that he was a racist but not a bigot.
I’ve known a couple of people like that, relatives, actually. They ascribed to theories of racism without a moments hesitation, but treated persons of another race with the same disdain and suspicion they had for “whites”. Cold comfort.
I think I understand where you’re going with that, 'Luci, but could you rephrase this bit so it’s a little less oblique?
It is a little bit esoteric…but it seems to me that a racist is simply a subset of bigot. End of story. 
I think 'luci could be talking about the “white people drive like this, black people drive like thiiiiiiis” sort of racism. You can have racist attitudes without being a bigot about them.
I’m not elucidator, but I think I get what he’s saying.
Bigotry involves a certain amount of bias, whereas racism simply involves stereotyping a group. The two frequently overlap, of course, but it is possible to stereotype a group in a way that is not bigoted. “All Koreans love pistachio ice cream” would be racist because it stereotypes an entire group, but it’s not necessarily bigoted because it does not involve a stereotype equipped with an inherent bias.
Racism, I’d say, is a belief that certain groups of people characterized by obvious physical traits including color of skin also share behavioral propensities independent of social norms. It may also include an overgeneralization of ties between social norms and those physical characteristics.
For example, if I say that white folks are more likely to play polo than black folks, that’s not racist. If I assume that a particular white guy I meet is a polo player, that’s racist. If I assume that white folks are just crazy about horses, it’s got something to do with their family history, that’s racist.
Bigotry pretty much involves a refusal to recognize variation among a group: it’s a broader category that encompasses racism. If I think that all gay people have excellent fashion sense, that’s bigotry.
I’m choosing fairly harmless examples because I think it’s helpful to examine the outer limits of such terms. Everyone would agree that claims about innate black violence are racist, or claims about the inherent immorality of homosexuals are bigoted.
Daniel
A ray cyst is a skin lesion.
“A tree fell on my car.” “How bigotry was it?” 
I’d say that bigotry is the habit of making assumptions about a person’s behavior, personality, or abilities based on entirely unrelated attributes. Racism is a subset of bigotry that deals with assumptions based (obviously) on the person’s race.
I’d say that the behavior Liberal describes as “bigotry” would be more aptly called “prejudice.”
Racism, sexism, ageism and many other -isms are all just forms of classism. I poked around a bit before deciding that I like Wiki’s definition best:
Bigotry is one of the manifestations of classism, taking such forms as hate speech, ethnic wars, profiling, androcentrism and others.
I am saddened that the word “bigot” appears to have lost the specificity it once conveyed, both in denotation and connotation. Originally, a bigot was one who held to his or her own views of the world, (with a contempt for all who held other views), regardless of racism or classism or other modifying features. The word bigot was applied to many racists (correctly) in the late 1950s and early 1960s because the outspoken racists were bigots–they held to their odd views of race in spite of any evidence to the contrary and made the holding of their views a matter of personal pride and honor. Unfortunately, too many people grew up hearing some vague association between bigotry and racist prejudice and we have lost that word as people wrangle over the correct ways to describe or identify attitudes and actions toward other people based on perceived race.
I don’t think I’m on board with this. Racism is not simply stereotyping. It’s a belief system in which race or skin colour is pegged as a determinative factor with regard to morals, behaviour, worth, etc. Racism is not just a belief in stereotypes but rather a worldview in which a person’s skin colour is considered key or important to understanding that person or society in general.
For example, believing that a customer service representative’s race is important to (1) achieving optimal communication, (2) receiving good service, or (3) speaking “properly” are racist beliefs because race is determinative of some personal or societal condition.
However, believing that “black people use washcloths” or “black people don’t use urinals” are not racist beliefs, because the belief don’t have some kind of moral or societal import.
So how does that compare to the evolution of the meaning of “chauvinist”?
Sorry, I don’t have anything to offer as a definition of racism. The fact that this discussion seems to replay itself with some regularity reinforces that reasonable people just flat don’t have a definition that we all agree on. This is discouraging because if we can’t even agree on terms, it makes a meeting of minds that much more difficult. I’m wondering if this is where come of our conflict arises. Person A may honestly believe that racism no longer exists, which proves to Person B that Person A is racist, since it obviously does exist. It may be that they are talking about two different things entirely.
When I was a grad student in Anthropology, I wrote an overview of the definition of racism based on published articles in cultural anthropology journals. After all, it seemed to me that anthropologists should be the go-to people for issues about race, that being one of their reasons for being, however you choose to define it. Even though pretty much everyone in the field agreed that there was no such biological animal as “race,” racism seemed to be alive and well.
The problem, though, was that even anthropologists can’t agree on the definition. I counted 11 different categories of racism as defined in the literature (sometimes explicitly but more often implicitly), and I couldn’t find any commonalities between all of them. Hell, some of the time the classic definition of “race” didn’t even come into it. I even saw examples of “economic” racism, which, according to the authors, was based strictly on income, rather than heredity, culture, or ethnicity.
It was discouraging, to say the least.
**Ahhh, they’re 1920’s style “Cyst Rays”.**This post has been blacked by the blackener!
Something can be racial without being racist. If I make a broad generalization like “Black people like fried chicken”, whether it is true or not it is racial; that is it makes a general statement, without inherent bias or judgement, based on race. If I make a broad generalization like “Black people rob people more than white people, that’s why I get nervious when a black person approaches me at an atm” then that would be racist due to the bias of the statement, again whether true or not.
Another would be “White people dance like drunk monkeys.” This would be racial, no inherent bias expressed. “I don’t feel sorry for that guy who got robbed, he’s white so he can probably afford it” That would be racist, a bias toward feeling was expressed.
The same bias / no bias could apply to all subsets of a population. Saying “Homosexuals are good interior decorators” is sexual. Saying “He knows about decorating because he is gay” is sexist because it is biased (in this case toward another individual by expressing the speaker’s feelings, even though it doesn’t seem to be a negative statement the bias would still be painfull).
Bigotry is bias. Plain and simple. Regardless of whether it is racial, sexual, age, religion whatever. Something can be racial without being racist (whether that statement applies to a steriotype or not) as long as does not express bias. Racist statements, or biased statements are always bigotted.
:dubious: No bias? “Drunk moneys” is an objective statement for most people? (I guess if you’re a zoological researcher who studies the effects of ethanol on tailed primates, I’ll give you this one.)
Thanks for starting the thread, acsenray. I’m reading with interest, although without conclusions, for the moment.
One can be a bigot and not be racist, if their hangup is based on something not race-related (such as gender, sex preference, class, etc.)
One can be a racist and not be bigot, if they don’t ascribe negative value en masse to another race of people. Believing that “Asians are the smartest race” doesn’t necessary make you a bigot, but it is racist.
One can be a racist and a bigot, if their beliefs in another race is associated with dislike, contempt, and disgust for that group of people. “Blacks are nasty”, “whites are stupid”, “Asians are conniving”, “Hispanic are lazy”…these are the views of racist bigots. It’s not just that they think race determines character or abilities; it’s that they also think some people are inherently “bad” because of their race.
A racist may believe whites are superior to everyone else, in the same manner that humans in general consider themselves superior to other animals. But racists don’t have to hate anyone (do we have to hate the animals we think we are superior to?) A bigot, I believe, does harbor ill feelings (i.e. hate) towards others because of their race.
I will have you know that after I’ve had a few, I got MOVES, baby!