Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, by most definitions this would be considered racism
You acknowledge it yourself. Most definitions consider it racism. So, sociatal, legal, and dictionary definitions are all in agreement that there is no need for oppression to be racist.
Quote:
Oppression is not an additional clause. yes I can agree History can be argued that it is an additional clause but not oppression. Oppression is just one word to describe the power + prejudice = racism.
Power
Predjudice
Those are the two components of the equation. Oppression is not listed. Hence, it is also additional to the definition.
I'm not debating what the definition of oppression is. I'm saying it's not part of the definition of racism as defined by the majority of society, by laws, or by the simple standard of the dictionary.
Also, the UN definition in the ICRED:
Quote:
Article 1 of the Convention defines "racial discrimination" as
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Still no reference to the oppression aspect that is found ONLY in the AU definition, and this discussion was long ago limited to focus primarily on the US.
As for your reference to the definition of family, yes, most states do allow gay marriage(26 out of 50) so that argument is just incorrect
"Prejudice plus power" is a (re)definition of "racism" or "sexism" used by various ivory tower types and social justice... enthusiasts to prevent accusations of racism or sexism (justified or not) against not-so-powerful groups (i.e. women and, in the US, non-whites).
While the usual definition of "racism" is something like "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race", some academics reject this definition and require an additional condition of "...by someone in a position of power over them", thus rendering those without "institutionalized power" incapable of being racist. Obviously, the majority of sexism is still against women by men, and the majority of racism in the US is against minorities by whites, but this definition makes the converse categorically impossible, rather than just rare.
There is a neutral, universally-accepted term for "prejudice plus power" that could be used by those who wish to communicate clearly and avoid heated terminology debates altogether: institutional racism. However, this doesn't have the beneficial side effect of immunizing oneself against criticism.
This raises the question as to why someone would wish to forcibly redefine a term in common parlance. The only rational answer is that one wishes to wield a term's social stigma to their own ends as a form of psychological trick. A Social Justice Activist may wish to indirectly show that slavery is worse than calling a white person a cracker by not calling the latter racist, but this causes problems when applied consistently because it works under the pretense that any form of negative act predicated on race is innately worse when committed by a privileged group. This is obviously not the case to a morally sane person. Whilst it is true that acts like slavery and segregation require one group to be privileged, to be consistent one must say it is worse to kill a black person for being black than to kill a white person for being white, or even more absurdly, to claim calling a black person the n-word is worse than killing a white person for being white. All of these acts can be committed without privilege.
The redefinition also seems to be based on a false premise that when a person says calling a white person a cracker, calling a black person the n-word, slavery, and apartheid are all racist, that they are making a claim of moral equivalency. This entire premise is flawed in the first place since racist was never intended to be an objective and specific moral term.
So if the question was can minorities be "institutionally racist" the answer would be obviously not. But the individual kind? Yes.
Finally, I'll leave off with this quote by David Pilgrim, curator of the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabelia
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Pilgrim
Can blacks be racist? The answer, of course, will depend on how you define racism. If you define it as “prejudice against or hatred toward another race,” then the answer is yes. If you define racism as “the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race,” the answer is yes. And if you define racism as “prejudice and discrimination rooted in race-based loathing,” then the answer is, again, yes. However, if you define racism as “a system of group privilege by those who have a disproportionate share of society’s power, prestige, property, and privilege,” then the answer is no. In the end, it is my opinion that individual blacks can be and sometimes are racists. However, collectively, blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today.
...
I want it said loudly and clearly that we can define racism in many ways, but it is, in my opinion, intellectually disingenuous to define it in a way that trivializes the role that racial hatred plays. Certainly, not all racism is hate-driven, but to ignore the connection between racial hate and racism is to reduce the concept of racism to a useless theoretical abstraction.
Jeo123 has taken over my side of the debate, and has done so beautifully and better than I could have done... so thank you
It looks like the definition of racism is settled for the most part, and now the issue is revolving entirely around the definition of "power" in the "power+prejudice=racism" equation. One side is saying that only enough power to cause any amount of measurable harm is enough. The other side is saying that only institutional-level power qualifies.
My problem with the second definition is that it requires that the exact same act by the exact same person would change from racism to not racism based on where that person is located and which race has the most "institutional power" in each location. I made a similar argument before, but I'll try again.
If a wealthy Chinese store owner living in China refuses to hire anyone but Chinese employees because of racial discrimination then by every definition used in this thread the Chinese store owner is a racist. But if that exact same wealthy Chinese store owner moves to a Chinese-dominated location in the United States and does the exact same thing he is suddenly NOT racist because his specific race isn't in power in this new location. This contains zero logic.
Changing it around a bit, if a wealthy African store owner living in Africa (pick any country you want) refuses to hire anyone but African employees because of racial discrimination then by every definition used in this thread the African store owner is a racist. But if that exact same wealthy African store owner moves to the United States and does the exact same thing he is suddenly NOT racist because his specific race isn't in power in this new location. Still zero logic.
But why do some minorities insist that minorities cannot be racist? In my opinion, the reason for this is simple: it is an attempt to keep moral high ground. For the most part, Whites in this country do have unearned privilege (uneducated perpetually impoverished white Americans would disagree with you). Minorities were (and sometimes still are) horribly discriminated against. But the fact is that racial prejudice exists in all races. So when minorities condemn racist acts it doesn't take long for the people being condemned to turn around and point to members of the minority doing the exact same thing. So to avoid getting caught by their own accusations, the minorities (and privileged white professors who are often educated beyond their intelligence level) redefine racism in ways so minorities are immune from charges (i.e., double standards).
Caribny, first off, no I don't think that a black person attacking a white person would be set free if caught, similarly I don't think a white person attacking a black person would be set free if caught. Your point is irrelevant.
As for your complaint about other examples, there's no need for me to furnish any other examples. The teacher one is sufficient. The problem at this point lies with the definition of racism. A principal who refuses to hire a teacher because she is white is harmed by the lack of a job(and fyi, that was a real world example experienced by a friend of mine). The specific example doesn't matter though and this point could continue hypothetically only.
The reason this discussion is focusing on racism is there are two completely opposite definitions of racism here, one that argues discrimination by minorities is not racism, and one that argues it is racism. Until that point is solved, this discussion won't go anywhere. It's impossible to agree on whether minorities can be racist without agreeing what racist means.
I still refuse to accept a definition that allows racial discrimination by all groups other than the one "on top" at the moment. That just encourages splitting of races and an "each race for themselves" mentality.
How do you know that your friend wasn't hired because they are white? Do you think that every time a non white screams discrimination that they are white? If the principal did state openly that it is because she is white, without giving some rationale for this, then this is an actionable case.
IMHO we can define racism however we wish. I can accept both definitions. I will how ever say that there are those who cite RARE instances where non whites actually might have the power to hurt a white person, using their institutional power, as an excuse to suggest that the bigger problem isn't the institutional bias against non whites in general, woman at times, and blacks most often.
The reality is that the system is stacked in favor of US born whites, males in particular, from affluent backgrounds. All others have additional obstacles which they must figure out how to overcome. I am sure that you agree.
Changing it around a bit, if a wealthy African store owner living in Africa (pick any country you want) refuses to hire anyone but African employees because of racial discrimination then by every definition used in this thread the African store owner is a racist. But if that exact same wealthy African store owner moves to the United States and does the exact same thing he is suddenly NOT racist because his specific race isn't in power in this new location. Still zero logic.
Hypothetical. Quantify the likelihood that the African or the Chinese in the USA will have a job which a white American will want, and so will be hurt if not hired. Will an American want a job in a dense Asian environment where his ignorance of the language or culture hurt him? How competitive will his pay be, and how much will this job add to his resume?
And will an American want to work in a store owned by an African which sells products to other African immigrants? Not even a black American will want that job.
If the African and the Chinese own service companies seeking business opportunities in the main stream do you think that they will seriously ignore a suitable white candidate who will be bringing his contacts and cultural competencies with him? I know loads of blacks who own companies where the white employees outnumber the black, and you know at least one of them. Oprah!
So let us deal in the REAL world. One where decisions are made mainly by whites, men in particular, and so non whites, who are serious, will not want to isolate themselves by limiting their companies to a narrow enclave.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-31-2014 at 06:02 AM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
I believe anyone can be racist. A friend of mine is half white and half black, and her grandmother is racist. She hates white people. This hate has made my friend feel that her grandmother hates half of her. It has really messed with her head. I asked her why she thought her grandmother felt this way, and her answer was the past made her grandmother hate white people. I understand that her grandmother probably experienced discrimination at the hands of whites, but she is hurting her family by her racism.
Hypothetical. Quantify the likelihood that the African or the Chinese in the USA will have a job which a white American will want, and so will be hurt if not hired. Will an American want a job in a dense Asian environment where his ignorance of the language or culture hurt him? How competitive will his pay be, and how much will this job add to his resume?
And will an American want to work in a store owned by an African which sells products to other African immigrants? Not even a black American will want that job.
If the African and the Chinese own service companies seeking business opportunities in the main stream do you think that they will seriously ignore a suitable white candidate who will be bringing his contacts and cultural competencies with him? I know loads of blacks who own companies where the white employees outnumber the black, and you know at least one of them. Oprah!
So let us deal in the REAL world. One where decisions are made mainly by whites, men in particular, and so non whites, who are serious, will not want to isolate themselves by limiting their companies to a narrow enclave.
Probability has nothing to do with possibility. The question isn't "Are minorities likely to be racist" it's "CAN minorities be racist"
Your arguments are just rehashing the same segregation arguments already in this thread. Consider the same concept with changed races.
"Would a chinese person want a job in a dense white environment where his ignorance of the language or culture hurt him?"
At first, it probably would be difficult, and there's a good chance they would rather work with people from their own culture, but at the same time, they may just need a job and be willing to learn the other culture.
That answer is the same answer for both your question and mine. To then say that one race is allowed to refuse to hire the other isn't something justifiable.
Claiming that one group probably doesn't want to work for another was the common justification in the mid 1900's to justify segregation. It was flawed then and it's flawed now. It's not your place to say if someone of one race wants to work with another, and to deny them that option because of their race is why it's racist.
Probability has nothing to do with possibility. The question isn't "Are minorities likely to be racist" it's "CAN minorities be racist"
Your arguments are just rehashing the same segregation arguments already in this thread. Consider the same concept with changed races.
"Would a chinese person want a job in a dense white environment where his ignorance of the language or culture hurt him?"
At first, it probably would be difficult, and there's a good chance they would rather work with people from their own culture, but at the same time, they may just need a job and be willing to learn the other culture.
That answer is the same answer for both your question and mine. To then say that one race is allowed to refuse to hire the other isn't something justifiable.
Claiming that one group probably doesn't want to work for another was the common justification in the mid 1900's to justify segregation. It was flawed then and it's flawed now. It's not your place to say if someone of one race wants to work with another, and to deny them that option because of their race is why it's racist.
There is NO answer to that because there is NO definition about what being racist is.
So yes can minorities hate whites. 100% of the posters agree with this. Is that being racist? Some confine the term racism to mean when one has the power to enforce that prejudice. Is that wrong? Its how the definition of racism which they chose to utilize.
The more important question therefore will be which group(s) in which societies have the means to ensure that their prejudices against certain groups can have impact on people from within that group.
There is NO answer to that because there is NO definition about what being racist is.
So yes can minorities hate whites. 100% of the posters agree with this. Is that being racist? Some confine the term racism to mean when one has the power to enforce that prejudice. Is that wrong? Its how the definition of racism which they chose to utilize.
Words have a meaning, both in the dictionary and in common use. That you feel the need to make an argument directly contrary to that to support your viewpoint means it is time to reconsider it because you've made an effective reductio ad absurdum argument against yourself.
Quote:
The more important question therefore will be which group(s) in which societies have the means to ensure that their prejudices against certain groups can have impact on people from within that group.
Depends on the context. If you're talking about a Sociology or History 101 exam question asking which groups in America have suffered the most from discrimination and racism than sure, I'd agree. If you're arguing about the definition of a word it's a red herring.
Words have a meaning, both in the dictionary and in common use. That you feel the need to make an argument directly contrary to that to support your viewpoint means it is time to reconsider it because you've made an effective reductio ad absurdum argument against yourself.
Depends on the context. If you're talking about a Sociology or History 101 exam question asking which groups in America have suffered the most from discrimination and racism than sure, I'd agree. If you're arguing about the definition of a word it's a red herring.
In the opinion of many common use suggests that there is a difference between the word "prejudice" and the word "racist". There is no uniform interpretation of this. This is like the "toMAYto" vs. "toMAHto" argument.
What is more useful is to determine the power of an individual from one group to enforce his beliefs against people from another group, using his access to institutional power by virtue of being a member of that group.
The black security guard hates the white executives in the building. Who cares. Those white executives can get that black security guard fired. HE CARES! get the difference?
If we are talking about the USA there are few situations where blacks can enforce their racist/prejudiced views against whites utilizing their institutional power to do so. Now if we are talking about Barbados, or South Africa then this statement isn't true.
However the question was posed within a US context, so we will analyze it within a US context.
"Would a chinese person want a job in a dense white environment where his ignorance of the language or culture hurt him?"
.
If the person was living and, especially if born in the USA the answer will most likely be YES. So I don't understand your point.
All of us living in the USA have to understand how this country functions. How it functions is determined by its ruling elites, who are almost all white.
So the US resident Chinese person will most likely be familiar with how to behave and what to expect by virtue of living and working in this country. He will certainly speak English, and will aspire to do so in a manner that will make him easily understood. He will also know that most opportunities which exist for him to achieve upward mobility will occur within the mainstream, not working in a small business in Flushing, Queens.
Now do you seriously think that, with all the opportunities available, a white American will seriously want to work in an ethnic oriented business with its lower pay and more limited opportunities? I think not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
