Why I Disagree With The Racial Divide

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure what you mean by that, what's only been out for only around 10 years?
Your idea of anti white racism or discussion of non-white racism?

Open expression of anti-white racism. To a certainty, it's nothing new.

I think there's a certain disregard or passivity to it...because it's been seen understandable as a reaction to white racism. I don't think it's harmless though, nor do I think it's fair to assume that we can somehow eliminate it if we can just figure out the "right way" to regard white people.

I don't think this is entirely self serving either. When I see a black man assault an Asian woman on the news, it seems absurd to assume that somehow, someway, a white person is to blame. We can easily find out why he thinks what he does.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where we magically eliminate all racism in white people. We have a talented black student of chemistry advancing through college and his classes progressively become more white and asian. He happens to hold deeply negative views about these groups decides to avoid a career in the field.

This would generally be considered a negative outcome, an opportunity wasted.

For the former, if discussion of past deeds by whites constitutes racism

It doesn't, and I'm not sure what I wrote that might give you that impression.

For the latter, there probably are areas of non-white racism that needs to more thoroughly examined but it's hard to get to those when people keep downplaying larger and more pressing areas of racism.

I can understand that. Perhaps you prioritize things differently from me. I see racial discrimination in law and policy as most damaging and something worth fighting against.

I never liked the concept of original sin but I don't think that's whats going on there.

The consequences of past deeds are still being felt today as many of those past deeds were only a generation ago.

The same can be said of all past deeds.

Also many of those past deeds were unpunished. I can see how guilt might rise from that but we shouldn't shy away from discussion because of that.

Many of lots of past deeds go unpunished. Many current deeds go unpunished. This is the nature of justice, it's imperfect.

I cannot, in good conscience, support treating the innocent as guilty by nothing more than the color of their skin. It's hard for me to respect anyone who does.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is important to not conflate disparity with difference. Of course there will be a difference in the numbers of black, white, or any other group of people when it comes to farming. Even a basic meaning of disparity can be innocuous. Something that is unequal, or not the same. The concern comes when the disparity occurs when all else is equal.

I cannot imagine a state of "everything being equal" between people in reality. We are very much the same but we have differences. I wouldn't ask for a smart man to resign himself to the life of a janitor in the name of equity.

As for racial discrimination though...I can certainly agree it should be illegal and punishable. Black farmers have won millions in settlements over the years. I see this as justice and fairness.

When loan approval or subsidies occur at different rates or time frames and this difference, or disparity, can be correlated with race (or gender, or class, etc.) we should root out the underlying causes and seek to rectify the situation.

I agree....and we have done this across multiple systems.

Statistics are tricky things, as I'm sure you well know. Sometimes averages don't show the whole picture, sometimes case studies don't. What is the harm in erring on the side of the downtrodden?

The same error that occurs whenever we err on the side of someone for reasons that are unrelated to the cause....we may never solve the problem.

Even worse, we may encourage a culture where claiming victimhood is rewarded. We saw this in MeToo...Jussie Smollett...and numerous other incidents.

 

[Bradskii]

Just a couple of points. And first up, I'm going to use the term 'race' even though there's an argument that there's no such thing. But in this context it's shorthand for 'people of different ethnic backgrounds'.

Firstly 'systematic racism' is a consequence of our natural inherrent racism. That is, an evolutionary wariness of 'the other'. So you are more comfortable in a group of people that you consider to the 'the same' and less comfortable in situations where you're in group of people that are different (and it doesn't only apply to race - it's applicable to 'social class', gender, nationality etc). And most people in a group tend to congregate and socialise with those with whom they feel more comfortable. This has the effect of emphasising the differences, whether we are conscious of them or not. And if you are part of 'the system' - which effectively means 'society', then we'll see the effects.

The problem is, a lot of us, if asked, would claim that we are not racist. So if it's pointed out that we are part of a society, hence 'a system' and that there is an underlying racism, therefore 'systematic racism', there is a tendency to bristle. Say what? Not me, buddy! But if we argue against it, we are saying that none of what I said above is true. Well, maybe you believe that.

I've worked in S. E. Asia where I was in a significant minority as regards race. And in an office situation where I held a reasonably senior position, I wasn't aware of any racism towards me. My position buffered me from that. But...if I found myself in an area where I was in a distinct minority then I was looked upon a lot differently. I was the one subject to 'systematic racism' (and I know this because I used to hang around with a friend who was the same 'race' but spoke the local lingo fluently. On more than one ocassion he suggested that we move on because of what was being said). So...it depends on who you are in the scheme of things as to whether you'll sufffer from this. It ain't code for 'white priviledge. It's code for 'whoever-is-in-the-dominant-position priviledge'.

 

[stevil]

No....I feel tired of being misunderstood entirely and I appreciate your input. I don't think I'm perfect.

Please don't take this as an attack on you. This is just my perception, my experience, of you on this forum.

I can't remember you starting a thread or having much involvement in threads which aren't about propping up whites and/or putting down blacks.
The last thread I noticed you created before this one was you gloating about the leader of BLM getting into trouble.

I often also find you generalising grossly about the left as if all people that don't support Trump or the Republican party are liberal lefitist socialists.
I don't find your generalisations to be particularly insightful or accurate. They are insanely combative and come across as extremely arrogant.

In trying to discuss institutionalised racism with you, I found you to be unwilling to listen, unwilling to try to understand nuances and unwilling to appreciate how difficult it is, given the history of blacks in USA for them as an overall society to get onto the success ladder, but instead I have found you to be very quick to comeback with what I find to be oversimplified retorts. Much like I would expect a teenager who has a strong sense of wrong and right, being very stubborn with their black and white thinking.

When I saw this thread title, and having been started by you, I thought, oh no, here we go again, yet another thread based on racism, probably focused on White rights or to whinge about how poorly whites are being treated, and most likely blaming the left all about this.


Well, the first half of your OP was actually looking quite good. But then the second half met all my preconceived expectations.

I strongly disagree with your ideas about what systematic racism is, and what you believe to be the cause for any uprise in White power groups.
What I would like, would be for you to stop generalising about the left as if all people who support either social liberalism or financial liberalism or social safety nets are the same.
I would also like for you to be more inquisitive about what other people think. I don't think you have learned to listen. I think you have a very poor understanding of your opponents side of this topic. And I feel that you want to fight rather than discuss. That you just want to tell your opponents that they are wrong and not based on fact, that you are right and are factual. I do not find it a very endearing trait and it makes it very hard to have an engaging and respectful conversation with you.

Anyway, maybe I'll get a warning for posting about YOU rather than the topic, IDK but probably.
I would like to have a decent conversation with you on this topic though, but I find it hard because I don't feel that you listen so i'm trying to point out what makes it hard for me to talk to you about this topic. If we get over that hurdle then it would be possible to have a conversation. One where we listen to each other rather than trying to win an argument.

 

[Bradskii]

Please don't take this as an attack on you...

But...the rest of your post.

However, I agree with you. We are the sum of our characteristics, our opinions, our beliefs. Challenge those and you challenge the person holding them. It's quite difficult to play just the ball rather than the man when the man is holding to the ball so tightly.

Make a racist statement and I will call you a racist. Do something heroic and I will call you a hero. Yeah, it's more complex than that, but your post stand up because of the information that you have available. That is, the opinions of the person with whom you are debating.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just a couple of points. And first up, I'm going to use the term 'race' even though there's an argument that there's no such thing. But in this context it's shorthand for 'people of different ethnic backgrounds'.

Sure.

Firstly 'systematic racism' is a consequence of our natural inherrent racism. That is, an evolutionary wariness of 'the other'. So you are more comfortable in a group of people that you consider to the 'the same' and less comfortable in situations where you're in group of people that are different (and it doesn't only apply to race - it's applicable to 'social class', gender, nationality etc).

I'm sorry, this is a new one. It's completely different from any other definition I've heard so bear with me on a couple of questions.

If it has nothing to do with racial beliefs and merely discomfort around strangers...

Why are we calling it racism of any kind?

Secondly, why would you think we all feel discomfort around strangers? I've been alone in cities where not only was I not the same race, I didn't speak the language, and I didn't have any discomfort.

And most people in a group tend to congregate and socialise with those with whom they feel more comfortable. This has the effect of emphasising the differences, whether we are conscious of them or not. And if you are part of 'the system' - which effectively means 'society', then we'll see the effects.

I'm sorry, but the rational conclusions of this would require a history rewrite.

The problem is, a lot of us, if asked, would claim that we are not racist. So if it's pointed out that we are part of a society, hence 'a system' and that there is an underlying racism, therefore 'systematic racism', there is a tendency to bristle. Say what? Not me, buddy! But if we argue against it, we are saying that none of what I said above is true. Well, maybe you believe that.

I don't....and the rational conclusions of this are troubling. If racism is an innate function of our biology, none can ever be guilty of it. Multiculturalism would inevitably fail because of it. It would justify the emphatic advocacy for one's own race alone.

Fortunately there's a lot of evidence to the contrary.

I've worked in S. E. Asia where I was in a significant minority as regards race. And in an office situation where I held a reasonably senior position, I wasn't aware of any racism towards me. My position buffered me from that. But...if I found myself in an area where I was in a distinct minority then I was looked upon a lot differently. I was the one subject to 'systematic racism' (and I know this because I used to hang around with a friend who was the same 'race' but spoke the local lingo fluently. On more than one ocassion he suggested that we move on because of what was being said). So...it depends on who you are in the scheme of things as to whether you'll sufffer from this. It ain't code for 'white priviledge. It's code for 'whoever-is-in-the-dominant-position priviledge'.

There's plenty of evidence that our brains engage in pattern seeking behavior. There's plenty of evidence that we are comfortable with the familiar.

But without the presence of racist beliefs I can't describe what you're talking about as racism. I don't even see the connection. It seems more like you're talking about generalized anxiety disorder.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Please don't take this as an attack on you. This is just my perception, my experience, of you on this forum.

No worries.

I can't remember you starting a thread or having much involvement in threads which aren't about propping up whites and/or putting down blacks.

You would only need to go as far back as 2016 to see me rebutting ideas like "Hillary is going to start a war with Syria!"....or maybe it was Iran.

Now, there was also discussion of race but it tended to be pointing out the increasingly hate-filled and hostile rhetoric that was increasingly becoming common.

The people who mocked such things as being of no consequence...were the same people who would act outraged at even the mere possibility that someone had acted racist towards a minority. The blatant hypocrisy of this was difficult to reconcile for me. Did these people actually care about racism or not?

I only recall one openly admitting he didn't care about racism toward whites at all. I appreciated the honesty even if I found the attitude disgusting.

The last thread I noticed you created before this one was you gloating about the leader of BLM getting into trouble.

Yeah.

I often also find you generalising grossly about the left as if all people that don't support Trump or the Republican party are liberal lefitist socialists.

I try not to generalize and I'm sorry if it comes off that way.

I don't find your generalisations to be particularly insightful or accurate. They are insanely combative and come across as extremely arrogant.

Could you possibly provide an example?

In trying to discuss institutionalised racism with you, I found you to be unwilling to listen, unwilling to try to understand nuances and unwilling to appreciate how difficult it is, given the history of blacks in USA for them as an overall society to get onto the success ladder, but instead I have found you to be very quick to comeback with what I find to be oversimplified retorts.

I can understand that.

For my part, the people who begin those discussions don't seem to actually want to engage in discussion. They want to preach, or lay blame, or otherwise demonize a segment of the population. They appear to be unwilling to consider any other possibilities...other than the one that happens to align directly with the narrative put forth by the political left. They appear so unwilling to engage in serious dialogue that any attempts to do so simply result in them calling someone racist.

Which, ironically, is a word they continually redefine.

I was hoping that by making this thread I could gain some insight into something I might be missing....and I'm still hoping it will.

Much like I would expect a teenager who has a strong sense of wrong and right, being very stubborn with their black and white thinking.

Well again, for my part, I'm willing to consider any explanations, definitions, or narratives that are coherent. I don't feel any shame for the way I see things because I know I'm not racist.

If it's any consolation for you, I can promise you that because of the way I see racism...the only way I think it's correct to interact with someone is the same way I would interact with anyone of any race. It truly doesn't matter to me. So when I chastise or criticize or lay into anyany of a minority race, I would do the same to someone white.

The rise in anti-white racism and it's normalization means there's usually a dozen posters doing it already. I try to point out the racists they ignore or overlook.

When I saw this thread title, and having been started by you, I thought, oh no, here we go again, yet another thread based on racism, probably focused on White rights or to whinge about how poorly whites are being treated, and most likely blaming the left all about this.

I get that.

Well, the first half of your OP was actually looking quite good. But then the second half met all my preconceived expectations.

Would you think the same if I were black and there was a daily stream of blatantly racist writers and content producers saying racist things about black people?

I strongly disagree with your ideas about what systematic racism is, and what you believe to be the cause for any uprise in White power groups.

Ok. I would guess that you think it's got something to do with Trump?

If he died tomorrow....would the rise in white supremacists slow or reverse?

What I would like, would be for you to stop generalising about the left as if all people who support either social liberalism or financial liberalism or social safety nets are the same.

I'm actually strongly in favor of improving social safety nets...but I don't see the left talk about that anymore. Now it seems to propose ideas like political indoctrination of children (which I argued against when the right wanted to teach creationism) and racial discrimination, which the left used to see as monstrously unjust.

It's been a disappointment for a former liberal. I don't even label myself anymore because so rarely does anyone say anything I think. I naively thought we all shared values....but it appears I was wrong. It's hard to understand why, but it seems like it's related to the demographic shift the Democratic party always anticipated hoped would seal their hold on the government...but embracing identity politics requires abandoning principles and values.

I would also like for you to be more inquisitive about what other people think. I don't think you have learned to listen. I think you have a very poor understanding of your opponents side of this topic. And I feel that you want to fight rather than discuss. That you just want to tell your opponents that they are wrong and not based on fact, that you are right and are factual. I do not find it a very endearing trait and it makes it very hard to have an engaging and respectful conversation with you.

I've noticed.

Anyway, maybe I'll get a warning for posting about YOU rather than the topic, IDK but probably.
I would like to have a decent conversation with you on this topic though, but I find it hard because I don't feel that you listen so i'm trying to point out what makes it hard for me to talk to you about this topic. If we get over that hurdle then it would be possible to have a conversation. One where we listen to each other rather than trying to win an argument.

I'd like that too. I opened myself up to criticism here. I'm not reporting anyone and I'd like if no one else did either.

I understand the way I come off. Allow me a little bit of introspection.

I decided god didn't exist at 10 or 11. A neighborhood friend came over to play basketball with me and began preaching of heaven and hell, my eternal soul, and forgiveness for my sins. Ideas I was barely exposed to...I had never been to church despite both parents believing. I was curious, I asked questions, he didn't have answers. When it became apparent to me that he did not know why he believed what he believed...I felt a range of emotions from pity, to disdain, and then perhaps shock. I turned the idea over and over in my head for a few weeks until I concluded he only believed because it was the story he was told by those he loved and trusted....those like himself. It seemed something monstrously wrong was done to him. I rejected his ideas, and decided that I didn't want it to happen to me.

It's a pretty formative moment for me I've realized. It forced me to search hard and consider hard any possibilities I can imagine regardless of their taboo nature or extreme fringe labels. I called myself a liberal a long time, though more centrist because I genuinely agreed with both sides on different topics. Some topics I found no agreement with anyone. They are to my knowledge, my beliefs alone.

Since the embracing of identity politics, the intellectual diversity of the left is disappearing in my view and there's no room for the likes of me. It's not something I'm unused to. I don't feel any shame in representing myself honestly, but I do feel embarrassed if I offer platitudes simply to avoid confrontation. Every sincere discussion of my beliefs has involved confrontation and it doesn't bother me at all anymore.

I'd rather you hate me for who I am than pretend to be a person you like. Such a thing feels like its disrespectful to you...and it cheapens my image of myself. Without any worldview, philosophy, religion, or political agenda that describes me well...I have realized my thoughts are uncomfortable for many people.

This is an attempt to consider wherein my faults in thinking lie...at least in regards to one set of beliefs.

 

[Kentonio]

I can't make any sense of the power plus prejudice definition at all.

Generally I have no problem with new definitions if they lead to a better understanding or have more utility.

This definition appears to have neither.

For example, let's imagine an Asian tennis player being shouted at by the audience and the abuse includes racial epithets.

What is the power dynamic there? Do they have more power than her? Does she have more than them? Is the referee racist if he doesn't stop it? How do we assess the races of the individuals in the crowd and consequently their relationship with power?

It's an absurd question and if I subject it to a thousand people with the power+prejudice definition as their guide....I would expect a variety of answers on who is racist and why.

This sort of analysis which the definition requires never happens. I've never seen anyone who professed believing the definition engage in such analysis.

As far as new definitions go....it's useless. If I asked everyone if the crowd is racist, I'm certain that they would say yes because they don't honestly believe the power+prejudice definition....apart from defending their own racist beliefs.



Does that seem different from my number #2 expression of racism?

When other people say "systemic racism" do you equate that with someone just saying that "a group of people within a system are engaging in racial discrimination"?




I don't think they would claim so because of the mockery and denial that typically follows the suggestion that a white person was discriminated against by a black person. It's a taboo topic in our society.

Systematic racism is not just 'lots of people in an organisation are racist'. It's racism built into the very operation and function of an organisation to the extent that it not only perpetuates racism but trains those within it to become increasingly racist.

If you genuinely want to learn more, read the MacPherson Report from the UK. A huge independently led state investigation into racism within the police and other national organisations.

 

[LockeeDeck]

I can't make any sense of the power plus prejudice definition at all.

Generally I have no problem with new definitions if they lead to a better understanding or have more utility.

This definition appears to have neither.

For example, let's imagine an Asian tennis player being shouted at by the audience and the abuse includes racial epithets.

What is the power dynamic there? Do they have more power than her? Does she have more than them? Is the referee racist if he doesn't stop it? How do we assess the races of the individuals in the crowd and consequently their relationship with power?

It's an absurd question and if I subject it to a thousand people with the power+prejudice definition as their guide....I would expect a variety of answers on who is racist and why.

This sort of analysis which the definition requires never happens. I've never seen anyone who professed believing the definition engage in such analysis.

As far as new definitions go....it's useless. If I asked everyone if the crowd is racist, I'm certain that they would say yes because they don't honestly believe the power+prejudice definition....apart from defending their own racist beliefs.

One thing that stands out to me is you saying that the race of the audience would be to known to know their relationship with power. This is a misunderstanding of how power dynamics work. Race doesn't determine power, position relative to another determines power. During Jim Crow laws and norms were enacted to make whites have a more powerful position over blacks simply by the nature of being white but that was an artificial state that doesn't really exist today. Nowadays we need to worry more about people in positions of power, such as police, abusing their power in different ways, including but not limited to racist ways.

As for your example, you are correct to assess the power dynamics in play are murky. I would assess that the audience is trying to gain a position of power over the player by demoralizing the player and that the referee has no power over the audience. Does this make the audience racist under that definition? In this scenario I would give a tentative yes in that as a collective they are trying to assert power over the player.

Does that seem different from my number #2 expression of racism?

When other people say "systemic racism" do you equate that with someone just saying that "a group of people within a system are engaging in racial discrimination"?

Sorta, it's that any system is comprised of people following rules and norms. Many of the rules and norms were set down during more explicitly racist times by more explicitly racist people and as such the system has inherited an explicitly racist tone even if the individuals are not racist themselves.

I don't think they would claim so because of the mockery and denial that typically follows the suggestion that a white person was discriminated against by a black person. It's a taboo topic in our society.

A friend of mine once told me a story of how a black man got hired as a shift manager and the new manager only gave out shifts to his black friends and shutting my friend out. It's entirely possible for a white person to be discriminated by a black person and I don't really think it's taboo to talk about. The issue is that black people have so few positions of power (ironically because of past discrimination) where they could exercise discrimination that it is hard to find examples.

 

[LockeeDeck]

Open expression of anti-white racism. To a certainty, it's nothing new.

I think there's a certain disregard or passivity to it...because it's been seen understandable as a reaction to white racism. I don't think it's harmless though, nor do I think it's fair to assume that we can somehow eliminate it if we can just figure out the "right way" to regard white people.

I don't think this is entirely self serving either. When I see a black man assault an Asian woman on the news, it seems absurd to assume that somehow, someway, a white person is to blame. We can easily find out why he thinks what he does.

Consider a hypothetical scenario where we magically eliminate all racism in white people. We have a talented black student of chemistry advancing through college and his classes progressively become more white and asian. He happens to hold deeply negative views about these groups decides to avoid a career in the field.

This would generally be considered a negative outcome, an opportunity wasted.

Outside of a few twitter posts I haven't seen much open expression of anti-white racism. I assume it does exist as all forms of racism between groups exists but the focus is on individuals with the most power. This is why people focused on the president and what he has said more than any individual action by minorities against other minorities because what he said contributed to those racist actions.

It doesn't, and I'm not sure what I wrote that might give you that impression.

You are holding that anti-white discrimination is happening and that it is a cause for concern and a priority but you have really only held up CRT as an example of such discrimination. For people who have experienced true marginalization this seems horribly naive at best and an insulting way to belittle to their own lived experience at worst.

I can understand that. Perhaps you prioritize things differently from me. I see racial discrimination in law and policy as most damaging and something worth fighting against.

You are correct laws and policy are high priority but there are also unwritten norms to consider when assessing priorities. There was no written rule that said NYPD should go out and stop and frisk black people but a norm was built up within the department to do so. In a systematic and racist way you could say.

The same can be said of all past deeds.

Many of lots of past deeds go unpunished. Many current deeds go unpunished. This is the nature of justice, it's imperfect.

I cannot, in good conscience, support treating the innocent as guilty by nothing more than the color of their skin. It's hard for me to respect anyone who does.

I'm not sure in what way the innocent are being treated as guilty.

 

[Whyayeman]

First, well done Ana for initiating the most interesting thread I have encountered in my (admittedly short) time on these forums.

My initial thoughts about the discussion - all of it, not just Ana's - were that there is a bit too much of the Hamlet about it; over-thinking the issues. Definitions can help, of course, but we are discussing lived experience, not an academic subject. We don't need to consult a text book when we encounter racist behaviour. We know it when we see it.

Racism in America and the UK has its roots in slavery. There is no escaping this. The Black population of America is largely descended from slaves brought to your country by - overwhelmingly - British vessels in the so called Triangular Trade. British power and prosperity is pretty well founded on this fact; there is no avoiding it. The effects on America are just as profound. Your Civil War was in large part a consequence and the ramifications of that war reverberate even now.

No discussion of racism in modern America or the UK will make progress unless this history is acknowledged as the root of racist attitudes in our countries.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Systematic racism is not just 'lots of people in an organisation are racist'. It's racism built into the very operation and function of an organisation to the extent that it not only perpetuates racism but trains those within it to become increasingly racist.

This is what I mean by anthropomorphizing a system.

How does, for example, the police system "perpetuate and train" those within it to be racist?

Do you think if we had access to every training session or policy we'll find something that imparts racist beliefs and attitudes into the people working there?

 

[Ana the Ist]

First, well done Ana for initiating the most interesting thread I have encountered in my (admittedly short) time on these forums.

Hey thanks. I realized the perception of my posts was not helpful and that by explaining my thoughts and opening them to criticism, I might be able to change that.

I think @stevil post above is close to how many see me. I'm aware that I likely care too little about the opinions of others.

My initial thoughts about the discussion - all of it, not just Ana's - were that there is a bit too much of the Hamlet about it; over-thinking the issues. Definitions can help, of course, but we are discussing lived experience, not an academic subject. We don't need to consult a text book when we encounter racist behaviour. We know it when we see it.

Do we? I have the viewpoint of a rationalist. The "I know it when I see it" approach is the same approach taken by many faiths in regard to miracles. I genuinely believe in innocent until proven guilty. I don't like widespread condemnation in the absence of evidence.

Racism in America and the UK has its roots in slavery. There is no escaping this. The Black population of America is largely descended from slaves brought to your country by - overwhelmingly - British vessels in the so called Triangular Trade. British power and prosperity is pretty well founded on this fact; there is no avoiding it. The effects on America are just as profound. Your Civil War was in large part a consequence and the ramifications of that war reverberate even now.

Sure.

No discussion of racism in modern America or the UK will make progress unless this history is acknowledged as the root of racist attitudes in our countries.

Well...the root, sure. I think modern racist attitudes share more in common with the events and perceptions of recent decades.

 

[Kentonio]

This is what I mean by anthropomorphizing a system.

How does, for example, the police system "perpetuate and train" those within it to be racist?

Do you think if we had access to every training session or policy we'll find something that imparts racist beliefs and attitudes into the people working there?

Can I assume you didn't bother to go and read that report then?

 

[MehGuy]

I do not always understand some of your viewpoints but I do enjoy reading your posts. You have pretty unique perspectives about things and consequently have given me a lot of food for thought.

 

[Whyayeman]

The "I know it when I see it" approach is the same approach taken by many faiths in regard to miracles. I genuinely believe in innocent until proven guilty. I don't like widespread condemnation in the absence of evidence.

I share your enthusiasm for rationality. However, my point there is that racist behaviour is experienced directly by its victims without the need for analysis. A crude (but widespread until very recently) example is the habit of addressing black men with the term 'Boy'; the use of the 'N' word was current in the UK in my lifetime. I am sure other insulting racial words will spring to mind. It does not take much rational thinking to see these as racially derogatory.

I do not think the reference to miracles is a very useful analogy. I have never seen a miracle and don't expect to. At best we would agree that they are (vanishingly) rare events. Racism of the kind mentioned above is encountered only too frequently and it is not hard to recognise.

I think modern racist attitudes share more in common with the events and perceptions of recent decades.

I do not agree with this. Our cultures are imbued with the after-effects of slavery; modern racist attitudes are direct descendants of the master-slave relationship (as in 'boy'). The history of emancipation of slaves in the USA is still reflected in the unequal access to wealth and status of modern American society. Other differentials will readily come to mind. My own country is replete with the reminders of slavery. Many of our famous stately homes were built with the proceeds of slavery.

The experiences of recent decades are inevitably connected with our histories.

 

[Ana the Ist]

One thing that stands out to me is you saying that the race of the audience would be to known to know their relationship with power. This is a misunderstanding of how power dynamics work. Race doesn't determine power, position relative to another determines power.

This is part of the problem with the definition. I've heard it most often preceded by the phrase "black people cannot be racist".

Now, you're telling me it has nothing to do with race....power, that is.

During Jim Crow laws and norms were enacted to make whites have a more powerful position over blacks simply by the nature of being white but that was an artificial state that doesn't really exist today. Nowadays we need to worry more about people in positions of power, such as police, abusing their power in different ways, including but not limited to racist ways.

If that's a real problem then yes....we would have to do something about it. Obviously we would all like it if the police were perfect, but since they're human, that's not possible...especially in a police force so large.

We cannot also expect them to not have to ever use deadly force. They get shot at hundreds of times a year. It would be irresponsible to not prepare them for that type of danger.

So given these points (and you can disagree if you want)....what exactly is the "problem" how do you identify it....and what is the threshold for which it should be a primary focus for our attention and efforts to fix it?

For example, if I were to say that there's a problem with the Baltimore police being corrupt, I'd offer you evidence of corruption (planting evidence, false testimonies, taking bribes etc) I'd try to figure out what percentage of the police are doing this (anything over say 5% is something in dire need of fixing)....and then I'd tell you how to fix it.

That's generally what a problem solving process looks like to me. I don't see anything remotely similar happening now.

As for your example, you are correct to assess the power dynamics in play are murky. I would assess that the audience is trying to gain a position of power over the player by demoralizing the player and that the referee has no power over the audience. Does this make the audience racist under that definition? In this scenario I would give a tentative yes in that as a collective they are trying to assert power over the player.

As for myself, it would almost entirely depend upon the reaction of the tennis player, if she can get those hecklers rejected by halting the game....she's clearly in a position of power and, I guess it wasn't racist?

Honestly, the word power seems deliberately vague and completely subjective. One could argue that men are more "powerful" than women so women can't be racist. I'm pretty sure we all know that isn't true.

If you listened to a recorded conversation between two people you knew nothing about, I'm certain you would still be able to discern racist statements and beliefs.

It seems like the definition does not add anything to the discussion.

Sorta, it's that any system is comprised of people following rules and norms. Many of the rules and norms were set down during more explicitly racist times by more explicitly racist people and as such the system has inherited an explicitly racist tone even if the individuals are not racist themselves.



A friend of mine once told me a story of how a black man got hired as a shift manager and the new manager only gave out shifts to his black friends and shutting my friend out. It's entirely possible for a white person to be discriminated by a black person and I don't really think it's taboo to talk about. The issue is that black people have so few positions of power (ironically because of past discrimination) where they could exercise discrimination that it is hard to find examples.

Is it? Most white people I know have at least a couple of times they faced racial discrimination or hatred. I can certainly understand that some don't.

I think it feels like a small thing to many white people to complain about words spoken to them or about them by a racist when there's an unending discussion of slavery and Jim Crow in this nation....but I don't think it's a small issue.

Left unchecked it just grows and normalizes.

 

[Whyayeman]

Most white people I know have at least a couple of times they faced racial discrimination or hatred.

Most black people I know experience racial discrimination a bit more often than that. But that is in the UK. Is the American experience so different?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I share your enthusiasm for rationality. However, my point there is that racist behaviour is experienced directly by its victims without the need for analysis.

Why? A man who doesn't get a job can certainly claim that they were discriminated against by race or anything else....but does that make it true?

I'll listen and consider, but lacking evidence I cannot condemn.

A crude (but widespread until very recently) example is the habit of addressing black men with the term 'Boy'; the use of the 'N' word was current in the UK in my lifetime. I am sure other insulting racial words will spring to mind. It does not take much rational thinking to see these as racially derogatory.

Do you think that every time a minority race calls a grown man "whiteboy" it's derogatory?

I do not think the reference to miracles is a very useful analogy. I have never seen a miracle and don't expect to. At best we would agree that they are (vanishingly) rare events. Racism of the kind mentioned above is encountered only too frequently and it is not hard to recognise.

How do you recognize it?

I do not agree with this. Our cultures are imbued with the after-effects of slavery; modern racist attitudes are direct descendants of the master-slave relationship (as in 'boy'). The history of emancipation of slaves in the USA is still reflected in the unequal access to wealth and status of modern American society. Other differentials will readily come to mind. My own country is replete with the reminders of slavery. Many of our famous stately homes were built with the proceeds of slavery.

The experiences of recent decades are inevitably connected with our histories.

The most relevant example of this that I can think of is the term "uncle tom" which is an accusation white people have no real equivalent for. It's an idea that siding with a white person or working with them or something similar is a traitorous acquiescence. I think it's awful, and unfortunately it's a term most often heard coming from black people, and I think it's potentially damaging the potential and opportunities for the group. I don't really know though. As I said, we don't really look at racism in any other community than whites.

Given that, I was thinking about the gang hood drug dealing criminal racial belief that proliferated in the late 80s, early 90, and through culture remains today. I think that its extremely prevalent and doesn't appear connected to slavery at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most black people I know experience racial discrimination a bit more often than that. But that is in the UK. Is the American experience so different?

It's a large country and I cannot speak for anyone else. Last I checked, 70% of black people reported experiencing racism in their lifetime, 30% did not. Undoubtedly some get it more than others.