djchameleon

Transformers are aliens.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

riseagainstrocks

We're still in the middle of it, but JWB and myself have had a pretty good conversation so far regarding what 'racism' is. I'm of the mind that racism necessarily has a political/social control element that can't be exercised by minority groups and that prejudice is what is felt by everyone, regardless of social or political strata. Mord's anecdotes here go along way toward strengthening my position.

Once we either reach consensus or go as far as the conversation takes us, I'll publish the relevant sections on here (provided JWB is OK with it). Might be illuminating for others.

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

The Batlord

I still don't understand why racism needs to be redefined when "institutionalized racism" exists? There's no need to go rearranging the dictionary.

__________________

djchameleon

The dictionary is slightly modified all the time depending on current usage by the populous.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

The Batlord

We're not talking about natural evolution over time by any kind of majority. This is just hijacking a word and completely redefining it according to the opinions of a very small group of people whose usage isn't even widely known by the general population.

__________________

riseagainstrocks

Because words have practical applications. Being racist is like being xenophobic or homophobic, etc etc. Unless you have a means of imposing it, who cares? You're just a person with a belief system.

Our conversations about racism, as a country, can't be about the individual beliefs of 320 million people. They have to be in the aggregate. I used to get really angry when I heard black academics say that "only white people can be racist". After reading about and considering the issue (slowly and over many years), I actually understand what they mean. Anyone can hate anyone else for any petty reason. In America, as European white folks are the dominant ethnic group, nearly all of our political and social institutions reflect that (America is white, Christian, conservative, generally egalitarian in outlook, and generally compassionate in conduct. Some good, some bad, but all directly informed by the Western European heritage of our founders + first 80 million residents.). Therefore, racism, the ideology of racial superiority, can only be enacted by the group that controls said political and social institutions. Other groups can hate. Minorities can believe their own group is superior to the majority. But what can they do about that? Pass laws? Use the police department to enforce social order?

This is what I and many of those academics mean. "Blacks can't be racist" is an unfortunate shorthand than 100% does not address the nuance of the argument and I have no doubt it's used as a club by ignorant black folk. I just want white people to not make the same short-cutting mistake. It's a subtle argument and quite a powerful one, imho.

"Institutional racism" is, in light of the above, almost redundant. It also removes agency from all parties by painting racial issues as systemic or inherent to either governance or the human condition, as opposed to the artificial barriers they are.

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

Frownland

What a bizarre premise. I'm not even trying to be snide, it just literally doesn't seem sensible to me.

Then make that clear when you have those discussions on a larger level. Win win. This goes back to what I've said on this subject before: it's a valid concept for academia as it would remove a lot of qualifying that would clutter up a paper, but that doesn't mean that it's a firm rule to redifine the word by.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

riseagainstrocks

How so? What I'm getting at is the personal beliefs of any one individual are rather meaningless in the scheme of things. Who cares if the guy on the corner thinks all Asians are sneaky or all white people love Trump - his beliefs don't have any effect on others. He can't enact policy, pass laws, deny rights, etc. Now if those views are held by the dominant group that also controls political and social levers of control...

That's what I was driving at. I don't care about the white-genocide advocating, radical black preacher. Racist? I guess yes, as the word is used colloquially. Can he use the system to oppress me? No.

I've spent time thinking about this because every time the alt-right/associated groups would be accused of race-baiting or racist statements they'd point to fringe black movements or hardcore, misandrists feminists groups as in "see they do it too". I started working on a, 'it doesn't matter, you're the ones that actually hold power and influence so if you want to be the leaders and adults you keep saying you are, ****ing act like it' response. Results have been.... mixed. Racial politics are NOT my forte haha

I'm not necessarily trying to redefine the word as it's commonly used, just trying to show that racism is not uniquely black/white or a Western phenomenon, but happens almost everywhere when a dominant group controls the means of governance; and the importance of the "governance" aspect to expression of racism, which is often overlooked. I know the dictionaries say it's a "belief" but the "ism" suffix is what gets me. Almost all "isms" have some form of an ideological skeleton, around which movements are built (Judaism, Communism, Nazism, Dominionism, etc.).

None of this means this still isn't one of my all-time favorite gifs:

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...

Frownland

This just reads like a bandwagon argument to me and reflects my thought that your argument confuses the trend for the rule. Do we define beliefs by how easily they can be enacted? This concept adds a lot of baggage to a pretty straightforward descriptor.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

riseagainstrocks

I understand your concern regarding the 'bandwagon' argument. I don't mean to say repulsive beliefs shouldn't be opposed no matter how widespread, I'm arguing that we should expend our political capital on those fights that are "worth it". I define worth in this case by how widespread and pervasive they are. Rally in Charlottesville that drew thousands of self-described white supremacists? Worth it. Tumblr blog with a couple thousand hits a year? Probably not.

In terms of "what is racism", I'm essentially arguing that the power dynamic is so at the fore, the ability to substantively 'act' on one's beliefs, that other concerns have to be considered after said dynamic is addressed. So while "racism" can be expressed by anyone, in America, racism expressed by white men is much more concerning that any equivalent vitriol coming from another group. Hence it being a rebuttal to "but look they do it too".


edit: I'm enjoying these questions/counters. I'm having to reconsider and sharpen my argument and might actually be able to get a self-contained, succinct argument here soon

__________________
One note timeless, came out of nowhere...