Reply With Quote
Tl; dr. FWIW I already feel guilty enough about shouting, "White Power!", in my sleep.
Which basically boils down to a difference in semantics.
My educational background includes a lot of /multicultural/feminist theory, and the trend there is to verbally differentiate between racism, which is always systemic, and prejudice, which is typically personal. In order to allow for a theoretical discussion of the topic, it is important to make this distinction particularly when addressing the sorts of issues brought up in the OP -- situations in which people who may not be overtly or consciously prejudiced are nonetheless influenced by the stereotypes that are reinforced and disseminated through the systems of ins utional racism. When the two terms are kept separate and used to address separate issues, it becomes possible to more closely scrutinize the issues surrounding racial inequality. For instance, not everyone harbors racial prejudice, but everyone has to live in and navigate a racist society.
It is not, by any means, intended to absolve any particular group of personal responsibility or to suggest that people in oppressed groups can't be prejudiced. Of course they can. And it's every bit as ignorant when "they" stubbornly hold on to pervasive cultural stereotypes as when "we" do it.
Poor whites are made powerless in our society due to other aspects of their iden y or due to their socioeconomic status. They still, however, benefit from racial privilege based on their whiteness. For example, if you had two people who were identical in all other categories of iden y and class, but one of them was white and the other was a person of color, the white person would have a slight edge.
Tl; dr. FWIW I already feel guilty enough about shouting, "White Power!", in my sleep.
That is so generalized as to be meaningless. This is not a one size fits all situation. You can have generalized policies, groupthink and whatnot but there is the reality of the individual. Standing on one's own is a meaningful ethic.
I've never suggested otherwise. All I've said in this thread is that these two levels of racism/prejudice -- the general, societal, ins utional vs. the personal/individual -- operate differently and that it is therefore useful to differentiate between the two semantically.
My hypothetical example responding to m>s was intentionally general because I was referring to the broad category of ins utional/systemic racism. I still maintain that between two people who share all categories of iden y/class except race, the white person is at a societal advantage and is in general the recipient of privilege over the person of color based on the fact that we live in a culture that privileges whiteness. The hypothetical is not intended to negate or ignore the preferences or goals of the individuals in power or to absolve the individuals not in power of personal responsibility for their actions or ethic.
I thought I was pretty clear in my first post that the suggestion people of color couldn't be racist was not necessarily the same thing as suggesting that people of color couldn't hold racially prejudiced views. However, most people's responses indicate the two concepts are still being conflated.
The need to categorize things just pigeonholes. You are dancing around the issue using semantics. You are creating the dynamic then using it as a basis of argument. Its circular logic. Define things as you see fit but it still is what it is.
Its being conflated because despite your viewpoint that they are mutually exclusive en ies, they in reality are not. Ins utions are manned by individuals. Individual inputs comprise group-think and action. It just sounds to me like you make the demarcation so you can claim that certain actions are not racist precisely because of the semantic connotations of the word. You use the definitions so you can tell yourself its not hypocritical.
A white woman (most privileged group in America) is in no position to talk to a white man (most persecuted group in America) about equality. Tell it to the white males coming out of college who now have to compete with affirmative action and race/gender quotas.
Yeah, poor whitey...
Lol white people are either racist or the annoying ones that carry their huge anti racism flags.
Watch "Crash".
The bodycount of black people in the Dark (lol) Knight is impressive
Gambol
2 of Gambol's henchmen
Comissioner Loeb
3 black cops
But to be fair, Joker is really white
Are you serious?
C'mon now..
You mean those big plantation owners weren't black
Come on man. Obviously I was talking about selling to the slave traders who brought them over.
A journey/process that weeded out the weak, so only the strong survived. And yes it was just like Jimmy the Greek said.
How To Tell People They Sound Racist
In short " you're a racist even though you don't act like one or say anything but still a racist all the same and all you have to do is look at the Zimmerman/Martin case to prove my theory" Got it, thanks and God bless.
I honestly dont think there is a human being on this Earth who isn't a little racist tbh.
Sure there are. I'll admit to being a "class-ist" and a "character-ist" but race doesn't mean anything to me.
That you think I've argued for the terms' mutual exclusivity indicates a misunderstanding of my point (or my own failure at expressing it clearly/completely). The point is not that one can EITHER be racist OR prejudiced and that such a distinction is made along racial lines. The prejudice felt or expressed by individuals is the same regardless who's feeling it. The only difference is that prejudices felt or expressed by oppressed groups aren't ever going to be manifest in a societal/cultural system of racial privilege. People of color are likely prejudiced at the same rate and to the same degree that white folks are, but the reality of the situation is that the white privilege from which I benefit isn't threatened as a result.
This essay is a good read, and probably does a better job at explaining what I'm getting at than I have, if you're interested.
Everybody on some level is racist. Accept it and move on.
Are you suggesting minorities aren't in positions of power and privilege?
Are some people of color in positions of power within their lives or specific situations? Of course.
Can people of color be in positions of power/privilege based on certain other aspects of their iden y? Absolutely.
But are people of color, as a group, in a position of power or the recipients of racial privilege within our society? No.
Racism is racism, whether it involves groups of people or individuals.
Then by your definition this is not an oppressive society and I have seen super market lines in Meridian, MS. The bold is just absurd. There as so many cliches in broadcast and print media that are "manifest in a societal/cultural system of racial privilege" that I don't even think it should be necessary to point them out.
Take the Texas Congressional Redistricting procedure. If that is not a racially oppressive process cultural system then i do not know what is. However due in no small part the ever more increasing representation of minorities the judicial process is able to be used to enforce the view, re: prejudices, of how minorities would want the districts drawn. By virtue of advocating districts populated by minorities that is prejudicial. That particular white privilege is very much so threatened.
Does that not make the GOP districting policy not racist? Not to me.
I agree that I misunderstood the approach you were taking but my point remains the same. At best its an existential argument but arguments about the separation of consciousness and the mind aside you are making the assumption that there is a single definition of terms. The one you are using certainly doesn't jive with conventional wisdom and as your author points out it doesn't even match the definition in the dictionary.
It just strikes me as a position that allows one to judge policy without muddying the waters with the views of the individual or that prejudice based on race can be benign or even positive. Your author even claims that she rejects the definition in the asking 'whose interest does it serve?' I wonder why that is even necessary.
I don't like broad generalizations to begin with because I think they muddy understanding of what is actually going on. 'Enforceable negative racial prejudice' just doesn't work for me for a word whose roots are 'race' and the suffix -ism. I don't deny the reality of what your author describes however I think inserting that reality into what is already a disputed term serves nobody.
This is a racist statement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
