Support NeoGAF

[Karkador]

It makes you racist in the same way that telling a lie makes you a liar. Which is to say, if someone catches you in a lie, there's a chance they're going to say that you're a liar. Whether that label becomes a temporary thing, a description of what you were doing in the moment ('saying something racist'; 'telling a lie') or whether that label becomes a description of who you are at heart probably depends on whether you keep saying racist things and how attached you are to racist attitudes.

This makes a lot of sense.

 

[blitzcloud]

This is absolutely untrue.

You can be racist because you think that Asians are computers, or because you think that a certain race of woman will always make a good wife.

Racism is super broad. I really don't understand why people often want to narrow the discussion of it down to this definition.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles/racism

well, that's what dictionaries say. You want to go ahead and give the word a broader meaning? Okay, but don't expect everyone to keep up. Words are starting to be like drivers, where you don't know if you're on the latest version. For now, the dictionary versions will have to suffice because that's what the word means officially.

 

[wildfire]

This is absolutely untrue.

You can be racist because you think that Asians are computers, or because you think that a certain race of woman will always make a good wife.

Racism is super broad. I really don't understand why people often want to narrow the discussion of it down to this definition.

To be fair we do have a word that doesn't get racists riled up but still says the same thing.

Bigot.

 

[Who]

Because that's the definition of racism? Both of those examples you just made are showing favor to one race over another. I assume by Asians are computers you mean that Asians are good at math or intelligent or something. That's racist because it's automatically assuming that people of Asian heritage are going to be smart. It's saying that one race is better then another. It's positive, but it's still claiming superiority because of ones heritage.

If you're saying a certain race of woman will always make a good wife, you're implying that women of other races will make good wives less often. Which means you're saying that one race of women is better then the other.

I don't see how you can say it's untrue, and then use two examples which clearly show racism by claiming that one type of race is better at something then the other.

Noticing certain aspects of races being superior to others does not equal thinking that entire race is superior to other races. There are plenty of attributes you can judge a human on. I do think that Asians tend to perform better in mathematics, but not as a rule. A lot of it I think has to do with the highly disciplined nature of thier culture. So what you think I'm a racist?

 

[Slayven]

there it is

It's late, so maybe there is hope. Usually folks pull out the dictionary on the first page.

 

[SliceSabre]

A lot of white people seem to think that because they aren't burning crosses in a black person's yard then things they're doing and saying couldn't possibly be racism and black people are just overly sensitive.

They are wrong of course.

 

[Htown]

well, we've had merriam-webster and oxford, do I hear a cambridge? perhaps a dictionary.com?

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Oh, wow.



Exact same page, genius.




WRONG.

See above. Racial prejudice is a kinds of racism.

And my point is that not everything people are ignorant about is a racial prejudice. There are simply differences between peoples cultures that are facts that someone might not understand because of their lack of experience with it.

These aren't things I'm assuming, they're things that are true that I simply didn't know the reasoning for at the time because no one ever told me. You're essentially saying that unless you're totally familiar with every aspect of someone else's culture and the reasoning behind them, you're racist.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

To be fair we do have a word that doesn't get racists riled up but still says the same thing.

Bigot.

Bigot sounds meaner coming off the tongue, too. Nice hard consonants. Makes it easier to spit.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/es/definicion/ingles/racism

well, that's what dictionaries say. You want to go ahead and give the word a broader meaning? Okay, but don't expect everyone to keep up. Words are starting to be like drivers, where you don't know if you're on the latest version. For now, the dictionary versions will have to suffice because that's what the word means officially.

http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the...onary-definition-of-racism-too-white-for-you/

 

[soepje]

I have to disagree. "Racist" has a very negative connotation. A racist believes in the superiority of their race, not just that people of different races have different characteristics.

I hate to do this, but since we're basically defining a term here, Merriam-Webster agrees with me:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

Pretty much. I have the feeling the meaning or definition of the word changed over the years in some places. Makes sense that not everyone can find themselves in being called racist when the other person has suddenly decided to cover a lot more ground with the same word.

 

[blitzcloud]

Noticing certain aspects of races being superior to others does not equal thinking that entire race is superior to other races. There are plenty of attributes you can judge a human on. I do think that Asians tend to perform better in mathematics, but not as a rule. A lot of it I think has to do with the highly disciplined nature of thier culture. So what you think I'm a racist?

I thought it was a genetic thing due to diet rich in omega3 and phosphorus.

http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the...onary-definition-of-racism-too-white-for-you/

I think the definition is true to the racism root, and that dictionary you pointed to has the first record of the word racism being used, with an explanation that still stands today.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...e-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism

The problem is that when you say something that may be seen as racism you might actually be more "classist" than racist itself. Example, talking bad of a guy in a low position in a workforce that happens to be black may be mistakenly taken as a racist remark, but only because it happened to a person of color and not because of the content being inherently racist. To me it's quite easy, if the remark has to do with the skin color in a negative way it is racism. For everything else I give the benefit of the doubt until reiteration happens.

 

[Who]

I thought it was a genetic thing due to diet rich in omega3 and phosphorus.

Who knows what the cause is but there is no way to properly discuss things like this if everyone is so scared of being called a racist. It's ridiculous

 

[soundscream]

That is how I was taught as well, in the 1990s, in a US public school. I don't think the new definition helps anything, it just dilutes the word and ends discussion.

I grew up in the 90's going to a public school, and making any judgement about someone based off their race alone was taught as a racist act.

 

[Mumei]

Based soley off that statement? No. However if the person kept saying comments like that, then I'd see no problem with describing the commenter as a racist, even if he didn't necessarily "hate" the ethnic group in question.

Right. To reiterate what I said before: If you say something racist, I would say that what you said was racist or that you were being racist. If you keep saying racist things, I think you're a racist person. It wouldn't matter if they felt hatred or not.

 

[Version 3.0]

Oh, wow.



Exact same page, genius.




WRONG.

See above. Racial prejudice is a kinds of racism.

I guess this is a case of two people looking at the same thing and seeing something different? You're looking at the dictionary definition, it very distinctly clarifies that you are wrong, and you think it proves that you're right. I guess there's not much point in further discussion.

 

[KidGalactus]

And my point is that not everything people are ignorant about is a racial prejudice. There are simply differences between peoples cultures that are facts that someone might not understand because of their lack of experience with it.

These aren't things I'm assuming, they're things that are true that I simply didn't know the reasoning for at the time because no one ever told me. You're essentially saying that unless you're totally familiar with every aspect of someone else's culture and the reasoning behind them, you're racist.

To boil this down a little, if you assume anything about ANYONE just because of their race, you are being racist.

You don't have to be familiar with every aspect of every culture. Just ready people like people, and don't assume their race makes them any way.

 

[Nabbis]

http://www.diversityinc.com/ask-the...onary-definition-of-racism-too-white-for-you/

That article seems more of a list on why USA has a fucked up society while trying to connect itself to the point that the root of the problem is racism. Im finding it very hard to agree with this when my country does not really have this "white privilege", or at the very least the negative impact on minorities from the government and job providers is probably close to non-existent. Asking for a word to have a broader definition for problems mostly isolated to a single country is a little too much.

 

[Opiate]

That's pretty much it. The tendence of Americans to see racism and racists everywhere is perplexing to the point of self-parody, and attributing yourself a higher moral ground by mere virtue of language use or or symbolic gestures is incredibly sanctimonious.

I certainly sympathize with this position, and think it's sometimes true.

But it's important to note it comes from a very particular place. In America, at least, racism is very rarely explicit. Racism in most open forms is either explicitly illegal (e.g. you cannot refuse to serve Asian customers just because they're Asian), or deeply taboo (e.g. saying that you hate black people in public is likely to make you a social pariah in most places). Racism, in other words, is now deep underground in the US, or even just deeply subconscious; we can tell it's still there because large scale data shows us it's there (black people are less likely to get jobs with the same qualifications, more likely to be arrested for committing the same crime, etc.) but we can't point our finger at anyone in particular. Did that Hispanic person not get the job because the boss is racist against Hispanics or because there was simply a better qualified person for the job? It's very hard to tell, because so few people are dumb enough to say "Yeah, I just don't like Hispanics" out loud.

It turns many people in to shadow boxers, because it's so difficult to tell where the threat is coming from.

 

[Version 3.0]

To boil this down a little, if you assume anything about ANYONE just because of their race, you are being racist.

You don't have to be familiar with every aspect of every culture. Just ready people like people, and don't assume their race makes them any way.

Could you make it any broader? That's ridiculous. Racial traits do exist. You're asking the world to pretend they don't. I'm sorry, but if you tell me you're Japanese, and I assume you're shorter than me, I'm not a racist - even if that turns out to be false. Get real.

 

[CrankyJay]

Racism = prejudice + discrimination

prejudice alone is not racism

 

[Alexlf]

Racism = prejudice + discrimination

prejudice alone is not racism

Prejudice itself implies discrimination, ie assumptions with a negative connotation.

 

[CrankyJay]

Prejudice itself implies discrimination.

i'm boiling it down like this...

prejudice = "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"

discrimination = "action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice"

You can be prejudiced without actively discriminating, but you can't discriminate without being prejudiced.

 

[4Tran]

It turns many people in to shadow boxers, because it's so difficult to tell where the threat is coming from.

In many ways, it's a lot easier to garner support to fight against civil rights era prejudice than it is to do so against things like voter ID laws. Both are targeted towards vulnerable groups, but the latter are camouflaged well enough to pass under the radar.

Racism = prejudice + discrimination

prejudice alone is not racism

A racist attitude is still racist even if it isn't acted out.

 

[Alexlf]

i'm boiling it down like this...

prejudice = "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"

discrimination = "action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice"

You can be prejudiced without actively discriminating, but you can't discriminate without being prejudiced.

I was agreeing with you, I just see the word prejudice as negative regardless of use. For example, you wouldn't say someone is prejudiced for assuming they could, say, hold their breath for 5 minuets and failing. I'm just saying that ultimately the definition for racism is concise.

In many ways, it's a lot easier to garner support to fight against civil rights era prejudice than it is to do so against things like voter ID laws. Both are targeted towards vulnerable groups, but the latter are camouflaged well enough to pass under the radar.


A racist attitude is still racist even if it isn't acted out.

And what exactly does "a racist attitude" entail?

 

[Alexlf]

EDIT: Double post

 

[CrankyJay]

I was agreeing with you, I just see the word prejudice as negative regardless of use. For example, you wouldn't say someone is prejudiced for assuming they could, say, hold their breath for 5 minuets and failing. I'm just saying that ultimately the definition for racism is concise.

I misread your initial post. I understand now. Thanks.

 

[wildfire]

In many ways, it's a lot easier to garner support to fight against civil rights era prejudice than it is to do so against things like voter ID laws. Both are targeted towards vulnerable groups, but the latter are camouflaged well enough to pass under the radar.


A racist attitude is still racist even if it isn't acted out.

Well he prefers defining racism such that it hinges on both definitions.

That would be cool to give it that hard definition when prejudice already exists as a term.

The bigger problem is that whether or not people are actively hurting people socially or economically is how they still can't see how they are prejudging or perpetuating the prejudgement of others, when called out on it.

 

[Maninthemirror]

People who try to defend possible or probable or blatant racial statements try to establish a grey area argument rightfully or wrongfully and those who are offended by almost everything which is not in 100% agreement with their view try to make it this or nothing argument

There is only one solution for both sides, stop hating

 

[4Tran]

And what exactly does "a racist attitude" entail?

It's a prejudicial attitude based on race. I would further add that it's more about irrationality than hatred.

 

[cwmartin]

I've always felt racist implied some sense of consistency.

You do something once that you didn't know it was offensive? Probably not racist.

You continue to do it? Probably racist.

 

[AfroMW]

well, we've had merriam-webster and oxford, do I hear a cambridge? perhaps a dictionary.com?

I hope that doesn't happen, cause this is ridiculous enough..

 

[sir_kevith]

Who knows what the cause is but there is no way to properly discuss things like this if everyone is so scared of being called a racist. It's ridiculous

It's difficult to discuss properly because people think their own opinion holds more weight than proper research. People see the statistics and think wow asians are good at math and then without fail the following discussion is filled with ridiculous anecdotes and inane ideas from people with no real insight into statistics or of the vast amount of asian cultures that may or may not even be good at math.

You're wrong, there is a proper way to discuss these things and that's academically. If you haven't done any research then why should I care to hear your opinion? All it is is biases and feelings with no intellectual weight behind it. I love reading proper discussion on these kinds of things but I know better than when to share my own opinion because it's usually ignorant. I'm not an expert in all fields but I can definitely be enlightened by reading discussion between those more qualified than I. If I really wanted to learn why asians are better at math I'd look into the statistics that state they are and seek out a cultural expert and get their take on it.

 

[Alexlf]

It's a prejudicial attitude based on race. I would further add that it's more about irrationality than hatred.

If that's the case I'm just not seeing how someone can have a racist attitude yet not do racist things. Or am I misunderstanding your previous post?

 

[4Tran]

If that's the case I'm just not seeing how someone can have a racist attitude yet not do racist things. Or am I misunderstanding your previous post?

It's quite possible for a person to mildly dislike blacks or hispanics and never say anything about it to anyone other than close friends and family.

 

[Mumei]

I certainly sympathize with this position, and think it's sometimes true.

But it's important to note it comes from a very particular place. In America, at least, racism is very rarely explicit. Racism in most open forms is either explicitly illegal (e.g. you cannot refuse to serve Asian customers just because they're Asian), or deeply taboo (e.g. saying that you hate black people in public is likely to make you a social pariah in most places). Racism, in other words, is now deep underground in the US, or even just deeply subconscious; we can tell it's still there because large scale data shows us it's there (black people are less likely to get jobs with the same qualifications, more likely to be arrested for committing the same crime, etc.) but we can't point our finger at anyone in particular. Did that Hispanic person not get the job because the boss is racist against Hispanics or because there was simply a better qualified person for the job? It's very hard to tell, because so few people are dumb enough to say "Yeah, I just don't like Hispanics" out loud.

It turns many people in to shadow boxers, because it's so difficult to tell where the threat is coming from.

Right. Racism in the United States has, for lack of a better word, evolved. I think this also accounts for [most] white peoples' inability to conceptualize those racist outcomes as stemming from racism, rather than other more neutral causes. Bonilla-Silva's Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America is an excellent treatment of the subject and something I think everyone should read. The introductory section to the first chapter captures the dichotomies:

Nowadays, except for members of white supremacist organizations, few whites in the United States claim to be "racist." Most whites assert they "don't see color, just people"; that although the ugly face of discrimination is still with us, it is no longer the central factor determining minorities' life chances; and, finally, that like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they aspire to live in a society where "people are judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin." More poignantly, most whites insist that minorities (especially blacks) are the ones responsible for whatever "race problem" we have in this country. They publicly denounce blacks for "playing the race card," for demanding the maintenance of unnecessary and divisive race-based programs such as affirmative action, and for crying "racism" whenever they are criticized by whites. Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could "get along."

But regardless of whites' "sincere fictions," racial considerations shade almost everything in America. Blacks and dark-skinned racial minorities lag well behind whites in virtually every area of social life; they are about three times more likely to be poor than whites, earn about 40 percent less than whites, and have about an eighth of the net worth that whites have. They also receive an inferior education compared to whites, even when they attend integrated institutions. In terms of housing, black-owned units comparable to white-owned ones are valued at 35 percent less. Blacks and Latinos also have less access to the entire housing market because whites, through a variety of exclusionary practices by white realtors and homeowners, have been successful in effectively limiting their entrance into many neighborhoods. Blacks receive impolite treatment in stores, in restraints, and in a host of other commercial transactions. Researchers have also documented that blacks pay more for goods such as cars and houses than do whites. Finally, blacks and dark-skinned Latinos are the targets of racial profiling by the police, which, combined with the highly racialized criminal court system, guarantees their over-representation among those arrested, prosecuted, incarcerated, and if charged for a capital crime, executed. Racial profiling on the highways has become such a prevalent phenomenon that a term has emerged to describe it: driving while black. In short, blacks and most minorities are "at the bottom of the well."

How is it possible to have this tremendous degree of racial inequality in a country where most whites claim that race is no longer relevant? More importantly, how do whites explain the apparent contradiction between their professed color blindness and the United States' color-coded inequality? In this book, I have attempted to answer both of these questions. I contend that whites have developed powerful explanations - which have ultimately become justifications - for contemporary racial inequality that exculpate them for any responsibility for the status of people of color. These explanations emanate from a new racial ideology that I label colorblind racism. This ideology, which acquired cohesiveness and dominance in the late 1960s, explains contemorary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics. Whereas Jim Crow explained blacks' social standing as the result of their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities' contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks' imputed cultural limitations. For instance, whites can attribute Latinos' high poverty rate to a relaxed work ethic ("the Hispanics are mañana, mañana, mañana - tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow") or residential segregation as the result of natural tendencies among groups ("Does a dog and a cat mix? I can't see it. You can't drink milk and scotch. Certain mixes don't mix.").

Color-blind racism became the dominant racial ideology as the mechanisms and practices for keeping blacks and other racial minorities "at the bottom of the well" changed. I have argued elsewhere that contemporary racial inequality is reproduced through "new racism" practices that are subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial. In contrast to the Jim Crow era, where racial inequality was enforced through overt means (e.g., signs saying "No Niggers Welcome Here" or shotgun diplomacy at the voting booth), today racial practices operate in a "now you see it, now you don't" fashion. For example, residential segregation, which is almost as high today as it was in the past, is no longer accomplished through overtly discriminatory practices. Instead, covert behaviors such as not showing all available units, steering minorities and whites into certain neighborhoods, quoting higher rents or prices to minority applicants, or not advertising units at all are the weapons of choice to maintain separate communities. In the economic field, "smiling face" discrimination ("We don't have jobs now, but please check later"), advertising job openings in mostly white networks and ethnic newspapers, and steering highly educated people of color into poorly remunerated jobs or jobs with limited opportunities for mobility are the new ways of keeping minorities in a secondary position. Politically, although the civil rights struggles have helped remove many of the obstacles for the electoral participation of people of color, "racial gerrymandering, multimember legislative districts, election runoffs, annexation of predominately white areas, at-large district elections, and anti-single-shot devices (disallowing concentrating votes in one or two candidates in cities using at-large elections) have become standard practices to disenfranchise" people of color. Whether in banks, restaurants, school admissions, or housing transactions, the maintenance of white privilege is done in a way that defies facile racial readings. Hence, the contours of color-blind racism fit America's new racism quite well.

Compared to Jim Crow racism, the ideology of color blindness seems like "racism lite." Instead of relying on name calling (niggers, spics, chinks), color-blind racism otherizes softly ("these people are human, too"); instead of proclaiming that God placed minorities in the world in a servile position, it suggests they are behind because they do not work hard enough; instead of viewing interracial marriage as wrong on a straight racial basis, it regards it as "problematic" because of concerns over children, location, or the extra burden it places in couples. Yet this new ideology has become a formidable political tool for the maintenance of the racial order. Much as Jim Crow racism served as the glue for defending a brutal and overt system of racial oppression in the pre-civil rights era, color-blind racism serves today as the ideological armor for a covert and institutionalized system in the post-civil rights era. And the beauty of this new ideology is that it aids in the maintenance of white privilege without fanfare, without naming those who it subjects and those who it rewards. It allows a president to state things such as, "I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education," yet at the same time characterize the University of Michigan's affirmative action program as "flawed" and "discriminatory" against whites. Thus whites enunciate positions that safeguard their racial interests without sounding "racist." Shielded by color blindness, whites can express resentment toward minorities; criticize their morality, values, and work e thic; and even claim to be victims of "reverse racism." This is the thesis I will defend in this book to explain the curious enigma of "racism without racists."

And I think it goes a long way towards answering the question the OP was asking.

 

[Alexlf]

It's quite possible for a person to mildly dislike blacks or hispanics and never say anything about it to anyone other than close friends and family.

OK, I see. They'd definitely be racist. No offence, but I'm not sure I see what this has to do with what CrankyJoe posted.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Right. Racism in the United States has, for lack of a better word, evolved. I think this also accounts for [most] white peoples' inability to conceptualize those racist outcomes as stemming from racism, rather than other more neutral causes. Bonilla-Silva's Racism Without Racists is an excellent treatment of the subject and something I think everyone should read. The introductory section to the first chapter captures the dichotomies:



And I think it goes a long way towards answering the question the OP was asking.

That's a fucking depressing 5 paragraphs I read.

 

[TheJLC]

I think they have a point. Prejudice itself is not racism. All racist people are prejudice but not all prejudice people are racist.

Being prejudice because of someone's race or ethnicity is racism. But being prejudice against the poor, for example, is not racist. However, if you disguise your prejudice against someone's race with prejudice of poor people, you are in fact a racist.

Many people are prejudice and their views don't necessarily translate to racism. Some people may have prejudice against certain types of people, regardless of race or ethnicity. Sometimes this can be mistranslated to racism by some when it isn't. So I understand their frustration with being called racists. But racism isn't always as blatant as wearing a pointy white hood and understand where the confusion might come from.

Hell, I've been called a racist by damn racists. In one example, In class we were trying to have a civil discussion about the recent police shootings. We agreed that for the most part police needed to improve relations with minorities and better accountability was needed. When we were asked about which shootings we believed were justified most agreed on one, including me. This racist African American singles me out and claims I say that because I'm a racist, and that Latinos are the scum of the earth, and that Latinos are a disease to the United States and should be deported. I was like, wtf.. Another African American stands up and calls his comments and views racist, and the racist gets offended. So I, the only Latino, get singled out in a class full of African Americans that also agreed because of my race, that is racism.

 

[Mumei]

That's a fucking depressing 5 paragraphs I read.

It can be, but you should still read it. It presents color blind racism as a coherent ideology, and presents a set of frames that are used rhetorical to explain and justify itself, which are identified in the book as abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural racism, and minimazation of racism. They were used by the overwhelming majority of respondents interviewed, and after reading it I think you'll notice - as I did - the same patterns happening in racial discussions on GAF and among friends and family.

 

[Version 3.0]

most whites insist that minorities (especially blacks) are the ones responsible for whatever "race problem" we have in this country.

Most whites believe that if blacks and other minorities would just stop thinking about the past, work hard, and complain less (particularly about racial discrimination), then Americans of all hues could "get along."

"Most whites" feel this way? Is there data to support this? In my experience, "most whites" are more apathetic or oblivious, since it's not a problem they have to deal with. That seems more likely than this engaged, blame-shifting view.

I feel like this should read "Fox News viewers" instead of "most whites".

 

[Mumei]

"Most whites" feel this way? Is there data to support this? In my experience, "most whites" are more apathetic or oblivious, since it's not a problem they have to deal with. That seems more likely than this engaged, blame-shifting view.

I feel like this should read "Fox News viewers" instead of "most whites".

From the chapter notes:

3. These views have been corroborated in survey after survey. For instance, a recent nationwide survey found that 66 percent of whites thought the disadvantaged status of blacks in America was due to blacks' welfare dependency and 63 percent thought blacks lacked the motivation to improve their socioeconomic status. Tom W. Smith, "Intergroup Relations in Comtemporary America," in Intergroup Relations in the United States: Research Perspectives, edited by Wayne Winborne and Renae Cohen, 69-106 (New York: National Conference for Community and Justice, 2000).

We actually had a topic recently about these attitudes, too.

Edit: And I would agree about the apathetic and oblivious thing - but apathetic and oblivious people can still have opinions... and these opinions are distressingly common, still.

 

[poppabk]

To boil this down a little, if you assume anything about ANYONE just because of their race, you are being racist.

You don't have to be familiar with every aspect of every culture. Just ready people like people, and don't assume their race makes them any way.

This means everyone is a racist, and that people who think they aren't racist are delusional and racist.

 

[Alexlf]

From the chapter notes:

3. These views have been corroborated in survey after survey. For instance, a recent nationwide survey found that 66 percent of whites thought the disadvantaged status of blacks in America was due to blacks' welfare dependency and 63 percent thought blacks lacked the motivation to improve their socioeconomic status. Tom W. Smith, "Intergroup Relations in Comtemporary America," in Intergroup Relations in the United States: Research Perspectives, edited by Wayne Winborne and Renae Cohen, 69-106 (New York: National Conference for Community and Justice, 2000).

We actually had a topic recently about these attitudes, too.

Edit: And I would agree about the apathetic and oblivious thing - but apathetic and oblivious people can still have opinions... and these opinions are distressingly common, still.

Wow, I thought I was pretty informed, but that's just crazy. I had no idea that such a large number, let alone a majority of people in the USA, felt like that. Just goes to show the amount of simple ignorance in some groups I guess

Also, I wonder how those stats differ per country/state? Does the book say anything about it?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Wow, I thought I was pretty informed, but that's just crazy. I had no idea that such a large number, let alone a majority of people in the USA, felt like that. Just goes to show the amount of simple ignorance in some groups I guess

Also, I wonder how those stats differ per country/state? Does the book say anything about it?

The ignorance is understandable. The article itself mentions that the modern racism is highly non-obvious. Most people aren't in a position to gerrymander elections, control media coverage, or hire people. All they see are the economic stats. Since they cannot see anything obvious to account for the economic situation, they assume laziness or something.

So to take it a step further, maybe I am naive, but I think there are a lot of people that, with a little education, could become sympathetic rather than combative to change. A stumbling block to this, I believe, is the almost puritanical attacking that goes on against race ignorant people. When you attacked or labeled someone over an ignorant mistake you miss an opportunity to educate them. I"m not a fan of all this dogpiling and attacking that goes on these days. I'd much rather return to 1970s hippie style liberalism (or at least my romanticized view of it).

 

[Mumei]

Wow, I thought I was pretty informed, but that's just crazy. I had no idea that such a large number, let alone a majority of people in the USA, felt like that. Just goes to show the amount of simple ignorance in some groups I guess

Also, I wonder how those stats differ per country/state? Does the book say anything about it?

It doesn't. It's not really about that; it's more about the rhetorical frames those white people use to explain and justify racial disparities, so those ideologically-derived positions and their purported color blindness comport with one another.

The ignorance is understandable. The article itself mentions that the modern racism is highly non-obvious. Most people aren't in a position to gerrymander elections, control media coverage, or hire people. All they see are the economic stats. Since they cannot see anything obvious to account for the economic situation, they assume laziness or something.

So to take it a step further, maybe I am naive, but I think there are a lot of people that, with a little education, could become sympathetic rather than combative to change. A stumbling block to this, I believe, is the almost puritanical attacking that goes on against race ignorant people. When you attacked or labeled someone over an ignorant mistake you miss an opportunity to educate them. I"m not a fan of all this dogpiling and attacking that goes on these days. I'd much rather return to 1970s hippie style liberalism (or at least my romanticized view of it).

I had this problem before I read the book. I knew there was racial inequality. I knew that racism was still something that happened, in a really abstract sense that I couldn't articulate. But I didn't know how there was so much invisible racism to account for such large disparities, but I also knew that "it's basically black peoples' fault" was racist... so I didn't know what to make of the situation.

So, reading this book - and then The New Jim Crow - is what helped give me a more informed perspective.

 

[Newt]

I feel like the people surveyed are racist in a kinda "cognitive miser" sense. If they looked a bit deeper, they would see flaws in their thinking, but they don't.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

Yeah, it's a bad word, and that is why I don't get why some black people will use it themselves. The only thing they accomplish is to weaken the impact it has. It should have died a long time ago.

HOW?!!?

How does this fucking happen EVERY.

SINGLE.

TIME?!

HOW?

It's like people are just ITCHING for a race thread on GAF so they can trot out this ignorant drivel like it's the most enlightening thing they've ever thought of in their lives. Seriously, every single time!

 

[Gotchaye]

I'd add that this isn't really a new phenomenon. I agree with the stuff Mumei is quoting about how modern racists don't even conceive of race as mattering to their worldviews, but it's important to realize that even old-timey racists didn't conceive of themselves as racists in the modern sense.

Like, a slave-owner would own up to thinking that Africans were inferior to white Europeans, or that they were better suited for labor whereas whites were better-suited for leading, or something like that. They had explicitly racialized worldviews and were aware of that. But they certainly didn't think of themselves as hateful or as irrational - they thought of themselves as racist in the same way that we think of ourselves as speciesist for thinking that humans are characteristically different from other animals. They often weren't even very hateful, in the usual sense of the word - many seemed genuinely fond of their slaves and of Africans in general, in something like the way that, say, a rancher can be genuinely fond of an animal that he intends to slaughter for meat. The obviously hateful sort of racism wasn't very widespread until the system of racial subjugation looked to be in danger.

And so even way back when you'd have seen people reacting very negatively to the suggestion that their extremely racist attitudes were motivated by irrational animus. Maybe not quite as negatively, but that's just because they wouldn't be taking the charge very seriously, whereas at least now everyone agrees that it's a very very bad thing to be a "racist", however any particular person is understanding the word.

 

[foxuzamaki]

It makes you racist in the same way that telling a lie makes you a liar. Which is to say, if someone catches you in a lie, there's a chance they're going to say that you're a liar. Whether that label becomes a temporary thing, a description of what you were doing in the moment ('saying something racist'; 'telling a lie') or whether that label becomes a description of who you are at heart probably depends on whether you keep saying racist things and how attached you are to racist attitudes.

This makes alot of sense.