(That's directed to the author, not you. And I couldn't care less re: the author's skin color.)

you shouldn't enter any discussion from a point of ignorance, unless you're entering it simply from a 'I'm trying to learn through this discussion'.

I might quibble with one or two things on the list, but it looks pretty solid in terms of things you really should know before simply barging into a discussion of racial issues and making statements that only end up making you look stupid for having made them.

I suspect we have a few Rand Paul young'ins in the mix. OK by me, if they do not try dirty tricks like the guy in AZ who lost as a Repub candidate. He registered as a Dem and changed his name to Caesar Chavez.

Then we have the teapublican supporters locked in an area where votes were stored and counted. Teapublicans, and their founders the Libertarians, who worship greed, care more about avoiding taxes than creating a government that reflects the view of the majority (that's US folks, check the polls).

He wasn't responding to you but you're responding very much as if it was an answer to your question.

if I answer my own questions, wrong diary? It's the best in critical thinking, or so I was educated to believe.

And any white person who is not out there telling them is also part of the problem. So, if you are white and you stand by when some of your white brothers and sisters are getting ugly and racist in the safety of their all white environment and you feel uncomfortable---that is not doing anything. If you feel smug because you are not making any racist comments yourself and because you are judging them for doing it----that is really not doing anything.

On the other hand, if you make sure that they know that what they are saying is unacceptable, and if you do not do it from a position of power---i.e you are the teacher and they are students---that is doing something.

So, instead of telling people to stop telling white people, how about you go tell some white people yourself? There are a whole lot of them out there. I know. I am pretty damn pale myself, with all this naturally blond hair, and when I'm around, strange white folks sort of lose their inhibitions and let all that racism hang out as if they think I'm gonna go along. They go all freaky when I don't. As if the world has turned upside down. Maybe they need their world turned upside down. Maybe if more little old white ladies turned their world upside down, it would shake some of the stupid out of their heads and they would see that racism is a tool used by the Man to keep an underpaid workforce available to drive down the wages of all workers---and that is all that it is.

of the fear that the topic would divide the Democratic party. For goodness sakes. If fighting racism IS part of the Democratic platform, why is there so much hesitance to talk about it? If DU began in 2001, I would have expected members of all races to understand the issue from a minority perspective by now.

I have to pinch myself to remember we're in the 21st Century.

Only they didn't say "Black People".

The DLC did a knee jerk denial and the "Common Wisdom" claimed the ONLY Dem that could win the presidency was one from the South.

(This is what happens when you let the enemy set the rules.)

conservative. This was in the years before Obama won the presidency. It was Chris Matthews who was supporting this field of thought.

I would say that the source of all of our problems are rooted in the same evil. You just need to hear minorities out, because they won't forgive the 1001 infractions that go on every day that are used to make excuses for the foundation of lies that bolster a dichotomous society.

And your post is a sad example of misunderstanding the first point.

Coffee wasn't quite doing the job and now I'm definitely awake. Wow.

and you seem defensive about people informing white people how they might behave in a more sensitive manner when discussing actual racism.

Did you want to whine about the gay agenda and radfems too?

hence they don't need to be told anything different.

which you made succinctly.

I've never understood that. Think and do what you like.

Is the author simply saying 'white' will be redefined to include Hispanic, thus ending the chances of 'white' being a minority probably for centuries?

Race is a social construct and we have always defined it in whatever way best benefits us. If it benefits us to change the definition again, we will.

in L.A. we see it already with the Latino voting bloc coming into power and many of the other minorities looking at them as more privileged. Nothing good can come from tearing down success and self empowerment.

How does fighting racism equal "tearing down success and self empowerment?"

But given some of the other posts I've read, I'm not too optimistic.

4 is nonsense, 11 is dangerous nonsense, and 9 and 13 are highly questionable, but most of the others seem reasonable.

Racism is racism, regardless of what racial group someone is being racist against.

And is has nothing to do with who is 'virtuous' or 'evil'.

Racism requires power, the power to actually create consequences that benefit one racial group at the expense of another. In the US, white people have historically had control of that power, and still do.

You're confusing racism with bigotry. People of any race can be racially bigoted against any other race. Bigots can be racists, racists can be bigoted, but you can be bigoted without having the power to be racist. And you can be racist (in the sense that you belong to a group that benefits from racially-aligned policies, mores, and laws) without being a bigot.

And that has nothing to do with me being any more 'comfortable' in my pasty white skin.

I'm not confusing racism with racial bigotry, I'm (correctly) using them as essentially synonyms; you're trying to create an incorrect distinction between them.

"Belonging to a group that benefits from racially-aligned policies" is nothing whatsoever to do with being a racist, either.

Racial *discrimination* requires at least some power (although many non-white people have sufficient power to indulge in it).

I think I've had this exchange with you before. If so, you're the guy who ignores all of the sociological work done on racism and instead stands by the elementary definition of racism provided by some dictionary somewhere. If not, you sound just like him.

Certainly, I think that what words mean is defined by social consensus and best learned from lexicographers (lexicographers plural, not "some dictionary somewhere&quot , not from sociologists.

So if it wasn't me, it was probably someone I'd agree with, at least about that.

A lexicographer will set out to tell you what a word actually does mean, their agenda is accuracy. A sociologist will - too often -set out to tell you what they think a word ought to mean, sometimes honestly, and sometimes trying to misrepresent that as what it actually does mean.

are you actually going to tell them that the way they define racism is wrong, then?

"I have black friends who disagree with you" is not a compelling argument, I'm afraid.

side of those who benefit from unequal power relations.

I'm your new black friend! And I disagree with you. I agree with all the blacks I know in America.

You probably know different black folks than my friends and family - but now you know one like us!

Holds more weight than the scientists. Right?

Define the terms relevant to their field of study?

That's new.

Funny that he can't see himself in the OP...and not.

Social Scientist, disagrees with you.

It appears you think the institutional racism doesn't exist as a serious problem (why keep bringing up these exceptions) - or that people should be denied the terminology used by social scientists for the last 40 years. Or both?

group, but its public expression in systematic discrimination is racism.

Not wanting to sit next to a person of color is prejudice. Making an enforced rule that all people of color sit in the last three rows of the bus is racism.

Quoting the law to get a Black person to seat in the designated area, using the force of that law to insist that a Black person seat in the designated area, or punishing/harming/threatening harm a Black person for refusing to seat in the designated area, is racism.

do dragnet arrests in select neighborhoods -- are racist, since the discrimination has been practiced within the framework of an institution which might be legally bound to observe "letter of the law" but because individuals in it aren't always monitorable, they exhibit racism by means other than force of law.

We don't label it "white on white crime" when one white person kills another white person. We just call it crime, or maybe more specifically murder. But we do label it "black on black" crime when one black person kills another black person? Why do you think that is? I think it's so we can ignore that crime and not try to solve it. It's happening to someone else, not going to affect me, so we don't have to focus resources on it. We can focus resources on the crime that might affect white people.

Are they falling victim to the dreaded and insidious "colorblindness"? Do I need to have a talk with them to warn them about the dangers of being colorblind?

As an individual in private life, treating everyone the same regardless of race is a sensible goal, but as a society, we need to remember that many people don't do that, and take account of that when making public policy and in public life.

interpersonal racism is only a very tiny part of racism. can you be interpersonally mostly colorblind, but when we create policies we should not be colorblind because the aftereffects of policies are not colorblind

... just look at you like you came from the stupid ages when the older generations insist that they view things through a racial lens.

Insisting that your kids pay more attention to their friends race and treat them in a certain way because of it is backwards... at best...

"Here is what you must believe about a topic before discussing it"

Nonsense.

Like "acceptable free speech".


Nope

Discussion is *not* an end in itself; it is a means towards either acquiring or promulgating better knowledge and understanding.

The "acquiring" part of that can take place in silence, or through questions; people who make statements in a discussion do so because they want other people to accept them as true.

Most discussion is, essentially, an attempt to end that discussion, by setting out an argument that convinces the person you are talking to.

If you can do that straight off the bat, that's ideal.

Discussing this at all has become kind of taboo at DU - but I give gollygee credit for posting outside of one of the minority based groups. I know other than one or two sentences I'm just not discussing outside of the minority community - including DU anymore.

the discussion never gets to really tackling racism because it's always stuck on "reverse racism" or how wealthy Oprah is or whether someone is "color blind." The author acknowledges at the beginning that it isn't anyone's fault that they buy into some myths about racism, such as that if Oprah has money then the problem is solved, because our society is inherently racist and it's impossible to avoid these myths when living in this society. The point is that it would be helpful if people who have learned these myths to be true would get learn more and get past the myths so every discussion about racism doesn't get sidetracked by them.

Next week..... racism in Asia....

I grew up in north Georgia....I have seen plenty of racism....and thought it was the worst I had seen.


UNTIL I travelled to the Middle East and SE Asia. The racism is open and without shame....and it is not just black\white...it can be shades of color or simply regional hatred.


I am convinced that most people here have not traveled the world too much. Once you do, you start to realize that the US (while not being close to perfect or even really good) is not the worst in the world by a long shot.

Until we start to be honest that EVERY Group has biases against some other group - there will never be an honest discusion.

America is #1 at being the worst most oppressive country on Earth.

U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!!

But that's another distraction technique. We can't discussion racism here because of racism elsewhere? We have our own dirty laundry to deal with. We don't get to leave it dirty because someone else has dirty laundry of their own.

When I see these type of comments, I think of the "poor people in the U.S. receive more on welfare than working people in the 3rd world ... so they really aren't poor" comments found on fox.

Who suggested such a thing?

Additionally I would hope some sort of education is needed to discuss any topic.

And that goes for all races.

"Hip-hop culture is no more dysfunctional than Wall Street culture."

but they don't live up to the title.

but you want to find a way to dismiss it anyway?

There are all kinds of prejudice and discrimination. Racism, sexism, discrimination of the disabled, religious bias, nationalism, just to name a few. Many of them are based solely on appearance. Judging a soul, or character/personality based on the body. Even a lot of religious bias is justified by appearance - re: the recent nonsense on the right that Bergdahl's father 'looks' Muslim but the Duck Dynasty lot doesn't?

The first step - but by no means the last - is to start evaluating people based on their actions, not their appearance. It's just a beginning, but if more of us would actually get to know people before forming a snap judgment based on looks it would go a long way toward breaking down the long standing social systems that automatically place anyone who isn't white and male at a disadvantage.

nor the message as clear if you had excluded the word 'white' in that subject line... eh?

seems unnecessary to me.

edited the title of the outside article to which the poster was linking? I was under the impression the standard on DU was to simply use the title of outside articles to which one is linking. The original article elsewhere had 'white' in the title, so the poster here wasn't adding 'white', merely faithfully using the original title, like pretty much every other OP on site that links to an outside article.

If you agree or disagree with the premise of this OP, to me the important thing is the discussion. I have watched as a few of our members in the AA community bring up these issues, and be hotly debated and demonized. That kind of thing would piss me off to no end. Slowly I realized that they were vary effective in pushing this issue out of the small cloister of the AA group, and into the light of GD. That is a good thing. Like it or not.

Where do we go from here?

I think the guilt statement is big. When I am trying to impress a point on a friend, or trying win someone over to my point of view, I work to frame it in a way that is empowering to all. I think that comes from being raised in a community with vary small AA population. Still, I marvel at people trying to win important points, or bring someone over to their position by putting them on the defensive. Now that is an overly simplistic way to approach complex issue's. It is just my approach. Also, if you feel guilty, that is something that you will have to work out in your own heart and mind. I am not responsible for your guilt. I know it is not helpful to my issue.

0. Don't automatically start from a position of defensiveness and denial, or assume that your role in any discussion is to automatically and reflexively refute any and all things that don't agree with the worldview you already hold. Listen, think, and poke around at these ideas and try to figure out why other people think they're important.

even when I agree with some of the individual points they make, this author is telling me that I HAVE to agree with them, and that's simply not true.

There are white people, and black people, who feel different than this author, and this author is saying they should keep their mouths shut. A ridiculous stance and very unlikely to do any good. Except generate a lot of chest-beating among the people who have the "correct" views.

It is a choice.

The outcome is predetermined.

If you agree with the list, you've accepted the truth. If you disagree, you're starting from a position of "defensiveness and denial". Until you agree, the discussion can't begin.

So why pretend this list is the beginning of a discussion when it's really just a manifesto?

Arrogantly fighting over idiotic semantic nuances is a way to derail the conversation. Arrogantly insisting your definition is the correct one does nothing to address to actual issue.

I saw it yesterday, and i was glad to see it posted.

1. Regarding #8, I highly recommend Nathan McCall's book "Makes Me Wanna Holler". My African American Studies professor assigned this book to our class several years ago. The title is derived from Marvin Gaye's hit song, and this book elaborates on the author's youth and adult years in Portsmouth, VA, and his race relations with Whites. When he was a kid, he was the only Black person at an otherwise White school, but the racism towards him was so bad that his parents transferred him to another school that was mostly Black. As he grew older and went through adolescence, he started hanging around the wrong crowd, he got a gun, and was eventually locked up. Behind bars was when he started reflecting on his life and when the book starts getting deep.
Anyway, that's all I have to say about it without spoiling too much.

2. With #12, I have been saying that for a while. There is this idea that the White race is becoming the minority in the U.S. and here in California, but in actuality, it is mostly just non-Hispanic Whites who are seeing their portion of the demographic decrease. I think that many people are confused in general about the difference between race, ethnicity, and nationality, and it doesn't help that in many different demographic surveys and studies, they tend to group together racial and ethnic groups, as if they're mutually-exclusive.

Read it years ago.

Regarding your second comment: the "minority" status of white folks in America is a myth ... A dangerous myth, as it suggests that when whites become the numerical minority, the power structure will shift. It won't ... and if history is to be a guide, we can expect a more oppressive racism ... I point to South Africa and Israel, as examples.

"it suggests that when whites become the numerical minority, the power structure will shift. It won't ... and if history is to be a guide, we can expect a more oppressive racism ... I point to South Africa and Israel, as examples."

When I take the link, I get a black page with a swirling white circle for about 10 seconds. If you're not even getting the circle, you might have javascript blocked or some other 'defensive' software that is stopping the load process running.

Well worth the time to watch it.

lets just say it is part of the problem. And that would be number 19

Understand that racism is not just limited to black people. And yes, there is a level of reverse racism, and while understandable when I am told that I am part of the oppressive majority when I quality as two different minorities, is the height of irony. I am both Hispanic (immigrant from Mexico) and Jewish.

I am willing to work to end racism, in all it's forms. But I would have an issue sitting across the table from that particular individual, and for good reasons. Lets just say her comments ended any chances I would ever have of working with her.

And since some of the stories I cover involve going to areas of the County where shall we say we have a few skin heads, I do not wear my religion on my sleeve either. Not that I am very observant, but these folks would make me realize I cannot escape that ethnicity, especially my local neo nazis.