Surely individual acts of racism bigotry against white people can and do occur. And they're awful. Horrible. But there is no system of oppression in America that actively works to oppress and subjugate white people.

The individuals acting do not have the institutionalized power to actively oppress you in every facet of your life, nor would their racism be upheld and supported by government, media, and legislation if they did. Because you’re white.

That is what the author of the article you linked is claiming.

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

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination


"Racism exists when prejudice+power combine to form social constructs"

No, racism exists where one human being is being shitty to another human being because of their race. This is just something he/she appeared to make up.

Or move on?


Or don't.

I'm not looking for a fight about it, I'm asking for empathy from a group of self proclaimed Democrats when the topics of racism and sexism are being discussed. If you're unable to do that... It says a lot about you.

That is an disgusting assertion and it should be laughed at.

It's a coordinated effort to excuse certain "brands" of racism.

there are, however, several "breeds" of bigotry.

I'm sure Native Americans are on your side. No, there are no other races that were attacked and repressed, yeah, sure...

However, it just proves your ignorance. Native Americans and Hispanics and Asians and every other non-white groups experience the same racism as Black folks.

Person of color (plural: people of color; persons of color) is a term used primarily in the United States to describe any person who is not white. The term is meant to be inclusive among non-white groups, emphasizing common experiences of racism. People of color was introduced as a preferable replacement to both non-white and minority, which are also inclusive, because it frames the subject positively; non-white defines people in terms of what they are not (white), and minority frequently carries a subordinate connotation.[1] Style guides for writing from American Heritage,[2] the Stanford Graduate School of Business,[3] Mount Holyoke College,[4] recommend the term over these alternatives. It may also be used with other collective categories of people such as students of color, men of color and women of color.

Although the term citizens of color was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, and other uses date to as early as 1793, people of color did not gain prominence for many years.[6][7] Influenced by radical theorists like Frantz Fanon, racial justice activists in the U.S. began to use the term people of color in the late 1970s and early 1980s. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was in wide circulation.[8] Both anti-racist activists and academics sought to move understandings of race beyond the black-white binary then prevalent.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

And, yeah, I think they have some solid experience in dealing with institutionalized and societal racism. Listen and learn.

True true....


But the article did define its term early on.... even if it isn't the real definition of "racism". It was clear it is talking about systematic racism in the USA.... which is indeed not what "racism" means.

Still...reading it within its self limiting definitions it makes sense.

Just as pointing out it has redefined the word also makes sense.

the article's definition of the term "racism" IS the "real" definite ... if one accepts the work of the Social Scientists that study the phenomena, over that of linguists.

or structural racism, and the word 'racism' alone is not a new shorthand for the term. Ask a sociologist.

What's also not new is the propensity by some whites to haul out a dictionary that *proves" whites can be the target of individual bigotry AKA non-institutional racism, so quibbling over that is more important that discussing the larger issue.

You hit the nail on the head.

or structural racism, and the word 'racism' alone is not a new shorthand for the term."


Didn't I say that?

But many upthread were ignoring that.

eta: and downthread too I see.

than the Social Scientists that study the phenomena?

Main stream dictionaries' definition of racism has remained unchanged, despite the body, and weight, of the post Civil Rights Era academic work.

And there isn't a 100% scientific and absolute definition for any word that can be discovered by scientists like you can discover laws of physics. That is why we can have different language in the first place and why the meaning of words change over time. So in reality what even the most dedicated academic THINKS the definition of a word should be is irrelevant.

The meaning of a word is simply how that word is used by the people who speak the language it is from, which is what a lexicographer chronicles. The dictionary is a reflection of how people actually use the word.

And the vast majority of people do not agree with the definition of racism you're advocating.

For my entire life people have said racism is bigotry based on race. Bigotry can be directed at people for many reasons besides race (sexuallity, relgion...etc). By trying to make it so that racism describes bigotry based on institutionalized systems, you make it so that there is no specific word to describe bigotry based on race that isn't based on institutionalized systems.

You remove meaning from a word and propose it be replaced by a more generic word, that is also used to mean different things. There is literally no reason to do that. The concept that you're trying to describe (racism that has institutional power) is already perfectly described by the term "institutionalized racism".

Explain to me why YOU want to change the language.

"For my entire life people have said racism is bigotry based on race. Bigotry can be directed at people for many reasons besides race (sexuallity, relgion...etc). By trying to make it so that racism describes bigotry based on institutionalized systems, you make it so that there is no specific word to describe bigotry based on race that isn't based on institutionalized systems.

You remove meaning from a word and propose it be replaced by a more generic word, that is also used to mean different things. There is literally no reason to do that. The concept that you're trying to describe (racism that has institutional power) is already perfectly described by the term "institutionalized racism". "

Explain to me why the definition you're offering is better.

Yeah forget the rest of my post on edit, what I'm really curious about is this part.

So what? Reality is not a popularity contest.

the dynamics of racism. But those that have, have long since abandoned the "Webster's" definition of racism, as an inadequate descriptor of the observed phenomena.

.... Between Germans and the English. All other variants are to be referred to as strong disagreements.

Even if you don't like the word you could at least make an attempt to understand the point being expressed. There is a difference between a white person's experience with bigotry than a black persons - because white people run everything.

IS that really so complicated?

Bryant

that is based on something other than race? But bigotry against LGBT is pervasive, institutional to the point of containing legalized discrimination, and systemic.
So what's the word for that? I just don't care for any trope that attempts to minimize the oppression of LGBT people by straight people.

Homophobia? And i think a lot of that stems from sexism and people not conforming to societal "norms". I think you have a valid point of systematic oppression of other groups, especially LGBT.


And I absolutely believe we should listen and learn from experiences of LGBT without dismissal as well.

or presumed opinions about any minority group, that individual is committing the exact same personal wrong as any other individual doing the same toward any other group.
That's the problem with messing around with definitions of words.

despite the fact that in South Africa the black majority controls all of the power structures.

You can't control generations of ignorance and oppression overnight. the last time I checked the mvast majority of blacks in South Africa still live in shanti towns and in extreme poverty. White people controlled the wealth and the resources in that country, and electing Mandela the first black president, didn't strip whites of their land and the money. So as far as economic oppression, not much has changed.

having a Black person over/in control of, and maintaining, the same system that oppressed Black folks is not/was not the end of racism in South Africa (or the American south, or any place that happens to have a Black person in charge).

Racism is racism, whether or not the racist is part of the group that's running things.

especially, when done by those directly and negatively affected by the act, is/would be the ANSWER to the problem.

Bigotry is not exclusive of institutional and societal elements. To say 'bigotry is when it is personal, racism means institutional' denies the institutional oppression of LGBT people which is a result of bigotry.
The language we seek to make must be always more inclusive, not constantly constricted to exclude some minority groups. If you take away the words used to describe injustice, you take the ability to fight that injustice.
I am subject to societal, institutional discrimination which is not based upon race. That's a fact. Millions of people are in the same shoes I'm in. Millions of those are also People of Color. This presents a terminology challenge. Perhaps the discussion would be best left to lesbians of color as they are the group that gets the trifecta of racism, sexism and homophobia.
Part of this is that homophobia is a flawed term. I think that homophobia describes a reason for anti gay prejudice but not the thing itself. But we are sort of stuck with it for now, so I use it in the way most people understand it. What can you do? Not talk about it? Be constantly confusing to the poor straights who are often trying really hard to understand and to evolve? I just use homophobia or anti gay bigotry which is more accurate but also clunky, and of course if 'bigotry' comes to mean 'not institutional' then it becomes a word that is inapplicable to anti gay animus and actions. Leaving us with homophobia or long phrases that hinder communication.
It is a very interesting area of discussion, that's for sure.

I wish I'd been able to stay in this conversation longer.

the conversation gets hijacked by someone with another agenda. In your OP, you suggested it usually is a white person, but it could very well be by a member of another discriminated group.

I hate the fact that we pit one discriminated group against another.

... Is that your question has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of racism.

It does, however, have something to do with the smaller subset of racism known as institutional racism.

Compared with the mass murder, enslavement, and social and political repression of American Indians, Africans, and others, there is no "reverse" equivalent at any time in this country's history.

Not to mention the folks who cry "reverse racist" any time a person of color says something that might make white people uncomfortable. Or if a white person says it, they're "self-loathing" - which is essentially the new "ni**er lover."

The two are still unrelated...

Not to mention the fact that past bad behavior seems to be the excuse for current bad behavior.

... Or attempting to soften it from the emotionally charged 'racist' to 'prejudiced' or something that plays a bit less icky.

encouraged in most instances.

So, the idea is that we're going to redefine traditional terms for sociological and political reasons.

As it stands,

1. We already have words for "culture-wide group-based oppression" and "institutional racism."

2. We have another term, "racism," which refers generally to racial animus: a race-based motivation for hatred or discrimination, in which anyone, in any group, can engage.

The new premise is that we will now say that "racism" only applies when racial animus is wielded by members of the most-empowered groups -- here, white people.

This is a political construct, and one that has not been thought out.

I think we can all understand the motivation:

1. To emphasize the importance of relative group power within the culture as a whole when discussing bigotry of any kind.

2. To undercut the "tit for tat" cultural muttering where an empowered group claims "it's same for everybody" because individual racism still exists against the empowered group. Somewhere a white person or a man or a Christian suffered discrimination, and someone will use that to imply that the larger social dynamic is therefore diminished.

But is it so hard to articulate these things that we need to disingenuously claim that individual racial animus doest even exist?

And immediately you have this problem:

What will we now call individual racial animus outside of the empowered group attacking a less-empowered group? The Asian-American landlord who hates black people and will not rent to them. Not a "racist" because Asian-Americans are not at the top of the overall racial dynamic in America?

And are we going to employ this new frame of relative culture-wide group power to qualify all bigotry? What if a culture-wide overweening oppression cannot be shown, or dissipates? Will we e-evaluate each group's right to be recognized as capable of bigotry or insulated from it, on the basis of the current culture?

No one's going to buy "only __ people can be ___" on the theory that only successful, culture-wide, institutional bigotry counts at all. It's silly and it infantilizes the genuine argument it tries to advance.

It's just lazy argument. And so transparently untrue that it just discredits people trying to wield it. "I can't be racist, despite my hatred for ___, because I am ___." Really?

No one's going to look at a black person being racist or a woman being sexist or a Unitarian being religiously bigoted and pretend it's something else to advance this facile idea that only culture as a whole matters.

It's not so hard to make a point overall group dynamics that we have to also pretend that individuals don't EVER engage in bigotry except from an empowered group, toward a less-empowered group.

Nobody thinks that.

And of course, anyone can be bigoted against anyone else on the individual level, but white people have never been subject to systemic racism in this country the way other races have.

White people, individually, may encounter rudeness or hostility - or in some cases, physical violence - from people of color, but their day-to-day lives are not negatively impacted by collective notions of white inferiority. There is no centuries-long history in this country of white people being considered, and treated as, less than human by people of color, unlike the reverse.

discriminatory..."

I can't guarantee that no individual, ever, feels that way. What I can tell you is that I've lived my whole life (as a white guy) in a progressive, racially diverse area and I've scarcely ever encountered the attitude you complain of. The people of color I've happened to meet, even those with fairly radical political views, have largely embraced me as an individual.

It's not so much a particular definition of "racism" I have a problem with, but more (usually white) people using it as an excuse to ignore this country's shameful racist history, and to promote facile, false notions of "unity" or "equality."

I don't see where anyone has stated as much. Saying it's not quite the same thing does not equal denying it exists.

They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to take a swim without getting wet.

It is the most vile sort of hypocrisy, IMHO.

2. We have another term, ... which refers generally to racial animus: a race-based motivation for hatred or discrimination, in which anyone, in any group, can engage.

Specifically when the Pope is praised as some liberal giant.

I appreciate the education and information you provide to remind us all of the systematic and far reaching oppression of LGBT for which he and the RCC are responsible.

I take the same position stated in the article:

"I need to know what I can do to be a better ally and to make the world a more equal place one interaction at a time. So I observe, I listen, I join the conversation, and I try to understand."

To define racism as only institutional and societal requires altering the definition of bigotry to mean 'not institutional or societal' but the bigotry of Straight Culture against LGBT people is legalized, fully institutional and pervasive.
So those words don't work unless you dismiss all sorts of bigotry, discrimination and oppression of classes of people which are not determined by race.

that word would be: Homophobia.

What word would/do you use?

I'm not receptive to suggestions that bias by members one group against another "can't really be bias" because the recipient is part of a privileged group and I think any suggestions along those lines are counterproductive.

Certainly on a micro level, it means no difference to a person being attacked or discriminated against whether their 'group' tends to have more privilege than the group of the perpetrators.

If anything, I think some of the ideas expressed in the article are dangerous as they could be a basis for rejecting claims of bias and hate crimes against someone because the victim belonged to a privileged group.

It makes much more sense to me for the message to be sent out that no one is above prejudice and bias and that in fact almost all human beings have some and the point is to recognize that and struggle against it every day. That is the message I got from visiting the museum of tolerance in Los Angeles 15 years ago now and it is one I never forgot. People who are on board with that are not folks you have to worry about bogus claims of reverse discrimination.

If someone is pulling out a specific bogus reverse prejudice claim to derail a discussion or investigation then point it out. Broad brush claims that lesser privileged individuals cannot be biased against folks with more privilege is nonsense.

Just that racism is more than bias. It's bias with societal power added to it.

I get that idiots crowing about reverse-racism and reverse-sexism is annoying, but I don't think this is the answer.

I agree that bigotry against LGBT is pervasive, institutional to the point of containing legalized discrimination, and systemic. More importantly, I would argue that there must be a term in the lexicon that reflects our recognition of that fact.

I suspect that, with the increase in GLBT studies, a term will be found/adopted; however, as with racial studies, it will take time ... it took 50+ years of academic study of racism to refine our understanding of the phenomena.

I, also, suspect that the term will originate in the GLBT community, as they describe their experiences and academia sheds it hetero-centric (I got that word from you ) world view.

Lesbians of color are particularly experienced with the nuances of multi level animus toward them. I defer to them whenever possible when discussing these things.

Two questions, though:

1) {I my least threatening voice that I can muster} If you defer to LGBT people of color, women in particular I'd guess Lesbians of color when discussing those things, why would you resist deferring to PoC in matters of racism?

2) I notice you refer to "LGBT", rather than "GLBT" ... Is that a challenge to/of the systemic patriarchy?

You should defend it rather than dismiss those who disagree with it.

And today I don't feel like fighting so I will dismiss the ones who I see potentially making me say things that could get me in trouble.

People looking for a fight won't be convinced and aren't worth it.

Today.

Some days I take the bait.

It gets tiring ... knowing whatever argument made, whatever evidence produced, will be met with the same response: "But that's not how we understand it, Webster says ..." or "We should just agree to disagree."

Nope, not today.

I've had enough of that shit. The guy who was the king of pushing those buttons is gone and the months leading up to his departure and days after made me get way too emotionally involved with assholes. I'm done. Done, done, done. I'll discuss things with people who want to discuss, but I am trying hard to deliberately dismiss those whose one and only real aim is to get a rise out of me. Fuck 'em. Don't need 'em.

Yeah, let's turn to the dictionary for a definition of a topic so deep and so personal. That's such an oversimplification that the only response is correction and moving on. To paraphrase the great poets "Anthrax" -Talking to some is like clapping with one hand.

For most of human history, we 'understood' that the sun revolved around the earth. If there had been dictionaries a thousand years ago, they would have probably defined the sun as 'a large glowing object that orbits the earth'.

But we learned, we grew, and now we know better.

Still, some cling to definitions of racism first written before the Civil Rights movement and the rise of racial studies. The equivalent of clinging to notions of orbital mechanics that predate Copernicus and Galileo.

except when it challenges their beneficial status quo.

then the article is pretty worthless in terms of discussion.

The article isn't asking people to listen and learn. It's asking that people concede the point regardless of the weakness of the premise.

PeaceNikki has as an unspoken premise (a false premise to be sure, and a prime example of "reverse" racism) that only white people are capable of bigotry.

As I read downthread, racism is racism. There is no reverse racism.

And if that's what you got out of it, that's really unfortunate.


I think the larger point isn't the semantics of the word, but the general idea that dismissing the systematic and institutional factors of oppressed groups by trying to counter experiences of others is not helpful.

And this was and is the meat of it to me:

"I need to know what I can do to be a better ally and to make the world a more equal place one interaction at a time. So I observe, I listen, I join the conversation, and I try to understand."

I want to listen and learn and be a better ally to oppressed groups.

What we're doing is dismissing the idea that there needs to be systematic and institutional factors, before something is considered racism.

There are systematic and institutional racists systems (I would consider the justice system one, for obvious reasons), but not every incident of racism requires either of those factors.

Anyone can be prejudiced or bigoted...

It's obviously stupid but there it is...

language is paramount and the ability to define the terms used is the very basis of what is institutional/structural.

Its just funny because libodem posted it this morning. We have a habit of taking ourselves to seriously at DU.

Knees bending and being jolly are good things!

Lexicographers try to find out how people are using language and then write down how it's used. Scientists debate how words are used, such as whether the word "planet" applies to Pluto, or what is really rightly called a bug. And Sociologists, as scientists, debate the meaning of words like "racism." I think you'll find that Sociologists agree that racism has to include institutional power. If the definition Sociologists use becomes commonly used by enough people, the dictionary will reflect that, but it can take generations for that kind of change to show up in a dictionary. Especially when the dictionary is part of the institutional structure that includes racism and reflects the usage of a racist society.

Now we're going to have to sit through another round of "there is no such thing as white privilege" derby.

Good times. Good times.

Cross posting and referencing these folks.

I read something - it sticks with me. You offend me - I don't forget.

Generic dictionaries provide the 'generic definition' of a word as it is used, even if the widespread usage isn't totally accurate. Pick up a textbook in any field - geology, math, sociology, physics, rhetoric, etc, and compare the definitions you find included in glossaries to those you find in dictionaries. In most cases, there will be differences, and the 'generic' dictionary definition will probably be far more generic and overly broad, or even totally different. When you go to your doctor, do you tell him that diabetes means what merriam webster says it does? Or do you let him work by a far more detailed definition that appears in his pathophysiology textbooks?

The reality is that sociologists do indeed say that 'racism' requires power, as opposed to 'bigotry' or 'prejudice' which does not. The fact that regular people (including writers of generic dictionaries) misuse the word 'racism' all the time doesn't actually change how it works.

Individual and institutional. Attempts at discounting individual racism by labeling it, 'generic,' are flat out disingenuous.

Listening and learning.

that is the definition of the social scientists that explore the subject.

my critique of the common usage of the term "racism" as institutional, with "For my entire life people have said ..."?

I would have thought my non-response would have given you time to ponder the irony of your statement ... what people have told you is pretty much the definition of what is institutionalize.

How does it capture an idea that "institutionalized racism" does not and why it is necessary to strip from our language a word that means "racially motivated bigotry that may or may not involve institutional power".

That is the question I wanted an answer to. You keep saying that it should be this way. That it needs to be this way. Apparently having a word that simply means "racially motivated bigotry" is a no can do. It also has to mean "racially motivated bigotry accompanied by institutional power".

I'm asking why.

Again you've looked at only the barest piece of my question, without addressing the substance. I've asked you this 3 times now and you've avoided it every single time.

is a refinement of the term based on the body of academic study of the phenomena. It is a more accurate description.