For years, I’ve been seeing the argument over the definition of racism – as in, “there is no such thing as reverse racism, by definition only White people can be racist, because racism is prejudice plus power, here look what this sociologist says” versus “the dictionary says ‘poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race,’ it doesn’t say anything about only White people being racist” over and over and over and over.
Whichever definition you prefer, the other definition is not “wrong.” Words mean what people use them to mean, and can have multiple meanings. If fluent English speakers have for years been using the word “racism” to mean X, then that is one correct meaning of racism. If another group of fluent speakers has for years used it to mean “Y,” then that is another correct meaning. If a specialized group – like sociologists – use “racism” as a term of art meaning “Z,” then that is yet another correct meaning. That’s just how English works.
I prefer one definition over another, but I recognize that both definitions exist in modern English and are used by English speakers.
I’m starting to think that the word “racism” is so toxic that its use require an explanation for why a person/action/policy should be labeled “racist.” If one is simply trying to point out the flaws in another person’s prejudice, they are right to use the dictionary definition of the word. If one is trying to point out a disparate impact, they are right to use the structural definition of the word. If one is trying to to demonstrate the race based privileged, they are right to use the P+P definition of the word.
Once it has been recognized and agreed upon that a person is being prejudiced, or that black people receive harsher sentences, or that white people have an easier time getting job interviews, One can do the much harder work of deciding if an injustice has occurred, and then pinpointing the cause. What I see happen so often is that people use racism as a short cut to labeling things as unjust. And too often, the racism is assigned to something politically convenient for the accuser.
This conversation has convinced me that the word is almost never worth using at all. The one exception was pointed out by Amp in another thread. Because certain types of racism are illegal in certain places, those trying to use the law to bring about a more just outcome have a real interest in defining things as racist.
This really gets to the heart of it. P+P (and most of anti-racist theory) was created as a tool to get White Americans to be nice to Black Americans, because of the legacy of slavery. On it’s own, that’s not a problem. The problem is it has no intellectual content and US cultural dominance and imperialism means it is thought of as the tool for understanding racism – even though it completely fails even marginally outside of the US context.
Let’s talk about the Nazis. We surely agree that any good theory of racism should help us understand the Nazis, right? So was early Hitler racist against Jews? Obviously Yes, but put your P+P hat on and remember the relative conditions in the Weimar/Imperial Germany of Hitler (jailed/homeless) and Jews (successfully integrated and politically influential). Well, it looks like Hitler wasn’t a racist until he achieved political success and this circumstance was reversed, and we see a theory peculiar to US civil rights movement spectacularly fail when applied elsewhere.
Let’s go a bit broader, remember what the Nazis did to the Poles/Slavs/Serbs (but interestingly not to Blacks/Asians), was this “institutional discrimination”? I think systematic militarised extermination is a form of discrimination, but ideas politically useful in the US tell us “in a white dominated society, only PoC can face institutional discrimination based on their race.” So, I guess I’m wrong.
We could easily go wider. But these ideas are not only obviously wrong once you step outside the US bubble, but they’re ridiculous. It doesn’t do any good to push them.
@91
I’m unwilling to publicly share such fairly detailed personal information, but it is a very reputable technical university in a northern EU country.
@93 Newman
I find it interesting that you seemed to have jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about black students, which I wasn’t. While the issues of the black community (in the US) are very interesting, I find it especially insightful to also look at other minority groups (in the US and elsewhere), as it provides a more deep understanding. For example, people often blame disadvantages on slavery, while those disadvantages also present for minorities that don’t have such an overwhelming history of slavery. My personal research has also shown how significant a factor the culture of minorities is (this is obviously more apparent in immigrants and their children & grandchildren).
These were descendants from relatively recent N-African immigrants, who came from a rural area with very poor education and were explicitly selected for physical ability & lack of education, to do hard labor in EU countries. Given the time period, it was extremely likely that these students were the first in their family to go to the university.
I admit that my judgement on this matter is based on a generalization, but it is a generalization that was extremely likely to be true at the time.
I never claimed that they dropped out for self-destructive reasons. I judge their self-segregation as self-destructive behavior in itself and regardless of what happened to them, consider it unwise given their cultural background. The high dropout rate I observed was more an illustration of how badly they performed, but I admit that it is theoretically possible that their behavior had no effect on their lack of success.
However, I still think that a different strategy on their part would have improved their chances at success. Anyway, my claim is not that I have the magic formula to tell these groups how to succeed, but rather that we should be willing to discuss how these groups can improve their chances by their own choices. A debate where we should not disqualify certain races from giving input, use words like victim-blaming, etc, etc.
Your sentence makes it seem like there is no difference between groups, yet in reality, some minority groups drop out at very high rates. The logical conclusion is that there is something particular to these groups that we should seek to identify.
Again, my issue is with those who only want to seek explanations outside these groups, ignoring factors in the groups themselves. In fact, when one points out these factors, this is seen as racism by some. I strongly object to that, as it is firstly unscientific not to be willing to consider some explanations, not due to evidence, but because they are not politically correct. Secondly, it seems based on a very loose definition of racism, that I can’t stand behind.
An example of the latter is that pointing out bad cultural elements is often seen as a form of racism, conflating skin color (which is not a choice or in itself causes different behavior) with culture (which is a choice and cause behavior that may be objectively damaging). In fact, certain white disadvantaged groups also have a culture that has many (negative) similarities with certain non-white disadvantaged groups and as such, those cultural issues are not even directly linked to race.
BTW, this is also why white privilege, white oppression and other one-dimensional terms are damaging in itself, because these terms make it seem like there is no commonality between white and nonwhite disadvantaged groups, which causes people to regard these completely differently, while there are some strong similarities. Race-based reparations (rather than disadvantage based reparations), such as affirmative action, are problematic for the same reason, as they conflate race with disadvantage.
@101 Jeffrey
I think that it is often much better to talk about prejudice or stereotyping. This is far less one-dimensional, as prejudice/stereotypes can have negative or positive effects on the individual depending on context. For instance, the stereotype that black people are less intelligent and more physical is negative when a student is getting his work reviewed by a teacher who grades him unfairly, but can be a positive for him when competing for a sports scholarship against white athletes. It may also be positive when bullies are looking for a target and they judge a black kid to be stronger and/or more likely to fight back.
The stereotype that men are more aggressive than women, makes employers judge men more positively for jobs where aggression is favored, but also results in far harsher sentences for men.
Many stereotypes offer advantages in some contexts and disadvantages in others, which is why I disagree with theories that judge some groups as one-directionally oppressing others, as stereotypes put us all in certain boxes where we are ‘punished’ if we deviate from expectations (that doesn’t mean that I think that all groups face an equal amount of negative consequences from their stereotypes, but rather that we should look at the nuances and at the contexts in which people operate).
I also happen to believe that stereotyping is necessary for humans to function (and in fact, is at the core of human intelligence, although we tend to call it abstract thinking if we judge it positively), which is what makes this such a difficult issue. As such, it is more a matter of recognizing when you stereotype, when it is reasonable and be open to be corrected, than that I believe that humanity can be cured of it (or should be in general, although specific kinds definitely should).
It also gives the accused the moral higher ground to no longer have to take the other person seriously. It’s a partisan tool. Among progressives, some kinds of prejudice are acceptable, while these are derided by conservatives. Among conservatives, some kinds of prejudice are acceptable that are derided by progressives.
So both groups call the other names based on the specific prejudices they see in the other.
Aapje:
I wasn’t assuming that at all. I used the example of the school where my wife worked as one example. And I referred to skin color when talking about the non-white students because you referred to them as non-white; I did not assume their skin color was black. The history of race relation in the United States obviously encompasses far more than just the relationship between Blacks and whites.
Thank you for this. While I will have to think about this further, it at least does provide a factual basis for your assumptions. It also occurs to me, upon reading your reference to the EU, to ask if you are from the United States. If you are not, I wonder how much that difference plays into this discussion.
I’m curious as to which prejudices are acceptable among progressives, but derided by conservatives. I’ve always thought that prejudice is reactionary in nature, and I think there is way more stereotyping going on among conservatives.
I do notice that some progressives will allow certain cultures to be criticized, while disallowing such criticism of cultures that have a high minority population. I don’t think cultural criticism is the same as prejudice, so long as the critic focuses on ideology and not people. (incidently I think all culture, religion, politics, etc, is fair game for criticismm, but that’s another topic)
I’m not and I think it matters a great deal. For instance, domestic slavery wasn’t much practiced in Europe for the last millennium. I think it was at most a theoretical issue for the common people. Any non-white person in the EU is very unlikely to have ancestors who were brought as slaves to Europe. In fact, the few non-white immigrants from before the 20th century generally had all the rights of other people (which wasn’t necessarily that much).
This means that there was never the kind of domestic oppression of black citizens that happened in the US and in the colonies (like a lack of voting rights or segregation), not in the least because there weren’t enough non-white people to oppress. The history of large scale immigration of non-white minorities in the EU is much more recent than in the US and as such, it is partially the history of their non-EU heritage and partly a history of general prejudice (rather than a system of oppression, with roots in domestic slavery). In the US it is much more of a shared history by black and white Americans, who have a strong shared history around slavery that has been fading over generations, but who will always have a bond through slavery and the offshoots of that.
The majority of non-white immigrants in the EU are not descendants from slaves, nor black (and many who are black are not descendants from slaves). So the bond between these groups and white citizens is far different and much more based on general attitudes towards immigrants and different cultures.
I see a lot of anti-racism activists who approach Europe from an US perspective and get frustrated at the lack of recognition of black issues/history in the EU. I think an important factor is that the US story is so dominant (also due to the power of Hollywood) that people cannot see the many nuances beyond slavery, when it comes to black history & race relations. So they mistakenly project US history on other countries.
Anyway, I think that at a certain point the US story on race relations has to start seeing slavery as historical and frame modern day race relations in a more positive way, because I think that to keep framing things in such a negative context isn’t very healthy for everyone involved (and isn’t very American, although that is cultural prejudice :) ). Historically speaking, oppressed groups in the US have been able to emancipate by inter ethnic marriage, which simply fades the barriers between groups. Perhaps this is the only real solution, although inter ethnic marriage between black and non-black unfortunately occurs less than for other groups (but my family is not to blame for that! :) ).
BTW. Interestingly, the writer of the The Three Musketeers was of mixed race and yet became one of the most celebrated French writers.
The belief that people who live in certain states are backwards thinking people who are all conservative and stupid.
The belief that people who disagree with a female/black (like a certain President)/gay/etc person do so for their identity, rather than the issues. Or the belief that when a white cop shoots a black person, race must have played a key part (this prejudice was very visible in the shooting of Michael Brown, where people jumped to conclusions based on their prejudice).
The belief that only people in a victim group have clarity of vision (the last item of many progressive privilege checklists tends to revolve around the idea that the ‘privileged’ person is (often) ignorant due to privilege, while the non-privileged can’t be).
A host of positive stereotypes about women and negative stereotypes about men:
– Women are more sensitive, peaceful, better with kids, etc. The idea that women are fundamentally superior to men is common.
– Men are fundamentally more violent, sexual, predatory, creepy, band together against women, etc, etc.
Positive stereotypes about refugees/immigrants who seek democracy/freedom/a progressive utopia/etc, which reduces immigrants to one-dimensional beings without nuanced beliefs and desires (some of whom are the exact kind of conservative theocrats that progressives dislike when they are not immigrants).
Note that I believe that nearly all progressives would reject these prejudices if they see them as such, but like most prejudice, a lot of people are blind to their own (or use bad science to ‘prove’ that they are right). In practice, I see a lot of these prejudices championed and amplified in progressive echo chambers. Of course, this mirrors the way prejudice works for reactionaries.
Everyone tends to agree, but some people are very quick to assume that cultural criticism isn’t actually that, but rather a dishonest way for people to express their hatred of the people who are linked to that culture.
Progressive prejudice that conservatives are ‘hiding their bigotry’ is a key part of this.
I don’t know that you were being dishonest. But I do know that, even according to your own anecdote, you actually don’t know if the four students “flunked out” or not. Here’s your more-detailed version:
So it doesn’t sound like you actually know if they “flunked out” or not; they left, but there are reasons a student might leave other than flunking out, including in Northern Europe. Yet you said you think they “flunked out.” That’s what I called you out for, and it seems I was entirely correct to do so.
My comment mainly asked you to stick to verifiable incidents, rather than to try and make controversial points with unverifiable anecdotes. I still think I’m right about that.
But on the whole, I think Richard’s criticism of your comment was much better than mine.
You didn’t prove me wrong; you proved me correct. I didn’t respond because I’m busy, and replying to you simply isn’t my highest priority, or even in the top five. If you find that “maddening,” then this may not be the right blog for you to hang out on.
And, as long as you brought this up, I don’t think you ever answered my question as to which Popehat post you were referring to. (Or did you answer, and I missed it?)
Hey, do I count as an “SJW,” in your view? It seems like I do. And yet:
WTF, New York Post? Why Are You Advocating Rape? | Alas, a Blog
“Minions” may beat “Lava” for most sexist kid’s movie of the year | Alas, a Blog
#SavingChase: Judge Orders Mom Arrested For Violating Agreement To Have Her 4-Year-Old Son Circumcised | Alas, a Blog
Sexism Hurts Men | Alas, a Blog
Texas Kindergarden Sends Five-Year-Old Home Because He Has Awesome Hair | Alas, a Blog
Study Shows Enormous Sentencing Discrepancy Against Men | Alas, a Blog
School Won’t Let Bullied Boy Bring ‘My Little Pony’ Bag to Class | Alas, a Blog
Eight Things I Hate About 23 Trends Guys Hate | Alas, a Blog
13-Year-Old Boy Suspended For Carrying Purse At School | Alas, a Blog
“How To Make A Man Out Of Tin Foil!” is now online at Bitch Magazine! | Alas, a Blog
Far from the only examples I could cite, either.
Aapje,
I do not have much time to engage with you on this further, but I did want to share with you some of what I’ve been thinking since I read your last comment. As someone who has been working in higher education with students from minority disadvantaged” populations–terms that I don’t always like to use, but which will serve as easy catch-alls here–running the gamut from recent (white and non-white) immigrants through the different communities of color in my area and including the white, working-class students in my classes who are often first generation college students, I have encountered people all along the spectrum of responses to “minority” and “disadvantaged” status. From those who think, for example, that the African-American students in my classes who appear to be barely literate are entirely the “product” of white supremacist culture intent on “keeping black people down” to those who think that these communities should, as much as possible, stop blaming white supremacist culture, stop paying so much attention to racism, and focus instead on doing for themselves what white society clearly is not going to do for them. You can, I am sure, fill in the many different perspectives between those two poles. (And I am aware they are not the only two positions one could posit as the defining ends of the spectrum.)
In listening to these people, who are not all people of color, and in deciding how to respond, it matters a lot to me whether or not they are speaking from within the community in question. If they are, I am conscious of the many ways I need to defer to knowledge and experience that I do not and cannot have; if they aren’t, then one of the things I find myself needing to assess is whether they are being patronizing and condescending in what they have to say, presuming to be able to speak without the knowledge and experience I mentioned above.
I do not know your racial or ethnic background, nor do I know anything about the racial/ethnic makeup of your family, your community, etc. So please understand that I am saying nothing here about who you are, or what you think and feel, beyond the language of your posts, which is the only way I know you, but, to my, American ears, almost everything you have written makes you sound like a patronizing and condescending white man presuming to know what’s best for those communities which suffer from racial discrimination. Perhaps if I got to know you, I would still think some version of that. Perhaps there is an entire context that I do not know about that would change my perception entirely; perhaps this perception is just an artifact of your writing. I don’t know, but I can’t ignore the fact that so much of what you have written makes you sound like a well-intentioned, somewhat conservative racist.
Your last comment, #107, suggests to me that you have a nuanced understanding of how important the particular history and oppressed group is in understanding not only the oppression itself, but also how to address it–though I think I would probably disagree with you on how you think that should be done. It does not jive, for me, with the overall impression of your written positions that I described above. So I am back to my original statement, which is that I am having a hard time pinning down a coherent ideology underlying what you’ve been saying here.
@109 Ampersand
You are just nitpicking to an extreme degree now, just to defend your silly objections. They started at the university to get a degree. I’m 99.99% sure they left. So they failed to achieve the result they set out to achieve (the degree in question). Theoretically it is possible that they suddenly realized they wanted to become monks and gave up their studies for that career, but realistically speaking, the primary reason for people to leave is an inability to perform the work.
Anyway, it is clear you just won’t accept anecdotes that won’t support your viewpoint, but accept those which do (like the blog post that started this thread).
And yes, I did tell you where to find the popehat link, you are invited to use the search feature on your browser to search the thread for popehat.
Aapje, I’m not “nitpicking to an extreme degree.” You claimed to know something that you didn’t know – that they “flunked out.” I pointed out that your claim to know this didn’t seem plausible, and you confirmed that you didn’t actually know if they flunked out or not.
The difference between “flunking out” vs transferring, or having an illness, or any of many other obvious reasons that people might leave or take time off from college, is not trivial. (I’ve asked a European friend, who confirms that things like sickness happen in Europe, and aren’t just a US invention.)
You claimed to know something that you don’t actually know. I called you on it. You were wrong. Stop digging the hole further.
Regarding that Popehat link, you claimed:
That’s a completely absurd lie, as I pointed out, with a link to the transcript of the BLM meeting with Hillary. You then admitted that you hadn’t actually read the transcript before delivering your smug and false lie about what the BLM activists at that meeting had said, saying instead that “I was talking about a quote from the Popehat blog post.” That you thought this was a defense, rather than what it was – an admission that you made up a ridiculous lie about what the BLM activists said without even bothering to read the source material first – is bewildering.
You later clarified that you meant the Popehat post linked in comment #29. But that Popehat post never mentions BLM.
So, basically, you just made up a absurd lie about BLM, and of course you can’t back it up because it’s an absurd lie.
You also claimed that you’ve never seen an example of a “SJW,” whatever the hell that insulting and vapid term means, objecting to men being discriminated against. I provided you with a lot of links (and I could provide many more), of myself objecting to men and boys being discriminated against. That would seem to contradict your claim. Any comment?
I asked you not to use anecdotes to prove controversial claims. The claim made in my opening post – that a particular argument over the meaning of the word “racism” exists – is hardly controversial.
@110 Newman
I think the word you are looking for is smart-arse, which I freely admit I am. I like to describe how I feel things are and see if people can find fault with it. This rubs some people the wrong way (but the way some people debate rubs me the wrong way, such is life).
Anyway, the position you describe is based in identity politics and in the concept that only those who are ‘inside’ can understand it. I strongly disagree with this. First of all, a person lost in a labyrinth or stuck in a prison may have a worse viewpoint than a person with an overview. Secondly, the study of attribute-based discrimination is comparative by it’s very nature. Just look at the white privilege lists. These lists make assumptions about how life is for white people and contrasts this with the lived experience of the writer. If it is arrogant for a white person to opine on racism, then it is equally arrogant for a black person to do so, as such an opinion is always based on assumptions about the experiences of people with the same and other skin colors. Since I prefer that people talk to each other and people’s opinions are not to be dismissed on the basis of their skin color, I advocate for people to all be free to share their viewpoint, rather than exclude some from the debate.
Frankly, I’m also rather disappointed in the quality of the analysis of why things are how they are and how to solve them (like how the BLM movement doesn’t seem to understand why cops do what they do). If the dominant voices would seem more sensible, I would be more inclined to ‘shut up and listen.’
Frankly, I care about being right or not. Why does it matter if I’m patronizing if I’m right? I also don’t care much for your framing this as a white vs black thing. I patronize non-black SJWs as much as anyone.
Frankly, it seems to me that you are playing on emotions, ideas like white guilt, etc; rather than simply using facts. I don’t care for that. I care about solving issues.
I am closer to this end of the spectrum, but with the important caveat that the US system is not just failing non-white people, but the poor in general (as social mobility has never been lower). Sadly, this destruction of the American Dream (the American term for high social mobility) came just as black people were primed to climb that ladder.
I think that in the US, too many issues in black communities are framed as due to skin color, while in reality, many are (also) due to the fact that black people are more often poor and segregated in poor communities. So from my viewpoint, a lot of black advocacy is working on fixing the roof (or even just adding a wind chime), while the walls are crumbling.
So, the way I see it, the first order of business on the economic front should be to either reinstate the American Dream by rewarding (hard) work (the traditional US way) or going the European way and building a stronger welfare state. As it is, the US is increasingly going in the direction of the class-based societies the founding fathers wanted to abandon, where the parents you were born too and whom you married mattered more than hard work.
Anyway, this is just me saying what the US people seem to be increasingly realizing.
@Newman
To clarify a bit more: I think that the focus on ‘white supremacist culture’ by SJW is a poor tactic on most issues that affect minorities. It fails to engage moderates, while a fairness/American Dream narrative that aims to help everyone outside the top-x% fulfill their potential can get a lot more support and as such, will do more for non-whites in practice (and for many white people who are not in the top-x% as well). If you frame it well, it can even engage a lot of conservatives (focus on rewarding hard work, etc). As it is now, the SJW movement uses language and methods that generally seem to irritate people and burns bridges with those who could and should be allies.
Aapje, can you demonstrate, by substantive, historical examples, where solving classism automatically solves / resolves racism? As you’ve mentioned, the US is less upwardly social mobile now than in certain generations; where does polite, deferential discourse fit into labor’s rights, for example?
Aapje:
Last comments, since I have a few moments before I need to dive back into schoolwork:
Well, no. This is what I wrote: “In listening to these people, who are not all people of color, and in deciding how to respond, it matters a lot to me whether or not they are speaking from within the community in question.” One does not have to of a community–by which I mean of the identity of that community, i.e. Asian, North African, Black, Latino, etc.–in order to be speaking from within it. There are ways that I am able to speak from within the Iranian-American community, for example, because, by virtue of my marriage, I live significant portions of my life within parts of it. (Which is not the same thing as presuming to speak as an Iranian-American, as if I know that identity from the inside.) So I am not talking about identity. I am talking about knowledge and experience–of which identity is a part, not the whole–and how it shapes what you know, what you think you know, and how you understand what you see and what you think you see.
I don’t know a single person on my end of the political spectrum who thinks it is “arrogant for a white person to opine on racism.” What we do think is that white people should be willing first to take responsibility for, to be held accountable for, to opine on our own role(s) in a racist system before we presume to tell people of color what is best for them. This is not about emotion, or guilt, or identity politics per se; it is about taking responsibility for the fact that racism, institutional and otherwise, in countries where white people have been/are the majority overwhelmingly benefits white people first. You will, I have no doubt, disagree with this, but that’s just something we would have to agree to disagree on.
In other words, it seems you are more interested in being provocative than in arguing substantively, which, especially on the internet, where all arguing takes place in writing, is tantamount to refusing to debate in good faith–which is what Amp has been saying far more straightforwardly than I have. You have some points worth discussing, I think, but I have, frankly, had to work too hard to slog through the way you “feel things are” to get to them. It doesn’t feel worth it to me anymore.
Actually, Richard Jeffrey Newman, Aapje IS discussing things in a straightforward way. I don’t know if you are engaging in “projection” or what, but the nit-picking and siderailing and distraction and unclear writing are basically on your side.
You nit-pick that you don’t HAVE TO be within the community, kinda-sorta, if you are married, for instance, to the minority group in question. Then you can say some stuff about the group, but not everything, or whatever your very specific rules entail. Good side-railing.
As I noted earlier, a lot of your writing is just flowery meandering and thinking out loud. Most of it is designed to show us your importance, not to inform.
Unbelievable. When I even hear “not unrelated to …”, my windbag detector doesn’t go off, but it starts to softly beep.
Veri,
This isn’t my thread, but I will remind you that I am a moderator here and that your attack on me falls far outside the bounds of acceptable discourse on Alas. Consider yourself warned.
Banned! Best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Oh, FFS. “It is difficult for me to understand you” != “therefore you must be doing it to make me feel stupid.”
One’s feelings of inadequacy should probably be dealt with on their own.
And yes, I know there was already a ban, but Jeez.
@112 Ampersand (seem to missed this one earlier)
I’m rather tired of debating this point, since as I’ve said before, the key element in my anecdote was the self-segregation. I believe this behavior should be up for debate, by itself. I feel you are just derailing from my actual argument to try to prove me wrong on a technicality.
I observed them not succeeding at getting the degree they set out to get, which theoretically might have been due them all getting a nasty illness at the same time. Whatever. I just want an open debate to discuss all the issues that may help people of less privileged backgrounds succeed.
I see that I confused two links. The one talking about BLM/Hillary is actually this one: http://thesouthlawn.org/2015/08/18/a-short-follow-up-to-the-previous-post-on-black-lives-matter/#more-1064, not the popehat link. Since you asked which link I referred to so late, long after I went there initially, I mixed the links up in my mind.
That particular blog post doesn’t link through to the full transcript of the meeting, which I later read. I assumed that the blog post was accurate at first. When you objected, I looked into it further and realized that my statement had been too strong and I took back my statement. Just as I would like to take back your accusation that I lied, since I never intended to deceive you.
Oh, that was the reason for those links. They were confusing to me because I didn’t see a lot of anti-‘male discrimination’ in there:
https://amptoons.com/blog/2015/08/22/wtf-new-york-post-rape-jokes-always-suck-even-about-child-molesters/
Here I see you object to a rape joke, you don’t talk about the double standard applied to male rape victims. So while I can’t speak for your intent when you wrote this (and what you implicitly meant), there is no explicit condemnation of male discrimination in this post.
https://amptoons.com/blog/2015/07/13/minions-may-beat-lava-for-most-sexist-kids-movie-of-the-year/
“men are allowed to be earthy and funny-looking and part of a coherent visual universe, but women are there to be pretty. “Lava” is the most extreme example I’ve ever seen.” <- this is the exact opposite of recognizing male discrimination.
You do later say: "this is sexism that is both anti-girl (because it implies that girls have less than the full range of human traits) and anti-boy (suggesting that boys are inherently “dumb and stupid”)", but it is the way that male issues are usually touched on by feminists: only noted when there is a similar female issue that can be described as being much worse.
https://amptoons.com/blog/2015/03/27/savingchase-judge-orders-mom-arrested-for-violating-agreement-to-have-her-4-year-old-son-circumcised/
You never call out male circumcision as discrimination.
https://amptoons.com/blog/2015/01/17/sexism-hurts-men/
Ok, this is actually the first good example. Anyway, I know my statement was too aggressive and absolutist. I take it back, but I still believe that there is a general tendency on the progressive left not to recognize discrimination of (white) men or to rationalize it away as justified.
I don’t think you deliberately lied. But I also think you’re far from an objective or fair observer, and for that reason, I wish you’d stay away from unverifiable anecdotes to prove controversial points.
Case in point: Even the link you’ve finally provided doesn’t support your claim that the only thing the BLM activists who met Clinton had in mind was to make her feel bad for being white. I don’t doubt that was your honest observation – but your honest observation was dead wrong, utterly biased, and unfairly smeared those activists. When you’re so completely unfair when I can double-check the objective record, how can you expect me to respond to an anecdote that I cannot double-check?
And yes, to your credit, you walked back your BLM claims a little (although your revised claims were still biased and unfair).
Thanks for taking your “aggressive and absolutist” statement back. I appreciate it.
I agree that there is a (by no means universal) tendency on the left to be dismissive of how sexism hurts men. But I also think this gets aggravated by context. That is, someone who is obviously hostile and anti-feminist – and that’s certainly how you come across, based on what I’ve seen here at “Alas” and also at SpaceFem – will find that his arguments are less well-received, because it is human nature to respond to hostility with defensiveness.
I also think there’s a legitimate concern that people who (for example) bring up anti-white racism when anti-Black racism is being discussed are deflecting.
@116 Mookie
I think that eventual economic success (outside of crime) for Italians and Irish people was very important in their gradual acceptance. Racism tends to be focused on people who are at ‘the bottom’ of society, as those groups tend to have more problems that those on top (people at the bottom tend to more often commit the kinds of crime that make people upset, have poor education on average that they are judged on, get relatively many subsidies that is seen as leeching, compete on the job market with the same people who are most likely to harshly discriminate, etc). Discrimination tends to be fed by actual issues that exist among the discriminated groups and then that discrimination in turn helps cause those issues. The key is to break that spiral.
But of course it’s not so simple that you can just do 1 thing and solve everything. My point was more that this seems to me an issue where society is ready to turn the situation around and one of the most important things that can realistically be done to help minorities (but that also affects many white people, so it can be ‘our’ issue, rather than ‘their’ issue).
When you (honestly) tell 90% of Americans that you fight for the American Dream, want hard work to be rewarded, want to share the economic growth, want to fight for cheap and good education, want to get rid of predatory business practices, etc; you have a message that appeals to the left, moderates and probably a lot of conservatives as well. It also upsets the Republican narrative, who have pretended to stand with working Americans, while actually screwing them royally, unless they are at the top.
Every success on these issues helps the poor more than the rich (which means…).
An alternative scenario is to make every group on the left use separate messages, with framing that plays well with (most) progressives, but fails to engage the moderates and in fact, makes them resist you, even when they agree with your principles. Meanwhile, this framing pushes many potential allies to the Republican side.
Anyway, there has been some interesting research that shows that people on the left and the right respond to different framing. So it’s not unlikely that framing that appeals to moderates and some conservatives looks deferential and weak to you. Perhaps you have to choose: a message that sounds good to your ears or a message that achieves results.
And this is pretty much exactly what Bernie Sanders has been saying, and also Hillary Clinton. And yet, I predict we will not see “a lot of conservatives” finding that message appealing. Because in the US (and I’m sure worldwide, but I can only speak from firsthand experience about the US), politics aren’t that simple.
People said exactly the same thing during the civil rights movement. Moderate your message! Don’t say anything that will alienate the moderates! But you can’t get anything if you don’t stand for anything. (Have you read Letter from a Birmingham Jail?)
BLM (and, more broadly, the protest movement BLM grew out of) hasn’t been following your playbook, to say the least. But there is real, substantive change happening, such as the large increase in police departments using body cameras. And the Democratic candidates are talking about police violence in a way they never would have if BLM hadn’t been pressuring them.
I see no reason to believe that these changes would happen if BLM activists shut up and never said anything that would disturb moderates. You can’t change the debate in this country if you never push on people’s beliefs. BLM IS “achieving results” in a way that I don’t think your strategy would.
Or perhaps not. Suppose that the Democrats decide to completely ignore their base and only say things that sound good to Republicans. Would that actually “achieve results”? How would you do the door-to-door get out the vote efforts – arguably the most critical aspect of any campaign in the USA – if you haven’t said anything that motivates your base to volunteer for your campaign? I guess you could use 100% paid staffers – but that would require much more fundraising, and again, how will that be done if you don’t say anything that motivates your base to give?
Links to support my earlier claim that body camera use is up:
Justice Dept. will spend $20 million on police body cameras nationwide – The Washington Post
Obama wants more cops wearing body cams
Police Departments Rush to Outfit Officers With Body Cameras – ABC News
@117 Newman
I see that I misunderstood. But I do think that an outsider perspective is very valuable, especially in the US, where partisanship is very strong. Similarly, academia seem to become increasingly one-sided (a very interesting part from that article was that progressives think that a progressive environment is tolerant, while conservatives feel afraid to speak out).
I don’t have an issue with the general idea that white people should consider their own actions and thoughts, in the context of discrimination. But I find your paragraph rather frustrating in how it frames things.
The problem with the word ‘first’ is that it tends to come down to ‘only.’ That entire sentence is very negative and portrays a world where non-whites shout at white people what to do and vice versa. In my preferred world, everyone takes responsibility for, is held accountable for and opines on our own role(s) in society, while also being free to criticize others. That also means that a non-white perspective isn’t necessarily more correct than a white perspective (or vice versa), nor that tolerance only has to come from one side.
The idea that white people greatly benefit from racism is also debatable. In a way this goes back to my frustration with white privilege lists, which tend to point out black discrimination and then frame the absence of discrimination as a boon. A lack of disadvantage is not a benefit. In general, I see the most virulent racism from people who feel that they’ve been harmed, not people who want to subjugate others.
I meant the word in this way: “a person who is irritating because they behave as if they know everything.”
I do believe what I say, so I’m not trolling.
This is not really relevant to this discussion, so I would appreciate it if anyone who wants to discuss this would take it to an open thread, but, because I am tired of being told how one-sided and biased against conservatives academia is: Here’s a link to what a conservative has to say about that. My point is not that those who claim there is a liberal bias are out and out wrong. Just that the accuracy of that claim, even by conservatives’ own lights, is not a far gone conclusion.
@125 Ampersand
Wrong: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/15/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-strike-populist-tone-s/
Even a deeply conservative paper like the Washington Times sees how many similarities there are between Sanders and Trump on this issue and recognizes that this message works for conservative and progressive audiences. If even they see this, then it surely can’t be hard to spread this message, if the candidates make it a key part of their campaign. Bernie needs to figure out a better answer if people ask him if he is a socialist, though.
I do find it both strange and interesting that you suddenly pivoted to general politicians. My criticism was that anti-racism advocates are not focusing on this. So an actual objection to my argument would be if you found anti-racism advocates asking these candidates to rebuild the American Dream (for all). Simply pointing out that (white) Democrats are spreading this message doesn’t counter my claim that anti-racism advocates don’t see this as a core issue to fight for.
MLK was the moderate voice. The Black Panthers were extremists. MLK and the NAACP specifically did what I am advocating, they looked at how their message was perceived by people outside of their community. When confronted by violence, they didn’t respond in kind. When people are fighting with the police, it is easy for people with an authoritarian bent to conclude that the violence must be just. When black protesters refused to fight back, but also refused to obey unjust laws and the media showed nice black people being beaten up or otherwise mistreated, the authoritarian narrative (that only bad people get beaten by the police) was shaken, the racist narrative (that black people are violent thugs) was shaken. And things did change….
I never said the entire BLM movement is totally wrong and I do agree with the body camera’s (and better oversight of cops in general). I just think that their efforts will stall before too long, as they don’t seem to have a robust idea of how cops should operate, nor a holistic view.
You are making a mockery of my argument.
Changing emphasis to match an audience is a core feature of US politics, with primaries where candidates need to play to their base and then need to pivot to play to the moderates for the general election (while still getting the donations for their base).
In no way does this mean that Bernie has to become a Republican. A smart (progressive) politician uses dog whistles to his advantage. Use the right words (American Dream, reward hard work, etc) and avoid others (socialism, subsidies, etc). Then make a nice campaign video with a black mom AND a white mom who both have two jobs and can’t be there for their kids. Stamp FAMILY on the screen and play those family values heartstrings like Jimi Hendrix.
I don’t see how this would turn away progressives. They may complain a bit about not hearing their favorite dog whistles enough, but Obama has proven that you can energize the base with grass roots funding. In the Bernie emails to his base, he can play to a progressive audience.
PS. Yes, I ignored the other Democrat candidate whom I don’t like.
This discussion has strayed pretty far from a definition for the word racism, but there are still interesting things being said.
Aapje, you’re saying many things that resonate with me, but I have to agree with Amp that your use of an anecdotal story to make a point about racism is off base. Here’s why:
As you’ve noted, SJ advocates often argue that a black (or other minority) perspective is necessary in order to diagnose certain societal problems. I agree with you, Aapje, that this is a weak argument in the vein of “check your privilege.” The white observer who is asked to check his privilege, is really being asked to “check your biases.” Privilege theory is simply a one-sided theory that examines one type of bias by one group of people. Meanwhile, any biases among black observers, and especially anti-racists advocates is ignored. It’s pretty undeniable that advocates often suffer from all kinds biases. I’d rather not start a flame war by mentioning times when SJ advocates were blinded by their own advocacy, but we can all think of a few instances off the tops of our heads.
Anyway, when people argue that whites are uniquely biased about race relations or sexism, they do so to elevate the weight of lived experience by minorities above the lived experiences of men or white people during discussions about race. The whole point is to prop up an avalanche of anecdotal evidence in support of certain theories on racism, sexism, and the like.
The right thing to do is inject more reason, more data, more critical reviews of studies and theory, and more skepticism on all sides, while minimizing the use of “lived experience,” in the diagnosis of society’s problems. When you present an anecdotal story about black people dropping out of school, you are doing the opposite of that.
(as an aside, to get back to a previous point, I think most of the examples of progressive prejudice you gave are actually examples of cultural criticism, which IMO, is acceptable. I’ve heard a few progressive friends say bad things about people for being from “flyover country” and the like, but I’ve also seen these people get called out for that by other progressives. Meanwhile, the republican candidate leading the polls is being overtly racist on camera. I still think conservatives are much more prejudiced)
Very minor nitpick: IIRC, Aapje’s anecdotal story was about people of color, but he didn’t specify that they were “Black.” (But I’m in a hurry at the moment and so I’m not going to search through the thread for Aapje’s comment, so that’s from memory, so I might be mistaken.)
Yeah, Amp, I think you’re right.
In any case, I’m simply arguing that Aapje seems to be making assumptions due to his lived experience, while asking others to stop doing the very same thing.
I overstated my case, though. Listening to other’s lived experiences is a good idea, keeping in mind that neither Aapje, Ta-Nahisi Coates, you, or myself are impartial observers, and we are all prone to assigning blame to whatever is most politically/ideologically convenient.
@Jeffrey
I have to disagree with your wholesale dismissal of anecdotes. We all have lived experiences that shape our beliefs and identity. If you deny people the right to talk about their experiences, you often make it impossible to talk about how they came to their beliefs, to clarify their identity, etc.
Furthermore, when communicating we do not just share scientific facts. Science generally can only ‘prove’ very basic facts. That’s why there is also value in qualitative research. In fact, to do proper quantitative research, researchers first need to come up with the right questions, which often involves theorizing based on anecdotes or other qualitative data.
I do agree that anecdotes are not very good as evidence, but I gave my particular anecdote as an example of something that should be up for discussion (which is behavior by marginalized groups that they can change to improve their position). I never made the claim that my anecdote was an absolute truth that applied to all non-whites (or exclusively to them), nor did I claim that I know exactly how it impacts these groups. Again, my point was that this should be up for discussion, not that people should accept my example (or other examples) uncritically.
Ultimately, all methods of seeking the truth are limited (including science, which is very limited as well). So for me, the proper way to approach each kind of method is to recognize both the value and the limits.
As an example, I see value in a non-white person telling me about being treated as a potential thief when shopping. On the other hand, I don’t accept this as evidence that all these experiences were correctly interpreted, other people with the same skin color experience the same, that white people don’t experience this, etc. So when a person draws conclusions that the anecdote doesn’t support, I disagree. But I disagree with the interference, not with the (perceived) experience.
PS. I intentionally didn’t mention ethnicity in my example, because my point wasn’t about a specific race. But since you care: the people weren’t black.
PS2. Prejudice founded on cultural criticism still has negative consequences, since it results in faulty perceptions, false assumptions that hurt others, etc. Of course it is fair to be critical of culture, but prejudice by its nature doesn’t limit itself to that, but results in the judging of individuals. For instance, I don’t see a fundamental difference between assuming that a black student grew up in ‘the hood’/poverty vs assuming that a white student grew up in wealth. Both assumptions can result in comments that are insulting to the student. Yet an assumption like the latter is more acceptable to progressives, IMO.
Your anecdote is terrible, Aapje, for many reasons, but here’s one that hasn’t been brought up yet.
You don’t know what the effect of these students “disappearing” was, other than “they didn’t get a degree from your program at your university while you were there.” So you have no way of concluding “the effect of them disappearing was negative to them.”
Other possibilities:
– They found the atmosphere in (Program X, University Y) so hostile (or disappointing, or impenetrable, or unhelpful, etc. etc.) that they opted to transfer to other programs at the same university.
– They found the atmosphere in XY so hostile (or etc.) that they opted to transfer to a similar program at one or more other universities.
– They decided (individually or collectively) to withdraw from Y and spend some time lobbying Y to improve conditions in Program X or university-wide for students like themselves, before choosing whether to return there or try another university/program.
– Their experiences (individual or collective) at XY led them to believe that even if they finished the program, they would either have trouble finding jobs in that field, or experience such hostility in that field, that they (individually or collectively) decided to pursue another course of study.
– They (individually or collectively) came to believe that they did not need to pursue a degree in X (at Y or elsewhere) to be successful (e.g. they formed a startup together, or each decided to go into some other line of work that did not require a degree in X, or pooled their resources to form their own collective, or worked together to find mentoring that would get them into some field without the degree in X from Y.)
– They (individually or collectively) came to believe that Field X did not suit their needs, personalities, abilities, family lives, prospects, whatever.
So just off the top of my head, that’s half a dozen reasons that students might “disappear” that have nothing to do with failure.
And even if they did leave because of their grades? There are plenty more explanations for why that might be other than “they self-segregated and therefore their grades suffered.”
– The education to which they had access prior to enrolling in XY proved to be sub-standard and they were inadequately prepared to succeed.
– The environment in which they found themselves in XY negatively impacted their ability to function effectively as students.
– Events in their families or community/ies while they were enrolled negatively impacted their ability to function effectively as students.
– Instructors in XY could not or would not teach to them effectively (e.g. language barriers, different learning styles, different preparatory backgrounds, conscious or unconscious bias in assigning tasks or grades, conscious or unconscious bias in mentoring, etc. etc.)
Here’s a few more, that might be negative outcomes but have nothing to do with grades or self-segregation:
– They all faced financial barriers which led to them being unable to continue at that time.
– They all faced family and/or community stressors which led to them being unable to continue at that time.
– They all faced institutional issues (e.g. visa problems, lack of access to financial aid, devaluation of their savings or investments that paid for school) which led to them being unable to continue at that time.
See? So all you know is “they didn’t get a degree from your program at your university while you were there.” They might have gotten a similar degree elsewhere, gotten a different degree at your university, gotten a degree from your program at your university at some point in the future, or found a path to success some other way. OR they might have had their hopes and dreams shattered through little or no fault of their own.
But you apparently jumped to the conclusion “they failed to achieve their goal, and it was their fault for self-segregating.”
Now, why do you think that is?
@133 Elusis
I agree with you that my example was bad, but primarily because so many of you seem to be unable to interpret it as I intended (which is not what you read into it).
I never said that they failed in life. I never claimed that there was a direct correlation between the self-segregating and their disappearance. These are things that you project on my anecdote and then you attack me for your false interpretations (that I have tried to correct before).
I have said many things and yet an absurd amount or vitriol is aimed at this misinterpretation of 1 anecdote, which was just a PS to start with and not the core of my argument.
Again, I realize that we live in a world where some people say that racism doesn’t exist or that non-whites are solely to blame for it. I understand that people may find this hugely objectionable and want to stamp it out. However, that is not my position. The only thing I said is that some behavior by minorities is self-destructive (and we may thus help these groups by helping them change this behavior). Despite your long post, it is unclear to me whether you think this can be the case. So when people attack me over something I do not believe, again and again, while ignoring my main point, it just leaves me frustrated at a barrage of false accusations.
Does it have to be this way???
Nope, it was bad primarily because you did not communicate your point well enough. When what you say is not understood to be what you mean, the fault is on you for poor communication and not on your audience for poor comprehension skills. This is especially true if all or the vast majority of your audience did not get your point.
Aapje, I just got my first surprise laugh of the day. Thank you. (Some days don’t have any, but I’m not even halfway through this one, yet, so I have high hopes.)
So the example you chose, and you wrote, is a bad example, and that’s because of the people reading it.
Oh, there’s the second laugh!
Priceless.
Grace
Where did I attack you?
Right, you didn’t say they “failed at life,” you just said they failed at taking advantage of this “great opportunity” and that it was “self-destructive,” and then assumed that they flunked out.
I provided you with 14 alternative scenarios, some of which might have led to happy endings, other to unhappy ones, but which you lumped in under “the [privilege plus power] narrative” and dismissed as less credible to you than your interpretation.
I’ll ask again: Now, why do you think that is?
And, you experienced that as attacking you, even though the only critical thing I directed your way was saying that your anecdote was terrible, which you agreed it was (though you blamed its failure on everyone else.) Now, why do you think THAT is?
@135 Jake Squid
I accept responsibility for not being clear at first, but after I clarified, I feel justified in expecting people to realize what I meant, rather than keep beating the same drum.
@136 Grace
My remark didn’t place the exclusive blame on the readers, a writer has to write to his audience, which I seemingly failed to do (although it can be very hard to communicate things to people who have a very different view on life). That said, people did read things into my anecdote that I never explicitly said, which I don’t accept the blame for.
@137 Elusis
That was a little hyperbolic on my part (due to frustration). But you were completely unwilling to entertain the idea that marginalized people can improve their chances in life through their own actions and launched into a huge list of potential challenges they faced.
As such, your post is a good example of what I actually wanted to talk about: the general unwillingness of SJWs to discuss how marginalized groups can change their own actions to improve their situation. Again, my point was to talk about this taboo.
Anyway, you are persisting in your belief that we must have an explanation for why they left. I explicitly said that this doesn’t matter and that I consider their self-segregation to be inadvisable and self-destructive, regardless of whether it was the actual reason why they left. Again, I never claimed to know why they left, nor do you actually know. You also have no idea whether your 14 reasons played a role.
Your use of the word ‘scenario’ is highly problematic, as it implies that there was a single overriding reason that exclusively caused these students to leave. Most of the reasons you gave could play a role, as well as self-destructive behavior (which non-disadvantaged students also do), as well as personal characteristics.
For a single individual, not even the person himself might be able to really say what the effect was of the various things he experienced, his own qualities and limitations, his choices, etc. However, I think we can agree that things like discrimination, poverty, etc have negative effects in general. I also believe that some behaviors by people have negative effects in general.
What I find strange is that the environment issues may be discussed by SJW, while debating the behavior of marginalized groups themselves is a taboo. Effectively it is discriminatory, since SJW generally seem to believe that people from ‘white’ cultures can engage in behavior that is destructive, but it is not allowed to believe that ‘non-white’ cultures can engage in behavior that is destructive*. As such, there is a double standard, where people are judged by race.
Anyway, it is a little frustrating how hard it is to even communicate what I mean to most of you, while I’m trying so hard. I guess that the consequence of dogma is that it creates blind spots that makes it hard to even understand other perspectives.
* Note that I’m not claiming that all members of minority groups engage in these behaviors, just that some do and that advising the latter to change their behavior may help these groups.
Aapje:
It’s always easier to blame dogmatism on the other person, especially when they refuse to have the conversation you insist on trying to have.
I might have missed something since I came late to this thread, but I don’t recall anyone saying that discussing “the behavior[s] of marginalized groups” is off limits; nor do I recall anyone suggesting that marginalized groups bear no responsibility for how they respond to the circumstances of their marginalization; nor do I recall anyone saying that people who are not part of a marginalized group can never, under any circumstances have anything valuable to say to the members of the group about those behaviors.
What I do hear people saying is that your approach, as you have expressed it in writing on this blog (and, frankly, to me, your explanations and clarifications only serve to dig this hole deeper), seems to show little regard for the context in which those behaviors emerge and to presume that taking this context into account and respecting the meaning it has in the lives of the marginalized group’s members is at best an unnecessary courtesy and, at worst, a destructive distraction.
If you really get why the way you originally presented your views was unclear, stop doubling down on it. Why not simply say that what you have written here was unclear, that—in your own estimation—it misprepresents your views, and that, since it makes no sense to continue going around in circles, you’re going to take a step back and, for now, let this be? There will be other conversations about race on this blog where you’ll be able to take another stab at having your say without the distractions of the way this conversation has, in my opinion anyway, broken down.
Aapje, you’ve posted over 100 comments and approximately 40,000 words on this blog. You’ve had a more than fair chance to state your views.
However, at this point “in the subjective opinion of the moderators, your presence is bringing us further away from the conversation we want to have.”
For this reason, I’ve banned you from “Alas.” (See the moderation policy for information on what being banned here means). Thanks very much for your effort and participation up to this point, and I wish you only the best in the future.
But.. there’s still more candy inside him!
Ah well.