Bitch Lab: The 17th Carnival of Feminists!
Jay Sennet Jaywalks: The Second Erase Racism Carnival!
YouTube: Joss Whedon’s Speech For Equality Now!
Damn! Awesome speech regarding being asked “why do you write strong female characters” by reporters a thousand times over. “How is it possible this is even a question? Why aren’t you asking other guys why they don’t write strong female characters?” Curtsy: Heron61.
Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty: Women Are Really Neat People
There has been a bit of a bit of a debate among feminists blog-writers, about blow-jobs. I don’t want to write about that, but I do want to write about the way in which feminist analysis looks at women’s lives, both individually and collectively, and what relationship that has to the sort of action we take.
Taking Place: “Freedomland” sucks and is racist; here’s why.
Super Babymoma: What Happens to Bloggers Who Disappear?
Probably everyone who uses netnames – either for themselves or their netfriends – has had this thought.
Super Babymoma: Venezuela Begins Program of Wages for Housewives
Taking Place: Couple arrested for saving illegal immigrants’ lives
Interesting discussion of Gentrification and Neighborhoods
My Amusement Park: Why Should I Have More Right To Live Here Than Someone Moving In?
Projection. We know we’re human, so we assume all other humans act like us if we don’t stop them.
I always thought the reverse racism argument was telling…like there’s a proper direction for racism to go. Or like fighting a speeding ticket by claiming the cop broke the law when he caught up to you.
I’ll respond more fully later – gotta go. But I do dislike the term “reverse racism”. To borrow some terms from mathematics, racism (as shown in the generally accepted definition) is a scalar quantity, not a vector one. Racism is racism, independent of the race of either the originator or the target. If a black person hates a white person solely because he’s white, it’s racism, not “reverse racism”.
But you’re right, even if Whites become the minority race, which they will be some day,
Hm. What’s a “minority race”? I ask to explore the dynamics of racial populations in the U.S. a bit. Is there such a thing as a “minority” race if there is no “majority” race present? While it’s very possible that whites will be less than 50% of the American population in the future, and will thus no longer be the majority, does that mean that they become a “minority”? At that point, is any race a “minority”? I would expect that the various collections of ethnicities that are regarded as “white” will remain a plurality for quite some time after they cease to be an absolute majority. Do we consider a race that is a plurality to be minority? Or do we consider all races except the one that’s a plurality to be a minority?
Jack:
“It’s about acknowleding that, yes, white folks are racist. They all have racial prejudices, and they all have racial privilege and power.”
All whites are racist and have racial predjudices? Very nice. If you could back this up with actual data, I’d like to see it. Unless you simply are making a judgement about a given group of people based solely on their race.
I have absolutely no problem with people who try to destroy ideas that are used to keep the status quo of oppression in place.
I have no problem with destroying the actions and behavior that would follow from such ideas. But we need to keep a way to express the ideas themselves, so that we can teach how wrong they are and so that people will recognize them again if someone tries to re-market them.
I think there’s different definitions of “minority” both in terms of numbers of members in that group and also in terms of access to the power structure. Women as a gender are often referred to as being a “minority” when in this country, women outnumber men, I believe(though world-wide, I think due to the global impact of sexism and misogyny, it’s vice-versa). But women are referred to in that way, because although our numbers may be greater, our access to the power structures and institutions is less than that enjoyed by men as a gender.
Minority in number, not necessary in terms of access to power structures and institutions although that would change. Apartheid in South Africa was manifested through a minority race(Whites) against a majority race(Black Africans) and also to varying degrees, Indians(including some people with ancestry in other Asian countries) and Biracial Africans(Colored).
I think the word “racism” should be reserved to apply to prejudice and bigotry, regardless of the institutional power behind them. That is because prejudice and bigotry are a moral problem that deserves condemnation. Racial prejudice is morally problematic even when the prejudiced person does not have institutional power over the group they are prejudiced towards. Hence, I think we should call it “racism,” especially because that is how most people understand the word already.
I agree that language is not static and can change, but it seems that if we are going to redefine a word, especially one of political importance, we should have a good a reason to do so. For instance, I think there is a good reason to reclaim words like “gay” and “queer” such that they no longer have negative connotations. Yet I see no reason to redefine a word like “racism.” If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
If we want to refer to racial prejudice + institutional power, why can’t we just call it “institutionalized racism” (which is already a commonly used term)? I don’t see what anyone has to lose from this approach. In contrast, redefining “racism” will create unecessary confusion, and risk alienating whites, who, like Brandon Berg, will see that move as self-serving. Many white people might worry that the idea that “non-whites can’t be racist against whites” could make prejudice and bigotry against whites more acceptable, because such a strong word as “racism” could no longer be used to condemn or protest it. I don’t think such worries are insane.
I would like to include the entire quote from jack’s link above, which claims that King defined racism as “privilege + power”, and also Cornel West’s response (bolding mine):
West seems to disagree with the “prejudice + institutionalized power” definition of racism. If he does consider racism to require power, he seems to only require the presence of individual power, which he claims that blacks have also. Note also West’s disagreement with the “prejudice + institutionalized power” definition confirms what Ron F, Robert, and others have been saying, that such a definition is not widely accepted even among blacks.
Furthermore, West is correct to point out the power and the damage of stereotypes like “white people can’t dance,” when coming from non-white people. Certainly, those stereotypes have little practical impact on white people’s livelihoods. Yet stereotypes like that are a reason for the fear that “if we as a group treated people unjustly that if they get a foot in the door, they will do like to us the first chance they get” that Radfem points out, and why this worry is not always “projection” in contrast to what P6 claims). The existence of small and relatively-impactless prejudices against white people, which are not criticized, will lead to a justifiable fear of larger prejudices that may follow in the future, and will fuel prejudices by white people against blacks (“if they are stereotyping, why shouldn’t we?”). It’s the principle that counts.
White people are going to think twice about being allies to groups with members who hold prejudiced or bigoted attitudes against them, especially if one of the traditional words for protesting such prejudice, racism, is redefined such that it is off-limits for use in protesting those attitudes. This isn’t entirely justified, because racism against non-whites should be fought by whites even if a subset of non-whites are prejudiced against whites (two wrongs don’t make a right). Still, I think the possibility that many whites will behave this way should be considered before embarking on unecessary redefinitions of words like “racism.”
Nope. It’s niggerism (pop culture not withstanding).
Aegis:
If racism had no power, no one would complain about it. It would be like complaining about people who go to Star Trek conventions.
Nice try, but Aegis didn’t complain about powerless racism, but about racism without institutional power.
All power is transitory, and institutional, class- or race-based power (or supposed power, damn it, where’s mine?) is just one of many forms.
I suppose what I’m trying to say, is that even if one is to accept the definition of racism as prejudice+power over (which I see no reason to) to claim then that blacks can not be racist against whites will only make sense if one believes that it is physically impossible for a black person to ever have power over a white person, even temporarily.
Since such argument is utterly ridiculous (and would pretty much require for whites to actually be a superior race, physically, socially and mentally), even the redefinition of racism fails.
That’s the purest distinction without a difference I’ve ever seen.
How so?
Do you dispute that other sorts of power exist than institutional power?
RonF:
I already broke this down in the very comment that you quoted from, but to clarify:
Every single person in this society, regardless of their race, has racial prejudices. We live in a racist society. We are brought up being innundated with all sorts of racial prejudices and stereotypes; it’s inescapable.
However, not everyone in this society has racial power. As our society is structured, white folks have racial power and racial privilege that is backed up systemically and institutionally.
Therefore, if racism is defined as racial prejudice plus racial power and privilege, then all white people are racist. This is not to say that all white people are wilfull bigots; it’s to say that all white people in this society benefit from white privilege, have racial prejudice in them, and are often complicit (either through wilfull actions and speech, or through silent and tacit approval) in systemic, institutionalized racism.
I am of the people of color can be racist school of thought, and I generally agree that institutional racism is prejudice plus power (although that is an extremely simplfied definition). In fact, in these types of discussions I prefer to use the term White racism because that is the system of racism we have in this country. If you look at the creation and origins of racism in the US, it really starts from the creation of Whiteness.
I firmly believe that people of color can and do partake in reinforcing the system of White racism. I’m not talking about the idea that” people of color say bad things about white people so they are racist too.” People of color do have agency even if they are not in the dominant group, and when you look at the social institutions in this country–family, religion, politics, media, the economy, the criminal justice system, education–there are many locations within these institutions where individual people of color have power. The mother who teaches her daughter that her “nappy hair is bad.” The Black teacher who believes that Black students behave poorly and need more discipline. To someone like Clarence Thomas really is the epitome someone who upholds the system of white racism.
So from my point of view it’s not the identity of the person that matters, but the ideology that they are promoting.
jack said:
I believe Ron F was asking for evidence of claims such as “every single person in this society, regardless of their race, has racial prejudices.” It strikes me as possible that this claim is true, but I really think that it will require some empirical evidence. Simply the fact of living in a racist society doesn’t mean that we can know that everyone in that society is going to be prejudiced, because not everyone internalizes culture in the the same way.
Rachel S.
So from my point of view it’s not the identity of the person that matters, but the ideology that they are promoting.
I agree with this point. That is why, if someone is promoting an ideology of prejudice or hatred, they are racist, regardless of what identity they are and whether they have institutional power behind them or not.
My statement was inclusive of institutional power.
Well, well.
Then do you agree that it is possible for a black person to be in position of power over a white person?
P6, you may note that I did not attribute not acknowledging other sorts of power than institutional power to your comment, but since you have written in your blog and are here defending the idea that black people can not be racist against whites because racism is (supposedly) defined be prejudice and power, a reasonable criticism is to point out that there are situations where a black person can have power over a white person and thus, if combined with racial prejudice, should be labeled by your very own logic a racist.
Unless, of course, you dispute that there is other sorts of power than institutional (you apparentlyy do not) or are just being deliberately obtuse.
Or, if racist is to white like nigger* is to black — as you have implied in your blog, shouldn’t racist then be politely reserved for intra-white relations?
* Used for example purposes, not because I consider the argument that this word shouldn’t generally be used due to negative historical reasons by white people problematic.
be prejudice…
by.
also, one extra y on apparently.
Tuomas, this is not a reasonable argument, because P6 said that “racist” and “nigger” are comparable in one specific way. It’s extremely careless reading (calling it “careless” is giving you a large benefit of the doubt) on your part to imagine he ever said or implied that “racist is to white like nigger is to black” in any general sense.
I didn’t claim it was a complete reading. However, P6 does argue that the word racist can only apply to whites.
But hey, Lord knows I just oppose you guys because my ideology so totally opposed to you or something.
ideology is…
(sorry for the sloppiness)
I had no way of knowing that. Now that you mention it, so acknowleged.
Then you know you’re not saying anything attributable to me.
Give it a complete reading and get back to me.
Tuomas, you claimed that P6 had ever implied that “racist is to white like nigger is to black” in a generalizable enough sense so that you could logically infer from that, that “racist [should] then be politely reserved for intra-white relations.”
But P6 had never said or implied that. That makes what you said either an honest error or a lie.
I don’t think he actually does – for instance, I doubt he’s say that it’s impossible for someone of one minority to be racist against someone of another minority, in the right circumstances.
But that’s besides the point. Whether or not P6 argues what you say, he does not and never did say or imply that in a generalizable way “racist is to white like nigger is to black.”
I do not have high hopes that you will address any substantial points I have made, such as:
If no, then why not? So far you are dodging the question by nitpicking on technicalities.
RonF:
P6:
P6 is free to correct me. If he says that he does not mean that racist is intrinsic to white like n***** is to black, he can correct me.
I
And there was of course this in P6’s post:
My response to “racist” is generally “How am I/how is this racist?” Or “Yeah, whatever, but let’s discuss the original issue.”
IME my unwillingness to stop the debate at hand to discuss my supposed racism makes quite many people “crazy”, so to speak, which supports a theory that the term is used as a slur to shut people up far too often, enough so that the term has been devalued.
YMMV, but for such rote generalizations, plenty of opposing data points exist. I have absolutely no problem in admitting that I may be bit racist if the subject comes up in a relevant context, nor do I have any problems with the idea that many whites are racist. Just with the idea that racist is limited to whiteness, and also with the idea that minorities can not be racist against whites, just against each other and themselves, because some supposedly all-pervasive White Supremacy covers everything.
Okay, seems we’ve all read it.
Intrinsic? A curious word I’ve never approached.
I don’t hide behind technicalities. But when people switch the topic of conversation mid-thread from whatever else you werew talking about to the post Amp linked, I think you should let folks know…or accept whatever rudeness comes your way.
That’s what I said.
What’s your problem with it?
You’re what’s known as a statistical outlier.`
P6, I’ll get back to to the issue in a week, just being busy right now, with moving and stuff.
Perhaps the problem I have is that racism is a wider concept than “nigger” which was a specific word in English used in America as a slur against black people, whereas racism has existed, and does exist, in other contexts and other societies.
Looking back, I may have come across as itching for a fight, which wasn’t my intention, and the comment
was bit careless, and was not meant as any substantive point. Quoting the post in full just seemed darn inefficient.
But here the context is American racism. It’s as invalid an expansion of reference as comparing the human reaction to the Roman and American versions of slavery…freed Roman slaves could become full citizens, and even noblemen. American slaves had to get out of town if they were freed.
Context matters.
Seriously, if you want to engage after a week you should email me or something when you do. I’ll probably not see it otherwise.
Pingback: Women's Space/The Margins
Bean, what’s the difference between institutional power and situational power, to the person who is subject to it? “Ouch, this oppression hurts extra bad because the person beating the crap out of me has a title!”
If racism is power + prejudice, then it shouldn’t matter where the power (or the prejudice, for that matter) come from – just that they exist.
So racism = power + prejudice, except where the victim of racism can somehow avoid the power? The white guy who gets killed by a mob isn’t the victim of racism, because he didn’t have to go to Compton? I guess then that a white guy living in a majority-minority part of the country can be the victim of minority racism, since their power is hard to escape for him?
Except that I imagine it will turn out somehow that all white people can escape black power, and no black people can escape white power.
This reeks of special pleading. At least Rachel’s formulation accepts its own foundational definition and works within the terms.
Here’s a good question for AngryBrownButch: Where should I live?
I’m white and make a working-to-middle-class income. I can’t afford to live in a white middle-class suburb. (Nor do I want to – my parents probably white-flew out of the city in the 60s.) However, I can afford to live in a mixed-race neighborhood with slowly rising property values. What do I do?
We weren’t looking for a $200,000 gentrified loft in the neighborhood (we can’t afford that, either). My (now) wife bought a house for $83,000 6 years ago.
I think RonF has a good point upthread as to the redlining and block-busting done in the 1950s and 1960s . The problem is, where do we go from here? How do we avoid perpetuating segregation without ejecting people from the neighborhood, and how do we reverse white flight? (One way is to go after the predatory lenders and keep the more voracious speculators out – I vandalize the “sell your home – cash quick!” signs that illegally appear on utility poles.)
And I don’t want the $12 faux-Mexican restaurant in the neighborhood either. Catalina’s is wonderful, and so is La Sirenita (although ms_xeno thinks the food there doesn’t agree with her….)
Every single person in this society, regardless of their race, has racial prejudices.
Aegis is right; I can’t accept that statement without empirical evidence. And I don’t see anything in your posts that provides it.
What Robert said.
bean said:
I would agree with that there is a gap in the severity and impact of manifestations of racial prejudice towards whites in comparison to people of color. We also agree that both of those manifestations are worthy of moral condemnation. Where we seem to disagree is on what to call these manifestations; specifically, which of them qualify as “racism” or not.
Why call one of these experiences racism,” but not the other? Why can’t we just call both of them “racism,” and keep in mind that the average experience of racism towards people of color is going to have a larger impact and be harder to escape than the average experience of racism towards white people?
What bean said both times. Thanks for posting Shannon’s FAQ.
You ask a question, then appear to hear an answer, learn nothing from what has been said except that you’ll “keep in mind”(probably pretty far back there) and then repeat the same question again.
It sounds like on some level that you are trying to equalize racism towards White people with racism towards people of color through language but you can’t. That would be based on an assumption that our society places all racial groups on an even playing field and it’s been built and maintained on institutional racial inequalities. It’s also apparently based on some assumption that a little bit of racism against Whites is equal to centuries of past and ongoing racism against people of color and that’s just not true on its face. In fact, that’s part and parcel of racism against people of color by Whites to even be in a position to make that statement.
Pingback: Not Formica » Blog Archive » Wednesday Morning Tab-age
Pingback: Feminist Critics