Right, it’s certainly not “reverse sexism,” if such a thing even exists. It’s not women who are forcing men into the choice of either military, alternative civilian service, or prison.
8 Likes
You might be surprised!
Presumably. But what I was saying is that some reactions to sexism and racism as they occur in practice do not account for those who do not identify with being any particular race or gender. Also, what most people suppose to be differences of race I find to actually be differences of ethnicity. Which is incompatible with projecting any monolithic “we as a society”. Such mistreatments do occur, but there are people who refuse to be complicit with it. This can also facilitate helpful demarcations of where there are or are not problems. Such as safe zones, instead of implicating everybody in sexist or racist attitudes and behaviors.
You know, that article you linked redefines racism:
“Racism exists when prejudice+power combine…”
Stop right there. I’m not anti-social justice. I’m LGBT, and I am very liberal. I try to recognize privilege whenever I see it, and I run in the same circles as a lot of people who would say this sort of thing.
But I can’t get behind this redefinition of racism that I see in social justice circles. It just seems like it’s wiggling right into excusing the racist behavior of the person or group making the statement.
Racism is when you treat someone negatively because of their ethnicity or the color of their skin, end of story. There’s certainly a lot of grey area to be had here (i.e., are safe spaces racist, is reverse racism sometimes justified, etc.), but anyone can be racist. “Power” doesn’t enter into it. And even if it does, people are people usually racist when they think they have the “power” in the situation, otherwise they’d not be saying anything. So if a person of color is being racist, they may very well have the “power” according to this definition.
Do note that even though I don’t agree with this new definition of racism, I still think that anyone trying to say the Radical Brownies are racist is an idiot. I don’t think that having a safe space for people of color is the same as trying to actively and negatively treat white people differently.
But to imply that people of color simply cannot be racist against white men is ludicrous. They can be, and sometimes are. It’s often socioeconomically justifiable, it can be historically justifiable in many places, and it can be justifiable on an interpersonal level (say, if a group of white people had treated you negatively in the past and you treat them negatively in return). But a person of color can absolutely be racist. I don’t see how you could possibly say they can’t.
2 Likes
Not unlike how I can’t get behind the redefinition of “privilege” in social justice circles. XD Maybe I’ll start calling it “overtheedge”…
This isn’t about how you feel about racism, ethnicity, or gender, or even about how you treat those around you. it’s about how society constructs us as subjects in the first place. The higher you fit into the privilege hierarchy, the less these things affect you directly. You can not be complicity in all you want, and that’s a positive. But saying because you’re not complicit, it’s not an issue, is completely ignoring the experiences of others.
2 Likes
How so? That’s exactly as it functions. You completely gloss over the fact that there are power structures within society that reinforces itself through racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
That’s prejudice. But since white, straight men are considered the default form of humanity, it’s different from racism.
4 Likes
So can people of color be racist against the majority, or not? Because this definition says they can’t. Which I find to be a quite bold (and incorrect) statement.
I do not. I absolutely recognize that society is racist and sexist. What I do not accept is the notion that people of color cannot be racist. There may be a historical reason that they are racist against me (a white male) because my race and/or gender has historically discriminated against them, but I have not done so personally to my knowledge. Therefore, to treat me differently because of the color of my skin is racist.
Racism can be justified in the mind of the actor, but it’s still racism.
You are not drawing the distinction between racism and prejudice in a meaningful way. What is the difference wrt how people are treated? If there is a difference, your definition is wrong, and if there isn’t, it’s pointless.
1 Like
This sounds superstitious to me, There are any number of societies, and they are merely comprised of other individuals. It just doesn’t seem credible to suppose that all groups of people work the same way, with the same values and biases.
This presents an absurd contradiction where you classify that a person can only refute (which I need to remind is not the same as denying) a given hierarchy by being within it as a participant. It’s a popular framing for totalizing social issues, but nothing else ever seems to work this way. I seem to be able to denounce murder, rape, cocaine, and Abrahamic religion without needing to actually participate in doing them first.
Not at all, rather than ignoring the experiences of others, I index them in time, place, and milieu without presuming what their experiences may be. The activities of individuals and groups and cultures must always be assumed to be of limited applicability. Accounts may be accurate, and relevant - but they cannot be assumed to apply for all people, in all places.
2 Likes
I think history is the difference. The historical legacy of state sanction segregation and violence against people of color matters.
Also, Louis CK on white privilege:
4 Likes
I’m saying you are a party of it, we all are, whether you like it or not. Dropping out is a chimera.
Yet you still seem to completely dismiss them.
1 Like
I can see why you can’t get behind it; what you went on to say in tha comment demonstrates that if anyone has explained it to you before, you weren’t listening.
So you’re a liberal. I guess you’re not, then, a leftist?
The former generally see people as atomized individuals, isolated from the powers, influences, advantages and limitations imposed by social context. The latter realize that social context has a great deal to do with things like relative life chances, the likelihood or not of abuse on the mere basis of who and what one is perceived to be, and many other often subconscious phenomena.
Leftists usually use a definition of racism that recognizes and highlights the pervasiveness that white supremacy still has in U.S. society. OTOH, Liberals usually fail to recognize the extent of ongoing de facto white supremacy, and the need to keep that context in sight when using terms like racism. Liberals also tend to be more or less okay with the status quo; leftists tend to fight against it because they recognize that in so many ways, it’s oppressive and abusive.
Anyway, I suspect I’m wasting my virtual breath since, as I said, you seem like a poor listener. But you also show signs of sincerity, so I’ll ask – does any of that make sense to you? And does it help at all toward understanding the value of defining racism as prejudice + power?
4 Likes
I would agree 100% that society has shit on POC in many ways. Furthermore, I have fully acknowledged that society is racist and that there is definitely a historical basis to racist feelings that people of color may have toward the majority white culture.
Despite this, you still have not articulated how the actual difference between the definitions of the two words as I have requested, and you still have not offered what I would consider to be sufficient explanation of:
-
How racism is prejudice + power (which is not a commonly used definition, it is one we will only find used as you use it in context), or
-
How prejudice and racism are different wrt my question above.
I maintain that racism is treating people negatively because of their race (action). Prejudice refers to the beliefs and attitudes that people may have (belief). Your discourse so far has not offered a compelling counterpoint.
I submit that the only meaningful application of the idea as you define it is POC wishing to soften their own racist tendencies – which, as I have admitted above, may be historically justified - but that doesn’t mean they aren’t racist in action.
3 Likes
There simply is no “we all”. You can propose a set as encompassing as you like, but its membership is an abstraction of your own reasoning. It does not make your hypothetical people join the same giant club. And likewise:
this “dropping out” presupposes a totality. Telling people who you don’t know what they are or not a part of is both disempowering, and obnoxious. It’s great that you refute society as an inherently pluralistic concept, but others aren’t obliged to conform to your view of an ideal totality. Simply reiterating that “it’s real!” sounds quite dogmatic and prescriptive. People can not participate in a grand scheming totality without needing to drop out, because they do not need to inhabit the same society that you do.
Who exactly do I dismiss in what way? If I seem to dismiss your hypothetical totality of “everybody” who share the same experiences and circumstances, it’s because we’ve made them up for the purposes of the conversation. I respect the experiences of actual people, with names and times and places - not nebulous generalities which I am told I need to apply to all people.
Just adding my thoughts.
A lot of people can’t seem to tell the difference between personal power and power structures. I felt pretty powerless when I was a depressed trans kid at school but I recognise had some power from being white, lower-middle class and (supposedly) male. Maybe less power than the male cisgender people around me but more than people designated female at birth, or people of colour.
White/heteroseual/cisgender/male people often don’t realise what power they have benefited from until they are in a situation where they can’t rely on that power structure anymore. Often their reaction to this is to appeal to the power system to correct this loss of power in their benefit, even at the expense of the group with less power.
4 Likes
Let’s cut right to the meat of the matter: Can I buy baked goods from them or not? I understand if they don’t want to do the shortbread cookies and thin mints but they’re calling themselves brownies for Pete’s sake. It seems like an awful waste of an opportunity if they can’t monetize that through dessert sales.
1 Like
Please spare me the patronizing attitude. I’ve been exposed to these ideas plenty and I still don’t agree with them. It’s not ignorance. It’s disagreement.
You fixate on labels a lot in your post. Why not address my ideas and questions instead?
From the very start you’re creating a narrative that allows you to disregard my opinion without having any real idea of my experience. I want to point that out.
I believe this 100%. I am not sure why you would think I didn’t. For example, I fully acknowledge the existence of privilege, and the fact that I have it.
Again with creating a narrative that dismisses my point of view. How could you possibly be able to say such a thing based on a few lines of text on the internet? You’re dismissing me because you don’t understand me/don’t want to talk to me/don’t agree with my point of view. I find that to be quite ironic considering the thread we’re discussing.
no. Because no one on this thread that disagrees with me is able to succinctly articulate how POC can’t be racist. Treating someone negatively because of the color of their skin is racist. It doesn’t matter whether you are in the majority or the minority.
I can understand society, power structures, institutional racism, etc and still hold this view.
In fact, bringing up institutional racism has reminded me of the way I usually talk about this:
There is institutional racism (societal structure and action), there is interpersonal racism (the usual definition, which is action from one person to another person), and there is prejudice (beliefs or attitudes).
You can be prejudiced or interpersonally racist against ANYONE, but in white-dominated countries, institutional racism only benefits white people. Would you agree with that distinction?
I would agree that a POC cannot be institutionally racist against me in my country. They can definitely be interpersonally racist.
4 Likes
… since white, straight men are considered the default form of humanity where I live … FTFY
The problem with the way this discussion is being framed is that it isn’t properly generalisable to the whole of the human race. The statement I quoted can be (almost certainly is, I take your word for it) true for the majority culture you live in, but only fully applies there. This list has representation from all over the world and our nations’ and cultures’ experiences differ. Try living in the Peoples Republic of China for a while and see how patently false that statement is in that situation, while @dooptidoopdoopdoo’s way of looking at it fit both realities.
5 Likes
We’re dealing with different definitions of racism here, each of which resontes within different discourse communities. Yours seems to be the general, “commonsense” one, but mine and others is the one that instead keeps power structures in mind. If one accepts the former definition, then to that person, POC can be racist. If one finds the other more useful, then for that person, POC can’t be racist
No, because to me, “interpersonally racist” as something anyone can be is an oxymoron. I can see how such a distinction has value to you, though.
Yeah, well, that’s basically getting at the same distinction as those who define racism as prejudice + power, so if that works for you, then hooray for you. To me, though, it echoes all too well the common cry of white people in anti-racism struggles, and the common cry of men in feminist struggles – “You all seem to be forgetting that in some limited, relatively very rare situations, a white person (or a man) can be discriminated against too! What about US, huh?”
No, we haven’t forgotten that. It’s just that in the larger and relative scheme of things, where discrimination against POC and women and so on is far, far greater, and is also what the struggle is all about, your complaints about that one time so and so isolated and relatively minor thing happened, or might happen – it’s just not that important.
.
1 Like
