The Evolution of Racism and Sexism as Terms & The Discussing the Consequences
Racism & Sexism have evolved as terms to incorporate the societal realities left out by the interpersonal or ideological understanding. To incorporate how those affected endure hardships due to the comprehensive impact of discrimination by public & private institutions and cumulative individual action. These prejudices influence the cultural norms and values, in law, education and media. Racism & sexism are terms for describing the overall of these and other factors, as well as their intricate dynamics, which create the environments in which people are oppressed.
Understanding sexism, racism and other similar in this comprehensive manner is distinct in many ways from understanding it as an ideology. Words, actions, thoughts, and ideas, motivated by ideology or not, can nevertheless contribute to the overall problem.
We can't, for example, measure the social and cultural effect of sexist depictions of women in films. We can assume the perspectives such depictions encourage still manifest in some form as discrimination.
I recognise the need for this change in understanding overall and I support it. There are some consequences for it though, and while it's in the best interests of some to ignore them, for the rest of us, they need to be addressed in some way.
In the West, racism & sexism are considered immoral, there are no cases of either that can be justified. The terms condemn, and there are serious issues with this when you look at what the comprehensive understanding is. It's fine for the terms to generally refer to and acknowledge factors beyond explicit, personal ideology, and to acknowledge that we can't rely on people opening stating their motivations, but then we can't treat the terms the same as before.
An important question is to ask, what is it that determines what is and isn't part of racism & sexism? For instance, when I mentioned "sexist depictions of women in films", what does that actually mean? What does it mean for a depiction of a film to be sexist?
Just generally, the terms "racist" and "sexist" within the comprehensive view contain no specific logic. Not in the "why" or the "how", just the effect and even that approximates just "harm".
It is not that we condemn racism or sexism in the modern context. Since one will use those terms only when condemning something, and will reject their use otherwise. To prove something is racist or sexist, only requires one to prove the effect. If one can argue that X thing was harmful and contributes to the overall experience of racism and sexism, then one can argue X thing is racist or sexist.
Whether one believes there was intent or that their act demonstrates intent, is irrelevant anyway. Combatting racism/sexism will entail correcting behaviour and policies that contribute to the overall oppression. Why would it be okay to do nothing just because there was no intent, or it can't be proven?
The comprehensive definition doesn't differentiate in intent, since it's merely a descriptive account of an environment or societal realities. It's exceedingly difficult to prove the extent to which "societal realities" were a result of racism & sexism using the simplistic definition. How this difficulty is dealt with, and what, specifically, racism & sexism as terms condemn, is central to dealing with the consequences of the comprehensive definition.
I pose some questions, feel free to answer only what interest you:
1) Is it correct that sexism, racism and other similar terms, do not function descriptively, and are moral terms that we use if and when we perceive something to be harmful to the relevant demographic?
2) To what extent do you agree that the terms are ambiguous in terms of "how", and "why" and in describing the harm they cause?
3) Is "ending' racism & sexism, for you, referring to the simplistic definition (prejudice) or the comprehensive one (societal realities)?
I wanted to ask more questions but that'd be too much for one thread. I'm also happy to hear a reframing of my outlining if needed. However, I'd prefer to avoid descriptions laden with ambiguous moral terms, please try to keep things descriptive. The subjectivity involved in interpreting and applying moral terms is at the heart of this topic. I request that if you must use moral terms such as "oppression", "discrimination" etc, explain them as though they're words you've just made up, or share a link that explains them for you.
Understanding sexism, racism and other similar in this comprehensive manner is distinct in many ways from understanding it as an ideology. Words, actions, thoughts, and ideas, motivated by ideology or not, can nevertheless contribute to the overall problem.
We can't, for example, measure the social and cultural effect of sexist depictions of women in films. We can assume the perspectives such depictions encourage still manifest in some form as discrimination.
I recognise the need for this change in understanding overall and I support it. There are some consequences for it though, and while it's in the best interests of some to ignore them, for the rest of us, they need to be addressed in some way.
In the West, racism & sexism are considered immoral, there are no cases of either that can be justified. The terms condemn, and there are serious issues with this when you look at what the comprehensive understanding is. It's fine for the terms to generally refer to and acknowledge factors beyond explicit, personal ideology, and to acknowledge that we can't rely on people opening stating their motivations, but then we can't treat the terms the same as before.
An important question is to ask, what is it that determines what is and isn't part of racism & sexism? For instance, when I mentioned "sexist depictions of women in films", what does that actually mean? What does it mean for a depiction of a film to be sexist?
Just generally, the terms "racist" and "sexist" within the comprehensive view contain no specific logic. Not in the "why" or the "how", just the effect and even that approximates just "harm".
It is not that we condemn racism or sexism in the modern context. Since one will use those terms only when condemning something, and will reject their use otherwise. To prove something is racist or sexist, only requires one to prove the effect. If one can argue that X thing was harmful and contributes to the overall experience of racism and sexism, then one can argue X thing is racist or sexist.
Whether one believes there was intent or that their act demonstrates intent, is irrelevant anyway. Combatting racism/sexism will entail correcting behaviour and policies that contribute to the overall oppression. Why would it be okay to do nothing just because there was no intent, or it can't be proven?
The comprehensive definition doesn't differentiate in intent, since it's merely a descriptive account of an environment or societal realities. It's exceedingly difficult to prove the extent to which "societal realities" were a result of racism & sexism using the simplistic definition. How this difficulty is dealt with, and what, specifically, racism & sexism as terms condemn, is central to dealing with the consequences of the comprehensive definition.
I pose some questions, feel free to answer only what interest you:
1) Is it correct that sexism, racism and other similar terms, do not function descriptively, and are moral terms that we use if and when we perceive something to be harmful to the relevant demographic?
2) To what extent do you agree that the terms are ambiguous in terms of "how", and "why" and in describing the harm they cause?
3) Is "ending' racism & sexism, for you, referring to the simplistic definition (prejudice) or the comprehensive one (societal realities)?
I wanted to ask more questions but that'd be too much for one thread. I'm also happy to hear a reframing of my outlining if needed. However, I'd prefer to avoid descriptions laden with ambiguous moral terms, please try to keep things descriptive. The subjectivity involved in interpreting and applying moral terms is at the heart of this topic. I request that if you must use moral terms such as "oppression", "discrimination" etc, explain them as though they're words you've just made up, or share a link that explains them for you.
Comments (84)
As I've said before, I don't use the term "racist." I don't think it's useful and it certainly is misleading. As the text from your post I quoted suggests, the term paints all offenders with the same paint - white nationalists are grouped with people who are well-meaning but unaware of their unspoken attitudes and how they are expressed. There is no policy or action that will be effective in changing racial attitudes by treating those two types of people the same.
It's also misleading because it doesn't focus on the consequences of white peoples attitudes towards black people, which is what really matters.
I agree that "racist" more accurately describes situations or rules than people.
I don't think it's ever useful.
It sets up (ironically) a heirarchy of moral superiority. The racist, morally inferior - the anti-racist, morally superior. The opinions and well-being of people deemed morally inferior may be disregarded at will - very useful to silence people or get rid of people espousing unwelcome opinions. Note how RFK was recently smeared as being anti-semitic in a not-so-subtle attempt at silencing political opposition. This is degeneracy parading as moral virtue.
While racism and sexism undoubtedly exist, the use of these terms I regard with the utmost suspicion, because people who genuinely care are rare, and it's almost always about power, manipulation, or plain old social masturbation.
RFK was "smeared" for saying that covid had been engineered so that Jewish people would not get sick. How would you characterize Kennedy's claim?
That's not what he said, though. But if you're a political opponent of RFK that's how you might like to frame it.
I appears that you might be showcasing the degeneracy I mentioned - using racism as a stick to beat political opposition with.
If the suffix ism denotes a practice, system, or philosophy, it is not possible to see racism in an effect or social condition because neither have any beliefs nor adhere to any. A certain state of affairs may be the result of racism, but it cannot itself be racism. So in my view such a comprehensive view of racism just doesnt work.
I also believe that if one adopts such a comprehensive view of racism he risks using racism to maintain it.
Before all else he must adopt a belief in the taxonomy of race and apply it to individual human beings in order to classify them under its rubric. If this taxonomy informs his worldview in this way he must at some level, from benign thoughts to overt actions, treat people differently on the basis of this one specious classification. This is the fundamentals racism.
Race can only ever serve as a vehicle of fallacious assumptions, anyways. It cannot inform us about an individual or the life she leads. It can only ever benefit the user, not because it provides him with information about people, but because it provides him with a way out, a means to escape learning about someone from the source, which is the only means to acquire understanding of others. So Id say ditch race and racism altogether.
I get the impression you do not live in one of those places shaped by racial differences.
What did I write that someone with your species of race-thinking would object to?
I agree the term "racist" is misleading, in more ways than one. I don't know what the term should mean within the comprehensive definition of racism.
I believe it would be the type of thinking that is found harmful, not the instance of its use. I do recognise that someone could find it offensive for other reasons than harmful and the general notions of "immoral" or "wrong" are also applicable. The condemnation of sexism/racism isn't part of a larger effort of condemning prejudice, nor is it part of a condemnation of generalisations. It's because of their history of harm that these terms have any weight to them. We're quite happy to do prejudice and generalise in some contexts, aren't we?
I suppose that "ism" is yet another example of how the terms really should've been relabelled but nonetheless. The comprehensive definition does describe some important aspects of racism, and the simplistic definition can be trivialising. Neither of them works well in every context, and there should be two different words, that we could use whatever is most appropriate. I do think when we condemn racism, we are often condemning "The justification and acting out of X, Y and Z using racism", rather than "Prejudice is bad", right? In that sense, the comprehensive definition has some validity.
Quoting New York Post
Race thinking. So, what is that?
An acknowledgement of a sequence of events or something else?
You use the concept of race to inform your worldview. For instance you speak of racial differences.
I agree as a matter of identity but situations in the world are very different. You have not expressed much interest in those differences.
Im speaking of people, not situations. The taxonomy of race pertains to human beings. Do you apply the concept to people or situations?
No.
Consider this post from an old thread "Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?" in which I sketch the "why & how" of these "isms" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543213
Also, more succinctly, from another thread "Reverse racism/sexism" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/733571
Lastly, from "Does systematic racism exist in the US?" ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/451840
"Social realities".
Degenerate journalism from the New York Post to smear a political opponent, and you're enabling it because you view RFK as a political opponent too.
So it appears I was right - you are showcasing the exact degeneracy I was talking about. It's disgusting.
Uummm... never useful, eh? Becsuse racism and sexism don't exist?
The distinction you make between persons and the situations they find themselves in is interesting. What I would approach as degrees of freedom are imagined by you as a given condition. Your assumptions are not capable of comparison with any set of conditions.
RFK Jr. is a clown.
The concept of race is unable to furnish any valid information about any given person. The best one could assume from the phenotypes associated with race is perhaps what a persons parents may have looked like, and even that is fraught with difficulty and often misleading.
But to make the assumption that since someone is of such-and-such a race, this can somehow explain such-and-such a condition, is racism in both the wide and narrow sense.
As I've said before, white people don't like, trust, or respect black people. "Racism" is a euphemism that rounds over the sharp corners and takes out some of the sting. It takes something intensely personal and hateful and makes it impersonal and institutional. Using that word makes people feel like they're doing something when they're really not.
Oh, perhaps. I don't really care.
Smearing people with lies is degenerate. Believing such practices are acceptable just because one dislikes the target of the smears is likewise degenerate.
Thanks for making my point for me. :up:
Quoting T Clark
Case in point:
Quoting NBC News
Quoting Tzeentch
In response I wrote "RFK Jr. is a clown," because I don't consider him a legitimate political opponent at all. Whatever you think of me, you shouldn't ascribe motives to me when you don't know what you're talking about.
Hey, @Quixodian, @Tzeentch is bickering.
Sandburg's articles are snapshots of various aspects of the black/white encounter in Chicago centering on jobs, income, housing, and rent. It's about the behavior of employers and real estate agents; white workers, black workers, unions and families.
His reports are refreshing because Sandburg recounts MATERIAL events--causes and consequences. Neither "racism" nor "sexism" are used as explanatory devices.
The book is about a deadly race riot that began at a Lake Michigan beach, but it is surprising how often integration occurred without incident. The meat packing industry was unionized, and black slaughterhouse workers were strongly encouraged to join the unions, which they did. Many factories were integrated with management suppressing hostility from white workers (profits over conflict).
Housing was definitely not integrated. Rents for blacks were significantly higher than for whites, for often inferior housing. White flight from neighborhoods where blacks were approaching was a well-established phenomenon in 1919. Owners of apartment buildings might sell at a loss rather than rent to blacks, but after the dollar-loss sale, the next owner would rent to blacks at much higher rents.
Of course, if everything had been just great, except for a few housing problems, there wouldn't have been a race riot. The cause of the riot was pretty clear: Some white people were flatly unwilling to accept the presence of blacks in their communities and acted accordingly. It was race hatred--a more concrete term than racism.
Hmm.. racism vs anti-blackism. I think the problem is the ism that is implied whenever we pit one broad category (white) against another (black).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/825130
Your descriptions focus on societal reality on a broad scale, in other words, they've reiterated the comprehensive definition I've outlined. They don't explain the how & why of when we use them in specific cases to identify the "theory & practice" or implementation.
How can we identify the "theory & practice"? Why is something part of the "theory & practice" of racism? I hope your answer can show why an interpretation of harm to the relevant demographic is inaccurate.
White people don't like black people... There is no "ism" there. It's just a fact. It's not ideology or philosophy, it's the way the world, or at least the United States, is.
BC, we've talked about neoliberal capitalism in the past, and I imagine you might agree that it's not in the best interests of disadvantaged minorities for a variety of reasons. Its upending would do much to cure the disparity in outcomes between racial groups. How does this factor into the topic of the comprehensive understanding of racism? In my view, the social realities won't resolve themselves, even if the factors perpetuating them involved no racially-based motive. Should "ending racism" be understood as addressing such factors, such as neoliberal capitalism and others?
Quoting T Clark
Making assertions without evidence or justification isn't very helpful.
If you don't want to provide evidence, tell me how you've reached this conclusion. I suspect you're not told as much by offenders, so you must be interpreting it, and I suspect you are interpreting through the effect, as I said in my OP. Since you're aware that you can't prove intent or belief, the effect is all you've got. Requiring a proof of some kind would destroy your position, right? I don't say this to invalidate you, since intent isn't always required within morality, and action & effect can suffice, but I want to clarify how you're thinking about this.
In an effort to be genuine and transparent, it's my view that the comprehensive definition's subjective standard of evidence is unacceptable. Invalidates it apart as a valid moral critique, and makes it only useful descriptively. So, although I do recognise the need for flexibility, I also can't agree with allowing anyone to interpret whatever, however, with no rules or standards.
The disparity in input and outcomes (like, how much is spent on educating a child and how well that child does after graduating; or how much is invested in a given neighborhood and how well that neighborhood functions over time) helps maintain prejudice.
A lot is said about the wide performance gap between black and white children; less is said about the wide funding gap between wealthy white suburban school districts and poor black school districts. Much richer neighborhoods are much nicer than much poorer neighborhoods. Families tend to do better in neighborhoods which are green and leafy; have convenient high-quality markets; have little crime; where rats and roaches are a rarity; where the streets are clean; where there are safe and pleasant playgrounds.
Accessible good schools and nice neighborhoods or services that every family needs generally are not plentiful where they are provided on a for-profit basis (the neoliberal method). Social investment is a long-term project, not a fast turn around profit-producer.
Any group of people who regularly receive the least share of social goods are going to be looked down on, and be the recipients of prejudicial treatment.
Quoting Judaka
Yes. I would suggest that achieving social (or racial) justice will mean black's access to better education ----> better jobs ----> better housing ----> in better neighborhoods. Skip the "anti-racist training programs", skip black English, forget about micro aggressions, etc. etc. etc. DELIVER first rate education and training programs. Make sure there are no artificial barriers to equal access to good jobs; enforce equal access to housing in any neighborhood. In other words, make it possible for blacks to work and live as well as whites.
Will that automatically result in the disappearance of prejudice? No, not immediately, but prejudice will matter less.
Quoting Judaka
It seems to me it is evident that many white people are very prejudiced against most black people. There are stats that validate this observation, but anyone with eyes and ears can see prejudice in operation without having to look very far.
If T Clark had said "Black people have more money that white people..." one could reasonably demand evidence, since the statement is so contrary to the common view.
This Pew Research report is the sort of thing that backs up T Clark's statement.
Yes, I agree with what you've written, but I would go further. I am as huggy-kissy liberal as just about anyone. I also have very close black friends whom I consider family. And yet, I see and feel those same judgmental, suspicious impulses in myself. I will go so far as to say that any white person who claims that isn't also true of them is deluded. Do you think that doesn't show? Do you think it isn't humiliating?
I'm not asking for guilt or shame, just self-awareness and acknowledgement.
What an odd thing to say. The evidence I see is the same as what you see - the way black people are treated here in the US. The governor of one of our largest states claims that ancestors of black people living here today benefited from their enslavement. Earlier in this thread, I quoted from a news article about a man who couldn't fish in a lake near his home without his neighbors continually calling the police. I've told before about my friend who never felt welcomed in her life till she visited Hawaii where her skin color was mistaken as native Hawaiian. I've also written previously about Tim Scott, the black US Senator from South Carolina and a current presidential candidate who wrote about the humiliation he suffered being stopped and questioned time after time on the Capitol grounds. And on and on and on and on and on for 400 years.
In previous discussions, the difference between your and my moral sense has become clear. You have focused on more or less codified social moral rules while I have focused on personal empathy and kindness. Sometimes it seems like we are talking different languages and can't understand each other.
Quoting Judaka
I don't know what you mean by "identify" when you suggest that nothing in the posts I've linked describe the "why & how of racism". Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect you didn't actually (or carefully) read what I'd written.
I don't know what you mean by this sentence.
Quoting BC
I'm unsure to what extent the stats validate the observation.
If the government takes two municipalities and over a century, gives one immensely preferential treatment. Then in year 101, says, okay, this unfair treatment is over, each municipality is free to do with their tax revenue what they wish, and we'll treat each the same. Well, one city is going to have quality infrastructure, well-educated and high-income citizens, access to employment etc. The other will have none of that, plus a ton of social problems and issues due to a century of neglect and oppression.
In that case, the statistics and the disparity in outcomes wouldn't prove that the government wasn't now giving equal treatment. Since the historical context might suffice.
At any rate, I feel like we could at least agree that under neoliberal capitalism, there's zero chance these two municipalities would ever come to be on par. The differences would only be sure to increase. I'm certain of that, and perhaps you are too, so then, how can you expect me to assume the disparities in outcomes prove racial hatred?
The disparity in outcomes won't heal without positive action, their existence just proves that hasn't happened yet, and the degree of influence of racial hatred is unclear.
Quoting T Clark
I'm not sure why you got that from our previous discussions, I told you morality is heavily rooted in emotion and personal feelings, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair, justified/unjustified. I view moral rules as applied selectively, and factors like compassion and emotion are highly influential in that. As a force for social control, the majority view has that effect and is intended, but I differentiate it from other forms of social control because it's based on moral sense, which is more danger prone and less practical than say, the social contract.
I'm just pointing out the issue with interpreting racism, and that basically, this relies a lot on how one's method of interpreting it. As far as I can tell, if that man had the police called on him, it was due to the owners being suspicious of men or the poor rather than black people, it's likely that you wouldn't be able to tell.
There's a difference between feeling compassion for someone and claiming when something immoral took place. If one interprets racism whenever a minority is treated badly, even if the offenders insist on some other reason, how can that not be a problem? How can there be no burden of evidence on you whatsoever? I agree with BC, that anti-racism education isn't the issue here, one can't expect centuries of oppression and neglect not to have lasting consequences. Most of the issues described by the comprehensive definition won't be resolved without major intervention.
For example, take a taxi driver who doesn't pick up black males at night, in an area where black males are disproportionately likely to rob them. That's racism, no doubt. But it's not an irrational, nonsensical prejudice, is it? He's gotten robbed a couple of times, he's traumatised, it is racism, it's wrong of him, but I'm sympathetic. When the overriding nature of morality mandates irrationality, there's a problem with that.
I think the US economic system fucks over the poor and disadvantaged. I want this fact to be part of the discussion. I don't want racial hatred to be assumed whenever it might be applicable, is that wrong?
We agree that the comprehensive definition of racism requires an imbalance of power between the group doing the oppressing and being oppressed. However, we can't rely on, for example, Israel telling us explicitly that they're doing as they are due to racism, we need to interpret it. We can't read minds though, and we can't prove intent, and the pattern more than anything proves the oppression. For something to be considered racist, we need to interpret it to be harmful to the relevant demographic. In fact, you've argued an unwillingness to upend the legacies of racism to be racist. The inaction's harmfulness is what makes it racist, yes?
Basically, we can't parse between what's racially motivated, and where some other motivation is at play, and we can't be expected to prove it, so long as we interpret harm, we'll describe it as racism, is that fair? The label is given when one interprets its harm and does so using their own methods. The "how" and "why" something is racist is that it causes harm to the relevant demographic. Do you agree?
To clarify, I understand you'd word it differently, as that's how morality is, you can replace harm with some dramatic, evocative language. I just want to know in a descriptive sense, how you'd avoid calling any harm to the relevant demographic as racist.
Thanks for the link... and the support.
Yes, I don't think I expressed myself well. I didn't mean to disparage your way of seeing things. It's just that you and I talk about moral issues in different terms in ways that can seem contradictory.
Quoting Judaka
Agreed and, as I noted, I think my way of interpreting conditions is more likely to help us understand the situation better than by talking about racism. It's important for us to know that 40 million Americans face daily, grinding humiliation and that we, white people, all share responsibility. I think if people understood that no one would have the balls to talk about all the benefits of slavery.
Quoting Judaka
This is clearly not true. The neighborhood being discussed is middle class and the person involved is a professional who lives there. As the article I quoted noted, other men, white men, fish there all the time without being harassed.
Class status (which is generally a visible trait to attentive eyes) matters. White people who look 'lower class' are likely to get shabbier treatment than other white people who are several steps up the class ladder. White people who are 4th or 5th generation low class tend to be stuck there.
Race is linked to class. Blacks have long been at the bottom of the class hierarchy. People whose identity began (in this country) as chattel property are, by definition, the rock-bottom lowest class. In their most vigorous discrimination, whites assign to blacks the bottom status of lowest value, least deserving respect, lowest paid, worst jobs, expected to be welfare, probably petty criminals, and so on.
Long ago the ruling classes learned that insecurity is one more handy tool to keep the peasants under control.
It is very difficult for white people whose class status is insecure to grant the kind of treatment to blacks they would accord to other whites who are their equals or betters. White people do not reinvent race hatred in every generation; we inherit it. Black people likewise inherit their low status.
Quoting Judaka
That's where we are at. 160 years of unfair allocation of resources.
Raising blacks' collective low status requires both the opportunity and the means to better their status through their own demonstrable efforts. Reparation plans that involve giving every descendent of slavery $5000 cash (or whatever figure they might settle on) won't achieve anything more than aggravating race hatred.
A California reparation plan makes more sense: Use the funds set aside to give to black people the same opportunity to own property and accumulate wealth that whites received from the 1935 FHA legislation: readily available mortgages for good properties. More, use the set aside funds to do compensatory education, job training in fields with a future, like hospitality management. (Blacks were specifically denied the benefits of FHA and VA mortgage programs.)
IF the material means can be significantly improved, and if working class financial security cam be achieved (a revolutionary goal, not something that is going to happen under the current regime) race hatred can be reduced--maybe eventually expunged (but don't hold your breath waiting),
Zero benefits to the slaves, certainly. While slaves did learn skills, it was for the exclusive benefit of the slave owner. The property owners, merchants (all goods), and bankers received huge benefits from slavery. The value of slaves (prior to the civil war) was about $4 billion--a major chunk of American assets at the time (based on the number of slaves and the average value of slaves).
Cotton exports were a major source of income for New England and New York exporters, shippers, bankers, and mill owners. Buying and selling slaves was also quite profitable, and involved businesses beside southern planters. Poor whites in the south didn't benefit; neither did pioneers moving westward. The white workers in various industries benefitted far less than the owners of the shops.
Good posts. I have come to think your emphasis on class rather than just race is the proper approach for dealing with our racial issues. I can't think of any other way that can provide relief without making black people and poor white people enemies.
Quoting T Clark
If I recall correctly, we hadn't had any disagreements in the thread we talked about morality, but perhaps I said something I disagreed with that you left unaddressed. I won't speculate as to the nature of this apparent difference.
Quoting T Clark
Racial hatred might be less ambiguous, but I think it's also misrepresentative, and the rules for your applying it are non-existent, which I find unacceptable. Racial discrimination or prejudice would at least not be misrepresentative, since that's what you think you're seeing.
Also, I reject racial and ethnic histories, cultures and groups. I don't think white people are responsible for anything, and as I told you before, I would prefer to see black Americans taking responsibility for slavery as Americans. That would represent the kind of progress I think would be helpful.
Contemporary prejudice is complicated, it's not based on any single thing, and the reasons for it are vast and complex. How we understand racism should be reflected in these complexities. Your understanding is far too simplistic, why is it so lacking in nuance?
:mask:
Quoting Judaka
"Intent" is irrelevant.
Yes.
Who is this "we" that "needs to interpret" what's "harmful"? "The relevant demographic", as you say, those harmed by "the pattern" of "oppression" recognize the selective mistreatment and violence independent of whether or not this "we" "interprets" it "to be considered racist". As I comprehend (& use) the term, racism is first and foremost an ideological-juridical-sociological concept, Judaka, about how groups and societies are legally-civilly regulated into hierarchies castes and policed (i.e. "order" maintained via phenotypical scapegoating ~Girard)
No. "The legacies of racism" themselves are what's racist; "the inaction" is a constituent feature indoctrinated social inertia of these "legacies".
This is completely connfused for reasons already given above and my previous posts. On historical-empirical and experiential grounds, I refuse to conflate and confuse personal anti-black prejudice (i.e. hatred, bigotry) with structural-systemic-social anti-black discrimination (i.e. racism) as your comments assumptions suggest that you do. Prejudice, like the poor, might always be with us, but social arrangements of racial castes (i.e. dominance hierarchies) are artifacts of political-economic ideologies of given times and places and, therefore, can be resisted ... until these pernicious social llarrangements are replaced. This is why prejudice (re: moral) and racism (re: political) are functionally different phenomena, though tangential, which are effectively opposed to the degree this functional difference remains intellectual explicit and thereby operational.
Is a specific harm to "the relevant demographic" structural (re: exploitation)? systemic (re: discrimination)? or social (re: exclusionary)? If yes to any of these questions, then that specific harm is racist and those functionaries who carry it out or who uncritically benefit directly (or indirectly) are themselves racist.
:up: Yep, I totally see this. And white Australians over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - not to mention white Australians over any number migrant and refugee groups, Greek, Italian, Middle Eastern, African...
In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist...
When you and I have discussed morality previously, I always felt that our understandings missed each other. It's not that we disagreed, just that we talked different language.
Quoting Judaka
I don't know what this means. I described what I mean and provided examples. If you're saying that you don't recognize or accept the conditions I've described, I don't know what else to say. It seems obvious to me. And I'm already walking on thin ice. For me to claim to be some sort of expert on the black experience in America would be more than arrogant, laughable, and disrespectful. It would be... deluded, self-aggrandizing, contemptable.
Quoting Judaka
This seems naive to me. Worse than that... willfully blind and self-serving.
Quoting Judaka
The source of the problem and possible solutions might be complex, but the problem itself is simple as pie.
WTF :shade:
Quoting 180 Proof
I meant "one".
Quoting 180 Proof
Fair enough, my OP was about how this interpretation requires a change in how we think about racism on an interpersonal level, using the simplistic definition (prejudice), and I'm satisfied with your answer. That being said, the word "racism' has a lot of power, and how it's defined and understood matters to a lot of people. I don't know to which authority you think you can demand others use the comprehensive definition, but the alternative you condemn is common use.
I have been referencing the comprehensive definition of racism, so we've mostly on been the same page.
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay, thanks.
Racism & racist are terms with strong moral meaning, and so where I disagree with you, I will reject your language use, for I have no other choice. The alternative would have me justify and defend racism & being racist, which you may interpret me to be doing as you like, but I can't actively do that, it's an untenable position. Many of the other moral terms you've introduced here function in that same way.
That's why I prefer to talk descriptively. I have no idea what you would and wouldn't interpret as exploitation or exclusionary and so on. But I can agree that how one interprets is what determines whether something is part of the comprehensive definition of racism, as I argued in my OP.
Quoting T Clark
Okay, what's "the problem"?
Quoting T Clark
I'm aware of your capability to interpret using race as your lens, my concern is whether you're able to know when not to do that.
Quoting T Clark
Why is it naive?
Got your point. Thanks for explaining since it is an uncommon take on the wording that I wouldn't have guessed if you hadn't explained it. What's your alternative label?
Well, I think "descriptive talk" like yours tends to confuse bigots with racists. I don't have that luxury, Judaka. As a Black American Sisyphus, it's a matter of daily survival for me to be anti-racist (not merely anti-bigot), that is, vigilant of and in any way I/we can be actively opposed to structural, systemic and social modes of racism (re: ).
As I wrote previously - white people don't like, trust, or respect black people.
Quoting Judaka
This whole thread is about looking at society using race as a lens.
Quoting Judaka
You wrote:
Quoting Judaka
You seem to be saying that considering race a cause of social inequality in the US is wrong. First, I think that ignores history. Second, as I noted, this whole discussion is about the effects of race on American society.
I don't see any need for a label.
Uummm... how do you communicate what others call "racism"?
That's what I'm doing with my posts here in this discussion.
Quoting T Clark
This is kind of the same level as a business saying "The problem is we're not making enough money". Okay, but the why is essential, explaining the problem in this most basic, inaccurate way, as a massive generalisation, that's pointless. Imagine if we did this in engineering, and said "The problem is simple, something isn't working properly". Great... thanks for the insight. Even if your explanation was technically true, so what? It's too general, to the point of being misrepresentative, you should know better.
Quoting T Clark
No, it's about acknowledging the disconnect between ideology and intention from the simplistic to the comprehensive definition of racism. 180 has the right idea, in simply abandoning altogether the idea that ideology and intention are relevant because quite simply, the comprehensive definition of racism provides no framework for differentiating the various logics and intents at play. Which is what this thread is about.
Quoting T Clark
How did you take what I said as a claim that race isn't a cause of social inequality in the US? I just think it's not that important going forward, besides as a lesson to learn from. Race inequality isn't something I care about, but I do care about inequality. Equality of outcomes between races, I don't care about, but I would like to see people treated fairly and with dignity.
Quoting 180 Proof
How so? I'm just asking for your framework for interpreting something as contributing or perpetuating to racism, in a descriptive manner.
Within philosophy, the desire to "own" terms is commonplace, I'm familiar with the intent and have frequently come across it over the years. I view moral terms as ambiguous, generally speaking, they're applied by different people with different ideologies according to what works best for them. I let others define their terms and explain how they work, that's my compromise.
This is why many such terms are redefined in a legal context so that we can clearly understand the logic that qualifies the term, at least that's the intention.
Terms like "exploitation" emphasise moral concepts such as unfairness and justice, which ultimately, makes them highly subjective. It's unfortunate that you refuse to see it that way. My opinion isn't based on my preference, it's based on reality, it's based on how people use the word and what the word means.
Language needs to be flexible to allow people to express themselves, it's inconvenient I know. You'll only be able to convince people who share the exact same ideology and perspective as you do, to use the word as you do. Insult everyone else if it makes you feel better about it, I suppose.
Reread my posts, I can't make my meaning any plainer. There ain't no "interpreting" on my part happening here.
Quoting Judaka
A business saying "we're not making enough money" is a perfectly reasonable statement (assuming they are going broke) and so is "white people don't like, trust, or respect black people". If they did those three things, we wouldn't have a race problem,
Quoting Judaka
Whoa! What?
Quoting BC
That depends on how you understand the race problem. 180's outlining of the problem wouldn't be solved by just that. I'm not sure what to say, Clark's outlining doesn't make any sense, and I don't think I can be bothered to have a serious debate on it.
Quoting BC
Yeah, I know, sorry.
To be fair, the actual kind of progress that would be helpful would be the undoing of neoliberal capitalism, a total overhaul to the US ideology of car-centric urban planning, implementing free healthcare, legalising drugs, providing free housing to the homeless, an overhaul of how taxing generates revenue for the government and so on.
All I'm saying is that I reject the notion that a person's race entitles them to a specific history. The history of a nation should belong to the citizens of that nation. The "in-group" must be diminished by dismantling the barriers that prevent assimilation into it. Slavery was done on the basis of race, but it's also part of American history, and it was perpetrated by Americans. An American of any race should be allowed and feel comfortable with seeing it as part of their own history, as both oppressor and oppressed.
Similarly, a German who's not ethnically German should feel comfortable taking responsibility for WW2 as ethnic Germans do and probably should be encouraged to do so in the same way, since they're all Germans.
I reject the use of race as an interpretative lens, its meaning and importance should be diminished whenever possible, that is my view. Becoming colour-blind so to speak.
:100: :up:
Unarguable specimen of racist denialism:
Quoting Judaka
:mask:
I'm comfortable with subjectivity, and I don't feel like it diminishes the value of what's being said. You are indeed, having to interpret the applicability of your terms, and the circumstances in which they can be used. That doesn't mean that you are wrong, or that if someone disagrees with you, we're now at some kind of impasse.
I think what you've written has been a rewording of the comprehensive definition of racism that I outlined in my OP. You've described outcomes, without mentioning the logic behind them.
For example, if we give a context like police brutality, there are distinct differences in outcomes when documenting by race. This is part of systemic racism and the comprehensive definition of racism. That's because that definition is a literal documentation of disparities in outcomes.
In terms of describing when a particular case of police brutality is part of this problem, well, nothing in the description of comprehensive racism tells us how we'd do that. Which is what I'm pointing out.
I want to hear the logics that someone could use to understand how you'd arrive at different conclusions in dealing with specific cases. Or tell me why I don't need to hear them.
I'm not a theorist, but when you live around racism, it's not hard to see it in action if you give it some thought - deliberate and persistent discrimination, intolerance of, and power over non-dominant groups who are often spoken of in negative ways and treated less respectfully, less fully as citizens. You can often see a deliberate structuring of society - use of law, rules and etiquette to set limits upon identity and autonomy of people who do not belong to the dominant race and class structure. But to some extent this is an interpreted process. You have to watch and understand. I think this is what can make racism so insidious.
It's not "hard"? How do you know whether you got it right or not? If you can't tell when you're right or wrong, how do you know how accurate you are? If you can't tell how accurate you are, how are you in a position to say whether it's easy or hard to do?
Quoting Tom Storm
That's true. I've talked about the importance of ending neoliberal capitalism, and I accept racism is part of this conversation. Since social policies would be disproportionately beneficial to minorities. We could examine resource allocation by location and spot inconsistencies, or we could look at how police practices differ in different jurisdictions and criticise differences in predominately white communities versus black.
Finding and correcting inconsistencies and coincidences that coincide with the pattern of racism is our best means of preventing it.
In terms of prejudice, the mistake in searching for inconsistencies is in using white people and minorities to do it. If you see one person being rude to another, with no pattern, and take the racial difference as proof of racism, that's asinine, is it not? It is easy to see it in action if you require almost no evidence for seeing it, it depends on how one responds to ambiguity.
Our discussions usually end up in the same place, no matter what we're discussing. I believe it's because of your view of language, and I generally have the same issue with those who view word meanings as having stringent, objective definitions. When you say "exploitation", I insist on understanding this as "That which I interpret as exploitation". If you've explained it to me before, then I know what that means, and if not, then it's unclear.
Why someone might call something exploitation is varied and often depends on what it's being contrasted against. If you call low pay exploitative, or child labour exploitative, those are two very different claims, because of the different contexts, and thus of the specific contrast. The logic being used, and the nature of each claim are different. If you then said a case of child labour was exploitative because of the low pay, that might be surprising considering the contrast of child vs adult that was made.
The less context and contrast there is, the less I understand the logics behind employed, and the more ambiguous you become. Qualifying that the exploitation is "systemic" only contrasts against non-systemic. It doesn't help me to understand what it is that you're referring to. I'm perfectly aware that you understand very well what you're referring to, but your language hasn't helped me to understand it.
Nobody else could either, the people who say they do are wrong, and if they tried to replicate your understanding, they'd fail or at least be inaccurate. You can't just make a word representative of your understanding in the definition and then use it and expect others to understand. Language is public, terms don't belong to you, they reflect a very general meaning, and that's unavoidable considering their purpose.
I think what this highlights is the more general problem of attribution. In life we have to make inferences. In some cases no inference is necessary. I hear the racist ideas and labels in simple conversation. I've watched taxi cabs refuse to pick up Aboriginal people. I've seen restaurants refuse to let Aboriginal people enter (but let white people enter shortly afterwards). None with a booking. I've seen police beat up Aboriginal people, but treat white people with politeness for the same 'misdemeanor' on the same evening (drinking on the street).
But I suspect we need to hear from people with lived experience to appreciate this more fully.
Quoting Judaka
I would not say this is ipso facto asinine - it could be that racism is the reason. It might be a hasty inference or a wrong one. It might be a right one. But as I said interpreting (making inferences about) the behaviors of other people is what we do. No one says it is always 100% correct.
I think the idea of racism leads to an inaccurate understanding of racial relationships in society. I that that view is also an over-generalization and is misleading.
Quoting Judaka
Perhaps it would be best if I don't respond to your posts in the future.
My position is simple and I think I've explained it clearly. Saying I have failed to think clearly is hard to respond to unless you provide justification for the claim. In the absence of that justification, I'll just say nunh unh.
This statement I can agree with. WE ARE Puritans in Massachusetts; slaves in Texas; Ojibwes and Germans in Minnesota; Chinese and Americans in the Gold Ruch; New Yorkers on the Upper West Side; anarchists in Portland, OR; Appalachian holy rollers--e pluribus unum. Our common history extends back before Columbus; it extends to both sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific; we come from pirates, indentured servants, slaves, blue bloods, bigots, peasants, rabbis, pietists, common laborers, riff raff. All of it.
Virtue and sin are rolled up together. As Rabbi Heschel put it, "Some are guilty; everyone is responsible."
Quoting Tom Storm
If you see someone being mistreated, and you stepped in to stop it, and explained it was wrong to do that, without ever mentioning the racial difference, what is lost?
That being said, you've remarked upon inconsistencies in treatment by race, and especially where no alternative explanation would be reasonable, that is fit to be described as racism. I never claimed I'm without tools to call anything or anyone racist, I only asked others to explain the tools they used.
There's a difference between recognising and acknowledging the experience of an Aboriginal who faces discrimination and hardship as a result of racism and identifying racism. Their experience is not the definitive tool for identifying racism, as the why is all important. The only exceptions are misdeeds, acts that are justified by no explanation, generally because of the intentional causing of harm.
Quoting Tom Storm
You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. A definition that 180 has rejected the validity of. The comprehensive definition of racism goes ignores intent and ideology, so there is no need to guess. Within this definition, there is no concept of inaccuracy, we're talking about oppression and social realities, not guessing at the why. My comments to 180 weren't about racism as an ideology, but as a societal reality, keep that in mind. This confusion is the exact reason I made this thread, the term "racism" so easily and consistently causes misunderstandings, quite a mess.
Quoting T Clark
My apologies for the unnecessary offence my language caused, I shouldn't have said that "I can't be bothered". I dislike it when people talk about "white people" and "black people" so generally, and it bothers me to hear it. I despise prejudicial thinking, especially along racial lines, just as you do. I believe we are largely of the same mind on this issue where it counts. I just consider it wrong to group people by race and talk about their passions, thoughts, and responsibilities. It's that exact thinking that I associate with racism. Isn't it the very soul of racism, to talk about someone's race like that? As something more than just their skin colour? That's how I see it.
Claiming the first option (not thinking clearly) wasn't necessary on your part. There was the second option of failing to communicate.
Did you fail to communicate? Not to me, you didn't. Apparently you failed to communicate with Judaka. The failure in your case was that Judaka did not receive what you sent. Not your fault.
Ok - I guess I don't understand this nuance.
You are forgiven.
Quoting BC
Great posts. :up:
It seems like there are two models on offer, one which aims to benefit racial groups and another which aims to benefit class groups. I think the latter is easier to enact because it is based on aid, not balance. Welfare legislation could address the lower class by granting aid based on income, and the goal here is simply to improve the conditions of the lower class. Racial legislation is much more unwieldy because it attempts to rebalance the entire existence of two or more races. It is more difficult because the selection process is more complicated than an income threshold, the reparations approach is unwieldy, the motivations are less universally accepted, and the goals are more complex and less determinate than simply improving material conditions. Given that the class approach will also have a great impact on the race problem and is less prone to "aggravate race hatred," I think it should be the primary focus. I'd say the race problem requires a solution that is more organic and grassroots, and less systematic and governmental (in the sense of the Federal government). Dispensing with subsidiarity when it comes to race issues is a danger.
(The poet) Carl Sandburg was working as a Chicago Sun Times reporter in 1919, the year of the Chicago Race Riot, set off by a black boy swimming into a white swimming area of Lake Michigan. He was stoned to death by white youths.
At the time 20% to 25% of the huge slaughterous industry in Chicago was black. The slaughter houses were unionized, and most blacks joined one of several unions. Unions provided a base and a rationale for working class solidarity. As one of the slaughterhouse managers pointed out, "Our workers have axes, cleavers, and knives in their hands all day." If there was conflict on the lines, it would have been instantly obvious. The only area of conflict was the reluctance of some workers to join the union.
The reported language that the NAACP, business owners, labor leaders, black workers, white workers, social workers, bureaucrats, etc. all reflected a very clear understanding of how racism worked, what its costs were, how detrimental it was to blacks, and what kind of solutions were needed. Decent housing (as opposed to deteriorating, low-quality slum dwellings); equal pay; good schools for black and white children together; adequate medical care, etc.
So, reading Sandburg's articles is deja vu.
What's interesting to me is that addressing racism was not viewed as an end in itself, at least by the slaughterhouses. In that case addressing racism was a means to the end of a safe work environment and ultimately a productive business. It seems to me that in the past racism was never really viewed as an end in itself, and perhaps this was a good thing. Today we see the emergence of a new form, where "solving racism" is actually an end in itself, a goal which has become somewhat detached from the negative effects of racism. This is not the primary phenomenon, but it does exist and it seems to be growing. Two reasons that may help account for this are the extreme moralizing of the issue, and the new notion of "systemic racism."
So then maybe there is a sense in which the word 'racism' is understood differently in our day. Perhaps it has accrued connotations which identify it as a center-stage issue, the opposition of which is an end in itself, which is different from 1919 when it was viewed as one among many in an interrelated constellation of detrimental societal factors. The older approach shares some of the same merits as the "class approach" which I advocated in my last post.
(I assume you meant 1919 rather than 2019)
Yes. I corrected the erroneous year. Thanks for pointing it out,
To me, the essence of racism is personal. I imagine what it would be like to go out every day being bombarded by the dislike, suspicion, and contempt of people I meet and knowing it would be the same tomorrow and the day after. I don't know if I would survive that.
As for the political and economic aspects of racism, I've come to believe that @BC is right - that's primarily an issue of class. Please correct me if I misstated your position, BC.
I don't want to totally disagree with this, but there is some devilry in the details.
How is this crucial access to be achieved in the face of micro-aggressions that always extend the benefit of the doubt in one direction and never in the other. How can a first rate education be delivered to blacks whose very title lies on the negative side of every cliche of virtue, quality, and moral worth, of the language in which that education is delivered. There is no need to blacken the name, and de-nigrate, when the whole language makes negation the identity. Chris Searle's The forsaken Lover goes into this in detail, in the context of education in the Caribbean. I don't have any answer to these problems, but I don't see either that to forget about them is going to help.