True racism - what is your definition?

[Jon]

I am a few episodes into watching "Them" on Amazon Prime. It is a horror series about a black family that moves to Compton in a 100% white neighbourhood, back when overt racism was rife. The white neighbours are aghast at this invasion of their space. Now, although it is a fictional series, many parts of it also probably reflected what happened back in the day, before civil rights movements brought about change. You really do feel for the characters and how they are targeted.

For me, this is a true representation of racism. Of course, there are obviously much more subtler forms of racism too.

What does racism mean to you? Definitions between left and right seem to differ. It would be interesting to get both sides of the argument to see how people differ based on their political perspective.

Another interesting thing to discuss is do you think blacks can be racist towards whites, or is it only majorities against minorities? What about same race against same race?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Simplest definition of racism (and also homophobia): Judging a "person's book" by anything other than its content. The "anything else" includes hearsay, family traditions (e.g. my dad was virulently racist), propaganda, and "herd mentality" in schools in certain parts of the world. For instance, the herd mentality in schools in the USA's "Old South" in the 1960s when the USA civil rights movement got support from the U.S. Supreme Court striking down "separate but equal" as a valid approach.

Yes, blacks can be racist - for example assuming the existence of "white privilege" applying to everyone. Other non-white groups can be racist; for example during WW II, the Japanese treatment of mainland Chinese. It is known from historical context that the Japanese offered racist excuses for the ra** of Nanking, which literally included ra** and enslavement of the women. You can say "context of war" but that doesn't excuse the racist comments they made at the time.

Same race vs. same race is either elitism or a gang/tribal/insular neighborhood influence, looking for comfort in familiarity and shunning those who are different or unknown.

 

[Steve R.]

All racial groups can be racist. Blacks, as one group, can be racist. Biden just selected a Black racist, Kristen Clarke, to ironically head Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The Biden administration is implementing an anti-White agenda by appointing Black racists and "Woke" White's.

There is also the issue of "self-segregation". While this is not a direct demonstration of racism towards another race, it is banding together with your racial group to avoid interacting with other racial groups. In theory, we are supposed to be working and evolving towards one culture free of racism. Self-segregation keeps "separatism" and animosities alive.

Yes, Black NYU Students Demanded Segregated Housing. No, the University Didn't Agree to It.

Two black students at New York University created a petition calling on the administration to designate racially-segregated housing for black and

reason.com

 

[Isaac]

Super great question. Very relevant. It's like right now the world needs a "Pause" button. I.E., Stop everything right now and get this definition right! (Then continue)

Now more than ever, I've been feeling that the most useful way to approach this question is to break it down into two or even three main categories. Personal racism and structural racism. Those may not be the most apt words, but they get the gist across.

Personal racism is more on the individual level. And even here, I think personal racism has 2 important categories. Mental (attitude), vs. physical/actual. Mental racism is, just disliking another race based on no good reason - just having an attitude of hatred, although that word is grossly overused these days, toward another race because of their race. Physical/actual is actually 'doing' something that tangibly harms another person because of their race. Physically attacking someone because of their race, denying them fair or equal treatment at a business because of their race, talking pejoratively about a race as a whole and not in the context of a legitimate discussion about issues or problems that may actually uniquely BE present in a particular demographic in a constructive way.

Structural racism is what I'd expect to see often as government-sponsored racism. A system that separates children based on race, or a system that teaches them to focus on differences between race, or segregated schools by law, or the government allowing one race to be "officially" treated worse than another one, or failing to give equal legal protection to a race, because of its race.

Out of all these, a big question that arises is "what should the government's role be?" My guiding principle is, the government should limit its involvement to prohibit structural racism and physical/actual racism. The government's overt's involvement should probably stop before the point where it attempts to monitor or punish what people think, believe, say, or feel. Our criminal justice system should be limited to tangible harms and tangible actions. Anything beyond that is a nebulous slippery slope where too many reasonable people can be on different sides of scenarios that are impossible to accurately define.

Another "big idea" here should probably be what is not racism, since our society is struggling with this one at the moment.

Not racism:

• Acknowledging differences in behavior or results between ethnic groups, as long as it is not done with a motive to cause harm
• Actual differences between results and achievements - here I am referring to the mere presence of the difference, that isn't racism, but it may or may not be caused by structural or personal racism, or it may be caused by personal choices, or it may be a combination of the two. This is where some people are confusing equity with equality. Notice they use the term equity these days instead of equality. Equality [of opportunity] is (as of late) being deemed "not good enough", and rather, we are told we must achieve equity (same results), or else that is racism. This is obviously untrue, and fails to attribute anything at all in the world to personal choices.
• Acknowledging that some stereotypes are totally untrue and unfair, while still others are grounded in reality, and no person need be required to completely exclude all past experience and knowledge in their day to day lives. Some Europeans have learned a dislike for American travelers. There are many reasons, grounded in reality. Being impolite, too loud, eating too much, not yielding on sidewalks, being culturally insensitive or arrogant are just a few. Does this mean that every time a European thinks "Uhh, an American", that they are being racist? Of course not. It means their minds are computers, with memory and prediction ability - like everyone's.
• The truth, in any context where it is being brought to light for purposes that aren't malicious
• Judging people based on their actual behavior, even if that behavior is something commonly attributed (and perhaps truthfully so), to one particular race

Structural racism should never occur, and mostly doesn't. Personal physical racism still does occur, and shouldn't--but our laws have also addressed this, and enforcement is the key. Personal mental racism is regrettable, but it's not a topic for the State to control; it's a topic for individuals, families, parents, and spiritual leaders/groups to resolve as much as possible.

 

[CollaTech]

I've read this in one forum and will share it here. I don't know if this is legit as I was not able to read this in news though, perhaps. you did.



"I mean, how insecure are you, White Hollywood, when diversity means placing Asian males, in asexual supporting roles, never getting the girls. I mean, I get it, you don’t need Viagra, you can suck your own dick because you get a colonized erection every single time you cast Asian women as love interest sex slaves. See, you tell society, white person saves me by pushing me out of harms way."



This is a poem of a 7th grade student and this is generally the definition of racism.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it.

 

[pbaldy]

do you think blacks can be racist towards whites

Absolutely, however you define it. I was assaulted by a black man years ago. Why? I had the audacity to date a black woman. His actions were taken only because I was white; the woman was not a girlfriend of his or anything else. He just didn't think white men should date black women and I guess felt it was his duty to enforce that belief. He saw her alone in a parking lot in a different incident and screamed obscenities at her.

I've heard it said "only people with power can be racists". I disagree, but in the incident above he was several inches taller than I am, and probably 100 pounds heavier. Had the woman not been in possession of pepper spray and not afraid to use it, who knows how far he would have gone.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I believe everyone is racist to some extent. Shades of grey if you will. Do you not gravitate to your own race in social circles naturally. I don't see the deer's hanging out with the bears. The sharks definitely don't commune with the dolphins. They eat the the seals and are happy about it.

We all have some amount of racism in the rawest sense if we can really be honest with ourselves. Think shades of grey. To the extent that we can at least see each other as human beings, and respect each other and other living creatures as well, elevates us all to a greater future of prosperity and happiness.

God gave us dominion over all other life forms, but we are far from god like. We can't even get along with each other. Why is that? Is it racism or is it pride?

Rodney King got it right when he said: Why can't we all just get along.

We are being played like a violin. Just the weaponizing of the word racist is causing us all to question ourselves to see if there is any truth to it.

If I'm honest, I have some small amount of natural racism in me. I think it is inherent.

Is that a bad thing? I'm not very well traveled. Does that make me a bad person?

There is a lot of evil going on right now. But racism is not the problem. It's political pride.

 

[Jon]

I've heard it said "only people with power can be racists". I disagree, but in the incident above he was several inches taller than I am, and probably 100 pounds heavier.

Sorry to hear of your experience Paul. I have a different view on the word power. To me, power comes in many forms. It doesn't just mean societal or economic. It can also mean physical strength, which is a prime example in this case. It could come from being on your own turf. It can come from your associates. Try to take on a Mafia associate or Gypsy, both of whom are backed up to the hilt.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Preferring to hang out with "your own kind" isn't racist. Most humans prefer the known to the unknown. Racism implies some type of discrimination against others who are somehow different from you. The most common definition of race is based on skin color. Discriminating against people of different sexual orientation or religion or political affiliation are each some other "ism" but just about as irrational.

My understanding of class (anyone who is different from you) hatred came when I moved to Miami where everyone hated the Cubans. Coming from Connecticut we "hated" the blacks, the Jews, the Puerto Ricans, the French, the Italians, (we were Irish-Americans), etc. The list was pretty long and eventually encompassed everyone who wasn't "us". But we didn't "hate" the Cubans. My family used the usual disparaging slang but I never saw any of them actually be rude or discriminate against any of the people they referred to with disparaging language so to me the words never made any sense and apparently I never caught the disease. But the move to Miami opened my eyes and convinced me that the race hatred was more fear of newcomers who were competing with you for jobs, etc. than anything else. Why else would you hate Cubans

 

[Isaac]

He who controls Words wields much power. Personally, I hope that the US pushes back on extreme left-wing liberals' attempts to re-define words every 3 months. It's ridiculous.

Racism is racism is racism. It isn't the mere presence of disparities in results, it isn't limited to people in power, it isn't limited to majorities (especially not to those fast becoming minorities, and experiencing plenty of bigotry of their own), it isn't a Tree growing outside a school in Ohio, it isn't an innocent children's book merely depicting someone with a turban, it isn't wanting to verify the identity of actions as important as voting, it isn't the mere fact that lower income individuals live in less desirable places until their income increases at which point they have the same opportunity everyone else has to move wherever they see fit, it isn't the fact that some zip codes are rated riskier in mortgage insurance premium pricing than other neighborhoods due exclusively to non-ethnicity-based metrics, it isn't fiscal responsibility, it isn't believing that immigration has pro's and con's, it isn't wanting to get to actual root causes of problems, and it's never Truth, as long as that truth isn't being called out with malicious intent.

 

[Steve R.]

Tucker: Equity is racism | Fox News Video

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host reacts to Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot prioritizing Black and Brown journalists

video.foxnews.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why does the lame stream media not view Lightfoot as a racist? Do they agree with her? What if a white restaurant owner declared "white only" Wednesdays? Would he be a racist? How about if a black restaurant owner declared "black only" breakfast specials? This is a very slippery slope. Why can't bakers refuse to decorate cakes with words that conflict with their religious beliefs?

 

[Steve R.]

Why does the lame stream media not view Lightfoot as a racist? Do they agree with her? What if a white restaurant owner declared "white only" Wednesdays? Would he be a racist? How about if a black restaurant owner declared "black only" breakfast specials? This is a very slippery slope. Why can't bakers refuse to decorate cakes with words that conflict with their religious beliefs?

Extreme cognitive dissonance. I have even seen commercials on cable "buy from Black businesses", that is racist. A short while back, the Biden DOJ dropped an equal opportunity claim by Asians (since they aren't Black) that they were being discriminated against. A racist act by the Biden administration. The only way to make sense of this insanity is view our "woke" society as a type of rabid intolerant theocracy where Blacks can't be labeled racist by definition. Anyone questioning that mantra is an apostate who must be villiefied and immediately shipped-off to a gulag.

 

[Steve R.]

Today, I was reading the press release announcing the appointment of a new corporate board member. The press release contained the usual gobbledygook (quote edited): "xxx is a transformational community and business leader, and wide-ranging insights and experience will deepen our board's governance and risk capabilities, its board embraces the values of diversity and inclusion for innovation and growth. We're proud that now XX% of board members are women and XX% are BIPOC, and we recognize the inherent value in bringing more voices and experiences from different backgrounds to our board as we support ... in delivering on its purpose of helping clients thrive and communities prosper." (edited)

Two subtle question emerge.

• Should the decision to appoint a person to the board of directors be based on their qualifications and that person incidentally happens to be BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color); nothing wrong with that. It can be assumed that person, based on qualifications and proven performance, would make decisions in the best interest of the corporation. Or to state this differently, make decisions that would enhance the value of the corporation for the benefit of the shareholders.
• On the other hand, should that person have been appointed to the board primarily based on meeting "diversity" checkbox objectives, the suitability of that person to serve on the board may be questionable. (Did the other board members really investigate/evaluate that persons historical performance.) To dig deeper. What may be most troubling; when a person is appointed to serve in a particular job based on some racial criteria, that person may not perceive of their job as serving the corporation but as advocating for their particular "tribal" interest. Should that be the case, the shareholders of the corporation are not being served correctly since decisions that person would be making would not be made based on enhancing shareholder value.

Racism has some extremely subtle aspects. Hopefully, we all want corporations to be working on behalf of the shareholders and following capitalistic practices. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that corporate boards may not act in the best interests of the shareholders should they allow decisions to be swayed by the "Woke" (racist) culture.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The un-woke are too quiet. Like the Republicans in Congress, they are probably too afraid of being called names or being cancelled. I'm beginning to have a lot more sympathy for the ordinary German citizens in the 1930's when they could have stopped the madness and didn't.

 

[AccessBlaster]

True racism is when white liberals say, black people are restricted from voting because they have to show the same ID as everyone else.

The voter ID Texas wants is basically the same law that Delaware has, that's where Joe Biden has lived his entire WHITE LIFE.

 

[Isaac]

I feel horribly oppressed when the same vape shop that they've seen me in every month makes me show my license while paying with a cc - I'm like what is this, the 90's man? Oppression Alert big-time!

Poor Cubans, they probably want to vomit when they see our country's whiners...1st world problems...

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm 64 I still get asked every once in a while to show ID for beer, I point to my gray hair as ID.

 

[Jon]

The un-woke are too quiet. Like the Republicans in Congress, they are probably too afraid of being called names or being cancelled. I'm beginning to have a lot more sympathy for the ordinary German citizens in the 1930's when they could have stopped the madness and didn't.

I don't think the everyday German was more guilty of collective guilt because of their longitude and latitude of birth. Instead, it is the culture that drives these things. The DNA of those in adjacent borders would be similar. In fact, we can see that sometimes you don't even need a border, like in the US now where you have a country divided down political lines.

It makes me think of two types of decision making: individual vs collective. If you take voting for example...

Voting is good when done collectively, but individually it is irrational and costly. It's already been debated but I bring it up so you can see the similarities about peoples behaviour on tackling this cancel culture crisis.

If everybody collectively spoke aloud, the issue would be less of a problem. But individual fear and the cost/benefit analysis of speaking up prevents many from doing so. And doing so individually has very little effect on the outcome. It is only collective behaviour that shifts things. So, it is irrational to speak up, for many.

That is my analysis anyway, regardless of what anybody thinks about the voting debate.

Edit: There is a subtle distinction though. One is a binary outcome (voting), whilst the other is cumulative, where you don't need to be the winner to still have an impact.