Can white people experience racism? /r/facepalm deliberates (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
69 ups - 30 downs = 39 votes
163 comments submitted at 16:17:09 on Jan 23, 2014 by WelcomeToTheJam
Can white people experience racism? /r/facepalm deliberates (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
69 ups - 30 downs = 39 votes
163 comments submitted at 16:17:09 on Jan 23, 2014 by WelcomeToTheJam
So clever. Much funny. You should do stand up.
I'm not an "SJW" as much as I just get tired of seeing racist shit on reddit and say something about it. But then the replies come in and I'm reminded of how thick skulled people on reddit can be, especially when it comes to issues they think they understand but in reality, don't now shit about.
That definition of "racism" is a pretty distinctive characteristic of SJWs. It doesn't make you one, but it certainly makes you look like one.
At the very least, you're taking a word that people basically agree what it means and insisting they're wrong for not using your deliberately loaded, ideological modification.
it's not. Like I said in that thread, you'll find scholars all the way back to Booker T. Washington using that definition. Malcolm X. MLK. Langston Hughes, and countless other scholars have all agreed on this same definition of racism.
I can guarantee you that if a PoC had written the definition of racism that is used in dictionaries, it would be different than the one that's there now that was, notably, written by white males.
There's a difference between saying "racism against disempowered people is uniquely harmful in a way other types isn't" and saying that only that type of racism should be called "racism". Even if doing so slants the discourse in a way that is good, I don't think we should be politicizing definitions that way.
The term "PoC" is another characteristic of SJWs, by the way.
> The term "PoC" is another characteristic of SJWs, by the way.
lol, exactly. I'd imagine most black and Asian people I know here in the UK wouldn't take very well to being called a 'person of colour'. Interesting that here 'Asian' mostly means Indian / Pakistani origin, but in the states it means someone from the Far east, doesn't it? I wonder, do SJWs think ethnic Koreans and Chinese are 'people of colour'? I've met Italians and Spaniards who were darker.
A lot of times they get lumped in with white it helps shield them from criticism like how far easterners(is that a word?) do very well in school even including the poor ones so why can't black people do the same. that's the very simplified ameri-centric version because I just don't feel like typing it all out. Similar to how Goerge Zimmerman is white because he did something "bad".
I'm really not going to discuss this here too because I'm already tired of the stupidity.
Also, PoC is ANOTHER term is not exclusive to supposed SJWs. Do you really think the last few years are the first time people have used these terms? They've been in use for a long time now. I say PoC because it's all inclusive. Do you have a problem with that? Also, you act as if you're insulting me by calling me an sjw. Really, you're just being silly.
Would you honestly say "people of color" to a black person? What if they were offended by that term, would you tell them that they've just internalized the institutional racism?
Yes, I'd say it to a black person, I have said it to black people. Black people use it. I use it. It's a preferred term. Moreover, I'm not offended by it. I'd rather be called a person of color than be categorized by an ethnicity I'm not. I'm afro latina, and since most people haven't been exposed to Dominicans enough to know when they see one, it's easier for everyone involved to just say PoC. PoC includes, literally, any ethnicity and or race that has colored skin/is not white. Obviously, black people are not the only ones. There are Indians, Filipinos, Pacific Islanders, etc etc. PoC is an all encompassing term.
You don't see a problem with people of color basically meaning "not a white person?"
Remember kids, you can be a person of color, or normal.
Question. Is there a cut off? Let's say I'm 1/16th Jamaican. Really far back. Only a little bit though. But I grew up in the inner city and went to a poor inner city school, have only black friends etc. Do I count more than a dude who is 1/4th black but grew up in an otherwise all white neighborhood?
Alright, I get that and thank you for taking the time to explain. But to the second part of my question, what if someone of color was offended by the term "people of color"? Are they merely a victim of internalized institutional racism? And if that's true, isn't it racist to say "You're only offended by that term because you are a person of color who has internalized the institutional racism that you've been subjected to."?
I don't understand how poc is all inclusive. Sounds more like you just hate white people.
I wouldn't necessarily say hate, but it's definitely some pretty blatant othering.
>Do you really think the last few years are the first time people have used these terms? They've been in use for a long time now.
Well, yeah, like until the '50s. You know, colored folk...
> written by white males.
Actually the dictionary works by committee - A small group of editors regularly read publications, books, magazines, and see how words are used. They then decide, if they see new words or old words taking on new meanings, if they are worthy of the dictionary.
tl;dr: The current editorial staff at Webster is mostly female
Obviously they suffer from internalized misogyny.
You take your logic and you BURN IT TO THE GROUND!!!
I really hate how some SJW use the fact that some of these people are white males, as ig it's a legit criticism.
Point is, they're ignoring what they say because they happen to be white, and as such, according to them, are biased, prejudiced, racists and not to be trusted....
Which is racist.
>it's not. Like I said in that thread, you'll find scholars all the way back to Booker T. Washington using that definition.
Can you provide a citation for that? I'm not doubting you - I'm honestly curious, and not quite sure what set of search terms I'd use to find it on my own.
The idea that the power to oppress is fundamental to racism is an academic definition of racism I've seen before. I can't remember who asserts that position, but I should be able to find it when I get back to my desktop, sometime this evening or tomorrow.
That said, I ascribe to the notion that racism is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted construct which subsumes individual racist beliefs, institutional racism, and internalized racism. In particular, my studies have focused on the deleterious effects of internalized racism on chronic health-related problems, such as hypertension or diabetes. It's very interesting research that helps us better understand minority health disparities in the US.
How... how does that relate to what definitions of racism Booker T. Washington or his contemporaries used?
I'll have to go back and look when I'm not waiting on my friend, in my car. I'm posting from my phone at the moment. I've got the articles pegged as background information, saved under related information on my desktop or in a box in my closet. However, it's not racism operationalized as I have studied it. The point of my earlier comment was to say that I have seen that definition of racism previously, it's just not the one I typically study or use as a basis for research.
I don't think we're having the same conversation in this chain.
Possibly. Probably my mistake while browsing on my phone.
There is no direct citation. I mean, as far as I know you won't find a quote where he explicitly says "racism is ____". But if you do read is writings, you get a general sense of his philosophy. I mean, it's quotes like
"No white American ever thinks that any other race is wholly civilized until he wears the white man’s clothes, eats the white man’s food, speaks the white man’s language, and professes the white man’s religion.” -Up From Slavery
that give insights to how he thought about race theory. But I was more using him as a landmark in time rather than for a direct quote. I'm making the point that this isn't some new way of thinking, especially not a new way of thinking that was founded by a bunch of white girls with tumblrs. Tons of PoC scholars have been saying a lot of these things for a very long time.
So what you're saying is the source you've been citing, never really said that? You need education in reading comprehension. I clearly see what he was saying, and its nothing close to "PoC can't be racist."
And why do you keep ignoring me when I tell you to look at the etymology of the word instead of the definition? Is it because it completely undermines your argument about "old white men" making up a definition?
So what you're saying is that if you close your eyes and hope really, really hard, it's true?
SJW in a nutshell!
That quote is very interesting, it explains a lot about what the majority thought and how it was perceived by the minority.
It doesn't have anything to do with your point though.
So you have no evidence to substantiate your claims?
Facts don't real, just feeeeeelz
>white males
You forgot to add "old", "cishet" and "oppressors".
>Booker T. Washington
The guy that invented peanut butter?
No, the dude from Bioshock infinite.
No, it's the guy from the band who did "Green Onions".
We may take the piss out of someone who trys to redefine racism, but we are not racists ourselves. Fuck off with that shit. Booker T. Washington was a great man who fought against a tyrannical system. Please do not trivialize someone who actually helped change the lives of people under Jim Crow.
It was a joke, lighten up Francis.
I hate racism.
>We may take the piss out of someone who trys to redefine racism, but we are not racists ourselves. Fuck off with that shit.
And you people wonder why you're considered humorless. Inventing peanut butter isn't even remotely racist, it's delicious.
The greatness of Booker T Washington is of no relevance when considering jokes involving him and peanut butter, or any food. By making Washington culinary jokes a taboo, you are only increasing the social power of such Peanut Booker jokes.
when did MLK ever say black people couldn't be racist?
If you use the "racism = prejudice + power" definition then you might be an sjw.
If you really want to educate yourself on this, here's a great comment on the subject with sources and everything.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1u3ff7/beingasocialistwithoutbeingaradfem_is/ceeb0vg.compact
Below is taken from another persons comments a couple months back. Should be copy pasta by now in all the SJW tumblrs if they were competent. Pretty sure KettleChipz1 won't read it, rather make an inane statement and remain willfully ignorant. It's a common belief in sociology circles. The short story is that in the 1970's there was an active move to redefine racism for the sole purpose of shielding members of minority groups from being criticized for racist behavior. Here is an explanation of the genesis of that belief and its flaws explained by a comment from /u/DedicatedAcct in which they smack down someone trying to advance the idea that racism against white people cannot be racism.
From a sociology dictionary:
The attributing of characteristics of inferiority to a particular racial category. Racism is a specific form of prejudice focused on race.
http://sociology.socialsciencedictionary.com/Sociology-Dictionary-R-1/racism
Here's another one:
Racism is the perception and treatment of a racial or ethnic group, or a member of that group, as intellectually, socially, and culturally inferior to one’s own group. It is more than an attitude; it is institutionalized in society. Racism involves negative attitudes that are sometimes linked with negative behavior.
http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/g/Racism.htm
And another one:
The belief that one race is supreme and all others are innately inferior. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072435569/student_view0/glossary.html The source of the fringe definition that you claim predominates "most sociological discussions on the matter:"
As near as I can tell, the formulation "Racism = Prejudice + Power" originated in a book by Pat Bidol in 1970. Titled "Developing New Perspectives on Race," in it Bidol explicitly makes the formulation as stated and then uses this definition as the basis for an argument that in the United States Blacks cannot be racist against whites, they can only be racially prejudiced against them. This makes an important connection that matters as far as this particular nonsense is concerned, which is that this stipulated definition exists as an excuse to defend members of racial minorities against accusations of racism and it has always existed for this reason. The definition was largely popularized by Judy Katz, who referenced Bidol explicitly, in her 1978 book "White Awareness" which presented a course of counter-racist training for organizations. The book was highly influential and through it the formulation, for those who were searching for such a tool with which to deflect accusations of racism, gained popularity. http://www.wetasphalt.com/content/why-racism-prejudice-power-wrong-way-approach-problems-racism
What you've done is picked a very narrow definition from a social movement from within sociology and applied it for the very same reason that it was invented in the first place: to create a semantic (and therefore meaningless) argument in order to defend your own bigotry while simultaneously decrying bigotry directed at others (perhaps yourself). There is no consensus whatsoever in the field of sociology that racism has any qualifier with regard to which races the term can apply to. Nor are there any non-racial qualifiers such as privilege or power because they are irrelevant with regards to racial discrimination and are relegated to the other types of discrimination, as they should be. Many many reject your definition outright because it's actually racist according to the standard definition.
Now, if you want to qualify racism, you can do that all day long. Racial discrimination is what it is, but if power and privilege are important to you, they should be discussed parallel to each other, not one arbitrarily negating the other. Further, the new definition has no argument backing it. It's simply an assertion which is either accepted or rejected without reason. However, there are plenty of good arguments which preserves the original definition to the exclusion of incorporating power as a necessary qualifier for racism. Keep in mind that the argument is semantic. You'd have to redefine several other words as well to try and make any kind of ideological separation. For example, even if there was a consensus that accepted that somehow that the word "racism" can't apply to instances of racial discrimination against white people in the United States, it still doesn't make it not racial discrimination and it still doesn't make it not wrong. It only means that we don't accept the word "racism" as applied to what used to be called racism with consideration of a majority population. It's an intellectually bankrupt argument and I wouldn't make it if you want anyone to take you seriously. It shows that you're willing to "win" using reasons other than ideological fortitude and as such can be perceived as an admission that you believe that your own point is fallacious if not outright incorrect.
TL;DR: a black guy writes one book that says blacks cannot be racist against whites and tries to re-define racism as prejudice+institutional power. Then some lady takes that book and writes her own book that says, "sexism is literally racism, therefore sexism = prejudice + power too!" And then professors teach only this definition in their gender studies course, and somehow that makes it the true definition.
Oh look who hasn't responded. Surprise surprise
Surely they'll respond.
Any minute now...
I am sad that only have but one upvote to give. Excellent post.
Thanks. I keep the link for occasions like this.
This is an excellent post, I jut have one issue with what you've written:
>This makes an important connection that matters as far as this particular nonsense is concerned, which is that this stipulated definition exists as an excuse to defend members of racial minorities against accusations of racism and it has always existed for this reason.
And here, you (well, the person you c+p'd) reiterate the same basic idea:
>the very same reason that it was invented in the first place: to create a semantic (and therefore meaningless) argument in order to defend your own bigotry while simultaneously decrying bigotry directed at others (perhaps yourself)
What's the documentary evidence that underpins this being the reason why this definition of racism was invented?
That's the leap I'm not seeing here--there's got to be some kind of evidence for why this definition. You've got great sourcing on the where and who but if I were grading a paper and came across this, I'd write SAYS WHO? in big red ink in the margin here.
So...says who? I could see two possible (and there are probably more) arguments for WHY somebody wants to use a definition like the one being described here:
1) They truly are racist, and want to deflect from their own racism by reinventing a new definition. This presumes bad faith.
2) They want to add nuance to the discussion, because without the "prejudice+power" definition, as the person you quoted says, what's the difference between prejudice and racism?
One of those reasons for why this definition was, ahem, redefined presumes bad faith, one presumes good faith.
So what's your evidence for the why assertions you keep making?
edit: It's already started, but I do expect this post will be downvoted and not responded to, because what possible response is there besides "I just have a gut feeling"?
I really can't say why the other poster went that direction. I imagine it's because they (like me) have seen many people use the twisted definition as an excuse to be racist.
>They want to add nuance to the discussion, because without the "prejudice+power" definition, as the person you quoted says, what's the difference between prejudice and racism?
Racism is a type of prejudice that's directed at someone specifically because of their race. Why is that not good enough? If you want to talk about institutional racism then talk about it. When you're talking about a single instance of racism then there's no reason to use the institutional racism definition.
I also don't think anything you've said really changes anything. The argument seems to be that sociological circles use the power definition, but the guy provided numerous examples of sociological circles not using it. He even talks about the origin of the concept, which sjws never seem to understand.
>when it comes to issues they think they understand but in reality, don't now shit about.
That's another thing that bothers me about SJW. They assume every disagreement stems from ignorance. I am familiar with your opinion, I just consider it nonsensical.
>So tell me why then, would someone who has never and will never experience racism, and being that racism is literally doled out based on whether you're white or a PoC, would I let someone who is white define racism to me, who will always know what it's actually like to experience racism?
It's hilarious to see you presenting an exclusive definition of racism, then use it to deny other people's experiences, thereby confirming how right you are. Beautiful tautology. Works for any race and characteristic for anyone ever.
Only white people can be racist, a judgement based entirely on their race?
That's pretty racist, bro
That ends up with more questions.
Is it a spectrum or binary status for being "white"?
Does it even matter what my ancestors were or does it solely come down to perception?
Welcome to the Oppression Olympics...
> I'm reminded of how thick skulled people on reddit can be
Kettle* meet pot*.
*said material colors is entirely up to the reader. The author of said post takes no responsibilities for implied racism or the top reaching for drama points.
The reason you are wrong, and why people are mad at you, is that you think that racism is the same as institutionalized racism.
To add:
>I can guarantee you that if a PoC had written the definition of racism that is used in dictionaries, it would be different than the one that's there now that was, notably, written by white males.
Just because it was written by "white males" does not make the definition of racism untrue. Racism is the belief that:
Races exist
Belief that one race is superior to another
I hope you will start to see that racism is not the same as institutionalized racism.
> I'm not an "SJW"
Your comments in this thread indicate that that is a lie.
I thought that was going to be that daytime TV show host gif based on paternity test episodes.
Yeah, I'm kinda mixing my maymays, I just love that gif so much.
This comment has been linked to in 1 subreddit (at the time of comment generation):
This comment was posted by a bot, see /r/Meta_Bot for more info.
Says the one who only put one "wow."