On the origin of "Black People Can't be Racist"

Post Reply New Topic

LOLOLOL----LOVE it!!

Yeah, that's why sociologists make the distinction between racism and prejudice.

Racism (prejudice + power)= oppression.
Prejudice (black person saying mean things to a white person)= hurt feelings.

They are both wrong but they are not equal, and that is the bit that makes people upset. They want those two things to be equal, but they just aren't.

That's why you ignored those vids I posted.

If it makes you feel any better, truly powerless whites cannot be racist, but blacks in powerful positions can.There have been plenty of racist black judges and cops.



Okay... I don't really see the problem here. This person is using the terms in their sociological sense and explaining what they mean and the difference. Also, they seem to be condemning both racism and prejudice, which is good and they are explaining their use of the terms so nobody can be confused.

This is great. This is how people of good will start to understand each other and find common ground.





Umm.... NO.

That is how anti-racist activists use the terms WHEN THEY HAVE TAKEN A CLASS IN SOCIOLOGY. Also, as we can see from YOUR OWN QUOTE, those same people EXPLAIN how and why they use the terms the way they do.

Let me quote YOUR QUOTE again, so you don't have to look for it up the page:



Yep, I can guarantee this person took AT LEAST one sociology class! AND, they have enough theory of mind to realize that a lot of folks haven't and might not understand how and why they are using terms the way they are! Hence, they are giving their readers an explanation!! !! !

This seems like a solution, an honest effort to communicate clearly. This is not a problem.






Well, sweetheart you can call yourself whatever you like. If you're doing good, most people will give you a pass. If you want to be Sociologically Correct you'd probably want to call yourself an anti prejudice-ist... maybe...

Let me say again, your whole argument seems to hinge on willful ignorance (or pathological ignorance) of the sociological use of these words.

Most people aren't stupid enough to not grasp these distinctions of terms--especially when they are explained to them.

As for me, I don't just study these things. I use my sociological powers everyday to solve problems and help people suffering from racism, AND prejudice, AND poverty, AND lots of other things.

I work with people who use those terms in the sociological sense and people who use those terms interchangeably. We all work together, get along, and NEVER argue about that s**t, because it really doesn't matter.


I gotta say, I really question the sincerity of anybody who claims to be against racism and prejudice, but can get sidetracked and distracted by this topic.

Yes we all need to understand what the other is saying. In the example you showed, the blogger made every effort to be clear.

I'll work with anybody who is against racism and/or prejudice and I don't care what they call them (I bet I can figure out what they mean after a few minutes of honest conversation).

This is only a problem for people LOOKING for problems so they can block solutions.

Now, that's what I call a dickhead.

Really? Please explain how you can tell I'm racist (popular usage) against whites by that post. (yeah, I know you were just taking a cheap shot).

I was just pointing out what a typical racist looks like. They are not all kkk members burning a cross. They're guys like Archie Bunker, throwing your resume in the trash because you have a black sounding name.

http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html



That's racism. Prejudice, plus power, in this case to deny someone a job because they had a "black name."

Agreed

Nope.

The reason I quoted the blogger who explained the difference between the sociological definition and the common English definition was in part to make it clear that ignorance of the sociological use of the word isn't the problem. The problem is that the theory behind the appropriation of the word "racism" by sociologists is deeply flawed.

Not the theory that power makes institutional racism a different and particular problem than individual racism, but the idea that the people who are working this theory can take the stigma attached to the words "racist" and "racism" and by redefining "racism" make that opprobrium attach exclusively to their new definition.

I'm sure not every sociologist or person insisting that the sociological usage is somehow privileged over the common usage are playing that particular game, but some people are, and it's stupid.

Accusing someone of being a racist is powerful, but that power lies in accusing that person of being individually prejudiced, not participating in racist power structures or institutions. ignoring this seems like willful ignorance by those who insist that the specialized meaning is correct, better, scientific or whatever.

Any attempt to try to say the taint of that word only belongs to institutional racism is both dishonest and ineffective.

One sociologist came up with definition, then many of them took it as gospel.

Why? There was already a flawed model of privilege in place and base on an idea that some people's opinion on certain subject matters more simply because they came from a demographic and they are also a person in authority as an academic. Also other's positions were not following a narrative that those that subscribed to these idea were comfortable with (this approach has double standards).

However, they just happened one person fromthis demographic. Other black people disagree, as may people do.

So there has been a taboo created about being objective. After all, who would want to be accused of whitesplaing or Coon if you are black? Yes black people who challenge these ideas openly are regularly called Coons and Uncle Toms, even though they are thinking for themselves an not reinforcing any negative stereotype which is what that interrogative is about. That word has power too within the black community. It is a way of shunning people for no toeing the line. However under the current climate Martin Luther King Jr. would be called a Coon by some, for suggesting that we should judge people by their character not their race.

As this academic got their first and they are in a position of power, they still have authority to intentionally create a misleading concept.

It is following the fallacy of appeal it to personal experience and the fallacy of appeal to social classification.

A common phrase you hear is "you are invalidating my experience". Rarely does anyone reasonable, want to invalidate someone's experience as a whole. I don't want to, nor would I be able to to. However, if someone creates a world view based on experience, rightly or wrongly that opinion is still anecdotal. They are not all seeing all knowing. Challenging this opinion is not invalidating their experience in any way, regardless how good the argument is. Yet this strawman is a powerful taboo and stigma, which serves a form of propaganda to silence people. This phrase has power undeniably, it should be used responsibly. I can lead you being called sexist or racist or some other form of bigot, at the very least very insensitive. I have a thread on taboos as propaganda which is relevant. I personally think this need a thread on its own becuase it is a really good example of this and this is an important subject to cover.

Appeal so social classification sometimes trumps even personal experience. Even vague terms like Person of Colour e.g. a Vietnamese man (who is middle class and educated), somehow being able to relate more to a black prostitute becuase they are not white.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 16 Oct 2016, 6:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

It's hard to know what's in an individuals heart, so this has to be spoken of in generalizations of race. So if the question is if a black person can be racist, then sure. Anyone is capable of racism. I guess, though, that this has to do with black people being racist against white people specifically. I imagine some are and some aren't, who knows. But there is another aspect to black/white racism and that is that whites have and are oppressing black people. So it might be hard to distinguish between black racism and justified resentment.

The whole prejudice + power would have some merit if systematic oppression were actually a real thing. Until you can provide all evil white cis men gather in meetings to plot against other races then you don't really have much more than conspiracy theories.

It doesn't even need to be a conspiracy... a single bigot could affect people's lives if an employer e.g.

Doesn't make it systemic lol. It's their right as a business owner and they are free to shoot themselves in the foot. People arguing systemic oppression are saying it is universal. I'm not sure how they let Obama through to the presidency.

When are those dishing it out acknowledging their own bigotry and resentment towards whites?

According to some, if you are a white ally you must acknowledge you own inherent racism, yet the same doesn't apply to those they are are in the oppressed group. This why I dislike this misleading definition with a passion. It doesn't do anything to mend division. If anything it reinforces it. It is a tit for tat strategy.

It is better not to mind police. Yes it is possible and probable that we all have some predudices however I doesn't mean we act on them or are all of them going to cause more harm than trying to hold to account a whole race. Even if it does, it doesn't mean that selectively putting this on trial in this way will work. If anything these preferences change when people intermingle and get used to each other. This is why I say a lot of the rhetoric these day is making thing worse not better. Resentment is never a good starting point. A lot of this redressement strategy will just disadvantage already deprived people who are not being considered in all this. Have you read the Movement for Black Lives own demands? Visit their website. Tell me do you honestly think that is going lead to a positive resolution.

Mandella specifically argued against this approach. In fact, he even went so far as to encourage us to understand the fears of the demographic the oppressors historically came from (but were not universal in support of) after the system was dismantled. He knew that that they would worry what would happen to them after. This is why he argued in favour of reconciliation and not retribution in the negotiations leading to the dismantling of apartheid. This is becuase he was influenced by the ideas of Gandhi.

Even when he was breaking rock on Robin Island at his lowest ebb, not only did he refuse to be a victim he refused to adopt the identity of victimhood. He knew it would drag him down and consume him if he couldn't shed this. This is what he taught us. The intellectual and activist he were imprisoned with were from varied background and perspectives.

We all have experiences. I have lived in many countries and experienced different cultures. Three former slave colonies (sources and destinations) and one country with enforced segregation at the time, where my dads job involved black and protest politics and meeting leaders (not without difficulty). I have visited slave ports, plantations (not just he main house but all the mechanism) and a given a tour by an Oxford educated Black Jamaican Lawyer who also studied history (not that that an appeal to authority or social classification would necessarily make any differnce). I'm not all knowing, but I can dissect ideas based on merit like anyone analytical.

Anyone is capable of having an opinion, and questioning ideas. We don't know fore sure what is in a persons mind, we need to judge individual based on how they act not on how the may act. Anything less is the very definition of prejudice Positive discrimination also carries some flaws and side effects. Minorities are minorities becuase there are less of them. They can be represented, but unequally representing them at the expense of others is not clever. Asians are minorities that are doing quite well in the US by an large, this despite the adversity they had to face n the last century and before. We also need to value each other as individuals, which mean not constantly classifying each other and pigeon holing. This is part of the problem not the solution.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 16 Oct 2016, 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

This works both ways.

Why are you making this admission now rather than before? You rubbished a counter argument video, which made the same point. This whole thread was about people who think think black people can't be racist, which includes academics who use your definition, and people who teach social justice based on these ideas.

Anyway at least that is something. Why do feel the need to elevate certain forms of bigotry over others? At least that is the impression I get. So you reluctantly concede that black people can indeed be racist under your prejudice+power* paradigm, becuase it might make us feel better. It is not just for the benefit of the readers on WP you know.

Never mind, then I'm glad we are on the same page on one issue.

So, that last bit in bold is a huge problem. The way we don't talk about race in this country is unhealthy and not productive at all. It's like Marc Lamont Hill says at the end of that first clip I posted--we shouldn't write off people, throw them away, when they get caught saying or doing racist/prejudiced things. We need to talk this stuff out.

We used to be able to do that. I don't know how old you are,so you might not know about/remember this, but back in the 70s and 80s we could discuss race. That's why I posted those clips from SNL and All In The Family.

Like I posted before, Archie Bunker and George Jefferson are what common bigots look like. We used to be able to use comedy as a way in, to look at and discuss real issues of racism and prejudice. The comedy also helped to undermine and depower racism. Archie and George were people to be laughed AT, not with...

The problem is, in the early 90s, Rodney King happened followed by Mark Fuhrman & O.J. and a long succession of "caught on tape" incidents of police brutality, etc. right up to this day. All that stuff reminded us that some racism isn't funny and, as a culture, we (especially white people) have overreacted.

As I mentioned before, there's some compelling research to suggest that prejudice is baked in to human nature.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 105357.htm

We should not condemn people for having, or even acting upon racist impulses. The only way to deal with this is to talk it out, and make people aware.

So, racism should carry certain stigma, but it should not carry the connotation that anybody who exhibits these tendencies is evil or morally defective. People need to talk about this and know that it is okay to feel biases toward certain people and/or groups. What is not okay is acting on those biases when they are irrational, unfounded, and unfair. That applies to all people no matter what color they are.

As for your last sentence, I realize that at a personal level white racism and black prejudice look and FEEL the same (especially for some white people). That's why I don't split hairs most of the time, when non-academics use the words interchangeably.

But, the distinction is important for nonwhites (at a personal level) and everyone when we look at the effects of racism and prejudice at a macro level.
As I posted before actual racism results in oppression for nonwhites, while prejudice aimed at whites usually only results in hurt feelings at most.

They are both wrong but they are not equal, and that is the bit that makes people upset. They want those two things to be equal, but they just aren't. Power is the difference and we cannot forget that.

Dude, the problem here is a fundamental perception of reality and the drivers of human nature.

I, and nobody I know in the realm of sociology, would deny the idea that black people, if given power, could be racist (using the sociological definition).

The problem is that blacks in America aren't generally in positions of power, and for the few that are in power (you won't like this ) their racism often manifests against other blacks/nonwhites because of the racism inherent in our culture which causes implicit bias in EVERYONE.

Exhibit A:


Another problem is your assumption that all these sociological theories are simply based in subjective experience. They aren't. Social scientists do actual research, as seen above and in the articles I linked to in my previous posts.

It would be WONDERFUL if we could simply judge people on character/merit and nothing else, BUT THAT JUST IS NOT POSSIBLE at this point.

This is not to say that it will never be possible--the hopeful thing about bias research is that it suggests that what we consider as significant difference (and worthy of antipathy) is plastic. So, eventually, most people might not perceive skin color as an important difference, but that will take a big cultural change.

The problem is, you seem to think bias no longer exists or that (mostly white) racism and black prejudice (against whites) is equal. It isn't because of the power differential between these groups in American society and there are plenty of studies to support that.

A big component of (trigger warning ) white privilege is the option to ignore and deny that racism is still a problem BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR LIFE. Nonwhites cannot do this because racism and bias affects their lives in measurable ways every single day.

That's where we disagree.