Does racism require ones ethnicity to possess collective power

[UglyCasanova]

I’ve edited my OP, I had the wrong example post in it somehow. This was the one I was trying to refer to

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/why-a-black-lawyer-is-afraid-to-deliver-a-package-mistakenly-left-at-his-house.2545207/page-2#post-3941489

 

[Paladin3]

Hate based on race is racism, and there is no other requirement for it to be such.

 

[Genx87]

It doesnt require collective power to be racist. It does require collective power to enforce those racist views.

 

[Atreus21]

The question about the real definition of racism has come up recently and particularly one school of thought that says in order to truly be racist one has to be in a position of collective power. See this thread for further details, particularly this post: https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...eft-at-his-house.2545207/page-2#post-39414899

I agree with this approach.

Here is the definition of racism according to Google (not the end all be all of a definition but it’s a start)

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
   "a program to combat racism"
   synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
   "Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
2. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
   noun: racism
   "theories of racism"

The idea that power is required isnt overtly defined there but is implied in that definition. Racism = prejudice + power. Without the element of power you don’t have racism. Many don’t want to accept it but dems the apples. The implication of it is the reality that minorities by its very definition can’t be racist since they don’t possess collective power.

That’s my $0.02, what’s your opinion. I’ll try to research and find some more examples. For the time being here’s a discussion going on a DU regarding it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210585436#post1

I always thought this was nonsense. Its end is to call prejudice against race A racism, and prejudice against race B acceptable.

If any person is a subject of prejudice for no other reason than their race, then that is unjust. Blacks comprise 60% of the population of New Orleans, and have generally controlled the city government for the last 20 years or so at least. Can we thus conclude that, if a black man is denied employment in New Orleans due to being black, that he was not a victim of racism since blacks don't lack power?

 

[pmv]

I didn't really agree with Moonbeam's post linking to a paper implying that the basis for conservatism is neurological. But given the way the OP here seems to have responded to unfamiliar ideas, or to the notion that they progress from a child-like view of the world, by going into some sort of crisis and having a bit of a breakdown, I'm thinking maybe there is something in it. Conservatives do sometimes seem to be 'stuck' at that early level of understanding, and have difficulty with expanding their view of the world. See also, Trump. But I am sure it's an acquired trait, not biological in origin. Even if all acquired traits will of course be embodied in some way in physical changes in the brain, that doesn't make them biological in origin. It's usually a question of privilege - power is ignorance, the more power you have the less you need to learn new ideas or take in new information.

I remember having the 'but that's racism against white people' reaction at about the age of, maybe, 10. I think it was reading about the, interesting, theology of the Nation of Islam that inspired it (white people being the result of experiments with dogs, I think it was). Since then, though, I've grown up a bit and realised it's not quite that simple.

As for Atreus21's example - you are merely pointing at local cases where power might work the other way round. That can certainly happen [I already mentioned the situation of the Ugandan Asians, though there racism did operate in both directions, because these things are complicated], though New Orleans is part of the US and is the city government there is not an autonomous power in its own right. That doesn't really challenge the point that 'racism' is not just about ideas in heads, it's also about the context. But it is irrelevant to the response of the OP to the case in the original thread.

 

[Jaskalas]

The idea that power is required isnt overtly defined there but is implied in that definition. Racism = prejudice + power. Without the element of power you don’t have racism. Many don’t want to accept it but dems the apples. The implication of it is the reality that minorities by its very definition can’t be racist since they don’t possess collective power.

What power? I'm white, does my so called privilege extend to the streets of Chicago? Am I magically immune to bullets or physical assault? Collective power does not mean !@#$ when at an individual or local capacity there are some very strong and energetic men looking to pick a fight and harm someone for being the wrong race. For not belonging in a location they claim to own. On those streets they'd have ALL the power over me. Making your definition a complete fantasy as some thinly veiled excuse for you to support racism.

Full stop. Racism is judging people and/or making decisions based on race.

And now you are making excuses for racism. How do you feel when Trump or someone else makes excuses for it? Add on top of that your false pretense of nobility, which white supremacists will never have in public. The response you'd get for your notion is seething hatred. Is that your desire? An economic agenda is not served by exhibiting "us vs them" rhetoric. Not served by alienating the majority or by making excuses for harmful acts and attitudes.

Racism starts with harmful ideas, which inevitably get put forth into action. Power defines the extent of it, not the definition. You've got your head in the clouds wanting to look at it from a distance. As if it's a scale to be measured, winner take all. But in truth racism is found on our streets, at a personal level, and it is an infectious carrier of hatred and disease towards one another. No one is immune from the consequences when people need to live their life and are dealing with people who hate them before they ever met them.

The only implication I see in the idea presented in the OP, is a furtherance of racism. A furtherance of divisions by looking the other way.

 

[Aikouka]

I think what you're trying to propose is that while someone can have a racist viewpoint/opinion, without power, it's impossible to influence others with their viewpoint. However, the problem is that whether the viewpoint/opinion is racist or not isn't changed by whether or not the person/group has the power to influence others. I think this idea is backed up by the website that you linked, which was about stamping out racism or rather acts of racism.

I think the problem is that people sometimes ignore that racism perpetuates through undertones, and in some ways, the people are oblivious to it. An awkward example is on dating sites where I'll see people say something like "I don't date outside my race. Sorry, that's how I was raised." (Yes, I have seen this or other similar things.) In a way, that "Sorry" sort of translates into "I'm not racist, but...". Also, there's a difference of saying that you were raised to only treat white men as potential suitors (i.e. racist) and saying that you just don't find other ethnicities attractive (possibly not racist).

 

[glenn1]

I think what you're trying to propose is that while someone can have a racist viewpoint/opinion, without power, it's impossible to influence others with their viewpoint. However, the problem is that whether the viewpoint/opinion is racist or not isn't changed by whether or not the person/group has the power to influence others. I think this idea is backed up by the website that you linked, which was about stamping out racism or rather acts of racism.

I think the problem is that people sometimes ignore that racism perpetuates through undertones, and in some ways, the people are oblivious to it. An awkward example is on dating sites where I'll see people say something like "I don't date outside my race. Sorry, that's how I was raised." (Yes, I have seen this or other similar things.) In a way, that "Sorry" sort of translates into "I'm not racist, but...". Also, there's a difference of saying that you were raised to only treat white men as potential suitors (i.e. racist) and saying that you just don't find other ethnicities attractive (possibly not racist).

It's a conflation of two separate concepts; racism and the ability to be an effective racist in carrying out some racial policy goal. If we accepted the OP premise then no one in Germany can be a Nazi since expressing Nazi views is against the law and thus the person in question would have no power, ergo not a Nazi. Everyone would say that's ridiculous since being a Nazi is about the beliefs you hold, not whether you have the ability to carry out a final solution and execute the Holocaust. Ditto for racism.

 

[pmv]

It's a conflation of two separate concepts; racism and the ability to be an effective racist in carrying out some racial policy goal. If we accepted the OP premise then no one in Germany can be a Nazi since expressing Nazi views is against the law and thus the person in question would have no power, ergo not a Nazi. Everyone would say that's ridiculous since being a Nazi is about the beliefs you hold, not whether you have the ability to carry out a final solution and execute the Holocaust. Ditto for racism.

I don't find that a convincing argument, because power is about a lot more than just 'the law'.

 

[glenn1]

I don't find that a convincing argument, because power is about a lot more than just 'the law'.

How are you defining power then? Anyone has power in some circumstances and differing levels of power in any given situation. If I were a judge I’d have awesome power in the courtroom, yet effectively zero while in a Mexican jail, am I racist at the first moment but not the second given the same statement “whites are inferior to blacks”?


Saying power is a needed element of being a racist requires you to have some way of determining what level of power is required and when. Otherwise your own premise entails magically flip-flopping between “not a racist, now a racist, not a racist again” from moment to moment based on circumstances.

 

[woolfe9998]

Racism simply means one's own personal belief that their race is superior to others.

Power and/or collective thinking (appeal to popularity) may compound this, add to it, or create it. But it is not inherently necessary. All that is necessary is an belief in an inherent racial superiority.

Now, if a minority victim of racism harbors resentment to the race that has victimized him, that would not be racism. There is no such thing as "reverse racism." Only resentment of racism.

Suppose the person of color stereotypes every white person as being a racist. Is that itself racist, or is believing someone is a racist just because of the color of their skin merely "resentment" as you define it above?

 

[soulcougher73]

Not in my opinion. Majority or power position doesnt matter. If you feel you are a superior race to another then you are a racist regardless if you are the low man on the power position totem pole.

Meaning you are racist, just with no political power to really push your racist views onto others.

 

[Amused]

Suppose the person of color stereotypes every white person as being a racist. Is that itself racist, or is believing someone is a racist just because of the color of their skin merely "resentment" as you define it above?

No. It would be racial resentment. It would also be prejudice, yes.

Racism? No.

Racism requires an inherent belief in superiority. There is no such thing as "reverse racism."

The black person in question has no belief in his own racial superiority. Therefore no racism. He is racially prejudicial and resentful.

 

[96Firebird]

Did you just make up your own definition of racism?

 

[realibrad]

Did you just make up your own definition of racism?

What definition are you talking about? There have been many different opinions on it so far in this thread.

 

[piasabird]

There is plenty of hatred without racism. Who is to say person A really has power over some people just because they make a comment against person B of another race or group.

For instance this is something we have seen in the news. A minority person goes and shoots a police officer. Is that minority person racist?

 

[piasabird]

Do white men really have power over minorities?

 

[piasabird]

If you believe the white man has power that is because you gave it to him.

 

[Amused]

Did you just make up your own definition of racism?

In case you're talking to me, no. The definition I gave is the very definition of Racism


rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
     noun: racism
     

 

[MavericK96]

For instance this is something we have seen in the news. A minority person goes and shoots a police officer. Is that minority person racist?

Minorities hating police because police tend to racially profile and often kill them is not racism.

Do white men really have power over minorities?

Does that question really need to be asked? Just look at the last forever of history.

 

[piasabird]

People need to get over their improper perceptions and just learn to live their lives. My wife is Asian and I have seen plenty of stares and cops following my wife because she looked different. People need to let go of the hate and change what they can for the better. You can not make people like you. There is a lot of hate out there.

 

[Aspiring Techie]

I think this is about changing the definition of words. For all of American history, "racism" meant a person believing that his race is superior to another race. This discussion we are currently engaged in is whether or not to change its definition from what it has traditionally meant to a more progressive version.

Changing the definition of a word is not wrong in and of itself. However, the Left tends to use this style of change to further their ideology which is why we should at least be skeptical of this new definition we are discussing. Remember, he who controls the words, controls the culture. That is the Left's goal.

 

[JSt0rm]

the op sure does care about racism.

 

[realibrad]

the op sure does care about racism.

Hello broken record. You gave up in the other thread were a productive discussion happened, so you are trying again in this thread.

As you can see, there are many different opinions about how to define racism. People are debating what they think is the correct term. The OP created this thread because someone disagreed what his view of the definition, and to see if others agreed or disagreed.

Tell me, do you fantasize about the OP creating threads so you might have a chance to join in on them? You seem to care a lot about the OP.

 

[Aspiring Techie]

Something doesn't sit right with the definition the OP is discussing. Under the traditional definition of racism, anybody can be racist and thus equally guilty of doing wrong. However, under the definition the OP has brought up, only white people can be racist. This seems like a push, whether intentional or not, to further the incorrect "white privilege" agenda.