This makes NO sense as we wouldn't have known that he had two caregivers or if they were polka dot. YOU presented it into evidence. I think I agree with you when you say that your neighbor isn't the one with the problem. It appears to me, at least from reading your posts in this thread, that you are the one with issues. And for that I pity you.

For A) Given that you've had to go back to previous posts in this thread and edit them to make it more clear that you were kidding, maybe you should try harder to explain that and maybe you shouldn't indicate about a lack of morals of a man you've never met.

B) Because it was something that I wanted information on. Just because I want information on it doesn't mean that other things aren't more important than it. And given the earlier contributers to the thread didn't see any problem with it, I'm going with their opinion.

YES! LOL

And we've officially reached zen.

Uh, no. That's not why I did that. You don't want me perceivingly assuming things of your neighbor so don't assume things of my posting practices. Mmmmkay?

More importantly, this...isn't...the point. Goodness gracious.

What are you talking about? Clearly, you don't understand my posts enough to respond to them.

Makes more sense than most of the other responses. :D

If you agree with that sarcastic statement then you are (searching for the nicest way to say this) a shame.

I believe the "I kid, I kid" was added, the first time I saw the post, I only saw the smiley.

You asked why I brought it up if I didn't think it was as important as topic A. If people only brought up on Greekchat the thing that was most important to them. It would be a *much* quieter list.

You are in the minority of the responses on the issue. I'm going with the majority opinion here.

You were the one who made it. If you don't think it represents Zen, read more on the concept.

You like to debate the obvious. I'm talking about your assumptions of the intent.


Again, what are you talking about? What is my response on the issue that makes me a minority opinion?

So, now you want to escape the topic by discussing Zen. I am extremely familiar with Zen.

Again, if you agreed with my sarcastic statement then that's a problem and you should not be writing about APO at HBCUs.

On the other hand, if you were also being sarcastic, then cool. We both think it's neither enlightening nor progressive to hide race (and other power-oriented constructs) under more silly concepts and discussions.

**whispering** She called you a minority..you know what that's a code word for.....

No, everyone is a lil bit prejudiced.

YES!! I absolutely agree with this and was about to type something similar.

Yep because "racist" comes with majority power dynamics that not everyone has access to.** It is not synonymous with bigotry and prejudice.

**But, when access is granted to majority power dynamics for whatever reasons and for any length of time, it's the "same romp, different elderly man." :)

LMBO!!! I hate you for this...but I LOVE the topic LOL

Clearly, you haven't seen Avenue Q!

"Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.

Ethnic jokes might be uncouth,
But you laugh because
They're based on truth.
Don't take them as
Personal attacks."

make sure you leave a response...hehhee

Yes, you would, if that's all that was available or acceptable, as was the case when some of us started!

[Warning: hijack...not that this hasn't been hijacked already.]

I've heard this argument a lot, and to an extent I agree with it. Racism as defined in the dictionary is broad enough to include all hatred of race, but in academic contexts it differs from prejudice in that you have to hold power to be racist.

I agree that culturally, politically and commercially, whites are the majority power in this country and you could make the argument that by withholding opportunities from other races they are racist, and that the other races do not hold that majority power so they cannot be racist.

What is the nuance I am missing though...say a white person wants to join a group, organization or even just wants to belong in a more intangible aspect of society and is rejected purely because of their race? For example, what if after years of service a white person wanted to run for deacon of a historically black church, join a culturally Chinese dance group or pledge a Latino fraternity? Are these not institutions where a different race is the majority power? Obviously they would have to be qualified in all of these cases and we as whites should not expect an "automatic pass"...we have to be just as qualified. But if the congregation decided that they did not want a white deacon in a historically black church and that was the only theoretical flaw (ie, equal time spent in the church, positions held, etc), how would that not be a majority power of one race withholding from another...aka racism?

I am not saying I disagree, I just want to know what nuance I am missing that would differentiate one majority power from the other...this argument seems to be theorizing that power majority only matters at a macro-level and not a micro-level to be racist, and I am not sure I understand why.

I currently use washable, reusable pads and a diva cup. They're really no worse than cloth diapers.

Society-at-large encompasses the church, the dance group and the fraternity. These groups still operate under the established system.

;) Thank you. I was hoping someone would 'get it.'

So the white majority power therefore holds the power in these groups? Even if the leadership of this group is comprised of an entirely different group? This is the question I am confused about...macro vs. micro...are you saying that American minorities do not even have power in their own groups? Because I do not think I agree with that statement.

The dictionary is for surface level, layperson information and is akin to wikipedia knowledge/understandings of the social world.

Preciousjeni answered your question that has been answered many times on GC. ;) Also, remember that white people aren't seeking membership and acceptance into nonwhite academic, professional, and social networks 99% of the time. The relatively rare occasion that whites do, they are either accepted or not accepted--but, it's with the understanding that the outcome of that rare occasion is a temporary, momentary inconvenience that is a drop in the bucket of white privilege and overall social advantage. This applies across social class because people are more aligned by race and ethnicity than they are social class.

Ever heard of the term "slumming?" :)

The Catholic church in the Hill District of Pittsburgh (which has been primarily black for a very long time - peep this) didn't allow races other than blacks to join for a long time, although they wanted to, simply because of the sense of community and fellowship in the church. All races are now permitted to join.

Difference being we have better cleaning tools now than a bar of soap and a rock.

Synopsis:
The heyday of Pittsburgh’s Hill District lasted from the 1930’s through the 1950’s, and this eloquent documentary recaptures it all…the music clubs that attracted both black and white, the best Negro League baseball teams in America, the church picnics and family businesses that comprised the essence of life in this vibrant neighborhood.


:D Sure, there were (a relative few) nonBlacks who wanted to be a part of that exciting "Negro" cultural experience. Sure. :D Not being able to become a full MEMBER of that exciting "Negro" cultural experience probably didn't ruin too many whites' lives.

":( I can't join that Black Catholic Church--it's such a good church, though and tons of fun--oh well, I guess I'll join one of the many predominantly white churches, many of which don't accept Blacks in the 1930s-1950s----take dat, Negros!!!! Can't oppress me!!! I was just slummin'...I got options!" :D

Oh, I'm not saying they had 100s of people beating down their doors - just that it did happen. I wouldn't be surprised if there were first gen (white) immigrants that would have felt more comfortable there than some of the snootier churches.

I was going to touch on Peoples Temple but that's really getting off into a whole 'nother arena.

First, I thought I indicated in my first post that I understood that the academic definition of racism encompassed far more than the dictionary definition.

Second, I agree that 99% of the time white people are not attempting to join these institutions. But the argument is that minorities do not have the power/ability/privilege of being racist...if the hypothetical situation exists (and even if it is that 1% of the time, it does happen) where there is even a plausible situation where a group of minorities could deny access to a majority member because of their race, how is it that minorities cannot be racist?

I understand that preciousjeni answered the question by saying that those groups still exist under the umbrella of white culture which runs this society, but I am having a hard time understanding why that absolves these groups of their power. If racism is a power dynamic, why are subcultures (which hold power in their own right) excluded?

This isn't about me whining that Thurston P. Waspington IV is being excluded from all the cultural groups he wants to join...it is true that the reverse (minorities being excluded, either implicitly or explicitly, from predominantly white groups) happens exponentially more often and I think most "poor white people" arguments are unnecessary sob stories. I have just always had trouble with the argument that racism is a power dynamic that is only applicable to those who hold majority power in this country, when there are thousands of subgroups which hold majority power for anybody who wants to belong, and these groups are perfectly capable of turning away people because of their whiteness (or even one minority turning away another minority). Even if this NEVER happened in America (which we all know is false) it still gives minorities the possibility to be racist based on this power dynamic theory. Why do subgroups who hold power not count? Preciousjeni answered it in one sentence, but that does not give the reason why only the majority power can be racist...it just says it. I'm sure an academic such as yourself would want to see at least one example for why that statement rings true.

I'm not saying I won't ever believe it, I have yet to hear a good explanation.

Yes, to buy time until they "become white." :D That's the general story of the Irish and Italian (among other European) immigrants.

Even if there was only one that was turned away, that is still a racist action. I think the effect that racism holds in most white people's lives is negligible, even if I've experienced racism and prejudice from minorities I understand that, at the end of the day, I still have many more opportunities unfairly. But I'm not lamenting racism in my life...I'm asking why in these rare situations it is not racism? Even though like many are arguing this church existed in a society where whites were the majority culture, blacks were clearly the power holders in this specific community and denied access based on race. That seems to fit the bill under the explanation that racism is about power dynamics and withholding power. So how is this not racism?

Based on your opinion of "good." ;) Such discourse and quests for knowledge aren't about convincing people. It's about people understanding and being informed so they know why they do or do not believe something.

ETA:
What you are talking about is considered "individual racism" and is considered laughable by some racial and ethnic inequality theorists and researchers. Yes, there are relatively rare contexts in which lower status groups have power and can use this power to contextually (and rather temporarily) "oppress" someone in a higher status groups. However, this contention is duly noted and generally dismissed because it is is relatively rare and has historically been used by whites as what some of us call the "me, too" syndrome. It's the same as claims of "reverse racism" that have been used to buffer claims of racism and discrimination; and make whites feel as though they are victims, too. When, in actuality, the blame was never ON whites, in the first place. It's about power constructs and whites so happen to have the majority power in this society but not in every society.

It is also laughable because people (not you, in general) seem to easily grasp power dynamics when discussing such constructs as social class, sexual orientation, and gender. For instance, people can grasp why and how claims of male victims of sexism and gender discrimination are considered relatively rare and that it isn't the same thing. It's when you put race, and specifically Black and white, in the mix that people get jumbled and perplexed.

Because this is the only answer I've received:
"Society-at-large encompasses the church, the dance group and the fraternity. These groups still operate under the established system."

They operate under the established system, but if racism is about power dynamics, even if they operate in a predominantly white culture these groups still have minority leadership. In their subcultures minorities hold all the power. If they then have the power to discriminate against any race (whether it is the majority race or another minority race), how do they not have the "privilege" of being racist? I'm trying to understand what makes a subculture's power to deny access because of race any different than the culture at large. That's the question I'm asking...

I guess you didn't understand my answer then. :) That's all I will offer regarding this because it is rather redundant.

If you insist that "situational racism" and "individual racism" exist (and aren't just synonyms for bigotry and prejudice) and are the same thing as what we're discussing here...okay. :)

No, I see the distinction...just not sure I agree with it. Who knows, you are the expert in this...but I think we'll just have to "agree to disagree".

I don't believe in agreeing to disagree. :D It goes back to what I said, such discourse isn't about convincing.

*skipping the past 8 pages*

That example doesn't bother me as it was so long ago. It may or may not be a problem now, depending on the context. The word as a whole doesn't bother me, though, I just used it yesterday. All depends on how you say it.

Only if you don't understand how the past 8 pages actually addressed the original topic.

A rock? :D

I found myself nodding. APhiAnna, this freedom and entitlement is important in understanding why (as DrPhil mentioned) situational racism and individual racism are really just synonyms for bigotry and prejudice.

?

*sigh* im surprised it took 9 pages for this racist asshole to show up.