The Seinfeld Dude....

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DSTKellie

Well personally I dont think black people are racist. We don't benefit from racism. Because racism is a system that we cannot control. Are there black people that hate white people??? Of course! But this does not qualify as racism to me. (another topic for another day)

Exactly. Now, there are small pockets of this society where blacks are substantially in power and can institute smaller scale racism against another racial group, including whites.

These small pockets aren't enough to go on tirades about though because racism was never really about specific racial groups (i.e. white people versus nonwhites) but about power dynamics. It may or may not be a coincidence that people who can be classified as "white" are dominant in power in this society and across the globe.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

On a side note, in response to the above post...I'm not sure what logic you're using in deciding that white people hating black people is racism but black people hating whites isnt...

I don't consider white people hating black people to automatically be racism. It is prejudice. The difference, that can make hatred turn into discrimination and/or racism, is that white people hating black people tends to translate into action whereas blacks who hate whites tends to not to translate into action. How many blacks can have stable, good jobs and accumulate wealth through separatism and without the input of a white person who is not a subordinate? However, many whites have always had stable, good jobs and accumulated wealth through separatism (opportunity hoarding) and without the input of blacks who were not subordinates. This is the opportunity and power differential.

Action does not include someone getting mad and whooping someone's ass one day. Action means systemic exclusion and differential treatment (and even systemic violence similar to the lynching era).

Originally Posted by shinerbock

however, if your idea has merit, how would that affect something like hate crime legislation? They're usually racially/sexual orientation motivated, so would you support hate crime status for crimes by blacks against whites, if there was indication that the victim being white factored into the decision to commit the crime? Just curious.

I would. But "racism" is not a requirement for hate crimes or the legislation. You have to prove the person was targeting a specific group, usually due to prejudice and fear, not that the person was "racist."

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While that may be your definition of racism, it is not the one that society, or the dictionary, operates under.

There are two main definitions of racism that have been debated over the last few decades. But there are thousands of social scientists and researchers who agree with the definition that includes power definitions, as well as distinguishes between prejudice, discrimination, and racism.

The dictionary provides things in a simplistic format for the layperson who won't understand these social constructs if presented in detail. This is why there are social science dictionaries, encyclopedias and other sources for people who want to really dig deep to understand and challenge conventional notions.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ah, institutionalized racisim.

I can agree that this is a horse of a different color. Were we discussion instituionalized racism, that might have made more sense. Racism at it's core however is bias based on race. NOT bias from the dominent race to the non-dominent. By your/DSTKellie's definition, a white person living in or visiting a predominantly Arab country could not be racist against Arabs. Same applies for an African country or an Asian one.

So you all are discussing individual racism and only see racism as systemic when someone places "institutional" in front of it. Some textbooks still include sections on individual racism but it ends up confusing students as to what prejudice vs discrimination vs racism is.

Power is not about population size. Whites still comprise the largest percentage of this country, but places like South Afrika had the minority control the majority for years through Apartheid. So if the white person went to Arab and was in a position of power and influence and used this against the Arab people, it could be racism. However, I argue that many Arabs look racially "white" (according to N. America standards) enough to be able to assimilate into "whiteness" if they chose to--as many do when they come to America even to the point of marking "white" on the Census. So it wouldn't be racism that they face as much as it would be culturalism or ethnocentrism.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You are right however that her arguments are undocumented.

No, they aren't undocumented and I assumed AKAMonet was being facetious.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

There are two main definitions of racism that have been debated over the last few decades. But there are thousands of social scientists and researchers who agree with the definition that includes power definitions, as well as distinguishes between prejudice, discrimination, and racism.

The dictionary provides things in a simplistic format for the layperson who won't understand these social constructs if presented in detail. This is why there are social science dictionaries, encyclopedias and other sources for people who want to really dig deep to understand and challenge conventional notions.

See my example above about power struggles existing in the everyday interpersonal relationships. A black man who refuses to serve a white man is in a position of power over the white man, even if that white man is a CEO and the black man is running a food kiosk. EVEN if racism only exists where power is involved, power struggles are involved in every relationship.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

So you all are discussing individual racism and only see racism as systemic when someone places "institutional" in front of it. Some textbooks still include sections on individual racism but it ends up confusing students as to what prejudice vs discrimination vs racism is.

Power is not about population size. Whites still comprise the largest percentage of this country, but places like South Afrika had the minority control the majority for years through Apartheid. So if the white person went to Arab and was in a position of power and influence and used this against the Arab people, it could be racism. However, I argue that many Arabs look racially "white" (according to N. America standards) enough to be able to assimilate into "whiteness" if they chose to--as many do when they come to America even to the point of marking "white" on the Census. So it wouldn't be racism that they face as much as it would be culturalism or ethnocentrism.



No, they aren't undocumented and I assumed AKAMonet was being facetious.

No, but the dicussion was about whether a non-white person could be racist, thus I was discussing it at the individual level.

And saying that Arabs can "pass" dodges the question. Could a white person living in Pakistan be racist against SE Asians? This is not Donald Trump or Tom Cruise this is Joe Street, white, male, and a minority in Pakistan.

I say yes, but by the definition proposed above, this is not possible.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

See my example above about power struggles existing in the everyday interpersonal relationships. A black man who refuses to serve a white man is in a position of power over the white man, even if that white man is a CEO and the black man is running a food kiosk. EVEN if racism only exists where power is involved, power struggles are involved in every relationship.

How many black men who run food kiosks would think to not serve a white man who makes money and can pay for a service? Not many and not any who want to actually have a successful business where successful white men don't refuse to patron them. Discussing outliers never makes for good dialogue because it is a social fact that black owned businesses who want more mainstream success, in general, do not thrive when they attempt to exclude white consumers. However, white owned businesses who want mainstream success, in general, can thrive even if they manage to exclude black consumers either intentionally or "unintentionally."

But I'm in a power struggle with the post office over getting my package delivered today. Doesn't sound too exciting or noteworthy, does it? Nope.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, but the dicussion was about whether a non-white person could be racist, thus I was discussing it at the individual level.

And saying that Arabs can "pass" dodges the question. Could a white person living in Pakistan be racist against SE Asians? This is not Donald Trump or Tom Cruise this is Joe Street, white, male, and a minority in Pakistan.

If you're still asking about the black person as singular rather than general then read my first post on this page.

It isn't dodging the question. It forced you to pose the question differently because "race" is a narrow focus if you are speaking internationally.

If "whites" are power minorities in a society (which has nothing to do with being a Donald Trump, since racism was perpetuated by the white working class through the split labor market for the past 50 or so years) then they can not be racist against SE Asians--and any racism would be small scale and not that long lasting because it doesn't follow the SE Asians throughout many aspects of the society (and therefore isn't worth discussing, in my opinion). But the whites can be prejudice or discriminatory at whatever level they are able to.

I expect for people to be able to see the general and apply it to the specific. If a general point has been made, you should be able to see the point about power differentials. There's no need for anecdotes or probing questions regarding these specific instances that may be more outliers than anything else.

If you think of racism as "individual racism" only (as many people do) then we'll obviously disagree so no need to discuss further.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

How many black men who run food kiosks would think to not serve a white man who makes money and can pay for a service? Not many and not any who want to actually have a successful business where successful white men don't refuse to patron them. Discussing outliers never makes for good dialogue because it is a social fact that black owned businesses who want more mainstream success, in general, do not thrive when they attempt to exclude white consumers. However, white owned businesses who want mainstream success, in general, can thrive even if they manage to exclude black consumers either intentionally or "unintentionally."

But I'm in a power struggle with the post office over getting my package delivered today. Doesn't sound too exciting or noteworthy, does it? Nope.



If you're still asking about the black person as singular rather than general then read my first post on this page.

It isn't dodging the question. It forced you to pose the question differently because "race" is a narrow focus if you are speaking internationally.

If "whites" are power minorities in a society (which has nothing to do with being a Donald Trump, since racism was perpetuated by the white working class through the split labor market for the past 50 or so years) then they can not be racist against SE Asians--and any racism would be small scale and not that long lasting because it doesn't follow the SE Asians throughout many aspects of the society (and therefore isn't worth discussing, in my opinion). But the whites can be prejudice or discriminatory at whatever level they are able to.

I expect for people to be able to see the general and apply it to the specific. If a general point has been made, you should be able to see the point about power differentials. There's no need for anecdotes or probing questions regarding these specific instances that may be more outliers than anything else.

If you think of racism as "individual racism" only (as many people do) then we'll obviously disagree so no need to discuss further.

I bring up the outlier not because of its likeliness but because it is a contradiction. You're taking my points and trying to deny their applicability based on business for example. Said black man's business may fail, but if he acted in such because of the color of the white man's skin, then he is racist. It doesn't matter whether that is a financially wise decision.

I argue that racism is not ONLY institutional/societal but also individual and thus cannot be denied simply because the racist is in the minority. I am not denying the racism present in society/government/etc. though I probably disagree with you on some aspects of it.

You seem to only address racism on the societal level - such as w/in my example. If said man is racist, he is racist no matter who he is. Yes, it is small scale but these tiny relationships are what form society.

Perhaps this is simply a psychology vs. sociology point of view.

[southernelle25]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I don't consider white people hating black people to automatically be racism. It is prejudice. The difference, that can make hatred turn into discrimination and/or racism, is that white people hating black people tends to translate into action whereas blacks who hate whites tends to not to translate into action. How many blacks can have stable, good jobs and accumulate wealth through separatism and without the input of a white person who is not a subordinate? However, many whites have always had stable, good jobs and accumulated wealth through separatism (opportunity hoarding) and without the input of blacks who were not subordinates. This is the opportunity and power differential.

But isn't it true that the reason black hatred tends to not translate into action is because of the actions (or inaction) of blacks themselves. Blacks have as much opportunity - if not more, as other minority groups in America to thrive on their own internal community investments. They choose not to. Are these blacks not racist, then, just because they elect not to utilize the power they in fact have?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I bring up the outlier not because of its likeliness but because it is a contradiction.

Not a contradiction if you read my first post on this page.

And if it is relatively uncommon, what's the point? Are we going to debate whether unicorns are racist against leprechauns next? Those bastards.

The difference is not really individual vs. societal. It's not really psychological vs. sociological because psychologists tend to be stuck in the attitude stage and figuring out the why or intent versus examining the outcome regardless of why and intent. So that's not the crux of this debate.

The difference is really power. Since people want to discuss individual-level, if you fail to acknowledge power differentials in "individual racism" then you are really talking about prejudice (attitude) and perhaps even discrimination (behavior) if there is opportunity to discriminate. Even discriminate requires contextual power because you have to have the ability to withhold something from someone. You can have prejudice without discrimination and vice versa. But you can not have racism at any level without an ability to reinforce power differentials, opportunity to be discriminatory, and the incentive/gain from being discriminatory.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by southernelle25

But isn't it true that the reason black hatred tends to not translate into action is because of the actions (or inaction) of blacks themselves.

No one is discussing why the power differentials are the way they are. And you don't just get power at a societal level and tear down the status quo through positive self-thought and a go-get-em attitude.

But if you must know, NO, the disproportionate condition of blacks in this country is not solely attributable to the actions (or inaction) of blacks themselves. And, NO, blacks do not have the same, if not more, opportunities as other racial and ethnic minorities in this country. No other racial and ethnic minority group in this country has the history that blacks have. You can not look at the present and future without examining the remnants of the past. A past that isn't as distant as people have been told to believe.

But I would like for you to use this retort whenever someone discusses gender inequality and the gender status quo that keeps job ceilings, sex segregation, and inequality in earnings. If women would learn to do better and realize their power, they would have nothing to complain about. Who cares if women's labor is devalued and this is a male dominated society? Cry babies.

[DSTKellie]

Thank you DSTChaos and AKA_Monet we are >>>here<<<.

DSTCHAOS you said exactly what I was trying to say and I couldn't agree more!!

[DSTKellie]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Not a contradiction if you read my first post on this page.

And if it is relatively uncommon, what's the point? Are we going to debate whether unicorns are racist against leprechauns next? Those bastards.

Soror, I love you for this quote alone!

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Perhaps this is simply a psychology vs. sociology point of view.

Lesson 1) Racism 101: It is really never that simply. Willie Lynch papers suggest that... I think Plessy vs. Fergeson with the US Supreme Court also discuss that... Possibly the Fugitive Slave Act.

Lesson 2) If you neglect KNOWING your past, you will be doomed to repeat it in the future. We have all just experienced another act that is now being "contrived" as racist in NYC (The shot and killed groom). I just had a young AfAm man tell me how shocked he is. And now, I am barely beginning to understand why, because I am not shocked--more like surprised by folks response to the incident as "what did you expect"? That is the nature of white supremacy and that is what hate does. Once we understand it, dissect it, study it, examine it, research it, and possibly find a treatment option for it, then we can begin to more beyond the humanity of people of color to the spiritual realm...

All I know is that it takes an enlightened person...

[southernelle25]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

No one is discussing why the power differentials are the way they are.

My question doesn't go to why the power differentials are the way they are (or wasn't meant to), but to whether untapped power has a part in this discussion. The significance of power must be great and untapped power insignificant, if people can be considered capable of racism while in power and not capable of racism when they lose it or fail to realize it...

Earlier, you wrote that: "You can not have racism at any level without an ability to reinforce power differentials, opportunity to be discriminatory, and the incentive/gain from being discriminatory." However, I believe blacks do have that ability to shift power differentials, as well as the opportunity to be discriminatory, and an incentive/gain from being discriminatory (e.g. investing into their own communities the millions upon millions of dollars each year they invest outside those communities, by shopping at Bruh's down the street instead of at Tarjay). What effect does this potential have, if any, on whether a people can be considered capable of racism? None, apparently. That is what I wanted to know.