Race In America

QuestioningMind · Dec 16, 2020

Saint Frankenstein said:
Lol, that doesn't say anything like your given definition of racism. It's not even defining racism, just mentioning an effect of it. Try again.

Of COURSE it's not the definition, it's the first recorded USE of the word... to get the definition you have to read it in context. He is saying that this new word he coined is like CLASSISM... which is ALL about one group of people using the power of social institutions to suppress others groups of people in that society.

Yes, the meaning of the word has evolved over time to indicate other things as well, but the ORIGINAL meaning is the one I've provided. And using that ORGINAL meaning, it is absolutely true that a group of people in a society that has no power in that society's institutions is incapable of practicing racism. So 'they' didn't redefine the word over the past couple decades. "They' were merely using the original definition and you and others have simply chosen to falsely conclude that 'they' were claiming black people can't be racially bigoted, which is simply not the case.

Revoltingest · Dec 16, 2020

The Hammer said:
That ship has long since sailed. If you are just now noticing that, you (and @Saint Frankenstein ) are behind the curve, started decades ago. You filter that BS from the substance of what is actively going on.

I've been watching it for decades.

The Hammer · Dec 16, 2020

Saint Frankenstein said:
Have you taken a social science course that covered critical race theory?

Critical race theory - Wikipedia

Their "theoretical framework" seems to be based on Marxist theory in how they view and define social groups and systemic power. Like I said, they've basically switched out economic class with racial categories. White people are viewed as a privileged class and social category, and all members of this social category have a share in perpetuating white supremacy, even if they don't have a racist or bigoted bone in their body. So it's just switching out the wealthy economic classes (where the rich are exploiting the poor and working class) for race.

It's perfect for getting blacks and whites to fight with each other. It gives a pass to very real racism among black people and an axe for them to grind, and puts white people in the position to be guilt ridden and ashamed, or become pissed off and drive them to the right.

Yes, I have taken multiple Anthropology (it's a social science who knew?) courses and Race is very often discussed, including the political motivations around it, and it's implications.

Now that I've brushed up on CRT. I see nothing wrong with this. "As the word "critical" suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. [5]"

Firstly, that white supremacy exists and exhibits power maintained over time, and, in particular, that the law plays a role in this process.

Secondly, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[6]. "

Where do you find issue with this?

QuestioningMind · Dec 16, 2020

Revoltingest said:
He mentioned both, but didn't define racism as being both.
Still, to use a more than century old definition that would
conflict with modern usage is erroneous.

The word has seen recent attempts to limit it in such a way
as to claim blacks cannot be racist. By dictionary definition,
& by common usage, anyone can be racist if they believe
&/or behave that way.

Merriam Webster's definition comports with Dictionary.com's,
with the primary definitions being about judgment based upon
race, with no consideration of who has power over whom.
You're not a fan of modern dictionaries?

Personally I love modern dictionaries. They demonstrate just how many different meanings a word can have. That's why when discussing something like the claim that black people in America can't practice racism, it's VERY important to know what definition is being used.

Now the ONLY argument that I've ever heard claiming that blacks in this country can't practice racism is based on the definition of racism being about who has power over whom, which is why I made sure to provide that definition. Can you cite an example of these recent attempts to limit it in such a way that it means black people can't be racist using the so called modern version of the word. Because I've never heard anyone ever claim that a black person is incapable of making judgements based on race.

Augustus · Dec 16, 2020

QuestioningMind said:
Not true. The first use of the word was from Richard Henry Pratt in 1902

Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism.

So from the beginning it was about the power of societal institutions and not about a specific individual's bigotry. You are the one who wants to redefined it to mean a specific individual's bigotry.

1. That's not a definition, but a usage
2. That usage says nothing about the necessity of a power dynamic, it simply says segregation is racist which meets the standard contemporary usage of the term 'racism'.
3. It's only the first recorded usage of the term 'racism', the older term racialism long predates this. The OED notes 'racism' was simply a synonym for racialism, not a new term with a completely different meaning.
4. The term racisme existed in French before that and again had nothing to do with the modern redefinition of the term that you mistake for the original meaning. The OED again notes this as the likely root of the word racism.

Shadow Wolf · Dec 16, 2020

QuestioningMind said:
I wish that were true. Sadly the past 4 years have indicated that many of us thought racism was in a coma, but it turns out it was just taking a nap. Otherwise you wouldn't have such a large percentage of the population convinced that the BLM movement is about claiming black people's lives are MORE important than anyone else's.

And not just black people. Middle Easterners can get it bad. Jews can get it bad. Latinos can get it bad. The Natives can get it bad.
Prior to Trump's presidency I would have agreed it's mostly the police and Conservative and Liberal nuts who see it in everything keeping it alive. No one else cares. Now I'm having to reassess that position .

QuestioningMind · Dec 17, 2020

Augustus said:
1. That's not a definition, but a usage
2. That usage says nothing about the necessity of a power dynamic, it simply says segregation is racist which meets the standard contemporary usage of the term 'racism'.
3. It's only the first recorded usage of the term 'racism', the older term racialism long predates this. The OED notes 'racism' was simply a synonym for racialism, not a new term with a completely different meaning.
4. The term racisme existed in French before that and again had nothing to do with the modern redefinition of the term that you mistake for the original meaning. The OED again notes this as the likely root of the word racism.

Regardless of any of that, any time anyone makes the argument that blacks can't practice racism in America the definition they are referring to is one that is based on a power dynamic. I've never heard anyone make the argument that blacks can't be racially bigoted. If you have such an example, I'd love to hear it.

Secret Chief · Dec 17, 2020

Sunstone said:
I don't know where Sowell stands on Trump

"Two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Sowell urged voters to vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Sowell's belief was that Trump would be easier to impeach than the country's first female president. In 2018, when asked on his thoughts of Trump's presidency, Sowell replied "I think he's better than the previous president."

In March 2019, Sowell commented on the public's response to mainstream media's allegations that President Trump is a racist: "What's tragic is that there's so many people out there who simply respond to words rather than ask themselves 'Is what this person says true? How can I check it?' And so on." A month later, Sowell again defended Trump against media charges of racism, stating: "I've seen no hard evidence. And, unfortunately, we’re living in a time where no one expects hard evidence. You just repeat some familiar words and people will react pretty much the way Pavlov’s dog was conditioned to react to certain sounds." "

- Thomas Sowell - Wikipedia

Secret Chief · Dec 17, 2020

Sunstone said:
I still think the resurgence in racism is being in large part driven by economics.

Totally agree. And Trump drew that out into voting for him by suggesting to poorer whites that he'd provide a radical shake-up of the status quo (which was keeping the poorer of society poorer) to enable a return to a better (partially mythologised) past in which such white people were economically superior to blacks.

crossfire · Dec 17, 2020

Sunstone said:
I still think the resurgence in racism is being in large part driven by economics.

Do you think the rise of the alt-right was driven by economics?

sayak83 · Dec 17, 2020

Salty Booger said:
"Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day."

--Thomas Sowell

Disagree.

PureX · Dec 17, 2020

Racism is also a way severely oppressed people lift themselves above other severely oppressed people in their own minds, as they hunger for a sense of validity.

crossfire · Dec 17, 2020

Sunstone said:
Salty, do you know the date of that quote? Seems to me it might be something from as far back as before Obama. I think pre-Obama, a lot of people would have agreed with him. More folks than today.

November 18, 2015: National Review
Racism In American History | National Review

bobhikes · Dec 17, 2020

Salty Booger said:
"Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day."

--Thomas Sowell

The fact that race is still used to describe physical differences between humans (one race) indicates it is alive and well. Thomas Sowell being a Black man could never really get the pulse of the hidden racism that lies behind the false smiles.

SalixIncendium · Dec 17, 2020

I was hoping this was a thread about the upcoming Daytona 500 or the Indianapolis 500.

Stevicus · Dec 17, 2020

Salty Booger said:
"Racism is not dead. But it is on life-support, kept alive mainly by the people who use it for an excuse or to keep minority communities fearful or resentful enough to turn out as a voting bloc on election day."

--Thomas Sowell

Sometimes when the issue of race is brought up, I think there's a difference between actual "racism" versus what might be deemed "racial politics."

That is, when I generally see the term being used, more often than not, "racism" seems to refer to an individual's personal feelings and value system, not so much their political views. It often comes up when someone says or does something questionable - even if it's not overt. It's not actually reflected in written rules or public policies, which is the realm of politics. It's more just about a person's state of mind and personal attitudes.

Stevicus · Dec 17, 2020

Revoltingest said:
I notice that almost no one complains about men
being shot at about 20 times the rate of women.
The feminists are supposed to be about equality,
but they're silent on this disparity...one that greatly
overshadows race.

Yeah, but more often than not, it's men shooting other men.

Stevicus · Dec 17, 2020

QuestioningMind said:
What a massive crock of crap!

No one is comparing the white armed robber who gets shot police against the black armed robber who gets shot by police. It's comparing the number of white motorists pulled over for a traffic violation who get shot reaching for their cell phones compared to the number of black motorist who get pulled over for a traffic violation who get shot while reaching for their cell phone. It's not just about the number of people who get shot. It's about how much more likely you are to get pulled over for not signaling a turn if you're black than that if you're white. It's about how police tend to react when interacting with people of color compared to when they interact with white people.

You can easily educate yourself on the matter. There are endless instances that document the racial bias far too many police officers and police departments demonstrate on a daily basis.

I agree that there are countless documented cases like this, although one still has to wonder how it can continue to happen when police have been under heavy scrutiny on this issue for many years now - decades, in fact. The public, media, and politicians have focused on this issue for a long time now, advocating stricter policies against racial discrimination, abuse, and brutality, along with implementing body cams and other methods of keeping a closer eye on the police. They keep saying that they're not racist, that it's just a few bad apples.

But how do these bad apples keep showing up? What's going on? Either they're not screening them well enough, or they're not training them well enough.

What goes through the minds of these cops anyway? That's what I'm wondering about, such as the cops in the George Floyd case. Did they wake up that morning and say "I hate blacks, I think I'll kill a black person today"? Was it a "heat of the moment" instance where the cop's anger caused his inner racist to rise to the surface? If racism is defined more as a "state of mind," then what's in that mind? That's the question that I wonder about.

Stevicus · Dec 17, 2020

Revoltingest said:
Whatever the origins of the evolving usage of "racism",
St Frank groks the change & the existence of a political
agenda behind it, ie, the exculpation of some, & the
blaming of others.

I've observed much of the same usage, although whether it originated with Marxists or not, I'm not sure of that. Much of it seems to come from liberals in academia and the media who come across more as quasi-capitalist, petty bourgeois dupes of the ruling class. I'm not sure what political agenda may be behind it, but it isn't necessarily Marxist.

Back in the 50s and 60s, with African and Asian colonies in disarray and demanding independence, along with Latin America susceptible to Marxist ideologies - the U.S. struggled to gain hearts and minds. But we couldn't do that very well when we had overtly racist policies and practices across America. Especially after we just defeated the "Master Race" in Germany, joined the UN, and signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The West was vulnerable to such criticism, so a policy shift was needed and long overdue.

But it wasn't really because of Marxism. Perhaps it could be the Western capitalists' response to Marxism, perhaps as a way of wooing other factions away from the Soviet Bloc.

Audie · Dec 17, 2020

QuestioningMind said:
Of course based upon the original definition of the word racism, he's absolutely correct. Individual's can have racial bigotry, but you have to have power over social institutions in order to practice racism.

But you were responding to my post, which didn't even mention anything about blacks not practicing racism.

Its a semantic game. But as you buy into the game, the response is to you too.

Race In America

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

[REDACTED]

Well-Known Member

…

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

nirvana is samsara

nirvana is samsara

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿

Nondetermined

अग्निविलोवनन्दः

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member