Jump to content

What does it mean to be a racist?


InDefenseOfPOMO

Recommended Posts

InDefenseOfPOMO

People seem to assume that when they use phrases like "a racist" it cannot possibly in any way be unclear what they mean.

 

I do not know if it is unique to our contemporary, post-Industrial culture, but words now get used by so many different users with so many different intentions in so many different contexts that they lose their meaning and effectiveness as signs. The words "narcissist" and "narcissism" are examples of words that are now being used to signify just about anything. Some postmodern theorists, such as Baudrillard, have gone as far as saying that we live in an ocean of signifiers with no corresponding signifieds.

 

Yet, if you ask exactly what someone means with their words they get testy, take offense, etc.

 

I do not believe that anybody is "a racist" if it means that they have some intrinsic trait, quality, character flaw, etc.

 

If being "a racist" means uttering certain words, carrying out certain acts, etc. then that, in my estimation, is closer to reality.

 

But many questions still remain. Is it a racist's fault that he/she is a racist? How can a racist cease to be a racist? Is it even possible for a racist to cease to be a racist? What would be different about the world if there were no racists? Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
24 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Is it a racist's fault that he/she is a racist?

Are you saying you think racists are born racist? Logically no one can be at fault for something they were born with, but if they have some measure of control over it they can be held accountable for their actions.

25 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

How can a racist cease to be a racist? Is it even possible for a racist to cease to be a racist?

These would vary based off if you think racism is an inborn trait or something that no human is born with but rather learned, either by direct observation, or indirect (from one's parents). Since racism varies wildly across cultures the vast majority of Anthropologists (and I suspect the general public) support the idea that racism is merely a learned behavior, not inborn. Therefore one has control over being racist therefore it would be easy to cease being racist; stop supporting/acting/saying racist remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
46 minutes ago, Aebt said:

Are you saying you think racists are born racist?

 

No.

 

I said that I completely disagree with that idea.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Aebt said:

Logically no one can be at fault for something they were born with,

 

Yet, I hear statements saying that people are "racists" like it is an intrinsic part of their personality and character. It makes it sound like only a wholesale transformation/conversion will rid them of their racism.

 

 

46 minutes ago, Aebt said:

These would vary based off if you think racism is an inborn trait or something that no human is born with but rather learned, either by direct observation, or indirect (from one's parents). Since racism varies wildly across cultures the vast majority of Anthropologists (and I suspect the general public) support the idea that racism is merely a learned behavior, not inborn. Therefore one has control over being racist therefore it would be easy to cease being racist; stop supporting/acting/saying racist remarks.

 

I think that whatever role the psyche of individuals plays in racism is miniscule.

 

Racism is overwhelmingly a cultural phenomenon, in my estimation. It is like language. A language does not die if it loses users. As long as a language is preserved in cultural artifacts such as books and film anybody can use it. Similarly, race is a cultural construct and racism is the application of that cultural construct. Only cultural change will reduce racism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Racism is based in fear. Some people not entitled to the things we are entitled to exist and want entitlement. Everything they get means we loose what we have. What we have and what they were never meant to have. Racism is based in ignorance. Not everyone is as human as we are. Being human means understanding what we understand and acting just like us. Looking like us. Those who don't aren't fully human and don't have the same rights as we do. Fear will begat hatred. Disenfranchised individuals may strike out at their oppressors. This is a siren call that those who don't deserve what we do are also dangerous. A final solution is urgently needed. It never comes. Evil is so destructive it always manages to destroy itself eventually. The media prolongs this but fate always intervenes. Of course racism is the dark side of the phoenix. It always rises from its own ashes. 

 

Best to keep it in a cage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
firewallflower

In one sense, I'd argue that we're all racist in that, if you see someone and automatically mentally tag them as black/white/any other racial category (no matter what, if anything, you do with that categorization), you're already playing in to the social construct that is race/racism. In the sense it's more generally used, though, I'd say racism it boils down to seeing a racial grouping as somehow inferior to another.

I don't believe this question is one with a single answer. What's going in here is that we have multiple (related, but by no means identical) concepts to describe, without the vocabulary to clearly differentiate in just one word.

 

There's blatant KKK-style racism, which is an extreme that I certainly hope no one would hesitate to call racist.There's race-based discrimination, which again, I hope speaks for itself.

There's institutionalized systemic racism, which—although individuals obviously play into and perpetuate the system—operates at a societal level, rather than being a matter of a specific person personally being racist.

There's prejudice racism, where we generalize and judge an individual (most likely negatively) based on the racial label we assign them. This may or may not result in hate or active discrimination. It may or may not be based on genuine information. It's still racist.

There's implicit racism (the automatic biases that we might not even know we have, but that do still underly/influence our conscious thoughts and behavior), which is mostly a nasty byproduct of culture and can often be both unconscious and unwilling, yet no less (or possibly even more) pervasive for it.

 

What I wrote above isn't meant to convey the entirety of the "racist spectrum" (because it's very much not a binary!), but the point is that racism can come in many shapes and sizes and guises. I don't believe that being racist inherently makes someone a terrible person—but it does mean that they have (at least) one serious flaw in outlook or understanding. The hope would be that they would recognize this in themselves and strive to correct it.

 

As far as the specific questions you ask:

 

2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Is it a racist's fault that he/she is a racist?

That's a tricky one. I emphatically do not believe that racism is innate (babies don't come into the world racist—it's culturally conditioned and internalized in us, often from a very young age, but not inborn—and given that race itself is socially constructed, so too racism). At the same time, growing up bombarded with racist messages and ideologies isn't exactly one's "fault" either. With some forms of racism, the brain does it almost out of one's control.

That said, saying "it's not their fault" would seem to excuse racism, which... well, no. No matter their background, people have responsibility for their words and actions, and a racist society in no way, shape, or form justifies a racist individual.

 

2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

How can a racist cease to be a racist? Is it even possible for a racist to cease to be a racist?

I do believe change is possible. Since I don't believe we're born racist, that means we become racist.... and if it's possible to become racist, logically it follows that it must be possible to stop being racist. But it's not so simple as "Don't use that slur" or "Hire racially diverse people." The more implicit the racism, the harder to root it out, because challenging something you're not even aware of is hard. (The good old "I haven't got a racist bone in my body" comes to mind—if you won't admit it, you're not doing anything about it.)

 

Look... uncomfortable as it is to think, let alone talk about (which of course is a sign that it's important to think/talk about!), much as I hate the idea, much as I wish it weren't true, I still have to be realistic and admit the fact of the matter is I've almost certainly got some racism somewhere in there. I can and do try my best to find and counter my inner implicit racist. It's something I think needs to be a constant, ongoing, active effort. But those subtler layers are a lot harder to drop than the more overt stuff, especially when it's difficult to even realize they exist.

 

I need to go to bed, so I'll just wrap up, post this and apologize if I'm not expressing my points as well as I'd like (which I'm likely not; words aren't cooperating with me tonight). To briefly respond first to your last question, however...

 

2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

What would be different about the world if there were no racists?

Er... well, people wouldn't be racist, which would be nice. Though let's be honest, we're humans; we'd find plenty of other excuses for bigotry. We as a species sure are good at the -isms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think racism is a matter of degree.  It can vary form someone who truly has no bias to someone who has unconscious bias (they are honestly not aware of it), to mild bias, neo nazis to real nazis. 

 

All of that scale is the belief that one race is in some way superior or inferior to others. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

But many questions still remain. Is it a racist's fault that he/she is a racist? How can a racist cease to be a racist? Is it even possible for a racist to cease to be a racist? What would be different about the world if there were no racists? Etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RoseGoesToYale
Quote

What does it mean to be a racist?

I took an entire sociology class about this exact topic, that in the time allotted barely scratched the surface, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I attempted to address this question with the knowledge obtained therein, my post would be so long and so complex AVEN's servers would overload and I'd have to pay the admins for the damages.

 

2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

How can a racist cease to be a racist?

This one's easy. It means acknowledging your race, especially if that race is white. It means personally asking yourself "What is race?" and setting out to find the answer. It means asking yourself how racist structures impact the lives of others. Most importantly, it means candidly discussing race, even with someone of a different race than yourself. It isn't racist to talk about race. It isn't racist to ask someone what their race or ethnicity is. Hell of a lot better than making crazy assumptions (that are scientifically evidenced to be wrong most of the time). If talking about race makes you uncomfortable, that's ok. Say so, and say why, and then let's all actually try to remove those discomforting barriers.

 

Sometimes I'm uncomfortable talking about race because, after doing genealogical research, I found out my mother's ancestors fought for the Confederacy in the American Civil War, and their ancestors were colonists. To what extent does "sins of the father" count here? My country has a history of whites appropriating other cultures for profit, amusement, or ridicule. How can I as a white American interact with and appreciate non-white cultures without committing harmful appropriation? Sometimes I'm afraid discussing race will make other white people mad. Sometimes I'm afraid it'll make people of color mad. I worry I might get something wrong and make things worse.

 

Technically race is a social construct, not a biologically-founded one, but just because humans made it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sometimes racism is hard to detect, a concept called covert racism. We need fewer people shouting "that's racist!" and more people asking "ok, we know it's racist, can we break down why?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
2 hours ago, Yeast said:

Racism is based in fear.

 

Or denial.

 

Create a hierarchy, say that people like your own self are at the top and superior to all below, then you can dispossess them, enslave them, exploit them, segregate yourself from them, etc. guilt-free.

 

But if you have to acknowledge and respect them as being the same as people like you, suddenly you can't justify treating them unequally.

 

This is probably why the American Anthropological Association Statement on Race says, if I recall correctly, that race was invented to justify imperialism/colonialism.

 

If the concept of race had no use in conquest, exploitation, domination, etc. probably nobody would care about it anymore.

 

Isn't the U.S.'s foreign policy in relations with the Islamic world informed and justified by the belief that the people of certain places are, well, inferior? If every American believed that Iranians, Iraqis, etc. are just like us except for geography, would our government have been able to get away with invading a country that had not attacked us? Americans see British people as mostly just like us. Therefore, the U.S. government would not be able to so easily get away with invading Britain, if you know what I mean.

 

An argument could probably even be made that the racism used to justify slavery during imperialism/colonialism became obsolete but applications for it were found elsewhere. I do not know if it is true, but I have heard it suggested that wage labor became cheaper than buying and owning slaves. Therefore, slavery was going to be replaced anyway. Is it not possible that the racism needed to justify slavery was kept alive not by slavery itself but by finding new life in other economic systems? Maybe Jim Crow was not a continuation of slavery but a new application of the racism behind slavery, this time in a different economic system? Maybe the racism of the contemporary U.S. is, likewise, not an extension of Jim Crow? Maybe segregation was going to become obsolete anyway, and it really ended to make way for the racism needed for the new economy in the South?

 

Everywhere I look racism is playing a role in justifying economic systems and practices. If all economic and political actors were being honest, those systems and practices could probably not be justified. But very few people are honest, let alone completely honest, about domestic and global economic life.

 

Racism gives people an excuse to be ignorant of and/or deny economic reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, firewallflower said:

if you see someone and automatically mentally tag them as black/white/any other racial category

Doing that just makes you a normal human. Racism means making assumptions based on the person's appearance: It's not racist to notice that someone has dark skin, but it is racist to assume that their skin colour means they are intelligent or stupid or dishonest or whatever negative or postive associations you may hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RoseGoesToYale said:

We need fewer people shouting "that's racist!" and more people asking "ok, we know it's racist, can we break down why?"

I would like less shouting and more asking (and listening) in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

I do not believe that anybody is "a racist" if it means that they have some intrinsic trait, quality, character flaw, etc.

And I do not believe you are using language right when you assume a noun used to describe someone means it's intrinsic. After all, I could call someone an asshole. Were they born an asshole? No. It's part of them. They were raised an asshole and they continue to be an asshole. So, they're an asshole. 

 

Someone can be a racist because they believe and say things that are racist. If you want to insist on using the term only to describe actions and not people then we will have to disagree. Because I believe a person is a summation of their actions, words, etc. What people put out is who they are. You can get into the argument about "What is 'Self'", but that's my belief. If someone says enough racist things, thinks enough racist things, and performs enough racist actions, they're a racist. It might be out of ignorance and because of the way they were raised, but the result is the same.

 

7 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

1) Is it a racist's fault that he/she is a racist?

2) How can a racist cease to be a racist?

3) Is it even possible for a racist to cease to be a racist?

4) What would be different about the world if there were no racists? Etc.

1) Yes and no. It's their fault if they continue to ignore people when told what they're saying or doing is racist. For example, Trump's latest tweets about telling non-white Congresswoman to "go back home" or whatever? That's racist since it's assuming non-white Americans have a "home" other than the US. People point it out and it's Trump's fault he's denying the claims of racism and refusing to change his words or actions.

 

2) They can look at their actions, thoughts, beliefs, etc. and see why others interpret them as racist. And they can stop. It'll be long and a lot of questioning your own words and actions, but it can be done. 

 

3) Yep. The only example I can point out off the top of my head is the YTer Mr. Atheist who has repeatedly mentioned he used to be a piece of shit in the past, part of this being racist.

 

4) People would judge each other and discriminate against each other based on their beliefs, sex, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. Discrimination is a fact of life right now and removing one would fix quite a bit, but not everything. At least we might hire and pay people in equal rates no matter their name or skin color though. (Actually, that is debatable as quite a lot of things are racist by design and it's the institution that is racist rather than individuals, but with enough individuals who aren't racist and would be able to see the racism in such institutions and infrastructures, something might actually be able to be done about it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
firewallflower
5 hours ago, Jona Rhys said:

Doing that just makes you a normal human.

Indeed. (Note, however, the distinction between observing "That person has dark skin" and "that person is black" - the former is visual recognization, the latter racial classification.)

Hence why I stated that in that sense we could all be considered racist in that we're participating (without really having the option to do otherwise) in the construct of race... and that this is not the sense in which the word is generally used. But I would argue that technically, yes, that is one meaning of the word - even if this is, as it is, just an internalized thing humans do that isn't even a bad thing in and of itself. My point was tbat "racist" can have multiple meanings.

 

(But of course, even other forms of racism are, unfortunately, carried out in the majority by "normal humans.")

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of race can vary a lot from place to place.  When I was touring Tanzania, our guide (who was "black"  by american standards) started talking about "pygmies" (more technically Bambinga, Bambuti and Batwa groups).  To our guide, the pygmies were "animals" that should have been eradicated.  He didn't consider himself a racist, but thought this was self evident.  Just as in the old South he would have been considered an animal.  At the same time most Americans would not make any racial distinction between black skinned African groups. 

 

(btw - what do you say to someone who has just suggested the extermination of a group of humans - when you are a white european and don't really have a lot of moral ground to stand on) 

 

All that said there is some correlation with genetics with what is conventionally considered race - though with glaring errors:  indigenous Australians are not closely related to sub-Saharan Africans but at least in the past Europeans tended to view them as similar.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
17 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

No.

 

I said that I completely disagree with that idea.

17 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Yet, I hear statements saying that people are "racists" like it is an intrinsic part of their personality and character. It makes it sound like only a wholesale transformation/conversion will rid them of their racism.

I agree with you that racism is not something people are born with, I have honestly never met anyone who (at least openly) has stated differently. If people hide behind the claim that racism is inborn they are not only mistaken based off what we know about culture's influence on racial relationships, they are also obstructing people from confronting racism therefore allowing it to continue.

15 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

This is probably why the American Anthropological Association Statement on Race says, if I recall correctly, that race was invented to justify imperialism/colonialism.

That is not quite what it says, but certainly part of it says that. The idea of race has existed since before historical records. Racism has been often used to justify horrible treatment of others, but it takes more forms than simply imperialism and colonialism.

17 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

A language does not die if it loses users. As long as a language is preserved in cultural artifacts such as books and film anybody can use it.

That is a good analogy, but even though we have preserved the certain languages no one is learning them and few are making any effort to study them. They exist in the historical record but that is all. Hopefully racism will go the way of extinct-yet-recorded languages; remain for study and to be remembered but play little-to-no part in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uhtred said:

(btw - what do you say to someone who has just suggested the extermination of a group of humans - when you are a white european and don't really have a lot of moral ground to stand on) 

 

If you yourself as a white european have not suggested the extermination of a group of  humans, you could express dismay, at the very least, that someone else (no matter their "race" or cultural background) is making such a suggestion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being in public office means that telling people of a different ethnicity to your own to "go back your own country" apparently means you don't have a racist heart

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sally said:

If you yourself as a white european have not suggested the extermination of a group of  humans, you could express dismay, at the very least, that someone else (no matter their "race" or cultural background) is making such a suggestion.  

I did - but with a partial language barrier and his utter conviction that they were animals, it was a difficult and short conversation.   Didn't help that I know nothing of those groups so I had no evidence to offer. Later on  I read some and discovered that they are being gradually genocided by their neighbors. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
andreas1033

It generally means one group is racist, and all other groups exploit this, and totally exploit this term, as this term, is only reserved for one group of society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
4 hours ago, uhtred said:

I did - but with a partial language barrier and his utter conviction that they were animals, it was a difficult and short conversation.   Didn't help that I know nothing of those groups so I had no evidence to offer. Later on  I read some and discovered that they are being gradually genocided by their neighbors

 

It would not surprise me to learn that the division between them was created by colonial rulers, like between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
11 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

like between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda

I do want to point out that while the racial tensions very well may have been invented by the colonial powers in question (Belgium and Germany), it is still being debated today whether the racial animosity predates colonization or not. The argument on that is not resolved yet.

 

And while one can still debate if the Twa, Mbuti, and Mbenga peoples were subjected to as extreme discrimination and genocide prior to colonization, there is a lot of linguistic evidence to support the idea that they are ethnically quite distinct from the neighboring Bantu populations. This, on top of genetic evidence pointing out the Twa, Mbuti, and Mbenga people as as having the oldest uniparental markers among modern humans second only to the Khoisan, suggests that while racism against those groups may have become worse during and after colonization, there was always ethnic differences between them and the Bantus. And ethnic differences are an easy place for racism to spring from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

It would not surprise me to learn that the division between them was created by colonial rulers, like between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.

Not that I've heard of. Racism is not a creation of Europeans, its been invented many times in many places around the world. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aebt said:

I do want to point out that while the racial tensions very well may have been invented by the colonial powers in question (Belgium and Germany), it is still being debated today whether the racial animosity predates colonization or not. The argument on that is not resolved yet.

 

And while one can still debate if the Twa, Mbuti, and Mbenga peoples were subjected to as extreme discrimination and genocide prior to colonization, there is a lot of linguistic evidence to support the idea that they are ethnically quite distinct from the neighboring Bantu populations. This, on top of genetic evidence pointing out the Twa, Mbuti, and Mbenga people as as having the oldest uniparental markers among modern humans second only to the Khoisan, suggests that while racism against those groups may have become worse during and after colonization, there was always ethnic differences between them and the Bantus. And ethnic differences are an easy place for racism to spring from.

They are a very distinct genetic group which suggests a culture that has been largely isolated for a very long time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite"

nelson Mandela

 

On 7/17/2019 at 2:13 AM, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

Is it even possible for a racist to cease to be a racist

Arno Michaelis, Derek black and Christian piciollini all have, among other ex white nationalists

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO
6 hours ago, uhtred said:

They are a very distinct genetic group which suggests a culture that has been largely isolated for a very long time.

 

According to the American Anthropological Association Statement on Race, the genetic variation within the racial categories we have constructed is greater than the genetic variation between them.

 

Did The AAA miss some population that is, on the contrary, genetically unlike any other population?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alawyn-Aebt
38 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

According to the American Anthropological Association Statement on Race, the genetic variation within the racial categories we have constructed is greater than the genetic variation between them.

While that is sometimes definitely true, there are certainly groups of people who by virtue of cultural isolation are definitely genetically distinct. That being said the peoples in question are very genetically diverse within themselves so the Statement on Race may still hold correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

 

According to the American Anthropological Association Statement on Race, the genetic variation within the racial categories we have constructed is greater than the genetic variation between them.

 

Did The AAA miss some population that is, on the contrary, genetically unlike any other population?

Americans would describe the African pygmy groups as "black", along with other dark skinned Africans, and possibly indigenous Australians.  That is not at all related to genetics.  OTOH the pygmy groups are genetically distinct from other groups, and apparently are recognized as a "race" by some other sub-Saharan Africans (I don't know by what percentage) 

 

If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

These groups mostly genetically split about 60,000 years ago, ,making the more genetically isolated than most other human groups

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is different depending on who you ask, some would say that they can’t be racist for X or Y reason, or because they are from Z country. I would say that being racist is treating 2 people different for the sole reason of one having a different concentration of melanin (the pigment that gives color) in their skin than the other. I won’t go further into discussing this, since I probably have different views on this than other people here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Racism is very clear and easy to define. It's the belief that you better than someone else because of their race being different from your own, and it can happen with any two different races, including the different varieties of the European Races.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
simplybeourselves

A racist is somebody who treats some races better or worse than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...