*** Posted to the African-American Group ***

[1StrongBlackMan]

I've been wondering why there continues to be so much "push back" on the modern definition of the word "Racism"; more specifically, why some insist that "racism is a 'two-way street'." The latter statement, clearly, cuts against the body of the academic research on the phenomena, that has racism as race-based bigotry with the added component of institutional power that extends beyond the individual actor.

It seems as though an individual's racist act is, somehow, worse than an individual's bigoted act.

[Coolest Ranger]

1. I dont' know why

you are wondering that. When you point out the obvious some people don't want to accept that they are racist

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Or, hopefully, a more accurate description ...

some people don't want to accept that they are racist DO RACIST STUFF.

ETA: But even still, is doing bigoted stuff any better?

[Coolest Ranger]

5. No

when people find out I'm homosexual I get called all kinds of names that make me want to keep from getting an assault charge

[still_one]

3. I am not sure I see the difference between a racist act verses a bigoted act. As to the first point

I believe it is a rationalization by non-African Americans.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Bigotry is related to the individual; whereas, racism is institutional ...

Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

for example, I, as a Black man, can deny an individual white person (or even 100 white individuals) a job/loan/admission to a school or theater, based on my dislike of white people; but, I can't use stereotypes of that white person to do so, nor can my denials be extended beyond me (and my victim) across an entire class of persons ... so, the next person that white person goes to, is likely to grant what I have denied because my dislike of white people is not institutionally enforced.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. And yet institutional bigotry exists, making that definintion insufficient.

In more than half the States, it is legal to discriminate against LGBT in housing and in employment. Systemic, institutional oppression based on a bigotry that is not racially based but based on sexual identity. You and I are about the same age, both partnered for many years but only one of us has been allowed to file jointly or as head of household for most of those years. That was the law, the system, there was no next person, no recourse. Just as there is no recourse against the legal discrimination enforced in much of the country.

So bigotry is not just individual not just personal and it is very harmful to those it targets.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. That is true, though it does not apply in terms of race/ethnicity ...

There is a, clear, academic gap ... probably because this country/world has such problems with race, it has been the subject of much study.

I was recently introduced to the term "Heterosexism" that seems to by the academic equivalent of "Racism", as it speaks to the "bigotry + Institutional power" dynamic, as related to the LGBTQ community.

So yes, bigotry IS individual as there is now a more accurately descriptive term.

[still_one]

12. Thank-you, that was a great explanation

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. I'm so glad you understood that ... and will add ...

it goes without saying that my individual act of bigotry hurts my victim and is just as wrong as if it was institutionally enforced. That's why I don't get the push back.

[JustAnotherGen]

14. Excellent n/t

[Nitram]

19. Okay, I get it. I'll start using the words that way. Thanks for the nudge.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. I must say that I agree, the term is over, and incorrectly, used ...

but, that is no reason to stop using it correctly, or to inform others of its correct meaning.

In order to effectively combat something, one must, first, accurately define what is being addressed. As you indicate, the institutionalization of the bigotry, is by far more insidious and harmful; but, to remove (allow the removal of) the power dynamic, is to, ultimately, arrive at a cure that does not treat the condition.

[Nitram]

23. It is difficult to change the common meanings of words, and to persuade the public to stop...

using words the way they always have. Sounds a bit like the difficulty in uprooting racism, doesn't it? They have enormous momentum in common speech. As does racist behavior. Language itself helps to perpetuate institutional racism.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Well, I'll be ...

Language itself helps to perpetuate institutional racism.

Exactly!!!! It has long been known, "control the language, control the debate."

It is difficult to change the common meanings of words, and to persuade the public to stop...using words the way they always have.

And that is not happenstance ... it is an imperative for maintaining the status quo.

[Uponthegears]

4. Might I suggest

that what raises such concern is that, if people are forced to accept the possibility that it is not a problem of "a few racist cops" but of police practices/attitudes in general, they might also be forced to accept that it isn't just about police practices in general, but whether the criminal justice system is designed to be used as a tool for racial oppression and that these "police practices" are simply carrying out the wishes of a STILL racist political system.

[msongs]

9. maybe people support the definitions that reinforce their own views. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Academics might; but, those articles rarely see the light of day because of the peer-review process.

The racism (and I suspect, soon to be mainstreamed, Heterosexism) term is what has come out of the peer-review process; but, you are probably correct about the other definitions.

[Starry Messenger]

11. It's a reactionary viewpoint, imo.

To assert that racism is a two-way street is to abdicate any responsibility that your demographic might play in upholding a racist system. If it is all a matter of personal fault, then the system is fine and people just need to be left alone to play out "human nature."

[MadDAsHell]

15. The words "racism" and "racist" are meaningless in today's American society.

While it would be great if the terms were used correctly, the simple fact is often (maybe even most of the time) they're not, and it's been that way for decades. Combine that with the fact that in some circles (on both sides of the political aisle) these terms have occasionally purposely been used inaccurately because of the devastation that an accusation of racism can bring on one's political opponents, and all in all we can confidently say that as an American society we have rendered these terms completely meaningless. Kids today are so used to hearing "this is racist, that is racist, everyone's racist," etc., that "racist" means nothing to them anymore.

I'd much prefer we put the word aside and use something else that hasn't been so politicized.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. It's not meaningless to it's victims.

[MadDAsHell]

25. I agree, but there's a lack of sympathy FOR those victims because the word has been co-opted.

It's very easy for people to dismiss racism and racist people because the word has been so watered down over the years. And trust me friend, this is coming from a fellow man of color who full on recognizes that racism is alive and well in America.

I work in the legal word, and while most of my colleagues tend to be progressive, I work with a lot of well-meaning people in this country who will turn a blind eye to real bigoted attitudes or practices because they've been conditioned by so much mis-use (accidental and purposeful) of the "racism" word that they tend to default to assuming it's the "boy crying wolf," or that someone who is making an accusation of racism is doing so purely for political gain. On the latter especially, we as progressives have some culpability in this for not calling out our colleagues for playing those kinds of games (we actually just saw a lot of it during the Democratic primaries).

[Nitram]

16. I understand that the academic community has decided that racism requires...

an institutional component. I still believe that racism can also mean that someone is racist if they think someone is better than them, or worse than them, solely based on their race and the traits they believe are inevitably associated with that race. Clearly institutional racism exists, and is by far the most destructive, insidious and deep-rooted kind of racism. The other kind exists as well. I can't pretend it doesn't. As an unmistakably white person I've experienced both kinds abroad, where I've lived most of my life.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. You have defined the term (race-based) bigotry ...

See Post #6

[gollygee]

20. We (and by we I mean white people)

Tend to define things in the way that works best for us. This is human nature. It is best for us to define "racism" in a way that doesn't apply to us individually, so we make it mean "horrible people who do horrible things." If we define it instead as anything that supports white supremacy, then we have to do more introspection. This makes us uncomfortable, so we react negatively and fight against any definition that doesn't work for us.

And yes, I think supporting a power structure that keeps a group of people oppressed is worse than an individual mean action that does not cause or support oppression. If I were a victim of racial bigotry, I could easily move to a situation where I didn't face it. And it would be very rare for me to be in that situation in the first place. (Including when I am a racial minority in a group - I have never felt oppressed in that situation.) The worst potential would be if I had a boss who disliked me due to my race, but even then that would be a rare situation and it would be one job - switching jobs (difficult as that might be) would solve it. If I were a person of color, I would face that all the time everywhere, and to at least some degree in every job. These are clearly not equivalent.

You probably didn't actually need an answer, but I offer it for anyone reading the thread.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. No ... It is important that others see things phrased a different way. Thanks.

[lovemydog]

26. That always baffles me too, 1SB.

If a non-jew says or does something anti-semitic and is called on it, he doesn't respond by saying 'No! You're anti-semitic!'

Same goes for saying or doing something sexist or homophobic. It would be absurd for a straight person to yell back to a lbgt: 'No! You're being homophobic!'

I never get it. It needs to be called out so that it ends.

[The Polack MSgt]

27. An awful lot of white people, men especially

Are trying to find a way to paint themselves as victims.

Any person hating another for no reason beyond race is bigotry, not racism. Racism, to even be considered an "ISM" must include an imbalance of power. If there is no lasting real world effect from the hostility, it is just an individual being an asshole.

If it's backed up by an imbalanced access to remediation - Say if the courts or the banking system routinely favored one side over the other, then it's racism or sexism or another "ISM"

A minority may feel hostility towards others unlike them, but if they don't have access to established power to back up their dislike, it's bigotry not racism.

Until there is a minority banking, real estate, justice system, zoning commission etc etc that white people have to submit to - it's all just weak-ass, whiny pissing and moaning.

By racists.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. You nailed it

Until there is a minority banking, real estate, justice system, zoning commission etc etc that white people have to submit to - it's all just weak-ass, whiny pissing and moaning.

[Glassunion]

29. I take to applying the definition of a word from a linguistic approach.

I view the word racism, as it is currently defined. Using the actual definition of the word, the word racism is not bound by a particular race, nor can any race be free from the definition. Bigotry, is defined with a more broad term that can even be leveled between two people of the same race.

To me, racism is a narrowly defined word, and by itself can be a behavior of any race. However, when used within a qualifying statement, the definition can be either narrowed or widened. Examples: Racist Culture, or Institutional Racism.

Now here is the US, I find that I could be racist (narrow definition) towards a white person, however I lack both the majority, and the power to have any cultural impact on the people as a whole or any meaningful impact on a white person as an individual by discriminating against them, because our culture is stacked in favor of the white majority.

You are absolutely correct to dispute that racism is a "two-way street" here in the US. It's a bullshit statement made by folks who cannot get past the narrow definition of the word "racism". Especially when discussing privilege. Privilege in this country, is both a cultural and institutional form of racism. A better analogy would be that racism is a "8-lane freeway running in one direction, and a gravel cart path running in the other" here in the US.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. I'll stick with the definition the academics have concluded, more accurately describes the phenomena

but then, I have an interest in ending racism, which requires knowing what it is ... otherwise, we can only end up with a solution that doesn't address the problem.

[Glassunion]

31. We are (hopefully) all looking to ending racism.

The topic is tough, and I fear will take generations to eradicate. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Here in the US, you, me, and all of us face a myriad of different types of racism. Institutional and cultural, on the collective side, and then you have overt, subtle, colorism, and internalized on the individual side. These bleed into each other, but almost all need to be addressed on an individual basis.

Then you look at racism across the world, and you have all sorts of other issues to contend with.

But for us here, I feel that the collective issues could be addressed far easier than the individual.