I fully acknowledge my place of privilege, but yes I’ve experienced racism. I understand it’s pretty mild relative to what others experience, but to say it doesn’t exist is just starting an argument. Feel free to say it’s mild and describe how someone else has to suffer much more serious racism, and I’ll probably agree and ask what we can do about it
And it’s not white people food, it’s specifically British food and Midwest us food that taste bland and flavorless. I don’t get it: both benefit from large immigrant population from some of the world’s greatest cuisines ……. So wtf are they eating?
Glad to see a lot of the comments denying this idea.
Racism is racism, fuck racists of any kind.
Yeah, there has been a movement in recent decades to redefine racism, sexism, etc. As only applying to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination by a person from a dominant group toward people from a marginalized group. To some extent I get that–that is why anyone ever started caring about racism etc.–and language evolves. If we as a society decide that is the only set of valid definitions, I’ll go with it, because I care more about the struggle for equality than about the words used in that process.
That said, my issue with this usage is that it is imprecise and bundles some extra judgments. This use of racism requires an extra assessment of the power dynamics between the groups each of the parties belongs to (and sometimes identifying that is a quagmire itself). I’d prefer keeping those judgments separate. For example, maybe responding to this racist troll by saying that some kind of racism cause and deepen harm a lot more than others, and he is ignoring that fact due to his own racism.
What they are talking about is systematic racism, which defines racism + its proximity to power. IE the system cannot be really racist to white people if white people run the system. However its the system not specifically the individuals in the system that are racist.
I believe an example would be something like if you have a white sounding name you are more likely to be interviewed over someone with a non white name all other factors being held the same. At least in say the US.
Idiots like the person responding in the image coopted the definition to apply it to racism as a whole so they could say things like “I am not racist because i do not have systematic power but you are racist simply because of the colour of your skin, even if I am saying far more vile things and judging you based on nothing more than skin colour.”
Racism is discrimination based on a persons skin color regardless of what you look like.
Systematic racism is more what the system does to those outside of the agreed upon “norm” inside of a system.
There is and should be distinctions in these definitions but the internet ruins everything.
But the thing is the “norm” is different in different places. If you go as far as saying it doesn’t exist in certain directions, someone is going to get defensive. And they’re right, sort of. Maybe it’s just arguing terminology but to say it doesn’t exist is wrong and someone will argue it.
But once you get to the differences in impact, that seems a lot more clear cut, and with no absolutes for people to argue
I mean sure if you use your own made-up definition of what racism is.
Racism as defined is the belief that one’s race is better than another.
It doesn’t matter what race you are. As long as you hold that belief you are in fact a racist.
It’s basically moving the goal posts. Language is a malleable thing, however when one word is being already actively used by the majority of people for an adjacent meaning then a new word is needed. If people can’t use context other than the race of the victim to determine if you mean someone was racist or racist+ then your word sucks.
But we already have a term for what the user is describing, ‘systemic racism’. This is trying to define a common term to mean something more specific to push the same behaviors out of the umbrella depending on the color of the person doing it. Ironic.
I came here to say that. Systemic racism is exactly what the post was describing.
These are always my favorite: “Language is malleable.” It is indeed. But that’s a poor excuse, especially in situations like this, where the person in the post above is literally inventing her own definition of racism to fit her narrative.
Language does change over time. It adapts as needed to convey meaning more effectively in discourse between people.
Just not here.
The concept of believing one’s own race is superior to others has not changed. We already have a word that describes that state of mind.
That word doesn’t suddenly get to change its meaning the moment the established definition no longer supports the speaker’s narrative. The meaning remains the same.
Words do often suddenly get a new meaning but one not adjacent one that causes confusion. If a hat is “sick” nobody assume the hat has an illness. It’s just pathetic and it equates actual racism to stuff like people who think they are opposed for getting in trouble at work if they say the n word.
I have no clue what you’re talking about.
This is the exact kind of post racists like to share in their own communities to show how “the woke agenda” victimizes them.
This is a dumb redefinition of the word to have a narrower meaning than it should, confusing the conversation. You can just say “systemic racism”.
I’m a big fan of “oppression”. Blacks in America are victims of racial oppression.
“Systemic racism” doesn’t solve the “this is something that is bad and happens to blacks but not whites” inference while “oppression” is both implicitly bad and not something you can do tp the dominant group.
racism noun
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group
lanzybear is an idiot
Exactly, lazybear’s take is very close to the moronic thinking making people believe that men can’t be raped.
Stop making simple concepts complicated.
It’s not an original thought, but a very publicly taught one. Which was a redefinition made by some well meaning academics and activists who wanted to narrow the focus of civil rights work to the most egregious violations.
(Which would have been a laudable goal except that it makes everyone fight about what “racism” means instead of solving anything and implicitly tells poor whites that their economic oppression doesn’t matter.)
I’d say it’s less that they are an idiot and more that they don’t understand there is systemic racism and interpersonal racism (there is probably a more official term here but interpersonal covers it well enough for a Lemmy comment).
Systemic racism can only be done by the
majoritygroup with the power in a given system (usually government but it could be perpetrated in a religion, an institution, club, etc.). Red lining is a great example of that. Segregation as well. Things done by the group in power to the ones not in power of the given system. Throughout the history of the USA, this means white people oppressing other ethnicities but especially black people.Interpersonally, anyone can be racist. They can hold racist views and hate others without knowing them beyond their appearance.
Edit: strike through on majority. While most commonly it is a majority group in power, it doesn’t have to be a majority group, just the group in power.
Systemic racism can only be done by the majority group with the power…
Counter argument: South Africa
Fair enough, I guess I can drop the majority phrasing and just leave it as group in power.
Because what they really want to say is “it’s okay and even just to be maligned to white people” without having the stones to actually say that.
No, just that there’s a subtle difference between anti-white bigotry (which is real) and reverse-racism (which isn’t). You can pull out dictionaries all you like but to put it in terms of a cute nursery rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but socioeconomic bias by the ruling class can kill me and everyone I love.”
Sorry, that doesn’t rhyme very well.
No, this is over-complicating a very simple concept all over again.
Reverse-racism doesn’t exist because it’s just regular old racism. White people can be the target of racism just like anyone else, but this is distinct from the fact that as a privileged social identity they may not be nearly as harmed or affected by that racism as a minority would. The fact that social power modulates our experiences of racism does not mean that some people cannot experience racial targeting.
What is the purpose of making the distinction if it’s not “I want to be maligned to white people and not be called racist?”
Harm, friend. I take all kinds of shit for being white, and you know how much it affects my real lived experience? Not at all, because you can talk shit to me all you want, if you can’t back it up, it doesn’t matter. My Jamaican cousin, my indigenous friend growing up, or the Indian girl I dated in High School on the other hand by definition has to deal with the fact that those words can and often are backed up by petty people who absolutely can get away with that.
You’re now talking in circles. I did just explain why the amount of perceived or real harm caused by racist treatment does nothing to qualify or disqualify it as racism.
Because you said so?
Piping in here:
The redefinition of “racism” to mean only “racially-motivated oppression” appears to have had two major negative effects.
- It makes us all waste time arguing about a word even when we agree on the injustice, and thus have less energy to fight that injustice.
- By linguistically excluding whites we give rhetorical space for white resentment and anti-white prejudice, which politically helps bad actors benefit electorally from the former.
Arguing that racial animus towards whites doesn’t count as racism helped Trump get elected!
I’d be very interested in any information about the positive effects it’s had to offset either of the above. From my perspective I don’t see them.
You can always disagree, but I’m quite certain you’d be going against the consensus of most people familiar with this topic.
Just end it with: “…with loans.” Then it rhymes. <3
This argument has been going on for 60 years, by historians and educators, black and white, who are much smarter than us… Here’s a reddit comment I found that detailed the argument well (paraphrasing)
the purpose of “power + prejudice” was to move discourse away from the idea of being racist as a personal failing, and instead focus on structural oppression and the material reality of minority groups.
Basically liberal society largely seems to have conceived racism as ‘being irrationally mean’, but for people with a materialist anti-racist perspective, that definition isn’t productive or insightful and the lack of material, tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
Beverly Tatum’s work offers an informed and compelling perspective on the matter
I reject the idea that a sixty year old redefinition that was followed by a rise in white resentment was done by people “smarter” than any of us.
The sooner you accept that racism is about power, the better you will understand it. The dictionary definition is not adequate for defining racism.
The dictionary definition is not adequate for defining racism.
The majority of people agree with how the dictionary defines racism and that’s how it is used in common language and legal contexts.
It is a vocal minority of absolute fools who insist it’s about systems and power and not the discrimination that everyone else so clearly recognises it as.
You people throw the word “majority” around a lot. I’m whiter than you are and I can acknowledge that there’s a dimension of subtext in the word racism related to power structures. “Me and my drinking buddies” does not constitute a majority.
If you’re trying to talk to people don’t define the word to inherently include systemic power structures, then you’re never going to get anywhere by refusing to use language in a way that they understand. There’s no harm in specifying “systemic racism“ if the people you’re talking don’t include “systemic“ in their idiolectic baseline definition of racism. But just telling a person they can’t experience racism when their definition of “racism“ is simply analogous to prejudice will only make them defensive and hostile
And why exactly is it my responsibility to adapt to their idiolectic preferences? They understand the concept, or they wouldn’t get so damn angry about it.
They don’t understand the concept. And using language in a way they don’t understand doesn’t help.
They absolutely understand the concept and it’s ignorant to treat them like children that don’t understand.
What say the great grumbling masses? Any of you not understand what I mean when I use the word that way? Or does this guy who thinks you’re too dumb to understand have a point?
What they’re annoyed by is the feeling that they got rug-pulled by the fact that the specific meaning of the word is different to different people. Always has been, we just didn’t need to address it when we were discussing the more obvious gross misconduct of yesterday; it was close enough both ways. And now it’s not.
Because you’re the one trying to convince someone you’re correct. If you can’t even properly use the words defining the concept you’re discussing, why would they listen to you?
There’s already a term for what you’re describing, systemic racism, that will communicate your point in a way that doesn’t end with you arguing semantics and not getting anywhere in the actual conversation. Redefining terms to mean something the other person doesn’t agree with just turns your debate about a concept into a meta debate about what words mean.
Your double-standard with regards to who gets permission to revise the language is duly noted.
You people
And there is exactly where you lost any credibility with me
My heart breaks, random internet snowflake.
“As a white person”
That’s rich, considering who’s talking.
Without referring to the dictionary, explain why it’s foolish to ascribe a dimension of power to racism.
It’s not foolish, there’s just another term for it, it’s called “systemic racism”. Not all racism is systemic
Nope, that is just your own made up definition of the word.
How about you explain in depth what you mean by that instead of being really vague and condescending. Can you do that? Can you explain in depth and with precise language what you mean by that? If you actually have knowledge you want other to also have, please go ahead and share it.
I didn’t think I was being condescending, but I apologize if I came off that way. I’m happy to explain what I mean. Why don’t you associate racism with power?
Because it’s not powerism, it’s racism.
Whiteness itself is proximity to power.
That’s why it can change, like for Italians and Irish
The discrimination is on the basis of race. That doesn’t make it right, that doesn’t mean that’s the actual reason they’re doing it in their minds. You’re adding unnecessary context to the base word instead of adding the appropriate expansions to the base word to make it fit the desired context.
No it’s just that words can sometimes mean different things depending on context. It’s not “unnecessary” when you’re actually trying to understand the long term effects of 400+ years of slavery, oppression, and atrocities.
The only kind of people who find it “unnecessary” are the kind of people with no actual genuine interest in grappling with our horrific racist past which is the only way we could ever possibly begin to repair that shit. They’d rather just ignore it and pretend it never happened. Or immediately get weirdly defensive because “they didn’t personally do slavery”.
Let’s look at some of the most well known historic instances of racism:
- Slavery: an institution that cruelly subjugated black people. It was enforced by the provisional governments in North America before the US revolution, enshrined into the Constitution, and required a civil war to end. People in power: white men
- The Trail of Tears: an illegal genocide of several Native American tribes, which had them march over 1000 miles to Oklahoma. People in power: white men
- The Chinese Exclusion Act: this was the first time the US border was strictly enforced. It was designed to stop people from China and the Philippines from entering the US, on racist grounds. It was used to deport Chinese people that had just finished building the Transatlantic Railroad. People in power: white men
- Redlining neighborhoods: the US and banks worked together to provide cheap loans for buying houses and starting businesses. Zip codes were classified as low risk, medium risk, and high risk. It was never stated outright, but there was high correlation between black people living in an area and being associated with more risk. Black people almost never qualified for a loan, because their zip code was in a “high risk” (redlined) neighborhood. People in power: white men
- Building the national highway network: when deciding where to build highways, white neighborhoods were usually avoided and instead divided or destroyed minority neighborhoods. People in power: white men
- Jim Crow: the famous “separate but equal” laws, which controlled several aspects of black people’s personal lives and legally entrenched them as second class citizens to white people. People in power: white men
lets look at some more.
Rohingya genocide
a series of ongoing persecutions and killings of the Muslim Rohingya people by the military of Myanmar. (not white people)
Persecution of Uyghurs in China
Widespread human rights violations by the Chinese Communist Party against the Uyghur people (not white people)
Yazidi genocide
The Yazidi genocide was perpetrated by the Islamic State throughout Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2017. It was characterized by massacres, genocidal rape, and forced conversions to Islam. (not white people)
Darfur genocide
The Darfur genocide is the systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people which has occurred during the war in Darfur. (not white people)
Effacer le tableau
Effacer le tableau (“erasing the board”) was the operational name given to the systematic extermination of the Bambuti pygmies by rebel forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (not white people)
Massacres of Hutus
During the First Congo War, troops of the Rwanda-backed Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL) conducted mass killings of Rwandan, Congolese, and Burundian Hutu men, women, and children in villages and refugee camps in eastern Zaire. (not white people)
and on and on and on.
A certain skin color is not a requirement for being shitty to your fellow humans.
I appreciate your input. However, this entire conversation was in the context of specifically the US. The dimension of power exists in all of those cases as well.
“let’s look at racism”
brings up historic examples of systemic, institutionalized racism, omitting every single personal act of racism in history
You expect me to take this seriously as a rebuttal?
I’d like a list of interpersonal racism that has the same historical impact, then. I’ll help you get started:
- The murder of Emmett Till
If racism is about power then why can’t I call Obama the n word
If you (the reader) don’t upvote the above comment you hate diverse perspectives which is basically the same thing as being racist. Checkmate lemmy
If you don’t upvote the above comment I will hunt you down and tickle your feet when you least expect it.
Hee hee hoo hoo
Because of the institution of slavery, which still affects the lives of black people to this day. A black person in power does not erase history.
You don’t need to be in a position of power to be racist.
Most racist chuds have no power.
True racism had never been tried
This is true. The Nazis were just pretending
True racism is indistinguishable from misanthropy. Gotta hate every race. Including your own.
deleted by creator
Hate to be a descriptivist but no, you don’t just get to change what a word means and then get mad because people are using it the correct way.
Racism is discrimination based on race, no matter how many arts majors screech otherwise.
Arts majors?
I agree with your comment but… Arts majors?
………yes that’s what I said and that’s generally the sort of misinformed muppet spouting this nonsense I have encountered.
I think you mean you are being a prescriptivist. In a descriptivist action, they added the new definition to Merriam Webster like 2 years ago. This is because they decided it makes sense to have a different and more useful definition of “racism” and “racial prejudice.”
the purpose of refining the racism definition as “power + prejudice” was to move discourse away from the idea of being racist as a personal failing, and instead focus on structural oppression and the material reality of minority groups.
Basically liberal society largely seems to have conceived racism as ‘being irrationally mean’, but for people with a materialist anti-racist perspective, that definition isn’t productive or insightful and the lack of material, tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
I’d recomend Beverly Tatum’s work , her perspective is very informed and compelling
No I mean descriptivist, as in I support descriptivism and what I’ve stated is how people actually use and understand the word racism.
I don’t care why an idiot tried to redefine a perfectly good word in the 1970s but they failed because most people disagree with them.
tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.
This might be news to you but we’re communicating in English, and not everything written in English centres on or concerns the USA.
Racism is discrimination based on race
Racism is systemic discrimination based on race. For bigotry to become systemic, it has to be interrelated with social systems and hierarchy.
Then what is “systemic racism”? That’s a much more common term (in my experience) than “systemic discrimination”?
what is “systemic racism”?
I also hear people say ATM Machine all the time. Common doesn’t mean it’s not redundant.
Racism is systemic discrimination
According to one woman who wrote this bullshit in 1970.
One person making a claim does not make something true, Patricia Bidol-Padva doesn’t just get to change what words mean because she studied at a shit university.
Also you’re out of date on your nonsense because critical race theory says you’re wrong
Also you’re out of date on your nonsense because critical race theory says you’re wrong
Not really though, right?
In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s the other way.
Yes, really. Critical race theory has a conflicting definition of racism to the nonsense in the OP.
Not that CRT is without issues but it’s funny how many people claim to support something without having read a damn thing.
I’m not sure I agree. The precepts of “racism is ordinary”, social construction of race and social convergence seem to place racism directly in a systemic/social embedding.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the inherent social nature of intersectionality.
I would go as far as saying that in CRT racism is expressly defined as a property of society as a whole. Not merely prejudice based on skin color.
In CRT racism is defined under four categories, of which two address the so called prejudice + power, neither of which is simply labelled as ‘racism’.
I’m done here, people keep referencing some dog shit work from the 1970’s like its gospel and redefined a word for every society globally.
I must say, you are a very poor communicator. You are jumping down people’s throat all over the thread, but trying to get info from you on your stance is like pulling teeth.
Why are you even here?
That said, “CRT does not use the word racism” is not exactly illuminating to the matter at hand. It’s also not true. Delgado& Stefanic mentions racism 16 times in the introduction alone.
Well, ackshually 🤓
Seriously though, that’s not the definition most people use, and you’re never going to change minds through pedantry. Also, people like this always seem to be colossal losers.
And the true definition is what it is not merely because of consensus but also because it’s the meaning that has actually been the most useful for deconstructing and understanding the systems of privledge that racial distinction leverages.
Just going to leave this old but gold video here for all the people in the comments: https://youtu.be/dw_mRaIHb-M?is=OpX9nrxIZBss7HCe
This guys does it well while keeping it funny.
I still disagree with the absolutism that opens an opportunity for people to get defensive, but the comedian focuses more on the scope, the seriousness, the disparities and extremes. And that’s only the well known and widely agreed issues
Maybe I’m generalizing from my own reactions too much but this is a great approach to communicating the issue
People always want things black and white, they want everything to fit in neat little boxes and that’s just how reality works.
Threads like these remind me that lemmy world is basically just reddit all over again.
There is no hatred against white people. That is nazi propaganda.
There is hatred against racist, and for good fucking reason.
White people who aren’t racist don’t get hate.
I suppose it’s a sign of Lemmy’s popularity that it’s now finding the whiny white redditors pissing and moaning about being called cracker.
Btw I was this week year old when I realized “cracker” means “slave owner”. As in, whip cracker.
“We’re the strongest race!”
“Argh the sunlight!”
“Argh spices!”
“Argh a word that has no violence behind it!”Are you pirates?
Yes
Spices!
Argh!
Racism can apply to anyone.
However I think saying white-people food is bland can be said in a more PC way that continental cuisine uses seasoning and ingredients in smaller amounts compared to other cuisines.
Objectively, that is true.
So that’s not really a stereotype-based statement. It’s just said in a way that implies all white people but really means continental food. Which is European based. Which was mostly white people and where white people came from.
Does it need to be false to be racist? There are a lot of true things I could say about various races statistically that I would deem racist by implying that thing applies to the race in general, or some member of that race, or by implying fault.
I’m not sure tbh. There are surely things that fall in the gray area. Intention might be a factor for such things. 🤷
Try reading the explanation in the post again, because it’s pretty clear that you didn’t get it.
