Racism - A Sanity Check

With the racial overtones displayed in the coverage of the New Orleans disaster and percieved in the government's response, conservatives, it seems, have largely tried to "define deviancy down" and assert that one thing or another isn't actually racism. They've been doing this for years, in various arenas - one poster in this very forum asserted to me, once, that if an employer refused to hire black people because of his impression that they were all dishonest and lazy, well, that wasn't racism, that was just good business.This continued refrain has consequences. A Jacksonville, Florida teen was suspended for wearing a racist shirt:

quote:

---

The undershirt the white student wore had a confederate flag on the front with the words "Keep it flying." On the back, a cartoon depicted a group of hooded Klansmen standing outside a church, waving to two others who had just pulled away in a car reading "Just married."

​

Two black men in nooses were being dragged behind.

​

He said he put the shirt on in the morning because he planned to wear it to a party that night with others who, like him, had enlisted in the Marines.

​

"I'm not racist or anything," he said. "It's just, some people I hate, some people I don't get along with. And black people just happen to be the ones because they think they're better than everyone else."

---

Sanity check - if you hate black people, you're a racist. Oh, and he even resorts to the classic racist defense - "some of my best friends are black":

quote:

---

The 18-year-old said he has friends who are black, and he said he does not think they would be mad at him because they know he would not do what was depicted on the shirt.

---

from The Florida Times-UnionBut, hey, you know - no racism in America. Isn't that right, Republicans?

If one is treated rudely on a consistent basis by members of another race, one is apt to have racist feelings.

Ah, right. Blaming the victims. Boy that never gets old, does it?

He might want to think about it before wearing that shirt when he goes out to party after basic training. What proportion of his unit d'ya think will be white boys? 20%?What a diptard.

I was telling you a fact of human psychology, and you turn it into a chance to utter moral cant.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 09-18-2005 11:14 AM

I don't think there's any excuse for this guy whatsoever, psychological or otherwise. If you can't rise above your instinct, or at least understand the instinctual influence on your behavior, then you're no better than an animal. And it turns my stomach that we're gonna give this guy a gun and tell him to go shoot brown people.But none of that is the point. The point is, how can a person say that they hate black people but that they're not a racist? What does racism mean if not hating people of a certain race?

I'm not sure what you are saying here exactly, RR, but when one is consistently treated like a subhuman by a large percentage of another group of people, I'd imagine that "rudeness" might be one result.My daughter-in-law is black, and I sometimes see the almost reflexive perception of racism that she puts on even everyday "slights" from salesclerks and such. And no, a lot of these incidents probably don't involve any bigotry, but enough do that I damn sure understand where she gets that feeling.

What are you talking about?

I agree with robinrohan. Is there any reason you decided to focus on racism than on discrimination in general? This is generalist thinking that leads to discriminatory behavior.I think you're using an appeal to emotion here. I think talking about discrimination in general, talking about why it happens, and seeing it as a natural part of human thought is the right way to approach this. I agree with robinrohan's thought and psychological approach to the problem.And to answer your question before you ask it... viewing something as a "natural part" of being human doesn't make ANY statement about whether it's something we want to endorse or taboo. But it at least gives us a perspective on the mechanism behind what's going on. When we have that, I think we have a better way to accomplish whatever it is we want to accomplish.So, crash... yeah, there's a lot of discriminatory thought and discriminatory action in the US. I agree. Any ideas on what to do about it?

Read the frickin' article.

Make it clear exactly what discrimination is. As it stands right now - and I hope you'll pardon an enormous generalization - we've got folks on the left, who say that discrimination is bad, which everyone largely agrees with, but then we let folks on the right define exactly what discrimination is or isn't, in the way most advantageous to their own agenda.The result? Booting gays from Boy Scouts? Not discrimination. Calling white people "finders" and black people "looters"? Not discrimination. The fact that having a black-sounding name makes you half as likely to be called for a job interview, despite an identical resume? Not discrimination. Preventing gays from marrying or even adopting? Not discrimination.Wearing a t-shirt with black people being dragged by the neck behind a car? Hating black people just because they're black? Not discrimination, according to this kid. It's an attitude that flows right from the mouths of Limbaugh and O'Reilly, from anybody who acts dismissive of the idea that people of color still face significant hurdles in our society, or that white people enjoy significant advantages. And it's an attitude that I hear exclusivly from conservatives and libertarians. Perhaps it was wrong of me to blanketly associate racism, or the defense of racism, with those parties and ideologies. I posted while my blood was up and tried to bait those folks into joining this thread. But I feel that this kid is an example of what results when you're so committed to believing that America is the "land of the free" that you'll assert that if anybody in this country is still being oppressed to any degree, they must be doing it themselves, because, hey, I'm not a racist!

I see your point. I completely agree. What I'm proposing is that discrimination / racism is not a discontinuous thing. Discrimination is just generalization that goes "too far", but "too far" is defined more on the situation and the specific result than on any absolute measure. It's a slippery slope, and I think that's why it's possible to push such crappy definitions of it. Because it's not a matter of tricking someone qualitatively, only a bit quantitatively.Getting back to our question Can we agree that discrimination is based on thought that is not fundamentally different than generalization? We all have the right to hold our own generalizations; life wouldn't make any sense without them. So, I think this is a difficult but important issue that you bring up.I would say, there are two parts of discrimination:
- the generalizations
- the behavior of restricting othersMy questions are,
- Are there any generalizations that we say "no, you CANNOT think that way, that is not OK thought."
- Are there any restrictive behaviors that we say "no, you CANNOT behave that way, that is not OK behavior."I think answering the first question affirmitavely is dangerous, but I need to think more about it. I think the second one can clearly be answered "yes", and I think it is HERE where the definition of discrimination will be formed. What situations is it OK to restrict people, and what situations is it not?I'll post this with more questions than answers, so that we can work through it. It takes a lot more thinking from me than I've done prior to now.And thanks for your reply. I really appreciated the tone and thought.Ben

I like to think of myself as a very discriminating person. However there is nothing racist about me.I just thought I would point out that "discrimination" can have some very positive connotations, too.

Whew. What a post! I don't even know how to begin answering your questions. Like you they demand more thought than I've given so far.It's my hope, in this thread, to grapple with the incomprehensibility of racism - I've never understood how a thinking person could hate a whole race of people, or believe that a person's actions were controlled by the color of their skin. Racism to me is often so obvious and so obviously bad that to read a person say "hey, I'm no racist; I just hate black people", well, that's not just being stupid - that's a kind of mental process that needs to be at least briefly examined, lest we all fall prey.

Absolutely. I'm into cognition and anthropological cognition, so I always suggest we take such a perspective. For racism, I think it's going to produce some interesting and useful results, so I suggest we use pschological, cognitive and anthropological studies. Hohoho, now you're making the questions more interesting... and more difficult. I'll give you what I got.Clearly there's two different meanings of "racism" going on here. I would suggest one is older and more generally accepted, and one is more specific to our American culture, our recent history.racism₁ - discrimination against people, either in thought or behavior, because of physical features of their race (color of skin, shape of eye, features of hair, etc)racism₂ - acts of physical violence, or strong acts of discrimination (denying people jobs, assistance, entrance into restaurants, segregating people) based purely on generalizations of people made on physical features of their race (see above).So I'd say that this really strange statement--"hey, I'm no racist; I just hate black people" only fits if we're using meaning 2. It seems so strange because we think of racism, by default, as meaning 1. Meaning 2 is specific to our culture, and even here I think it's fairly non-standard... but I think this analysis works.Only the tip of the iceberg... but I'll work more on it later. We still have to talk about:
- how this distinction between two racisms has led to racism₁ being thought of as "not racism" and, therefore, OK.
- how people in general come to have racist thoughts (this is what I was leading into with my previous posts)But for now, I'm "ready for some football." So.. I'm outta here.