The problem is that white people see racism as conscious hate

[cinnabonbon]

"The problem is that white people see racism as conscious hate, when racism is bigger than that. Racism is a complex system of social and political levers and pulleys set up generations ago to continue working on the behalf of whites at other people’s expense, whether whites know/like it or not. When we see Phil Robertson talking about how happy black people were in the South during a period of time that we all KNOW was politically ratchet for black people, we can all go, “Yeah, black people weren’t really happy about that, and it’s racist of you to suggest that discrimination wasn’t bad.”

Here’s the deal with racism:

Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people; it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you. Yes, racism looks like hate, but hate is just one manifestation. Privilege is another. Access is another. Ignorance is another. Apathy is another. And so on. So while I agree with people who say no one is born racist, it remains a powerful system that we’re immediately born into. It’s like being born into air: you take it in as soon as you breathe. It’s not a cold that you can get over. There is no anti-racist certification class. It’s a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world.

( from: http://scottwoodsmakeslists.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/5-things-no-one-is-actually-saying-about-ani-difranco-or-plantations/ )

In my opinion, explanations like these makes it easier to understand why certain things like "reverse racism" doesn't make sense.

[Capt. Obvious]

1. Bingo

[el_bryanto]

2. Another problem is that people see racism as implying culpability or guilt.

Calling a person a racist is a pretty harsh indictment of that person.

Bryant

[cinnabonbon]

4. yes, that is a good point.

It means that any talks of racism makes the white person in the conversation defensive. More often than not, I don't see people actually calling each other racists, though. What they are doing is condemning the actions or words of people around them. Like "what you said was racist" not "You are racist for saying that."

And even when people soften the blow like that, people still take it personally instead of seeing that they need to focus on the issue.

[KurtNYC]

8. If racism is about access, privilege and systematic oppression

then most individuals don't have the power, as individuals, to do those things. They can support and sustain those systems through words and actions such as hate speech, red lining and discrimination in hiring or housing but one person cannot oppress millions of people. So actions and systems can be racist but individual people can only be hateful, bigoted and supporting of racism.

That is the semantics of it. Back in the real world, the word "racist" is most often used to mean bigoted or prejudiced. I really like how this video addresses the distinct and how to deal with people without claiming to know what is in their heart:

[cinnabonbon]

13. I wish I could rec this comment. n/t

[el_bryanto]

22. That is a really good video. And makes a lot of sense. nt

[DLevine]

60. Excellent video. nt

[SomethingFishy]

162. Holy Shit..

That video is brilliant. Gonna head over to the site to see what else they have.

If you haven't before, you should really post this somewhere as an OP Kurt. It's too good to miss...

Thanks

[firsttimer]

3. Would that work both ways?

Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people
or a black person who likes white people?


So this means racism will be here for the end of time?

I don't want to believe that...do you?

[cinnabonbon]

5. It will be here as long as

people are unwilling to admit there is a problem. Once we've gotten past that, then we can start the real talks about how to make the society fairer for everyone.

[Shandris]

18. No.

There aren't many people who -aren't- willing to admit there is a problem first of all, and you will NEVER get EVERYONE to admit to ANYTHING. You can't get -EVERYONE- to agree that the sun is yellow. So this is either a bunk definition/expectation, or one quite intentionally made to be impossible.

I refuse to use the same argument for racism as the Catholic Church does for Original Sin. It doesn't work that way in the real world, and no one really gives a shit how it works in the theoretical one.

Social Equality (not social equity) is a myth. A cruel, unreachable myth. And social equity itself is not reliant on trying to think that every single person alive must agree on (topic).

[cinnabonbon]

109. You weren't here

earlier this week, when there were people falling over themselves to deny that white privilege exists? And that they were so annoyed by people talking about it? I would say that they were refusing to admit to the problem. It is a problem when democrats are as unwilling to look at race issues critically as republicans are.

I know you can never get all people to agree on an issue. That is why I never used the words "all" and "everyone" as specifiers when I talked to the other poster. I was talking about people in general, where a majority of the group is enough to sway public opinion.

If being treated fairly in a democratic society is a myth, then in my opinion that means that white people really ought to accept their privilege (to make the unfairness less harsh to bear). If one group is doomed to always be treated worse than the other, it goes without saying that the group that doesn't have to worry about such things is considered privileged by the other.

[Shandris]

130. I meant most people are willing to admit there is a problem with racism.

But you will never get -everyone- admit there is a problem with racism, and you noted that 'it' (which I interpreted as racism) will continue to be a problem until people admit there is a problem. I don't think most -thinking- people deny there is still some racial problems, and I (and apparently you likewise) agree that there will never be a time when -everyone- admits it is a problem, so we are nearing that point where 'most' people agree on it. We have a whole new generation to try to teach, and it's not exactly going swimmingly, but we know for the most part where our work lies.

Being 'treated fairly' is social equity, not social equality. I made that distinction in my post. It does not matter how 'evenly' people are treated as a group. It matters that each group has the same opportunities. The rest comes down to the individual, and no matter how unpopular it remains (for some unknown reason that still mystifies me) to point that out, I will continue to do so. Group policy -only- works in the context of the individual. If the policy seeks to rectify problems strictly from a group basis, then it will drastically harm any and all outliers and most persons who don't fall in the 'average' range ('harm' being defined, for this purpose, as either over-privilege or under-privilege in terms of social equity).

Now people can argue over what place 'white privilege' has in this. I think focusing on any privilege or set of privileges as a standalone or small package instead of a broad spectrum of social indicators is a flawed approach. If you want to try to mend social inequities by levelling out privilege, you have to do it with all of ones that are sufficiently big enough to alter any given individual's life or you're going to be directly harming people.

[El_Johns]

105. Racism doesn't exist because of "belief". It exists because of social practices supported by

POWER.

Take away the support of power & beliefs change.

"Everybody" believing wasn't required for the Civil Rights act to pass, but it did pass, & power removing its support from certain practices changed people's beliefs, leading to a society that's less overtly racist.

[cinnabonbon]

108. Exactly.

But in order to be able to take away the support of power, you first have to get the people who have (some) power to admit to themselves that there is a problem that needs to be changed. Without that first step, I don't know how we'll get to the second. ...Without a bloody revolution, that is.

[El_Johns]

128. the people who have (some) power? That's what I think is pernicious about this kind of thing.

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2014, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Did the populace take a vote on "stop & frisk" in NYC? No, that was Bloomberg's call; he's white, but he's also one of the richest people in the world, & his policies are designed to turn NYC into a playground for the rich.

Anti-racism work used to be about ending the POLICIES that held racism in place. So often these days it seems to be less about that & more about enforcing the construct of "white privilege". But when I ask the enforcers what will change if I buy into this construct, they can't tell me anything specific. "Hopefully you will be more aware" etc.

I'm already aware. My awareness is useless because I'm not the one making or enforcing racist policies, like loser mortgages, stop & frisk, private prisons, etc. I hate all those things, but so what, since outside the major cities there's no MOVEMENT to publicize their ills & end them.

I don

[cinnabonbon]

129. I was trying to be generous to the white folks who feels stepped on when we talk about privilege.

Bloomberg is an example of a man who has used the racist system that other rich white men built for the coming generation of white people. It benefited him to the point where he got a political position. From that place of power, he makes sure that POC won't be able to move freely around town, and indirectly also makes it harder for them to feel like they belong there.

He's created a lot of problems in the time he's been in office. His policies hurt everyone except the rich. That doesn't change the fact that the system he used to acquire his power is hostile to minorities, and tries to prevent them from acquiring the same kind of power to change things. White people actually have a shot at navigating that system, because in a sense it was made to accept them. That is why I said they have some power.

[El_Johns]

131. Bloomberg doesn't act for "whites". He acts for the 1%, and his policies also harm working class

class whites. He was born on third base, & he didn't "get" a policitical position, he bought it as the 10th-richest man in the world.

And black people also have a "shot" at navigating the system, biased though it is. Need I remind you that a black man is president?

Constructing racism as "white privilege" is a losing proposition because it alienates a portion of the people you need to actually build a movement to DO something -- and it's not designed to build a movement, or to build solidarity.

As I appended to my previous post:

Anti-racism work used to be about ending the POLICIES that held racism in place. So often these days it seems to be less about that & more about enforcing the construct of "white privilege". But when I ask the enforcers what will change if I buy into this construct, they can't tell me anything specific. "Hopefully you will be more aware" etc.

I'm already aware. My awareness is useless because I'm not the one making or enforcing racist policies, like loser mortgages, stop & frisk, private prisons, etc. I hate all those things, but so what, since outside the major cities there's no MOVEMENT to publicize their ills & end them.

[drmeow]

9. Part of the problem

is that humans seem to have a natural inclination to categorize things and people into "self or like self" and "other." Skin color, especially dramatic difference in skin color, can be an easy default way of doing that. How much of that is innate and how much is learned is hard to separate. What is learned is how we respond to it and that can be changed. I don't think we will ever have a colorblind society (unless we regress towards a more uniform skin color) but if the "different skin color" experience can be modified from an "other" response to a "like self" response we can start to eradicate racism - and that can be done and is happening.

However, we will still find ways to categorize people into "like self" and "other".

[KurtNYC]

6. The difference between racism and prejudice:

The 2 terms are often confused.

Prejudice is when an individual embraces stereotypes to group and judge people of a common ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristic.

Racism uses institutions, laws, selective enforcement of laws, hiring practices and other systemic means of oppressing a group of people based on their perceived ethnicity.

[cinnabonbon]

7. Excellent explanation.

I would add that although it's important to be able to tell the difference, our culture often blends these two, so when you see/experience discrimination it is often a bit from column A and a bit from column B.

Also, what white folks usually experience is prejudice.

[KurtNYC]

10. The guy who made the video I linked in #8 nails it and takes it on pragmatically

And I agree, white people may encounter people who hate on them because they are white but that is only prejudice because there are no institutionalized systems that keep white people down. Having never experienced oppression, many white people do not understand how it works (ironically), or they just deny that there is such a system or that they are part of such a system.

[cinnabonbon]

12. I'm already subscribed to him on youtube. ;)

He really is good at laying out in a way that is approachable, I agree. I'm glad you linked to him!

I think the problem is that it's very easy to deny a system like this. Most white people don't like to hear that they benefit on the backs of others, and it takes a long time for them to digest this.

[Number23]

19. "Most white people don't like to hear that they benefit on the backs of others"

Exactly. I think you are exactly right.

But what is even more egregious are those who pine openly and loudly for the Good Old Days when whites, particularly white men, had the world laid out for them, whether they deserved it or not.

It is one thing to not like acknowledging that you and your family have benefited on the backs of others. That's understandable. But it is far more insidious to me to actually LONG for the days when you and your family had the world at your feet knowing FULL WELL that it was at the expense of millions and millions of people. And the fact that so many of the people doing so can't crow loudly enough about how "liberal" they are makes it even more head shaking.

Prospering greatly while standing on the backs of others is not a liberal value and the folks that bemoan when the 1% do exactly that while pining for the opportunity to do the same things themselves are not liberals. Whole thing reminds me clearly and plainly why so many black people I know are as exasperated by and distrusting of liberals as they are conservatives.

[cinnabonbon]

24. They are the worst.

There is a particular kind of callousness that comes with glamourizing or erasing the pain of an entire population because you buy into the propaganda of old times.

Prospering greatly while standing on the backs of others is not a liberal value and the folks that bemoan when the 1% do exactly that while pining for the opportunity to do the same things themselves are not liberals. Whole thing reminds me clearly and plainly why so many black people I know are as exasperated by and distrusting of liberals as they are conservatives.

You have a great way with words. I agree! If we're ever going to become a true democratic party, everyone has got to open their eyes to this. And hell, after all the racist-themed stuff I saw after Obama was elected, it is apparent we have our work cut out for us.

Since we're on the subject of pining for the old slavery days, have you seen "Ask a slave" on youtube?

[Number23]

31. This is probably one of the most succinct and beautiful sentences I've read here on the subject

There is a particular kind of callousness that comes with glamourizing or erasing the pain of an entire population because you buy into the propaganda of old times

Please believe me when I tell you that I TRULY could not agree with you more. It IS callous. And cruel. And ignorant as all hell. And it's no wonder that whenever you see the threads here pining away for FDR or the Good Old Days, you can count on one hand the number of posters of color that are running to join in. Like I said, the fact that folks scream bloody murder at the 1% for prospering at the expense of everyone else, and then trip over themselves to high five a thread glorifying the days when white guys held all the cards at the expense of minorities who got their teeth knocked in for daring to to educate our children or get a job "above our stations" shows a level of hypocrisy, or at the very least an almost schizophrenic disconnect that makes me as interested in forming coalitions with these folks as I would be a random Tea Bagger.

have you seen "Ask a slave" on youtube?

No I haven't. What is it? The premise sounds bizarre.

[cinnabonbon]

49. Thank you. I think words are powerful

so that is a big compliment. Right back at you, you've been great at dishing out truths in this post.

then trip over themselves to high five a thread glorifying the days when white guys held all the cards at the expense of minorities who got their teeth knocked in for daring to to educate our children

Yes. It is disturbing because the past still lingers in almost every corner of our culture. Turn one way you hear someone complain that "they probably stole that," or "that n****". Turn another and you notice that the cops are still trying to harm innocent children. It is difficult to trust that people are genuinely interested in democratic ideals when they refuse to see the humanity of their fellow countrymen, and instead focus on what the 1% does.

As for those who find it so pleasing to reminisce.... It is almost as if it's a relief to them to think back to an age where they did not to have to think about "racial issues". A time when they had the perfect blindness of privilege. And of course, if you do tell them about it, they'll minimize it. As in, "I only like this part, not the racist part." As if you can separate them. The 'golden age' wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for slaves, how about not brushing them under the carpet?

Ask A Slave is a comedy web series based on the actress' time portraying a slave at George Washington's Mount Vernon. Some of it is darkly amusing, but in an "ouch, people are dumb" sort of way. I was reminded when we began to talk about how certain people thought it was better in the old days, because this poor girl has to suffer through a lot of ignorance because of the same. Before you raise your eyebrow at me: the jokes are on the people who deserve it, not her.

But it's not for everyone. Some might say she makes light of a serious subject. I enjoy her videos, though.

[freshwest]

104. Both these posts are great. Thanks for posting this dialogue. n/t

[KurtNYC]

25. Racism benefits employers

It is used to hold everyone's wages down but that is a whole other discussion.

[bettyellen]

37. and sexism, it was fine w/many that women got paid shit when we didn't compete for the same jobs

see where that has gotten us.

[KurtNYC]

67. Exactly. In another thread on changing attitudes about college

there was study that showed women and minorities had higher opinions and expectations of what a college degree would do for them than did white males.

They use the word "optimistic" in their headline but what the data points to is that the more discriminated against in the workplace you expect to be the more you value a college degree. The bar graph is really revealing:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/education/why-minorities-are-more-optimistic-about-the-value-of-college-20131107

[nomorenomore08]

56. Which is why it pisses me off so much when people scapegoat "illegals" for declining wages.

Undocumented immigrants are not to blame for tanking our economy - hell, they help keep it afloat - they're just a convenient excuse for those who think a rich white guy can do no wrong.

[KurtNYC]

71. I look again at the semantics -- we call it "illegal aliens" not "illegal hiring"

[7962]

132. And if the illegal hiring was punished harshly, there'd be less illegal aliens

supply and demand. If the govt made the punishment for knowingly hiring illegals very harsh, there'd be less of it.

[SomethingFishy]

164. I think maybe some white folks have a hard time seeing it..

You take a lower class white person who has a poor education, struggles in a low paying job, can't make ends meet, and tell them they are "privileged" and they look around and go.. WTF are you talking about?

What they can't see is how much worse things could be if they had to deal with institutional racism on top of everything else to begin with.

I don't really blame them, I've had tough times in my life as well and have been in a position where privileged is the last thing I feel like I am even though I know I started the race 100 yards ahead of non whites...

I think we need to change the word "privilege" to "advantage"..

[7962]

38. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to other races. That is why anyone can be a racist.

[ronnie624]

126. Institutional racism isn't about personal belief.

It is an entire system of power that provides privilege to white people at the expense of other races (it's too bad we classify humans by race, because there really is no biological basis for it), and it occurs primarily on a subconscious level. It permeates our society through our history, culture, politics and economics, and most people are completely unaware of it, which makes it most insidious. All other forms of racism flow from it. Recognizing it, doesn't mean that you have to believe that you, personally, are a racist.

[noiretextatique]

11. thanks...very good article

i will add that one of the chief privileges of racism is denial. the duck dynasty guy's comments are a good example of denial:l those blacks were just sooo happy being treated worse than animals and denied all rights: they were just dancing and singing all the time reverse racism, along with pc, feminazi, etc., was a construct created by the rw. like most of the bullshit they've created, the term has no meaning other than to elicit a pavlovian response from certain people. reverse racism is a part of the successful attempt tp stop racial progress in this country. it wouldn't be so easy for republicons to manipulate poor and working class white people without the race card.

[cinnabonbon]

14. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

and it is very powerful. Without the luxury of being able to look away from these problems, how would people be able to stand to see the injustice all the time?

I want to point out that I'm glad you mentioned how those words came from the rw. That explains why it disturbs me to see shades of them here on DU.

[Shandris]

21. No, it wouldn't be so easy for the to manipulate the working poor...

...if so many people weren't giving them ample opportunity to do so by saying that a poor white person has never known oppression.

The more people make it about race and sex alone, the more resistance you're going to see because these people don't live in a sheltered middle class world like 99% of the people pushing this 'theory'.

[Number23]

27. You should read this

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/07/white_supremacy_wins_again_melissa_harris_perry_and_the_racial_false_equivalence/

Particularly the bits where white people have somehow come to the conclusion that THEY are now the primary recipients of racism. All while white wealth has increased over the last 20 years to now being 19 TIMES greater than black wealth. 20 years ago, it was only seven times greater. This is a choice that white people have made/are making to feel victimized all while enjoying privileges that others do not have.

The OP, nor the poster you're responding to or anyone here has had anything to that. No one has ever said that poor whites don't know oppression, as you are saying. This is not a "theory" to be "pushed" to use your words. But an unmistakable reality.

[Shandris]

36. It -is- a theory.

It's a complete redefinition of a perfectly usable word (and concept) from 'racism = hating another because of race/discrimination because of race/et al' to 'racism=power+privilege', packaged as part of a belief that says that only race and sex count in the totality of determining 'oppression'. Like many early theories, it has its strong points. However, it also has its weak points, and the fact that so many people feel -- rightly or wrongly (wrongly, I would say, obviously) -- under attack by this new theory shows that there -is- something to it, but something that isn't necessarily good in the long run (although the 'study' is a very small sample size, and a) sets out to prove an intended result and b) even notes that there are several other controls unaccounted for at the end. It's a good start, but is in and of itself mostly only good for further investigation).

As for the article, it relies on far too many assumptions, but I'm not going to be the one to defend Mitt Romney or conservatives -- I don't have an interest in doing so, nor do I want one. But if this article were directed at one of ours, we would be up in arms tearing apart the assumptions in it.

[7962]

40. It really is a very simplistic article, I agree with you.

There is a double standard on outrage here sometimes!

[Number23]

41. The fact that some feel under attack doesn't mean that it's a theory. Or that it isn't true

And in a culture as steeped in the tenets of white supremacy above all else as American culture has been, if white people DIDN'T feel skewered by all of the discussions of white privilege and being forced to acknowledge how much whites (as a whole) have gotten at the expense of others (as a whole), that would be a miracle.

that only race and sex count in the totality of determining 'oppression'

Again, no one has said that. But they are by far the two leading characteristics by which Americans have chosen to discriminate against and oppress other Americans.

[Shandris]

52. Okay, I don't think I'm being quite clear enough here because...

...when you add '(as a whole)', I'm -completely- in agreement with you. I'm not meaning to sound like I'm saying that anytime someone feels under attack is a bad thing, not at all. What I mean is that when large swaths of people -- the people who arguably, outside of mere color alone, are among the most oppressed people in the nation ("among" being the key word there, meaning 'not alone as' or 'not the only') -- are feeling the same thing, then there is a -need- to examine what is being said, what people are hearing, and to re-evaluate the theory/belief/idea/etc. I think you're probably getting a bit of flow-over from other times I've received the 'individuals dont matter' talk on this conversation; I assure you, I do not mean to imply that you directly are saying all of these things and I apologize if that is how it seems. That is where the other part you quoted comes from -- that is almost -exactly- what a huge number of people are saying.

The key (imo) to looking at racism, beliefs of racial supremacy, class, power, and societal progression come at the intersections of all these things, not race and sex alone -- not something you directly have said, but a very common thread in these kinds of conversations. When you (generic) leave out all the other intersections and look only at race/sex, then it is going to make huge numbers of people feel directly assaulted while they are eking by an existence that most here on DU have never, and -will- never, understand let alone deal with. And when our conversations ignore them, or we dismiss them as simply hateful bigoted idiots, then we have -literally- handed votes to the other side. IOW...we -strengthen- racism by -not- examining all of the structures at once. Again...in my point of view.

[noiretextatique]

86. don't forget "teh gay"

one of the sacred hatreds is homophobia.

[noiretextatique]

85. so...the rw manipulates poor whites

because people talk about racism?! with allies like this...

[RainDog]

93. Americans are kept purposely stupid about wealth inequality in this nation

The media colludes with the wealthy (and aspires to be or is one of them), and people out there working for a living don't pay attention to such issues and spout second-hand crap about it from right wing sources.

Most Americans think this nation should have wealth distribution like the kind that exists in Sweden, or other social democracies. They think there's more equality than exists, and deny to themselves there is as much poverty as exists.

Do you remember the Ariely and Norton study? It's a beautiful piece of work. First, they asked Americans what their ideal distribution of wealth would be. The answer? Much more equal.

Then they asked Americans what they thought the actual distribution of wealth was. Less equal than their ideal, came the answer. But the truth, as Ariely and Norton noted, was that America was much less equal even than that. Reality was twice as far from the average American's ideal as the average American thought. Here's their graph:

That assumption that the wealthy aren't that much wealthier, and the working class isn't that much poorer makes it possible to think that African-Americans have reached some parity. There's also a political theory that focuses on an elite as the power of any nation and, time to time, someone of color, or a woman, or a gay man will achieve something, politically, and this serves as a pressure valve to give the appearance, at least, that more parity exists than actually does.

That's part of the reaction... a white guy who lost his job says... hey, I can't be president, I get no special treatment. That's why I say class is what white people need to understand - how the wealthy, overwhelmingly white elite want middle class and working class and poor whites think they have more in common with that rich guy. And people who aspire to be that rich guy don't want to rock the boat.

That's how I understand the phenomena, beyond the reality that Rush, etc. has spewed such bullshit for years.

[noiretextatique]

136. thanks, RainDog

for a very informative post. it is disturbing that racial obtuseness and resentment surfaces among my supposed allies. it long past time for those on our side to stop sounding like rush limbaugh when it comes to race. someone in this thread actually implied that talking about race makes it easier for rush, etc., to peddle their bullshit to poor white people.

[RainDog]

137. ...

there are most likely some trolls here... hopefully that's who would say such things.

[noiretextatique]

151. right

i get so pissed i forget about those pesky trolls.

[noiretextatique]

84. sorry...that's nonsense

of the kind the rw has been very busy propagating for many decades. poverty is oppression, and so is racism. obne thing does not negate the other, unless you choose to believe so.

[JI7]

87. the fact is that there are some racist whites who feel a Black man being President means there is

racism against whites.

[noiretextatique]

152. bullshit...again

absolute bullshit.

[drmeow]

15. This is why

I tend to think not so much that I "am not racist" but that I "try not to be racist."

I looked at what Ani DiFranco did and I wanted to think "A plantation? Really? I wouldn't have done that!" but I had to be honest with myself and admit that "A plantation? oh, shit, I could have made that mistake." But I do think that after I'd been called on it, I would have recognized what was wrong and apologized.

And, yeah - there is no such thing as reverse racism.

[cinnabonbon]

34. When it all comes down to it

the best we all can do is "try". And I do think that trying helps to foster a discussion in good faith, which is far more pleasant than when people double down to defend themselves.

[AverageJoe90]

16. A *few* decent things here, but there are many, and I do mean *MANY*, issues as well.

One issue is, is that Woods, unfortunately, seems to think that ALL racism is structural. While structural/systemic racism is indeed a reality (sadly), it's not the only type of racism that infects our society(which is why, sadly, it can probably never be totally erased). Personal racism also exists, and personal racism, for that matter, is something that doesn't just occur in middle-class white bread folks; it can occur to everybody.

In my opinion, explanations like these makes it easier to understand why certain things like "reverse racism" doesn't make sense.

And, no, this isn't why reverse racism doesn't make sense(And to be truthful, the "all racism is structural" belief actually *does* give power to this old conservative buzzword, believe it or not.). Reverse racism doesn't make sense, because for it to make sense, "regular" overall racism would have to be the exclusive province of one singular, solitary group. But it isn't. Never has been.

And to be perfectly honest, the one thing that really bothered me was his claims of slavery being worse than the Holocaust.....I'm sorry, but what?!?

Here's the most important part of the quote:

4) That plantations are way worse than Auschwitz.

It is perfectly acceptable to compare slave plantations to Jewish concentration camps without getting bogged down in which was worse. Both are places where race-based atrocities occurred. While the numbers may be different, there is no magic number that makes one more valuable than the other in a discussion like this. While they may have less in common on a point-by-point scale, they have the most important thing in common: millions of people died because of them.

However, comparing one atrocity to another is to suggest that they are equal in atrociousness, and there are a lot of people who don’t want that to be the case. There are a lot of reasons why people resist this comparison but one of the reasons actually worth discussing is the inherent devaluation of black history in general. Here is the math (it’s simple): White History > Black History

This.....I'm sorry, folks, but this is so fucked up I can't begin to describe it. As bad as slavery was.....and it was terrible, there's no denying that.....it just doesn't quite add up to the WWII Holocaust. People were not only forced to work to death, but actually mass-murdered, by the millions, just because they weren't so-called "Aryans". And it wasn't just 6-7 million Jews, either. At least 3 million Poles were wiped out, too. And at least 1.5 million Roma. Not to mention several hundred thousand Czechs as well, adding up to about 12 million people.....and that's the lower end estimate!

I hate to say this, but, even if he hadn't intended to do so, what Scott Woods just ended up doing, was trivializing the Holocaust. Unfortunately, that's exactly how he came across.

I'll have to admit that he made a few decent points in here, but all that was *definitely* lost in translation.

[Maedhros]

35. You are missing an important bit of information.

This.....I'm sorry, folks, but this is so fucked up I can't begin to describe it. As bad as slavery was.....and it was terrible, there's no denying that.....it just doesn't quite add up to the WWII Holocaust. People were not only forced to work to death, but actually mass-murdered, by the millions, just because they weren't so-called "Aryans". And it wasn't just 6-7 million Jews, either. At least 3 million Poles were wiped out, too. And at least 1.5 million Roma. Not to mention several hundred thousand Czechs as well, adding up to about 12 million people.....and that's the lower end estimate!

I hate to say this, but, even if he hadn't intended to do so, what Scott Woods just ended up doing, was trivializing the Holocaust. Unfortunately, that's exactly how he came across.

The Nazi Holocaust, though exceptionally intense in its affects, lasted only from 1933 -1945 with the actual death camps and such concentrated toward the end of that time span. Twelve years, tops.

Slavery in America lasted from 1501 - 1865, a total of 364 years. What slaverly lacked in intensity compared to the Holocaust it more than made up for with duration. From here: http://necrometrics.com/pre1700b.htm

In American Holocaust (1992), David Stannard estimates that some 30 to 60 million Africans died being enslaved. He claims a 50% mortality rate among new slaves while being gathered and stored in Africa, a 10% mortality among the survivors while crossing the ocean, and another 50% mortality rate in the first "seasoning" phase of slave labor. Overall, he estimates a 75-80% mortality rate in transit.

In Slavery A World History, Milton Meltzer estimates that 10 million slaves arrived in the Americas. This would be the residue after 12.5% of those shipped out from Africa died on the ocean, 4-5% died while waiting in harbor, and 33% died during the first year of seasoning.

In "The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Holocaust" (Is the Holocaust Unique, A. Greebaum, ed., 1996), Seymour Drescher estimates that 21M were enslaved, 1700-1850, of which 7M remained in slavery inside Africa. 4M died "as a direct result of enslavement". Of the 12M shipped to America, 15%, or 2M more, died in the Middle Passage and seasoning year.

Jan Rogozinski, A Brief History of the Caribbean (1994): "[A]s many as eight million Africans may have died in order to bring four million slaves to the Caribbean islands."....

...Looking at all the scholarship on the subject, it looks like, at the very least, 35% of those enslaved in Africa died before they were ever put to work in America. On the other hand, at least 20% of them survived. Between these extreme possibilites (35-80%), the most likely mortality rate is 62%.

In terms of absolute numbers, the lowest possible (and only barely possible at that) death toll we can put on the trans-Atlantic slave trade is 6 million. If we assume the absolute worst, a death toll as high as 60 million is at the very edge of possibility; however, the likeliest number of deaths would fall somewhere from 15 to 20 million.

So...not trivializing at all.

[AverageJoe90]

43. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't change the fact of the matter. It just doesn't.

Yes, again, slavery was extremely tragic. That much is very true. And 15-20 million people may have died, yes. I won't argue against that. But as bad as things were(and they were truly awful in many cases), it did not quite fall into Nazi Holocaust territory(and if the Nazis had won, or had been able to hold just another year, year and a half, they could have killed substantially more than the roughly 15 million people who already died in our world.). There were no extermination camps set up to outright exterminate black people just for being black, for one. Really, there are quite a few other things that I could point out(experimentations by "Doctor" Mengele, etc.) but that alone should be enough, TBH.

So...not trivializing at all.

I'm afraid that's exactly how it came across. I realize it wasn't intentional, but that's the effect it had. And I do hope that Scott does apologize for that mistake if it's pointed out. Because that would be the right thing to do.

[seveneyes]

53. America in 1501?

And all this time I was under the impression American laws and such started in 1776.

[Niceguy1]

59. might be referring

To the native Americans, they had slaves , too.

[Maedhros]

62. I was referring to the predominantly African slave trade in America

from shortly after Columbus arrived until abolition in 1865.

[Maedhros]

61. "America" existed before the United States. [n/t]

[Niceguy1]

65. you mean the Americas?

which would be the entire north American continent which includes the slavery by the Native Americans in the people who lived in what is now Mexico.

[El_Johns]

106. Your impression is mistaken.

[Maedhros]

69. I'm baffled by your motives here.

I've just demonstrated with evidence that the American slave trade is on par with the Holocaust from a human suffering perspective. What point is served by trying to argue otherwise? Misery poker serves no purpose.

[AverageJoe90]

73. "I'm baffled by your motives here." You shouldn't be, TBH.....no offense.

I've just demonstrated with evidence that the American slave trade is on par with the Holocaust from a human suffering perspective

And there's evidence out there, TBH, that the Nazis went quite a bit farther than the even the worst slavers in terms of sheer inhumanity, much of which is pretty much public knowledge. If you'd like a refresher course:

http://www.nizkor.org/ is the place to go.

[Maedhros]

75. Misery poker is pathetic [n/t]

[ronnie624]

127. It's an emotional thing.

A lot of people simply cannot accept the fact that 'America' has done things every bit as bad as the conduct by NAZI Germany.

[Niceguy1]

58. what about the rest of the world?

slavery wasn't a american institution it was worldwide. .and included all races as slaves....

[Maedhros]

63. I'm not following your point.

AverageJoe90 made the claim that comparing slavery in America with the Holocaust served to "trivialize" the latter. I simply went out and found some data on the American slave trade and its impact on its victims in an effort to demonstrate that the American slave trade was on par with the Holocaust from a human suffering perspective.

So, what about the rest of the world? Seems like an irrelevant question.

[Niceguy1]

68. well people talk about the American slave as if it was

the only slave trade in existence or that has ever existed. I'm just countering the America sucks brigade. we're no different than Europe they have a lot of skeletons in their closet too

[Maedhros]

74. We are somewhat different from Europe when it comes to the slave trade.

It took a civil war to abolish slavery in America. European nations managed to do it faster and without so much bloodshed.

[Niceguy1]

78. which would be expected since

United States North America was as settled as Europe was in and definitely not as stable. What America does not win on is the duration of slavery..it goes back thousands of years in Europe

[RainDog]

89. Europeans continued slavery via colonialism

King Leopold of Belgium is one of the most egregious examples.

As soon as slavery ended, white people needed to "save" Africans by converting them to Christianity and making them work on rubber plantations in the Congo. They cut off people's hands if they tried to escape.

That moment in history was the inspiration for Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

[Maedhros]

102. Perhaps not so much different then.

Barbarism was pretty wide-spread back then. Hopefully we're learning from our mistakes.

[RainDog]

103. King Leopold's Ghost is a great book

It tells about that moment.

[El_Johns]

107. How about the rest of the Americas, and the Caribbean? Brazil's slave trade was longer &

bigger than the US's, and was run mostly by Europeans, for example.

You could say it was a variety of offshoring.

[AverageJoe90]

76. The Nazis used slave labor as well.

And although some individual planters were indeed more than willing to outright dispose of (as in *murder*!) any slave who was just inconvenient if they felt they could just replace him or her, and that was evil in and of itself, the Nazi system had outright genocide of entire people as *the* endgame, not just as something that could be done on an individual whim, but rather, it was the final goal.....the "Final Solution", as it were.

[cinnabonbon]

77. On principle I try to avoi saying that one oppression is worse than the other. They're all bad. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

79. In a sense, you do have a good point.

I do still find the way he stated things to be rather problematic, though.

[cinnabonbon]

81. Fair enough.

it is very important to call out the problematic stuff when you see it. None of us are perfect, so in a way these little constructive criticism call-outs help us become better people (at least in theory). In the future I will pay attention to things like that when choosing writers.

[Blue_Roses]

150. Exactly!

Comparing one to the other is like comparing apples and oranges.

Any human suffrage is horrible in it's own right.

[LittleBlue]

17. Welcome to DU

You've been here two weeks, have 183 posts and 84 of them in HOF.

Just so you know, if you are indeed avoiding a 5+ hide ban, it's against forum rules.

[cinnabonbon]

20. Thanks!

I'm not sure what the 5+ ban you're talking about is about, though. Is it not allowed to post in one forum more than the others?

[neffernin]

47. There are many here who are quick to go after newcomers

It is actually quite interesting to see. I kind of assume it is human nature. Many who have been here longer and have higher post counts act like those numbers give them some kind of empowerment.

Challenge the system, break the norms, and one day the world will be a better place. Keep it going cinnabonbon!

[cinnabonbon]

54. Ah, okay. That's good to know.

So it won't surprise me the next time.

Yes, I suppose that people who are here longer might be suspicious of new folk. Kind of like a little village, then, in that regard. I'm sure there's been some anthropological theories written about something similar...

Thanks so much for the welcome (and the encouraging words)! I really appreciate it, Neffernin.

[Number23]

23. Hard to believe that a jury let this really obvious attempt at thread trolling go 3-3

[cinnabonbon]

26. I think I missed something.

[Number23]

28. Don't worry about it. Someone's just trying to accuse you of something and distract from the

really important discussion/message at hand. Happens all of the time around here, especially when racism is the topic.

[cinnabonbon]

30. Why am I not surprised that someone would feel like they'd have to

derail a post about racism.

Shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[LittleBlue]

29. Good jury, then

To the three who voted for me, thanks.

[Number23]

32. LOL I'll save my thank you's for the ones who saw through what you were trying to do

[7962]

44. I've been here 3 yrs and have no idea whats being pointed out/denied. Help.

I know I miss a lot of the abbreviations and inside-baseball stuff sometimes. I wish there was a DU dictionary!!

[Number23]

46. I think that person was trying to insinuate that the OP was a disruptor. Particularly as they post

in the History of Feminism (HOF) group which has alot of detractors on this web site.

Now, for all we know, the OP very well could turn out to be a disruptor. But the only person doing the "disrupting" so far was not the OP.

[neffernin]

48. I feel very ignorant for assuming HOF meant Hall of Fame

I suppose my occasional reading and infrequent contributions would attribute to this. Thanks for the enlightenment

[7962]

55. Thanks. HOF threw me!

[Nye Bevan]

125. You're welcome (I was juror #4):

At Wed Jan 8, 2014, 09:59 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Welcome to DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4300121

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Call out, and suggestion that this is Seabeyond, which is obviously not true based on writing styles. A new person shouldn't be called out like this, and this is not at all a trolling post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 8, 2014, 10:06 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: not a nice way to welcome new members.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: acceptable heads-up. imvho
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Accusations like this should be made to the admins. And I know seabeyond, I have seem seabeyond's posts, I am familiar with seabeyond's grammatical style; and this poster is no seabeyond.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Leave it alone. They did not call out Seabeyond, but the person in question is NOT who or what they want you to believe.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Ms. Toad]

83. That's a pretty obnoxious comment.

I hope you'll consider deleting it.

If you truly believe someone is using a new account to avoid the consequences of having 5+ hidden posts, send a note to the admins and let them sort it out. They have the tools to check it out - and if you're wrong, attacking someone who isn't a zombie for no good reason is really in bad form.

[cinnabonbon]

112. You know what

I was feeling kind of down because of that comment above yours, so I when I saw your comment it made me feel better. Thank you.

As for the ban thing, I would encourage them to take it to the admins, too! I doubt that the banned person lives anywhere near me, because I live in the middle of nowhere.

[Ms. Toad]

118. You're welcome. n/t

[Capt. Obvious]

123. That's just a tad obnoxious

Not to mention that the person you think this is has a rather distinctive posting style.

[Demo_Chris]

33. rec

[bettyellen]

39. great post, and sorely needed here...

[Lint Head]

42. Racism is racism no matter how you cut it. It has caused people to murder. I told people in my

immediate family that my time on this planet is limited and I will not tolerate the language, joking or any other form of racism around me my family or in my own home. I have made some folks very unhappy in my life but too damn bad. If I see dog crap on the ground I do not step in it. I admit I am bigoted against it. I am bigoted against racism and bigotry. I simple tell people, "Live with it." Because if you live with it you do not live with me.

I was born and raised in a part of the south that the KKK was prevalent and saw many things as a child that made me what I am today.
Thank goodness my intellect told me that that behavior was despicable from the beginning.

[Niceguy1]

72. try interracial dating....

I am and it brings out the racists from both races....

[Lint Head]

92. Yes it does. What some people don't get is that the prefix of rascism is race. Any race.

[7962]

147. I was just told by another poster that blacks can only be racist against other blacks

and if a white man is discriminated against by a black employer, he can always go work somewhere else.

[Lint Head]

149. Definition, rac·ism.

noun
noun: racism

1.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism More
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"

Whites can be discriminated against. I think this issue with society is that whites in the US have demonstrated the majority of racism because they have historically been in the majority and subjugated African Americans and other non whites. American Indians suffered racism also. To say a white person cannot be a subject of racism is a misunderstanding of the word. But, I can understand the attitude.

[cinnabonbon]

113. That is very good

steps like taking the racism out of our own language helps. It creates a welcoming environment for others. I am glad that you're creating such a positive space around your family.

I have met similar people who tell me I am a bigot for not listening to their bigoted beliefs. It's like they have misunderstood us when we talk about being tolerant of others.

I simple tell people, "Live with it." Because if you live with it you do not live with me.

Heh! I love that quote.

[babylonsister]

45. Rec'd! nt

[neffernin]

50. I look forward to the day that this is behind us and color truly becomes skin deep

I just hope that it isn't due of humanities destruction at its own behalf.

[cinnabonbon]

51. Me too!

No bombs, please. I want to to prove to some people that Climate Change is real, so if we have to perish from anything let it be that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

57. Americans are weird on this topic....

We are being constantly flooded with messaging from the ruling class that people with different skin color have different ideas and different interests. It always shocks people to find out our similarities are so close.

[RainDog]

64. America is a racist, sexist, classist culture.

Most of us want to overcome that history, but that's what's there.

Racism is the most insidious problem.

I don't make light of racism, but I think finding commonalities, such as issues of class, are ways we can work to overcome that history, simply because of the numbers of people who can find a group identity that way stretches across different prejudices.

Someone I know, whose young daughter is bi-racial, just had her tell him she wants to look like him, because he's white. She's already getting the cultural clues even as a small kid. Another guy I know has an older biracial daughter, and when she was a teenager she told him she hated him because he made her look black. When he told me that, I could see the pain.

Ever since the end of legal slavery, the justice system has been set up to imprison black men whenever it can. This was evident in the south with men forced onto chain gangs by greedy fucks who got charges filed against them for free labor. Slavery by Another Name, available on PBS (and I've linked to it here before) tells about more than one of those white men who did this, with the willing cooperation of law enforcement.

The reality is the wealth of the western world was built on the backs of slaves. The entire western world.

That's what no one wants to admit.

[cinnabonbon]

80. "The reality is the wealth of the western world was built on the backs of slaves."

Yes. A thousand times yes. That is the sad truth.

But acknowledging that in a meaningful way would mean too much change, so people avoid it if they can - even though that means that the cruel unfairness continue.

[TheKentuckian]

98. Great post but a hair off, the avarice is biggest and deepest problem

Slavery is one of the fruits of the incredible black hole like greed and desperate seeking of dominion. Hell, a significant reason for instilling the hate and superiority myths was to make the whole thing somethingthat the masses could swallow. It would be hard for many folks to accept the practices without a ton of rationalizations.

Slavery at its roots wasn't really about race but the Benjamins and all the institutional shit was willfully put in place to maintain the financial stranglehold.
Slaves had to be somehow made to be seen as livestock or less for the system to hold and keep the profits rolling and it had to be all pervasive. Obviously you can't tolerate education, shit like that puts chinks in the armor of the institution. You'd have to sew all kinds of lies and play on ignorance and fear of other.

When such a state is institutional for decades and hundreds of years then it takes on a life of its own even after the roughest edges are sanded down, it becomes a cancerous part of the fabric of a society but avarice was the why all this went down. Somebody had to augment and replace the former property, those white serfs who had kinda got uppity and difficult to harness as productively.

Bonus impact is you make the lowest tier feel more invested in the system when a new underclass is created. Hell, they can even be allowed to associate without fear of discovery of the truth of the humanity of slaves, they'd never be able to buy one so it isn't bad for sales and the poor fuckers could know they had a little station in the society, privilege is then ingrained even at the bottom of the shitpile.

[99Forever]

66. Oh goody.

Another white guilt thread.

I think I have a file for these.

[RainDog]

70. when white guys have talked about their hardships

I've heard them with a sympathetic ear because I know that people don't always see the ways in which society makes life easier for them, even with their hardships.

It's a shame the same isn't reciprocated, because that's part of what being a decent person is about.

[noiretextatique]

88. how about a white responsibility thread?

that would do a lot more than guilt and other selfish bs. in fact, if is the main reason we've made so little real progress on the issue of race in america. to many perceive it as a "black problem that white people should feel guilty about" vs. an american problem that poisons every aspect of society.

[cinnabonbon]

114. That is too bad.

Let us know when you want to join the conversation for real, as opposed to being passive aggressive about it.

[99Forever]

119. "The real conversation?"

You mean the divide and conquer claptrap you posted? I'll pass on that, thanks all the same.

Passive/aggressive, indeed.

[cinnabonbon]

120. That is your prerogative

the OP wasn't directed at you. If you feel personally insulted by the subject, why wouldn't you tell me why instead of saying that "I have a file for these"? (Think about it. If I had said something offensive I could have apologized for it.)

That is what I mean by the real conversation. You tried to make the conversation about you instead of the OP.

[99Forever]

138. Hogwash.

The OP was a broadbrush attack on white people, I happen to be a white person. According to the OP I am a racist simply by being born white without knowing one goddamn thing about me my life, what I've done, how I live, how I interact with people, my family's history, beyond the pigmentation of my skin.and then proceeds to preemptively dismiss even the possibility that such a view is in itself blatant racism.

It's finger pointing bullshit at it's finest.

[RainDog]

140. It's about the way systemic racism impacts perceptions of groups

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2014, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

which is the same issue regarding stereotypes about any group, rather than the individual. You're responding as an individual. Racism does have bearing on individuals, of course, and, as the OP notes, that doesn't make someone willfully racist - the reality is that the society has a sort of...feedback loop of racism that we need to interrupt.

That's one reason why Obama's election was important to me because it interrupts that feedback loop by putting a person of color in the highest office of the land. His presidency offers a role model for kids who have external features like his.

Try to imagine that, for all your life, you never saw someone who looked like you as president - looked like you in terms of the color of your skin. But gender features is another valid thought exercise... but just keep it on this topic.

So, every picture of a president of the U.S. on those posters in elementary school is of a white guy.

You learn the history of this nation and find out people who look like you were considered lesser human being, so much so they were denied the right to vote (and, again, you could make this exercise extend to gender, but I'll keep it on this topic.) You also hear people say you have this or that characteristic simply because of physical features.

Imagine you were a kid growing up in the early 20th century and you saw black men working on a chain gang. Nothing but black men. Wow, they must have done something wrong to be on that chain gang. So many of them... all of them are black. Black men... what's their problem? Their problem is that they were arrested for being black (this is well documented, fwiw.)

But, if you're a white kid, you don't know that. You see that your elders don't say anything about this situation. They ignore those men, or else say something about criminals. You, as a kid, see that and think... black men must get into trouble and do bad things, otherwise why would they get arrested? I don't see people who look like me there. My dad is white and the police don't come after him and knock him down for walking down the street and arrest him and put him on a chain gang for walking down the street on the wrong side of the road (this, again, is a documented incident.)

This is how racism is perpetuated again and again.

How many times were black guys the criminals in movies - and, just to talk about this in terms of creating an "enemy" for various reasons... tho some of this has changed now because... how many criminals in movies now are Arabs? How many were Russians during the cold war? What does that say about how our society views someone who is not white American when they are cast as the "bad guy."

How many sorts of movie roles were available for black women for so long? Mammies. A prostitute. A single mother who is the victim of a crime. How many of them were the stars of the show?

White (male) privileged culture extends to culture through simple things like economics, out side of job opportunities. White people, for a long time, wouldn't go see a movie with a black lead or mostly black cast. So big movies were made for as little money as possible based upon the estimated audience size of mostly black people. The movies with black people were mostly shown in neighborhoods with more black people, so even if a white person wanted to see the movie, they might not know it was showing if they didn't live nearby.

This same thing, btw, has been the reality for female movie roles - it was for all of the 20th century. The movies that had female stars generally couldn't get a "big" male to star in them - and take second billing to a female. The opposite didn't happen. The female movies were geared to what are considered traditional female concerns - chick flicks, with romance as the story.

Such stories have what is called "the marriage plot." It came out of novels, and, while men have had a wide range of roles, women are still relegated to stories with a "marriage plot." I pretty much hate those stories, with a few exceptions, even tho I'm a white female. I remember when I was a kid, I loved Pinocchio so much better than the Disney movies with "marriage plots" in them - I could relate to Pinocchio as a kid. I could relate to Cinderella, too, but even as a little kid - I knew other parts of me were being ignored to fit me into a "marriage plot" for life, too.

I use the example of myself as a female because it's one I know but this same holds true for African-American kids - they need stories that let them dream or vicariously know the world, with characters who look like they do.

These are just a few examples.

Maybe you feel the pressure of not being a privileged person in society and, maybe your anger isn't at people here as much as it is the fact that class or bad luck, etc. have not made life as easy for you. That's also the point.

[cinnabonbon]

141. If you're a white person you know the history of western imperialism

and how it benefited whites on the backs of everyone else. This is not an attack on white people, it's a description of how our society came to be. You wouldn't feel like historical descriptions of white people's wars is an attack on you as a person, because it is not personally about you.

No one is calling you a racist. We are calling the system racist. But yes, since we live with it, we all get some degree of infection from it. That is no one's fault, except the people who made the system ages ago.

and then proceeds to preemptively dismiss even the possibility that such a view is in itself blatant racism.

The alternative you are subtly suggesting is that we shouldn't about when white people do bad things to others in the name of racism, because ....why? We don't know you? And then you come and actually say that this is racism against white people?

Okay, let me see if I manage to sum it up. You come into a conversation and dismiss its importance, then complain that it hurts your feelings, not once actually paying attention to what the message actually is and whether it benefits the minorities it speaks to. And then you tell me it's racism against white people, specifically and mostly you, that we talk about racism bluntly. Because between the oppression of a large group of people and your feelings, you'd rather we talk about your feelings.

I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, but talks about racism doesn't work like that. They're focusing on the people who are oppressed by the class you're a part of. You can choose to be an ally or not, but you can't demand that we focus on your feelings instead of these issues, because you are not important in these conversations. The feelings of the oppressed are.

However, you will be welcome in these conversation once you've read a little bit racism 101. I promise that the gnawing feeling in your gut will go away once you learn why we use the words we do. It's not to make you feel personally guilty or ashamed of being white! It's about letting POC not feel inferior.

[99Forever]

142. Mission accomplished.

You've managed to alienate this ally.

Welcome to ignored.

[cinnabonbon]

143. If you were only interested in your own feelings

perhaps you weren't such a good ally to begin with.

[99Forever]

144. You assume a whole...

... fuck of a lot about someone you know not a damn thing. Seems I forgot to dump you into the ignored bin, that won't happen again.

[cinnabonbon]

145. No.

I read your comments. That is what I'm basing it on. Your refusal to talk about the issue and focus on your own was what I based it on. Ever since you came into this post you have done nothing but make the conversation about you, not caring if it may hurt the people who this issue is important to. You could have as easily sent me a PM to tell me your feelings were hurt, and I would have been kinder to you. That wouldn't have derailed this discussion.

If you manage to grow a tougher skin (like you know, what minorities have to do) you'll still be a good ally. But you can't be an ally to others if the only one that is prioritized in a conversation is you. Sometimes the best thing an ally can do is to listen.

[7962]

148. But you could also talk about Asian imperialism, Muslim imperialism, etc

Its all happened over the course of history. Romans conquering vast areas, then Muslims doing the same. Japan, China, the Mongolian hordes, Ghengis Khan, etc.
Racism is racism, regardless of who is the the offending race. Look at Zimbabwe.

[malaise]

82. Excellent OP

Rec

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. Completely agree. I can attest to the validity of this.

You ever write one of those replies that gets really long and way too personal to post?

& R

[Glassunion]

91. Orwell - 1984 - Doublespeak

For those who have not read the book, Doublespeak - is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. In Orwell's dystopian future, Doublespeak was used either to make the truth sound more palatable, or to reverse or disguise the truth. War is Peace sort of a thing.

Miriam Webster defines Racism as
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
: the belief that some races of people are better than others

Full Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Redefining racism, by softening the definition IMO takes the teeth away from the word. By saying that racism is "a complex system of social and political levers and pulleys set up generations ago to continue working on the behalf of whites at other people’s expense, whether whites know/like it or not." it does many things in my mind. For one, the use of the word gets tossed around for anything and everything we do not like, thus removing its teeth so it can no longer have the bite it once did when true racism is exposed. When we label so much of the world as racist, it stops becoming racist to me and I stop paying attention. Another thing that it does is that by putting in a huge number of qualifiers, beyond the original definition, that include the color of one single race (white) to me is on the border of reversing the definition of the word.

As I see it, racism has many faces. Racism can be the in your face derogatory name-flinging, to institutional racism, political racism, economic racism, etc... But these are adjectives, to further define the word racism. When we add all of those adjectives into the actual definition and just use the word "racism" to describe something, then we are diluting it.

Reverse racism. In quotes, none the less. It's own little term, would not make any sense because of the new definition. But it exists. I have done it. I'm not proud, nor am I happy that in my youth I took the low road. Was my racism institutional? Was it political? No. My racism could have little impact beyond the individual I hated. I was pissed at real racism, so I started hating white people. But this is no way to live. So as I grew taller, I also grew wiser and I changed my ways.

Tossing the term around, when speaking with someone who you are trying to get to see from your perspective, is a fantastic way to shut them down and end the conversation. They are instantly on the defensive. And in a lot of cases rightfully so. This is something else that I have learned. I have had many a conversation with folks on the topic of racism, and I found that by simply explaining my side or my perspective without labeling anything that does not need a label, is the best way to get my point across. When I recently had a conversation about affirmative action with another hiring manager (I am one as well). He felt that affirmative action was silly, that he would just hire the best qualified person for the job. After some discussing and without using the "R" word at all, he saw how it was a positive. The long and short of it was that since equal opportunity was in place, it made him honestly have the debate in his own head that race, sex, orientation, disability, etc... was not going to have an effect on his hiring choice. That by making the conscious effort to remove all demographics, and to choose the best fit would in fact be an actual step at removing institutional racism, sexism, etc...

Was he racist to think that affirmative action was silly? No, not if you use the definition from the dictionary. Yes, if you use one of these doublespeak definitions. How would the conversation have gone if I led off with a lecture on institutional racism, or said that he was racist (doublespeak definition) for saying that it was silly? He would have shut down, and in all honesty been offended (rightfully so) by the remark.

In my opinion, racism, by definition is conscious hate. Privilege, access, ignorance, and apathy are exactly what they are and are not inherently racist. But they do indeed have a disproportionate effect on minorities. Trust me, I have lived them. They should be addressed, they should be pursued, and they should be talked about. They way I look at it, is that these privileges do indeed exists, but in and of themselves are not racist. They do systematically, hold back minorities, but for some white dude to live in a decent neighborhood, go to a good school and eventually get a good job is not racist. The fact that I had to work much harder is not racist. What's racist is those who can see it, but refuse to acknowledge it, or work to keep it in place. That is conscious racist hate.

[KentuckyWoman]

97. Yours is about the only good post on racism I've seen here. Wish it has its own thread.

[redgreenandblue]

111. Awesome.

What I dislike most about the "doublespeak" definition of racism as you label it is that the net effect of it often seems to be the creation of additional barriers between people: If a person already is shy and has troubles navigating the complexities of human social interaction, adding additional layers of meta-rules might eventually cause a person to resign and avoid contact altogether.

Let's say that there are two groups which, for some arbitrary reason, didn't have a lot of contact with each other in the past. Now let's say there are individuals in each group which, for any reason, are fascinated by the other group and wish to have more contact with them. In the "doublespeak" definition of racism it is possible to define this fascination as racist, thus creating a barrier where there need not be one.

[AverageJoe90]

165. Honestly, this is one of the most best-written and well thought out replies I've seen...............

on the subject as of late. Well done! If there was a Rec button, I'd definitely press it.....perhaps you (or someone else) could re-post this as a topic?

[hfojvt]

94. is there some new slang meaning for the word "ratchet"?

"South during a period of time that we all KNOW was politically ratchet for black people"

Isn't that supposed to be "wretched"

I always find these kinds of statements to be stupid and offensive

"it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you."


So apparently Matt Damon looks like me.

But then again, so does Rush Limbaugh.

What about Hillary Clinton. Does she look like me too?

Sure, all white people look alike, don't we?

And when I go to the store in a few minutes, and there's a pretty black girl there at the checkout counter, I'm totally gonna react worse somehow than I would if the unattractive white girl was there.

[dionysus]

158. yes, there is, it's a new way of saying "ghetto", but i think they misused it.

it's one of those new annoying words that don't make much sense, IMHO.

[MellowDem]

95. Racism...

Is a very specific idea and pseudoscience that divides humans into made up groups and ranks them.

The term is used much more broadly than it's definition, which I think leads to problems, in that people try to address racism when they're really addressing racial bigotry, which is a very different problem to tackle, and in a lot of ways, much tougher.

Racism, as a specific idea, can be attacked and even disproven, and has been. Racial bigotry on the other hand, is very tough. Bigotry isn't an idea or theory, it's a state of mind, one that all humans instinctively gravitate towards through pattern-seeking and stereotyping. And there's so many types of bigotry, racial bigotry is just one of many.

Racism, as an idea, was just one attempt to validate and justify one very specific brand of bigotry. We see this still today with other forms of bigotry and ideas that are trying to support and validate them. For example, the "science" that says homosexuals are mentally disordered, or the (plethora) of religions which say god is against it, even the Pope.

Which is to say this. If you want to oppose racial bigotry effectively, you have to oppose all bigotry. You can't pick and choose. It is all the same rationale. You can attack racial bigots all you want, but if you support another form of bigotry, those bigots will see you as a hypocrite, simply taking sides, and they'll be right.

From what I see, bigotry runs rampant in one form or another throughout the US, in every racial, ethnic, whatever group. It runs rampant in groups that are among the least privileged and the most oppressed as well as the most privileged groups. Some forms of bigotry have extreme privilege and cover, so that even self-proclaimed progressives will support bigots. Indeed, bigotry is so widespread, that it seems impossible not to have to throw your support behind some sort of bigotry or bigot in order to effect other change or priorities, or even oppose other bigotry.

An easy example is the Presidency. I voted for President Obama. President Obama, to win votes, took a bigoted position on gay marriage. I supported bigotry. Just the lesser of two evils sort, and the President made the same calculation, etc. Other bigots remind me of this, and they're right. It makes fighting bigotry awfully hard.

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. Some bigots have more power than others, but all are equally wrong. The sooner we call out ALL bigotry for what it is, the sooner bigotry, racial or otherwise, can actually seriously be addressed. We should have a zero tolerance policy for bigotry, but we don't, and it makes it impossible to fully address.

[KentuckyWoman]

96. Those pesky white people.

Between the gender wars and the racist wars and the media outrage of the day DU sure manages to keep occupied.

[cinnabonbon]

115. I'm genuinley saddened

that there are "wars" fought against feminism and racism here as it is. I don't see how obstructing the progress of these two movements will benefit anyone.

[Solly Mack]

99. K&R

[AgingAmerican]

100. There is no such thing as 'reverse racism'

Hatred or intolerance of other races = racism, in all cases, period.

[politicman]

101. raicsm is thinking that you deserve more simply because of the colour of your skin

Racism is when you or the state view people of different race as less equal than you. It is not limited to just white people, it can be practiced by any race in the world.

The problem is that in America, the white people have had 150+ years where they were able to institutionalize racism, and the effects of this still affect the way many white people view other races. This problem affects other countries depending on which race used to and currently holds the majority, which usually means the power.

Hopefully one day we get to a stage where we assess someone's worth not by the colour of their skin (which can never be changed), but by their actions (which can be assessed and improved on).

[cinnabonbon]

110. it goes even further than that.

When Americans came to the US, they were bringing harmful racial ideologies with them from England, who had been very busy taking over countries and making them colonies. The political reasoning England used to make these coups alright was that "the english (that is, the whites) were better than the ignorant POC, so by exploiting these countries they were doing them a favour (and getting rich on their backs in the process).

Because the US and large parts of Europe has been doing imperialism for so long, and transported their racism almost everywhere, you will find that it has festered very many other places in the world, too. Even in countries that were shielded from the worst of it (like Japan) you still get horribly racist stereotypes against black people.

[TBF]

117. It goes deeper -

in that in many areas of this world being white is an extreme economic advantage (this could of course be the case with other races as well, but in reality what we mostly see currently is white privilege) - so it is not just color of skin. It is discriminating against someone with a different color skin and keeping them at an economic disadvantage. Often when groups of folks do this, as with the example in the thread above me, it becomes systemic racism (not only are individuals discriminating, but also the system is discriminating).

It's pretty bad and requires not just individual change, but also change to the economic systems.

[cinnabonbon]

122. Very good explanation of the situation we have today.

[Starry Messenger]

124. +1000

[Nuclear Unicorn]

155. "someone with a different color skin and keeping them at an economic disadvantage."

So if a trade agreement allowed people of a different color to compete for -- what is to them -- higher paying jobs even if it lowers your own wage floor would that be good or bad?

[TBF]

156. I hear you and I've thought

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2014, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)

about this so much.

Ok, for me personally I left a small blue collar family (dad in a union) and made it professionally, so to speak. And then married someone at that level as well. So I have had the unique perspectives of both painting strike signs as a kid and sitting in the boardroom myself as an adult. Polar opposite experiences.

My perspective overall is that it would be nice if borders were open for people. Also I would like to see a resource based economy rather than monetary. So, my ideal would have us functioning in some sort of worldwide coop where we wouldn't need money and basic needs would be met.. Obviously, given reality, that scenario is not likely to happen in my lifetime.

My goal in advocating against TPP (yes, finally getting to the point) is that things have moved very quickly and people are hurting. We are moving into a post - industrial situation - particularly in some countries and there are growing pains. Moving the jobs faster doesn't help.

Now, if the leaders were genuinely concerned about the well being of ordinary folks worldwide and a sort of "leveling" were taking place would that be bad? My answer is no it would not - if they were doing it in an altruistic manner and everyone (including the billionaires) were subject to the leveling. But they are NOT doing it for that reason or in that manner. They are doing it because a certain group of capitalists (the very wealthiest) are doing it for the sole purpose of making themselves richer. That's immoral and disgusting in my book.

I hope I've been clear and I'd be happy to elaborate further if there are questions.

[7962]

133. Your point, any race can be racist, is something many forget. Or wont admit.

I've seen comments here on DU saying that blacks cannot be racist. Maybe they dont know the meaning of the word, but I've had it told to me.
I dont consider it "reverse racism"; racist is racist. And it does happen; its easy to find examples.

[athena]

139. Blacks can be racist against blacks

just as women can be sexist against women.

On the other hand, it's disingenuous to claim that anti-white attitudes among black people, or misandrist attitudes among women, are even remotely as harmful as racism by whites and sexism by men. What makes racism and sexism so damaging is that the entire social system has been racist and sexist for millennia. Most companies are owned by white men, so if a black woman who owns a company refuses to hire a white man because she is anti-white or anti-male, that white man can find employment elsewhere. If a man's female boss refuses to promote him, he can change jobs and work for a man who will promote him. Similarly, if a white man is treated rudely by a store clerk who happens to be a black woman who dislikes white men, that doesn't make the white man any more likely to be put in prison for drug use, or any less likely to get a good lawyer if he does happen to be charged with a crime. In other words, racism and sexism are only damaging because the powerful group yields power. When a black person is "racist" against a white person, or when a woman is "sexist" against a man, that's like statistical fluctuation: it's indistinguishable in its effects from a randomly nasty person or a random bully.

[7962]

146. You gotta be kidding me. So a white guy who's discriminated against should just go work elsewhere??

Thats what black people and women have been told for years. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who is doing it. So there are lots of black owned businesses around, a black man who gets passed over time and again should just go work for one of those companies, right?
When one race has the power, whether its government or private business, it doesnt matter what race that is; they should treat everyone equally.
Look up racism in the dictionary; the definition isnt race-specific. If you think it is, then you become part of the problem.
Unequal sentencing is a whole different problem which is finally being seriously looked at. I believe the Justice Dept has already made a ruling on "mandatory minimum" sentencing and will no longer pursue them on low level crimes.

[AgingAmerican]

134. This:

"Racism is a complex system of social and political levers and pulleys set up generations ago to continue working on the behalf of whites at other people’s expense, whether whites know/like it or not"

Is nonsense. So all white people are automatically racists? Really?

Your premise itself is racist.

[cinnabonbon]

135. Maybe I'm reading you wrong

Are you saying that this premise is racist against whites?

[AgingAmerican]

153. I'm saying it's racist period

If someone claims that the color of someones skin automatically makes them a racist, the claim itself is racist.

[cinnabonbon]

154. In this OP

we're referring to institutionalized racism when we say 'racism'. That leads to some problems when we try to say that it's racist against whites.

If we were to say that the post is racist against white people, we'd also have to ask: who is oppressing white people, in order for them to be hurt by racism? How is this post indicative of how white people are treated sub-human because of their skin?

You'd also have to prove where in the post it says that all white people are racist, as opposed to 'living in a racist system'.

To me, this post is very forgiving of white people with racist attitudes. It basically said that it isn't their fault if they say racist things without knowing it, because they grow up in a world where these attitudes are considered normal. It is basically saying that good people can say racist things, because to them they don't sound racist. The important part is trying to listen when POC tells you it hurts them. It's only if one chooses to stay willfully ignorant that it becomes a problem.

[AgingAmerican]

157. You have a very narrow definition of racism

I have a very wide definition. Racism doesn't necessarily have to be about hate. It can be about ignorance and prejudice.

You say, "white people see racism as conscious hate." You are saying that because of the color of their skin, they think a certain way. That is prejudicial. You are pre judging them based on skin color, guilt by association, which is also a logical fallacy.

You are also being hypocritical. You say that "white people see racism as conscious hate", yet you say that I, "have to prove where in the post it says that all white people are racist".

You are saying that I have to prove 'conscious hate' against white people. You have a double standard.

Any time I see something like, "All Asians think X" or "All blacks believe Y" or "All whites do X, Y and Z", I see racial stereotyping which is just a subtle form of racism.

[cinnabonbon]

159. Very wide.

Ignorance and prejudice are certainly things that white people can experience, and they can be very hurtful and unfair. But without that institutional racism to back that up, those things lack the same impact of what POC experience, because they experience prejudice with the added bonus of knowing that it's being done by the descendants of their masters, in the society they left. Do you see why that might feel threatening and uncomfortable?

The OP says "they see racism as conscious hate," because people do that. That is not a bad thing. It means "it's easy to see racism when people are yelling slurs and hurting others and being obvious about it." The OP then goes on to elaborate, explaining there are subtler sides of racism that are harder to see, and that white people may not catch. This is because white people are treated differently than other races, because they are considered the "standard" that other races are judged against. This is not always obvious if you've grown up with it. However, it does colour the way you (general you, just in case you thought I was singling you out) see and experience the world. It's the same as if I'd say "rich people don't know what poverty can do to a person." Generally they don't, because they live in two different worlds. That doesn't mean "all" rich people don't. Speaking of which:

Please tell me where in my post I said "all white people do---" this and I'll rectify it. As far as I was aware, it was written in a general sense to avoid just that. After all, saying "all people" do one thing is absurd.

Racism doesn't necessarily have to be about hate. It can be about ignorance and prejudice.

Yes! That is exactly what was written in the OP, if you reread it! I'm glad, because we agree on that. The only thing we disagree on is that white people face racism in a meaningful way.

As for me being hypocritical: no, sorry. No where in the OP does it say that "white people are racist", which was what I asked you to provide. That is a conclusion you are jumping to because you're not reading closely enough. I chose these two quotes because they both say that we all live in a racist system. That is different than saying a person is racist. A person can have racist ideas, of course, but it doesn't define a person the way you're indicating.

You are saying that I have to prove 'conscious hate' against white people. You have a double standard.

Why? That is the same standard I hold others to. There are hard data to support how black people have been treated by the government and hate groups. It's the same with how the Native Americans have been treated. There are many groups that have been singled out because of their skin. All I'm asking is some hard data to show how white people are negatively affected by (insert whoever are hating and oppressing them because of their skin colour) and that it's a structural and widespread problem here in the West.

It is certainly racial stereotyping to say that about "all of one race do x". However, one of these races have never been subjected to racism or subjugated in the same way other races have been, and basically saying that talking bluntly about racism is "racist against the white people" leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

[AgingAmerican]

160. You completely missed what I said

You are transfixed on the "racist against white people" thing. I have never said anything about "racist against white people", but you keep repeating it. I don't think you have to ability to understand what I'm talking about.

[cinnabonbon]

161. and you missed what I said, apparently.

This is what I based my response on:

So all white people are automatically racists? Really?

Your premise itself is racist.

To with I replied again and again that nooooo white people weren't automatically racist, BUT they live in a racist society. So does everyone else. And the premise? It involves racism, yes, but it is not racist. The day it is seen as "racist" to point a finger at those who have oppressed you, then you know we've fallen a long way as a society. Because when it comes down to it, to be able to decide what is racist or not isn't in the hands of those who historically have had all the power.

If you have anything to say about racism that isn't "but what about the white people?" I'm all ears.

[AgingAmerican]

163. You seem to believe that all racism is about 'white' people.

If I began an op with, "The problem is that black people do A, B and C" would that title be racist? Would it be stereotyping blacks? Yes, it would. Judging people, any people, because on their skin color is racism. Even if that isn't my conscious intent.

[cinnabonbon]

166. here, I'll ask you one more question and then we can part as friends.

when you wrote:

Your premise itself is racist.

Who is it racist against? Not POC, obviously. You said you never claimed that it was racist against white people, remember? I am honestly puzzled here. Who is left for the premise to be racist against?

Here is where I think you began to defend white people, instead of reading what the post was about: What the power structure of the world looks like to a POC, and how insidious the racism truly is in society. As good as your intentions were, it looked only like derailing to me.

When you think about it, none of what was said in the OP will harm white people. It wasn't even an insult. It was a comment on how they interact with us, one that took it for granted that they had a good moral compass. The fact that you took offense to it only because it said "white" people instead of "people" should make you pause. Do white people need to be defended? Are they helpless in the force of a bigger societal power because of their skin? Or are there certain groups that needs to be defended more, and listened to more, since they've been silenced for so long?

[noiretextatique]

167. what country did this person grow up in?

really...i have to wonder HOW anyone in america can be so clueless. i grew up in a country where my generation...I am 55 years old...was THE FIRST generation of african-americans to have the full rights of citizenship in this country....THE FIRST. how is it even possible that conversations like the above can even take place in this country?!? american, and americans, have never take responsibility for slavery, jim crow, racism, discrimination, etc. it has never been (but it has always been) an AMERICAN problem...it is viewed as a "black" problem or a "mexican" problem...never an american creation that served to benefit the white and monied most. and that's what it was...and is....period.

[cinnabonbon]

169. To be honest

I think it would be a huge step forward if white people would simply admit that yes, they benefit from this and they see how twisted it was to do so to fellow Americans. It would make conversation easier. I am younger than you, so I think I take some things for granted that the previous generation didn't. I'd love to hear more about what it was like to be the first generation, if you ever wanna chat.

But yes! to your second paragraph.

[ananda]

168. Agree.

Racism in America is systemwide and institutionalized.