In America, do we need the approval of white people to conclude that something is racist?

[CreekDog]

Racist against minorities?

As a white person, I'm just wondering about that.

[Rex]

1. Does racism apply to all people or just some?

And what do you mean by approval?

[TheDebbieDee]

34. I think the OP means agreement. Do victims of racism need racists to agree that racism has

Occurred in order to call an activity or practice a racist one.

And the answer is no. I dont need a white person to admit that something is racist for me to know that something is racist.

[randys1]

2. Approval of white people?

LOL

the last person I would go to if I wanted the best Hi Def TV on the market would be a car salesman

[JaneyVee]

3. Uh oh, what did you do?

[alp227]

4. It's called opening your mind and THINKING and LISTENING

instead of jumping to conclusions.

[CreekDog]

7. what?

[alp227]

8. why seek permission from white people to call something racist?

instead of thinking objectively?

[CreekDog]

9. facepalm

[alp227]

10. So what's your argument here? nt

[Lee-Lee]

5. We pretty much need permission of white people to do anything

That's how an inherently racist society works.

[redgreenandblue]

6. No. We need objectively verifiable criteria.

The presence or absence of racism is not something that is "up to someone". It is either true or not true, based on a set of definitions which are obvious to everyone.

[Igel]

11. Not how it often works.

Two people can say the same thing and one's racist and one's not. How do you know? "We just know."

Once there was a bit of a scuffle on DU because a (D) politician said something that was pretty much the same as an (R) said. The (R) was racist, the (D) wasn't. Why? Because (R) are racist and (D) aren't.

Then there's all the "dog whistle" stuff. Sometimes it's veiled language. Sometimes it's not, but it's convenient and self-serving to interpret it as veiled racist language. And if you say, "Uh, do you have proof?" the response is taking offense and sometimes suggesting that you, too, are racist. If you don't notice it, you're not enlightened enough or ... something.

SCOTUS and Congress ditched "objectively verifiable criteria." All that matters for some purposes is disparate impact. If it affects a member of a protected minority more than it affects whites or the population as a whole, it's racist. Oddly, in the fight over amnesty and revising immigration legislation, this rule would say that amnesty would be racist because it has a disparate impact on Latinos. Only negative things fall under this rule, however. It's not a reasonable rule; neither is it unreasonable, since the reason for the rule is so much racism is unverifiable, the result of discussions behind closed doors and within closed minds with no witnesses or paper trail. Least horrible out of bad options, but that doesn't make it good or unreasonable.

[redgreenandblue]

13. hmm. a lot to think about.

human relations are complicated...

[tritsofme]

20. If I recall, disparate impact has never been tested by the Supreme Court

The doctrine would definitely be threatened by the Roberts Court.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. You would think racism would be obvious to everyone.

Yet, some of the most hatefully bigoted people I know are fully blind to racism, especially their own; woefully and absolutely unaware.

[AverageJoe90]

12. I will say this: It *requires* ALL OF US, as a community.

And yes, it does include "white" folks as well as everyone else. Ideally, no one group should outright dominate; cooperation is the key. That is how we build consensus. And that's how we make progress.

[Squinch]

14. Ugh.

[kwassa]

21. How clueless and self-centered.

little surprise, here.

This statement denies the real life experience of African-Americans if it does not comply with the experience of AverageJoe90.

I say this after listening to him for a very long time.

[Starry Messenger]

23. One group (white people) already dominates. That is the problem.

[AverageJoe90]

32. Well, not quite entirely, TBH. It gets complicated.

Of course, maybe four or five years ago, I'd have wholehearted agreed with that, but in all honesty, I've since learned that the reality is rather more nuanced than that.

And, unfortunately, speaking some sections of the activist left in particular, like in areas of the social justice circuit, for example, it's individuals(do note the key word, btw) like Mikki Kendall, Suey Park, etc.(e.g. the "all white people have literal privilege/POC can't be racist/#SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen" crowd), who often end up being overly dominating in the conversation and don't bother to give those who may disagree with them, a real chance to offer their views. And, sadly, this has also happened on DU from time to time as well.

My point is, individual groups and/or cliques can be quite guilty of being domineering, regardless of the ethnic backgrounds of the leaders and their followers, and no matter if they're small or large in size. And that needs to be called out no matter who's at fault(and to be fair, sometimes, Social Justice issues don't always get the attention it deserves by the mainstream, that is true).

And, arguably, it can be plausibly argued that the activist side of the environmentalist movement has had it's own problems as well, particularly where media is concerned; it's not terribly hard to find doomers trying to control the narrative, selling this line of "OMG, we're all irrevocably fucked, prepare for Doomsday, prepare for the permanent decline of humanity, etc.), if you know where to look.

[Starry Messenger]

37. No, it isn't complicated, TBH.

"Social justice circuit", really? Mikki Kendall is awesome, if she got into your chops over racism, that just serves to propel her even higher in my estimation, TBH.

[AverageJoe90]

39. Well, alright. You have your opinion, and I have mine, I suppose.

So I'll end it on a positive note. Hit me up thru DUMail, if you'd like to discuss this further sometime.

[CreekDog]

38. so racism went away mostly, four or five years ago?

let's be clear that the threshold for racism having happened is far lower than the threshold you have for believing it happened.

[AverageJoe90]

41. "so racism went away mostly, four or five years ago?" Not what I said. Or implied.

let's be clear that the threshold for racism having happened is far lower than the threshold you have for believing it happened.

Maybe(and yes, I do realize that racism and prejudice aren't necessarily the exact same thing), but this person's hatred was pretty obvious, sad to say. Of course, it's possible that she may not even realize that she has a bigotry problem.....that kind of thing is kinda rare these days, but it does happen.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Personally, I don't need anyone's "approval" to decide whether or not something is racist.

And I would venture to suggest that most DUers are quite capable of making up their own minds.

[CreekDog]

17. you mean where white DUers tell nonwhite DUers that things aren't racist?

that seems to happen quite often.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Most of the time I don't even know what race DUers are.

But I was actually referring to all DUers, whatever their race.

Try not to worry so much about the "approval of white people".

[AverageJoe90]

26. Good point.

Which makes it pointless if on goes too far to please just a few individuals.

[Enrique]

18. you can conclude anything you want to be racist

your conclusion may or may not have any basis.

[msanthrope]

22. Apparently on this site, we do. Check out this exchange, where

I asked the person to consider that Ted Rall's drawing President Obama like an ape might be problematic. I mean....Kos did ban him for racism.

I asked the person if they would consider asking the AA group here....but NOOOOOO.....If he didn't think it was racist, then it definitely wasn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5348841

[CreekDog]

25. ugh

[msanthrope]

27. Does it not illustrate your point, perfectly? And I like those threads very much, but for

the Ted Rall postings!

[CreekDog]

31. I think it's an example of what I'm talking about

though I find the logic behind n2docs defense to be bizarre.

that poster basically says that they don't think it's racist because the criticism is valid.

well, no, a criticism in the cartoon could be accurate and the cartoon still be racist in its depiction.

but those kind of logical errors are maddeningly common here.

[msanthrope]

36. That's exactly what floored me. Ted Rall draws the President like an ape, but this is

acceptable because the person like what Ted Rall is saying.

[CreekDog]

40. it should floor you

it's like calling him the n-word because one disagrees with one of his policies and then saying, it's not racist to call him that because the policies are wrong.

well, no.

[AverageJoe90]

43. Not a fan of Ted Rall(huge "white privilege" guy for one), but it would seem that.....

that was a honest mistake, if a rather unfortunate one, rather than any hidden racism on his part.

[yorgatron]

24. white people need to hear other white people call out racism.

Otherwise it seems like tacit approval.

[orpupilofnature57]

30. +1000 !!!!

[AverageJoe90]

35. More than that, we need to call out racism and other prejudices, no matter whom it comes from.

If I see that, say, a black person, or a Palestinian, or a Qatari, etc. acting in a prejudiced, or even racist, manner towards a "white" person, or a Chicano/a, etc. will I call that person out? You bet. Would I also do the same thing if it was in the reverse? FUCK YEAH.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. As white people WE need to identify WHITE racists, otherwise

we are speaking outside our experience. The subject of the racism isn't as important as curing our own race being there is and has been for ALL of anybody involved in this conversations lifetime, WHITE peoples racism that has done the most harm .

[Iggo]

33. Nah. They just think we do.

[AverageJoe90]

42. And, sadly, there's a few out there who think vice-versa.

Which isn't cool in either case.