next »

[smart_e_pantz]

So my meth-addicted white trash former neighbor, with his white-pride prison tattoos, his swastika flag in his window, and his doberman "that likes everyone except n*ggers" was not a racist? Because I thought he was.

Technically he was a bigot not a racist.

[ablewasi]

So my meth-addicted white trash former neighbor, with his white-pride prison tattoos, his swastika flag in his window, and his doberman "that likes everyone except n*ggers" was not a racist? Because I thought he was.

Technically he was a bigot not a racist.

I was in a liquor store last week.  The fellow in line before me (African American) was paying for his purchase with a few bills and a lot of change.  When I got to the counter, the clerk (Hispanic) made a comment about "those people" not being able to manage money.  I left my bottle on the counter and went home.

I thought he was a racist.

Now I understand he was just a bigot.

Crap!


!a

[larryc]

No, he was a racist.

Smarty, you are insisting on a definition not in general use and in fact contradictory to what virtually everyone understands the word to mean. This is silly and the kind of thing that marginalizes academic discourse. Merriam-Webster defines racism thusly:

  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 

Insisting on some alternate definition just muddies the water and minimizes bad behavior when it is practiced by people of color (and apparently meth-heads). I cannot see the point of redefining the word.

[sockgumbee]

Wow Usually Silent, you did have a diverse school experience

here's my run down
I've put as much as I know about the identity of each person that might count toward diversity

Undergrad
male-Euro-American-gay partnered: Adviser
3 male-Euro-American, 2 married
5 female-Euro-American, 4 married
1 female-African-American, married

people i worked with
male-Euro-American, married
male-Irish-American, married

Master's
lots of diversity in the students, not so much in the professors
female-Irish, lapsed catholic gay 1st adviser
female-Euro-American gay 2nd adviser
female-Jewish-American, nonreligious 3rd adviser
(yes I had three different advisers during my Masters and still finished in 2 years)
male-Euro-American thesis 2nd reader
male-Scottish-American I think
female-Latina-American--forgot her specific heritage, Carribean though
female-Jewish-American, non religious
male, Euro-American, married to a Chicana, knows Spanish fluently
male, Latino-naturalized from South America-Chile I think
male, Italian-naturalized from Italy
The last two were for classes out of my department, because when I was there with the exception of an naturalized African guy, who came in while I was working on the thesis everyone else was Euro and/or Jewish American. The department is a bit more diverse now.

PhD
Again lots of diversity in the students, less so in the professors
Committee
3 female, Euro-American, 1 married, 1 1st generation college
1 female, Chicana, outside reader, gay, 1st generation college

3 male, Euro-American, 2 married, 1 gay
3 female, Euro-American, 1 Southern, gay, 1st generation college; 1 Irish?
1 female, Italian-American, married
1 female, Jewish-Ameican nonreligious, gay
1 male, Scandanavian-American, married

There was a class i wanted to take with a Latino guy but the timing never worked out. But then there was also a class with a Euro-American female and a ditto male, but neither work out either.

I probably forgot a few people. I also have kept in touch with a few of my professors, particularly my doctoral adviser who is a wonderful person.

I still don't understand how you think I made an assumption about your gender. If you mean the piece you quoted about "both my ethnic group and gender would be too much to ask for" referred to me--that the most I could hope for would be someone from my ethnic group. More than that would be too much to ask for.

[sockgumbee]

No, he was a racist.

Smarty, you are insisting on a definition not in general use and in fact contradictory to what virtually everyone understands the word to mean. This is silly and the kind of thing that marginalizes academic discourse. Merriam-Webster defines racism thusly:

  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 

Insisting on some alternate definition just muddies the water and minimizes bad behavior when it is practiced by people of color (and apparently meth-heads). I cannot see the point of redefining the word.

There is a push in some circles to distinish between bigotry and racism in that racism is more systematic and in the hands of people who have power to make systematic change. Bigotry generally refers to individual actions where-as racism is much more likely to be refer to the actions of a group/agency etc.

From Merriman's as well
bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I'd say that bigot as defined here does apply to both the neighbor and the clerk. When they get together with their friends and make plans to burn crosses and/or not serve certain customers, then they move into racism.

[larryc]

My understanding of the new proposed definition is that it could apply only to the dominant racial group. Is that also part of the idea, or am I mistaken?

[beacon1]

No, he was a racist.

Smarty, you are insisting on a definition not in general use and in fact contradictory to what virtually everyone understands the word to mean. This is silly and the kind of thing that marginalizes academic discourse. Merriam-Webster defines racism thusly:

  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 

Insisting on some alternate definition just muddies the water and minimizes bad behavior when it is practiced by people of color (and apparently meth-heads). I cannot see the point of redefining the word.

There is a push in some circles to distinish between bigotry and racism in that racism is more systematic and in the hands of people who have power to make systematic change. Bigotry generally refers to individual actions where-as racism is much more likely to be refer to the actions of a group/agency etc.

From Merriman's as well
bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I'd say that bigot as defined here does apply to both the neighbor and the clerk. When they get together with their friends and make plans to burn crosses and/or not serve certain customers, then they move into racism.

I think it is important to know that "groups" do not make decisions, only "individuals". IMO it is fair to say racism is wide spread, but really unfair to say all of a particular group make the decision to be racist (systemic). It is this kind of logic that has always been behind history's atrocities.

Common sense tells us that only individuals have brains, and thus an ability to make choices.

[polly_mer]

My understanding of the new proposed definition is that it could apply only to the dominant racial group. Is that also part of the idea, or am I mistaken?

Does this definition mean that I cannot be a racist where I currently live, but, if I move back to the town where I was born, I could magically become a racist?  Not that I want to be a racist or consider myself a racist, but I am not a member of the dominant racial group in my current locale.

[sad_goat]

Polly-

Yes, that is what it means. But right now, only in a racial or cultural sense. Soon, those with too much back hair will be the minority and no one will be able to suggest that they are folicalists, because they aren't part of the dominant shaving culture.

This whole argument is stupid, as is group politics. Will someone please post MLK's "Dream" speech again? Please?

[sockgumbee]

Recently I've been talking with people who are international/interracial adoptees. We're all part of a group of adults of various ethnic backgrounds, most of who are white, discussing how to 'undo racism'. So white families raised these adoptees, and these individuals love their adopted families. Yet as young kids they would see people who looked like them and point them out. At some point when they were old enough their family told them of their origins etc. Yet, within their community growing up they were treated as a white person, since they were in a white family. However when they went out in the world they encountered discrimination/racism because of how they looked. I suppose their family figured if they were 'raised white' their child would never face racial discrimination. The family chose to create a color blind world. Yet the adoptees didn't have a vocabulary to talk about their unpleasant experiences since the white family members never had to deal with that kind of discrimination they probably never discussed it. I bring this up because in my family we have always had conversation about racism/discrimination/bigotry because it's part of the experiences we had and have as a person in the world--and also so we would not discriminate against others. Some of the white group members say that their family members freak out when they try to talk about diversity/racism. And since white folks are more likely NOT to have faced discrimination/racism as a day to day occurence so they don't talk about it, they are, in my varied experience, much more likely to freak out when the subject comes up. So this is at least one reason why trying to make believe that we're all the same or basically have the same experiences as US citizens or that we all suffer in similar ways is bogus.

Regarding racism as a concept: any group that is dominant, which does not necessarily mean more numerous, who create systems of discrimination, and worse, is racist. If you are trying to make me say I must mean that white people create racism, I think for the most part in the US this is true, but not always. However in other parts of the world it's easier to racism operative in situations with peoples who are similar: the Turks against the Armenians, or Hutus against the Tutsis in Rwanda are two extreme examples. Oh, okey, here's a good US non-white example, if you keep up with the news in Indian country you'd know that last Spring the Western Band of Cherokee voted on whether or not Freemen should continue to be considered tribal members. Freemen are the descendants of former enslaved African-Americans who may, or not, have Cherokee blood, who were given tribal membership in a 1866 treaty. In any case the Cherokee tribal members voted against the Freemen, so the Freemen are no longer tribal members. Based on our discussion here this denial of membership is racist. I've talked to other Indians who think it's racist. I think it's racist. There are Freemen who are fighting this legally. I couldn't easily find any recent news reports and the history of this is pretty complex.

Still to look at layers, systemic racism continues to affect the Western Band of Cherokee. So you can have the victim in one case be a victimizer in another, at the same time. Enough fun for everyone.

Still I have to ask you, Sad Goat, who has a history of not answering questions, if the conversation is so stupid, why do you continue to be a part of it?

And on a larger note, I'd like to up the ante. I've taken a lot of time to write clear posts on my position with some evidence and examples. I'd like to see some evidence from people who disagree with me, beyound your singular individual experience. Show me some evidence that most white people don't feel uncomfortable when they are forced to discuss diversity and racism or as one of the white members of the 'undoing racism' group mentioned, see it as an attack on them. Or show me some statistics that color blind hiring is fair to everyone or maybe more importantly that being color blind is possible. I promise to respond in kind. Let's make this a real academic discussion.