Racism: A Refresher Course

[Pamela Troy]

Racism: A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

One of the best public service ads on racism that I’ve ever seen aired some time in the 1970s. It showed a man, white, well groomed and in a business suit, explaining with a plausible smile and the diction of a college graduate how really, he’s not prejudiced, but well, you know, people are just different. I can’t remember the exact script, but as I recall the smiling man said something to the effect that it’s not that he objected to them moving into the neighborhood or working in his office. But come on, let’s face it, differences in education can mean differences in behavior, and often these people just don’t understand what’s required…

The ad then faded to a boy of about ten or eleven, plainly meant to be this guy’s son. He was talking too, and smiling, but with the sly glee of a child who believes he’s been given permission to hate. “…They expect the government to take care of them, and they lay around drinking all day, throwing garbage all over the place. And then they say they want to be your friend…”

What’s striking about this old ad for a twenty-first century viewer is that it assumes its audience was sophisticated enough to shudder at the thought of their children repeating what the boy in the commercial was naively spouting.

Times have changed. More and more I’m hearing, not just the racism-wrapped-in-euphemism of the man in that ad, but the more unvarnished version offered by the boy. I’m hearing that kid’s riff not from children, but from adults who proudly cite their presumed wisdom and experience, not from semi-literate souls in trailer parks but from supposedly educated people. It’s as if that boy grew up and acquired his father’s veneer of adulthood, but not his ability to soft-pedal his racism.

A typical example that recently attracted attention online via Glenn Greenwald, is from a contributor to a blog called Instapunk.

…I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it?... I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees…. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you…

… There ARE niggers. Black people know it. White people know it. …
I'm not proposing the generalized use of the term, just trying to be clear for once, in the wake of Obama's call for us to have a dialogue about race….black people will know what I mean when I demand they concede that the following people are niggers:

- Jeremiah Wright
- O.J. Simpson
- Marion Barry
- Alan Iverson
- William Jefferson
- Louis Farrakhan
- Mike Tyson

You know what I mean. They hold you back. They're dirty, violent, and stupid…Here's the biggest thing we "racists" notice. Every single immigrant group that ever came to America -- including the Chinese who came as railroad slaves -- has risen out of poverty and want to prosperity and respect. The Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Jews, the Koreans, the Vietnamese. Every group but you…

The man who wrote this describes himself as an “old guy,” but I can’t think of a better example of schoolyard nastiness than to take Barack Obama’s call for an honest dialogue on race as license to scream “nigger” at African Americans. And there are few more insulting and arrogant than to demand that, as some twisted gesture of goodwill, African Americans join in with you in calling fellow African Americans “niggers.”

A lot of people these days, online and off, apparently don’t have a clue about what “racism” entails. They have the vague idea that it is undesirable to be called a “racist,” but they truly don’t seem to realize that the term “racism” describes what they are embracing.

It does. What follows is a sort of refresher course aimed, not just at the “old guy” who posted the garbage on Instapunk, but various online bloggers and posters who, over the years, have offered the same arguments, over and over again, during discussions about racism:

1. First of all, you folks need to get over the notion that everybody is like you. Don’t tell us what we “know” or what we “feel.” Not all of us are constantly biting back the “N” word. When I hear the word “nigger,” I can honestly say that I don’t think of an African American. I don’t even think of a young African American man in a big t-shirt, low-belted jeans, driving a Honda and listening to rap music. When I hear or read the word “nigger,” I think of a white bigot saying it.

2. The fact that some predominantly black neighborhoods are dangerous places does not mean that white people are as victimized by racism as black people are. Everybody, white and black, is afraid of being mugged or murdered. The difference is that a law-abiding, nervous white person walking through a black neighborhood at night is likely to be relieved at the sight of a police car. A law-abiding, nervous black person walking through a white neighborhood might not be relieved at all (especially in the south.) The white menacing figure for many black Americans has all too often worn the uniform of a policeman or a sheriff.

3. The word “racism” describes a certain set of beliefs. It does not describe your diction, your clothing, or even whether or not you are civil to your black acquaintances. If you believe that people of African descent are, as a group, inherently lazier/less intelligent/ more violent than people of European descent, yes, you are a racist. It’s absurd to object to being called a “racist” after defending The Bell Curve’s premise that African Americans have a significant and unchangeable intellectual deficit when compared to white Americans. It’s like advocating that all private property be confiscated and handed over to the community and then objecting to being called a communist.

4. If you sincerely believe that people of African descent are, as a group, inherently lazier, less intelligent, and more prone to violence than people of European descent, yes, you are still a racist. You remain a racist no matter how earnestly you explain it, how much sorrow and regret you mime about being forced to utter this awful “truth,” how firmly rooted in first-hand experience you imagine your opinion to be. I’ve yet to see anything in any dictionary definition of racism that excludes sincerity from its meaning.

5. If you believe that people of African descent are, as a group, inherently lazier, less intelligent, and more prone to violence than people of European descent, and you cite all kinds of scientific charts, research, and measurements to back up your claim yes, you are still a racist, as were the many Nazis who cited all kinds of scientific charts, research, and measurements to back up Party claims about the inferiority of Jews. Claiming that there is scientific and/or statistical evidence for your racism does not make it any less racism.

6. If you have black friends, or black acquaintances whom you consider exceptions to the rule of people of African descent being inherently lazier/less intelligent/more prone to violence than people of European descent, yes, you are still a racist. You are a racist because you consider them “exceptions.”

7. If you believe that people of African descent are, as a group, inherently lazier/less intelligent/ more prone to violence than people of European descent, and you recently found out your great-great-granddad might have been a Cherokee and you are now going around describing yourself as “non-white” during online conversations about race, yes, you are still a racist. The belief that black Americans are inherently less competent than white Americans makes you a racist, whether you’re a Native American who grew up on a reservation or someone who may have some Native American ancestors several generations back.

8. And finally, here’s a tip. It has to do with punctuation, so it may seem a bit picayune, but it’s important.

If the word “nigger” keeps rising unbidden into your consciousness when you see young black men in big t-shirts and low belted jeans, or hear rap music, if your hatred for them is such that you want to hit them, if you describe black men you dislike as “dirty, violent, and stupid,” whether those adjectives apply or not, and if you strongly imply that African Americans are somehow uniquely incompetent when compared to other ethnic groups who came here, you are not a “racist.”

You are a racist.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. So, you think you have this perfect weapon to wield ... define racism

and whack! Everyone wants to rule the world.

Well, if you spend some time watching Brooklyn's public access channel, you'll know that racism goes both ways across the black/white divide. In fact, if you work in the black community, they're going to have to deal with their prejudices ... funniest thing, but there I was.

So, I don't mind my tribal awareness ... we make lousy rulers, btw, but in my lifetime, we've overcome generations of subjugation. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone else could too ... so why don't we work together, hmmmm?

I can't tell you how many Jewish activists felt betrayed by the black power movement. But hey ... we're rewriting history too.

[Indenturedebtor]

3. And yes it does go both ways

For there to be any kind of healing/development on this front, such has to be recognized.

I was targeted and victimized (mugged, jumped, shot at) because of my skin color in my youth (I'm white). It took me a long time to get over my racism that resulted. My parents didn't fill my head with racist crap I "picked it up" from personal experiences.

Racism isn't ok no matter where it comes from. Period. I don't care about chicken or egg.

[Pamela Troy]

6. If your experience being "targeted victimized" because of your skin color

inflicted you with racism that it took you a long time to get over, consider for a moment how people of Reverent Wright's generation feel after decades of being targeted in a similar way -- not by criminals, but quite frequently by whites wearing police or sheriff's uniforms.

Where do I say, anywhere in my piece, that racism is okay?

[NOLALady]

39. Would you feel racial hatred towards whites

if you were mugged, shot at by a white person?

Would you hate all white people or would you think the mugger was an a..hole which had nothing to do with his race?

[Two Americas]

53. "reverse racism"

The concept of "reverse racism" is an invention of reactionary right wing think tanks, and is an illogical and destructive idea.

Racism is not a matter of individuals liking or not liking other individuals, and "reverse racism" promotes that definition of racism. That is a way to avoid facing and discussing institutional racism and to weaken and neuter the concept to make whites comfortable. The belief in "reverse racism" promotes and defends racism.

"I do not care whether or not a person likes me, so long as they do not have the power to harm me."

Once the concept of "reverse racism" in introduced into the discussion, we can no longer talk about systematic and institutional racism, and the real harm done to real human beings in measurable and objective ways by racism. At that point, we may as well not talk about racism - or politics - at all.

Slave owners "liked" many of their slaves "even though they were Black." So what? Slaves resenting and rebelling against being enslaved was not "reverse slavery," yet that is precisely the same logic as "reverse racism."

[NobodyInParticular]

89. Immune to being racist?

I believe it is impossible to put racism in reverse. It is an "ism" that is entirely aggressive. Is it possible for any racial or ethnic group to be immune to racism?

Is it impossible for an underdog ever to be racist? Or must he/she wait until he/she is in a position of superiority?

[Two Americas]

90. it is not individual

Racism is not about personal individual feelings.

An underdog by definition cannot be the one in power.

Discussions about racism in theoretical and hypothetical ways just avoid the subject.

Welcome to DU.

[NobodyInParticular]

93. Objection to an accusation of "just avoiding the subject"

Difficult to imagine anyone being racist without "personal individual feelings."


An underdog becomes an "overdog" through metamorphosis resulting from changes in time and circumstance.


To clarify, the second question is "Is it possible for a member of an oppressed group victimized by racism to become racist once he/she assumes a position of power?" (One may answer or avoid answering this question through the use of a politician's typical response to an uncomfortable question: If he/she does not like a question, he/she will talk about something else.")


The objection "Discussions about racism in theoretical and hypothetical ways just avoid the subject" is itself a theoretical statement. Therefor, if theoretical statements are invalid per se, they cannot be negated by another theoretical statement.

Philosophically yours,

N I P

[Two Americas]

98. I suppose

It is difficult to imagine anything that individuals don't have feelings about. So what? That doesn't mean that gravity depends upon how an individual feels about it.

You say that when an underdog is no longer an underdog then they are no longer an underdog. True enough, but again so what?

Your "to clarify" remarks further confused me. "Is it possible for a member of an oppressed group victimized by racism to become racist once he/she assumes a position of power?"

No. Racism is not an individual choice.

"The objection 'Discussions about racism in theoretical and hypothetical ways just avoid the subject' is itself a theoretical statement. Therefor, if theoretical statements are invalid per se, they cannot be negated by another theoretical statement."

Huh? Who said that theoretical statements are invalid per se? Not I.

I guess I don't know what you are talking about. Why not forget "philosophy" and just state your opinion on this subject in plain language?

[treestar]

95. But if you pre-judge someone due to their white skin color

that's got to be racism. Doesn't the Golden Rule apply here?

[Two Americas]

104. no

While racism includes prejudice, not all prejudice is racism.

Reducing racism to merely a matter of an individual being prejudiced trivializes it to the point that there is nothing very interesting to say about it.

I have watched liberalism be transformed over the last 30 years in two major ways. First, it has been personalized and become mostly a matter of self-improvement and self-actualization, with people focusing on their "personal values" and "personal choices," which have little if anything to do with politics, and which also is congruent with and advances the persistent right wong propaganda about individualism and "personal responsibility." Secondly, it has been dumbed down to a simplistic child-like level.

By stripping any consideration of power and economics out of the discussion, it becomes about as powerful and interesting as debating about our personal preferences in ice cream flavors.

[treestar]

96. Delete Dupe

[Two Americas]

92. 500 years

Get back to me in 500 years, after white people have been systematically abused, exploited, enslaved, raped, murdered and terrorized for a few centuries.

Then we can talk about "it going both ways."

Period.

[Pamela Troy]

4. Nope. I think "racism" has a meaning. I'm not the one defining it.

It was defined by dictionaries well before I was born.

Sure, there are black Americans who are racists. So what? How does that alter any of the points I've made here?

[Matariki]

46. I wish the terms we used weren't 'black' & 'white'

The language itself maintains a polarity and opposition.

[uppityperson]

48. "us" vs "you folks". Shades along a line, not us vs you.

[BoneDaddy]

60. Fredda

shame on you. Don't you know racism only occurs in white people? (sarcasm). Some of the most tribal, racist, homophobic and misogynist behavior I have witnessed have been from people of color. But it takes effort to look at oneself and one's tribe and I simply do not see it being done. Much more energy is spent looking outward and finding fault and blame outside than inside.

[Pamela Troy]

64. Well, this thread certain IS revealing.

Why are white Americans so reluctant to face the facts about racism in this country?

I really wonder if many of you folks have actually read the piece. I'm not getting much indication of it here. Just a lot of generalized carping, rather than any actual addressing of points.

[BoneDaddy]

117. Who says I am not acknowledging racism among whites?

I am quite aware of the phenomena. What is NEVER discussed is the racism or prejudice among people from disenfranchised groups. Not only is it not talked about, it is often justified by many in here. Women can disparage men, gay people can make "breeder" jokes, people of color can globalize all white people, the poor feel justified in judging anyone with money. This simplistic, black/white view is immature, shows not depth of thought and is very inaccurate.

[Indenturedebtor]

2. Thank you

Great post!

Kickety.

[papau]

5. Clinton supporters tend to be seniors - the 60's crowd that ended Jim Crow and took a few hits

doing so - MLK and African Americans led - but we were there.

If we don't support Obama we are racist?

What arrogant piece you are to try to lecture us, to "teach" us, about racism.

But indeed Obama played the race card via pretending Hillary supporters comments were "insensitive" or Bill Clinton was racist - and it obviously has worked with you.

[Pamela Troy]

8. Kindly point out exactly where in the world I said

that "if we don't support Obama we are racist."

And by the way -- while I'm an Obama supporter, I have also been a defender of Hillary Clinton here.

I really would appreciate it if people would take the trouble to READ pieces before commenting on them.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. I don't see anywhere in the post

that failure to support Obama is racist. The impetus for the post was a RW web site screed on race.

I am mystified as to why you are making this a Clinton-Obama issue.

[Xenotime]

7. This is a very offensive post. I am shocked to see something like this on DU

[Pamela Troy]

9. How is it offensive? Please be specific.

[avenger64]

11. Ditto...

..n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Tell me you forgot your

"sarcasm" tag.

[Zywiec]

10. "When I hear or read the word “nigger,” I think of a white bigot saying it."

What if it's actually a black person saying it, do you still think of a white bigot?

I guess I judge how it's being used in each case rather than always thinking one way.

[Kelvin Mace]

14. Context is everything

but I understand what she is saying.

[Pamela Troy]

16. No.

As someone else has already pointed out, context is everything, as convenient as it may be to ignore it.

[lukasahero]

118. I thought that was the best line in the OP

And it's EXACTLY what I think of when I hear the word regardless of who's saying it.

If my understanding of young black men using the word is correct, it was partially a means of taking white power away from the word - much like how some women claim the word bitch. These young men didn't invent the word. They didn't create the history of the word. The word was the possession, the invention of white bigots and, in my mind, will always refect such regardless of who uses it.

FYI - I'm white.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. Excellent post

You touch on many, many things I hear in conversations every day.

[OhioBlue]

17. Thank you Pamela

this is a very important post.

[TahitiNut]

18. I strongly suspect that we can't cure "racism" as long as we persist thinking in terms of race.

Catch-22

Einstein once said something about not being able to solve a problem until we break loose of the paradigms under which that problem arose. There's a lot to be said about that.

I can only find an acceptable ethical direction in relying upon Kant's Categorical Imperative.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"

"Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends."

[Pamela Troy]

20. Racism can no more be "cured" than can avarice, lust, or other vices.

It's effects can only be reduced.

Pretending that society does not treat people of different races differently is not the way to reduce racism's effect.

[uppityperson]

24. Pshaw. Do you want to reduce racism or its effect?

Educating people and working towards treating people as people regardless of color, size, sex, etc can go a long way towards reducing racism (and other "isms"), rather than simply reducing racism's effect.

(edited for misplaced punctuation)

[Pamela Troy]

28. Its effect. It is highly unlikely that we can go into the hearts of people

who are already racist and reduce their racism. We CAN, however, through education, reduce the level of racism in new generations.

[uppityperson]

31. So you do want to reduce racism, not just its effects.

Good.

[spoony]

94. Solid OP but I have to disagree with you on this point

Hard and even stubborn hearts can be reached and be changed. We shouldn't give up on that.

[TahitiNut]

43. “You cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that caused the problem.” (Einstein)

:shrug:

[Pamela Troy]

49. Nor can a problem be solved by denying its essential elements.

[Two Americas]

52. disagree

Racism is an entirely artifical concept, and would have no power were it not used to exploit people economically. It is not natural or inherent, has no biological basis - it does not exist at all in any real way outside of a specific social context - and that social context is founded on assumptions that are very much delusional and unnatural.

There is no justification whatsoever for thinking that racism will always be with us.

[Pamela Troy]

68. No justification?

Other than human history?

[Two Americas]

82. right

Human history does not justify the idea that racism will always be with us. That is what I am saying.

Some people do use a particular interpretation of history in order to justify racism, yes.

If by racism you mean "some individuals not liking other individuals because they are different" then yes, of course, that has always gone on and perhaps always will.

But the idea that to overcome racism we must first change human nature so that everybody likes everybody else is an idea that defends and promotes racism by rendering the meaning of the word useless and by reinforcing the idea that we are relatively helpless in confronting the problem.

We would never say that illiteracy is "human nature" and that we can never "cure" it and that history justifies that view. We would not say that about cruelty to animals. We can easily imagine a literate world and a world free of cruelty to animals, no matter what happened in history.

That means that it is the will to tackle problems that is the determining factor in overcoming problems, not “human nature.” Calling something “human nature” is a way to undermine the will to confront problems.

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. If it were inherently incurable, society would look much different today.

There is a great deal of improvement required in our various cultures, but there has been a great deal of progress in just my lifetime.

I can remember when it was a BIG DEAL that an african american was cast as a bridge officer on the Enterprise. I can remember when the episode in which she kissed Capt Kirk was A HUGE DEAL.

Is everything hunky dory? No. Is it better? Yes. This suggests that racism is curable.

Stereotype -> bias -> bigotry -> racism. Stereotype and bias may not be curable. In fact, it may not be always desirable to be cured. Is a stereotype of a salesman; 'he cares primarily about selling something to you, and his appearance of sincerity may be an act' a healthy stereotype or an unhealthy one? If I walk into my 50th encounter with a salesperson as naive as I was on the first encounter, he'll justifiably develop a stereotype of me 'a sucker'.

I submit that bigotry and racism are not useful traits, and that they can be eliminated over time.

[Two Americas]

111. other way around?

Wealth and power -> aristocracy -> white male supremacy -> racism -> bigotry -> bias -> stereotype -> suffering and abuse and oppression

Without the first and last items there, we don't get much of a picture as to why we should be concerned about racism nor see it as a problem.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. Bias and stereotype and the ability to discriminate (choose between alternatives)...

... are part of the human condition. They are not an artifact of "white male supremacy".

I have a stereotype about and a bias against anyone whom GWB would appoint to any office. I didn't get this from aristo-patri-anglo-guy-ocracy.

[Two Americas]

113. right

That is why I turned it around. I did not say that stereotype and bias can *only* come from that formula, did I?

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. Then, I'm not getting your gist.

a phenomenon which admittedly, frequently happens to me.

I see racism and bigotry as outgrowths of stereotype and bias. I think stereotype and bias are part of human nature. I think racism and bigotry are learned.

[Two Americas]

115. ROFL

What is it with the two of us lumberjack_jeff? We keep mis-communicating. :)

You wrote:

"I see racism and bigotry as outgrowths of stereotype and bias. I think stereotype and bias are part of human nature. I think racism and bigotry are learned."

I was suggesting that we might get a better understanding of this if we turn that around because your formula leaves out motivation and advantage, power and economics, and so is politically meaningless. From a religious or spiritual or human potential standpoint, yes we humans have these deplorable tendencies and we need to improve ourselves.

It may well be "human nature" to stereotype and have bias. But how that plays out is political and social, not individual and personal. It is human nature to be fearful, as well, but that does not tell us a thing about how the current administration has used fear for specific political ends, does it? Do we need to change human nature before we can resist the plans of the current administration? Do we need to see their plans as inevitable because of "human nature?"

From a political standpoint we need to look at power and economics, and those are the root causes of racism. I tried to revise your formula to include politics and move us out of the fuzzy realm of "human nature" and self-improvement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. I understand now.

And I largely agree. We can't learn (or unlearn) things which are instinctive and innate. We don't learn things for which there's no profit.

Thus, racism and bigotry are not inborn, but motivated by the quest for power, whether real or illusory.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. Very well said. I'm recommending this thread for this post. n/t

[avenger64]

19. Sounds more like a lecture than a dialogue.

I think that when some African-Americans say that they want to have a 'dialogue' on race, what they really want is for caucasians to assume the White Liberal Guilt Posture. For some reason, an hysterical screed like this is not considered racist, even though it passes judgment relentlessly, and relies on stereotypes to do so.

No, I wouldn't use Obama's invitation to discuss race as an excuse for screaming 'nigger' at other people, but what you're trying to do is pre-empt any criticism of what's going on in certain black communities. And you're doing it by the threat of labeling people with the 'r-word'. You're trying to shame people into not doing what Barack encouraged all of us to do.

Shame on you.

[Pamela Troy]

22. Please point out precisely what I've said in this "screed" that you consider

either racist or hysterical. What passages in particular do you have a problem with?

[avenger64]

33. ok, ...

...
racist stereotyping: "First of all, you folks need to get over the notion that everybody is like you. " I'd say there was quite an assumption being made here.

hysterical: "If you believe that people of African descent are, as a group, inherently lazier, less intelligent, and more prone to violence than people of European descent, and you cite all kinds of scientific charts, research, and measurements to back up your claim yes, you are still a racist, as were the many Nazis who cited all kinds of scientific charts, research, and measurements to back up Party claims about the inferiority of Jews."

You're trying to exclude any scientific reasoning from the racial debate. It's a fact that african-american males commit violent crimes at a disproportionate rate, and it's something we should try to remedy through education or whatever it takes. Just as I said in my first pose, you're trying to shame people from even using facts in this 'dialogue' by threatening to label them racist, or even a Nazi. The overblown, accusatory drivel in your post is exactly what we need to get beyond if there's going to be an honest debate about race in this country.

I repeat: shame on you.

[Pamela Troy]

35. Okay, on a point by point basis:

>racist stereotyping: "First of all, you folks need to get over the notion that everybody is like you. " I'd say there was quite an assumption being made here.

"You folks" specifically refers to people like the "old guy" at Instapunk who repeatedly pull out that old "I'm only saying what everyone's thinking wheeze" while defending their racism. Who did you think I meant?

>hysterical: "If you believe that people of African descent are, as a group, inherently lazier, less intelligent, and more prone to violence than people of European descent, and you cite all kinds of scientific charts, research, and measurements to back up your claim yes, you are still a racist, as were the many Nazis who cited all kinds of scientific charts, research, and measurements to back up Party claims about the inferiority of Jews."

How is that "hysterical?" Did the Nazis not cite all kinds of scientific charts, research, measurements, etc? Do they not still qualify as "racist?"

>You're trying to exclude any scientific reasoning from the racial debate.

If you believe that science shows a significant and UNCHANGEABLE difference in IQ between black Americans and white Americans that is based on heredity, then you consider racism to be backed up by science. This is a fact. This is what the term "racism" means. How does pointing this out qualify as an attempt "to exclude any scientific reasoning from the racial debate?" What, exactly, do you think "racism" is?

> It's a fact that african-american males commit violent crimes at a disproportionate rate, and it's something we should try to remedy through education or whatever it takes.

And when someone maintains that this disproportionate rate of violent crime is the result, not of a disproportionately rate of poverty among black Americans or some other environmental factor, but on an INHERENT TENDENCY of violence and/or an INHERENT AND UNCHANGEABLE intellectual deficit among African Americans, that claim is racist.

Again, I'd be very interested in hearing your definition of "racism."

[annabanana]

47. I see nothing hysterical in the OP. . . .n/t

[uppityperson]

21. Is it racism only when it is a "white" person vs "people of African descent"?

While I agree with some of what you write "The word “racism” describes a certain set of beliefs.", you miss a lot also. Racism is not just "white" person vs "people of African descent".

[Pamela Troy]

23. No.

Where do I say it is?

[uppityperson]

25. Try here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3053233&mesg_id=3053233
Seems to be about that only, so I wanted to check.

[Pamela Troy]

29. That's not an answer. Please tell me specifically where, in this piece,

I say racism is only racism when whites do it.

[uppityperson]

32. "racism is only racism when whites do it." What?

Are you serious that "racism is only racism when whites do it."?

[Pamela Troy]

34. PLEASE. READ. CAREFULLY.

What I said was, in response to your last message, "That's not an answer. Please tell me specifically where, in this piece, I say racism is only racism when whites do it.

So. Please tell me specifically where, in this piece, I say racism is only racism when whites do it.

[uppityperson]

38. Ah, I missed the comma. I was wrong there.

I asked you that question "Is it racism only when it is a "white" person vs "people of African descent"?", not said you say this, but am asking. And I am adding this: Racism is not just "white" person vs "people of African descent".

Please read carefully, I asked you a question, and added that racism goes all sorts of ways.

[Pamela Troy]

42. Actually, when I'd asked where I'd said such a thing,

you responded, "try here," and pointed me towards my entire original post.

Are you conceding now that I neither said nor implied that only whites are capable of racism?

[uppityperson]

44. Please read carefully

I also wrote this, which you seem to have missed. "Seems to be about that only, so I wanted to check."

Last time I'm replying to someone who seems to want only to argue with me. Have a nice day.

[Pamela Troy]

50. Reply to someone with a post that beings with "pshaw"

and you should expect an argument.

Adios.

[uppityperson]

72. When you compare racism to "avarice, lust or other vices", expect a "pshaw"

"Racism can no more be "cured" than can avarice, lust, or other vices". In my non-cynical mode I disagree that racism is comparable to avarice, lust, or other vices, hence the "pshaw". But they may spring from the same source of fear, so perhaps the pshaw was misladen.

I am a cynic and seriously think homo sapiens will be mostly gone from Earth soon. I consider extinction, but may have some small pockets survive but never to "rule the earth" as they have.

That said, one of the issues causing this is so many people's fears and way of looking at the rest of their species as "us" vs "them", based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, geographics, politics, sports teams (what the hell is the "us" in a professionally paid sports team that bases itself in a nearby city? That is not "us") sex, etc etc etc. Racism and other isms abound in the world, including the USA. I have read reasons for fearing others who look, act, talk differently than you do, but that doesn't hold water anymore for most of us since the globe has become so small and we all have been in contact with those "others", proving that people are people.

There are good people, fearful people, nice people, assholes, "whatever" sorts in any grouping of people. People need to evolve emotionally to get their acts together and not just accept but appreciate the differences. And confront bigotry where and when you find it. And encourage yourself and others to get out and experience different people.

Homo sapiens has evolved technologically so fast that socially and emotionally it, as a whole, has not kept up. Leading to stupid ass wars, genocides, bigotry of all sorts. What with the downturn in easy living for many people I fear the bigotries will get worse. But then, I am a cynic.

[Pamela Troy]

74. I do, and I welcome debate. So I debate. I don't leave in a huff.

You have not mistaken my piece for a defense of racism, have you?

[uppityperson]

76. You do...what?

[Pamela Troy]

78. Welcome debate. I enjoy it.

Now, do you want to debate, or are you going to complain again because I argued with you?

[mopinko]

26. sigh. such stupid replies.

we have such a long way to go. but thanks for trying.

[nomorenomore08]

36. Simply a fundamental difference in perspective/life experience.

Some people will never understand because they don't have the means to. Any time you bring up issues like those addressed in the OP, you'll always have those who feel like they're being tarred with the same brush. Which is to say, any time you talk about racism among white people, there will be those who see it as a blanket attack on all whites. When in reality, of course, they shouldn't feel guilty or defensive at all, assuming they don't hold racist views themselves.

[TahitiNut]

40. Especially #26

:eyes:

[Blue_Tires]

27. that Greenwald fellow has issues...

but those comments/talking points have been around a lot longer than Greenwald has (the 'niggers' list simply gets updated)...

Someone like him is a lost cause, imo. Let him live out the rest of his years believing what he wants to believe.

[Pamela Troy]

30. Greenwald did not post those comments.

[Blue_Tires]

51. yeesh...my bad

reading comprehension > me

[KamaAina]

37. William Jefferson is a corrupt Louisiana politician.

The vast majority of corrupt Louisiana politicians are white. How, exactly, does that make Jefferson what the guy said?

And "Alan" Iverson? Where on Earth did that come from? :eyes:

[NOLALady]

41. You're exactly right.

William Jefferson simply followed in the footsteps of a long line of corrupt Louisiana politicians going back to at least before I was born. Not one of them was ever called a N....r.

They are simply considered to be corrupt a...holes politicians. They are not considered representatives of their race.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lightningandsnow]

54. Thanks for posting.

[Karenina]

55. Good on you AG for hanging in here!

:yourock:

[Pavulon]

56. We all need to unite against...

stupid fuckers. I have never seen a segregated america. I played sports, served , went to college with, and work with many different racial groups.

All groups are unique and have individual culture and unique american experiences.

We all have the 10 percent. This is my rule of thumb, 10 percent of any given population (people you work with, du posters, people in line at the store) are assholes. To varying degrees.

Once us non assholes stand up and recognize we have more in common with each other (most of us do that already) then we can get to the business of dealing with the dead weight.

So while we wait around for the old jim crow era people to die this is the view I work with.

If you believe the stuff on the list, you are s stupid fucker..get it?

[Vyan]

57. How did Iverson

get on that list?

What'd he do that was so wrong except sink a jump shot?

Vyab

[Karenina]

58. What a different level of discussion...

Compare and contrast! :wow:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/13644

[M0rpheus]

66. WOW!!!

The difference is just... :wow:

[Karenina]

100. INCROYABLE!!!

;-)

[M0rpheus]

105. If only we could import some of that civility over here...

These threads might not turn into such a flame fest.
:argh:

[lukasahero]

119. Thanks for giving me hope again

I had no idea civil discourse on substantive issues could still occur. Makes me wonder what we're doing wrong...?

[DangerDave921]

59. touchy subject but I'll join in

I hate the N word. Totally wrong to use, and really just inflames what needs to be a rationally discussed issue.

The Instapunk poster, while being crude in his post, was trying to raise a specific point that I do believe warrants discussion. And that is this: some members of the black community act in a negative way. The dress, the language, the gangsta lifestyle, the music, the disregard of education, the disregard of success (other than from athletics or music). In order to freely discuss race, we have to be able to discuss CONDUCT, not just skin color. Bill Cosby tried to make that point too -- look at CONDUCT. If a guy is fathering kids out of wedlock, and dropping out of school, and doing drugs, we need to condemn that conduct whether it's a white person or black person. It is not racist to point out that some black people are acting in negative and destructive ways. And if we can't openly criticize destructive conduct, then we are done.

[Ordr]

61. Excellent post.

[Pamela Troy]

65. "Some members of the black community act in a negative way."

So what?

The Instapunk poster was light years beyond "crude." It was the same racism I heard as a child in the south back in the 1960s -- just slightly updated. And I'm frankly disgusted that people here are so afraid of looking directly at the resurgence of racism and white supremacy in this country, that they can't even accept the standard definition of racism.

[DangerDave921]

67. Resurgence of white racism???

What in the world are you talking about? Please show me where there has been a resurgence of white supremacy in this country. I'm serious. What evidence are you looking at?

You obviously missed my point in its entirety, whether intentionally or by accident. Sorry about that. It's hard to have a rational discussion about race when you talk like that.

As to your comment of "so what?" I can only say that we need to be able to distinguish between race and conduct. So we need to be critical of bad conduct without the fear of being called racist. And from your post, it seems that any criticism of a black person would be considered racist.

[Pamela Troy]

69. You've never heard of a book called THE BELL CURVE?

[DangerDave921]

73. Yes I have

And this demonstrates the resurgence of white supremacy?

Please explain.

[Pamela Troy]

75. It was bestselling book that got glowing reviews from mainstream outlets

and remains in print. Its pseudo-scientific arguments are still used by conservatives today.

How does not NOT qualify as a resurgence of racism?

[DangerDave921]

77. Wow

This is your evidence? That a 1994 book, which did NOT get glowing reviews from mainstream media, is still in print and still referenced by conservatives? That's your evidence of a resurgence of white supremacy?

I don't even know how to respond to such idiocy. So I'll quietly go away and leave you to your conspiracy theories and obvious agenda.

[Pamela Troy]

79. What would you define as a "resurgence of racism?"

What would have to happen?

[DangerDave921]

81. well

You were the one to first use that term, so the onus is on you to define it.

But to play this game, I would look for incidences of such a resurgence. Maybe white on black crime going up, or new laws passed to restrict access based on race, or a purposeful decline in college admissions, small business loans, housing loans, etc. You know -- evidence that white supremacy is on the rise, as you suggest.

Got anything along those lines?

[Karenina]

123. . .

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

110. one really good example

40 years ago, virtually all people who called themselves liberals or Democrats were at the very least willing to consider the possibility that they contributed to racism, and willing to engage in a discussion about it, and this digging in of the heels obstinacy on the subject, such as we see in your posts, was much more rare. Overt expressions of racist ideas wer more common, yes. But it was the rare person who when confronted about that would not consider and listen to an explanation about racism. Those who would not listen, did not take up hours of your time with convoluted pseudo-logic and long winded prepared pitches and talking points on the subject.

Another example is the mass media, where cleverly worded racist themes are promoted all of the time now.

Another example is that back in the 60's, there was some effort being put into integration by whites, and it was not unusual to see white faces in AA churches. That is very rare now in my experience.

While white supremacy is less obvious in some ways today, in other ways it is worse because it is much more cleverly rationalized and disguised and argued. It was the rare white 40 years ago who would argue with the ferocity and endurance and stubbornness and close-mindedness that we see from people arguing here on the subject.

People have become more clever at arguing their racist points of view, and more stubborn and insistent in denying them, and less open to being questioned on them.

[DangerDave921]

116. Could not disagree more with you

To your way of thinking, if there is overt racism, that is proof of racism. If there is no overt racism, that too is proof of racism. So you have concluded that there is rampant racism, no matter the evidence. And I like also how if someone dares disagree with you, and takes a contrary position, then you see that as racism too. So what you're basically saying is that your mind is made up, and if anyone disagrees with you, that person is racist. Great dialogue there.

I still maintain the truth of my original post, which is that racism cannot be confused with criticizing bad choices in life. Whether black or white, if a person chooses to make bad decisions such as dropping out of school, doing drugs, having kids out of wedlock, engaging in crime, etc., it is fair game to criticize that conduct.

[Two Americas]

121. no one disagreed with you

You said some people in the Black community do bad things. No one is arguing with you about that. Some people in every community do bad things. So what?

The question is this: what does that have to do with anything and why did you bring it up? Of course you mean that as a way - a covert way, since you are not being clear or straightforward - to insert negative stereotypes that are associated with a group of people identified by skin color into the discussion.

No one here is promoting or defending people who choose "to make bad decisions such as dropping out of school, doing drugs, having kids out of wedlock, engaging in crime, etc." No one is talking about any of that.

If your concern is people who choose "to make bad decisions such as dropping out of school, doing drugs, having kids out of wedlock, engaging in crime, etc." and your freedom to criticze those people, what does that have to do with race?

[DangerDave921]

122. OMG!

Could you be any more dense? The bad behavior I referenced has nothing to do with race, which is exactly my point. And F you for telling me that I inserted that to imply negative racial stereotypes. That is truly an egregious statement.

I think way back when this thread started, the OP was making a point (albeit crudely) that there are certain prominent black figures whose conduct is lousy and that they should be condemned, not championed by the black community. And I was trying to say that too often, bad conduct does get conflated with race such that no one feels comfortable attacking the conduct for fear of being interpreted as attacking the race. So yes, when addressing the ills of the black community, you have to address the conduct that is being exhibited. But as Bill Cosby found out, some people take mighty offense when you criticize self-inflicted problems instead of blaming it on racism. As long as people see racism around every corner, and blame all of life's problems on racism, nothing is ever going to get better.

This has to be part of the dialogue on race.

[Two Americas]

124. you lost me

Sorry I am just not following you then.

[durutti]

62. The comment about big T-shirts and baggy pants...

It assumes that white youths don't adopt styles that seem equally silly to those not belonging to that generation. But clearly, they do. I know I did.

Often, the response is that black youths appear to be emulating "thugs". But it's one thing to adopt a look as fashion, and quite another to honestly adopt the values that go along with it. I doubt many whites wearing heavy metal T-shirts have any desire to sacrifice small animals.

[L. Coyote]

63. Racism is obvious on DU even. Even here, up can be down.

I've read people celebrating their immigration to the Americas w/o sensitivity to the Native peoples whose continents were stolen. When a "presumedly liberal" person does a quick drive-by racist classification, calling a group of people "Hispanics" instead of Natives, we have a racist problem. The problem is that the invaders are calling the Natives the illegal immigrants, without even considering if they are Navajos, Apaches, or their cousins from just across the line that the US War on Mexico imposed on the Natives.

Now, the murderous, genocidal European invaders claim they are the Natives, and the aboriginal inhabitants, with over 10,000 years of heritage and history are "illegals." That is RACISM!

How was the invasion of the Ohio Nations any different than the invasion of Iraq?

Simple. Invading Ohio and selling the land saved the fledgling US economy. Invading Iraq is ruining it!

[Zywiec]

70. Calling a group of people "Hispanics" is racist?

Who would have thunk it?

:shrug:

[arrested_president]

80. I Agree With You

TOTALLY

but, many whites are so full of themselves and their self-righteousness

DU is just one big SMUG ALERT (south park) of white people who wanna think 'everything is everything' and we're all equal and they can speak freely without thinking

i see SO MUCH bigotry on this site and smart-ass comments when they're checked

white people have gotten WAY too comfortable flapping their gums online - they wouldn't talk this way around blacks or natives (i'm BOTH)

Columbus was the BEST thing that ever happened to them and they can't stop being happy about it

the REAL TEST is:

are you GLAD Columbus was born?


Natives and Blacks aren't


are you GLAD Hitler was born?

of course not - he didn't get you any land

[treestar]

97. "Genocidal European Invaders?"

Are you using it to refer to all white individuals?

Do you include me in that description? Or just my ancestors?

[arrested_president]

71. If You Celebrate Slave-Owners And/Or Indian Killer's Birthdays

and, you are not offended by them on your money (stamps, streets, schools, etc.) for blacks to see everyday

you're full of shit

[Donald Ian Rankin]

85. #5 opens the door to the possibility of racism as you define it being right in some circumstances.

So far as I know, the balance of evidence does not currently reliably show and correlation between race and the inherent properties of the mind.

However, it also doesn't reliably show and *absence* of correlation between race and properties of the mind, and given a) what is known about the correlation between race and the physical structure of the brain and b) the correlation between things affecting the brain and things affecting the mind, it would strike me as more surprising if there *weren't* correlation between race and the inherent properties of the mind than if there were.

I would expect much more low-level things than "intelligence" or "laziness" - things like "response time to bright lights" or "prevalence of perfect pitch" - but the former wouldn't amaze me, either. And, of course, I'm a mathematician and not a neurologist, and my predictions have very little beyond guesswork to back them up and should in no way be viewed as authoritative.

(Incidentally, I'm taking the word "inherent" as being crucial here - there's clear and incontrovertible evidence of correlation between race and intelligence and behaviour, but so far as I know there's nothing reliable that suggests that that correlation is partly genetic as opposed to wholly cultural, and I'm assuming that if it isn't then that doesn't count as "inherent").

If and when such evidence does come to light, if it shows that such inherent correlations do exist (and it may not, but as I say it would surprise me more if none do than that if at least some do) then it will be the - by your definitions racist - people who are right and the non-racists who are wrong.

The analogy with the Nazis fails because the scientists the Nazis were paying attention to were *wrong* (and for lots of other, more important reasons too, involving how they reacted to the observations). That's not an argument for ignoring *valid* scientific evidence of correlation between race and the functioning of the mind, any more than there's anything wrong with my mother getting special attention from breast cancer specialists as a result of being an Ashkenazi Jew.

You can argue that "any claim of non-culturally-induced correlation between race and behaviour is racist", or "all racism is bad", depending on how you define racism, but not both at the same time.

It's also worth, once again, drawing attention to the word "inherent" - some people try and argue both that "any claim of correlation between race and behaviour is racist" and "all racism is bad", and this - unlike your claim - I think is a serious danger, and should be strongly opposed - race *does* correlate with behaviour, and we need to acknowledge that.

[Pamela Troy]

86. How so?

The fact that "the balance of evidence does not show a correlation between race and the inherent properties of the mind" does not prevent racists from trotting out spurious "scientific" evidence, as Murray and Hernstein do in THE BELL CURVE. That they (and the Nazis) were wrong does not change my point.

I don't see how it would be possible to "prove" racial superiority or inferiority something as subjective and variable as innate intelligence. It's about a slippery a concept as "morality," and can be accurately measured only in cases of great deficit or great gifts.

[kwassa]

87. I would describe your supposition as racist

Donald says:
However, it also doesn't reliably show and *absence* of correlation between race and properties of the mind, and given a) what is known about the correlation between race and the physical structure of the brain and b) the correlation between things affecting the brain and things affecting the mind, it would strike me as more surprising if there *weren't* correlation between race and the inherent properties of the mind than if there were.

I think your statement both racist and bullshit. What correlation can you possibly prove about structures of the brain that are racially based?

This is non-science if I ever heard it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

101. Try bashing your head against a wall.

Or rather, don't, but look at people who have.

We know that damaging the brain affects the mind, often in surprising ways (there are some mildly diverting books by a guy called Oliver Sacks on this - "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat" is probably the most famous). Scientists can, by measuring electrical activity within the brain, guess accurately which of a set of images the subject is looking at. So changes to the physical structure of the brain certainly alter the mind.

The correlation between gender and the functioning of the mind is an even better example, although, of course, still not proof - which is why I say "I think that's the way to bet" rather than "I know". The correlation between physical and biological properties and race is obviously far, far less pronounced than their correlation with gender, but it's non-negligable, and so I'd be surprised if there wasn't also at least some correlation with the functioning of the mind.

That's *not*, of course, proof - which is why I was careful to say "I think that's the way to bet" rather than "we know that".

The only way I can think of of looking for evidence for or against race correlating with the inherant functioning of the mind would be to experiment on neonates, and so far as I know no-one's done that. Anything else is going to be fatally adulterated by cultural factors.

[kwassa]

109. As I said before ,,,,

The correlation between physical and biological properties and race is obviously far, far less pronounced than their correlation with gender, but it's non-negligable,

and what is your source for non-negligible, aside from racist supposition? And how do you define race in the first place?

[NobodyInParticular]

88. racism and genetics

Does anyone here believe that a tendency toward racism is a genetically based element of the white race? Or of the black race?

Does anyone here believe that one race has genetic factors that make it less prone to racism than other races?

Is tolerance genetic?

[Karenina]

99. OH, DONALD!!!

:eyes::hug::eyes: Are you familiar with the term, "stealth racism?" Just asking. :shrug:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

102. No, I'm not, but it's fairly self-explanatory. Are you accusing me of it?

NT

[Karenina]

103. OH, DONALD!

:hug:

[Oeditpus Rex]

91. Is there irony in a post decrying bigotry that includes the phrase

"semi-literate souls in trailer parks"?

What is your sincere belief about mobile-home dwellers?

[uppityperson]

107. Wait, wait! I can guess the answer...

"where did I say everyone who lives in trailer parks is semi-literate?" I'll check back tomorrow to see if OP says this.

[mathewsleep]

106. i've never seen the word nigger on du before.

[ismnotwasm]

108. Lots of racism to go around lately

Perhaps it's Senator Obama who has inadvertently stirred up this nest of racist wasps? Those who were oh, so comfortable with their best friend at work the black man, but have some sort of atavistic reaction to having a black president? I dunno.

Because I'm hearing things from people (who I would have thought knew better) like "I don't think we're ready for a black president" "If you say something against black people you're racist, but they can say what they want you" (What is that supposed to mean?)

A lot of complete and total ignorance about racism that quite frankly seems deliberate. I'm under the impression that it's quite fashionable in certain areas to lump "Mexicans" in stereotypical groups, beyond any debate about immigration.

I'm also under the impression that some whites are stressed by recent events, threatened by them. Thus the reemergence of ridiculous concepts such as "reverse racism"

Here's an excerpt from an essay "Reproducing the Soul of White Folks" by Carol Mason, an essay that explored protests against multi ethnic curriculum in schools in the seventies. It's a fairly recent essay about a particular way of thinking that is very relevant to discussing racism, not matter if soul or spirituality has been brought up or not.

Narrating Soul, Left to Right
===
Evoking the soul of the nation, or the soul of the people, or--what we will ultimately be concerned with by the end of this essay, the soul of our children--in order to make particular political claims is a discursive practice with a history. In liberal and leftist discourse, according to scholar Rey Chow, evoking "soul" is intimately associated with ideas of race and ethnicity. Chow (2000) provides a sort of intellectual history of how soul is narrated in liberal writings, arguing that there are two stories told by influential theorists that demonstrate how soul and ethnicity are related. Looking at these two stories, these slightly different narratives, helps clarify how evoking spirituality or soul is connected to ethnicity in such a way that allows white people to claim the they are victimized even when they do not have a history of alienation, exploitation, or oppression. Understanding this helps us see how the liberal and leftist narratives of soul can be quite compatible with right -wing apocalyptic evocations of spirituality--