General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Misandry is real, misandry is out there... [View all]MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I don't think that is what racism is. It's not a useful definition IMHO. Since you have told me what you think racism is, here is what I think it is, and why I think it is the definition, and useful at that.
Racism is just the belief that races (another man made idea) are inferior and superior relative to each other. I think this is the definition of racism.
Racism isn't the same bigotry. Bigotry is a state of mind. It is viewing people with fear or distrust based off of prejudice. Bigotry is a human condition. Our brains are wired to stereotype. Racism is an idea. It hasn't been around since the dawn of time. Racism might be informed by bigotry at times, or not. Some people subscribe to racism on prejudice, others on theological grounds, still others on scientific grounds, etc.
If a person believes some races are inferior or superior to others, then they're a racist. They may also be a bigot when it comes to race, they may be a racist due to their bigotry, but they're still a racist. If we want to convince that person not to be racist, we have to address why they are a racist, attack the reasoning that causes them to believe such a thing. It may not just be prejudice, or prejudice at all.
If, as is currently much more common IMHO, a person is scared of another race (or their own) or fearful based on prejudices or anecdotal evidence or personal experiences or crime statistics or whatever, but doesn't subscribe to the idea of racism, we can attack the idea of racism all we want, that person will still be a bigot. We have to address their prejudices, which may have nothing to so with the idea of racial superiority.
This is why I think it's important to make a distinction, to address the actual problem/reasoning.
As for institutional power/support, that's all it is, it's not part of the definition of racism. It's just a system that supports that idea. Also a critical distinction to make, and one that is lost in your definition.
Your definition isn't useful because bigotry has all sorts of flavor beyond race. Under your definition, many black churches and denominations are racist. Many theological views are bigoted towards homosexuals, and that bigotry is given institutional support and power by many black churches. Under your definition, blacks definitely can be racist. And if you wanted to address bigotry in black churches towards homosexuals, calling it racism would be a poor way to begin.
Your definition is useful for combatting the exaggerated use of black racism by conservatives to drum up fear from their base, but it does so by supposedly defining away the possibility of black racism, which not only is disingenuous, it's harmful in effectively addressing why people are racist, or bigoted, or both in a manner that will combat racism as an idea, and combat bigotry as a state of mind.
I think my definition of racism can still be used to point out that much of what the right calls black racism is really just bigotry, and to point out that white racism and bigotry is a much bigger issue due to institutional power. I think it gives room to make important distinctions and understand how to address racism and bigotry more effectively.