Racism - Page 4

On April 25 2011 12:45 Belano wrote:
Interesting post and even more interesting discussion.

I have one question regarding this statement:

Why does this matter? A definition of racism that excludes this strikes me as narrow.

On April 25 2011 12:46 chaoser wrote:
you're looking at it from one perspective that paints this kind of environment where, hey it's not racism, it's DISCRIMINATION, like that's somehow a more excusable act. I feel like it's just a switching out of words and, like des said, placing in this second dialogue that merely takes away from the main dialogue of race issues. Not to mention the fact that the definitions you are talking about is more a basic definition of racism when compared to the academic definition of racism which is more in line with the concept of institutional racism which is:



In the end though, you're talking about semantics and that has almost nothing to do with how people perceive things as racist or not and doesn't deal with the main issues of how to deal with race. It just like how many people, after Obama's election, said hey, we're in a Post-Race society now. They're merely trying to push the idea of race down as a non-issue so that institutionalized racism can continue to occur. I've had many people say racist shit to me ("Go back to your country, Do you speak english? Please don't eat my dog") and when confronted with it merely answered, Obama is president, we're not being racist, racism doesn't exist anymore. This might not be the intent of your blog, but i feel like it's helping that cause.

On April 25 2011 12:55 chaoser wrote:


While this might work in a perfect world of "ouch, sorry" responses then it would work. But it's not and you have to understand that many of those offensive things are by-products of systemic racism and so to only deal with the symptoms and not the root of the problem does really move us far in the discussion of race.

On April 25 2011 12:59 Pifualkd wrote:
I understand and agree with what this blog is about. A lot of people are too afraid to make innocuous statements because they are afraid other people will believe what they said was wrongly racist.

I don't understand why you are clinging to the idea that the first example cannot be considered racism. There is no suggestion in your example that this person thinks white people are mean because of race or class. What it does do is apply a negative attribute solely on the color of someone's skin.

On April 25 2011 18:40 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Statement 1 is racist, statements 2 and 3 are not. The moment you can say: "White people are..." you are thinking on racist lines.

On April 25 2011 20:28 Dracid wrote:
Anyhow, I agree with Des on pretty much all points. Arguing about the semantics on whether or not something is racist detracts from the actual issues regarding race relations.

On April 26 2011 00:32 micronesia wrote:

Clearly you are using a different definition of racism than me... which is okay if you tell me what it is. What is it?

On April 26 2011 00:32 micronesia wrote:
I am not clinging... I am literally and directly implying the definition of racism to the example. If you can point out an error in the definition I'm using or in my attempt at a literal interpretation, then sure, I could be wrong. But nobody seems to want to do that.. they just tell me I'm wrong with is disappointing.

I didn't say the first example can't be said by a racist person... I said it isn't a racist statement (by itself). Based on my working definition of racism that's true... give me the definition of racism you use.

On April 26 2011 01:25 Belano wrote:

A belief that cultural, in addition to genetic differences among races, determine their superiority or inferiority.
Something like that.

On April 26 2011 01:36 Dracid wrote:
Well, that's the problem. As you can tell from this thread, people aren't going to come to a clear concensus on what racism is, and even if TL does somehow reach some sort of agreement, so what? The word racist will still be a loaded term, and people will still refuse to acknowledge that they might have racist tendencies since they do not self-identify as racists.

If I'm offended by something you say, it really doesn't matter to me whether or not what you said fit a textbook definition of racism. If I got offended, there's probably a reason for it, and most of the time that reason isn't that "well, what was said wasn't actually racist so you shouldn't be offended." I agree that discussions on racism are often frustrated by differing definitions of the word, but I don't think you're going to find a definition that everybody agrees with, and ultimately I don't think that the definition really matters that much in discussions about race. We need people to start thinking more about how race affects their perception of others; just because something isn't by definition racist doesn't mean that there aren't racial connotations to it or that it isn't problematic in terms of race relations.

On April 26 2011 01:43 bonifaceviii wrote:
In this thread, micronesia defines terms based on dictionaries and wikipedia and, based upon said definitions of terms, makes semantic arguments.

On April 26 2011 03:44 enzym wrote:

I think the error with your applying your preferred definition to example 1 is that the person in this example is attaching a trait onto a group of people and gives as reason that they are white. Skin color is genetically determined, for the most part, and not culturally. Furthermore the person didn't say anything about white culture. He exclusively referred to white people.

If you want to argue semantics you might as well start with the fact that there is only one human race still living on this planet.

On April 26 2011 04:34 micronesia wrote:

I think that is fairly consistent with your views... but is also not academically supported. If I'm wrong about that you can correct me. If you think that whether or not your beliefs are academically supported is irrelevant then you are entitled to that opinion although I don't see it as relevant to this thread really.

On April 26 2011 05:22 Belano wrote:

I have no idea if my definition is academically supported, it was just a thought I had really. It is my personal opinion though that the definition you are using is narrow. By your definition phrases such as "I hate white people, they are stupid" (genetic) are racist but phrases such as "I hate white people, all they do is rob and steal" (cultural) are not. This is, in my opinion, splitting hairs. It seems to me like a pretty impractical definition, unless I'm totally missing something.

On April 26 2011 06:20 Chef wrote:
I think you're getting hung up on semantics. These are all massive generalizations. They are unfair to the individuals who belong to the groups being generalized.

Food for thought:

If I have to entertain a group of black Americans and the only choices I have are to show them basketball or ice hockey, I will show them basketball. That's a generalization which is normal and I think healthy to make.

If I have an individual to entertain and he is a black American, and I can only show him basketball or ice hockey... I will just ask him which he prefers. If I'm not allowed to ask him, I'll again put on basketball, making an assumption about the likelihood of his preferences based on the culture he is most likely from.

But the point is that you treat people as individuals whenever possible. If you can take a vote in the first scenario, you take a vote. It's not unfair to act based on your knowledge about a culture, but it's stupid to not attempt to get more reliable information if possible. Generalizations are weak, last resort methods that don't have many real world applications for most people. Most of the time you have the opportunity to treat people as individuals. There's very few scenarios where you actually have to make a judgement based on someone's race or sex in determining what you should do... If I am playing a Korean, it is enough that I will find out how good he is from playing him. I don't actually need to decide if he is good or not before that point. Even if it's more likely than someone from another country, what is the actual point of deciding before I've played him? None. Totally trivial. You don't get chastised for knowing certain races are more likely to do one thing over another in certain countries, you get chastised for not treating people as individuals worthy of your effort to learn who they are.

On April 26 2011 06:23 Danjoh wrote:
If I consider Kenyans to be superior runners compared to scandinavians, I am racist according to those definitions?

Also, is this wikipedia article racist?

On April 26 2011 07:27 micronesia wrote:



I don't think investigating differences in races for scientific/academic purposes is racist. Black people need to get more sun than white people in order to get the necessary amount of vitamin D I believe, white people need to wear sunscreen more than black people do, yadda yadda, there are indeed differences.

I also wasn't planning on discussing what happens with the concept of racism when you are applying positive characteristics to a race... I purposefully am leaving that out.

On April 26 2011 08:03 Khenra wrote:


What about the reverse of that statement: "Scandinavians are lousy runners (compared to Kenyans)." ?

The question is: is it racist when it's true?

On April 26 2011 07:27 micronesia wrote:

A lot of people seem to define racism based on a thought they had... which I think is a problem. You are arguing that there are problems with the current definition of racism, but I think that's just because we (socially) have unfair expectations of the word (remember how charged I said it was?) I am not saying people who say "I hate white people, they are stupid" is worse or better than "I hate white people, all they do is rob and steal." What word we use to label them isn't that important. I agree on that. I still want to use the right word to label them. This is not as important as things like "not discriminating" or "not committing hate crimes." That doesn't mean it shouldn't be said/done.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

On April 26 2011 08:22 Belano wrote:

I think that the difference between the two statements that I used as examples is ridiculously small. Therefore I feel that it would be stupid and impractical to not label the latter statement as racist.

The more I think about the definition you are using, the more I dislike it . I question if it is actually the correct one. A quick google search links to a couple of sites that offer a wider definition.

Here are some extracts:




These definitions include all prejudice based on race which I find more practical. I see no reason to make the distinction between genetic and cultural prejudice.

On April 26 2011 08:43 Maxwell3 wrote:
I didn't know women are a race?

On April 26 2011 08:39 micronesia wrote:
I've been thinking about the definition of the word racism and I think the problem is this: words can have several similar definitions. That's why they usually have a 1, 2, 3 etc in the dictionary. I think mine is the #1 definition which I'm sticking to 100% whereas the #2 definition is broader like what you are thinking.

I consider this a weakness of the human language but there's probably a reason why I would never major in that lol