Racism

On April 25 2011 09:43 Megaliskuu wrote:
Who voted #3 as racism seriously O_o.

On April 25 2011 09:48 phosphorylation wrote:
They are all racist, but it's only natural human reaction. Being "racist" is such a taboo thing nowadays, so that we automatically condemn it to a terrible thing, but it shouldn't be. However, prejudice (involving action that directly affects the person in question) is a different issue and some of it should definitely be condemned.

On April 25 2011 09:50 Kashll wrote:
Sorry but the first one is racist.

On April 25 2011 09:54 The_LiNk wrote:
Isn't the third one Sexist?

On April 25 2011 09:58 Armathai wrote:
The explanation of racism is all fine and dandy, however I do feel it's being overly technical in terms of definition.
Of course I'd say the last question isn't about racism but about sexism. However, don't you feel that stereotyping and prejudice in general should have a better overarching terminology so we don't need 15words to describe the above situations?
Sure it'd be incorrect to call someone a racist for making comments #1 & #2, however calling them prejudiced is fine, even though it might be a racist thought-process as to why the comments were made in the first place.

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors that constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities...

On April 25 2011 09:54 The_LiNk wrote:
Isn't the third one Sexist?

On April 25 2011 10:02 ~_~ wrote:


Isn't the first example using people being white as the reason they are mean to him ?

On April 25 2011 10:06 redoxx wrote:
Could you put one in that is actually racist for an example?

On April 25 2011 10:25 Craton wrote:
Nice to know we're splitting hairs over racism vs sexism.

On April 25 2011 10:28 Craton wrote:
You just proved my point: rather than deal with the issue of discrimination, people immediately latch on to the misuse, or perceived misuse, of terminology. Instead of dealing with actual issues, they devolve something into an argument over semantics.

On April 25 2011 10:28 Craton wrote:
It's the equivalent of sticking your nose in the air; you look down with disdain at people because "they look very foolish," even when it's largely irrelevant.

Put another way: people try to trivialize instances of discrimination by attacking the semantics.

On April 25 2011 10:28 Craton wrote:
You just proved my point: rather than deal with the issue of discrimination, people immediately latch on to the misuse, or perceived misuse, of terminology. Instead of dealing with actual issues, they devolve something into an argument over semantics.

It's the equivalent of sticking your nose in the air; you look down with disdain at people because "they look very foolish," even when it's largely irrelevant.

On April 25 2011 10:32 Thrill wrote:
You know what you're doing right now? You're generalizing discrimination.

On April 25 2011 10:32 Craton wrote:
No it's not. It's a get-together for people to feel superior about themselves over semantics.

On April 25 2011 10:33 Craton wrote:

Discrimination is a general term.

On April 25 2011 10:37 HowitZer wrote:
I can't take this seriously when you're using movies and tv shows as your case studies.

I'll just say that there are physical differences between races.

On April 25 2011 10:37 Craton wrote:
I say people spend too much time arguing semantics during instances of discrimination.

You say I'm "generalizing discrimination," when such a thing is inherently general, and then you pull an arbitrary association with my disdain for arguing semantics vs arguing actual issues with a belief that there's no merit to separating discrimination.

Your logic has gaping holes.

On April 25 2011 10:37 HowitZer wrote:
I can't take this seriously when you're using movies and tv shows as your case studies.

I'll just say that there are physical differences between races.

I had a bigger issue with how his conclusions for 1-3 don't logically follow with the proceeding parts of the post.

Since he likes TV shows, the South Park meme is appropriate, here:
Step 1: Post definitions and an example of racism
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Draw conclusions about the original 3 polls.

On April 25 2011 09:47 Dalguno wrote:


I did, thought it said black women :/

On April 25 2011 11:00 Craton wrote:
Because you have no actual explanation or reasoning as to the conclusions you drew regarding the polls. You simply state a conclusion with the expectation of people to accept your word as fact, rather than lead the reader from point a to point b.

The second portion of the OP contains several definitions of racism and your interpretation of several pieces of media, but none of that serves as the explanation that your conclusions require. Thus, there is a logical disconnect ("Step 2: ???") between your second and third sections.

On April 25 2011 11:00 des wrote:
My hand is very firmly down my pants about the use of words as well!

Race isn't genetic. Obviously we consider it to be something passed through heredity but that is a definition created by society. Any observation of how people have been classified into race based on their ancestry demonstrates this, for example the "one drop rule". It has always been arbitrary groupings and it always will be.

What would you have us call your first example? How is assigning negative qualities to a group of people based on their race not implicitly stating the inferiority of that race?

In some other thread I made the point that oppressed people who are upset about the nature of their oppression are generally depicted as having something wrong with them. There is an elaborate unconscious machine in society designed to remind us all that if they had a little more sense they wouldn't be upset. This thread is part of that machine. "If you only had a finer understanding of semantics, you'd see that this isn't racist!" Rather than contributing something to the dialogue it distracts from it by creating a second dialogue about the first one, a second dialogue which specifically attacks one side of the first one.

I'm terribly sorry that it's inconvenient to have to explain how "it's not racist" when you say something offensive but a perfectly good solution is to not go around saying offensive shit and respect the people around you a little bit.

PS dis post not racisms

On April 25 2011 11:22 Pandain wrote:
I feel like #1 is in fact racist.

I would agree that's its not racist if he had said "I don't like most white people, they are mean to me." Or even "I don't like any of the white people I've met-they are mean to me." But the fact that he says "I don't like this race(AT ALL)" because of a select individuals he has met characterises it as racist.

What the person who said that has done was generalize a whole race based on a select few. Basically its sterotyping, while not exactly racism in itself in this case it is(judging all of a select race).

If you feel all white people are mean, because some white people you have met are mean, that is racist. That person, if he heard the word "white person", would immediately picture someone less than him, someone who's mean, that ALL white people are mean.

I hope I articulated my point well enough. Good post though, I learned alot.

On April 25 2011 11:24 micronesia wrote:

This is only true if the speaker believes meanness is an inherent/negative trait. I don't think most people believe that but I could be wrong.

As you said it is stereotyping.

On April 25 2011 11:30 Pandain wrote:


In my wrong humble opinion, I believe however that the speaker of that sentence believed meanness is inherent in white people. He said that he doesn't like white people, because they are mean. Not because some white people are mean, but all of them are mean. The speaker believes that he doesn't like white people because they are mean(so all mean.)

Note how he catagorizes white people as mean, that all white people are mean. I believe that fits the definition of "inherent". He believes if you are a white person, you are mean.
As for negative, what do you mean? If you're speaking about whether it is a positive or negative attribute I don't think anyone would really say it's a positive attribute.

On April 25 2011 11:17 micronesia wrote:

The speaker in the first example didn't assign negative qualities that were necessarily inherent.

I don't agree with you. I don't think this blog serves to make oppressed people feel less oppressed. At no point did I say or imply an offensive statement is less offensive once we accept that it isn't racist.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make with this bit and don't see how it relates to the blog at all...

On April 25 2011 11:39 des wrote:


Again, what would you have us call it, and why is meanness across an entire group of people of the same race not inherent? What makes it not inherent? How did all these white people end up being mean if something about whiteness isn't the cause of their meanness? If it's not inherent, what does the statement do to communicate the belief that it is not inherent? If I say "I don't like black people, they're all stupid" (that made me feel a little sick to write) is that racist? Why?

I'm not saying its intent is to make oppressed people feel less oppressed. I'm saying it serves to give the oppressor an out in the discussion of race. Rather than addressing his/her behavior, the oppressor says "well that's not technically racism please refer to micronesia's post" and deflates the argument of the oppressed. Every oppressor does this to every oppressed group in a multitude of ways. There is always dialogue which serves to point out that the oppressed person is not capable of arguing "correctly" and therefore can safely be ignored. You may not intend this post in that way but it is doing that. The fact that you think that this is an important point demonstrates that you are part of this machine. Again, you don't necessarily know that you are doing this, but it doesn't change the fact that you are. Intent is not the issue here and you do not need to directly state that the statement is less offensive, or even think it. You are impeding productive discussion by creating a new discussion about the first one which will only be used to invalidate arguments in the original discussion.

This was born out of anger and I should probably not have posted it. I am referring to you saying that it would be difficult to explain to someone in the street why something you said wasn't racist. This is an illustration of my above point. You said something offensive about race, the other person called you on it, and rather than reflect on your statement and whether you should say stuff like that or not, you're setting up the appropriate response as correcting him on his use of words.

When someone says "X is racist" and it doesn't fit the dictionary definition they are usually pointing out how it is based off of a racist intent. As an example, seperate-but-equal is arguably not racist by definition. However, it makes no sense other than as an oppressive tool designed to deprive people of rights, amenities, etc. based on race. The actual realization of s-b-e laws clearly was not truly equal, and it is also clear that if race were not a concern, there would be no reason to have the law. It is only because we believe there are firm divisions between race that the law was passed. So, while the written law may not pass your litmus test of racism, it doesn't take a genius to realize that it has plenty of racism between the lines. Calling that out should not be bogged down in a discussion of semantics.

On April 25 2011 11:33 micronesia wrote:
The meanness of white people could be entirely culturally caused.

Institutional racism is the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society. When the differential access becomes integral to institutions, it becomes common practice, making it difficult to rectify. Eventually, this racism dominates public bodies, private corporations, and public and private universities, and is reinforced by the actions of conformists and newcomers. Another difficulty in reducing institutionalized racism is that there is no sole, true identifiable perpetrator. When racism is built into the institution, it appears as the collective action of the population.

If you say something offensive, and someone calls you out on it, then you said something offensive. If someone simply accuses you of being racist then you can explain how it wasn't racist. What they should have done is said you were saying something offensive, and you are not off the hook for saying it even though the person didn't think to call you out on it.

On April 25 2011 13:38 ClysmiC wrote:
I totally agree that people's perception on racism is so overblown. Sure, there are some blatantly racist people, and that's wrong. But honestly, sometimes people's zealousness towards racial issues pisses me off. It especially pisses me off when teachers and administration at my high school don't deal with all races the same way. Kids of some races seem to cause more commotion in classes and in the hallway, and while they are urged to stop, they usually don't get any disciplinary action. The same wouldn't be true if a student that is part of the majority (in the case of my high school, caucasian) had done the same thing.

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

On April 26 2011 08:52 des wrote:


Did you just look up the definition in the dictionary/wikipedia or did you do more research into the topic?

e: fixed formatting

On April 26 2011 08:58 micronesia wrote:

I've actually been thinking about this topic for a while dating back to when I took a course in college where a 'unit' was similar to this topic (actually a lot of the points I brought up during the class were similar to a lot of the comments being made in this thread).

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.

On April 26 2011 09:07 des wrote:


Okay but did that period of time inform your definition? Did you do any thinking as to why this is/isn't legitimate? Did you ever try to find an alternative definition and assess if it was better or worse?

I ask because your defense of this definition seems to be primarily that it has been written somewhere.

Also I took a couple classes myself

On April 26 2011 09:12 Belano wrote:

I agree that words can have several similar definitions. But if we drop the whole 'which definition is correct" discussion wouldn't you agree that a broader definition is more practical? Don't you think it's stupid not to label "I hate white people, all they do is rob and steal" as racist? I just seems so obvious to me lol xd

On April 26 2011 09:19 micronesia wrote:
Why do you want to label that quote as racist? You basically just said "Don't you think it's stupid to use your definition of racism instead of mine" even though I think you didn't intent that.

On April 26 2011 09:46 Belano wrote:

Indeed I did not. Let my try and reconstruct my argument

Why do I want to label it as racist? Because I think that the difference between the two quotes that I have used is insignificant. They are extremely similar. They both follow the same principle, namely that they are both prejudice directed at someones race. The difference is only in the nature of that prejudice, which I find very minor. Basically, since they are so similar, they should fall under the same label. I believe that this is more practical, since labeling two statements this similar differently would cause confusion.

Now (edit: I assume) you would argue that difference between the two quotes is significant. I ask you, why is that?

There seems to be somewhat of a divide between conversational racism and academic racism that I did not fully understand and it seems to explain some of the disagreement/confusion.

On April 26 2011 09:50 micronesia wrote:

Aren't there other labels we use that both statements fall under? You already used 'prejudice'... I don't see why every relevant label to this discussion has to apply to all similar statements. Is your line of reasoning that prejudice (which both statements are?) is bad, racism is bad, therefore both statements must be racist?

On April 26 2011 09:50 micronesia wrote:

According to the more academic definition of racism, I think the statements are different. Conversationally where racism is how you defined it earlier then I suppose they can both be labeled racist (this is new to me but I think I have to accept it).