quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not quite. As I learned it, racism = racial prejudice + systemic/institutional power. Which I think is closer to the definition that sinflower was going for and still leaves racial disadvantage as a result of racism, not the thing itself.
Yeah... no. I'm sorry, that's not the accepted sociological or anthropological definition of racism. It just isn't. If sinflower or you would like to provide some evidence that it *is* the most common or useful definition, or the "accepted" definition, please do so. I'm interested to know who on Earth uses it that way.
And notice, Sinflower, that this exchange has gone back and forth a couple of times due to you're not having noticed what others were talking about: Samp says: "not the sociological definition," to which you respond: "anti-racism activists say..." Political activist groups may use their terminology in any way they wish, they often use terminology in ways that run counter to others' ability to parse what is being said, or to determine its truth value. This is a common *political* tactic. Sociologists are not political activists when working in their professional capacity as sociologists, and so when they use a word, they use it for a reason, and that is so that you *do* understand what they are saying, and why.
So to break it down:
1. Political activists use words imprecisely and often misleadingly to produce results.
2. Sociologists use words very precisely and carefully to produce understanding.
quote: You don't. That's the point.
Ok, this represents a serious misunderstanding of the word in common usage, and in its more officially recognized function.
OAD:
quote:racism |ˈrāˌsizəm| noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. • prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.
Nowhere in either definition is systemic injustice included as part of an umbrella term for racism. The definition clearly defines it as first a belief system, and second, a form of prejudice. The narrowest shadow of connection to your idea of the term is "discrimination," but even that is predicated upon the belief outlined in the first definition, and it specifically states: "directed against someone," not "engrained in a social system." It just doesn't say that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: You don't. That's the point.
That seems odd. Wouldn't that lead to some strange results?
It seems to me that under that definition, a Ku Klux Klan member back a few decades when they actually had power and reach would be classified as a racist. However, that same person transported into a nice comfy bubble on Mars with no power or reach wouldn't be a racist.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm sorry, that's not the accepted sociological or anthropological definition of racism. It just isn't. If sinflower or you would like to provide some evidence that it *is* the most common or useful definition, or the "accepted" definition, please do so. I'm interested to know who on Earth uses it that way.
Wiki page on racism, section on sociological definition
Sociological Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.[8] Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Sellers and Shelton (2003) found that a relationship between racial discrimination and emotional distress was moderated by racial ideology and public regard beliefs. That is, racial centrality appears to promote the degree of discrimination African American young adults perceive whereas racial ideology may buffer the detrimental emotional effects of that discrimination. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry,”.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me that under that definition, a Ku Klux Klan member back a few decades when they actually had power and reach would be classified as a racist. However, that same person transported into a nice comfy bubble on Mars with no power or reach wouldn't be a racist.
Yes.
A racist is a person who 1) Is prejudiced against a racial group which doesn't have power in the society in which he/she resides 2) Is part of the racial group which does have power in the society in which he/she resides
A KKK member magically transported to world where black people have all the power and white people are an oppressed minority would not be labeled "racist," but rather "prejudiced."
As for the Mars bubble scenario, if he's the only person in that isolated bubble society there is no context to speak of and the whole discussion becomes irrelevant...
Wait, actually that's a perfect illustration of how NOT to look at racism: as existing in a vacuum, or in the mind only.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities
Sinflower, tell me what you think this means, because from where I'm sitting, this supports my argument, not yours.
Or are you completely misunderstanding what others mean when they say: "systemic injustice." Racism *is* systemic. It's societal, it is a social belief structure, reinforced by a community. It is not, however, in and of itself systemic injustice. It is not both simultaneously, and it is most *certainly* not injustice before it is simple bigotry.
If you are in fact basing your argument on the line: "Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege" remember that this is an anonymous submission by a wikipedia poster with potentially zero accountability. The wording of a wikipedia entry is proof of absolutely nothing, and if you actually intended that as evidence, you've made a grave error.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
also to note: the 'some sociologists' line doesn't supersede the definition given.
I've studied fairweather v. overt racism in appications of institutional racism/racial privilege, but never in any context that allows that redefinition.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia isn't God. I get it. I used it as a quick way to get quotes from different sociologists, since I don't have access to specific texts at present.
As for the quote you listed
quote:culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities
This is a classic example of "racism as privilege"-- it only goes one way. A black person who believes in black supremacy wouldn't be racist under this construct because 1) his beliefs aren't culturally sanctioned by the wider society and 2) It doesn't defend white advantage.
Cazenave and Maddern are more explicit about this point. Although like I said earlier, I've probably been influenced most by Tatum.
If you want to argue that racism as systematic privilege isn't a widely used definition in sociology, you should probably support that argument too.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A KKK member magically transported to world where black people have all the power and white people are an oppressed minority would not be labeled "racist," but rather "prejudiced."
But thats just bizarre. Forget the Mars bubble actually. Consider the case of the Mongolian neo-Nazis. Such a person would have power in Mongolia but would be powerless in say, bordering China. He could control whether or not he is saying racist things by simply crossing over the border every minute he wanted to say something that was "not racist."
Now imagine that he's standing with one foot in Mongolia and one foot in China. Has he become some sort of quantum racist?
This seems like a pretty odd and easily abusable definition.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But thats just bizarre. Forget the Mars bubble actually. Consider the case of the Mongolian neo-Nazis. Such a person would have power in Mongolia but would be powerless in say, bordering China. He could control whether or not he is saying racist things by simply crossing over the border every minute he wanted to say something that was "not racist."
Now imagine that he's standing with one foot in Mongolia and one foot in China. Has he become some sort of quantum racist?
This seems like a pretty odd and easily abusable definition.
Odd... maybe. I don't know how to defend that one.
Abusable. Yes, possibly, and you've chosen a good example there. Actually, one of my early complaints against the sociological/anti-racist definition of racism was that there were too many ambiguous cases such as the one you listed. And when someone's privileged in his province/community/enclave/etc but not in the country/region/world, you have to put some work into ascertaining which level is most relevant in each interaction being analyzed.
This ambiguity is a weakness in the construct, but hardly a fatal one. It applies to most words, after all. For example, the word "tall" is a pretty common word. People think they understand it. But... tall relative to what? What is the line that separates tall from short? And etc. Few words map an exactly delineated area in concept space. This usually isn't a problem. Does the Mongolian neo-Nazi spend most of his time on the border between Mongolia and China? Probably not; he'd get arrested ^___^
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
it might appear trollish but it was the first thing to come to mind when i read kweas post. this is why:
i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas). the 'conservative troll' attack is well overplay (3rd post in this thread). but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Actually, you indulged AND found a way to look completely ignorant and foolish. Good job.
I love how people who have no clue assume I am a liberal, and then think it is OK to question my honesty and integrity simply because our views differ. Not that they check, or attempt to debate any actual points, mind you. Assumptions are PLENTY of grounds for it, according to them.
I simply was pointing out that if you don't want to seem like a troll....which I know for a fact Dan isn't, because I have an actual history posting here, and I have interacted with him in the past...then he should discuss actual facts, and ask people WHY they believe what they do, rather than assume it's because they are stupid, dumb, and obviously ignoring his "reality".
But he uses the same phrases as some trolls, and is every bit as dismissive as they are if you don't agree with him. You never disagree with him because you have thought about it and came to a different conclusion....it's always because of the liberal slant of the board, or the willful ignorance of facts (most of which are not factual at all), or because people don't like him.......
In this case, all of his claims have been refuted, over and over again, by multiple sources. So he once again because with the persecution complex, because no one agreed with him. Not even Bill O'Riley, for God's sake!
If he wants a discussion, he should try to not sound like a troll looking to get a rise out of people. Perhaps then an actual discussion can happen.
Not that I expect facts to sway you, cap. After all, facts have a liberal bias. Which explains why no one fact checks any more. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think that being wrong and being an idiot are basically on the same spectrum. If you're consistently wrong and resist being corrected, that's pretty stupid, isn't it?
And the statement implies that conservatives are fundamentally, systemically wrong on many or all issues. That they're fighting against reality itself. I've never seen anyone use that phrase and not appear to be meaning it in an insulting manner. And I never used to use that phrase without intending to be at least smugly superior, if not blatantly insulting.
Dan, do you know where that phrase first popped up? It was a funny counter to the battle cry of the neo-cons from 10 years ago....who claimed any news service who didn't agree with their party line was "liberally biased". The Neo-cons were using that phrase as an insult, BTW.
I just found it funny that you seem to think that phrase, which is most commonly found on a bumper sticker, is an actual argument against conservatism. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah... no. I'm sorry, that's not the accepted sociological or anthropological definition of racism.
[...]
OAD:
Orincoro: Did you seriously just cite the dictionary as the arbiter of sociological truth? The dictionary tracks how words are used by the majority of the population. Sociologists (and anti-racists) are not the majority of the population. If you just mean to argue that I'm not using the word "racism" the way most people use it... you're absolutely right and I've never denied it. But that's unrelated to your point about what anthropological and sociological circles think!
Here is the dictionary definition of slut:
Main Entry: slut Pronunciation: \ˈslət\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English slutte Date: 15th century 1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman 2 a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute b : a saucy girl : minx
You can bet that's not the sociological definition.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I just read your explanation of your first comment. Thanks for clarifying, and I am sorry if I came across stronger than I thought I would at first.
Tone is hard to convey online, as we both just demonstrated. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol. what IS the sociological definition of slut
*breaks the glass marked 'in case of semantics, break glass, but not in the sense that one would have their water 'broken,' if by a third party acting on willful intent, but rather act upon it physically the glass as a nonwilling entity such that its physical composition is degraded along points of fracture, rendering it incapable of holding it in its former position; note that our use of the word 'break' is not in the sense that it is rendered unable to perform as it used to perform insofar as its function is concerned, as it is arguably the glass's function to be broken where warranted, but rather broken in the sense of physical shearing to create an explicable and one-way revocation of its otherwise present barrier to the contents contained within ...*
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A black person who believes in black supremacy wouldn't be racist under this construct because 1) his beliefs aren't culturally sanctioned by the wider society and 2) It doesn't defend white advantage.
Out of curiosity, is this right here kind of the point of this definition?
I'll go back to kindergarten here. Two wrongs don't make a right. And to go Biblical, remove the plank from your own eye first.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't think anyone's saying it does. They are, however, deliberately trying to indicate which they consider the greater wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A KKK member magically transported to world where black people have all the power and white people are an oppressed minority would not be labeled "racist," but rather "prejudiced."
But thats just bizarre. Forget the Mars bubble actually. Consider the case of the Mongolian neo-Nazis. Such a person would have power in Mongolia but would be powerless in say, bordering China. He could control whether or not he is saying racist things by simply crossing over the border every minute he wanted to say something that was "not racist."
Now imagine that he's standing with one foot in Mongolia and one foot in China. Has he become some sort of quantum racist?
This seems like a pretty odd and easily abusable definition.
When you're looking at racism as systemic power, whether or not an individual person is "racist" is largely irrelevant. That's in fact part of the point of the definition -- to get away from the idea of racism as an attribute of individuals and recognize it as a societal structure.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but when we're, say, identifying Breibart or Sherrod as either racist or not, it seems needlessly complex to make the identification dependent on their geographical location and/or what media/people they have access to.
*shrug* It seems to me that the concept is different enough from the common understanding that maybe they should have just used a different word and be done with it
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a common thing to hear from African American activists. They say they can't be racist because they don't have the power. Therefore they can say whatever they want to. Who knows, maybe they are right. All it is is an attempt to justify prejudice.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sure, but when we're, say, identifying Breibart or Sherrod as either racist or not, it seems needlessly complex to make the identification dependent on their geographical location and/or what media/people they have access to.
Again, the definition isn't about defining who is or isn't a racist. (Which is pretty much a pointless exercise anyway.) It's not a definition of racist, it's a definition of racism.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:All it is is an attempt to justify prejudice.
It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism.
No one's justifying prejudice, they're just saying it's less detrimental to society and therefore should be less of a priority to combat than systematic racist structures.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: It's not a definition of racist, it's a definition of racism.
*shrug* Maybe you're having a different conversation
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A racist is a person who 1) Is prejudiced against a racial group which doesn't have power in the society in which he/she resides 2) Is part of the racial group which does have power in the society in which he/she resides
As for whether there's a point to defining whether a particular person is racist, isn't that what this thread was specifically for? It seems to me very important whether a government official with power and influence to discriminate on racial lines is in fact racist or not. For example, if Sherrod *had* turned out to be a flaming racist, whether she was a white supremacist or black supremacist, she should be out either way.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe I disagree with that part of sinflower's definition and was offering a complementary, but not identical, perspective.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:All it is is an attempt to justify prejudice.
It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism.
No one's justifying prejudice, they're just saying it's less detrimental to society and therefore should be less of a priority to combat than systematic racist structures.
Personally, I consider intolerance OF ALL KINDS to be detrimental to society and should be fought at all levels. I could care less about any distinction between degrees. I will NOT stand for it no matter how justified someone may be for their feelings. Is racism as you define it wrong? Absolutely! But I give it no special status above any other form of intolerance. To do so merely reinforces the traditions of intolerance.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: Fair enough I remove myself from the discussion as to whether racism is "independent" (for lack of a better word) from racist. I think there's enough oddity for me in the discussion as to whether racists are racists only in context with a society Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is racism as you define it wrong? Absolutely! But I give it no special status above any other form of intolerance.
Why not? Do you believe there is no distinction to be made between intolerance that is supported by social and legislative structures and intolerance that exists only between two individuals?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is racism as you define it wrong? Absolutely! But I give it no special status above any other form of intolerance.
Why not? Do you believe there is no distinction to be made between intolerance that is supported by social and legislative structures and intolerance that exists only between two individuals?
Obviously from a legal standpoint, yes there are varying degrees to anything. There is first degree murder and there is manslaughter but the distinction is primarily one of determining the level of punishment. Either way, a wrong has been done and something should be done about it.
Sinflower's statement was "It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism."
To me, that is using this "sociological" definition of racism to excuse something that is wrong. That's like saying "let's ignore all the burglaries and rapes going on until we solve all the murders." So let's leave the term racist out completely and say it this way:
"IF" she is racially prejudiced, should she still keep her job? If so, why?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sinflower's statement was "It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism."
To me, that is using this "sociological" definition of racism to excuse something that is wrong. That's like saying "let's ignore all the burglaries and rapes going on until we solve all the murders." So let's leave the term racist out completely and say it this way:
"IF" she is racially prejudiced, should she still keep her job? If so, why?
The answer to your counterfactual: No.
But the question is whether this case should've been pursued in the first place.
Since I, and other people genuinely interested in anti racism, only have a limited amount of time to devote to this cause, should I be spending this time pursuing systematic change in racial power disparities? Or going on fruitless witchhunts against individuals, minorities no less, getting so lost in my need to place moral blame on others that I'm willing to fudge and ignore facts? Which overall strategy would be most productive in creating lasting racial equality? (Assuming, of course, that this is my goal).
If the people who spend so much time fighting "reverse racism" as they see it spent orders of magnitude more time fighting systematic racism against minorities, then I would applaud them. But the rest of us are limited to 24 hour days, and need to set priorities.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
But the question is whether this case should've been pursued in the first place. [/QB]
That would depend on the facts. If she is racially prejudiced and evidence came out supporting that, absolutely. If she isn't and there wasn't, then no. To say anything else is to justify racial prejudice.
Now I can certainly understand if someone working for racial equality would not specifically target her in lieu of any evidence. There are more likely targets out there. But if compelling evidence should come out, then something should be done.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Then we're not in significant disagreement on that point, although we may disagree on what constitutes compelling evidence.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ...You never disagree with him [Dan] because you have thought about it and came to a different conclusion....it's always because of the liberal slant of the board, or the willful ignorance of facts (most of which are not factual at all), or because people don't like him.......
I just want to say that I'm perfectly willing to accept that people simply came to different conclusions than I did. Heck, I live in the Bay Area. Virtually every one of my friends in real life is a liberal. I'm okay with that.
My complaint about the "liberal slant of the board" is exclusively regarding what I perceive as a double-standard in terms of what level of condescension and non-value added commentary is acceptable. Samprimary in particular has a very sarcastic, condescending tone to a lot of his posts about politics. I was actually trying (perhaps failing) to mimic that tone, when I came into this thread. Obviously, that was a silly idea. Regardless, however, as soon as I did that, people said I was acting like a troll. But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll, and only very rarely do they even seem to object to his style. That's the part that I was trying to complain about.
As far as the actual topic at hand, I don't think the people disagreeing with me are willfully ignorant, or that they don't like me, or anything like that. I'm fully aware that my opinion of Sherrod is in a minority, even amongst conservatives. That's fine. Maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!
I've been giving a lot of thought to what Tom said about her husband, and the use of "Uncle Tom" as shorthand, and it's very interesting. I still have some misgivings, though. Mainly because the most prevalent way I've seen "Uncle Tom" used in the last decade or so has been a catchall term for black conservatives, so it doesn't sit well with me. But, to be honest, my partner's parents have been in town all week, so all of this has sort of been on the back burner in my mind.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll
FWIW, I have called Samp a troll/accused him of trolling, and I agree with him about 90% of the time. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the people who spend so much time fighting "reverse racism" as they see it spent orders of magnitude more time fighting systematic racism against minorities, then I would applaud them. But the rest of us are limited to 24 hour days, and need to set priorities
Yeah but I wonder sometimes whether we truly understand the notions which belie the foundations of what some call "reverse racism", because I think that if we did we could better fight institutional racism. In some sense, how we understand "reverse racism" is the same way we should understand anti-feminism and other movements against discrimination.
Though I disagree with the belief, reverse racism draws it's roots from the same beliefs in an intrinsically unfair playing field used to identify racism. By your own sociological definition, it's not difficult to imagine someone who believes that there are those who believe they are racist simply because they are not a minority, and that from that belief, would want to fight back against a playing field where one side is perceived to be able to break the rules in the name of systemic racial healing and eventual fairness. Moreover, it's even more plausible, and common I would argue, that when a minority is, by definition, unable to be a racist even when claiming the same beliefs against one race that the racist holds against the minority because that minority does not have power, that feelings of racism grow stronger and beliefs in reverse racism grow out of a need to bring about fairness in the racism debate.
Before I continue, I would like to share a story. I teach at a High School in Texas and I have classes of applied mathematics that have mostly minority kids and I teach AP Calculus and Statistics where mostly white and affluent kids learn math. The thing I find most interesting is the debates we had last year in AP Statistics. Most of my white students argued that the only reason Barack Obama became president is because African Americans voted for him soley based on his skin color (and by extension because he *wasn't white), and most of my black students argued that those white students were racist and were making unsubstantiated claims because they were angry their white candidate hadn't won.
Now, who is right? Are the white kids racist? How about some context? When President Obama won the presidency, the next few days at my high school were a little tense because our African American students would run around the halls shouting about how they had beaten "whitey" and how Obama was going to show the world what a black person could do, and in turn, our white students would react negatively. Alright, now are the white children racist? How about the African Americans? In context, I don't think those questions are so easily answered.
It's funny how our children can show us, in vivid and immature detail, how race relations in our country can be seen to sometimes play out (even on a national political level), but to me, it was eye-opening to see the reactions amongst even seniors in high school to the racial tensions we still see in our own country. And though I don't think this applies to Breitbart and Sherrod because Breitbart was simply trying to make an ugly political statement, when charges of reverse racism are leveled against an African American, for instance, I don't think it's something we should so easily dismiss because I think part of the problem we face in solving racial disparities is that we forget that the *manner* in which we fight injustice is just as, if not more, important than the injustice itself. But more than that, I think that we sometimes forget that good people can sometimes be unintentionally racist, and that the labels we place on people usually fail to tell the entire story of that person.
I think we face an entire block of people in this country who feel they have been unfairly singled out, labeled with an ugly label and treated with much less respect than they deserve, and I think that we could more easily and effectively fight racism if we recognized that those people would be more willing to become introspective about race if we worked with them and not against them. It's a basic sociological and psychological tenet that when a person is attacked, that person tends to become more entrenched in their beliefs in order to defend themselves, and that's clearly not what we want.
posted
Why do we call people out on racism at all, you mean? Because when people know that they can't get away with doing racist things without being called out on it, they are less likely to do racist things. It does lead to some lip service, true, and plenty of resentment. But psychological research has indicated strongly that people tend to become what they pretend to be. This is why most people are shitty liars. If we make it so that people who are prejudiced are incentivized to pretend not to be prejudiced, many of them will actually become less prejudiced. You can only say "I support racial equality" so many times before the psychological principle of "commitment and consistency" comes into play and you actually start supporting racial equality in your actions more.
Of course, the problematic aspect of this is that people also have less incentive to talk honestly about their racism/prejudice and how they're trying to overcome it, so we do need to strike a balance between making it absolutely clear that racism is unacceptable and yet not leaping on people who are genuinely trying to become less prejudiced. I absolutely agree with you, though, that this balance currently isn't being struck. It takes some skill to distinguish people who demand "less political correctness" because they want to be free to be prejudiced without being shamed for it from people who want less PC-ness because they actually want to talk about the issues and work towards equality, but it's a valuable skill that more people should acquire.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember reading a story that showed me a very important point to remember when discussing race relations.
I knew a woman when I was young, about 16, who was a white, well educated woman who ran our local library. She was about 60, and a very nice lady, and since I read so much when I was younger, and delivered her newspaper for about 2 years, I knew her pretty well. She was telling a few of us a story about something that happened to her the previous week....she had been out late at a friends house, and her car broke down in a fairly bad section of town about 11pm.
This was before cell phones, and she went to a pay phone to call her son, but while she was digging in her purse for change to call, a group of about 5-6 black kids headed right at her. She got worried, as she had been mugged the previous year, and she gave up calling and crossed the street to not be near them.
One of my friends, Terry, is black, and he looked at her and said " Well that's not right. Maybe they wanted to help you. I can't believe you did that, that's racist!"
She just looked at him and shook her head. Then she said "How do you know that I was being racist. I would have been just as worried, and acted the same, had it been 5-6 white kids. It was white kids who mugged me the first time, after all.".
Humean, I would have said the black kids were acting in a racist manner, and that some of the white kids probably were as well.
There are enough idiots of every race, creed, sexual orientation to cover us all. That's why I hate everyone equally. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Why do we call people out on racism at all, you mean? Because when people know that they can't get away with doing racist things without being called out on it, they are less likely to do racist things. It does lead to some lip service, true, and plenty of resentment. But psychological research has indicated strongly that people tend to become what they pretend to be. This is why most people are shitty liars. If we make it so that people who are prejudiced are incentivized to pretend not to be prejudiced, many of them will actually become less prejudiced. You can only say "I support racial equality" so many times before the psychological principle of "commitment and consistency" comes into play and you actually start supporting racial equality in your actions more.
Well, I guess my point would be that that's the way I manage my classroom. I give my students incentives for being good and punishment for being bad, and yet, on some level there is an understanding that I am teaching teenagers, children who need that kind of incentive.
But should that be the way we treat adults and our own citizens? We complain all the time about how politicians treat us like children, how they seem to think that we can only understand something if it's packaged in some nice slogan or cliche, and yet, it seems to me that in our fight for racial equality (or even gender equality), we do the same thing to other rational adults. In fact, I believe this is the very basis for the anti-intellectualism movement in this country, and that's speaks not to a hatred of elites but more to a movement against those who think the adults of this country aren't smart enough to understand or change when faced with rational arguments. Conditioning may work for Pavlov and his dogs but I think sometimes that the reason we still face some of the same problems we did 100 years ago is that we aren't dogs and shouldn't be conditioned to feel a certain way. I know this is in no way what you are claiming but people aren't stupid, for the most part, and they understand when they are being tricked or conditioned into believing what others believe to be correct. When we shame people into believing what we know to be correct, whether we like it or not, we create division and hierarchy both intellectually and racially.
I really am looking for balance because I think we do have to call out racism when we see it, but I also think we need to evaluate how we call out that racism and why there are those who are so adametely opposed to the manner in which we do so. We can't be high school teachers where a hierarchy and division are expected but we also cannot be lax in calling out the racist elements of our society, and to me, that's an important distinction that we should make as we evaluate how race relations can progress.
Edited to add: Kwea
quote:Humean, I would have said the black kids were acting in a racist manner, and that some of the white kids probably were as well.
When we talked about it in Stats, I brought up the argument about power and you know what their reply was?
"They do have power! Do you know what it's like to be called a racist!"
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Because when people know that they can't get away with doing racist things without being called out on it, they are less likely to do racist things. It does lead to some lip service, true, and plenty of resentment. But psychological research has indicated strongly that people tend to become what they pretend to be.
Ok, this would seem to be counter to your earlier argument. Before, you were saying that individual racism is less effective to combat than systematic racism due to time restraints. Perfectly logical, and I agree. And yet, this would seem to say that racism is best fought on an individual level through unified resistance.
I guess my question is, haven't you already won the systematic battle? Everyone knows you can't not hire someone for being black. You can't refuse them service in your restaurant, or deny them housing, or tell off color jokes about them at work. We have a whole day set aside each year to remind us of that so the company can't be sued for piles of money.
So anyone still being racist is doing so from a personal level where they feel they won't be caught. Wouldn't individual perceptions seem to be the only thing left to fight?
(Excluding the justice system. I'm not sure if I think they're still racially motivated or if they're socio-economic, but that might be your last systematic holdout that needs to be fought.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess my question is, haven't you already won the systematic battle?
Heh. Ask someone who's not white some time. Here's an example: imagine that 1200 resumes are sent in to various accounting jobs, split evenly between the names "Thad," "Juan," and "Tyrone." Imagine, too, that all else is held essentially equal (and the differences are randomized.) Would you expect statistically identical callback results for the three imaginary candidates?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Instead, they found that resumes with "White-sounding" names--like Jay, Brad, Carrie and Kristen--were 50 percent more likely than those with "Black-sounding" names to receive a callback. The results were striking, holding both for jobs at the lower end of the spectrum--cashier and mailroom clerk positions--and for those at the executive level. Put another way, a White job seeker would have to send out at least 10 resumes to receive a single contact from a potential employer. A Black candidate, meanwhile, would have to send out 15--and this in a "soft" economy with a relatively low rate of new job creation.
The most intriguing--and troubling--aspect of the study was that the discrimination effect held even for candidates with stronger credentials: those who had gone to better schools, or won awards, or had fewer resume "gaps," periods of at least six months without employment.
"We really thought a higher quality resume would help the African American candidate--that the employer would put less weight on the names," Bertrand says.
And indeed, improving the resume quality helped candidates with White-sounding names significantly--their chances of receiving a callback rose 30 percent. But for candidates with Black-sounding names, "we found none of that. If anything, we found the opposite," Bertrand says.
quote:In fact, after sending out thousands of resumés, the study found those with an English name like Jill Wilson and John Martin received 40 per cent more interview callbacks than the identical resumés with names like Sana Khan or Lei Li.
“If employers are engaging in name-based discrimination, they may be contravening the Human Rights Act,” said the study’s author, Philip Oreopoulos, economics professor at the University of B.C. “They may also be missing out on hiring the best person for the job.”
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: ... In fact, I believe this is the very basis for the anti-intellectualism movement in this country, and that's speaks not to a hatred of elites but more to a movement against those who think the adults of this country aren't smart enough to understand or change when faced with rational arguments.
I'm not particularly convinced that would be the mechanism. The anti-intellectualism movement is definitely out-sized in the States but I'm not so sure that there's an out-sized movement against perceived adults that aren't smart enough (for lack of a phrase) though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I remember the name study. But it's not legal. If anyone can prove the companies are doing it, they can sue the pants of them. The campanies get away with it because someone in HR wants to and figures they can get away with it.
So now your options are cumbersome rules that inconvenience all businesses, or you can address the companies that you can show engage in discriminatory interviewing.
I just think we've reached a point where systematic needs to focus in a bit in order to efficiently use its reseources.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess my question is, haven't you already won the systematic battle?
Heh. Ask someone who's not white some time.
I have actually but he may be a bad one to ask. Not only is he African-American but he's also an atheist and a HARD LINE Libertarian.
Note, not disagreeing with you at all. Sounds spot on to me. Just pointing out that asking a "non-white" is no guarantee of getting the answer you would expect.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll
FWIW, I have called Samp a troll/accused him of trolling, and I agree with him about 90% of the time.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll, and only very rarely do they even seem to object to his style.
Very rarely, eh?
It may be totally inappropriate, but this makes me feel much better. My impression was that it's very rare, Samp. But I'll be the first to admit, I don't read every post. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong in this case. You and Tom say my impression was incorrect, so I'll take you guys at your word.
So, Samp, in case it wasn't clear, I would like to apologize for my tone when I first came to this thread. "Yawn" is not a substantive statement. I shouldn't have said it.
PS: Please, please, please stop calling me Dan_Frank, if you could? That stupid underscore is sooooo cringe-inducing. Just... Dan, is fine. If you don't mind. Or even Dan Frank, if you want to distinguish me from, say, Dan_Raven (does he like the underscore?) or whatever other Dans may be here.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism.
It appears Marxists have *really* lowered their admission standards.
I may have been indulging in a smidgen of hyperbole.
Really just using Marxism as shorthand for "views rich and poor as an us v. them scenario." I'm not actually making any specific claims about where she may stand on actual Marxism. I wouldn't exactly be surprised if she turned out to be a Marxist, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she claimed she wasn't.
Like you need to be a Marxist to have some sympathy with that statement. It's not like it hasn't been frequently true in the past or anything.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
