you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 105 points 3 months ago (59 children)

racism noun

  1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group

lanzybear is an idiot

  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly, lazybear's take is very close to the moronic thinking making people believe that men can't be raped.

    Stop making simple concepts complicated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    It's not an original thought, but a very publicly taught one. Which was a redefinition made by some well meaning academics and activists who wanted to narrow the focus of civil rights work to the most egregious violations.

    (Which would have been a laudable goal except that it makes everyone fight about what "racism" means instead of solving anything and implicitly tells poor whites that their economic oppression doesn't matter.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    I'd say it's less that they are an idiot and more that they don't understand there is systemic racism and interpersonal racism (there is probably a more official term here but interpersonal covers it well enough for a Lemmy comment).

    Systemic racism can only be done by the majority group with the power in a given system (usually government but it could be perpetrated in a religion, an institution, club, etc.). Red lining is a great example of that. Segregation as well. Things done by the group in power to the ones not in power of the given system. Throughout the history of the USA, this means white people oppressing other ethnicities but especially black people.

    Interpersonally, anyone can be racist. They can hold racist views and hate others without knowing them beyond their appearance.

    Edit: strike through on majority. While most commonly it is a majority group in power, it doesn't have to be a majority group, just the group in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Because what they really want to say is "it's okay and even just to be maligned to white people" without having the stones to actually say that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    No, just that there's a subtle difference between anti-white bigotry (which is real) and reverse-racism (which isn't). You can pull out dictionaries all you like but to put it in terms of a cute nursery rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but socioeconomic bias by the ruling class can kill me and everyone I love."

    Sorry, that doesn't rhyme very well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 months ago*

    No, this is over-complicating a very simple concept all over again.

    Reverse-racism doesn't exist because it's just regular old racism. White people can be the target of racism just like anyone else, but this is distinct from the fact that as a privileged social identity they may not be nearly as harmed or affected by that racism as a minority would. The fact that social power modulates our experiences of racism does not mean that some people cannot experience racial targeting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    What is the purpose of making the distinction if it's not "I want to be maligned to white people and not be called racist?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    You're now talking in circles. I did just explain why the amount of perceived or real harm caused by racist treatment does nothing to qualify or disqualify it as racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Piping in here:

    The redefinition of "racism" to mean only "racially-motivated oppression" appears to have had two major negative effects.

    1. It makes us all waste time arguing about a word even when we agree on the injustice, and thus have less energy to fight that injustice.
    2. By linguistically excluding whites we give rhetorical space for white resentment and anti-white prejudice, which politically helps bad actors benefit electorally from the former.

    Arguing that racial animus towards whites doesn't count as racism helped Trump get elected!

    I'd be very interested in any information about the positive effects it's had to offset either of the above. From my perspective I don't see them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Arguing that racial animus towards whites doesn’t count as racism helped Trump get elected!

    That's pretty damning in itself isn't it. A few minor semantic differences and half of America is ready to vote for the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins? A convicted felon, a rapist, a monster. A hateful, incompetent, malignant joke of a human being. Perhaps this is what we needed. Someone to cut open the thin veneer of civilization and show all of us just how unfit America is. To break the illusion that our neighbours are good people.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This argument has been going on for 60 years, by historians and educators, black and white, who are much smarter than us... Here's a reddit comment I found that detailed the argument well (paraphrasing)

    the purpose of "power + prejudice" was to move discourse away from the idea of being racist as a personal failing, and instead focus on structural oppression and the material reality of minority groups.

    Basically liberal society largely seems to have conceived racism as 'being irrationally mean', but for people with a materialist anti-racist perspective, that definition isn't productive or insightful and the lack of material, tangible progress for black people post-civil rights made it clear that there needed to be more focus on power dynamics and historical context to combat racism.

    Beverly Tatum's work offers an informed and compelling perspective on the matter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -25 points 3 months ago (39 children)

    The sooner you accept that racism is about power, the better you will understand it. The dictionary definition is not adequate for defining racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    The dictionary definition is not adequate for defining racism.

    The majority of people agree with how the dictionary defines racism and that’s how it is used in common language and legal contexts.

    It is a vocal minority of absolute fools who insist it’s about systems and power and not the discrimination that everyone else so clearly recognises it as.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    You people throw the word "majority" around a lot. I'm whiter than you are and I can acknowledge that there's a dimension of subtext in the word racism related to power structures. "Me and my drinking buddies" does not constitute a majority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    If you’re trying to talk to people don’t define the word to inherently include systemic power structures, then you’re never going to get anywhere by refusing to use language in a way that they understand. There’s no harm in specifying “systemic racism“ if the people you’re talking don’t include “systemic“ in their idiolectic baseline definition of racism. But just telling a person they can’t experience racism when their definition of “racism“ is simply analogous to prejudice will only make them defensive and hostile

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Because you're the one trying to convince someone you're correct. If you can't even properly use the words defining the concept you're discussing, why would they listen to you?

    There's already a term for what you're describing, systemic racism, that will communicate your point in a way that doesn't end with you arguing semantics and not getting anywhere in the actual conversation. Redefining terms to mean something the other person doesn't agree with just turns your debate about a concept into a meta debate about what words mean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (17 children)

    How about you explain in depth what you mean by that instead of being really vague and condescending. Can you do that? Can you explain in depth and with precise language what you mean by that? If you actually have knowledge you want other to also have, please go ahead and share it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    I didn't think I was being condescending, but I apologize if I came off that way. I'm happy to explain what I mean. Why don't you associate racism with power?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (14 children)

    Because it's not powerism, it's racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    lets look at some more.

    Rohingya genocide

    a series of ongoing persecutions and killings of the Muslim Rohingya people by the military of Myanmar. (not white people)

    Persecution of Uyghurs in China

    Widespread human rights violations by the Chinese Communist Party against the Uyghur people (not white people)

    Yazidi genocide

    The Yazidi genocide was perpetrated by the Islamic State throughout Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2017. It was characterized by massacres, genocidal rape, and forced conversions to Islam. (not white people)

    Darfur genocide

    The Darfur genocide is the systematic killing of ethnic Darfuri people which has occurred during the war in Darfur. (not white people)

    Effacer le tableau

    Effacer le tableau ("erasing the board") was the operational name given to the systematic extermination of the Bambuti pygmies by rebel forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (not white people)

    Massacres of Hutus

    During the First Congo War, troops of the Rwanda-backed Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL) conducted mass killings of Rwandan, Congolese, and Burundian Hutu men, women, and children in villages and refugee camps in eastern Zaire. (not white people)

    and on and on and on.

    A certain skin color is not a requirement for being shitty to your fellow humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    "let's look at racism"

    brings up historic examples of systemic, institutionalized racism, omitting every single personal act of racism in history

    You expect me to take this seriously as a rebuttal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I'd like a list of interpersonal racism that has the same historical impact, then. I'll help you get started:

    • The murder of Emmett Till
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t think you can make sense of the Emmett Till lynching and its aftermath without the social context. It’s an expression of (systemic) racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    I agree with you, however I'd argue that it was the aftermath of his death that displays how racism is about power, rather than his murder. The reason I'm calling it interpersonal is because most accounts accused him (falsely) of catcalling/whistling at a white woman

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    You just love moving those goalposts so you can keep having a leg to stand on.

    I don't love you doing it. Ta-ta.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    Me: racism is about power. Lists a bunch of racism

    Those are all systemic! What about the interpersonal racism??!?!??

    Me: ok, then list some famous historical instances of interpersonal racism.

    lOoK hOW tHoSe gOaLPoStS mOvE

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Whiteness itself is proximity to power.

    That's why it can change, like for Italians and Irish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    The discrimination is on the basis of race. That doesn't make it right, that doesn't mean that's the actual reason they're doing it in their minds. You're adding unnecessary context to the base word instead of adding the appropriate expansions to the base word to make it fit the desired context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    No it's just that words can sometimes mean different things depending on context. It's not "unnecessary" when you're actually trying to understand the long term effects of 400+ years of slavery, oppression, and atrocities.

    The only kind of people who find it "unnecessary" are the kind of people with no actual genuine interest in grappling with our horrific racist past which is the only way we could ever possibly begin to repair that shit. They'd rather just ignore it and pretend it never happened. Or immediately get weirdly defensive because "they didn't personally do slavery".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    If racism is about power then why can't I call Obama the n word

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    If you (the reader) don't upvote the above comment you hate diverse perspectives which is basically the same thing as being racist. Checkmate lemmy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments