Let's talk about Racism

[Jamshyd]

God forbid we do, as I'm now automatically a racist by suggesting we talk about it, right? .

Problem a. western society is so overburdened with post-war guilt that not only has it sanitized all conceptions of race, but also stigmatized any discussion thereof that doesn't involve sanitation.

Problem b. despite the above, people continue to use the "we" tongue. This happens even in corporations - one hears another talk in the "we" tongue to describe the corporation. Nationalism is as fashionable as ever, and people are at an almost dangerous scramble to define and redefine their collective identity.

Problem c. how, then, does one reconcile the movement to sanitize the discourse from racial references with the equally mushrooming movement to increase the amount of "we"'s?

What I say: If you say "we", then you are giving the other permission to generalize you in their discourse. A society which is built on, and breeds, collectivism has opened itself up to racial discourse. An individual that talks in the plural has given others the right to generalize him.

End of case (for me).

Please challenge this (or, by all means, support it ).

p.s. For other PnS staff, please feel free to close or edit this thread it is already too risqué or if it turns uncivil.

 

[Jamshyd]

(some of) My proposals:

1. Eradicating racism does not start with the individual who is making racial generalizations*, but by the group being generalized. Therefore, group mentality needs to be abolished.

2. Being different is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, I find difference fascinating. We need to learn to acknowledge differences and appreciate what we could learn from each other, rather than attempt to coagulate into blocs.

Just my 2 Drachms.

* Nor does it start by paranoia leading to the stigmatizing of any who dares makes generalizations.

 

[DOB]

I am racist

 

[peer.review]

(some of) My proposals:

1. Eradicating racism does not start with the individual who is making racial generalizations*, but by the group being generalized. Therefore, group mentality needs to be abolished.

* Nor does it start by paranoia leading to the stigmatizing of any who dares makes generalizations.

This proposal only brings into focus one aspect of racism, namely, interpersonal racism. If we expand the concept of racism to incorporate internal and structural forms of racism, then we see that interpersonal acts of meanness based on race only make up a small portion of what can be deemed as racism. Thus a "solution to racism" (if such a thing exists) ought to include macro, meso, and micro level changes.

 

[ThaiDie4]

Jamshyd, would you mind clarfiying for me what a " 'we' tounge" is??

I think I get what you are saying though, about the fact that Western society rarely talks about race. Everyone is so scared to be racist, that I guess they just pretends that we are all the same! I remember one night I was trying to point out one of my friends to another friend of mine and I go, "Oh he's the tall black guy over there." And she's like "SHHH don't say that!"... Say what? Black? He is black!

I've had people tell me that "African-American" (I live in the U.S.) is a better word to use- but then, what if that person isn't African?? There are blacks from other places of the world besides Africa! That's a major pet peeve of mine. I have no idea what country my friend was originally from, so I'm not going to call him an African-American.

I don't know, I'm rarely in a situation where whites are the minority, but if I overheard someone refer to me as "that white girl over there", it wouldn't bother me. But, I always try to respect people... if someone were to be offended by me calling them out by race, I would appologize and not do it again! Plain and simple.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Race is so far not a scientific concept. (So far no one has been able to provide a statement about the nature of race that is testable or falsifiable.) Still, I think it is a socially valid concept. The word simply comes from the Latin word 'radices', which means 'roots'. Your race is your ancestral roots, however you and those people you belong to choose to conceive, trace, and define that.

Likewise, when someone is being racist, they are making a judgment about a person based solely on that person's roots, [and here's the catch] however THEY choose to conceive, trace, and define that. Whenever an act of racism is committed, the doer has decided that the recipient of the action does not share his ancestral roots, and on the basis of that alone, deserves to be held to a different standard of some sort, than someone whom he DOES see as sharing his ancestral roots.

Racism is, therefore, an act of othering, based on factors that the recipient of the action had no control over, namely his ancestry. That's

Jamshyd, I agree with you that among Westerners, political correctness, and a squeamishness to even bring up the topic of race and racism, is a backlash (or a flipside) to the unabashed and horribly damaging racism that made the Colonial Age what it was. I understand the shame that the peoples of the West must feel for the deeds of their not-so-distant ancestors, since the legacies of the Colonial Age are as real as ever today. It's kind of a collective sheepish sense of "Welp, I guess nothing I could say could fix what I've done, so I'll just shut up now."

But, like you said, that doesn't do anything to address the real injustices that continue as a result of racism past OR present.

I'm all for openly discussing injustices, past or present, that are a result of one pedigree of people deeming themselves more entitled than some other pedigree. When the people involved aren't themselves vindictive or looking to lay blame, tabling these grievances can be a great way to build understanding and bury historical hatchets. I have, in fact, done this on a number of occasions. I've taught myself not to feel uncomfortable when issues of race come up.

Still, I see three potentially big problems with opening discussing race and racism, that have the potential to cause big rifts of mistrust to form between individuals:

1) The issue of generalities versus individuals. When you speak in generalities about a whole group of people who claim a common ancestry, how can I ever be sure how much, or how little, you measure ME by those generalizations? You can add all the disclaimers you want about me being your friend, but at the end of the day THOSE ARE MY PEOPLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, whom I love and cherish!

2) The issue of 'doing the done thing' vs. 'doing what I personally think is right'. I can have perfectly rational reasons for breaking with social convention in a big way, in this case broaching the subject of race. But if no one receives me well, and no one can understand where I'm coming from in doing this, have I really accomplished anything other than alienating myself? Japanese literature is replete with moral dilemmas of this kind, of 'what I must do' (giri) vs. 'what I know is right or compassionate to do' (ninjou)

3) The issue of self-determination. You can make any observations about me you want. But no matter how well-founded those objective observations are, you can never know exactly what it's like to BE ME, and have lived my life. So too with groups. Most groups of people, especially ones that are bound by a common sense of roots and history, would agree that one must be an in-group member in order to have anything close to a full understanding of the mindset involved in being a member of that group. Even an in-group member, writing voluminously and floridly about his life as a member of his group, cannot bestow upon out-group readers a full sense of this, because out-group members are filtering whatever they read through a completely different set of filters. Therefore, that you would purport to TELL ME what it's like to be a member of MY GROUP... BAH!

I'm fond of saying that Chinese people are, on the whole, more money-minded than Westerners. I can defend this as objectively true, using controlled, peer-reviewed sociological studies. And indeed, I've had Chinese people tell me I'm spot on. But I've also been called a racist for making this judgement, because such a statement doesn't nearly do justice to the Chinese mindset in all its depth, and doesn't encourage a full and balanced appreciation of what it means to be Chinese. But if I can NEVER get a handle on what it means to be Chinese, should I even try to verbalize it? This is not an easy issue.

I find one thing that helps is to ask questions TO the individual, ABOUT the individual. ("I noticed you listen to music with a lot of bass. You into that, huh?") This invites the person to explain a difference in group preferences or tendencies, from their side (the inside), if this is indeed the case. ("Oh yeah. Us Kerblakistanis love bass-heavy music!") This is a great way to build understanding, without the possibility of causing offense by foisting assumptions on people.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Um... I don't think I have.

What's ingrained in us instinctively is fear of the unknown. The antidote to that is facing our fears and getting to know what we've been fearing better.

 

[L2R]

the "politically correct" movement does as much damage as blunt racism in the separation of people.

 

[jackie jones]

Let us not forget to include adverse racism in this conversation.

 

[Max Power]

Racism is usually built around unfamiliarity with the culture of others. It stems from a fear of the unknown, if you will.

It's usually ingrained during childhood from parents who prbly got it indoctrinated from their parents.



I'd be willing to bet there's more racism in schools where there is a low minority-count verses a school where all races are blended together equally.

 

[B9]

It's an extension of ego - like a group ego - we are better than them mentality. No different from me considering myself better than you - or you (mistakenly) considering yourself better than I

Yeah I agree about the paranoid sanitisation in europe - however the rationale behind it seems sound enough to me.

Risque Racism - how sweet.

^ Um... I don't think I have.

What's ingrained in us instinctively is fear of the unknown. The antidote to that is facing our fears and getting to know what we've been fearing better.

I'd suggest that more basic matters could be at work- reproduction of oneself & the creation of the ideal enviroment in which to do so may play some part - I am as ever speculating

 

[ebola?]

p.s. For other PnS staff, please feel free to close or edit this thread it is already too risqué or if it turns uncivil.

If this is too risque, then our forum is not worth its salt. . .
...
I am currently grading papers for a sociology of race seminar and am considering a dissertation project centering on racial tensions. On the other hand, I would say that I am currently quite poorly versed in current racial scholarship: I as of yet don't really know how to conceptualize race, particularly in relation to ethnicity (in many cases, I find that the hyphenated monstrosity, "ethno-race", is necessary) or nationality (which gets complicated with the emergence of numerous trans-nationalisms).

As a rough cut, I find the following definitions useful (I think of these as ideal types that blur together):

Race: this appears to be an ascribed status, born of the exercise of political power made more expedient by "othering" particular groups on the basis of arbitrary physical, characteristics. Here, I find the Foucauldian/Althusserian concept of interpeletation most useful, as do I the frame of internal colonialism.

Once set in motion, the reproduction of race becomes all the more viable insofar as it is refracted through the erroneous lens of biological essentialism. Just to get things clear, race (even with the oft overstated nuances of Brazilian racial practices) is not a biologically valid system of categorization. The rough cuts of race don't bear a great deal of genetic correlation beyond those genes coding for the visible phenotypic traits we usually associate with race, these genetic traits correlate unreliably with ancestry, and categories based on such traits are an arbitrary selection from continuous human variation.

People often make an analogy between breeds of dogs or cats and races. This analogy is woefully flawed. Humans are a very young species, and there has not been sufficient time for genetic specialization of sub-groups on the basis of populations separated by patterns of migration. Nor have there ever been such separated enclaves of humans. We're total sl00ts. If you want to find a sub-group with the greatest amount of genetic variation, it is to be found w/in central Africans (the irony being that African Americans are very likely to be treated as a homogeneous group in the US).

Yet race is 'real' insofar as we are compelled to act on its basis.

Ethnicity: this appears to be more voluntary projects of identity, born of underprivileged sub-groups' reactions to practices of oppression (individual and institutional). Think of 'Black' (a race) versus 'African American' (often denoting a tie to an ethnic project, but now shrouded in confusion, used as a 'politically correct' proxy for "Black"). It is a lot more easy to opt out of an ethnic project, as many Afro-Caribbean immigrants to the US will attest.

Nationalism: this appears to lie in between race and ethnicity in terms of ascription versus voluntarism, insofar as bottom-up political projects meet with the top-down exercise of power, through official institutions of power, many of which hinge on citizenship rights. I think that Ben Anderson has it mostly right, although he highlights the voluntarist side of the coin.

Now, how do the three meet? I am not sure at all, although it seems to be partially determined by the empirical case at hand.

enough typing for now.

ebola

 

[swilow]

I am ism-ist. Or maybe ist-ism.

Racism is also a generalisation; I know racist people that are good and kind; I know tolerant folks that are wankers. Racist/racism is probably another way of simply categorising humans. Either way, we all came from monkeys and not that long ago, so lets just eat bannanas and be done with it.

 

[swilow]

ADDENDUM: I have never laughed at a racist joke nor told one. To me, the concept of a racist joke is an oxymoron.

 

[karruters]

I'm now automatically a racist by suggesting we talk about it, right? .

...what... the fuck?

 

[L2R]

ADDENDUM: I have never laughed at a racist joke nor told one. To me, the concept of a racist joke is an oxymoron.

hows about jokes which exaggerate or make light of widely known stereotypical traits and attribute of a specific culture or race not to mock or embarrass but to create and share a bond of recognition, acceptance and empathy?

 

[swilow]

^Well, I see what your saying- but what I meant is that I don't find racism funny, hence my inabilty to perceive any real so called racist joke as an actual joke. The concept of racist humour, to me at least, cancels itself out.

That said, I would make a joke about aussie stereotypes without feeling as if it were racist.

 

[Lady Codone]

The idea of "race" is an illusion. The DNA of human beings from all races is just alike, except for 1/1000th of ONE section on ONE strand (of which there are billions), which accounts for all the physical differences between the races. Race is just another variation in our species, just like different color cats, different breeds of dog, or any other phenotypical variation, yet many people view it as if we really were from different species.

It's not our race that makes us different so much as our culture. It just so happens that your race often determines which culture you're brought up in. The only difference that can be attributed solely to race is physical appearance, and that's hardly a subject worthy of discussion unless you're particularly shallow.

 

[ebola?]

I just killed the meme thread in the lounge with white guilt (OLOLOL. . .)

Problem a. western society is so overburdened with post-war guilt that not only has it sanitized all conceptions of race, but also stigmatized any discussion thereof that doesn't involve sanitation.

I agree, and I'll add that this type of sanitization is near perfect for reproduction of institutional racism (concealed by the apparent death of overt, individual racial preference).

If you say "we", then you are giving the other permission to generalize you in their discourse. A society which is built on, and breeds, collectivism has opened itself up to racial discourse. An individual that talks in the plural has given others the right to generalize him.

Fair enough. But egotistically, if I make carefully considered, nuanced, statements 'we statements', mired in qualification, do I open the door to people making similar 'generalizations' about me? I can live with that.

1. Eradicating racism does not start with the individual who is making racial generalizations*, but by the group being generalized. Therefore, group mentality needs to be abolished.

I'm sure that you're well aware of this, but eradicating racism will hinge centrally on uncovering and dealing with the structural conditions that lead to racial disparities, outside of our own experiences of group action. The key moment of this process will likely be international.

2. Being different is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, I find difference fascinating. We need to learn to acknowledge differences and appreciate what we could learn from each other, rather than attempt to coagulate into blocs.

Your overall approach, while normatively sound, runs against most everything that we've observed in human beings thus far. We appear to be rather adept at fashioning in-groups and glorifying them, but at the cost of establishing stigmatized out-groups.

Perhaps human society is at some sort of inflection point though--that is, perhaps prior human societies were broken into blocs based on the raw material fact that individuals would cooperate on a daily basis with those of their in-group and meet those of the out-group only in relations of war. In contemporary society, though, there are numerous criss-crossing lines of cooperation, similarity and difference intersecting in almost all interactions. In this way, everyone is some sort of socio-cultural 'hybrid', and this hybridity is becoming all the more obvious.

So perhaps human society is currently shedding the mindset congruent with cooperation on the basis of similarity and proximity, fashioning something more appropriate for conditions of intensified differentiation (and proliferation of sub-groups), and active role-appropriation by individuals.

To digress briefly and wrap up, the type of role-appropriation that we see in contemporary settings stands congruent with the above vision of Jamshyd's. We tend, more and more, to hold membership in groups by applying the generality of the group to the particularities of our own actions and meanings. Yet we appropriate from multiple groups, so while any individual may bear certain characteristics of his or her group-affiliations, no group attributes are appropriated completely, and each appropriation from the group stands tempered by appropriations from other groups. So perhaps the recognition of this fact is the first step toward reconciliation of in-group/out-group conflict.

I appear to be an optimistic Durkheimian here--quite odd.

ebola

 

[Lysis]

I really think the racist word gets thrown around too much. I know there are people who seriously hate people of other colors or cultures, and yes, I believe it's disgusting, but I don't think pointing out stereotypes is racist.

For instance, a couple of days ago, my upstairs neighbors had a flood in their kitchen. The water was gushing into my house really badly (they had a fridge leak). The problem was that they speak little to no English. I did get pissed because I had an entire living room with water everywhere and I couldn't simply go over to them and say "hey guys! we have a problem!" I don't think I'm racist for getting pissed that these people only speak spanish. I don't hate them for their race, but it's one of the annoying stereotype of latins - they don't want to speak english.

Every stereotype has a hint of truth in it. I don't think it's racist. I equate racism with extreme hate...like hating someone so badly for their color that you want them dead. I also don't think racism is as prominent anymore. I think the racist groups are being pushed into the shadows, and that's just where they need to be. It's not like you can walk around proclaiming your loyalty to the KKK without people disassociating with you.