"You're Racist!" - The definitions of words really do matter

in #racism6 years ago

pointing-finger-1922074_640.png

I was reading a post Countering Racism in 2018 - A suggestion by @dwinblood and I began a comment but I quickly realized that it was getting a little long in the tooth. I decided to do it as its own post instead.

So for those who don't click the above link, I'll paraphrase. He says that racism has once again gained wide acceptance in the media against one particular group, white people. His solution? Call them out. Call them the racists that they are, right to they're faces and shame them for it. Fantastic! I love this.

This got me thinking about a fallacy that has to do with the definition of racism. Most people today are saying that it's racist to simply make a generalization that distinguishes between two ethnic groups. I take issue with this definition because I think it's being used to call out non-racist generalizations as racist.

Here's why: I think of an ethnic generalization as requiring malice in order for it to actually qualify as racist. This first came to my mind a couple decades ago when my black roommate and I were talking about genetic predispositions among ethnic populations. Being a student who was studying genetics at the time, I was thinking about these types of things a lot. Specifically, I said something to the effect that people of Irish heritage (myself included) seem to have greater depth of emotion in general, a self-ascribed observation that was intended to neither disparage nor promote the Irish (it could be used for either). It's just something I noticed, and something I've also heard from many different sources. It may or may not be true, but at the time I thought it might be true (although I had no data to actually back that up, and I think now it might be crap). In response he said something like "that sort of thing has been used to discriminate against and oppress black people."

I was a little taken aback because I wasn't thinking of it that way at all, but I took what he said seriously. I didn't want to be racist. There aren't too many things in this world that I like less than racism. Thinking about it further I asked, is it racist to point out that Irish people have a tendency to have fair skin and sunburn easily? I don't think it is, it's just an observation, one that happens to be unequivocally true. Now if you said something like "I hate those dirty Irish with their pasty white skin. Screw them all, I hope they all get skin cancer and die." Then that would be actual racism. The difference between the two statements is the presence or lack of malice against the ethnic group.

In my experience bullies don't actually need a good reason to try to hurt others. They'll pick up and grab whatever weapon is available to them. In this case, ethnic generalizations, the cause of the problem isn't the generalization, it's the fact that someone used it as a verbal weapon against another. There was malice in the bad one, none in the okay one. I use the word okay instead of good because facts are not good or bad, they just are. They're neutral. Similar to the way in which we can't stop violent crime by banning guns, we can't stop racism by banning certain accurate generalizations. The rest of them will sort themselves out as they can easily be disproved with scientific study. The dictionary definition from Google sort of backs me up on this:

"rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
noun: racism
"theories of racism"<

I say sort of because, well, the first definition backs me up anyway. The second definition, the one I consider to be dangerous and misleading which is what most people are using currently, lacks the specificity required to make it an immoral thing. I think if you changed the word "especially" in that sentence to "specifically" it would then qualify as malicious in every circumstance, and therefore racism will be able to be accurately used as a disparaging moniker. Using the open-ended definition for racism, by using the word "especially" in the place of "specifically", is the exact sort of thing that makes it socially acceptable to discriminate against white people. It obscures what is really evil about racism, which is that it's malicious in nature. As I said above, the bullies don't need a good reason to be bullies. They'll just make one up to fulfill their sadistic desires. Now instead of using the socially unacceptable tactic of being racist, they're inaccurately calling people racist. They've been so successful at this tactic that they've been able to get an alternate dictionary definition to be put into wide use!

Now nobody is going to pull the wool over my eyes and tell me that there are no differences between the races. All you have to do is look at them for about a tenth of a second to know that's not true. This is a biological fact and it makes perfect sense from the standpoint of studying genetics in natural settings. Geographically separated genetic populations diverge in small ways very quickly. It's such a common theme in genetics that there is a name for it, genetic drift. The amount of genetic drift between human populations (races) is relatively small however due to the long length of our lifespans, the large size of our populations and our ability to overcome geographic separation pretty much at will. Pointing out these small differences for some benign reason like medical science is not racist, it's a statement of fact, and therefore neutral. As Confucius said "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." It only becomes a problem, and therefore racist, when some asshole uses that information to try to hurt other people.

Image Source: User maxlkt on pixabay

Sort:  

I find this post to be very insightful. I'm black and growing up I always got annoyed by people who were always walking on eggshells whenever it got to discussing race. I found this to be especially common amongst white acquaintances, who would use to term "African American"instead of "black" for fear of offending me and would not even dare make any jokes about black stereotypes. My Asian and Indian friends were a lot more comfortable and would tease me about eating chicken and watermelon or whenever it was dark, they'd tell me to smile cause they couldn't see me. I always felt more comfortable around them. Given the current social climate, I don't blame my white friends for being the way they are, and usually they loosen up over time.

Racism, in it's most technical definition, is ascribing inferiority to a race on biological grounds. You can still ascribe a negative trait to a race and not be racist, but you have to open to the fact you would be the same way if you'd grown up in the same circumstances.

I often criticize different races for traits they have, for example I point out the fact that Chinese people can be very cold and lack empathy towards strangers. It's not racist for me to say this because I'm not attributing it to a genetic predisposition, but rather a densely populated country with ideals that facilitate such a mindset. If I had developed in the same culture, I would have the same behaviour. This is how I believe criticism should be levied against races, with a focus on culture and environmental cause.

finall_1_1.gif
Pre-comp 4_1.gif

eating chicken and watermelon or whenever it was dark,

I never really got the whole chicken thing. I like chicken too. So does my family. My skin is white, bit my heritage is mixed across many things. As to watermelon. I like it. Sadly I have a slight allergy to it.

So I never got those particular references and why they make some people angry.

I believe a lot of people walk on eggshells until they know a person. It is dangerous in this day and age not to.

I prefer to view people as humans. In fact, I don't really care how people LOOK at all. I care how they act.

Thanks for the kind words. Couldn't agree more.

I often criticize different races for traits they have, for example I point out the fact that Chinese people can be very cold and lack empathy towards strangers.

This is actually more a cultural thing and not a race one. Though you do make a good point. A lot of things do get blamed on race when in fact they are more likely a cultural issue. The difference is important as race, you're stuck with. Not your fault, nothing you can do about it. Culture is more environmental and how you are raised, and what you have learned. Not all cultures are good. It is also something we can change, though that doesn't mean it is easy to change. It is very difficult. Sometimes it is worth attempting difficult things.

A few times I've mentioned I thought BLM was actually looking at the wrong causation. I believe it is more likely to be a cultural issue that is leading to the law enforcement confrontations, higher violence, etc. rather than skin color.

When I do a side by side comparison of stats, symptoms, etc. Culture seems to check ALL of the boxes skin color would and then SOME that skin color does not.

Which means it might not have anything to do with being black, other than the cultural conflicts occurring might be more present in black communities.

I don't believe in a black culture, or a white culture. Culture can be learned, it can be adopted, it can be changed. In fact the culture I think that is most likely causing the issues BLM likes to talk about started with the Irish and was adopted by a lot of black communities.

How much of it is politics, divide and conquer?

And if it is culture and not skin color that is the problem how can we expect to fix it if we are looking at skin color?

It is almost like being sicked and being convinced that the solution is blood letting when really it is anti-biotics that are needed.

When the media talks about racism, I do not think their intention was to assume such a generalized meaning of the word. Which is where I disagree with both you and Dwinblood just a bit.

Below is how I see it...

When the media uses the word racism they are actually trying to identify and classify a group of people that does not believe in special treatment.

So to me, it seems that the media will call people racist if those people do not feel the need to provide balance to a system that suppressed certain groups of people in the past.

I do not believe it is realistic to expect we can balance anything (EDIT: With regards to racism). Balancing is artificial and just perpetuates racism as far as I'm concerned. We could just deal with actual cases of discrimination on a case by case basis. In otherwords, go after those that actually discriminate rather than trying to FORCE rules to stop it upon the masses which naturally leads to just shifting racism around and actually doesn't do anything to stop it, or discourage it.

If I'm understanding your point of view correctly, you're stating that if I don't support programs like affirmative action, social welfare and the like, and the media calls me racist for that, I am in fact a racist as they have correctly identified? Is that what you mean?

The label "racism", while perhaps initiated with good intentions, has become a tool used almost exclusively to gain competitive advantage for yourself in society.

Take a look at the NFL or NBA and at the percent of people of various ethnicities in it.

One particular group is massively over represented. So, that's either inherent ability or bias.

Willing to bet that group argues that they have earned their massive over-representation in sports, but that under-representation in other parts of society represents bias and racism rather than lack of ability.

The day that group agrees to limit their representation in sports to a percentage equal to their percentage in society is the day I will take anything they say about racism seriously. Until then, it's just the clever white noise of tricking the people of society with good hearts into handing them stuff for free.

Well said. I do want to add something I write about occasionally when it comes to dictionaries.

People can look at and wield dictionary definitions like a "see what the dictionary says" weapon to try to win debates/discussions/arguments. You did not do this. Yet, I still wanted to talk about it.

The dictionary is a TOOL. It was made by humans. It is NOT an authority on what can and cannot be a word. They also vary a great deal depending upon who put the dictionary together.

So to wield them as an authority is an appeal to authority fallacy.

As a tool its intent is to help you learn the definition of words as known by the person(s) that put together that dictionary. This is intended to extend vocabulary and help a person learn words they did not know. It is not intended nor does it have the authority to codify what the definitions of words MUST be.

I could go make a dictionary website, or a book now. Does that mean I now get to force my interpretation of words upon you? NO it doesn't.

Yet I believe most people forget that.

It is very useful for when you hear a word you don't know and need to try to determine what it means. Yet, it has ZERO authority to define what a word must mean. :)

Racism is a hijacked word...there are others.

When someone is racist, the implication is that said person lacks the skills to get along with members of that other race. For some, the object of their ire is an obsession, an addiction, but the lack of skill to improve their relations with that "inferior" race, whoever they might be, remains.

Racism is an addiction, it is progressive and sometimes fatal.

The antidote to racism is compassionate education. Compassion for those who still suffer from racism for they know not what they do. Education is to teach that everyone is human, with a beating heart, memories and feelings.

Until we move beyond punishment for each other and the retaliation that said punishment brings, the problem of racism will remain.

I'm torn on racism.
On one hand, it's clearly unfair to treat people differently based on the colour of their skin; but on the other hand, it does pose the question, 'To what extent is each race responsible for it's reputation'?
If every Spaniard I meet kicks me in the crotch, and every Belgian I meet gives me a cold beer; I'm going to eventually start preferring the company of Belgians over Spaniards.
Is this 'discrimination' my fault for over-learning from my experiences, or is the blame at the feet of all the Spaniards who've kicked me in the sack?

'To what extent is each race responsible for it's reputation'?

I can help with that.

There is a difference between race and culture.

Most reputation actually stems from cultural actions/activities/beliefs, and not so much skin color/ethnicity.

LOL, I got a good laugh out of that one. No, I would say in that example that what you're doing is not racist. You've had bad experiences and noticed a pattern that will protect your sack, and so you act accordingly. However if you later read a scientifically sound study showing that Spaniards are no more prone to violence than Belgians, and you didn't adjust your view somewhat, you might be venturing over into racism territory. Maybe it just so happened that the people in that Spanish town you visited were mostly assholes and they don't represent Spaniards as a whole. Instead of continuing to think that most Spaniards are bad, you should be thinking "maybe I should visit a different Spanish town next time, that old one is filled with assholes."

This is said with the understanding that the entire above example is hypothetical and that I in no way am trying to make any accurate statements about Spaniards or Belgians.

White male here. There is a lot of soft racism and biases that are subconscious. My 78 year-old father declared at Thanksgiving this year that black people just don't work as hard as other groups and that's why they are poor. I think to most this is a pretty obviously racist statement, but he defended it as just what he has observed, and how could facts be racist?

You should be really careful when making generalizations. You might not be malicious (my dad in the previous example didn't think he was), but you are delusional if you think those generalizations don't affect the way that you make decisions and interact with people. You also don't have the perspective to see it (because it's just truth from your POV) and what may seem harmless or unimportant to you may be the 1,000th small indignity to the other party.

Generalizations can be useful in the absence of information about a person, but they also need to be quickly cast aside as soon as you make real observations about a person. And instead of being defensive when someone says you behaved in a racist manner maybe you should try listening and seeing the issue from their perspective.

I agree about the soft racism thing. I grew up in rural America so I've seen my share of both overt and subconscious racism. If someone puts forward a statement that is damaging to a group's reputation and has no evidence to back up the claim, and makes no attempt to collect that evidence, or even to appeal to an authority on the matter beyond their own anecdotal evidence, I think that indeed is racist. I think that's the category your father's assertion falls into. He made an ad hominem attack against an entire group of people based on both very limited experience and some supernatural ability to read minds that he probably doesn't possess.

Now on the other hand, if he were to say something like "black people are underrepresented in the work force" he would not be making a racist comment there because there's not any subjective interpretation being made. For whatever reason it's true. It's not true of all black people, but it is a generalization that is based in fact. The why requires careful study. My problem is with this latter statement and others like it being attacked in the media as racist. It obscures the truly racist things being said and done.

Yeah, it requires a lot of nuance, and unfortunately there is a bit of an "Outrage Culture" out there that basically exists to get inordinately pissed about things. Something I saw recently was a nursing textbook that said Group X might respond this way to pain, but Group Y tends to respond differently, and gave suggestions on how to respond to them to get the information you need. This isn't racism, these are general cultural differences, however a lot of people lost their shit at it. However, I do see a lot of people who are in fact projecting soft racism get offended when you point it out to them. Generally, when in doubt, listen openly to what people are telling you.

I learned a lot from your post. Thanks for sharing.

Your posts are very good. I like. very beneficial for the reader

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70597.89
ETH 3559.60
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.77