carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
.......so your saying our relationship is terminated? We never had a relationship.
Is Hayward a victim of reverse racism on this board?
- Thread starter Matthew Thomas Castleton
- Start date
.......so your saying our relationship is terminated? We never had a relationship.
HeavenHarris
Banned
i am always interested in different opinons so, carolinajazz, you intrigue me.
this is america, if someone wants to be a racialist, they have a right to be a racialist.
how do you feel about the 3/5ths rule--gives blacks too much power, or just enough?
this is america, if someone wants to be a racialist, they have a right to be a racialist.
how do you feel about the 3/5ths rule--gives blacks too much power, or just enough?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....have no idea what your talking about. Never heard of the "3/5ths rule!"
Tell you what: when you show you have given this enough thought to accurately restate what I said, then I'll be happy to oblige. As it is, I would reject the categorization of racism you presented in that post.
I did not say the dictionary definition was in colflict with the definition as I provided it, I emphasized that is was not. Seriously, read before responding.
Hoprefully, you will at some point show sufficeint understanding to realize this is completely compatible with my point that racism is facet of a culture, not an individual. In particular, you mihgt consider the difference between "X has racism" and "X enacted racism".
You're really splitting hairs here, though. People are capable of having racist ideas, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. Any person, or as I'm sure you'll point out, all people.
Since I don't use the phrase "X is a racist", your analogy fails, hard.
Of course. The difference is the attempt that people make to rationalize the problem by creating an "othering" category of "racists". That allows such people to say "they are racists; I am not". Noting that racism is a description of a culture, not a person, empahsizes that it is the responsibility of every participant in the culture, and not just a few nut jobs that can be ignored.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Do you have an academic education in culture, One Brow? Anthropology, sociology, something similar?
No I've just been doing somereading lately. If I have been misunderstanding, I'm open to correction. I do insist that someone has to understand what I wronte before they can correct it.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
The reason I ask is that while I haven't kept fully abreast of this thread since it's been revived, what little I have read has left me completely confused on the definitions and concepts of culture and racism you have provided, and I have a degree in what is essentially culture, and I don't think the entire source of my confusion is that I haven't put forth full effort in reading the conversation.
EDIT: I guess I'd prefer if you restated your entire viewpoint, because I can at least understand everyone else's viewpoint, and whether I find it accurate or not.
I haven't attempted a definition of culture, but my concept is the general aggregaton of common understandings and methods of understanding that become part of the background for the thinking of individuals. Culture allows us to have a common set of cognitive shortcuts (without which communication would be even more difficult).
Racism would be the various common cognitive shortcuts associated with notions of skin color, heritage, etc.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
There has also been some sort of disagreement when discussing the commonality and/or lack thereof of the words racism and racist. Would you care to clarify the two?
There's the obvious difference between being an adjective and a noun. The noun would be a property of a culture, the adjective applied to the features of that sulture, often seen in individuals, that supported and/or were supported by that property of a culture.
This notion came out of 1960's efforts to explain the reasons for declining family rates in the black demographic (that slavery made female only parenting seem natural). Everyone from reformers to feminists latched on and popularized it. However, the notion has been thoroughly discredited.
You are intentionally trying to argue words over ideas. You want to argue fluff over substance and make it seem like you come off intelligent or a winner in the argument?
Racism is not necessarily a property of a culture but it is more of an ideology that can but does not have to be contained within a culture.
The racist would be somebody that adheres to that ideology. You cannot have racism without racists, well I suppose you could but it would be just an empty theory with no substance. You can have racism with even just one racist.
I see your point in arguing words, but I still do not agree. I still think racism can be a "property" of a single person.
Racism is something everyone practices. The notion that some people are "racist" is a trick we use to deny our own tendencies.
I couldn't disagree more.