Racism and privilege

[One Brow]

Does benefitting from racial privilege make one a racist?

Being human makes one a racist. Racism comes from judgments people make, and all of us have learned to make judgments based on skin color.

Why do you come at this like you do? You start out by calling us all racists and then tell us how ignorant we are. Why not explain what racial privilege is and how it manifests itself on our society? You don't need to point fingers at individuals like Stoked and myself. We're not your enemies. We don't "want" racial privilege to continue because it benefits us. Just because casual and unfounded accusations of racism are distasteful to us that doesn't mean we support racism or want the current power dynamic to continue unchallenged.

I haven't singled anyone out as being a racist because 1) we're all human and all racists, and 2) the issue is how you allow that to affect you.

As for my attitude, I'm not going to hold in my passion for your comfort on the issue. I've said many positive things about you and Stoked in the past, my opinions have not changed.

You can't start a constructive dialogue by drawing a line in the sand and saying all of you on that side are evil horrible people, let me tell you why. It just doesn't work like that.

Nor have I done that. I've said in more than one thread in the past that racism is not a personal failing, it's a construct of society. I've said in more than one thread that I'm as subject to it as anyone else.

 

[Stoked]

Being human makes one a racist. Racism comes from judgments people make, and all of us have learned to make judgments based on skin color.



I haven't singled anyone out as being a racist because 1) we're all human and all racists, and 2) the issue is how you allow that to affect you.

As for my attitude, I'm not going to hold in my passion for your comfort on the issue. I've said many positive things about you and Stoked in the past, my opinions have not changed.



Nor have I done that. I've said in more than one thread in the past that racism is not a personal failing, it's a construct of society. I've said in more than one thread that I'm as subject to it as anyone else.

Racism is a learned behaviour, not an inherit one from birth. I compeltely disagree that if you are human you are racist.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow, what solutions would you suggest?

As I just mentioned to Bronco70, the solution will come from people recognizing their biases and actively working to counter them. I'm also in favor of allowing institution to create policies designed to aid this process. No easy answers from me, though.

 

[Gameface]

One Brow, you've claimed you can't be racist because racism is a power dynamic, but here claim we're all racists.

We need to define some terms if we're going to discuss this in a way that doesn't hurt my head. For one, can we agree to refer to a racist as a person who holds particularly strong views in regard to the difference between people based on their "race"?

Just like everyone lies we don't call everyone a liar. A liar is a person with a reputation for not telling the truth. Let's follow that standard when calling people racists.

 

[One Brow]

Fixed for you.

Your first fix is simply wrong. Minorities do get the short end of stick, and are forced to acknowledge it by reality in a way you never will be.

The second borders on dishonest. Nate505 made a specific comment about white liberal guilt, and I responded to his comment in those terms.

 

[One Brow]

Racism is a learned behaviour, not an inherit one from birth. I compeltely disagree that if you are human you are racist.

We are not born into a vacuum, but a culture that teaches racism, and how to make racist judgments, in thousands of small ways. I agree no one is born a racist. It is nonetheless true that all humans (that survive to an age which allow such judgments to be made) are racist.

 

[ema]

This thread is golden.

I want to read also a babe post here but he is very busy these days with the JFK intrigues.

 

[Stoked]

We are not born into a vacuum, but a culture that teaches racism, and how to make racist judgments, in thousands of small ways. I agree no one is born a racist. It is nonetheless true that all humans (that survive to an age which allow such judgments to be made) are racist.

No it isn't. But I think our disagreement is how you define racism. If this is true than you are a racist. Shouldn't you spend more time correcting your own flaws in that area instead of pointing out the flaws of others?

Edit: GF already touched on the bolded part.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow, you've claimed you can't be racist because racism is a power dynamic, but here claim we're all racists.

I did not claim I can't be , or am not, racist. I said that my diminishing the opinion of some white guy on the existence of his privilege can't be racist. As an individual, I can choose to go along with the racist judgments I have been taught, and I do so more often than I care to admit. Racist acts are those that feed the power structure, not those that diminish it.

We need to define some terms if we're going to discuss this in a way that doesn't hurt my head. For one, can we agree to refer to a racist as a person who holds particularly strong views in regard to the difference between people based on their "race"?

I'm quite happy to use "racial bigot" for that idea.

However, if you really want to use racist for that term and that level of bias, what would be your term for someone who is just uncomfortable with people of another race? Someone who chooses to interview Bianca, but not Yolanda? Someone who thinks integration and equality are good, but still talks over black people in a way that they don't talk over white people? Most experts seem to use "racist" to describe these behaviors.

Just like everyone lies we don't call everyone a liar. A liar is a person with a reputation for not telling the truth. Let's follow that standard when calling people racists.

Since I haven't pointed to any individual and said "you are a racist", in what way does this apply to the conversation? I've been performing the analogous calling out of lies.

 

[One Brow]

Shouldn't you spend more time correcting your own flaws in that area instead of pointing out the flaws of others?

Any reason I shouldn't do both?

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

You don't get to the foundations of racism unless you call into question the tenets of liberalism itself. One Brow's very own convictions about INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATION play their own roles in the furtherance of racist phenomena.

The only way out is via the dismantling of the "individual" as we currently frame it. Every other compromise will circle back to the reproduction of these (or very similar) contemporary conditions.

 

[Stoked]

I did not claim I can't be , or am not, racist. I said that my diminishing the opinion of some white guy on the existence of his privilege can't be racist. As an individual, I can choose to go along with the racist judgments I have been taught, and I do so more often than I care to admit. Racist acts are those that feed the power structure, not those that diminish it.



I'm quite happy to use "racial bigot" for that idea.

However, if you really want to use racist for that term and that level of bias, what would be your term for someone who is just uncomfortable with people of another race? Someone who chooses to interview Bianca, but not Yolanda? Someone who thinks integration and equality are good, but still talks over black people in a way that they don't talk over white people? Most experts seem to use "racist" to describe these behaviors.



Since I haven't pointed to any individual and said "you are a racist", in what way does this apply to the conversation? I've been performing the analogous calling out of lies.

Racist bigot is overkill but whatever. Racist is sufficient (category 1)

Uncomfortable? I would call them uneducated and unfamiliar. The unknown makes us uncomfortable. Education and exposure problem. Not a racist one. (using the example you provided and assuming that the person does not fall under category 1)

As for calling someone out by name. You don't have to call out names as you just included every last one of us as a racist. Saying specific names at this point is redundant.

 

[Stoked]

Any reason I shouldn't do both?

Hypocrisy.

Edit: Until now you have nto been doing both. You have been talking about how we are racist. Not you.

 

[NUMBERICA]

You don't need to defend yourself, because it's a statement of objective truth, not moral imperfection. All you are being asked to do is recognize, accept it, and in the future, keep it in mind when you interact with others.

Which serves to devalue every accomplishment I have to some degree if I subscribe to it which will never be enough. If all I am being asked to recognize, accept, and in the future keep it in mind, when I have been doing that all along, then it would seem that I wasn't doing that all along.

There is certainly a point of diminishing returns with emphasizing all of this and can easily be a wedge issue. Which is why I say it's sloppy and can be counter-productive.

 

[sirkickyass]

Racism is a learned behaviour, not an inherit one from birth. I compeltely disagree that if you are human you are racist.

Believe it or not, whether or not racism is learned is up for debate.

Studies regarding empathy and affinity have suggested that your brain may fire neurons differently, in fact become more active and devote more time to observing/understanding, when you view actions taken by someone of the same race vs the same activity performed by someone of a different race.

The meaning of such studies is not very well understood at this point, and some data on the subject is inconclusive. That said, it's interesting that we may to some extent be hard-wired to spend more time empathizing with those who look like us.

 

[Stoked]

Believe it or not, whether or not racism is learned is up for debate.

Studies regarding empathy and affinity have suggested that your brain may fire neurons differently, in fact become more active and devote more time to observing/understanding, when you view actions taken by someone of the same race vs the same activity performed by someone of a different race.

The meaning of such studies is not very well understood at this point, and some data on the subject is inconclusive. That said, it's interesting that we may to some extent be hard-wired to spend more time empathizing with those who look like us.

Really? I find that very interesting.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yes. The whole point was to expose the underlying violence, force people to confront themselves, and thereby be forced to change.

I see the way you are trying to spin this, but no. There was zero force involved. People were free to choose and change if they wanted to.

Both were highly outspoken advocates for their positions, and not shy about hurting people's feelings when needed.

If you are so sure of this I task you with finding some quotes from Mother Theresa and Ghandi where they negatively approach a situation and demean them in an effort to get what they want out of them, rather than having a positive form of speech even when making a point they feel is important.

Often, it can be a step on the way to solving a problem. In particular, getting people to acknowledge their bias can lead to them acting with less bias.

This approach of getting people to see the mote in their eye is particularly ineffective. Why force people two steps back and into a defensive posture in order to discuss an issue? This is like the Mexican military attacking California and/or Texas in an effort to discuss or prove the inefficiencies in the border situation. How likely is the US to talk to them about the issue after a military strike? Yea, that's going to end well. Instead of having open discourse on the subject, the automatic defensive posture of those being attacked will in effect be a wall to useful conversation, and the attacked party will in effect strengthen their own stance on the subject because of the attack.

Not smart if the intent is progress.

I agree, both negative and positive reinforcement are useful. Neither of those involves keeping quiet.

I don't know who you are agreeing with while quoting me, but I don't think both negative and positive reinforcement are useful. I think positive reinforcement is useful.

I have said nothing about staying quiet on a subject and expecting it to get better as you and others have suggested. I have advocated taking a positive approach, and showing people by example how to do things the right way. I advocate positive communication as opposed to pointing out flaws in other people. If we all work on our own flaws we can make more of a difference than telling people how and why they are wrong and how they screwed up.

I heard a story once about someone that was going to break a horse, and they wanted to first get the horse to walk with them.
He walked ahead of the horse and tugged on the rope to get it to walk, but it just pulled back. He pulled harder and harder, until the horse fell down.
He did this day after day until eventually after the first tug on the rope the horse would just fall down.

He went in and talked to his wife and something was said about him doing very well at teaching the horse to fall down. She suggested instead of trying to walk in front of it and pulling it, that he walk beside it. He tried it and it worked perfectly.

Now I did not get the story exact, but the main point is easily recognizable if you want to see it.

Trying to force people/horses to do something is a good way to teach them to fall down.
On the other hand walking next to them and showing them, is more likely to work out the way you want it to.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't think you're being insensitive at all, actually. Rather, I think you're approaching with an idealistic view that simply wouldn't hold in our current society. Thus, alternate approaches, along with approaches that have worked up until now, should take precedence

Depends on the person, I think some of us are already there. As a society? Clearly not. As has been stated there is much work to be done. But I was talking about a goal now wasn't I.

The goal of communism is to acclaim a perfectly altruistic, egalitarian society. Sometimes, the means in which you try to achieve the goal are so detrimental, that they'll never reach the goal



You're mixing up the cause with the effect. Us not talking about racism anymore is the EFFECT. And quite frankly, the only way we will get there, is of we're conditioned to believe in equality-- which is helped by integrating this legally (which we have).




You talk about some people who are 'already there'. Lovely. But we all know how much damage a small percentage of people can do, that can devastate an ethnic group.





America has a racism problem. Anyone who's denying it, is being dishonest. Have we improved? Dear God, yes. Do we have work that needs to be done? Absolutely. Will making everyone stop talking about it help us get there?? Hell no.

 

[The Thriller]

Believe it or not, whether or not racism is learned is up for debate.

Studies regarding empathy and affinity have suggested that your brain may fire neurons differently, in fact become more active and devote more time to observing/understanding, when you view actions taken by someone of the same race vs the same activity performed by someone of a different race.

The meaning of such studies is not very well understood at this point, and some data on the subject is inconclusive. That said, it's interesting that we may to some extent be hard-wired to spend more time empathizing with those who look like us.

When reading this post I was reminded of this study I saw a while back. Interesting...

[video]https://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50135408n

It's a question people have asked for as long as there have been people: are human beings inherently good? Are we born with a sense of morality or do we arrive blank slates, waiting for the world to teach us right from wrong? Or could it be worse: do we start out nasty, selfish devils, who need our parents, teachers, and religions to whip us into shape?

Wesley watches as the puppet in the center struggles to open up a box with a toy inside. The puppy in the yellow shirt comes over and lends a hand. Then the scene repeats itself, but this time the puppy in the blue shirt comes and slams the box shut. Nice behavior...mean behavior...at least to our eyes. But is that how a 5-month-old sees it, and does he have a preference?

Annie: Wesley, do you remember these guys from the show?

To find out, a researcher who doesn't know which puppet was nice and which was mean, offers Wesley a choice.

Annie: Who do you like?

He can't answer, but he can reach... (reaches for nice puppet)

Annie: That one?

Wesley chose the good guy and he wasn't alone.

More than three fourths of the babies tested reached for the nice puppet. Wynn tried it out on even younger babies, 3 month olds, who can't control their arms enough to reach. But they can vote with their eyes, since research has shown that even very young babies look longer at things they like. Daisy here looked at the mean puppet for 5 seconds; then switched to the nice one for 33.

and

Wynn and her team first published their findings about baby morality in the journal "Nature" in 2007, and they've continued to publish follow-up studies in other peer-reviewed journals ever since -- for instance on this experiment.

They showed babies like James here a puppet behaving badly -- instead of rolling the ball back to the puppet in the middle, this green-shirted bunny keeps the other puppet's ball, and runs away.

Then James is shown a second show -- this time the bunny who he just saw steal the ball, tries to open up the box to get the toy. Will James still prefer the puppet who helps out? Or will he now prefer the one who slams the box shut?

[Annie: Who do you like? That one.]

He chose the one who slammed it shut, as did 81 percent of babies tested. The study's conclusion: babies seem to view the ball thief "as deserving punishment."

Paul Bloom: What we're finding in the baby lab, is that there's more to it than that -- that there's a universal moral core that all humans share. The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature.

Finally

In offering babies this seemingly small, innocuous choice -- graham crackers or Cheerios -- Wynn is probing something big: the origins of bias. The tendency to prefer others who are similar to ourselves.

Karen Wynn: Adults will like others who share even really absolutely trivial similarities with them. And so did Nate and 87 percent of the other babies tested. From this Wynn concludes that infants prefer those "who harm... others" who are unlike them. Paul Bloom: If you want to eradicate racism, for instance, you really are going to want to know to what extent are babies little bigots, to what extent is racism a natural part of humanity.

Lesley Stahl: Sounds to me like the experiment show they are little bigots.

Paul Bloom: I think to some extent, a bias to favor the self, where the self could be people who look like me, people who act like me, people who have the same taste as me, is a very strong human bias. It's what one would expect from a creature like us who evolved from natural selection, but it has terrible consequences.

These are babies... 3-6 month olds.

 

[Stoked]

The goal of communism is to acclaim a perfectly altruistic, egalitarian society. Sometimes, the means in which you try to achieve the goal are so detrimental, that they'll never reach the goal



You're mixing up the cause with the effect. Us not talking about racism anymore is the EFFECT. And quite frankly, the only way we will get there, is of we're conditioned to believe in equality-- which is helped by integrating this legally (which we have).




You talk about some people who are 'already there'. Lovely. But we all know how much damage a small percentage of people can do, that can devastate an ethnic group.





America has a racism problem. Anyone who's denying it, is being dishonest. Have we improved? Dear God, yes. Do we have work that needs to be done? Absolutely. Will making everyone stop talking about it help us get there?? Hell no.

I immensly enjoy how you, Jimles and Onebrow are misinterrepting what I said. I never once said that we should not talk about race. Not once. I did say that it is a problem till race no longer matters to us. When I look at a person and see them as a person not a black, arab, latino, white, asian person... same for all of us.