Yes, we absolutely can. Racism has a definition: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Determining whether something is racist is not predicated on your race. Now you may not realize something is racist when it actually is, because it meets the requirements previously mentioned, in which case perspective is what may be needed to point it out. But that also means that something may not be racist even though you may say it is because it doesn't meet the aforementioned requirements. If you try to make racism this nebulous thing that can only be determined by the victims then everything and anything can be racist simply because they say so. And that is not a good enough reason to make any definitive judgements. There is a reason things are carefully codified in our laws and judges have to have years of experience, training, and learning.
By dictionary definition yours is spot on. In common use we conflate racism as a catch all to include the definitions of racial bias, (racial) bigotry, (racial) discrimination, and (racial) bias. So strictly speaking of we want to be precise- RACISM is defined as you say on your opening. It is however important to note that discussions of definition have a circular nature since the dictionary informs proper usage of words- but the dictionary itself is defined by common usage and changes as the ways people use words change.
To the second point- I would agree that it is important that society and individuals learn or endeavor for more precise use of language (how many arguments over “gender” and “sex” could be quashed of all parties were using the correct words for the concepts being discussed?) and that goes without mention that race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. etc. are all themselves separate entities independent of each other largely- meaning race based prejudice etc. isn’t the catch all or end all.
BUT- I cannot fully support your next point- that racism cannot he something defined by the “victim.” The reporter alone should certainly not be the only arbitrator of what is or isn’t racism et al. IF we are talking about racism as a legal construct- but only the reporter can tell you if they feel targeted racially, ethnically, etc. if they FEEL a bias is present or so on. Because it IS an amorphous thing. It’s a feeling and a perception is it not?
How do you quantify racism or racial bias etc? If you look at an industry where 70-90% of hires are one race- that itself isn’t a sign of racism is it? If 10,000 applicants of one race applied and 100 of another, and only 10% of each pool were considered for the job- but the 99.9% of the 1,000 were more qualified on paper and made better interviews than the 10 of the 100- is that racism or racial based at all?
It could be. Given that one criteria there is subjective- the quality of the interview. But we have no certain way to know if race was a qualifier or bias in that regard unless we meet 2 conditions:
1. The bias was conscious. 2. The biased party admits the conscious bias.
Perhaps it is even more important to note that race itself is amorphous. There is no scientific classification of race outside of pseudo science and discredited antiquated race based sciences. In science- such distinctions are made on genetics and region among other factors. Informally- individuals group factors like region of origin, ancestral regions, ethnicity, skin tone, and other factors to group what they see as “like people” into a racial category.
This is important on dispelling your proposition because what we are talking about- “race” is an amorphous concept that is imprecise by its very nature. It is individual and subjective. There is no single way to apply any idea of race universally across all cases with all parties because race has no standardized criteria or groupings beyond custom.
Case in point- where you travel in the world will see the terms “black” “negro” etc- apply to entirely different groups of people based on local history, custom, ethnicity, etc. many groups of Latin American countries, Caribbean islands, etc. are often considered “black” amongst their people or outsiders as are many Pacific Islander sub groups. The Aiti for example in the Philippines comprise a group known as the “negritos” which is also used in Puerto Rico and Latin America but generally itself is not seen as a racial slur in these places.
Amongst “races” individuals may see division of race- Eastern Europeans for example are or are not counted as “white” by certain people and also depending perhaps on specifically WHERE in Eastern Europe is being referenced. In most official records- Asian and Pacific Islander are counted together in one racial group- but if you go to Japan- Filipino is not generally considered of the same race as the Japanese.
And of course- politics plays a part in race and how the view of races change over time. One could be “white,” but not “white enough” for the Nazis for example. We then of course revert to splitting hairs on ethnicity and other bias- and on it goes.
But in conclusion- “race” is inherently imprecise and inherently mailable and relative. Given that- racial discrimination or racism or race (insert word) are themselves malleable and imprecise by nature. You can’t count chickens let alone make an all chicken soup if you cannot define what a chicken is. If what a chicken is depends upon a common agreement without codified definition of the item in question- then what is chicken soup or wether you singled out chickens in the process will also depend on a decision ad hoc.
When we factor in that racism does not require conscious knowledge by the perpetrator- who then can we rely upon to raise the flag and say that racism has occurred? If I am old and have lost my hearing mostly- so I believe I am talking normal but am being LOUD- I am incapable of recognizing this. Only the person I am speaking to can tell me I am actually shouting. But... what is shouting or speaking loudly? It’s relative to the situation and the listener isn’t it?
I think you've taken something and run with it without taking into account what I actually said. For the most part I absolutely agree with you. You even restated exactly what I said, in your rebuttal of the second point, as your point. The problem is that the victim can't be the only judge that determines whether something is or isn't racist. In your example about being loud if you are in fact not being loud but the "victim" decides your are, are you being loud? No you're not. That was the point I was trying to make. It's also why I pointed out that judges have to have so much experience, training, and learning.
We've got this horrible trend happening in our society where if someones feelings get hurt or you don't agree 100% with their viewpoint you're accused of being racist or bigoted. Nevermind the fact that their viewpoint may be the racist or bigoted one, it's you that's being unreasonable. Part of this is people refusing to use reasonable standards i.e. definitions of words and instead redefine them on the fly based solely on their feelings.
Without an objective standard anyone can accuse anyone of anything and have them punished for their "crime" regardless of the evidence because in their minds that person did the crime. This is the kind of thing we're seeing more and more of and it's just beyond stupid. This is exactly how we get moronic ideas like the original PSA.
This doesn't mean I think actual bigotry and racism doesn't happen. It does. And we should root it out whenever we find it. But just because someone cries wolf doesn't always mean there are wolves. And sometimes the person crying wolf is the wolf.
I think we by and large agree. I was certainly not implying you deny or advocate race-whateverism. I think the nuance in where we diverge- or where my understanding of that portion of your statement diverges from intent- is the only real point where we aren’t connecting.
I post elsewhere in this thread that the original statement of “X people don’t get to decide what is Y” is imprecise- ambiguous. It can mean either that NO single member of group X is allowed any say; or that as a group- group X does not get to be the group responsible for the determination of Y without input from other parties. Likewise- perhaps your original post was ambiguous in such a sense- or at least that I read it as such without malice or intent.
In other words- we are agreed that wether it is rape or discrimination we refer to- a ruling cannot be made simply based on the testimony of one party- that defies the basic principals of justice and truth. An accused party has fair right to defend themselves against allegations- perceptions of any event are relative to the parties involved and even if we eliminate “false accusations” there is the simple fact that two people can tell true stories without any intentional or unintentional exaggeration or falsehood- and those accounts can paint entirely different events.
Two people stand in a room- above is hung an object with lights shining on it to cast shadows on the wall. Neither an see the object from their vantage. From person A’s vantage- they only can see the shadow cast on the forward wall of the room. They see a circle. Person B can only see the far side wall- on it is cast a rectangle. If we have “god view” we can see the object itself is a cylinder- however both parties truthfully and with no bias other than the inherent fact that humans can only see what we are able to see- both parties would be telling the truth to say they see a rectangle or they see a circle- both statements are true but neither is THE truth.
Discrimination exists likewise- all parties can only see so much of the “truth” and the rest they must infer. If person A and B in our example are able to speak, and of correct mind- they could likely puzzle out the shape of the object or at least the shapes it is most likely to be. So sharing perspectives is important when we are dealing with human beings who each can only see a single view of a thing through their first party observation.
So where we have issue is in (no insult or offense intended) the possibly, ironically, imprecise phrasing in the latter half of your stately concerning the standards by which to judge race-whateverism. The rest of my reply simply summed up is: there is no objective standard of racism. There is no objective standard of race. There is no objective standard of discrimination- and if we settle upon a customary standard- two critical complements are by who’s custom we judge that standard- and perhaps more importantly- if we have an agreed upon standard of discrimination- the metrics we use and the burden of proof on that standard.
We have historical precedence to indicate that a system which defines and enforced discrimination against minorities by the same majority largely accused of that discrimination- often at a cultural and customary level or subconscious level- is not suited to serve those it is intended most to protect. Likewise- as we agree- a system where an accusation alone is sufficient evidence to declare guilt- does not serve anyone nor the basic idea of justice.
But the solution to that does not in my mind involve as much a need to change attitudes on the reporting of perceived discrimination- it is more about changing the attitudes of people to not equate accusations with guilt in absence of proper proof. The complexities of the issue and all the subtle expressions defies codification. The law is built on such a framework- where a solid and comprehensive system eliminates ambiguity- it also is restrictive to the point that we cannot adapt the law to service situations outside its scope or with extant circumstances. Strict and well defined rules also lend themselves easily to “gaming” as one simply must understand in a way to allow them to adhere to the letter of the rules but not the spirit.
This creates a problem where much time and effort is invested to a “perfect” system that ends up not working as intended because it is prone to manipulation. Because of the precision in such a system- closing “loopholes” itself is QA intensive- making sure that these changes do not cause unintended conflict or change to other interdependent clauses and such. And the cycle repeats. When things are so well defined and precise- the bulk becomes cumbersome and the agility of the system and its ability to adapt are harmed.
In short- the solution to world hunger is to feed people and the solution to crime is for people to stop being criminals. But the reality of these situations makes such ideas easy to say in a high level view- but impractical to implement. The theory of the “perfect” solution without manner to implement is perhaps less useful than a functional but flawed system which exists in place.
In the case of racism and race-whatever- the primary issue is and has mostly been by nature- a problem with people, not necessarily the system. There is no need to prevent false or frivolous or erroneous accusation so long as we account for user behavior- we know this will happen. It cannot he stopped. So then as individuals if we take issue with the nature of how these accusations are perceived- the answer is to examine and adjust our behavior and hold ourselves to higher standards of proof before we make determinations on the guilt of those in our communities.
When a case goes to court concerning discrimination- the accusation is not enough to convict. The practices of justice are followed, and the same overall standards of justice and objectivity are applied on average as any other matter of law. What we are primarily discussing when we speak of conviction by accusation is the court of public opinion- but as previously mentioned- ideas of race and racism etc. are relative and cannot be universally aligned nor can thoughts be legislated.
I can see what you're saying and can understand your viewpoint. I don't think we'll ever completely agree since I do think there is an objective measure of racism. Of course regardless, I get the feeling the outcomes of our dealing with racism would be remarkably similar. And you're quite right that at the end of the day it's people and our need to be superior that's ultimately at fault. Even in cultures where there isn't much or any racial diversity we still manage to find something that we believe makes us better. Whether that's religion, education, money, material possessions, or lineage we have ample examples of it throughout history.
I always enjoy these conversations so you don't ever need to worry I'm going to be offended. You've always been respectful even when we disagree and that's what really matters. Being able to have discussions about topics with differing points of view or even opposite points of view without devolving into insults or accusations is quickly becoming a rarity in our current society. It's also something that becomes almost impossible with the way social media works. The opposite is sadly not true.
I try to be respectful, and I appreciate you taking the time to read- and especially to write out your views. I agree that I think that processes asides, I’d imagine the outcome of our thinking would be quite similar- but even if it weren’t- you made an eloquent case, respectful discourse- and even if I am not completely swayed on every point you did make me question and think hard on the issues and my positions. I had fun and very much enjoyed this. Thank you.
*and I take for granted that you know this- but I just have to say it- in no way was my challenge or questioning of your posts- nor my thoughts- an attempt to or intent to invalidate your opinions. Perhaps especially when people agree- I personal fond it is still good to walk through things and audit, look at the angles, and see what perspectives and perhaps twists become present that one might miss were they simply pontificating alone on a subject. So double thank you.
It sort of depends on how you read it if it makes sense or not. Here is an example: “People from Vermont do not get to decide who is President” We can read that two ways:
1. That no SINGLE member of the group has any voice or opinion on the matter.
2. That as a GROUP, the group does not get to unilaterally make the determination for everyone outside that group. That this one group of many groups can’t decide for everyone else, and cannot invalidate the opinions of everyone else involved in the issue.
Note that it does not say that white people cannot have an OPINION on what is racist, or even that white people cannot be part of the discussion. The ultimate meaning is left ambiguous without context- wether this person feels that “white People” as a group or “white people” as individuals do not get to decide. The former implies that in a white majority white dominated society where the sensibilities and opinions of white People were the sole gatekeeper of the social fates and the basic freedoms of “non whites” that it is no longer acceptable to allow this, and that POC should have a say in their status and fate. The latter implies- as many have pointed out- the exclusion of all white people from
Having a voice or opinion within society on the issue of racism.
Racism is complicated. We can’t rely on our own perspective or the perspective of even the likeminded or those close to us alone. There are components to any social interaction- manners are a great example. Different social groups and cultures have different ideas about what is or isn’t polite. In my culture- it’s traditional to buy or make someone a meal on their birthday- but I have friends who’s cultures say that if you eat out on your birthday with friends it is the birthday person who pays.
In that situation- who is being rude to pay for the meal- if you pay for the meal of the birthday person, you are being rude from their perspective- but if you let them pay- it is rude from your perspective. If everyone just pays for themselves- that’s against the manners and traditions of everyone- so it is a compromise only so much in that no ones etiquette is respected equally right?
But that is the point. The point is that it is entirely possible for you to do something you see no harm in- that perhaps you believe is the proper way to do things. Like minded people would agree with you too. And yet- even without intent or malice- another person can FEEL you were behaving rudely even if by your own standards or the standards of your peers you were the perfect example of civility and social grace.
This applies to racism as well. You can FEEL something isn’t racist while someone else feels it is. You can intend no racism but a person of another race can perceive racism. There may actually be no racism at play, or there may actually be racism and you just aren’t conscious of it or don’t realize it is racism.
As with our “birthday lunch paying” example using manners- the REAL solution there is to discuss the matter and be willing to compromise. In the example of the birthday lunch- what is the REASON to pay for someone’s meal? To show them honor, to show them you care and acknowledge/celebrate the fact they are alive right? So then- the obvious way to do that would be what? To offer, but to ultimate respect their wishes on the matter since the point of that exercise is supposed to be about them right?
Now with racism- it’s trickier than a birthday. You aren’t necessarily trying to honor a stranger or give them special treatment right? Ok. So then let us still ask what our goals are. We likely have 2 goals- 1. Live our lives and do whatever the hell it is we are trying to do right? 2. Probably- hopefully- to not be a racist. Ok. So for a situation- we just have to find the solution that accomplishes those best.
That’s vague and yet complex isn’t it? Who decides YOU are a racist? I mean- there are white supremacists and there were actual Nazis involved in genocide who didn’t believe they were racist or prejudiced by any standard of note. The individual human is not historically the most reliable source for self awareness.
But at the same time- society only sees what it can. Other people can’t tell us who we are can they? They don’t know our thoughts or feelings. A doctor in a strange land who doesn’t speak the language and no one can speak to them- they’re a doctor- perhaps a brilliant one- but you won’t know that even by talking to them. While that’s extreme- many people aren’t good communicators. They lack the words or whatever else to be accurate and precise and convey their thoughts or intentions in a way people receive. So the world around us isn’t the best judge of us either.
The question of “self” is too broad for this discussion- let’s just say for arguments sake there are nuances in perception and fact, there is the internal inventory of self and the external inventory of who we are. Neither outside observer nor (for most of us) internal observer has a complete and unbiased view of who we are. But if we combine those two things together- we can get a better picture.
If you believe yourself reliable and intelligent and capable- but everyone you know seems reluctant to rely upon you- either you aren’t as reliable as you think- or everyone you know has trust issues or is ignorant. Suppose this is where exposure to different groups help. An abusive family may all tell a child they are stupid- the same child may have poor teachers who also call them stupid and insecure lovers who use stupid to put them down. This person may be very bright but might believe they are stupid. That’s a bad thing.
But likewise- ignoring all feedback just because we don’t like it- from other people is not ideal. We may miss actual opportunity for character growth that we are oblivious to. But contrary to our example where an abused person is told they are told by everyone (wrongfully) that they are “stupid...” if you keep being told you are racist or behave in racist manners- what is the downside to takin some stock in that?
If a person continually is told they are racist- and they stop and say: “maybe I am...” or “maybe this behavior is racist...” what do they lose by examining that? By looking at their behavior and how it makes others feel? Unlike believing one is “stupid” believing one is racist isn’t some incurable condition to feel inherent shame for. It is a conditional state. Like having the flu- knowing you are sick and trying to get better is a different animal all together.
Someone help me out?
1. The bias was conscious. 2. The biased party admits the conscious bias.
1. That no SINGLE member of the group has any voice or opinion on the matter.
2. That as a GROUP, the group does not get to unilaterally make the determination for everyone outside that group. That this one group of many groups can’t decide for everyone else, and cannot invalidate the opinions of everyone else involved in the issue.
Having a voice or opinion within society on the issue of racism.