7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Davka]

When black people admit to racism, they are not using the word in the sense that it is used in sociology. What they mean is racial bigotry, but they are using the word racism in its colloquial sense.

Just as when fundamentalist Christians say that evolution is "just a theory," they are using the word theory in the colloquial sense rather than the scientific sense.

Do you think the people in that barber shop know the difference between the dictionary definition and the sociological definition?

Probably not.

Should someone educate them?

If someone were to attempt to initiate a meaningful discussion of the sociological definition of racism, they would necessarily need to educate their audience.

Hilariously, the first habit happens to be precisely what so many people on this thread are doing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A contested definition asserted as a conclusion as an example of the fallacy Begging the Question.

Indeed it did, but that was based on ignorance. The OP specifically states that it is referring to "the accepted sociological definition of racism." That's not the same as the common colloquial definition of racism.

And, has been pointed out to you, it is not the universally accepted definition of racism within sociology, so you are again begging the question.

Don't compare this to the scientific versus colloquial definition of "theory", it is not comparable.

 

[Davka]

Indeed it did, but that was based on ignorance. The OP specifically states that it is referring to "the accepted sociological definition of racism." That's not the same as the common colloquial definition of racism.

And, has been pointed out to you, it is not the universally accepted definition of racism within sociology, so you are again begging the question.

Bullshit. It's shorthand, sure, but it's the sociological definition in a nutshell. If you are claiming otherwise, provide evidence.

Don't compare this to the scientific versus colloquial definition of "theory", it is not comparable.

It's certainly comparable. It's nearly identical. Sociological v colloquial definition, scientific v colloquial definition - where is this huge difference to which you allude?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is not comparable because it is not the sociological definition of sociology at large but the sociological definition of a specific subset within sociology. You are still begging the question.

And, as you also did in your OP, you engaged in ad hominem against anyone who dared question your begged question.

Racism = making judgements based on race.

Begged Question Racism = people in power making judgements based on race.

And you ignore all the places where the majority is the minority. You admitted to Hawaii. Now admit to many other places in the country. Many other places. Even that barbershop where they need you as the Vanguard Proletariat to explain to them that they the Lumpen Proletariat were wrong to call what they did "racism."

As for the proof you demand, others have already presented it in this thread and you ignored it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Thank you for demonstrating habit number 1, Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Perhaps you would do well to read the footnote, and maybe even the link provided here?

And why should I view a lecturer like Nicki Lisa Cole as representative of all sociologists? Googling her, she seems to be on the left-wing fringe. For example, she supports reparations and seems to be a socialist.

Please don't degrade socialism by linking it to this OP's logic. I am a socialist. I see through the OP.

 

[NobleSavage]

If someone were to attempt to initiate a meaningful discussion of the sociological definition of racism, they would necessarily need to educate their audience.

Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous? I just looked at the sociological definition of racism in Wikipedia for the first time. It looks like an open debate.

Hilariously, the first habit happens to be precisely what so many people on this thread are doing.

Seems like you are laughing at your own joke.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

By the way, Davka, pointing out that your contested premise isn't universal in sociology doesn't even touch on how other social scientists look upon sociology, and that doesn't even touch on how natural scientists look upon the social sciences.

So comparing your insistence on using your definition of racism to the colloquial versus scientific definition of "theory" may indeed be accurate, but it casts you in the colloquial role.

 

[Davka]

To all those claiming that the definition in the OP is not universal (or nearly so) among sociologists: the burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate your thesis, or stfu.

 

[Derec]

That would be yet another example of racial bigotry, not racism. Not allowing whites to eat at any lunch counters would be racism. White people getting crap service at *some* restaurants is a different animal.

(emphasis added)
By that same token blacks denied service at the Woolworth's lunch counter are not victims of racism because there are lunch counters that would serve them?

- - - Updated - - -

To all those claiming that the definition in the OP is not universal (or nearly so) among sociologists: the burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate your thesis, or stfu.

You were the one making an affirmative claim. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Derec]

As racism defined in the OP (and in sociology), White Americans cannot be the victims of racism while in America.

They certainly can be victims of racism under the "bigotry plus power" definition as there are many blacks in the position of power and at least some of them are going to be bigoted against whites.
Examples of institutional racism against whites in Metro Atlanta:
Georgia: Award in Reverse Discrimination Suit
Atlanta Library Board Must Pay White Librarians $23 Million In Damages

To get to the ideologically mandated foregone conclusion of "only whites can be racist" further fine-tuning of the definition is necessary.

...OK, to be pedantic, it's possible for a white person to be mildly victimized by racism on the Big Island of Hawaii.

What about black majority cities and counties in the Lower 48?

 

[Derec]

It seems to me that when protesters point out that SOME cops are racist

Sure, some cops are racist, and that goes for cops of all races. But protesters are not just claiming that non-controversial fact. They are alleging particular cops like Darren Wilson are racist with no evidence to back it up. And no, shooting a violent criminal during a confrontation is not evidence of racism.

(and that the current police culture allows them to get away with it),

The police investigated, the DA presented all evidence to the grand jury and there was a no-bill decision. Nothing racist there. By the way, federal charges are also unlikely even though both the outgoing and incoming federal AGs are black.

those who are swayed by evidence will take a look at the evidence and change their minds.

What evidence.

Those who refuse to examine the evidence will not even hear what is being said, and will substitute ALL cops are racist for what's actually being said. They will do this because they are invested in the racialist status-quo.

Evidence shows that Michael Brown robbed a store and attacked a cop. It also shows Vonderritt Myers didn't hold a sandwich and that Antonio Martin didn't hold a phone - rather they both had a gun. And the evidence shows that the cop in the Eric Garner case never intended to kill him and that his death was to a large extent caused by his underlying health problems like asthma and obesity.
I see no evidence that cops in any of these cases acted out of racism, even if the cop in Eric Garner case might have acted outside accepted procedures.

 

[Davka]

Throw a rock and all the racialists come scurrying out of the woodwork.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There is nothing that people of color as a group can do to white people as a group that will restructure society in such a way as to cut the life chances and life expectancy of white people and have the cause of that cutting be traced back to historical oppression of white people by people of color.

I'm sorry that white people set up a nation built on the backs and over the bodies on non-white people. I'm sorry that generations enacted laws and established customs and fabricated a narrative where white meant goodness and light and all other colors were suspect at best. I am sorry some of you happened to be living at a time when colored people get all uppity and won't let your perception of way things are and ought to be stand without question as a given, as a standard, as the norm.

 

[Derec]

No, accepted by all sociologists.

That's a pretty tall claim. What evidence do you have for it?

Because it's a red herring. If you want to discuss it, kindly start a thread.

It's not a red herring. If you think that "racism = bigotyry + power" than power held by blacks is highly relevant to your claims in this thread.

No, I'm not. But if the shoe fits...

It doesn't. You might want to put in on yourself too, though. Perhaps you are the Cinderella.

To clarify, I am stating that denial of the accepted sociological definition of "racism" is one of the habits that Highly Affected racialists have. That is NOT the same as claiming that all people who engage in this behavior are necessarily racialists. They may merely be ignorant.

Rejecting an ideologically motivated redefinition is hardly ignorant.

Pat Bidot did not come up with that definition. She merely used it in the article i linked to.

AFAIK she at least coined that handy formulation. In any case the term racism long predates what you call the "sociological definition".

In reality, the sociological definition of racism is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. I use it here for the sake of simplification.

I know. It has to be more complicated because they need to get to the foregone conclusion that "only whites can be racist" by any means necessary. Even if it means being very creative with definitions of "racism".

So no, nobody is 'redefining" the word, any more than Biologists are 'redefining" the word "theory" by using it in it's scientific sense. Lots of words have more than one definition. That's why it's important to define your terms.

Not all definitions make sense. Take for example kind. It has a rather unstable definition designed for the foregone conclusion that all animal kinds were on the ark. Same with your definition of racism whose purpose is not better understanding of race relations but to justify the politically expedient conclusion that "only whites can be racist".

If you want to show your ass, sure.

I'll leave that tactic to you.

Where is it written that such critics actually have a leg to stand on? Either you don't understand what it means to define one's terms for the sake of discussion, or you are merely thrashing about ineffectually in an attempt to muddy the waters. Either way, your point is moot.

Criticism of this definition has been offered in this thread. Your only reply is an appeal to authority ("accepted by sociologists"). If you can't defend why this particular definition makes more sense than the broader one, you should let it go.

 

[fromderinside]

There is nothing that people of color as a group can do to white people as a group that will restructure society in such a way as to cut the life chances and life expectancy of white people and have the cause of that cutting be traced back to historical oppression of white people by people of color.

I'm sorry that white people set up a nation built on the backs and over the bodies on non-white people. I'm sorry that generations enacted laws and established customs and fabricated a narrative where white meant goodness and light and all other colors were suspect at best. I am sorry some of you happened to be living at a time when colored people get all uppity and won't let your perception of way things are and ought to be stand without question as a given, as a standard, as the norm.

Tough sentence coming. While it would be difficult to show, in Africa, where people of color can do to white people as a group that will restructure society with consequences - culture in Africa, in western terms, is readjusting from white culture to black culture as a result of colonialism - those consequences can be found in Asia.



Whiteness and racialist need be framed, yes Davka, from where all sources of authority* begat rules.

The solution is brown people. Keep the intercourse going for a couple hundred years and we may have to go facial attributes to define racialist behavior easily. Probably we'll have to go to a more meaningful term like 'powerist' or 'usist' or 'meist'.

If you can't defend why this particular definition makes more sense than the broader one, you should let it go.

So why haven't you come up with one, prompted by AthenaAwakened, as I just did. Your definition is so without hook, so without material ties to the world, as to be useless. It just describes what one apparently sees rather than what is the mechanism whereby one comes to experience (see) things thus.

* ^{_{I'm pretty sure religion and other sources of power go beyond race in the effects they have on people who are not of such.}}

 

[Metaphor]

There is nothing that people of color as a group can do to white people as a group that will restructure society in such a way as to cut the life chances and life expectancy of white people and have the cause of that cutting be traced back to historical oppression of white people by people of color.

I'm sorry that white people set up a nation built on the backs and over the bodies on non-white people. I'm sorry that generations enacted laws and established customs and fabricated a narrative where white meant goodness and light and all other colors were suspect at best. I am sorry some of you happened to be living at a time when colored people get all uppity and won't let your perception of way things are and ought to be stand without question as a given, as a standard, as the norm.

Defining 'racism' in a way that means only Whites can be racist is a dishonest rhetorical device, because it implies that the racial bigotry of White people is more morally wrong than the racial bigotry of nonWhites. 'Racist' is a word with great silencing power, a word that carries moral weight. The narrow definition of it is like calling copyright infringement 'theft'. The copyright infringement special interest groups know that calling copyright infringement what it is (copyright infringement) won't win over hearts and minds. Calling it something it isn't (theft) is short hand; it capitalises on the universal negativity associated with the word 'theft'.

But even with the narrower definition, there does not appear to be any concession that Black people can, in fact, be racist, because Black people can rise to positions of authority and power (and have) and they can exercise their racial bigotry to the detriment of nonBlacks.

But I suspect you won't accept such an interpretation, because that would mean nonWhites could be racist. So the common definition has to be tweaked further -- perhaps to add that there also has to have been historical oppression of Whites by Blacks for it to count as racist.

 

[Davka]

There is nothing that people of color as a group can do to white people as a group that will restructure society in such a way as to cut the life chances and life expectancy of white people and have the cause of that cutting be traced back to historical oppression of white people by people of color.

I'm sorry that white people set up a nation built on the backs and over the bodies on non-white people. I'm sorry that generations enacted laws and established customs and fabricated a narrative where white meant goodness and light and all other colors were suspect at best. I am sorry some of you happened to be living at a time when colored people get all uppity and won't let your perception of way things are and ought to be stand without question as a given, as a standard, as the norm.

Defining 'racism' in a way that means only Whites can be racist is a dishonest rhetorical device

Indeed it is. Just as constructing a strawman argument is a dishonest rhetorical device. Since nobody here is defining racism is such a way that means only whites can be racist, that makes your remark a strawman.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I refer you to your OP.

 

[Metaphor]

Defining 'racism' in a way that means only Whites can be racist is a dishonest rhetorical device

Indeed it is. Just as constructing a strawman argument is a dishonest rhetorical device. Since nobody here is defining racism is such a way that means only whites can be racist, that makes your remark a strawman.

I refer of course to America -- or can nonWhites be racist in America?

 

[fromderinside]

Defining 'racism' in a way that means only Whites can be racist is a dishonest rhetorical device

Indeed it is. Just as constructing a strawman argument is a dishonest rhetorical device. Since nobody here is defining racism is such a way that means only whites can be racist, that makes your remark a strawman.

I know enough about the racialist practices in Vietnam imposed on children of white and black soldiers who remained there after we left. I followed up and found similar practices in Japan, China, and Burma (relatives who left there in the late seventies). There is almost no conversation including these practices in this thread. From that observation one might just presume it's all about black-white.