3 ms·
TL;DR: my research suggests that different groups work with significantly different definitions of "racism", which I feel injures all conversations that build o
by peteforde 8y ago
TL;DR: my research suggests that different groups work with significantly different definitions of "racism", which I feel injures all conversations that build on fundamental assumptions - to society's detriment.
Recently, I did some research on the subject of white privilege, and I came to some troubling (or at least, intellectually interesting) conclusions that I wish people would talk more about.
Humans are notably passionate about naming things and defining terms. Not only do definitions shape the way people experience reality, but there’s a massive cultural and often economic prize to those who define what words mean.
The positions of both progressives and conservatives on the subject of white privilege (eg. whether it exists) get interesting when you look at what the conservatives say differently (or in many cases, are not saying), starting with the way that they define “racism”:
Jordan Peterson: “To attribute to individuals of a community the attributes of the community on the basis of their racial identity is called racism. That’s what racism is. There’s no other way of defining it.”
Wikipedia: “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”
Ben Shapiro: “If you’re accusing somebody of something because of the color of their skin, that’s called racism.”
Wikipedia: “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.”
The conservatives - who both take great pride in their precise language - categorically do not acknowledge that superiority is a fundamental aspect of racism. Instead, their definition speaks to the outrage they feel when they are accused of something because of their race.
Conservatives perceive racism as an unfair, deliberate act perpetrated against the individual members of an ethnic group.
Progressives perceive racism as a passive, self-righteous system which oppresses members of less-powerful groups to maintain power over them.
I believe that both sides are arguing about different phenomena. This is a huge problem because it confuses any further discussion that doesn’t share a similar definition of racism. How can you find true common ground on a provocative subject with someone who is seeing different images and feeling entirely different emotions?
- DoreenMichele 8y agoThank you for this comment. I run into this same issue when I use the word sexism. I hate using it, but I don't know what else to call it. When I say sexism, I roughly mean systemic issues that lead to gendered outcomes. Most other people seem to hear "You are actively and intentionally on purpose excluding women because you are an evil asshat." So, they get defensive. They get mad. Etc. It is not a good path forward for productive discussion. But I don't know what language to use that sidesteps the issue.
- ur-whale 8y agoThere is, of course, the pesky minor detail you're quickly glossing over, namely that the word's root is race, something I was (probably) misled to believe by conservative-leaning science teachers with a hidden agenda has a fairly agreed-upon scientific definition, which has much to do with DNA, and not much with economics, whatever Peterson's opinion may be. Now, if the left (which is anything but "progressive" these days, just hearing you calling them that is borderline offensive) wants to fight its political battles via redefinition of the meaning of words, things are unlikely to get to any kind of constructive any time soon. The fact remains though, that the article specifically mentions they only do business with black farmers. Use whichever language you'd like to describe this, the behavior is what it is.
- peteforde 8y agoThanks for your comment. It's interesting to me because I am a progressive who is actively disenfranchised by "the left" for some of the same reasons. So, knowing that I see the mainstream left as a tone-policing, virtue signaling, intellectually numbing quasi-fascist dumpster fire... does that change the tone of your reading?
- peteforde 8y agoAlso, I apologize for not directly responding to your actual point. Is it racist for a charity to only work with black farmers? The reason I wrote what I wrote is that the answer entirely depends on whether your definition of racism includes the systemic oppression of the less powerful for the specific purpose of keeping them less powerful into the future. Based on my research, a conservative (and I am using these terms to describe teams, so it could be "shirts" vs. "skins") would say it's racist because it consciously discriminates against white people. End of story. A progressive would contend that white farmers already have all of the inherent advantages of their whiteness, and therefore it's wholly appropriate for a self-organizing group to serve less powerful communities to the exclusion of the ruling class. (Class as in group, not social strata, although I'm confident that black farmers are farmers who are black, and therefore part of an oppressed class. They are free to decide who is oppressed in the same way an editor is free to decide who to publish.) The truth is not up to me to decide, but it's a shame that we can't have two parallel conversations where both views have a good point.