6 ms·
Yes, I think it's important to remember - both for American as well as outsiders - that racism-related notions are different and sometimes are completely alien
Yes, I think it's important to remember - both for American as well as outsiders - that racism-related notions are different and sometimes are completely alien in other countries/cultures. For example, some Americans believe that racism doesn't include prejudices towards the dominant "race"/ethnicity, and find it offensive to even suggest that it might be so (some even invented the term "inverse racism" for that). For example, the racist implications of painting one's face black are so alien in other cultures that every few years there is a big storm about someone doing blackface in Europe, having no idea it will offend Americans (recently it was Gigi Hadid in Vogue Italy).
For example, as an European, when someone says "slave", I immediately think about ancient Rome. To think that in the USA you had slaves only recently always strikes me as really strange. To say nothing about the segregation period quite recently.
In any case, I still wonder: you can remove these words from software and try to banish their current metaphorical usage. But will it really make a difference to your history? These seems like nervous attempts at "making everything right" in a situation where no right can be made - at least there is no easy way to do so.
These seems like nervous attempts at "making everything right" in a situation where no right can be made - at least there is no easy way to do so.
I share this sentiment entirely. It all feels so ham-fisted.
And also like throwing someone a proverbial bone thinking that it's all good now because we changed a name of something somewhere.
> Americans believe that racism doesn't include prejudices towards the dominant "race"/ethnicity, and find it offensive to even suggest that it might be so
Ah, the good old "you can't be racist towards white people" mantra. As an example, all of ex-Yugoslavia would like to disagree.
> But will it really make a difference to your history? These seems like nervous attempts at "making everything right" in a situation where no right can be made - at least there is no easy way to do so.
And worst, sometimes these precautions are used by corporations who mean no good other than signalling wokeness to turn up a profit.
The argument is that "racism" is not simply discrimination on the basis of race but rather that racism requires structural and systemic bias against an ethnic, racial, religious, etc. subgroup of the population who do not have political power.
As such, you can therefore talk about the racism of the English towards the Irish, even though both are considered "white" by modern standards (though at that time, the English prided themselves as being in the "Anglo-Saxon" race).
And you can certainly use that framework to talk about the genocide of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats targeted by the Bosnian Serbs with who had local power in the areas controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska.
So to summarize the argument as "you can't be racist towards white people" comes across as a complete misunderstanding of the actual argument.
It's certainly possible for someone who self-identifies as "white" to be discriminated against on the basis of race. But if you want to also call that "racist" then what term do you use for something like Jim Crow laws in the US or apartheid South Africa where racism was truly and without doubt systemic?
...but rather that racism requires structural and systemic bias against an ethnic, racial, religious, etc. subgroup of the population who do not have political power.
Why should it, though? Nazi Germany racism was infamously based on the notion that it's the Jews who are in power and favour their own.
The very concept of ant-zionism today puts the people it's racist towards as the oppressors with political power.
Telling lies about who is in power doesn't mean those people actually have power.
It's a common technique - hype people who don't have much power into some sort of super-villain, unite the rest of the population against them, and leverage that into political power.
Nazi Germany racism was also based on US racism, including its treatment of Native Americans. See https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hitlers-american-model https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hi... with PDF at https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Hitler%27s%20American%20Model%20for%20NYU.pdf https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents... .
> The argument is that "racism" is not simply discrimination on the basis of race but rather that racism requires structural and systemic bias against an ethnic, racial, religious, etc. subgroup of the population who do not have political power.
Nope, this is precisely the modernized, bastardized, wokenized definition of racism which gives ground to the "can't be racist against whites" because, in this narrative, "whites are in power". Which is so wrong and so tied to a specific point in the history of the US that I am wondering if you re-read your comment before posting.
The bosnian genocide was mostly a military coup. There's no structural and systemic bias in place here.
I interpret the issue as "racism" being used too broadly, such that a minor snub for "being white" is called racist, while sundowner towns and other Jim Crow laws are also called racist. It doesn't make much sense to lump them together.
We have "murder" and "manslaughter" - two forms of homicide. Wikipedia tells me the distinction goes back to at least the 7th century BC.
In US law, both have multiple nuances; first- and second-degree murder, and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
I interpret the argument as wanting to reserve "racist" for systemic and institutional racism.
We already have other terms we can use. For example, the law talks about discrimination on the basis of race and color as well as national origin, sex, or religion.
So, why not use "discrimination on the basis of race" or "racial discrimination" for the non-systemic kind, and reserve "racist" for the systemic one?
Even better, there's no reason to use "reverse discrimination on the basis of race" because that's identical to "discrimination on the basis of race."
FWIW, in my understanding of the issue, as I described above, I'm perfectly fine describing the US treatment of Mormons as racist - "white-on-white" racism - being also highly aware that Mormon religion was itself highly racist against blacks.
But the concept of "can't be racist against whites" isn't meaningful for even 100 years ago, because "whiteness" is such a slippery social construct. Finns were racially discriminated against, as the "Finnish race", and derogatorily called a China Swede, even though in the modern sense they are very "white".
As for "mostly a military coup" ... a genocide is by definition affecting a protected group - more specifically a national, racial, ethical and religious group. All of those are also protected groups under US anti-discrimination law.
If you want to argue that racism should be treated as a broad term, then genocide is a type of racism.
If you are arguing that my definition is wrong - congratulations. I'm a programmer, with only a lay understanding of the topic. My point wasn't to give an exactly correct definition but to point out an apparently deep misunderstanding of the issue at hand.
> So, why not use "discrimination on the basis of race" or "racial discrimination" for the non-systemic kind, and reserve "racist" for the systemic one?
Because it is already the other way around, why swap definitions to create more confusion? "racism" is broadly the discrimination on the basis of race. Any nuance should get a new definition. Period.
Do you still believe that "you can't be racist towards white people" is a mantra? Or do you accept that perhaps the issue is one of differing definitions?
I don't understand what "the other way around" means. What's an example of something which is racist but not racial discrimination? [1]
If you instead see them as synonyms, why not personally use "racial discrimination" knowing that it's the definition with less diversity in interpretation?
FWIW, US law doesn't seem to use the term "racist" or "racism" but does use the terms "discrimination on the basis of race" and "racial discrimination", which I interpret as meaning that those terms are more well defined.
[1] Here's my thought experiment. The US Constitution requires that racial discrimination be allowed in some circumstances, such as private clubs. I find that I prefer to say that the Constitution allows some racial discrimination, rather than saying that the Constitution allows some racism. Which makes me think that "racism" is an emotionally stronger and more specific term than "racial discrimination."
[I haven't repeated this disclaimer recently enough. "Race" is a sociological construct with no biological meaning.]
1) Apartheid South Africa gave special status to Japanese people - honorary whites. This doesn't mean that the Japanese people could control their own status; it was a special status given to them by the white supremacists who wanted Japanese trade deals.
Similarly, your 1) is for people were granted special privileges by the racist Christian Germans because of the services rendered for the racist power structure.
But the racist power originated from those Christian Germans, not Jewish Germans.
So, great, you've discovered that some black slaves avoided whippings by helping their white slave masters keep the other slaves in line. With as much sarcasm as I can muster: If only those black slaves hadn't been so racist.
2) How is this racism, any more than white gangsters killing white people? So if a black business owner shortchanges a black customer, that's also racism?
3) Are you effing kidding me?
Everyone who is outraged at, angry with, or otherwise against the police violence against black people is an SJW.
I am an SJW. 60% of Americans believe that ’Racism is built into American society. The assumption of white superiority pervades schools, business, housing, and government.’ according to a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll. 52% agree that "President Trump is a racist." The majority of Americans are SJWs.
If you are not outraged .. why not?
Drop the nonsensical "SJW" rhetorical label. Demand social justice and equality.
Now, back to 3) By "example" I don't mean some abstract story. Because I remember the lying stories Republicans used about black welfare queens in order to harness good old American racism to shrink our social safety net.
"Agents"? How sinister! You know you could have left it as "SJWs", right?
Your terms have been so over-used by right-wing extremists that they have acquired new meanings.
Your "more discrimination" comes across like those people who insist that "feminism" means not "gender equality in the public sphere" but wrongly that "women should be in charge, and men should be hated."
While your "cancelling" bring to mind all those people who think "cancel culture" means "no one expressing bigoted ideas should ever have to face consequences."