4 ms·

> 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

by thefz 6y ago

> 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.

eesmith 6y ago
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.
- thefz 6y ago
  > 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.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    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."
    - tomnipotent 6y ago
      Racism implies motive, discrimination implies action (of which racism is one motive e.g. mysogyny, agism). One of these is easier to prove and prosecute.
      - eesmith 6y ago
        If an image-recognition algorithm training set omits black faces and results in black people being labelled "ape", is that racism? If so, what's the motive? If not, what term would you use?

by thefz 6y ago

eesmith 6y ago

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.

thefz 6y ago
> 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.
- eesmith 6y ago
  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."
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    Racism implies motive, discrimination implies action (of which racism is one motive e.g. mysogyny, agism). One of these is easier to prove and prosecute.
    - eesmith 6y ago
      If an image-recognition algorithm training set omits black faces and results in black people being labelled "ape", is that racism? If so, what's the motive? If not, what term would you use?