6 ms·

Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition

Well that's the thing. These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. By that definition, most white people are probably "racist". If you understand the context used when they call themselves "racist", it's really not that big of a deal. It's basically just them saying, "I'm white, and I recognize that society treats me a little bit better cause of that". I will say, I think it's strange they are asking them to admit to being racist, and "be better". It's a systemic thing, so it requires systemic change. Asking them to say they are racist and that they need to be better seems unneededly divisive. Edit: As others have pointed out, the last sentence is kind of wrong. The paraphrase should probably say, "I recognize I'm a part of a system or systems that uphold racism". Look at the ADL's definition for racism to see what I mean: https://www.adl.org/racism https://www.adl.org/racism By their definition, you are racist if you help uphold any of the "systems, institutions, or factors that advantage white people and for people of color, cause widespread harm and disadvantages in access and opportunity."

Swizec 6y ago
> The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others But then everyone is racist. Including black people. Everyone is part of this society that has systemic features tht benefit whites. So if everyone is racist, what’s the point of labeling?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  I wouldn't say everyone is racist, by that definition. If you want to and are working to change or get rid of these systems, then you are not racist.
  - Swizec 6y ago
    I think it’s more complicated than that based on some of the diversity books I’ve read. For example I wasn’t even “white” until I moved to USA a few years ago. Took me 6+ years to even grok how “white” works and what it means but I’m told I was racist all along. And yeah sure I want the system to change, but honestly I have enough work with being an immigrant without inherent rights. Hell I’m technically a visitor so I don’t even have immigration rights yet. This is not my fight to fight ... but folks say that makes me racist and privileged and how dare I. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - rayiner 6y ago
      I wasn't a "person of color" until 2009! (I distinctly remembered when it happened. I was reading ad copy about my law school, and saw that our incoming class was 30% "people of color." I had never seen the term before, and was confused by what it could mean, until I realized they were grouping all non-white people together.)
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It includes some white people too! No Latino would think for half a second before identifying me as white, but because I'm also Latino, I end up as a "person of color" whenever these statistics are aggregated. And this isn't a minor edge case - something like 10% of the US population is white hispanic.
  - refurb 6y ago
    So whether you’re racist is determined by whether you are “working to change the system”? What does that mean? If I do yes to BLM does that mean I’m not racist? What if I speak in support of BLM? Is that a blanket dispensation against being racist?
    - Miner49er 6y ago
      Idk, I'm just trying to logically apply the definition. I don't think you could say Malcolm X, John Brown, or MLK are racist for example. It's at least possible not to be racist by their definition.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    That reminds me of "war to the death" - the only way you're not the enemy of the people is if you give up everything you had actively join the fight on our side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_War_to_the_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_War_to_the_Death
jkingsbery 6y ago
What you say might be the case - that some people are trying to take a word with certain connotations and change it's definition. If they had read more, they would see the self-parody that creates. > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. Sure, but this only reinforces u/rayiner's point. Nobody amended or replaced the Civil Rights Act. No vote was held to enshrine a broader definition of racism as legally and ethically binding on all citizens. Instead, a small clique of well-connected professional-class people are imposing this stuff top-down through their control of ostensibly private (but in fact, pseudo-private, often dependent on donations, subsidies, tax breaks, or public funding) institutions. To my mind, the solution is simple: bring major public institutions back under full public governance and control. No more "we're on private property" rubbish from people taking tax dollars. And, preferably, a fresh labor law enshrining protection for political opinions in the workplace that do not violate extent civil-rights laws.
seibelj 6y ago
Yes but the term "racism" is an extremely loaded term with a long history that is widely understood throughout American society. You can't just say "oh, we don't mean actually racist, we mean 'woke-racist'" and expect everyone to agree with this new definition and feel good about calling themselves woke-racist. This stuff barely flies with hyper-progressive elites, and many of them are deeply uncomfortable with it. This is possibly the dumbest thing ever pushed by those who think they are doing good.
komali2 6y ago
Why didn't they use the term "privileged" then? I'm very happy to acknowledge my privilege, but I'd have to push back if someone was asking me to declare that I'm racist. I'm also happy to hear about times I was unintentionally so, but to lump me into the same boat as the people that were screaming in my face that I'm a race traitor for holding a black lives matter sign doesn't feel fair.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > Why didn't they use the term "privileged" then? Because that word lacks any form of punch. Being "privileged" does not imply any personal responsibility; it's essentially saying you got lucky. My understanding is that this tactic of taking very strong words like "racist" or "nazi" and superextending their definitions is just an attempt to harness the strong emotional response people have to these words and direct it at a very large group of people. The unfortunate side effect is, that it slowly weakens the terminology, to the point where some day being a "racist" might just not be a big deal anymore. The more direct danger of this strategy is that, in the short term, while most of the population still associates a term with a different definition, it allows quickly invoking very strong emotions with an accusation that is not technically wrong by the newer definition. This becomes even more obvious when you look at how people often dance around these definitions to deliberately keep the newer definition as esoteric as possible, so the word retains its connotations for as long as possible.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Why didn't they use the term "privileged" then? They use that too, interchangegly and confusingly...
dTal 6y ago
That's not even slightly what "racist" means, though. The accepted term for what you are describing is "privileged". If you're going to assert that every white person is "racist" regardless of their beliefs, you render the term meaningless and might as well just say "white".
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  >If you're going to assert that every white person is "racist" regardless of their beliefs, you render the term meaningless and might as well just say "white". Sure, but that'll get you temp-banned from Facebook, so you have to spell it wypipo.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Well, I said "most". I was a bit wrong. It's not just benefiting from racism that makes you racist by the definition, it's being a part of one of the systems that props up racism. Here's a definition from the ADL for systemic racism. "A combination of systems, institutions and factors that advantage white people and for people of color, cause widespread harm and disadvantages in access and opportunity. One person or even one group of people did not create systemic racism, rather it: (1) is grounded in the history of our laws and institutions which were created on a foundation of white supremacy;* (2) exists in the institutions and policies that advantage white people and disadvantage people of color; and (3) takes places in interpersonal communication and behavior (e.g., slurs, bullying, offensive language) that maintains and supports systemic inequities and systemic racism." [1] So if you support one of the "systems, institutions and factors", you are by this definition, racist. I just said most white people probably are, by this definition. [1] https://www.adl.org/racism https://www.adl.org/racism
  - cabraca 6y ago
    Don't you think that the definition of racism from a organisation that profits of fighting racism is a little bit biased?
    - Miner49er 6y ago
megaman821 6y ago
So the first thing you do to combat racism is to make a negative generalization of people based on their skin color? I can only imagine how effective this program is.
throwawaygh 6y ago
> it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. This definition doesn't even bother me on face. Obviously, systems can be designed to advantage one group and disadvantage another group. And, obviously, Jim Crow effects the distribution of family wealth to this day. What bothers me about BigCorp diversity training is something a quite different. Choose a random public company. Its stocks are almost certainly disproportionately owned by white people. Many of the older companies even did business with apartheid states in the USA (and elsewhere) pre-1960. The ones that have been around for a century might've even done business with Nazis or were even run by anti-Semites (eg Ford). But even if not, just due to the fact that wealth is disproportionately owned by white people, so too are most stocks in large companies. Racially skewed allocation of large company's stock due to a combination of historical discrimination lumping capital into white folk's pockets until ~60 years ago and the compounded nature of wealth is EXACTLY the sort of thing actual social theorists mean when they say "structural racism". The problem with diversity training at BigCorps is not that they talk about structural racism per se. The problem is that they use the training as a way to distract from the actual structural inequalities in our financial system and instead put the onus of change on low-level employees who have almost no access to actual power and agency within the org (or larger society). I'm half convinced that this sort of diversity training is intentional miseducation. When I listen to these training seminars, I can't help by hear them as the board/CEO saying "please don't pay attention to our mostly white and ivy-educated executive's stock-based compensation plan or our disproportionaltely white stockholder's dividends, which are actually excellent examples of structural racism in action; look over there instead".
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Focusing on things they can reasonably change is a legitimate approach. It would be defacto illegal for them to engage in racially discriminative stock sales. Asking their ownership to please give away their stocks to random minorities sounds like a fast way to get booted by the board for crashing the stock value by creating a needless controversy . Only fanatics seriously consider large scale forced redistribution for good reason - the damage to property rights causes the market to come tumbling down as it undermines trustworthiness. Would you work for someone who just decides one day "You know what? You worked for us for a decade - we're going to need all of your remaining salary back."?
waffle_ss 6y ago
> "I'm white, and I recognize that society treats me a little bit better cause of that". That's a complete crock. East Asians top the charts in income by ethnicity, college admissions, and have the lowest rates of criminality. For a supposed system created to benefit white people it sure is doing an awful job of it.
Junk_Collector 6y ago
The common definition of racism is (from Webster but also colloquially): "A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" By broadly redefining racism in a way that removes individual agency you can declare anyone you want as racist. Then you can conveniently and selectively conflate it with the common definition to produce individual responsibility. It's a huckster tactic it's how you get things like "I will say, I think it's strange they are asking them to admit to being racist, and "be better". It's a systemic thing, so it requires systemic change. Asking them to say they are racist and that they need to be better seems unneededly divisive." By ensuring that the target they want is inherently racist and also individually responsible but with no possible power to change this, you can ensure an endless need for racism seminars and donations to assuage inherited guilt.
rayiner 6y ago
Even on its own terms, the "white privilege" theory is deficient. In terms of structural aspects of society that perpetuate race-based disadvantages, the main difference isn't between white people and everyone else, it's between Black and Native American people and everyone else: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 > White and Hispanic children have fairly similar rates of intergenerational mobility.... Because of these modest intergenerational gaps, the income gap between Hispanic and white Americans is shrinking across generations.... Asians appear likely to converge to income levels comparable to white Americans in the long run. > In contrast to Hispanics and Asians, there are large intergenerational gaps between black and American Indian children relative to white children.... If mobility rates do not change, our estimates imply a steady-state gap in family income ranks between whites and American Indians of 18 percentiles, and a white-black gap of 19 percentiles. These values are very similar to the empirically observed gaps for children in our sample, suggesting that blacks and American Indians are currently close to the steady-state income distributions that would prevail if differences in mobility rates remained constant across generations. In terms of rhetoric, moreover, it's deliberately inflammatory. Critical theorist academics appropriated existing terms with weight connotations, like "racist" and "white supremacy," to mean more abstract, systemic things that don't necessarily imply prejudicial intent. People should be wary of adopting this rhetoric even if well-intentioned. Just because some academics thought this rhetoric was clever doesn't mean that people of color generally want race-relations to be defined by such inflammatory rhetoric. As a purely practical matter, there is a ceiling on the fraction of white people who will actually respond in a productive way to being called a "racist" and a "white supremacist" (even if you explain to them the academic twist on the words). There is a reason we do things the way we do them. There is a reason civil rights movements have been built on appeals to universal values and the goal of color-blind equality as the ultimate ideal.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Even by their definition, how am I supposed to "be better"? If it's not my choices that are creating this system of power that benefits people considered "white", then what, specifically, am I supposed to do?
- thex10 6y ago
  You are supposed to “be better” by being an active part of a counterbalance force so that the white-benefiting system you happen to be a part of can become everyone-benefiting. In terms of specific actions that can mean a lot of different things! The diversity session can probably suggest a few concrete steps towards this end (I am not a DEI professional etc)
lliamander 6y ago
I'm sure you have sincere intentions, but I think you might benefit from being introduced to the concept of Motte and Bailey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy The point here is precisely to equivocate between two terms to manipulate others. You get your target to accept one claim using a relatively acceptable defintion, and the force them to concede rather more extreme claims by implicitly switching to a more self-serving definition.

Swizec 6y ago

> The diversity training definition of racism doesn't simply mean prejudiced, it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others But then everyone is racist. Including black people. Everyone is part of this society that has systemic features tht benefit whites. So if everyone is racist, what’s the point of labeling?

Miner49er 6y ago
I wouldn't say everyone is racist, by that definition. If you want to and are working to change or get rid of these systems, then you are not racist.
- Swizec 6y ago
  I think it’s more complicated than that based on some of the diversity books I’ve read. For example I wasn’t even “white” until I moved to USA a few years ago. Took me 6+ years to even grok how “white” works and what it means but I’m told I was racist all along. And yeah sure I want the system to change, but honestly I have enough work with being an immigrant without inherent rights. Hell I’m technically a visitor so I don’t even have immigration rights yet. This is not my fight to fight ... but folks say that makes me racist and privileged and how dare I. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I wasn't a "person of color" until 2009! (I distinctly remembered when it happened. I was reading ad copy about my law school, and saw that our incoming class was 30% "people of color." I had never seen the term before, and was confused by what it could mean, until I realized they were grouping all non-white people together.)
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It includes some white people too! No Latino would think for half a second before identifying me as white, but because I'm also Latino, I end up as a "person of color" whenever these statistics are aggregated. And this isn't a minor edge case - something like 10% of the US population is white hispanic.
- refurb 6y ago
  So whether you’re racist is determined by whether you are “working to change the system”? What does that mean? If I do yes to BLM does that mean I’m not racist? What if I speak in support of BLM? Is that a blanket dispensation against being racist?
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Idk, I'm just trying to logically apply the definition. I don't think you could say Malcolm X, John Brown, or MLK are racist for example. It's at least possible not to be racist by their definition.
- DenisM 6y ago
  That reminds me of "war to the death" - the only way you're not the enemy of the people is if you give up everything you had actively join the fight on our side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_War_to_the_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_War_to_the_Death

jkingsbery 6y ago

What you say might be the case - that some people are trying to take a word with certain connotations and change it's definition. If they had read more, they would see the self-parody that creates. > 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

>These diversity training people do use a different definition of racism then what you are thinking of. Sure, but this only reinforces u/rayiner's point. Nobody amended or replaced the Civil Rights Act. No vote was held to enshrine a broader definition of racism as legally and ethically binding on all citizens. Instead, a small clique of well-connected professional-class people are imposing this stuff top-down through their control of ostensibly private (but in fact, pseudo-private, often dependent on donations, subsidies, tax breaks, or public funding) institutions. To my mind, the solution is simple: bring major public institutions back under full public governance and control. No more "we're on private property" rubbish from people taking tax dollars. And, preferably, a fresh labor law enshrining protection for political opinions in the workplace that do not violate extent civil-rights laws.

seibelj 6y ago

Yes but the term "racism" is an extremely loaded term with a long history that is widely understood throughout American society. You can't just say "oh, we don't mean actually racist, we mean 'woke-racist'" and expect everyone to agree with this new definition and feel good about calling themselves woke-racist. This stuff barely flies with hyper-progressive elites, and many of them are deeply uncomfortable with it. This is possibly the dumbest thing ever pushed by those who think they are doing good.

komali2 6y ago

Why didn't they use the term "privileged" then? I'm very happy to acknowledge my privilege, but I'd have to push back if someone was asking me to declare that I'm racist. I'm also happy to hear about times I was unintentionally so, but to lump me into the same boat as the people that were screaming in my face that I'm a race traitor for holding a black lives matter sign doesn't feel fair.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> Why didn't they use the term "privileged" then? Because that word lacks any form of punch. Being "privileged" does not imply any personal responsibility; it's essentially saying you got lucky. My understanding is that this tactic of taking very strong words like "racist" or "nazi" and superextending their definitions is just an attempt to harness the strong emotional response people have to these words and direct it at a very large group of people. The unfortunate side effect is, that it slowly weakens the terminology, to the point where some day being a "racist" might just not be a big deal anymore. The more direct danger of this strategy is that, in the short term, while most of the population still associates a term with a different definition, it allows quickly invoking very strong emotions with an accusation that is not technically wrong by the newer definition. This becomes even more obvious when you look at how people often dance around these definitions to deliberately keep the newer definition as esoteric as possible, so the word retains its connotations for as long as possible.
coldtea 6y ago
>Why didn't they use the term "privileged" then? They use that too, interchangegly and confusingly...

dTal 6y ago

That's not even slightly what "racist" means, though. The accepted term for what you are describing is "privileged". If you're going to assert that every white person is "racist" regardless of their beliefs, you render the term meaningless and might as well just say "white".

eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>If you're going to assert that every white person is "racist" regardless of their beliefs, you render the term meaningless and might as well just say "white". Sure, but that'll get you temp-banned from Facebook, so you have to spell it wypipo.
Miner49er 6y ago
Well, I said "most". I was a bit wrong. It's not just benefiting from racism that makes you racist by the definition, it's being a part of one of the systems that props up racism. Here's a definition from the ADL for systemic racism. "A combination of systems, institutions and factors that advantage white people and for people of color, cause widespread harm and disadvantages in access and opportunity. One person or even one group of people did not create systemic racism, rather it: (1) is grounded in the history of our laws and institutions which were created on a foundation of white supremacy;* (2) exists in the institutions and policies that advantage white people and disadvantage people of color; and (3) takes places in interpersonal communication and behavior (e.g., slurs, bullying, offensive language) that maintains and supports systemic inequities and systemic racism." [1] So if you support one of the "systems, institutions and factors", you are by this definition, racist. I just said most white people probably are, by this definition. [1] https://www.adl.org/racism https://www.adl.org/racism
- cabraca 6y ago
  Don't you think that the definition of racism from a organisation that profits of fighting racism is a little bit biased?
  - Miner49er 6y ago

megaman821 6y ago

So the first thing you do to combat racism is to make a negative generalization of people based on their skin color? I can only imagine how effective this program is.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> it means a part of a system of power that benefits people considered "white" at the expense of others. This definition doesn't even bother me on face. Obviously, systems can be designed to advantage one group and disadvantage another group. And, obviously, Jim Crow effects the distribution of family wealth to this day. What bothers me about BigCorp diversity training is something a quite different. Choose a random public company. Its stocks are almost certainly disproportionately owned by white people. Many of the older companies even did business with apartheid states in the USA (and elsewhere) pre-1960. The ones that have been around for a century might've even done business with Nazis or were even run by anti-Semites (eg Ford). But even if not, just due to the fact that wealth is disproportionately owned by white people, so too are most stocks in large companies. Racially skewed allocation of large company's stock due to a combination of historical discrimination lumping capital into white folk's pockets until ~60 years ago and the compounded nature of wealth is EXACTLY the sort of thing actual social theorists mean when they say "structural racism". The problem with diversity training at BigCorps is not that they talk about structural racism per se. The problem is that they use the training as a way to distract from the actual structural inequalities in our financial system and instead put the onus of change on low-level employees who have almost no access to actual power and agency within the org (or larger society). I'm half convinced that this sort of diversity training is intentional miseducation. When I listen to these training seminars, I can't help by hear them as the board/CEO saying "please don't pay attention to our mostly white and ivy-educated executive's stock-based compensation plan or our disproportionaltely white stockholder's dividends, which are actually excellent examples of structural racism in action; look over there instead".

Nasrudith 6y ago
Focusing on things they can reasonably change is a legitimate approach. It would be defacto illegal for them to engage in racially discriminative stock sales. Asking their ownership to please give away their stocks to random minorities sounds like a fast way to get booted by the board for crashing the stock value by creating a needless controversy . Only fanatics seriously consider large scale forced redistribution for good reason - the damage to property rights causes the market to come tumbling down as it undermines trustworthiness. Would you work for someone who just decides one day "You know what? You worked for us for a decade - we're going to need all of your remaining salary back."?

waffle_ss 6y ago

> "I'm white, and I recognize that society treats me a little bit better cause of that". That's a complete crock. East Asians top the charts in income by ethnicity, college admissions, and have the lowest rates of criminality. For a supposed system created to benefit white people it sure is doing an awful job of it.

Junk_Collector 6y ago

The common definition of racism is (from Webster but also colloquially): "A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" By broadly redefining racism in a way that removes individual agency you can declare anyone you want as racist. Then you can conveniently and selectively conflate it with the common definition to produce individual responsibility. It's a huckster tactic it's how you get things like "I will say, I think it's strange they are asking them to admit to being racist, and "be better". It's a systemic thing, so it requires systemic change. Asking them to say they are racist and that they need to be better seems unneededly divisive." By ensuring that the target they want is inherently racist and also individually responsible but with no possible power to change this, you can ensure an endless need for racism seminars and donations to assuage inherited guilt.

rayiner 6y ago

Even on its own terms, the "white privilege" theory is deficient. In terms of structural aspects of society that perpetuate race-based disadvantages, the main difference isn't between white people and everyone else, it's between Black and Native American people and everyone else: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353 > White and Hispanic children have fairly similar rates of intergenerational mobility.... Because of these modest intergenerational gaps, the income gap between Hispanic and white Americans is shrinking across generations.... Asians appear likely to converge to income levels comparable to white Americans in the long run. > In contrast to Hispanics and Asians, there are large intergenerational gaps between black and American Indian children relative to white children.... If mobility rates do not change, our estimates imply a steady-state gap in family income ranks between whites and American Indians of 18 percentiles, and a white-black gap of 19 percentiles. These values are very similar to the empirically observed gaps for children in our sample, suggesting that blacks and American Indians are currently close to the steady-state income distributions that would prevail if differences in mobility rates remained constant across generations. In terms of rhetoric, moreover, it's deliberately inflammatory. Critical theorist academics appropriated existing terms with weight connotations, like "racist" and "white supremacy," to mean more abstract, systemic things that don't necessarily imply prejudicial intent. People should be wary of adopting this rhetoric even if well-intentioned. Just because some academics thought this rhetoric was clever doesn't mean that people of color generally want race-relations to be defined by such inflammatory rhetoric. As a purely practical matter, there is a ceiling on the fraction of white people who will actually respond in a productive way to being called a "racist" and a "white supremacist" (even if you explain to them the academic twist on the words). There is a reason we do things the way we do them. There is a reason civil rights movements have been built on appeals to universal values and the goal of color-blind equality as the ultimate ideal.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Even by their definition, how am I supposed to "be better"? If it's not my choices that are creating this system of power that benefits people considered "white", then what, specifically, am I supposed to do?

thex10 6y ago
You are supposed to “be better” by being an active part of a counterbalance force so that the white-benefiting system you happen to be a part of can become everyone-benefiting. In terms of specific actions that can mean a lot of different things! The diversity session can probably suggest a few concrete steps towards this end (I am not a DEI professional etc)

lliamander 6y ago

I'm sure you have sincere intentions, but I think you might benefit from being introduced to the concept of Motte and Bailey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy The point here is precisely to equivocate between two terms to manipulate others. You get your target to accept one claim using a relatively acceptable defintion, and the force them to concede rather more extreme claims by implicitly switching to a more self-serving definition.