7 ms·

I don't understand what's wrong with this. This is quite literally the definition of racism in a sociological context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Socio

I don't understand what's wrong with this. This is quite literally the definition of racism in a sociological context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Sociological. You're going to need to disprove a lot of social science before you tackle this definition.

mcantelon 14y ago
>Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege The commonly used definition of racism is hatred against people because of their race. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism >hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. A couple of black kids beating a white kid to death because he's white, for example, would be defined as racist under this definition.
minimize_me 14y ago
You could pop over to Zim to see what's wrong with that statement.
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  > pop over to Zim I don't know what this means. But please elaborate what's wrong with that statement. Please understand that a word's definition is not necessarily it's meaning.
  - cdelsolar 14y ago
    He's talking about Invader Zim; Zim is racist to the other kids because he is literally from an alien race, even though they have the power (he is a very ineffective invader).
  - minimize_me 14y ago
    Zimbabwe. Or South Africa.
Someone 14y ago
"Blacks cannot be racist against whites" does not logically follow from "racism can only come from the oppressor who has the power". The group in power can be black, as, for example, more or less is the case in the current South Africa, and may be the case in some subcultures (rappers? Basketball players? Some prisons?)
- zem 14y ago
  adria seems to suffer from deep-seated us-centricity; witness her insistence that "lynching" was a racially-loaded term applied to black people.
josh-j 14y ago
That's all a bit silly. We have a common understanding or definition of what racism is and it connotes something immoral. _Some_ sociologists define racism as something else which also connotes something immoral. The common thread is that both definitions connote immorality, and so if something falls under either definition, it's still bad and so the whole arguing over which definition to use is moot. For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral? People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question. So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people. (I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)
- paranoiacblack 14y ago
  No, you're missing that racism is a systematic oppression of a certain group or people. HN isn't the best place for speaking about social issues, so I won't write you an essay about what's wrong about what you're saying. I'll just say I believe you and others are conflating the terms prejudice and racism. I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "common-usage-racis[m]." Indeed, black people can be prejudiced against white people, and that prejudice can be because of race. Racism, however, needs a little bit more than that. Particularly, institutionalization.
  - josh-j 14y ago
    You're lacking an understanding of linguistics and philosophy. Both usages are no more correct than the other, and the point of such usages is to ascribe a connotation to a cluster of things along a continuum. Arguing over definitions is pointless (I can create my own definition of racism and it will be equally valid), the point is what they connote.
pan69 14y ago
"Some sociologists have defined..." I guess "some" is the keyword here.
Zak 14y ago
Context is everything. No other definition for racism given in the same article depends on the racist being a member of a privileged race.

mcantelon 14y ago

>Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege The commonly used definition of racism is hatred against people because of their race. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism >hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. A couple of black kids beating a white kid to death because he's white, for example, would be defined as racist under this definition.

minimize_me 14y ago

You could pop over to Zim to see what's wrong with that statement.

paranoiacblack 14y ago
> pop over to Zim I don't know what this means. But please elaborate what's wrong with that statement. Please understand that a word's definition is not necessarily it's meaning.
- cdelsolar 14y ago
  He's talking about Invader Zim; Zim is racist to the other kids because he is literally from an alien race, even though they have the power (he is a very ineffective invader).
- minimize_me 14y ago
  Zimbabwe. Or South Africa.

Someone 14y ago

"Blacks cannot be racist against whites" does not logically follow from "racism can only come from the oppressor who has the power". The group in power can be black, as, for example, more or less is the case in the current South Africa, and may be the case in some subcultures (rappers? Basketball players? Some prisons?)

zem 14y ago
adria seems to suffer from deep-seated us-centricity; witness her insistence that "lynching" was a racially-loaded term applied to black people.

josh-j 14y ago

That's all a bit silly. We have a common understanding or definition of what racism is and it connotes something immoral. _Some_ sociologists define racism as something else which also connotes something immoral. The common thread is that both definitions connote immorality, and so if something falls under either definition, it's still bad and so the whole arguing over which definition to use is moot. For example, if an organized group of American Asians began touting their superiority over other races and advocated and lobbied for more Asians in positions of power because they're superior, wouldn't you still consider their actions to be immoral? People can use whichever definition they like, but they need to be open about it, and they need to realize by using another definition they're not also redefining or constraining the connotation -- that's begging the question. So, black people cannot be sociologically-racist-therefore-immoral against white people, but they can be common-usage-racist-therefore-immoral against white people. (I should also note that labeling something with a word that connotes a negative or positive affect isn't much of an argument for the applicability of that connotation to that something. It's a heuristic more than it is an argument.)

paranoiacblack 14y ago
No, you're missing that racism is a systematic oppression of a certain group or people. HN isn't the best place for speaking about social issues, so I won't write you an essay about what's wrong about what you're saying. I'll just say I believe you and others are conflating the terms prejudice and racism. I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "common-usage-racis[m]." Indeed, black people can be prejudiced against white people, and that prejudice can be because of race. Racism, however, needs a little bit more than that. Particularly, institutionalization.
- josh-j 14y ago
  You're lacking an understanding of linguistics and philosophy. Both usages are no more correct than the other, and the point of such usages is to ascribe a connotation to a cluster of things along a continuum. Arguing over definitions is pointless (I can create my own definition of racism and it will be equally valid), the point is what they connote.

pan69 14y ago

"Some sociologists have defined..." I guess "some" is the keyword here.

Zak 14y ago

Context is everything. No other definition for racism given in the same article depends on the racist being a member of a privileged race.