While we're talking about it we can also talk about the fact that racial prejudice against whites produces little more than general discomfort in white groups, whereas institutionalized racism perpetuated against ethnic minority groups tends to have much more dire consequences.
Which is why we should talk about it. I find it's helpful to explain the differences (politely) to people who bring this one up. There is anti-white sentiment out there, no doubt about it. And I also don't believe that there needs to be a power imbalance for racism to occur (although, that's when racism becomes really bad). If you can point out to someone "yeah, what that black guy who doesn't matter on the street corner said was really racist, now imagine if that guy and his friends owned everything".
Sadly I've had quite a different experience. Even when explained to, people don't seem to understand the diference between racial prejudice (racist attitudes and acts with no institutional power) and institutionalized racism. They insist thar the latter doesn't exist. Or they think that for example African Americans have that institutionalized power in predominantly black neighborhoods.
I tend to find that a lot of people are open to the idea that racism isn't all the same, that some racism is institutionalised or culturally engrained and that some isn't, or that some racism is just a reaction against institutionalised racism and thus not the same, etc.
I tend to find there's a lot of aversion to the idea that racial prejudice against white people isn't racism. People really don't like that. Even if we ditch the Eurocentric assumptions, the idea that an individual act of racism (which may be very severe) doesn't 'count' because it's not part of a wider social problem may be a very bitter pill for some people to swallow.
That being said, I think the real danger in #6 isn't acknowledging 'racism against white people' as being a bad thing that ought to be taken seriously when it happens, it's the idea that any discussion of racism has to also mention the comparatively insignificant social problem of racial prejudice sometimes negatively affecting white people.
I tend to find there's a lot of aversion to the idea that racial prejudice against white people isn't racism. People really don't like that. Even if we ditch the Eurocentric assumptions, the idea that an individual act of racism (which may be very severe) doesn't 'count' because it's not part of a wider social problem may be a very bitter pill for some people to swallow.
I think it's because people assume that the word "racism" isn't used (which one blogger joked is just about the worst thing you can call most white people, lol) it means that the speaker things that acts of racial violence perpetrated by ethnic minorities doesn't 'count.' I guarantee you that the vast majority of people who use the words this way wouldn't agree with that assessment. Violence 'counts' regardless of who perpetrates it. I'd say that assumption is due to the kneejerk reaction of these people to the word 'racist' as being a dirty word, and they don't like the idea that that dirty word can only be applied to them and not to ethnic minorities.
That's why, as I told a different commenter, I don't use those terms in that way.
But yes, that's exactly the point of #6. It's not actually addressing racist acts against white people; it's elevating them on the same level as racist acts against ethnic minorities and acting as if they have the same impact on both groups. They don't.
Exactly. Saying that racial prejudice against white people isn't 'racism' just leads to misunderstanding.
I do think that it's very important to realise that not all racism is the same and there are differences that should be acknowledged so I accept the ideas behind the 'racial prejudice+power' definition of racism but if we're going to adopt a set of definitions then they need to be definitions that help us communicate our ideas, not hinder us.
And using the above definition to try to express the above ideas really just doesn't work, not even with people who would otherwise agree with those ideas.
I agree, I think it leads to a lot of confusion - too much time discussing the definition of terms and whether or not they are valid, and not enough time actually discussing the phenomena they describe. These conversations always, always, always devolve into "that's not what racism means." "Yes it does." "No, just a bunch of sociologists in the ivory towers use it that way." "Why are do you hate sociology? are you anti-intellectual?" etc...
I've always found the idea that academic definitions automatically trump everyday use to be a little classist anyway :oP I'm certainly not giving up perfectly good words like 'decelerate' any time soon either :oP
But then I'm quite sceptical on the idea that words have objectively correct uses anyway :oP Some usages are more useful than others, that's all :o)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I tend to find that a lot of people are open to the idea that racism isn't all the same, that some racism is institutionalised or culturally engrained and that some isn't, or that some racism is just a reaction against institutionalised racism and thus not the same, etc.
I tend to find there's a lot of aversion to the idea that racial prejudice against white people isn't racism. People really don't like that. Even if we ditch the Eurocentric assumptions, the idea that an individual act of racism (which may be very severe) doesn't 'count' because it's not part of a wider social problem may be a very bitter pill for some people to swallow.
That being said, I think the real danger in #6 isn't acknowledging 'racism against white people' as being a bad thing that ought to be taken seriously when it happens, it's the idea that any discussion of racism has to also mention the comparatively insignificant social problem of racial prejudice sometimes negatively affecting white people.
no subject
I think it's because people assume that the word "racism" isn't used (which one blogger joked is just about the worst thing you can call most white people, lol) it means that the speaker things that acts of racial violence perpetrated by ethnic minorities doesn't 'count.' I guarantee you that the vast majority of people who use the words this way wouldn't agree with that assessment. Violence 'counts' regardless of who perpetrates it. I'd say that assumption is due to the kneejerk reaction of these people to the word 'racist' as being a dirty word, and they don't like the idea that that dirty word can only be applied to them and not to ethnic minorities.
That's why, as I told a different commenter, I don't use those terms in that way.
But yes, that's exactly the point of #6. It's not actually addressing racist acts against white people; it's elevating them on the same level as racist acts against ethnic minorities and acting as if they have the same impact on both groups. They don't.
no subject
I do think that it's very important to realise that not all racism is the same and there are differences that should be acknowledged so I accept the ideas behind the 'racial prejudice+power' definition of racism but if we're going to adopt a set of definitions then they need to be definitions that help us communicate our ideas, not hinder us.
And using the above definition to try to express the above ideas really just doesn't work, not even with people who would otherwise agree with those ideas.
no subject
no subject
But then I'm quite sceptical on the idea that words have objectively correct uses anyway :oP Some usages are more useful than others, that's all :o)