Ferguson unrest

[Smallc]

First: you didn't post a link, just made some vague reference to the three definitions of racism. Based on your comments about it, though, I think you're getting your info from here.

This is all well and good, but there's whole fields of academic work that fleshes things out further. And even if you accept this ultrasimplified interpretation as the last word, there's no hierarchy there; that is, no one definition is more valid than the others.

Second: we're talking specifically about systemic or institutional racism. In that context, why would I bother with talking about individual prejudices or other manifestations of racism?

The link was probably 100 pages ago by now. I referred to it several times after that.

[Black Dog]

We are talking about the definition of words.

It's much bigger than that.

And yes, popularity DOES determine the validity of a word definition. There is no other metric.

You're begging the question here.

[Black Dog]

The link was probably 100 pages ago by now. I referred to it several times after that.

OK. And?

[Smallc]

OK. And?

You said I didn't post it. I was simply correcting you.

[TimG]

It's much bigger than that.

No it isn't. Various activists want to attach the word "racism" to issues that may have merit but are not racism by most people's definition. They insist on using the word racism because they see it as a useful political tool and want to take advantage of the various connotations that come with the word. But their attempt to redefine the word has been rejected by many which means their definition is less valid that the widely accepted definition. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

No it isn't. Various activists want to attach the word "racism" to issues that may have merit but are not racism by most people's definition.

Sure, if you want to completely suck the context out of the whole thing. Ignore the important qualifiers that are used to talk about things like institutional or systemic racism. Just stick with whatever Dictionary.com says. Cool.

They insist on using the word racism because they see it as a useful political tool and want to take advantage of the various connotations that come with the word.

Sure, if you want to ignore the history of racism as a term of art and a social concept that has always meant different things in different contexts.

But their attempt to redefine the word has been rejected by many which means their definition is less valid that the widely accepted definition.

I see no evidence of this rejection by the masses. Ignorance, yes, rejection, no. I'm not sure you would given the academic definition and the simplistic one are not mutually exclusive.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

I see no evidence of this rejection by the masses. Ignorance, yes, rejection, no. I'm not sure you would given the academic definition and the simplistic one are not mutually exclusive.

Many of the concepts raised in this thread are emphatically rejected by the majority. i.e. "colorblindness is racism" or "poor whites are privileged". It takes more than an academic with a mission to change the meaning of a word.

[Black Dog]

Many of the concepts raised in this thread are emphatically rejected by the majority. i.e. "colorblindness is racism" or "poor whites are privileged". It takes more than an academic with a mission to change the meaning of a word.

You're gonna have to back that up, sonny. As I said: ignorance /= rejection.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

You're gonna have to back that up, sonny. As I said: ignorance /= rejection.

I could easily say you need to back you claim that the ideas would be accepted if only people understood them. I am pretty sure that most people given both sides of the argument would reject the premise entirely because they are disconnected from the reality of that most people see every day. I know this is true in the social groups that I deal with on a daily basis. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

I could easily say you need to back you claim that the ideas would be accepted if only people understood them.

I never made such a claim. How about backing up the claim you explicitly made instead of shifting the burden?

I am pretty sure that most people given both sides of the argument would reject the premise entirely because they are disconnected from the reality of that most people see every day.

So we've gone from "emphatically rejected!" to "if they knew what it was, they'd totally not be down" pretty quickly, hey?

[TimG]

So we've gone from "emphatically rejected!" to "if they knew what it was, they'd totally not be down" pretty quickly, hey?

It is my opinion that the premises are emphatically rejected by the majority of people. That said, there is a segment of people who are easily swayed and the only way to find out their real opinion is to give them both sides. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

It is my opinion that the premises are emphatically rejected by the majority of people. That said, there is a segment of people who are easily swayed and the only way to find out their real opinion is to give them both sides.

So: you don't have any support for this opinion? Just one of those gut feelings?

Here's the kicker though: even if most people did "emphatically reject" a more nuanced definition of racism that goes beyond individual acts of bias or discrimination to include bigger social forces, I don't give a shit. Because this stuff is right there in front of anyone who has ever crossed the street because there was a young black dude walking towards them. And it's definitely in front of the segment of the population who live with it even if they don't have a name to give it.

[Smallc]

I would never cross the street because of race.

[Bonam]

Here's an article that explains why "colorblindness" is racism.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/colorblind/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism

That is not an explanation of "why" something "is". It's an opinion, nothing more.

[TimG]

So: you don't have any support for this opinion? Just one of those gut feelings?

The majority of people do not think they are racist and any definition that attempts to paint them as inherently racist will be rejected. This is common sense.

Because this stuff is right there in front of anyone who has ever crossed the street because there was a young black dude walking towards them.

This example illustrates the problem with the race obsessed people like you: there are many reasons why someone may perceive a threat and react accordingly. Race is the least of the factors. i.e. how many people would cross a street to avoid a young black men dressed in a suit? How many people would cross the street to avoid a young white guy dressed in gang colors? It is not hard to figure what the real issue is and it is not race. Edited December 22, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

That is not an explanation of "why" something "is". It's an opinion, nothing more.

So let's think about this. A highly educated black woman explains how colourblindness is racism. A bunch of white male keyboard warriors reject her claims.

Things that make you go "Hmmm...."

[Argus]

I think I agree with you. If there was no racism to begin with, affirmative action would not be needed.

Affirmative action in Canada was implemented because liberals here felt guilt over the historic racism and mistreatment of Blacks in the United States. It was never needed here, and isn't needed now. It is reverse racism whose only function is to make liberals feel good about themselves.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I would never cross the street because of race.

Guess what racist said this.

“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

[scribblet]

MLK Niece Alveda King: Sharpton Sowed Anger, Reaped Violence

Tuesday, 25 Nov 2014 05:32 PM

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alveda-King-Al-Sharpton-Michael-Brown-Jesse-Jackson/2014/11/25/id/609581/#ixzz3MeFG3Wdb

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alveda-King-Al-Sharpton-Michael-Brown-Jesse-Jackson/2014/11/25/id/609581/

This interview is the opinion of Dr. Alveda King NOT the opinion of the Fox host.

Reaction from Dr. Alveda King Date Dec 22, 2014 Duration 3:30

Dr. Alveda King has an opinion expressed in this video that IMO is more realistic. Al Sharpton playing the victim

http://video.latino.foxnews.com/v/3956489710001/al-sharpton-playing-the-victim/

[Bonam]

So let's think about this. A highly educated black woman explains how colourblindness is racism. A bunch of white male keyboard warriors reject her claims.

Things that make you go "Hmmm...."

The validity of one's opinion is not affected by one's race. Being black no more makes you an expert on racism than being white makes you an expert on anything else.

[On Guard for Thee]

We are talking about the definition of words. And yes, popularity DOES determine the validity of a word definition. There is no other metric that can be used.

Surely you jest. I hear people everyday using words improperly. Just because some didn't pay attention in grammar class etc. doesn't mean we should alter the language to entertain their misuse of it.

[Black Dog]

Guess what racist said this.

“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

Funny enough, using the term reverse racism to describe discrimination against whites actually implies that only whites can be racist. Otherwise, you'd just say "racist".

Edited December 23, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

The majority of people do not think they are racist and any definition that attempts to paint them as inherently racist will be rejected. This is common sense.

Most people also think they are excellent drivers when they are not. Self perception /= reality. Leaving aside that very basic concept, however, the fact you think instiutional racism suggests people are inherently racist shows you still don't really understand what the hell it's about.

This example illustrates the problem with the race obsessed people like you: there are many reasons why someone may perceive a threat and react accordingly. Race is the least of the factors. i.e. how many people would cross a street to avoid a young black men dressed in a suit? How many people would cross the street to avoid a young white guy dressed in gang colors? It is not hard to figure what the real issue is and it is not race.

This is the problem with so-called "race blind people" like you: because you beleive not everything is about race, you believe nothing is. Or that issues of class, gender, and race are all completely separate things.

But what's really hilarious is how your counter example makes my point for me better than I could have. In your "race blind" construct, a black guy dressed like a white guy in a suit=no threat, while a white guy dressed like a black guy (in "gang colours")=dangerous.

Edited December 23, 2014 by Black Dog

[Smallc]

Guess what racist said this.

“There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

I don't see your point. Most people don't feel that way.

[Smallc]

This is the problem with so-called "race blind people" like you: because you beleive not everything is about race, you believe nothing is. Or that issues of class, gender, and race are all completely separate things.

No, you're wrong. Some things actually are about race. Most things - the vast majority of things, are not.