Issues of Racism

[claptonpond]

But power structures are complicated things. On the whole, people in power tend to be white males, but that doesn't mean they are in each individual case.

If a black boss enacts his prejudice against white workers, is he not being racist? Does the power differential between the races somehow outweigh the power differential between individuals?

The way I see it, individuals are racist or sexist, not groups, although groups can foster a culture of racism or sexism.

[Tovah]

I think it is dangerous and misguided to split hairs this way, to differentiate between one groups hate from another.

I also think history and the context of racist ideas are completely being painted over with a general brush. Racist ideas have a history. They are used by those in power, and those not in power. They are very real, and not always a political tool. People believe these things, it isn't simply about power politics.

if my girlfriend's father does not like me because I am white, is that racist? If my father does not like her because she is black, is that racist?

Even the terms we're using, black and white, are historically loaded terms that are not without their own history.

It's impossible to answer any of these questions without looking at a broader spectrum of thought and history.

[Tovah]

And to elaborate on Pond's point: power is the same no matter who is in power. White or black, orange or blue.

Individuals make those decisions. It isn't inherant in anyone.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Sorry Tovah and Clapton, I completely and utterly disagree.

It isn't splitting hairs, it is about having precise definitions which recognise the politics of the situtation.

1. Yes, it is perfectly possible for the black boss to show racial prejudice against white workers.

2. If your girlfriend's father doesn't like you because you are white, that is racial prejudice.

However, neither of these cases is racism, because the black boss and the black father are not part of the institutionalised racial prejudice created and manipulated by the ruling class, which is white. In fact, the black boss and the black father are victims of racism and the white worker and white boyfriend are not. But they may be victims of racial prejudice.

Clapton - I think you need to reconsider the way you see it. I've given very clear definitions showing the difference between racism and racial prejudice. Racism is not about individuals. Yes, the power differential does outweigh the differential between individuals.

Tovah - the definitions put forward by me and W&T do look at the broader spectrum of thought and history. It is the refusal to consider racism in political terms which is dangerous and misguided. The power is not the same - white domination is an institutionalised part of Western culture, economics, politics, sociology and history. I do not believe the context of racist ideas is being completely painted over - in fact I believe the analysis put forward by W&T and myself uses the historical and political context.

To claim racism is a personal thing between any two people is so obviously flawed it's farcical.

[Tovah]

Sacco said:

Sorry Tovah and Clapton, I completely and utterly disagree.

It isn't splitting hairs, it is about having precise definitions which recognise the politics of the situtation.

1. Yes, it is perfectly possible for the black boss to show racial prejudice against white workers.

2. If your girlfriend's father doesn't like you because you are white, that is racial prejudice.

However, neither of these cases is racism, because the black boss and the black father are not part of the institutionalised racial prejudice created and manipulated by the ruling class, which is white. In fact, the black boss and the black father are victims of racism and the white worker and white boyfriend are not. But they may be victims of racial prejudice.

Clapton - I think you need to reconsider the way you see it. I've given very clear definitions showing the difference between racism and racial prejudice. Racism is not about individuals. Yes, the power differential does outweigh the differential between individuals.

Tovah - the definitions put forward by me and W&T do look at the broader spectrum of thought and history. It is the refusal to consider racism in political terms which is dangerous and misguided. The power is not the same - white domination is an institutionalised part of Western culture, economics, politics, sociology and history. I do not believe the context of racist ideas is being completely painted over - in fact I believe the analysis put forward by W&T and myself uses the historical and political context.

To claim racism is a personal thing between any two people is so obviously flawed it's farcical.

I want to highlight that I do agree with you that there is a qualitative difference between prejudice on the part of the ruling class and that of the groups they rule.

I do, however, think you're improperly using the term 'racist' to distinguish one from the other. That assumes there is a basic type of racist, that there is no variation and that the definition can apply no matter the political context or social situation.

We can't ask, "what kind of racist was..." in relation to historical figures. Because in your definition, there is only one kind, and that excludes entire groups of people.

I think you neglect there can be positions of institutionalized authority amongst groups not necessarily part of the society's major ruling class.

Anyway, to summarize because my head hurts, I agree with you, but I do not believe the term 'racist' is what you should be using.

[Sacco & Vanzetti]

Tovah said:

I want to highlight that I do agree with you that there is a qualitative difference between prejudice on the part of the ruling class and that of the groups they rule.

I do, however, think you're improperly using the term 'racist' to distinguish one from the other. That assumes there is a basic type of racist, that there is no variation and that the definition can apply no matter the political context or social situation.

We can't ask, "what kind of racist was..." in relation to historical figures. Because in your definition, there is only one kind, and that excludes entire groups of people.

I think you neglect there can be positions of institutionalized authority amongst groups not necessarily part of the society's major ruling class.

Anyway, to summarize because my head hurts, I agree with you, but I do not believe the term 'racist' is what you should be using.

The analysis I offered uses the phrase "racial prejudice" to define the occasions you describe as being outside my definition of "racism".

I do not dispute that it's possible for some black people to express racial prejudice.

[claptonpond]

Sacco said:

The analysis I offered uses the phrase "racial prejudice" to define the occasions you describe as being outside my definition of "racism".

I do not dispute that it's possible for some black people to express racial prejudice.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't think your distinction between "racial prejudice" and "racism" is as black-and-white (if you'll pardon the expression) as you make out.

There are many different levels of institutionalised power relationships. The global ruling class is essentially white, so most racism is perpetrated by whites against others. However, there are cases where groups that aren't part of that global elite exercise power over others. Is it impossible for them to be racist just because they're not part of the overall elite? No.

Also, I have problems with the idea of institutionalised racism. It seems to me that by placing the responsibility on the institution, you take it away from the individuals. Racist individuals can then say "the institution made me do it" without questioning their personal views.

Racism clearly isn't a personal thing between two individuals. Nor is it between two groups. It's between an individual and a race.