What is racism? A poll.

[meowse]

A) Racism is a form of bigotry which involves treating people differently based on their perceived ethnicity (often via skin color or stereotypical facial features, accent/syntax/word choice, or other external evidence

Comments

[agrumer]

(D) All of the above.

Racism is a complicated phenomenon. Why would you expect the language around it to be simple?

Anyway, many people call (B) "institutional racism". I haven't run into a clarifying two-word name for the other kind.

[meowse]

I'll take "A) Racist actions. B) Institutional racism. C) Racist beliefs."

How 'bout you?

[agrumer]

Hrm. I'm looking for "[adjective] racism". "Racist [noun]" will just muddy things up, because people won't know what kind of racism you're talking about.

[catsidhe]

A: behavioural racism
B: institutional racism
C: cognitive racism
?

[wild_irises]

They're all racism. It's in some ways useful to establish which statements/ positions/attitudes are which kinds of racism. At other times, it's important just to say "that's racism and I don't put up with it around me."

As far as the first post was concerned, my basic problem with your proposed dichotomy ("it's a bias in the test/it's a difference in abilities") is that (one of) your underlying assumption(s) is that there in fact is such a thing as "race" in any meaningful genetic way, and that has been consistently disproved. Data here, here, and here.

So if there's no underlying genetic model of race, I don't see how the differences could be based in any kind of ability that wasn't culturally modulated by the dominant culture.

[wild_irises]

Absolutely! I agree 150% with all of that.

My point was not that "race" doesn't have tangible effects. Obviously, it does; all the time, and mostly horrible ones. My point is that you can't make a plausible scientific argument that "race" correlates with test-passing ability. It has to be cultural factors that affect test results.

[meowse]

Gaah. No, not at all--wasn't, amn't, wouldn't claim a "racial" basis for differences in ability. "Race", in any medical/scientific/genetic sense, being (as you point out) mostly nonsense.

No, the dichotomy I was drawing is between "bias in the test against an ethnicity" vs. "fair test, but the individuals who took the test who happened to self-identify as 'black' happened to have less of whatever attributes the test was measuring".

Seriously. I don't buy "racial" differences, I think there's lots of evidence against them. I do buy "ethnic" differences, in a broad statistical sense, since there's scientific evidence for them (see the "testing gap", for example). But I certainly don't go from "there are some scientifically measurable differences in bell curve distribution between ethnicities" to "all people are [more|less] than all people"--that would be absurd.

[zaiah]

Clara and I recently had a conversation on racism that I've been meaning to write up.. this may just be the time and place

[zaiah]

What was helpful to ME was to put privilege in this sort of context.. it was no longer a white guilt statement about how good or how bad I'd had it compared to someone else.. it was generations of archetypal knowledge of my ancestors behaviors to KNOW that we could (and would and have been) the biggest Bully in the room

[meowse]

Awesome comments. Much food for thought. Thank you.

[xavoc]

Is it racism if you are generally disappointed by all people, races, and sociological ideals that people claim to embrace but really only do in their own limited definition of said ideal

[meowse]

Mmmm. Acceptable to say in what sense?

I will definitely defend someone's legal right to say that they hate gays, or blacks, or etc. I would, in fact, rather they say it out loud than keep silent but act on it.

But I also won't have them as a guest in my house. They can be racist, sexist, or homophobic somewhere else--but someone who honestly thinks it's okay to hate someone because of the color of their skin, their gender, or who they like to sleep with (as long as it's consensual) is someone I just don't want to spend time with or have in my house.

Does that match at all with your definition of "perfectly acceptable"?

[xavoc]

Inviting or tolerating things in private is completely different. It's your choice. I'm just generally amazed at how many people support freedom of speech until they hear something they personally don't like.

[meowse]

Meh, that's silly. Freedom of speech only has meaning unless it's freedom to say things that are unpopular, offensive, etc.