Racism, deconstructing the social construct:

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, maybe your parents "soft racism" is the more realistic standpoint, while your generation has learnt to live in an airy-fairy ideological reality, affected by overall liberalization, Flower-Power, sexual emancipation, etc. But this might turn out to be largely a mirage. Many people today live in their head, in a liberal-minded theoretical and idealistic illusion. They don't listen to their heart anymore, which your parents did.
/Mats

How odd. My parents didn't listen to their hearts at all, they listened to their fear.
I listened to my heart, and my mother's FEAR led her to cut me off from the business they kept dragging me back to, saying it would be all mine someday. Her second husband, a nice southern racist, spent every PENNY of my fathers money, and now my mom struggles. Go figure.

Me? I'll always be alright.

For my parents I think it was more cultural. I didn't pick up on any fear. My mother hired a black woman to take care of me as a baby, for instance, and trusted her with me withut reservation. Neither one would ever intentionally be unkind or unfair to a black person or migrant Mexican worker for instance, nor did either think that minorities should be deprived of any privilege - EXCEPT - privilege to live WITH white folks. In their culture probably most white people, and also many black people, believed the races should not mix, should not intermarry yadda yadda. Separate but equal was the goal to achieve.

But I remember even as a very young child thinking how silly separate drinking fountains were or the black folks having to sit in the balcony and not down on the main floor of the theater where the white folks sat. I thought it dumb that black kids had to be bussed 20 miles away to the 'black' school in the neighboring city. But my parents had problems with none of that. And that mindset simply didn't take with my sister or myself.

So since we have corrected laws that allowed or promoted such silly discrimination, have removed all the legal inequities from the system, and have poured trillions into the effort to right former wrongs. . . . .

I am left with the only logical conclusion that we still have blatant racism because it is profitable to have racism.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

If I had to pick one most prevalent though, I'd probably say Institutional, for the following reasons:

- I'm almost positive it far outweighs reactionary racism: I don't have the figures, but I would damn well bet that Portuguese sailors who took African slaves at the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade did not become racist because they suffered at the hands of blacks, and likewise goes for South African whites against South African blacks, and likewise with white American slave-owners against African-American slaves, and likewise white Spaniards against the indigenous Americans. No doubt that some and perhaps many did, but I'd contend it would be impossibly to justify Spain's 300-year-long imposed-caste system was due to most arriving Spaniards being treated badly by the natives. Nevertheless, some bad experiences most likely did well to reinforce the institutionalized racism throughout those 300 years. The story for parental reasons for racism would follow a similar fate: the parental racism would no doubt be fueled by experience, but not most racist parents in these contexts would have still not become racist due to past experience, and were most likely racist, like most people, due to institutionalized racism. There's also the fact that with parenting nothing is direct. Children don't just repeat and absorb everything their parents do; children can accept or reject parental teaching/behaviour.

But then, what fuels the establishment of institutional racism? Well, I mean, there's probably many factors one could point out. I mean, at least in the cases I pointed to above the obvious thing is power: The Spaniards got to America, found the natives to not have the advanced iron weapons, shields, or horses, totally decimated by disease, and obviously felt superior and compelled to establish racial theories to justify their oppression of the natives (because it eventually always becomes preferred to have some theory rather than accepting that 'might makes right'), and of course these patterns of relationships reinforce and repeat themselves through generations as the inequality itself becomes institutional and self-perpetuating (100 years later, instead of having the guns and the steel, it would've just been "Us white european-descended Spanish-Americans are richer, more educated, and have more money than the brown native-descended, therefore we must be superior." The same could go for Dutch-descendants in South Africa and white Americans in the US.

It seems we too are in a sort of agreement, for the most part.

I would like to point something out upon an objective observation of your post:
(Please understand that I do appreciate your response, I am just observing a pattern in your post.)

Your own statements pointing out only "white european" examples of historical evil is a perfect example of what could be considered modern institutional racism. Of course, you have not stated directly that you "blame YT for slavery", but your racially exclusive examples do indicate that you have a prejudiced veiw of 'whites' in the context of history. Please keep in mind that the historical record has been usurped and re-written many times over by the very elitists who wish to continue subjugating all people. History books are just as useful a weapon to the elitist as a gun... maybe even moreso because they are cheaper to manufacture. You could have pointed out that 'whites' endured historically being victimized by evils such as slavery as well. But you didn't.

Though you are correct in principle about first encounters, you could have also pointed out that the Portuguese no doubt encountered the barbaric practice of cannibalism upon the coasts of Africa. The Zulus in South Africa are well documented in their vicious attacks upon 'white' Boer settlers, including wholesale slaughter of women and children. The first Spanish encounters with the Aztecs is another well documented example of primitive brutality, on the part of the Aztec ritual "sacrifices" and all. All things that do not lead to great "first impressions".

I also agree that such bad first impressions are certainly exploited by the elitists, no doubt exaggerated. Just as the accounts of barbaric 'white' Celts were likely exagerrated upon by the roman slavers, as 'white' Europeans were portrayed as infidels by invading muslim slavers, and as 'white' Bourgeoisie were (and still are) dehumanized by marxist slavers.

You could point out such things... then again we all know history is bullshit.


Or better yet simply you could have left the specific racial terms out of it and conveyed this same message:
Elitists who wish to enslave people come in all 'races'.

Your main "point"( What I hope is your main point anyway) I do agree with. Despite however violently or unpleasant first encounters turn out, such things do not justify slavery. They do justify a desire for seperation, but not subjugation.

It is the media publishers, the so-called educators, and the government who have a vested interest in perpetuating racism. As you correctly stated, "for power". They are masters of doublespeak, preaching "anti-racism" while practicing and encouraging it.

The elitist force different 'races' of people to mix while they themselves are living in their gated mansions... Exploiting and exaggerating the realistic fears of the different groups of peoples... Treating their human subjects of all 'races' as cattle for profit.

Yeah, you are right (up until the last paragraph). I mean, I didn't really want to keep writing, but yeah, of course, I could've made the same point about, you know, British Oppression of the Irish, or the Arab enslaving and oppressing of non-muslim black Africans, or the Japanese oppression of Korea, etc (though those may are more ethnic than racil, I'd say). And those would be valid points for any sort of institutional discrimnation, of which racial is just one type of.

I didn't mean that I think whites are more evil or more prone to racism. Just that, because some nations populated by white people became the most powerful at the beginning of the modern age, for a variety of factors, they ended up being also being the most able to institutionalize and have a stake in maintaining discriminatory practices, most widely in their colonial possessions. It's not in any way limited or even more prevalent for whites; I mean, just look at the friggin' Hutus and Tutsis. OSIdjSdpoi.

I don't know where the last paragraph came from though... Forced mixed marriages? 0_o

 

[midcan5]

I am finishing John Douglas' 'MindHunter,' I know I will make sure our granddaughters are learned in karate etc after reading this book. Check it out. Crimes are usually within racial categories for the obvious reason. There is so much blather about race that it is hard to know where it stops and where it starts. On and on it goes. Below are stats and other info.

Rape Affects Everyone

* Around the world at least 1 in 3 women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)
* 77% of rapes are committed by someone known to the person raped. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997)
* According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)
* Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)
* 6 out of 10 rapes are reported by victims to have occurred in their own home or home of a friend, relative or neighbor. (US Dept. of Justice 1997)

UCSC Rape Prevention Education


• Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives.
[Violence against Women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994]

About 81% of rape victims are white; 18% are black; 1% are of other races.
- Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.

Rape Statistics - Yello Dyno


The majority of drug offenders are white, but blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. Why is that you think?

"Gee, I wonder why, if you have a black man running for high public office — say, Barack Obama or Harold Ford — the opposition feels compelled to run low-life political ads featuring tacky, sexually provocative white women who have no connection whatsoever to the black male candidates." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/opinion/02herbert.html

ideas:

"In retrospect, the early research was intended to humanize the image of men and women who had no history or individual identity. Who were they? And what was the impact on them of slavery and, in the ante-bellum years, of discrimination, segregation, and intimidation through violence? How did they view themselves? And how did they adjust their aspirations to the realities of 'Jim Crow' segregation in the North and lynching parties in the South? The evidence of pain was everywhere, but nowhere was it more vivid than in the studies done by Kenneth Clarke which showed that when black and white children had a choice of black and white dolls, black children preferred the white dolls. There is still a flourishing ethnographic research program on the black family, arts, linguistic patterns, religion, occupational histories, and emigration paths. But the major shift in research was to the other side of the equation, to the social psychology of prejudice."


"If, as we thought in the 1950s, racism was the result of racists, could it be the other way around? The new hypothesis was that racism created racists. There was a growing conviction, then, that racism as a structural and systemic part of our social system had to be confronted through social action, that the state itself must mandate and enforce equal rights. Beyond that, affirmative action.

Research turned increasingly to the politics of backlash as middle-class students, for example, felt angry and threatened by minority students who wanted not just space on campus but empowerment. New coalitions were being formed of feminists, anti-racists, and gay and lesbian rights activists, thus watering-down cultural distinctiveness but, also, leading to a different research agenda based on discourse analysis."

Ishmael Reed Politics of the Race Card: McCain Gurgles in the Slime


http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...cting-the-social-construct-2.html#post2536347

 

[Barb]

Barb and mlw,

Is there anyway I could convince you two to work things out in another thread? Ya both don't seem to understand the subject of this thread.

Thankx!

Kiss my what?

 

[IanC]

hi W_D, good to hear from you again.

everyone, quite naturally, feels more comfortable around people like themselves. racially, culturally, economically, whatever. it takes information about another person to start building trust.

my question is about what constitutes racism. who is more of a racist-- the person who knows there are racial differences but overcomes the initial suspicsion and tries to act fairly. or the person who outwardly professes equality and then acts in stereotypical fashion?

 

[midcan5]

my question is about what constitutes racism. who is more of a racist-- the person who knows there are racial differences but overcomes the initial suspicsion and tries to act fairly. or the person who outwardly professes equality and then acts in stereotypical fashion?

That question is telling. Consider that race is inherited, as are all personal characteristics, does that mean we arrive at each person and then determine how they did considering where they started? Or do we only do that when the distinctions are obvious.

In the piece at the link below I unfairly labeled republicans. I did so as I wondered what the feelings would be if Palin's story were Obama's. I told this fable to a white upper middle class women who claimed she didn't have a racist thought in her body. But ironically she agreed the Black stereotype was more realistic as that is how they behave. So in the end it is not what we say we are, but what we say - or is that do, with information.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/61091-life-in-a-parallel-universe.html

 

[editec]

Classism is the real problem, folks.

To that, one can add the problem of racism.

But racism is a TOOL of classism.

 

[Foxfyre]

RACISM is assuming a group is inferior based upon RACE.

People who are racist but don't understand it are the greatest problem this country has right now.

A very gentle correction here. In my opinion you are spot on accurate but too limited in your definition.

Racism is indeed an assumption that a group is inferior based upon Race, and/or

Racism is an assumption that one race is superior to all others which is almost the same thing but there is a subtle difference, and/or

Racism is an assumption that somebody is racist if they criticize somebody of another race, and/or

Racism is an assumption that one race is incapable of improving itself or achieving its full potential without the help of another race, and/or

Racism is a belief that certain people are entitled to certain privileges or benefits because of their race, and/or

Racism is exploitation of another race in any way in order to increase ones own power, prestige, influence, or resources, and/or

Racism is a perception that people of another race are naturally more violent or more dangerous or dishonest or criminally minded than people of one's own race, and/or

Racism is an assumption that people of a certain race are automatically wrong if they disagree with certain opinions held by others of their race, and/or

Racism is an assumption that people of a certain race will hold certain assumptions or opinions, and/or

Racism, in summary, is any assumptions about anybody's character, authority, entitlement, propensity, attitude, or philosophy based on their skin color or ethnicity.

IT IS NOT RACIST:

To state that a person who happens to be of another race is dishonest, corrupt, stupid, violent, dangerous, opportunist, ignorant, incapable, racist, prejudiced, biased, or wrong when that person's actions support the belief. It IS racist to assume that the person's race is the reason they are the way they are.

To state that the NAACP or the Black Panthers aka New Black Panthers or Color of Change or the Rainbow Coalition or any other such groups holds certain positions based on race. It is racist to assume that all opinions held by such groups are racist when there is no evidence to support that.

To state distrust or disapproval in a President or any other person in power who happens to be of a different race. It is racist to distrust or disapprove of such person or assume they are unworthy of trust or approval because he or she is of a different race.

To note that certain demographics involving race include higher crime rates or higher school dropout rates or higher unemployment or more poverty or more incarcerations, etc. It IS racist to assume that the race itself is the reason for such statistics.

To note that many keep racism alive by exploiting it and thereby increasing their own condition or fortune. It IS racist to assume that those being exploited need the presumed assistance or help because they are incapable of providing it for themselves.

AND ALL OF THIS fits my opinion that racism is a learned behavior and is actively taught through motives of profit.

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

I don't know where the last paragraph came from though... Forced mixed marriages? 0_o

That is not what was written. Forms of forced integration, such as the practice of blockbusting was the meaning by the use of the word "mix".

Though, do you truly deny that institutions such as the mass media and so-called higher education are actively promoting miscegenation?

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

hi W_D, good to hear from you again.

everyone, quite naturally, feels more comfortable around people like themselves. racially, culturally, economically, whatever. it takes information about another person to start building trust.

my question is about what constitutes racism. who is more of a racist-- the person who knows there are racial differences but overcomes the initial suspicsion and tries to act fairly. or the person who outwardly professes equality and then acts in stereotypical fashion?

Hello Ian,
The definition to racism is in the first post.
The first example of one who simply recognizes 'race' doesn't neccesarily constitute a racist. Nor does the second... the second example constitutes a liar/hyppocrite, but not neccesarily a racist (though it is likely).

 

[Whyte.Devyl]

RACISM is assuming a group is inferior based upon RACE.

It also means assuming someone is superior due to race alone. The 'race' of the person doing the assuming is irrelevant to the racism they express.

Examples of racist behavior, by strict definition:
Assuming that members of a given 'race' are athletically superior, based on their 'race' alone, even if it isn't your own 'race'.

Assuming that members of a given 'race' are intellectually superior, based on their 'race' alone, even if it isn't your own 'race'.

Assuming that members of a given 'race' are morally superior (historically justified), based on their 'race' alone, even if it isn't your own 'race'.