Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[cnelsen]

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

And which would that be?

Which would you guess that would be?

Yeah, I didn't think you could, phony.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

And which would that be?

Which would you guess that would be?

Yeah, I didn't think you could, phony.

I never claimed you could think without a orange life vest, helmet, and 2 adults present.

 

[Coyote]

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Who? Antifa are the terrorists. They have demonstrated and have threatened communites with violence if they do not get their way in this matter.

Don't believe Me?

www.google.com

Try getting outside your blinders and look.

Is anyone actually supporting Antifa?

They aren't any different than the "Unite the Right" white supremacists.

 

[Coyote]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

They did not inherit slavery, they brought it with them.

My ancestors were European. No ancestor of mine has ever owned a slave in North America.

Neither did mine.

On the other hand...none of my ancesters were slaves.

I suspect neither you nor I have a real understanding of what it must be like to be the descendent of a slave, not knowing WHAT your ancestry is exactly, because it was ripped from your ancesters.

The real resentment is that...the Civil War NEVER ended for some.

 

[Coyote]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

They did not inherit slavery, they brought it with them.

My ancestors were European. No ancestor of mine has ever owned a slave in North America.

Neither did mine.

On the other hand...none of my ancesters were slaves.

I suspect neither you nor I have a real understanding of what it must be like to be the descendent of a slave, not knowing WHAT your ancestry is exactly, because it was ripped from your ancesters.

The real resentment is that...the Civil War NEVER ended for some.

 

[Baz Ares]

NONE! As on the winning side.

 

[cnelsen]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

They did not inherit slavery, they brought it with them.

My ancestors were European. No ancestor of mine has ever owned a slave in North America.

Neither did mine.

On the other hand...none of my ancesters were slaves.

I suspect neither you nor I have a real understanding of what it must be like to be the descendent of a slave, not knowing WHAT your ancestry is exactly, because it was ripped from your ancesters.

The real resentment is that...the Civil War NEVER ended for some.

The point is the United States inherited the institution of slavery on July 4th, 1776. At that point, African slavery had already been in existence in North America for longer than we've even been a country, yet. The slave trade was engaged in by Europeans, Jews, Arabs, and Africans, themselves. In fewer than one hundred years after its founding this country fought a brutal war to end slavery--the only example I know of where members of the same race fought each other to end an injustice being committed against members of another race.

I don't know what it's like to be the descendant of victims of the Bolsheviks, but I'm certain communism sucked. I don't know what it's like to be the descendant of victims of the Nazis, but I'm sure fascism sucked. I don't know what it's like to be the descendant of slaves, but I'm certain slavery sucked.

If I were the descendant of slaves, I hope I would have a little more gratitude and a lot less attitude. And every time the despicable New York Times reminded white Christian America of white Christian America's "shameful racial history", I hope I would be the type of intelligent and righteous black man who would tell the New York Times to go fuck its resentful self.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The truth is that nobody gives a rat's ass about confederate monuments. It is all about racism. It is exactly the same song and dance that we used to hear about "state's rights", which were code words for" segregation".

George Wallace did not win the presidency, but Trump did. Half a dozen on one, 6 of the other.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape.”

No one is advocating that the historical landscape be ‘sanitized’ – quite the opposite.

By relocating the monuments to museums and other venues of learning and education, their history can be taught in an accurate, objective historical context.

The so-called ‘confederate’ monuments represent fear of change, and hatred of those perceived to be ‘different.’

The intent of the monuments was to intimidate the African-American community, to communicate to blacks that they would be forever considered separate and apart from white society, that they would always be second-class citizens, and subject to the white majority.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The truth is that nobody gives a rat's ass about confederate monuments. It is all about racism. It is exactly the same song and dance that we used to hear about "state's rights", which were code words for" segregation".

George Wallace did not win the presidency, but Trump did. Half a dozen on one, 6 of the other.

The truth is that there should be consensus with regard to relocating ‘confederate’ monuments; that we as a society – in and out of the South – should all acknowledge that these relics of the hateful past are no longer relevant in public places.

That this consensus is absent is the issue, not the monuments.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We all must pick a side.

And those "sides" would be...?

Seriously?

One either opposes white supremacy or one embraces it. AFAIC, there is no middle ground on that.
One either opposes racism or one embraces it. There too, there is no middle ground position I will accept.

Seems very clear cut. What is racism, anyway?

What is racism, anyway?

I will answer your question directly and then I will expound upon my answer by providing a taxonomy of terms pertinent to this subject of race. I'm doing that (1) so that you and others may have a very precise understanding of how I construe a variety of terms and behaviors, (2) so I can refer to it when/if I need to in future discussions on USMB, (3) because though I've on USMB mentioned subtle manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, I don't recall having specifically identified any of them, and (4) to obviate your need to ask me additional definitional questions about related terms. The definitions I use are an amalgam of ideas and observations I've gathered over the course of my personal and professional life, as well as from reading scholarly literature on the matter.

What racism is:
Racism is a type of prejudice that is at once an ideology and system of oppression:

• It is an ideology, based on differentiation, that leads to “exclusionary practices,” such as differential treatment or allocation of resources and opportunities, regardless of one’s intent or even awareness of the ideological underpinnings of one’s actions.
• It is a system of oppression, whereby persons of a dominant racial group exercise power or privilege over those in non-dominant groups.

Racism, as the definition above implies, exists on multiple levels:

• Structural -- The interplay of policies, practices and programs of differing institutions which leads to adverse outcomes and conditions for communities comprised of the objects of racism when measured in comparison to the perpetrators of racism when the noted outcomes occur within the context of racialized historical and cultural conditions.
• Institutional -- Policies, practice, and procedures that work to the benefit of white people and the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently.
• Individual/Interpersonal -- Prejudgment, bias, stereotypes or generalizations about an individual or group based on race. The impacts of individual/interpersonal racism on individuals are various internalizations of privilege and oppression and/or illegal discrimination.

On those various levels can be found overt racism (self-explanatory) one or several forms of subtle racism/racists that are not mutually exclusive:

• Symbolic Racism -- Symbolic racists reject old-style racism but still express prejudice indirectly (e.g., as opposition to policies that help racial minorities. (See "symbolic discrimination" below)
• Benevolent Racism -- "The White Man's Burden" is the classic notion of this.
• Color Blind Racism -- Color blind racism starts with what seems to be a reasonable assumption, that all people are the same, but then moves to assume that lack of progress of minority members (as opposed to all who don't realize advancement) is due to their personal choices, low work ethic, or lack of ability, and ignores the relevance of and justness of structural support for inequities unavoidably faced by minorities due to their status as minorities. (See also: Is the Post in Post-Racial the Blind in Colorblind)
• Ambivalent Racism -- Ambivalent racists experience an emotional conflict between positive and negative feelings toward stigmatized racial groups.
• Modern Racism -- Modern racists see racism as wrong but view racial minorities as making unfair demands or receiving too many resources.
• Aversive Racism -- Aversive racists believe in egalitarian principles such as racial equality but have a personal aversion toward racial minorities.

You don't have to like or agree with that definition, but it's the one I apply and neither it nor my application of it is going to change. Period.

If you don't care for the definition to which I ascribe, you are not the first to do so. Generally, folks who reject it do so because they think it means only whites can be racists or the want a definition that seemingly to them absolves them from being racists or racially discriminatory. [1] That the definition above makes whites the sole people eligible to be racists simply is not the case. The definition above doesn't necessarily and universally make whites the only people on the planet who can be racists. It merely makes them the only people who can be racists in places where white people are the dominant group. Insofar as the majority of people in the world are not white, in many places whites are among the individuals who cannot be racist. It just so happens that the U.S. is not one of those places.

The thing is that if one is of a mind to be racist, one must also have the ability to act on it with relative impunity. That's only possible for people who hold the lion's share of power and authority in a given country or larger political block. ("Country" because of the supremacy of national laws and customs over local ones. "Or larger" because of the potential for racist collusion among countries having comparable racial majorities.)

Note:

1. I suppose I understand the latter part. Few non-card-carrying Neo Nazis, KKK members and so on want to face the possibility that despite their best efforts they may still be somewhat racist, thus racists, because in our heart of hearts we all know that racism is like pregnancy -- one either is or isn't.

What racism is not:
Racism is not xenophobia or ethnocentrism, yet it intersects with them.

• Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of anything that is foreign or outside of one’s own group, nation, or culture.
• Ethnocentrism is gauging others by using one’s own culture's traits, behaviors and norms as the benchmark/ideal standard by which all others are compared and found wanting.

Racism is also not discrimination.

• Discrimination in all its forms is first and foremost an indication of prejudicial intolerance that people display by behaving in what that deny just [legal sense of the word] treatment or consideration to people because of their membership in some group. Insofar as the discrimination is racial, it's based on the beliefs, feelings, fantasies, and motivations of racial prejudice, but these mental or social concepts are not in themselves discrimination for discrimination necessarily is an action one performs, not thought one has. It's fitting to here note that while I find it impossible in the U.S for minorities to exhibit and act on racism, certain minority individuals, like non-minorities, definitely are in positions whereby they have the opportunity to and may discriminate, racially, sexually, or on other bases. Discrimination can occur in several ways:
  • Institutional discrimination -- This is an overt form of discrimination whereby laws, organs and functionaries of the state or organization deny just treatment to individuals in the state. The classic example is Jim Crow laws. Kim Davis' faith-based refusal to marry same sex couples is also an example of discrimination promulgated by a non-state organization. One observes that in Zimbabwe there is racism and its discriminatory manifestation against white farmers and in India against Dalits.
  • Genocide and ethnic cleansing -- This is an extreme form of discrimination that I don't think is currently practiced in the U.S., so I'm not going to explicate it here. It's merely listed for completeness' sake.
  • Redlining and racial profiling -- essentially institutional discrimination on the sly, which is why it listed here and separately from the above institutional discrimination which is overt. It is considerably more difficult to identify and prove than are the overt forms of institutional discrimination. Since rarely do the actors admit to or positively record these modes of discriminating, it's generally identified and proven on the basis of pattern recognition.
    • Redlining takes many forms but all of them are covert means of institutionally discriminating. It is essentially consists of a person having some form of subject matter expertise steering people, people whom they are tasked with helping, in one or another direction based on assumptions the "driver" makes about race. Examples include:
      • Banks and/or bank loan officers giving fewer mortgages to people of color and more to non-minorities, based on the belief that the respective individuals, because of their race, are less/more able to repay loans.
      • Real estate agents steering people away from properties in certain neighborhoods and toward others because of the buyer's race and that of the people in the respective neighborhoods.
      • School advisers telling people of color that their children are more suited for trade school rather than college or grad school, and encouraging non-minorities to pursue college or grad school.
        
      • Police officers being more/less brutal in their subduction techniques when dealing with members of one or several races than with another/others.
    • Racial profiling is paying closer attention to members of a given group based solely on the individual's obvious membership in a given group than one does re: individuals not of that same group. For example:
      • Racial profiling often enough happens in my D.C. neighborhood, especially to black males who happen to be walking in it. Despite being within walking distance of a Metro station, almost no male adults walk the streets of my neighborhood, save for on Halloween night. Some people's housekeepers take public transportation to work, so it's not uncommon to see women walking to their place of work. By rights, so to speak, any male walking should be approached by a cop passing through, I'm told that the one minority dude who works as housekeeper gets stopped or "stared at" quite often. I, on the other hand, have never been stopped when I've opted to walk to a local restaurant or just to go for bike ride, jog or walk.
      • Using people's race as the basis for security guards choosing whom to follow through stores, regardless of their attire or other appearance traits.
    • Intolerant Communication
      • "Redneck racism" -- The word "racism" notwithstanding, this is nonetheless a behavior more so than a mindset or system. "Redneck racism" is R.W. Brislin's term for "the expression of blatant intolerance toward someone of another race." Despite the apparent implication of the term "redneck" Brislin doesn't, nor do I, limit the behavior to whites. "Redneck racism" might include jokes, statements (e.g., about the inferiority or backwardness of a group), or slurs or names for people of another group (also called ethnophaulisms). Conventional wisdom, for example, suggests that there are many more slurs for women then there are for men, and most of them have some sexual connotation. How is this manifest? It can be somewhat subtle:
        • Often "couched"/veiled in "us/them" language --> Using the "you people" syntax is another way people communicate a willingness to discriminate based on race. This behavior is different from most modes of discrimination in that it suggests the presence of prejudice, and the will to act on it with regard to all members of (not of) a given racial group, more so than being a discriminatory action against someone in particular.
        • "Arm's length" or "social distance" discrimination --> Voicing tolerance for a group, typically of being accepting of them in the neighborhood or workplace, but wants to restrict them from closer relationships. This form of prejudicial discrimination, when its predicated on race, is found in remarks such as "She’s very smart for an ‘X’” or “I have a friend who is a ‘Y,’ and he is very articulate.” Statements of that sort assume that most Xs are not smart and most Ys are not articulate.
      • Prejudiced colloquialisms -- This is the use of colloquialisms that play upon a particular aspect of identity or ability, such as calling something “lame X” or “retarded X," where "X" is whatever racial classification or epithet one cares to insert.
      • Linguistically innate racial prejudice -- This is challenging one to notice but not to exhibit for it's one that people probably display without realizing it, but covertness and absence are not the same things. One manifestation of it is seen in individuals of one race routinely interrupting speakers of another, yet when a member of one's own race speaks one doesn't do so. Similarly, when one is interrupted by a member of one's own race, one yields, but when another race individual does so, one does not yield or complains about having been interrupted, even though one doesn't do so with interrupters of one's own race. What's being racially discriminated against? The ideas of people belonging to another racial group; interrupting them is a means of squelching and/or discounting them and indicates that one thinks one's own ideas are superior and more deserving of being heard, perhaps preempting an audience's need to even hear the complete thoughts of the person against whom one is prejudiced and thus discriminates. (This form of discrimination can also be and may more often be applied in a sexual context.)
    • Symbolic discrimination -- This form of discrimination is a direct manifestation of symbolic racism. Symbolic discrimination relates largely to political attitudes and choices. It is made manifest in political decisions and proposals that effect one's discriminatory desires by veiling one's "anti-other" racial sentiments under the auspices of political attitudes, efficacies and approaches. Symbolic discrimination is a form of prejudice that is very hard to with certainty say an individual has exhibited and it's yet one that researchers have found absolutely does exist.

 

[usmbguest5318]

They aren't any different than the "Unite the Right" white supremacists.

I don't think I would say that in any context other than that of the nature and extent of violence both groups are willing to countenance and commit.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

And which would that be?

Which would you guess that would be?

And in this chain of remarks we see the topically relevant question you asked, Asclepias, has thus far gone unanswered and, seemingly, successfully deflected.

So you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

I mean really. Whether you find multiple societies to be repugnant has what to do with whether there be credible evidence that someone -- presumably one or multiple individuals who mattered in the Confederacy, rather that a miscellaneous and rare smattering of individuals of no import -- wanted "to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation" of the Confederacy?

 

[Conservative65]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

They did not inherit slavery, they brought it with them.

My ancestors were European. No ancestor of mine has ever owned a slave in North America.

Neither did mine.

On the other hand...none of my ancesters were slaves.

I suspect neither you nor I have a real understanding of what it must be like to be the descendent of a slave, not knowing WHAT your ancestry is exactly, because it was ripped from your ancesters.

The real resentment is that...the Civil War NEVER ended for some.

You're correct. It never ended for some. As long as the descendants of a slave can use slavery as an excuse because they're unable or unwilling to do something on their own, they'll keep fighting the Civil War. They're encouraged by those that enable them to continue to do so.

And we thought Afghanistan was the longest war in U.S. history.

 

[Conservative65]

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

yes, I understand how representative republicanism works. When a group of terrorists tear down a statue, or a council folds to the threats of violence, then the representatives of the people are not doing their job and should be replaced, bypassed, or simply taken out of office in favor of representatives with courage.

This is not a matter of having a disagreement with the value of an elected representative. The entire equation changes when coercion is involved.

Which councils have 'folded' due to threats of violence?

Who are those 'terrorists' trying to 'terrorize' by pulling down a statue of a dead guy?

Who? Antifa are the terrorists. They have demonstrated and have threatened communites with violence if they do not get their way in this matter.

Don't believe Me?

www.google.com

Try getting outside your blinders and look.

Is anyone actually supporting Antifa?

They aren't any different than the "Unite the Right" white supremacists.

Isn't that what Trump meant when he said "on all sides"?

It's easy to tell the Antifa supporters as being the ones that whine about them not being as bad.

 

[cnelsen]

We all must pick a side.

And those "sides" would be...?

Seriously?

One either opposes white supremacy or one embraces it. AFAIC, there is no middle ground on that.
One either opposes racism or one embraces it. There too, there is no middle ground position I will accept.

Seems very clear cut. What is racism, anyway?

What is racism, anyway?

I will answer your question directly and then I will expound upon my answer by providing a taxonomy of terms pertinent to this subject of race. I'm doing that (1) so that you and others may have a very precise understanding of how I construe a variety of terms and behaviors, (2) so I can refer to it when/if I need to in future discussions on USMB, (3) because though I've on USMB mentioned subtle manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, I don't recall having specifically identified any of them, and (4) to obviate your need to ask me additional definitional questions about related terms. The definitions I use are an amalgam of ideas and observations I've gathered over the course of my personal and professional life, as well as from reading scholarly literature on the matter.

What racism is:
Racism is a type of prejudice that is at once an ideology and system of oppression:

• It is an ideology, based on differentiation, that leads to “exclusionary practices,” such as differential treatment or allocation of resources and opportunities, regardless of one’s intent or even awareness of the ideological underpinnings of one’s actions.
• It is a system of oppression, whereby persons of a dominant racial group exercise power or privilege over those in non-dominant groups.

Racism, as the definition above implies, exists on multiple levels:

• Structural -- The interplay of policies, practices and programs of differing institutions which leads to adverse outcomes and conditions for communities comprised of the objects of racism when measured in comparison to the perpetrators of racism when the noted outcomes occur within the context of racialized historical and cultural conditions.
• Institutional -- Policies, practice, and procedures that work to the benefit of white people and the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently.
• Individual/Interpersonal -- Prejudgment, bias, stereotypes or generalizations about an individual or group based on race. The impacts of individual/interpersonal racism on individuals are various internalizations of privilege and oppression and/or illegal discrimination.

On those various levels can be found overt racism (self-explanatory) one or several forms of subtle racism/racists that are not mutually exclusive:

• Symbolic Racism -- Symbolic racists reject old-style racism but still express prejudice indirectly (e.g., as opposition to policies that help racial minorities. (See "symbolic discrimination" below)
• Benevolent Racism -- "The White Man's Burden" is the classic notion of this.
• Color Blind Racism -- Color blind racism starts with what seems to be a reasonable assumption, that all people are the same, but then moves to assume that lack of progress of minority members (as opposed to all who don't realize advancement) is due to their personal choices, low work ethic, or lack of ability, and ignores the relevance of and justness of structural support for inequities unavoidably faced by minorities due to their status as minorities. (See also: Is the Post in Post-Racial the Blind in Colorblind)
• Ambivalent Racism -- Ambivalent racists experience an emotional conflict between positive and negative feelings toward stigmatized racial groups.
• Modern Racism -- Modern racists see racism as wrong but view racial minorities as making unfair demands or receiving too many resources.
• Aversive Racism -- Aversive racists believe in egalitarian principles such as racial equality but have a personal aversion toward racial minorities.

You don't have to like or agree with that definition, but it's the one I apply and neither it nor my application of it is going to change. Period.

If you don't care for the definition to which I ascribe, you are not the first to do so. Generally, folks who reject it do so because they think it means only whites can be racists or the want a definition that seemingly to them absolves them from being racists or racially discriminatory. [1] That the definition above makes whites the sole people eligible to be racists simply is not the case. The definition above doesn't necessarily and universally make whites the only people on the planet who can be racists. It merely makes them the only people who can be racists in places where white people are the dominant group. Insofar as the majority of people in the world are not white, in many places whites are among the individuals who cannot be racist. It just so happens that the U.S. is not one of those places.

The thing is that if one is of a mind to be racist, one must also have the ability to act on it with relative impunity. That's only possible for people who hold the lion's share of power and authority in a given country or larger political block. ("Country" because of the supremacy of national laws and customs over local ones. "Or larger" because of the potential for racist collusion among countries having comparable racial majorities.)

Note:

1. I suppose I understand the latter part. Few non-card-carrying Neo Nazis, KKK members and so on want to face the possibility that despite their best efforts they may still be somewhat racist, thus racists, because in our heart of hearts we all know that racism is like pregnancy -- one either is or isn't.

What racism is not:
Racism is not xenophobia or ethnocentrism, yet it intersects with them.

• Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of anything that is foreign or outside of one’s own group, nation, or culture.
• Ethnocentrism is gauging others by using one’s own culture's traits, behaviors and norms as the benchmark/ideal standard by which all others are compared and found wanting.

Racism is also not discrimination.

• Discrimination in all its forms is first and foremost an indication of prejudicial intolerance that people display by behaving in what that deny just [legal sense of the word] treatment or consideration to people because of their membership in some group. Insofar as the discrimination is racial, it's based on the beliefs, feelings, fantasies, and motivations of racial prejudice, but these mental or social concepts are not in themselves discrimination for discrimination necessarily is an action one performs, not thought one has. It's fitting to here note that while I find it impossible in the U.S for minorities to exhibit and act on racism, certain minority individuals, like non-minorities, definitely are in positions whereby they have the opportunity to and may discriminate, racially, sexually, or on other bases. Discrimination can occur in several ways:
  • Institutional discrimination -- This is an overt form of discrimination whereby laws, organs and functionaries of the state or organization deny just treatment to individuals in the state. The classic example is Jim Crow laws. Kim Davis' faith-based refusal to marry same sex couples is also an example of discrimination promulgated by a non-state organization. One observes that in Zimbabwe there is racism and its discriminatory manifestation against white farmers and in India against Dalits.
  • Genocide and ethnic cleansing -- This is an extreme form of discrimination that I don't think is currently practiced in the U.S., so I'm not going to explicate it here. It's merely listed for completeness' sake.
  • Redlining and racial profiling -- essentially institutional discrimination on the sly, which is why it listed here and separately from the above institutional discrimination which is overt. It is considerably more difficult to identify and prove than are the overt forms of institutional discrimination. Since rarely do the actors admit to or positively record these modes of discriminating, it's generally identified and proven on the basis of pattern recognition.
    • Redlining takes many forms but all of them are covert means of institutionally discriminating. It is essentially consists of a person having some form of subject matter expertise steering people, people whom they are tasked with helping, in one or another direction based on assumptions the "driver" makes about race. Examples include:
      • Banks and/or bank loan officers giving fewer mortgages to people of color and more to non-minorities, based on the belief that the respective individuals, because of their race, are less/more able to repay loans.
      • Real estate agents steering people away from properties in certain neighborhoods and toward others because of the buyer's race and that of the people in the respective neighborhoods.
      • School advisers telling people of color that their children are more suited for trade school rather than college or grad school, and encouraging non-minorities to pursue college or grad school.
        
      • Police officers being more/less brutal in their subduction techniques when dealing with members of one or several races than with another/others.
    • Racial profiling is paying closer attention to members of a given group based solely on the individual's obvious membership in a given group than one does re: individuals not of that same group. For example:
      • Racial profiling often enough happens in my D.C. neighborhood, especially to black males who happen to be walking in it. Despite being within walking distance of a Metro station, almost no male adults walk the streets of my neighborhood, save for on Halloween night. Some people's housekeepers take public transportation to work, so it's not uncommon to see women walking to their place of work. By rights, so to speak, any male walking should be approached by a cop passing through, I'm told that the one minority dude who works as housekeeper gets stopped or "stared at" quite often. I, on the other hand, have never been stopped when I've opted to walk to a local restaurant or just to go for bike ride, jog or walk.
      • Using people's race as the basis for security guards choosing whom to follow through stores, regardless of their attire or other appearance traits.
    • Intolerant Communication
      • "Redneck racism" -- The word "racism" notwithstanding, this is nonetheless a behavior more so than a mindset or system. "Redneck racism" is R.W. Brislin's term for "the expression of blatant intolerance toward someone of another race." Despite the apparent implication of the term "redneck" Brislin doesn't, nor do I, limit the behavior to whites. "Redneck racism" might include jokes, statements (e.g., about the inferiority or backwardness of a group), or slurs or names for people of another group (also called ethnophaulisms). Conventional wisdom, for example, suggests that there are many more slurs for women then there are for men, and most of them have some sexual connotation. How is this manifest? It can be somewhat subtle:
        • Often "couched"/veiled in "us/them" language --> Using the "you people" syntax is another way people communicate a willingness to discriminate based on race. This behavior is different from most modes of discrimination in that it suggests the presence of prejudice, and the will to act on it with regard to all members of (not of) a given racial group, more so than being a discriminatory action against someone in particular.
        • "Arm's length" or "social distance" discrimination --> Voicing tolerance for a group, typically of being accepting of them in the neighborhood or workplace, but wants to restrict them from closer relationships. This form of prejudicial discrimination, when its predicated on race, is found in remarks such as "She’s very smart for an ‘X’” or “I have a friend who is a ‘Y,’ and he is very articulate.” Statements of that sort assume that most Xs are not smart and most Ys are not articulate.
      • Prejudiced colloquialisms -- This is the use of colloquialisms that play upon a particular aspect of identity or ability, such as calling something “lame X” or “retarded X," where "X" is whatever racial classification or epithet one cares to insert.
      • Linguistically innate racial prejudice -- This is challenging one to notice but not to exhibit for it's one that people probably display without realizing it, but covertness and absence are not the same things. One manifestation of it is seen in individuals of one race routinely interrupting speakers of another, yet when a member of one's own race speaks one doesn't do so. Similarly, when one is interrupted by a member of one's own race, one yields, but when another race individual does so, one does not yield or complains about having been interrupted, even though one doesn't do so with interrupters of one's own race. What's being racially discriminated against? The ideas of people belonging to another racial group; interrupting them is a means of squelching and/or discounting them and indicates that one thinks one's own ideas are superior and more deserving of being heard, perhaps preempting an audience's need to even hear the complete thoughts of the person against whom one is prejudiced and thus discriminates. (This form of discrimination can also be and may more often be applied in a sexual context.)
    • Symbolic discrimination -- This form of discrimination is a direct manifestation of symbolic racism. Symbolic discrimination relates largely to political attitudes and choices. It is made manifest in political decisions and proposals that effect one's discriminatory desires by veiling one's "anti-other" racial sentiments under the auspices of political attitudes, efficacies and approaches. Symbolic discrimination is a form of prejudice that is very hard to with certainty say an individual has exhibited and it's yet one that researchers have found absolutely does exist.

So if I am in a lifeboat and there is only room for one more, and there is a black guy and a white guy in the water and I choose the white guy, am I a racist?

 

[cnelsen]

Do you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

Out of curiosity, do you call any other society "repugnant"?

yes

And which would that be?

Which would you guess that would be?

And in this chain of remarks we see the topically relevant question you asked, Asclepias, has thus far gone unanswered and, seemingly, successfully deflected.

So you have a link to this? Never heard of anyone from the confederacy wanting to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation of their repugnant society.

I mean really. Whether you find multiple societies to be repugnant has what to do with whether there be credible evidence that someone -- presumably one or multiple individuals who mattered in the Confederacy, rather that a miscellaneous and rare smattering of individuals of no import -- wanted "to free the enslaved which they stated was the foundation" of the Confederacy?

Judah P. Benjamin - Wikipedia

 

[iceberg]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

i honestly don't give a rats ass about the monuments. i'm to the point of being sick and tired of told what my morality should be by the left. they got away with the WE JUST WANT THIS FLAG OFF THIS PROPERTY! to look what we have now?

nothing is sacred. our history is to be forgotten in the name of "feeling better". i also believe 100% this to be soros or the media (same thing anymore?) causing the controversy and blaming trump. 1 year ago no one gave a shit about all these monuments and now that we need to call trump a racist white supremacist? well now they gotta go and if he doesn't agree it just proves that he is.

to people who hate him anyway and are ass-hurt RUSSIA fell through on them.

you wonder why there's a divide in this country? look around and see people telling others how to live. would you stand for it? why should they? we? any of us? if we have the same freedoms you do then you have no right to say what we can or can NOT have in our community in this manner.

take it before the council. find a compromise. build a museum for those who wish to keep history in tact. but this "lynch mob" crap is only going to cause more back-fighting because again - the left has zero right to make these decisions for everyone.

i've maintained the civil war was not just about slavery but the north telling the south how to live and they would not stand for it - so it was just as much a FUCK YOU as it was about slavery.

the FUCK YOU is here again thanks to the left and their insane desire to be an entire countries moral police.

what do the statues mean? overall not a lot. but giving in again only embolds the left to come after something else.

i mean again, it started off with removing 1 flag. but once SUCCESS was had they went apeshit, but apeshit on queue. ever wonder about that? the "timing" of these civil unrest events? ever wonder who's pulling the strings making people suddenly pissed off at things that a few years ago they likely didn't even notice as they walked by the statue in the park?

they're only mad cause they were told to be mad. a solution can be found for this but not a "decision" from the left who shows zero desire to work together on social issues and only the madness of if you disagree, you're evil incarnate.

so i ask you - what do those statues really mean *today* as well?

 

[iceberg]

We all must pick a side.

And those "sides" would be...?

Seriously?

One either opposes white supremacy or one embraces it. AFAIC, there is no middle ground on that.
One either opposes racism or one embraces it. There too, there is no middle ground position I will accept.

Seems very clear cut. What is racism, anyway?

What is racism, anyway?

I will answer your question directly and then I will expound upon my answer by providing a taxonomy of terms pertinent to this subject of race. I'm doing that (1) so that you and others may have a very precise understanding of how I construe a variety of terms and behaviors, (2) so I can refer to it when/if I need to in future discussions on USMB, (3) because though I've on USMB mentioned subtle manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, I don't recall having specifically identified any of them, and (4) to obviate your need to ask me additional definitional questions about related terms. The definitions I use are an amalgam of ideas and observations I've gathered over the course of my personal and professional life, as well as from reading scholarly literature on the matter.

What racism is:
Racism is a type of prejudice that is at once an ideology and system of oppression:

• It is an ideology, based on differentiation, that leads to “exclusionary practices,” such as differential treatment or allocation of resources and opportunities, regardless of one’s intent or even awareness of the ideological underpinnings of one’s actions.
• It is a system of oppression, whereby persons of a dominant racial group exercise power or privilege over those in non-dominant groups.

Racism, as the definition above implies, exists on multiple levels:

• Structural -- The interplay of policies, practices and programs of differing institutions which leads to adverse outcomes and conditions for communities comprised of the objects of racism when measured in comparison to the perpetrators of racism when the noted outcomes occur within the context of racialized historical and cultural conditions.
• Institutional -- Policies, practice, and procedures that work to the benefit of white people and the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently.
• Individual/Interpersonal -- Prejudgment, bias, stereotypes or generalizations about an individual or group based on race. The impacts of individual/interpersonal racism on individuals are various internalizations of privilege and oppression and/or illegal discrimination.

On those various levels can be found overt racism (self-explanatory) one or several forms of subtle racism/racists that are not mutually exclusive:

• Symbolic Racism -- Symbolic racists reject old-style racism but still express prejudice indirectly (e.g., as opposition to policies that help racial minorities. (See "symbolic discrimination" below)
• Benevolent Racism -- "The White Man's Burden" is the classic notion of this.
• Color Blind Racism -- Color blind racism starts with what seems to be a reasonable assumption, that all people are the same, but then moves to assume that lack of progress of minority members (as opposed to all who don't realize advancement) is due to their personal choices, low work ethic, or lack of ability, and ignores the relevance of and justness of structural support for inequities unavoidably faced by minorities due to their status as minorities. (See also: Is the Post in Post-Racial the Blind in Colorblind)
• Ambivalent Racism -- Ambivalent racists experience an emotional conflict between positive and negative feelings toward stigmatized racial groups.
• Modern Racism -- Modern racists see racism as wrong but view racial minorities as making unfair demands or receiving too many resources.
• Aversive Racism -- Aversive racists believe in egalitarian principles such as racial equality but have a personal aversion toward racial minorities.

You don't have to like or agree with that definition, but it's the one I apply and neither it nor my application of it is going to change. Period.

If you don't care for the definition to which I ascribe, you are not the first to do so. Generally, folks who reject it do so because they think it means only whites can be racists or the want a definition that seemingly to them absolves them from being racists or racially discriminatory. [1] That the definition above makes whites the sole people eligible to be racists simply is not the case. The definition above doesn't necessarily and universally make whites the only people on the planet who can be racists. It merely makes them the only people who can be racists in places where white people are the dominant group. Insofar as the majority of people in the world are not white, in many places whites are among the individuals who cannot be racist. It just so happens that the U.S. is not one of those places.

The thing is that if one is of a mind to be racist, one must also have the ability to act on it with relative impunity. That's only possible for people who hold the lion's share of power and authority in a given country or larger political block. ("Country" because of the supremacy of national laws and customs over local ones. "Or larger" because of the potential for racist collusion among countries having comparable racial majorities.)

Note:

1. I suppose I understand the latter part. Few non-card-carrying Neo Nazis, KKK members and so on want to face the possibility that despite their best efforts they may still be somewhat racist, thus racists, because in our heart of hearts we all know that racism is like pregnancy -- one either is or isn't.

What racism is not:
Racism is not xenophobia or ethnocentrism, yet it intersects with them.

• Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of anything that is foreign or outside of one’s own group, nation, or culture.
• Ethnocentrism is gauging others by using one’s own culture's traits, behaviors and norms as the benchmark/ideal standard by which all others are compared and found wanting.

Racism is also not discrimination.

• Discrimination in all its forms is first and foremost an indication of prejudicial intolerance that people display by behaving in what that deny just [legal sense of the word] treatment or consideration to people because of their membership in some group. Insofar as the discrimination is racial, it's based on the beliefs, feelings, fantasies, and motivations of racial prejudice, but these mental or social concepts are not in themselves discrimination for discrimination necessarily is an action one performs, not thought one has. It's fitting to here note that while I find it impossible in the U.S for minorities to exhibit and act on racism, certain minority individuals, like non-minorities, definitely are in positions whereby they have the opportunity to and may discriminate, racially, sexually, or on other bases. Discrimination can occur in several ways:
  • Institutional discrimination -- This is an overt form of discrimination whereby laws, organs and functionaries of the state or organization deny just treatment to individuals in the state. The classic example is Jim Crow laws. Kim Davis' faith-based refusal to marry same sex couples is also an example of discrimination promulgated by a non-state organization. One observes that in Zimbabwe there is racism and its discriminatory manifestation against white farmers and in India against Dalits.
  • Genocide and ethnic cleansing -- This is an extreme form of discrimination that I don't think is currently practiced in the U.S., so I'm not going to explicate it here. It's merely listed for completeness' sake.
  • Redlining and racial profiling -- essentially institutional discrimination on the sly, which is why it listed here and separately from the above institutional discrimination which is overt. It is considerably more difficult to identify and prove than are the overt forms of institutional discrimination. Since rarely do the actors admit to or positively record these modes of discriminating, it's generally identified and proven on the basis of pattern recognition.
    • Redlining takes many forms but all of them are covert means of institutionally discriminating. It is essentially consists of a person having some form of subject matter expertise steering people, people whom they are tasked with helping, in one or another direction based on assumptions the "driver" makes about race. Examples include:
      • Banks and/or bank loan officers giving fewer mortgages to people of color and more to non-minorities, based on the belief that the respective individuals, because of their race, are less/more able to repay loans.
      • Real estate agents steering people away from properties in certain neighborhoods and toward others because of the buyer's race and that of the people in the respective neighborhoods.
      • School advisers telling people of color that their children are more suited for trade school rather than college or grad school, and encouraging non-minorities to pursue college or grad school.
        
      • Police officers being more/less brutal in their subduction techniques when dealing with members of one or several races than with another/others.
    • Racial profiling is paying closer attention to members of a given group based solely on the individual's obvious membership in a given group than one does re: individuals not of that same group. For example:
      • Racial profiling often enough happens in my D.C. neighborhood, especially to black males who happen to be walking in it. Despite being within walking distance of a Metro station, almost no male adults walk the streets of my neighborhood, save for on Halloween night. Some people's housekeepers take public transportation to work, so it's not uncommon to see women walking to their place of work. By rights, so to speak, any male walking should be approached by a cop passing through, I'm told that the one minority dude who works as housekeeper gets stopped or "stared at" quite often. I, on the other hand, have never been stopped when I've opted to walk to a local restaurant or just to go for bike ride, jog or walk.
      • Using people's race as the basis for security guards choosing whom to follow through stores, regardless of their attire or other appearance traits.
    • Intolerant Communication
      • "Redneck racism" -- The word "racism" notwithstanding, this is nonetheless a behavior more so than a mindset or system. "Redneck racism" is R.W. Brislin's term for "the expression of blatant intolerance toward someone of another race." Despite the apparent implication of the term "redneck" Brislin doesn't, nor do I, limit the behavior to whites. "Redneck racism" might include jokes, statements (e.g., about the inferiority or backwardness of a group), or slurs or names for people of another group (also called ethnophaulisms). Conventional wisdom, for example, suggests that there are many more slurs for women then there are for men, and most of them have some sexual connotation. How is this manifest? It can be somewhat subtle:
        • Often "couched"/veiled in "us/them" language --> Using the "you people" syntax is another way people communicate a willingness to discriminate based on race. This behavior is different from most modes of discrimination in that it suggests the presence of prejudice, and the will to act on it with regard to all members of (not of) a given racial group, more so than being a discriminatory action against someone in particular.
        • "Arm's length" or "social distance" discrimination --> Voicing tolerance for a group, typically of being accepting of them in the neighborhood or workplace, but wants to restrict them from closer relationships. This form of prejudicial discrimination, when its predicated on race, is found in remarks such as "She’s very smart for an ‘X’” or “I have a friend who is a ‘Y,’ and he is very articulate.” Statements of that sort assume that most Xs are not smart and most Ys are not articulate.
      • Prejudiced colloquialisms -- This is the use of colloquialisms that play upon a particular aspect of identity or ability, such as calling something “lame X” or “retarded X," where "X" is whatever racial classification or epithet one cares to insert.
      • Linguistically innate racial prejudice -- This is challenging one to notice but not to exhibit for it's one that people probably display without realizing it, but covertness and absence are not the same things. One manifestation of it is seen in individuals of one race routinely interrupting speakers of another, yet when a member of one's own race speaks one doesn't do so. Similarly, when one is interrupted by a member of one's own race, one yields, but when another race individual does so, one does not yield or complains about having been interrupted, even though one doesn't do so with interrupters of one's own race. What's being racially discriminated against? The ideas of people belonging to another racial group; interrupting them is a means of squelching and/or discounting them and indicates that one thinks one's own ideas are superior and more deserving of being heard, perhaps preempting an audience's need to even hear the complete thoughts of the person against whom one is prejudiced and thus discriminates. (This form of discrimination can also be and may more often be applied in a sexual context.)
    • Symbolic discrimination -- This form of discrimination is a direct manifestation of symbolic racism. Symbolic discrimination relates largely to political attitudes and choices. It is made manifest in political decisions and proposals that effect one's discriminatory desires by veiling one's "anti-other" racial sentiments under the auspices of political attitudes, efficacies and approaches. Symbolic discrimination is a form of prejudice that is very hard to with certainty say an individual has exhibited and it's yet one that researchers have found absolutely does exist.

So if I am in a lifeboat and there is only room for one more, and there is a black guy and a white guy in the water and I choose the white guy, am I a racist?

you asked him a yes or no question.

those are hard to answer when you carry a minimum of 10 bullets per post.

 

[cnelsen]

And those "sides" would be...?

Seriously?

One either opposes white supremacy or one embraces it. AFAIC, there is no middle ground on that.
One either opposes racism or one embraces it. There too, there is no middle ground position I will accept.

Seems very clear cut. What is racism, anyway?

What is racism, anyway?

I will answer your question directly and then I will expound upon my answer by providing a taxonomy of terms pertinent to this subject of race. I'm doing that (1) so that you and others may have a very precise understanding of how I construe a variety of terms and behaviors, (2) so I can refer to it when/if I need to in future discussions on USMB, (3) because though I've on USMB mentioned subtle manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, I don't recall having specifically identified any of them, and (4) to obviate your need to ask me additional definitional questions about related terms. The definitions I use are an amalgam of ideas and observations I've gathered over the course of my personal and professional life, as well as from reading scholarly literature on the matter.

What racism is:
Racism is a type of prejudice that is at once an ideology and system of oppression:

• It is an ideology, based on differentiation, that leads to “exclusionary practices,” such as differential treatment or allocation of resources and opportunities, regardless of one’s intent or even awareness of the ideological underpinnings of one’s actions.
• It is a system of oppression, whereby persons of a dominant racial group exercise power or privilege over those in non-dominant groups.

Racism, as the definition above implies, exists on multiple levels:

• Structural -- The interplay of policies, practices and programs of differing institutions which leads to adverse outcomes and conditions for communities comprised of the objects of racism when measured in comparison to the perpetrators of racism when the noted outcomes occur within the context of racialized historical and cultural conditions.
• Institutional -- Policies, practice, and procedures that work to the benefit of white people and the detriment of people of color, usually unintentionally or inadvertently.
• Individual/Interpersonal -- Prejudgment, bias, stereotypes or generalizations about an individual or group based on race. The impacts of individual/interpersonal racism on individuals are various internalizations of privilege and oppression and/or illegal discrimination.

On those various levels can be found overt racism (self-explanatory) one or several forms of subtle racism/racists that are not mutually exclusive:

• Symbolic Racism -- Symbolic racists reject old-style racism but still express prejudice indirectly (e.g., as opposition to policies that help racial minorities. (See "symbolic discrimination" below)
• Benevolent Racism -- "The White Man's Burden" is the classic notion of this.
• Color Blind Racism -- Color blind racism starts with what seems to be a reasonable assumption, that all people are the same, but then moves to assume that lack of progress of minority members (as opposed to all who don't realize advancement) is due to their personal choices, low work ethic, or lack of ability, and ignores the relevance of and justness of structural support for inequities unavoidably faced by minorities due to their status as minorities. (See also: Is the Post in Post-Racial the Blind in Colorblind)
• Ambivalent Racism -- Ambivalent racists experience an emotional conflict between positive and negative feelings toward stigmatized racial groups.
• Modern Racism -- Modern racists see racism as wrong but view racial minorities as making unfair demands or receiving too many resources.
• Aversive Racism -- Aversive racists believe in egalitarian principles such as racial equality but have a personal aversion toward racial minorities.

You don't have to like or agree with that definition, but it's the one I apply and neither it nor my application of it is going to change. Period.

If you don't care for the definition to which I ascribe, you are not the first to do so. Generally, folks who reject it do so because they think it means only whites can be racists or the want a definition that seemingly to them absolves them from being racists or racially discriminatory. [1] That the definition above makes whites the sole people eligible to be racists simply is not the case. The definition above doesn't necessarily and universally make whites the only people on the planet who can be racists. It merely makes them the only people who can be racists in places where white people are the dominant group. Insofar as the majority of people in the world are not white, in many places whites are among the individuals who cannot be racist. It just so happens that the U.S. is not one of those places.

The thing is that if one is of a mind to be racist, one must also have the ability to act on it with relative impunity. That's only possible for people who hold the lion's share of power and authority in a given country or larger political block. ("Country" because of the supremacy of national laws and customs over local ones. "Or larger" because of the potential for racist collusion among countries having comparable racial majorities.)

Note:

1. I suppose I understand the latter part. Few non-card-carrying Neo Nazis, KKK members and so on want to face the possibility that despite their best efforts they may still be somewhat racist, thus racists, because in our heart of hearts we all know that racism is like pregnancy -- one either is or isn't.

What racism is not:
Racism is not xenophobia or ethnocentrism, yet it intersects with them.

• Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of anything that is foreign or outside of one’s own group, nation, or culture.
• Ethnocentrism is gauging others by using one’s own culture's traits, behaviors and norms as the benchmark/ideal standard by which all others are compared and found wanting.

Racism is also not discrimination.

• Discrimination in all its forms is first and foremost an indication of prejudicial intolerance that people display by behaving in what that deny just [legal sense of the word] treatment or consideration to people because of their membership in some group. Insofar as the discrimination is racial, it's based on the beliefs, feelings, fantasies, and motivations of racial prejudice, but these mental or social concepts are not in themselves discrimination for discrimination necessarily is an action one performs, not thought one has. It's fitting to here note that while I find it impossible in the U.S for minorities to exhibit and act on racism, certain minority individuals, like non-minorities, definitely are in positions whereby they have the opportunity to and may discriminate, racially, sexually, or on other bases. Discrimination can occur in several ways:
  • Institutional discrimination -- This is an overt form of discrimination whereby laws, organs and functionaries of the state or organization deny just treatment to individuals in the state. The classic example is Jim Crow laws. Kim Davis' faith-based refusal to marry same sex couples is also an example of discrimination promulgated by a non-state organization. One observes that in Zimbabwe there is racism and its discriminatory manifestation against white farmers and in India against Dalits.
  • Genocide and ethnic cleansing -- This is an extreme form of discrimination that I don't think is currently practiced in the U.S., so I'm not going to explicate it here. It's merely listed for completeness' sake.
  • Redlining and racial profiling -- essentially institutional discrimination on the sly, which is why it listed here and separately from the above institutional discrimination which is overt. It is considerably more difficult to identify and prove than are the overt forms of institutional discrimination. Since rarely do the actors admit to or positively record these modes of discriminating, it's generally identified and proven on the basis of pattern recognition.
    • Redlining takes many forms but all of them are covert means of institutionally discriminating. It is essentially consists of a person having some form of subject matter expertise steering people, people whom they are tasked with helping, in one or another direction based on assumptions the "driver" makes about race. Examples include:
      • Banks and/or bank loan officers giving fewer mortgages to people of color and more to non-minorities, based on the belief that the respective individuals, because of their race, are less/more able to repay loans.
      • Real estate agents steering people away from properties in certain neighborhoods and toward others because of the buyer's race and that of the people in the respective neighborhoods.
      • School advisers telling people of color that their children are more suited for trade school rather than college or grad school, and encouraging non-minorities to pursue college or grad school.
        
      • Police officers being more/less brutal in their subduction techniques when dealing with members of one or several races than with another/others.
    • Racial profiling is paying closer attention to members of a given group based solely on the individual's obvious membership in a given group than one does re: individuals not of that same group. For example:
      • Racial profiling often enough happens in my D.C. neighborhood, especially to black males who happen to be walking in it. Despite being within walking distance of a Metro station, almost no male adults walk the streets of my neighborhood, save for on Halloween night. Some people's housekeepers take public transportation to work, so it's not uncommon to see women walking to their place of work. By rights, so to speak, any male walking should be approached by a cop passing through, I'm told that the one minority dude who works as housekeeper gets stopped or "stared at" quite often. I, on the other hand, have never been stopped when I've opted to walk to a local restaurant or just to go for bike ride, jog or walk.
      • Using people's race as the basis for security guards choosing whom to follow through stores, regardless of their attire or other appearance traits.
    • Intolerant Communication
      • "Redneck racism" -- The word "racism" notwithstanding, this is nonetheless a behavior more so than a mindset or system. "Redneck racism" is R.W. Brislin's term for "the expression of blatant intolerance toward someone of another race." Despite the apparent implication of the term "redneck" Brislin doesn't, nor do I, limit the behavior to whites. "Redneck racism" might include jokes, statements (e.g., about the inferiority or backwardness of a group), or slurs or names for people of another group (also called ethnophaulisms). Conventional wisdom, for example, suggests that there are many more slurs for women then there are for men, and most of them have some sexual connotation. How is this manifest? It can be somewhat subtle:
        • Often "couched"/veiled in "us/them" language --> Using the "you people" syntax is another way people communicate a willingness to discriminate based on race. This behavior is different from most modes of discrimination in that it suggests the presence of prejudice, and the will to act on it with regard to all members of (not of) a given racial group, more so than being a discriminatory action against someone in particular.
        • "Arm's length" or "social distance" discrimination --> Voicing tolerance for a group, typically of being accepting of them in the neighborhood or workplace, but wants to restrict them from closer relationships. This form of prejudicial discrimination, when its predicated on race, is found in remarks such as "She’s very smart for an ‘X’” or “I have a friend who is a ‘Y,’ and he is very articulate.” Statements of that sort assume that most Xs are not smart and most Ys are not articulate.
      • Prejudiced colloquialisms -- This is the use of colloquialisms that play upon a particular aspect of identity or ability, such as calling something “lame X” or “retarded X," where "X" is whatever racial classification or epithet one cares to insert.
      • Linguistically innate racial prejudice -- This is challenging one to notice but not to exhibit for it's one that people probably display without realizing it, but covertness and absence are not the same things. One manifestation of it is seen in individuals of one race routinely interrupting speakers of another, yet when a member of one's own race speaks one doesn't do so. Similarly, when one is interrupted by a member of one's own race, one yields, but when another race individual does so, one does not yield or complains about having been interrupted, even though one doesn't do so with interrupters of one's own race. What's being racially discriminated against? The ideas of people belonging to another racial group; interrupting them is a means of squelching and/or discounting them and indicates that one thinks one's own ideas are superior and more deserving of being heard, perhaps preempting an audience's need to even hear the complete thoughts of the person against whom one is prejudiced and thus discriminates. (This form of discrimination can also be and may more often be applied in a sexual context.)
    • Symbolic discrimination -- This form of discrimination is a direct manifestation of symbolic racism. Symbolic discrimination relates largely to political attitudes and choices. It is made manifest in political decisions and proposals that effect one's discriminatory desires by veiling one's "anti-other" racial sentiments under the auspices of political attitudes, efficacies and approaches. Symbolic discrimination is a form of prejudice that is very hard to with certainty say an individual has exhibited and it's yet one that researchers have found absolutely does exist.

So if I am in a lifeboat and there is only room for one more, and there is a black guy and a white guy in the water and I choose the white guy, am I a racist?

you asked him a yes or no question.

those are hard to answer when you carry a minimum of 10 bullets per post.

And he won't be able to answer it, even with all three volumes of his definition. The real world has a way of bowling over elaborate edifices like his definition. Like the college professor who's just winding up a class in which he's proved beyond a shadow of a doubt there's no such thing as race, when a masked gunman runs into the room, presses a pistol against the professor's head and says "You've got one second to tell me the correct number of African-American students you have in this class or you die". "Nine!" the professor shouts immediately and correctly.