I caught myself almost going into this rant on someone post and this really had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

So here's my question: Are we, as a nation, actually ridding ourselves of racism, or are we 'sweeping it under the rug' so to speak?

 

Now in my opinion I feel that we are right on track, if not ahead of schedule, in the process of ridding our nation of racism. This thought is based off of the fact that Africans have been enslaved by Europeans since the 1400s, meaning that Europeans had roughly 400 years of ingrained racism in their system before the slave trade ended in the United States and then another hundred years or so before African Americans took the stage to fight for serious equality. So after 500 years or so of European Americans considering themselves above the African Americans for us to have come as far as we have in the last 50 years to me is quite the achievement.

 

I'm definitely not trying to imply that we don't still have a ways to go, nor am I saying that we don't have to try anywhere near as hard to help our people in a time where all of the negative stereotypes of the African American is not only encouraged, but rewarded by the media.

 

So please share your thoughts with me.

 

Views: 611

Replies to This Discussion

That's a good point I should have limited the superiority towards the Anglo-Saxons, at least those in the royalty and higher up merchants and so on.

I think most people tend to believe that racism is a euphemism for prejudice. Racism is a "local and global power system structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined; this system consists of patterns of perception, logic , symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity ( economics, education, entrainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war)... The ultimate goal of this system is to ensure the survival of white skinned people from non-white people". Therefore given this definition, racism has not ended and I think once people understand what racism is only then can we end racism.

"Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race."

 

Racism is not by definition about white people, anybody can be a racist no matter their race. If you think that somehow a person cannot be a racist solely based upon his or her race, you are basically a ehm... racist.

 

 

As I expected would happen, people seem to confuse racial discrimination with racism. Racism is a system of privileges for a group, which is why in America only one group of people benefited from racism. You can disagree with me but I have many sources to support my position. Joe Feagin, a sociologist, documented how racism is exclusively practiced by whites at the expense of non-white people. Not to mentions , he traces the origin of racism during colonial America during the slave trade and in Europe.You should pick up "white racism" and "racist America" by Joe Feagin. Francis Cress Welsing, a psychiatrist, have a book called the "Isis Paper: The key to the colors" which mentions racism equals white supremacy. I think you're under the false impression that I'm picking on whites, which is incorrect. I'm stating what I researched about racism, if you think I'm racist because of that then you have no understanding of racism.

"Racism is a system of privileges for a group"

 

Dude, it's in the freaking dictionary. The least you can do when you use another definition of a word is to have the courtesy to provide the alternative definition.

How would you call it when a non-white is racially discriminatory to a white person? And why would you want to change the definition of racism, why can't you call white supremacy what it is (it is white supremacy, duh). 

I see a lot of people that want to change certain definitions in the dictionary, usually it's more politically (ideologically) motivated and as in this case, makes little sense. 

 

"racism is exclusively practiced by whites at the expense of non-white people"

 

This is a false statement, non-whites are most definitely capable of racism. Do you have any idea how many Arabs for instance are extremely racist towards blacks? There is more to the world then just the US, and not all systems of privileges are controlled by whites.

 

"You should pick up "white racism" and "racist America" by Joe Feagin"

 

As much as I enjoy a good laugh, I will not spend my money on a book from a person that claims that racism is exclusively practiced by whites. That's just silly and incorrect.

 

"if you think I'm racist"

 

So I'm guessing you're non-white then, because that'll make you automatically exempt from racism according to your definition. However, according to the dictionary definition (which I included in my post) it is somewhat of a different story. If you say that you cannot be a racist (dictionary definition) because you are of a non-white race you are saying that there are inherent differences in capability based solely on race. Ergo: racism according to the dictionary definition. So you tell me, according to the dictionary, are you a racist? 

 

Personally, I'm a big fan of the way Morgan Freeman speaks about racism in this interview. If you really want to get rid of racism (dictionary definition) then you gotta stop seeing differences when there are none.

It is said about humans that the genetic variation in our gene sequence in our species is less then that of let's say two chimpanzee families a river delta. We truly are all brothers and sisters.

That's a incorrect definition that is not define by most sociologists or psychologists, but by politicians and law makers.



The least you can do when you use another definition of a word is to have the courtesy to provide the alternative definition.



I provided the proper definition for racism from my very first post, but I think you overlooked my post. Therefore, I will give you a simpler definition. In his book, Portraits of White Racism, David Wellmen define racism as the "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.



Also, David Wellmen showed how racism does not equal prejudice. He used history and some case studies to prove that racism is a system for the benefits of whites.







How would you call it when a non-white is racially discriminatory to a white person?



As I mentioned in my previous post, you seem to confuse racial discrimination with racism. But to answer your question I would call it racial discrimination, not racism. The ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), a United Nation convention, define racial discrimination as the following:



" ...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life...."

It is important to note, by the way, the ICERD never defines racism nor accepts the current definition.



And why would you want to change the definition of racism, why can't you call white supremacy what it is (it is white supremacy, duh).



You're confusing things I don't seek to change anything. I'm pointing out the misconceptions and informing the misinformed about what racism. You proved my case with your second question. Yes, racism is white supremacy.



This is a false statement, non-whites are most definitely capable of racism. Do you have any idea how many Arabs for instance are extremely racist towards blacks? There is more to the world then just the US, and not all systems of privileges are controlled by whites.



At the present moment in time, non-whites are not in a position to practice racism. Of course, non-whites or any people, for that matter, are capable of discrimination. However, racism is system of privileges and a system of oppression. Non-whites have no systems of oppression for whites. Racism is also on a global scale too, read the Isis Paper. Arabs showed racial discrimination, not racism.



As much as I enjoy a good laugh, I will not spend my money on a book from a person that claims that racism is exclusively practiced by whites. That's just silly and incorrect.



That's your prerogative not to purchased the book ,but I do find it interesting that for someone who never read his work can concluded that he's is wrong. As some people may know, Joe Feagin was the former president of the ASA (American Sociological Association). He won many awards for his extensive research on racism and wrote over 100 research articles and books on racism. I find your dismissive attitude typical of many people who never read his book. Dr. Feagin never points the finger or pick on whites about racism, but documents how it began and who benefits from it. Besides, you can say that he is wrong but unless you can prove his work to be false then all you have is speculation at the of the day.



So I'm guessing you're non-white then, because that'll make you automatically exempt from racism according to your definition. However, according to the dictionary definition (which I included in my post) it is somewhat of a different story. If you say that you cannot be a racist (dictionary definition) because you are of a non-white race you are saying that there are inherent differences in capability based solely on race. Ergo: racism according to the dictionary definition. So you tell me, according to the dictionary, are you a racist?



For starters, I don't believe in races and I never once used black races or white races if you been paying attention. No where did I say anything about "inherent differences" that's your interpretation. I quoted how a scholar defined racism from my very first post, you should go read it again. I can't be a racist not because there are inherent differences of non-white people (that's your interpretation) but because, as a non-white, I'm not in a system that elevates me at white people expense. As I been trying to point out, racism is not prejudice. You can't eliminate prejudice but we can eliminate racism.



Personally, I'm a big fan of the way Morgan Freeman speaks about racism in this interview. If you really want to get rid of racism (dictionary definition) then you gotta stop seeing differences when there are none.



It is said about humans that the genetic variation in our gene sequence in our species is less then that of let's say two chimpanzee families a river delta. We truly are all brothers and sisters.



What I found amazing is that I'm giving you the scholarly sources, which you dismissed out of emotion, but you give me a interview from Morgan Freeman. This interview, which I seen many times, prove the work of the scholars I mentioned. Do you honestly believe racism will end once we drop so called racial names? If you and Morgan Freeman are really interested ending racism, go read "The Many Costs of Racism". How are we going to get rid of racism if no one really knows what racism means? Also, I was hesitant to mention this but many of Morgan Freeman's responses are the result of racism on him.



I subscribe to the no race school too, I know we are all brothers and sisters. I never disputed that. We are part of the human family as proof of the genetic evidences.

"On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts…. If his sweetheart ingests "chocolate with nuts," the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male…. "

 

That's from Frances Cress Welsing her book, that sounds quite racist to me. 

This passage would make sense if you read preface ii of her book. I must admit that some of her arguments I don't agree with but I don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Her definition of racism is very consist with the other scholars I mentioned. By the way, that's not being racist.

I'm not going to read her book, why don't you spell it out for me?
Madison, if you look at where things were 100 years ago, and 50 years ago, and 20 years ago, and look at now. it does seem clear that there is a lot of progress. There is still a lot of inequality, and there are still a lot of people around who are racist.

The biggest dangers now seem to be with the terrible economy, which has affected black and latin groups much more than white groups. A bad economy tends to pit self-identified groups against one another, and creates a dangerous culture of blame and scapegoat. That also puts a drag of further progress, and seems to be to be evidence of existing racial preference, or at least relative disadvantage. I certainly see racial prejudice all around, in the press and in person.

But looking at the trend, it's in the direction toward equal opportunity and equal advantage, with some speed bumps along the way.

I feel frustrated that most people don't know much about what we call "race", about the mechanisms of racism, the history, and the role of religion. I think if we don't learn about those things, there is more danger of backsliding into a bad place.
i definitely agree with you there

Here is an interesting and thoughtful response on your topic.  I downloaded the book but have not read it yet, so not able to comment.  

 

 


I can't begin to generalize for a group of people who I am not, and their experience. However, the fact that there is optimism also makes me more optimistic. I just hope it continues to grow in that direction, and I think there is a place for anti-racist voices regardless of what color person is speaking.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service