The Grand SMUDGING of the English Language

Topics, links and pics that are interesting, weird, or irrelevant!
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I think to say that someone can't be racist against a white person is completely absurd. Of course they can, and therefore one would be a fool to deny it.

Nevertheless, I think there is some virtue in saying that there are different "types" of racism. I attended an interesting exhibition at the Jewish museum in London where they talked about how antisemitism was in some ways different from racism in European countries against black people, in that the racist fantasy about black people tends to imagine them as savages (putting them socially beneath the racist) whereas a lot of the time antisemitism imagines Jews as conspirators and string-pullers in high places (putting them socially above the racist). With that principle, I don't think it's ridiculous to say that there is a *kind* of racism - thoroughgoing, systemic, useful to those in power, perpetuated by systems of power - that is LARGELY not directed at white people in white-majority countries. Racism against white people certainly exists in those countries, but it's a different phenomenon.

(I am not, by the way, necessarily saying that this is a position that I agree with: given the classist overtones, it wouldn't surprise me too much if the way people talk about 'hillbillies' meets the criteria I've talked about. I think that's the sort of thing that would require proper sociological study, though: I do not feel remotely in a position to decide one way or the other).
I think you're spot on in that it's fair to say there are probably 'levels' of racism... and that the reasoning for being racist may vary from person to person, movement to movement, or even time period to time period... and that may therefore color the way they go about their racism... I don't know how I'd go toward classifying that, if it does or doesn't need classification, etc. But like... I mean I probably wouldn't quite feel the same towards two racists side by side if I found that one was racist cause his daddy told him to be... and another person was racist because like... someone of another race killed their dad. In one instance the person just 'went with the flow' into being a shit human being, in the other you can at least see the roadmap from point A to point B and marginally empathize (without condoning of course)

But your example is a good one as well. Comparing America's systemic racism toward African Americans the kind of racism that was occurring in and around WW2 toward the Jewish... While both are classifiable as racist easily enough, there's no doubt whatsoever to me that the views, opinions and responses to that racism from all parties involved were somewhat different.

"Hillbillies' is more of a classiest than a racist thing I think. I can attest to hillbillies coming in all shapes and sizes and colors anyway, but I have to figure that the mindset isn't THAT far removed from racism as a basic cognitive process. Classism tends to er... vibrate on a lower frequency than racism I think. Slower to turn violent... but by no means barred from such.
Damselbinder

I think it's worth classification if only as an important sociological distinction. If there can ever be some sort of social science or science of statecraft that works towards eliminating or reducing racism, knowing that "types" of racism have different types of causes is going to be helpful.

As for the "racist because someone of race [x] killed their dad", I think that's interesting in that it's something people get confused about. I can think of quite a few films, series, even computer games, where a character's racism is motivated by something so straightforwardly personal. The problem with that is that well-meaning people can start thinking of racism as a phenomenon in this way, that "if we all just understood each other" etc etc it would go away. A good example of this is the film "Crash" - possibly the leas deserving 'best picture' winner in the history of the Oscars. Time after time after time it frames racism as something personal, completely missing the point that most racism - certainly most American racism - is a social, not a personal phenomenon. Obviously such things do exist, and obviously I'm not saying no-one should ever put them in stories ever (I can see the attraction: it's much easier to make that kind of thing a personal arc for a character), but it misleads people about what racism most often is.
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I think it's worth classification if only as an important sociological distinction. If there can ever be some sort of social science or science of statecraft that works towards eliminating or reducing racism, knowing that "types" of racism have different types of causes is going to be helpful.

As for the "racist because someone of race [x] killed their dad", I think that's interesting in that it's something people get confused about. I can think of quite a few films, series, even computer games, where a character's racism is motivated by something so straightforwardly personal. The problem with that is that well-meaning people can start thinking of racism as a phenomenon in this way, that "if we all just understood each other" etc etc it would go away. A good example of this is the film "Crash" - possibly the leas deserving 'best picture' winner in the history of the Oscars. Time after time after time it frames racism as something personal, completely missing the point that most racism - certainly most American racism - is a social, not a personal phenomenon. Obviously such things do exist, and obviously I'm not saying no-one should ever put them in stories ever (I can see the attraction: it's much easier to make that kind of thing a personal arc for a character), but it misleads people about what racism most often is.
I was simply throwing up two ends of a spectrum. In America, the problem is systemic. People will boat along supporting racist traditions without even knowing their doing it. There are many whom, when they finally take note of (or are forced to notice) these things, they immediately re-evaluate... and therefore I would never say 'that guy is a racist because he unknowingly supported a racist cause' but just as often you'll have someone double down, that no... 'I'm not racist but nor will I reconsider this thing that we've always just done. Why should I have to?' are they now racist? I think so most of the time... but I there may be some wiggle room that a person can even knowingly support a racist cause because its just easier than the effort it takes to change without themselves participating in active racism... the sort of people who think 'well I have black friends so I can't possibly be racist!'

My first and foremost concern, as I wager the majority of like minded folk here would agree (and certainly the BLM movement), that a focus on eliminating systemic racism is the priority which in itself could resolve a lot of racism on all fronts more capably than any conversation can... but I commonly notice an instinct to drag these things into an individualistic sphere. Like 'Oh you're so sure America is racist? Well what about this guy over here? He's black and he's totally racist!'

..................... so yeah, I think I agree we could use some classifications for degree's of racism for conversational and problem solving purposes. I think where you'll find opposition to the idea is the sort that feel all classifying racism into groups would do is encourage 'the man' to concoct variable punishments for these classifications.
Damselbinder

I would hope people wouldn't be so obtuse as to abuse sociology in this way.

But then I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Damselbinder wrote:
3 years ago
I would hope people wouldn't be so obtuse as to abuse sociology in this way.

But then I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.
I don't think the human race as a species is capable of resisting it. Individuals yes, Humanity as a whole, no. I also think we're more vulnerable to apathy now than we've ever been... in America at least. I suppose I can't speak for the psychological climate of other countries.
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

Updated "Woke"
Post Reply