What IS racism?

[Bill Mattocks]

With regard to Uncle Tom and sell-outs...

Imagine a purely hypothetical country.

In this country are two peoples of distinctly different colors. One group is the majority, and controls everything. The majority group has all the money, all the property, and all the political power. In fact, the majority group enslaves the minority group and treats them essentially as domestic animals, property.

Over time, the majority group changes their attitudes to some extent, and decide that slavery is wrong. They free the minority group, but they do not relinquish their grip on power, money, and property. The minority group is not allowed to assimilate into the larger society and are forced to live in groups of their own kind, and they earn much smaller wages, subsist on much less, and cannot play any role in the running of society. They are free, but not equal.

More time passes, and society continues to change. Now it is accepted that all men are equal, without regard to their color. But this does not mean that the majority group welcomes the minority group with open arms as long-lost brothers, or that the minority group is willing to forgive and forget all that has happened. Distrust and animosity remain on both sides. Each group is suspicious of the other, doubt their motives, and are reluctant to take anything at face value.

The failure to understand each other's culture, which have never been identical in the first place, leads to more problems. As the members of the minority group who wish to take their place as equals in the society still run by the majority, they find resistance not based on their color any longer, but on their mannerisms, their habits, and their manner of speech. The members of the majority, even those who consciously embrace equality, still find it difficult to make themselves understood and to understand when the language itself is used differently between the two groups.

There is resistance by some majority members who dig their heels in and insist that if the minority wishes to join the main branch of society, that is fine, but the members of the minority must give up everything that identifies them as members of the minority group except their color (which they obviously can't change). In other words, if the minority wishes to act like the majority, they will find acceptance in the majority group. If they refuse to 'assimilate' in this way, they will find it much more difficult to fit in and be accepted by the majority.

At the same time, there are members of the minority who find it offensive to be asked to 'assimilate' into the larger society in order to find success and acceptance. Their culture is essentially artificial in the first place; they were forced to create it when they were enslaved and later when they were ostracized and pushed to the margins of society. Now that they are supposedly 'equal', they are being told to abandon this culture they built themselves and adopt the culture of the group that formerly enslaved them.

Inside the minority group, some choose to assimilate into the larger culture and leave their own behind. Some of those see success; some fail to assimilate; some assimilate and fail to succeed anyway. Others resent the success of those who have assimilated, point to failures as examples that 'prove' that assimilation doesn't work anyway, and continue to find reasons to distrust the demand that the larger society makes on the minority for those reasons.

There are no 'good' people and no 'bad' people in this theoretical country. Each wants to part of the success of the country itself, and everyone wants to succeed and to be accepted into society. But due to the history of this mythical country, and due to the distrust that each group has of the other's motives, change is slow, resentment is high, and equality remains an elusive goal, even if both groups want it; and there are always going to be some people in both groups who don't want it.

 

[Twin Fist]

if you downsize and consider race AT ALL in who to keep, it's racist

Or if a company downsizes and you favor your race over another.
Sean

 

[Sukerkin]

This is racist:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-14820797

And I don't mean putting a golliwog in your window. What kind of future are we setting ourselves up for if we don't curb this PC BS soon. Even if the old lady did mean it in a racist fashion I do not care - people need to stop being so frikking precious about their 'ethnic' roots.

 

[Archangel M]

What EXACTLY is this "culture" that people are so unwilling to change? Is it "culture" or is it just the desire to be "different"?

 

[KempoGuy06]

racism or prejudice its all stupid. at the same time i would bet money that every person on the planet is guilty of it whether knowingly or not. Doing it by accident because you are 5 years old and live in a part of my state where you have never seen a person of a different race and openly asking a black man "whats wrong with your face mister?" is ok. Also, truthfully its funny and every person who might find that statement appalling can GTFO in my opinion. If you find yourself in that situation and dont laugh then you have no sense of humor.

My problem with racism and prejudice actually reverse racism. That companies are now required to hire people not based on their experience or credentials but because of the color of their skin. Not hiring someone because they are one race or another is wrong i agree but to force someone to hire someone because they ARE of another race is ALSO wrong.

In short to answer the question of the OP i think its stupid. Plain and simple.

B

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What EXACTLY is this "culture" that people are so unwilling to change? Is it "culture" or is it just the desire to be "different"?

Is it for you or for me to ask? However...

If a group of people are isolated by accident or intention, over a period of time, they develop their own traditions, their own dialects (over longer terms, even different language), and their own manner of dress and behavior. This is 'culture'.

In my imaginary nation, one group was intentionally segregated by another, larger, group. First as slaves, then as second-class citizens. Finally, the smaller group was told they were now equal and encouraged to participate in the society that once belonged exclusively to the larger group. The problem from both sides would appear to be that each group had a different culture.

Some (but not all) members of the smaller group chose to adopt the culture of the larger group, and most of these were assimilated and accepted as equals. Some adopted the culture but still did not thrive for reasons undefined. Some (but also not all) members of the smaller group complained that equality is hardly equality if there are conditions put on it; conditions that required them to essentially abandon the culture that they had essentially been forced to create for themselves in the first place. Some resented the members of their own group that did change their culture and assimilated and were successful, and pointed to those who tried and failed as proof that assimilation was not going to be permitted, that equality was a word, but not a practice.

At the same time, some (but not all) of the larger group demanded that if the smaller group wanted 'equality', they would have to assimilate and become the same as the larger group in all but skin color. Others refused to accept the smaller group no matter what changes they made. Some demanded that the members of the smaller group be given full privileges and access to jobs and education without regard to their ability to communicate well or even to read and write in a manner that the members of the larger group could easily understand.

In directly answer to your question, I sincerely doubt that it is a 'desire to be different' that drives people to speak non-standard English or to dress differently or act differently than the mainstream of society in most cases. I'm sure it happens, though. In the end, the question that should be asked, IMHO, is whether or not it is acceptable to say that a member of a given group can be allowed to become part of the mainstream society if they refuse to give up what they consider to be their culture?

Unlike joining a private club, society is supposedly open to all citizens and legal residents of a country. Placing requirements on it that one must first become like all the other members of that society with the exception of skin color, which they can't change, seems a bit arbitrary, doesn't it? Especially since unlike my hypothetical country, there are literally hundreds of 'cultures' in our country that are members of the larger society, and a few which are to one degree or another excluded.

 

[granfire]

part of 'racism' is probably nature. It seems to be beneficial for a group - any group - to congregate with like individuals. Consider the chances of a white born animal...they don't live long in the open.

However we are no longer animals...
But this has really provided some excess, a thinking person has to wonder.

I know you guys read it, it was linked, but I am too lazy to dig it out: A town puts a promotion freeze on the fire department, because the minorities didn't do well in the test...and not all minorities, but the minority.
So everybody else who scored well is screwed because a handful of individuals did not perform well enough to reach the higher level.

 

[Archangel M]

What..specifically is this culture we are talking about though Bill? The right to speak Ebonics in the work place? Baggy jeans and sideways ball caps at the bank window? What? What are the THINGS that would be an insult or a problem to give up?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What..specifically is this culture we are talking about though Bill? The right to speak Ebonics in the work place? Baggy jeans and sideways ball caps at the bank window? What? What are the THINGS that would be an insult or a problem to give up?

I'm intentionally speaking in the abstract to avoid just what you're getting to. I've pointed out that portions of the majority group take your point of view. A portion of the smaller group take the point of view that giving equality should not be based on qualifiers, people are either equal or they are not, no matter how they speak or dress. I did not take a side or argue that one group is right and the other wrong. The point is that there are two sides of the question (if not more) and the questions are asked even if one does not agree with the answers. All points of view may not be correct; but all points of view have validity. They *exist* whether we wish to agree with them or not.

If I were to speak in specifics, you could say "Well, I don't think that it would be an insult or damaging to them to give up that." And of course, 'them' would argue that yes, it would be. And the answer would be what it already is; neither side agrees with the other, and both insist the other does not understand them. Let's just point out the issues, and leave the arguing over which point of view is correct to another day.

 

[Archangel M]

I think that specifics and the hesitation to discuss them are part of the problem......should an employer be forced to hire someone who refuses to speak "correct English"? Should dress codes be illegal?

 

[Twin Fist]

anemployer should be able to hire anyone he wants to


or not

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that specifics and the hesitation to discuss them are part of the problem......

I'm sure you do. But I am not attempting to solve the problem, I am outlining how different groups come to have grievances that they feel are valid, regardless of whether or not we agree with their point of view. You appear to want to go past that right to the part where you dismiss the grievances of others as unreasonable and conclude that they in the wrong. I understand you already hold that point of view, so I don't know what is to be gained by going there.

should an employer be forced to hire someone who refuses to speak "correct English"? Should dress codes be illegal?

Valid questions. I'm not going to answer you.

 

[Archangel M]

I understand you already hold that point of view, so I don't know what is to be gained by going there.

Jumping to a lot of conclusions tonight Bill? I think this goes to illustrate the diffulcties of having any sort of frank discussion regarding race that I mentioned previously. Already you are trying to pigeonhole me...based on what? Questions?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Jumping to a lot of conclusions tonight Bill? I think this goes to illustrate the diffulcties of having any sort of frank discussion regarding race that I mentioned previously. Already you are trying to pigeonhole me...based on what? Questions?

Yes, based on your questions. It's not like this path has not been trodden.

 

[elder999]

Thanks for another thoughtful post, Bill. I’m going to run with it, and try to explain mhy viewpoint on a few things. In fact, I might offer some "hypothetical" answers to some of Archangel’s questions.

Imagine a purely hypothetical country.

In this country are two peoples of distinctly different colors. One group is the majority, and controls everything. The majority group has all the money, all the property, and all the political power. In fact, the majority group enslaves the minority group and treats them essentially as domestic animals, property.

Imagine what that means" "treated essentially as domestic animals, property." Hold onto that thought, and understand that it wasn’t entirely that way. In the early colonial phase of this "purely hypothetical country,' there were mechanisms in place for the minority group to learn a trade, raise a family, have property, earn money, and, sometimes, buy their freedom. There were always elements within the majority group that found the enslavement of the minority wrong, and fought to abolish it, and made efforts to uplift the quality of life of the minority group. In spite of all this, even those of the minority that were free were not true citizens and were denied quite a few basic rights. In some areas, where a minority family was free, their majority neighbors could legally take their children for "apprenticeship." Gradually, slavery in some areas of this country were done away with, and all of the minority in those areas were free, but something else had taken place in another part of the country, that had long been dependent upon slavery-something that was a direct consequence of the gradual ending of trade of the minority group, which really consisted of kidnapping and shipping large numbers of them from their native land.

In this other part of our hypothetical country, the majority group owners had determined that they didn’t have to purchase or trade in the minority if they viewed them as livestock, or a commodity-and, that if they kept them for life, and made their offspring their property as well, they had a large and ready labor force that would also serve as a commodity with other owners. This minority group, then, was treated as livestock. Already stripped of most of their native culture, these people were raised in bondage with the expectation of nothing more than a lifetime of bondage-they might learn a trade, in order to practice that trade for their owner, but it was still bondage, and for most it was a bondage of lifelong almost endless, hard labor. Not owning themselves, they weren’t even really permitted to marry-not with the expectation of a lifetime together, when their "owners" could sell either party involved. Families could be split up on a whim-though children were usually kept with their mothers until such time as the children were able to begin their own labors, or became tradeable commodities-and, because the owner could and would have sexual congress with his "property," a man in the minority might not even know with any certainty that his mate’s children were his own-or might know for certain that they were not. And, being livestock, a male in the minority might literally be put out to stud, loaned to a neighboring owner for breeding with his females, or forced to breed with females other than his mate.In such an environment, fatherhood as an institution died within less than three generations, and became, like other elements of the developing slave minority culture, a joke-a reference to the ephemerality of all that they might hold dear, the certainty of a lifetime of servitude, the downright worthlessness of their very lives-a theme that would resonate through the development of their music, food, and , especially, religion-along with the notion of, and desire for freedom, there was a resignation to the way things were. Additionally, such a group was, by the very nature of their lifestyle, placed in a position of constant deception, of saying one thing to their owners, and wearing one face, when their feelings and desires might have been entirely different. Just as the discarded scraps they were fed by their owners became delicacies of their developing culture, living a life that was encoded and deceptive, and built around occasionally stealing, and the ultimate desire: to steal themselves.
　
　
　

Over time, the majority group changes their attitudes to some extent, and decide that slavery is wrong. They free the minority group, but they do not relinquish their grip on power, money, and property. The minority group is not allowed to assimilate into the larger society and are forced to live in groups of their own kind, and they earn much smaller wages, subsist on much less, and cannot play any role in the running of society. They are free, but not equal.

And a kind of de facto slavery developed in some areas, and took place for the nearly a hundred years. And, in spite of any level of wealth or education or status attained by members of the minority group, they are constantly excluded and segregated, far more effectively than any yellow star of David, by the color of their skin, to the point of absurdity at times. On another level, though, the dominant culture embraces a great deal of what the minority culture offers, in music, in cuisine, and, sometimes, in fashion, taking over things that the minority culture developed, and making them their own, to the point where it’s often forgotten where those things came from. (Here, Archangel, I have to depart from hypotheticals and say offer that sagging pants and exposed boxers come, as you probably know, from having belts removed in jail, and add that, here in New Mexico, I see far, far more white kids dressed this way than I do black or hispanic-even with hispanics being nearly a majority:there just aren’t that many black people here.)

So we have two cultures-one of which is based, in part, on ephemeral or non-existent fatherhood, enforced feelings of worthlessness, deception and theft.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So we have two cultures-one of which is based, in part, on ephemeral or non-existent fatherhood, enforced feelings of worthlessness, deception and theft.

If I may add; one can say "Well, *I* did not own slaves, nor did any of my family. I had no part in slavery and I detest it and am sorry it happened. Because of this, I cannot be held responsible, nor should anyone living today hold a grudge against me or the larger culture." All true, but is it then so hard to understand that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of those who were enslaved have a part of that history embedded in the culture that they invented when they were taken from their native lands while being at the same time denied the right to partake in the culture of the majority? Yes, this is a culture; invented in the way that all cultures are invented, albeit due to artificial constraints and requirements.

And at long last, freedom comes; or appears to come, after several false starts. With it, though, comes a caveat. That culture the majority group refused to let the minority group partake of? Well, now the minority have to adopt it and leave their own behind, or the minority can't join in. Equality, but only on the majority's terms. Is it not valid to ask "Is this really equality?"

Again, I am not taking a point of view or saying that one group's concerns are correct and the other's wrong. This goes to walking a mile in the moccasins of another when possible.

 

[Sukerkin]

Whilst the picture painted above is a terrible one, it's not that much more terrible than the conditions and abject poverty of the Victorian working classes (the disgraceful and dehumanising 'stud' aspects being left aside). Plus, as I've said many times, almost everyone over here on Blighty, who is not a member of the aristocracy, is descended from slaves at some point in their family tree.

That background buys no special privileges in my eyes. But I do understand how, as it is not all that long ago, the underlying values of personal worthlessness have a part in shaping the life choices of some who elect to choose to take that mantle of victim and use it to excuse all that they do.

Sadly, making such choices just perpetuates the problems we've been discussing.

 

[elder999]

So, today's craziness from my life. I went to the gym today-today was what I call a "mini brick" day: I had a light weight workout and a brief stint on the treadmill, and swim for the majority of my workout. I swam about two miles-that's 70 times back and forth in a 25 meter pool, the essence of drudgery for some, but quite relaxing for me. At the end of my miles, I finished by swimming three lengths of the pool underwater, on (for clarification, not bragging) one breath. I finished up with a steam and a soak in the jacuzzi.....where I got into a rather long conversation with a couple of other people, marveling at my underwater swimming and asking for tips on swimming in general. We talked a little about stroke efficiency, and then the subject came to race-and how one person there thought black people couldn't swim well because of their higher muscle-density,and typically didn't swim because they didn't live near pools-the conversation remained pleasant and convivial,with my usual joke:Yeah, they were all out of "run fast" the day I was born, so I got "swims like a fish" :lfao: It raised another point, though: TwinFist mentioned sickle cell, and I've mentioned Jimmy the Greek, who famously got fired from television for his drunken-but truthful!-assessment of black athletecism (see above).

Is it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these? One can certainly see how the sickle-cell discussion, especially in the U.S. (12% of "African-Americans" carry the trait) really isn't, any more than a discussion of lactose intolerance, or Tibetan's adaptation to high altitude, though such discussions are racial. What about Jimmy the Greek, though, and his observations about slave history including selective breeding? Some find it offensive to mention any inheritance, genetic or otherwise, from slavery. And black athleticism is pretty much an unspoken of given, in some quarters. Some things, like that whole "run fast" thing, are explained by science, and can pretty much come down to phenotypic differences-I don't think the world record for the 100m has been held by anyone but black men for all of my life. Others, though, are clearly cultural, stereotypical, or mythical.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So, today's craziness from my life. I went to the gym today-today was what I call a "mini brick" day: I had a light weight workout and a brief stint on the treadmill, and swim for the majority of my workout. I swam about two miles-that's 70 times back and forth in a 25 meter pool, the essence of drudgery for some, but quite relaxing for me. At the end of my miles, I finished by swimming three lengths of the pool underwater, on (for clarification, not bragging) one breath. I finished up with a steam and a soak in the jacuzzi.....where I got into a rather long conversation with a couple of other people, marveling at my underwater swimming and asking for tips on swimming in general. We talked a little about stroke efficiency, and then the subject came to race-and how one person there thought black people couldn't swim well because of their higher muscle-density,and typically didn't swim because they didn't live near pools-the conversation remained pleasant and convivial,with my usual joke:Yeah, they were all out of "run fast" the day I was born, so I got "swims like a fish" :lfao: It raised another point, though: TwinFist mentioned sickle cell, and I've mentioned Jimmy the Greek, who famously got fired from television for his drunken-but truthful!-assessment of black athletecism (see above).

Is it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these? One can certainly see how the sickle-cell discussion, especially in the U.S. (12% of "African-Americans" carry the trait) really isn't, any more than a discussion of lactose intolerance, or Tibetan's adaptation to high altitude, though such discussions are racial. What about Jimmy the Greek, though, and his observations about slave history including selective breeding? Some find it offensive to mention any inheritance, genetic or otherwise, from slavery. And black athleticism is pretty much an unspoken of given, in some quarters. Some things, like that whole "run fast" thing, are explained by science, and can pretty much come down to phenotypic differences-I don't think the world record for the 100m has been held by anyone but black men for all of my life. Others, though, are clearly cultural, stereotypical, or mythical.

I think such discussions can be had. But as with many such questions, because they are on a borderland that is inhabited by those who have, shall we say, 'issues', one can begin with a clear conscience and a forthright attitude and quickly finding oneself either attacking or defending against accusations that include such things as "The Bell Curve," and the validity or lack thereof of Ebonics or Kwanzaa. In other words, the air gets mighty polluted mighty quickly. Almost impossible to have outside of an academic environment, and even then, things are dicey.

 

[Empty Hands]

Is it "racist" to discuss racial differences like these?

As a discussion of group distributions, no. That just isn't how people work though. People look at an individual, and even though the intra-group variability is greater than the inter-group variability, conclude that the individual represents the group. An individual black person must be more athletic. Or more criminal. Or an individual asian must have greater scholastic achievement. Or whatever. Ignoring the character of the individual and assigning them characteristics of the group, even if that group is more athletic (or whatever), is racist.

Plus, while the topic may not be racist isolated in and of itself, clear and obvious racists seem inexorably drawn to these discussions and conclusions, no matter how weak the data is. That should give us pause.