Poll: Definitions of "Racist" and "Racism"

[marydell]

Please try not to argue with definitions that people post in the comments. However, posting your own definition is highly encouraged, even if it's just tweaking the wording of something in the ticky boxes.

Edit: I really want this post to stay on topic, that topic being people's own definitions of these terms. This is not about whether it's ok to call someone a racist or accuse people of racism--there's no way to answer that question without having a sense of what the terms mean to people, and I'm not the right person to host that conversation anyway.

I want this post to be 1. a safe space for people to say what they think these words mean 2. a multi-definition glossary of two terms that are used in a lot of conversations. That will only happen if it stays on topic, so I will politely freeze or re-direct conversations that are off-topic. If I freeze a comment, it does not mean I think you're a jerk or that I want you to get lost; please don't take it personally.

Thank you to everyone who is helping to build this resource, and I appreciate everyone's tolerance of the heavy moderation. If you want to talk (a little) more freely, there are other posts under my anti-racism category tag that may interest you.

Another Edit: discussion of how to define "Race" starts with Bluefall's comment here.

[Poll #1340724]

Comments

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

I characterize /actions/ as racist actions. I'll only characterize a /person/ as racist if they prove by actions or deeds pretty consistently that they believe/feel/behave that way.

(But everyone (in the US) is affected by the institutional racist (and sexist, and heterosexist, and etc) nature of this society. (There's other kinds of institutional racism in other countries, of course. Different and potentially similar.)

(Edited for annoying typos.)

(frozen)

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

This is how I filled out the poll, too - I find categorising a person as a "racist" is unhelpful, dismissive, and allows people who are not as bad (including me!) to avoid examination of their own racist acts.

[ediblestars.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly. The noun confuses the adjective.

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

To borrow the way Christine Delphy defined sexism in Close to Home: the ideological expression of institutionalised oppression.

[princessofg.livejournal.com]

i'm so glad to have this; I've thought over and over that some of the confusion goes back to these definitions; and also some of the people who are confused and resist the idea that their statements are racist are indeed using a different definition of the term.

(frozen)

[cleverthylacine]

The definition of "racist" that I have been taught in school since I was about five, and that I hear in every diversity training at work, is "hatred of, and discrimination against, people because of race." Outside of activist circles, and certain academic departments, and metafandom, this is the commonly accepted definition of racism.

And yet so many people who post to MF will be incredibly rude to you if you've never even heard of their preferred definition. Believing something that you have been taught since you were five and acting on a definition that you are expected to act on if you like your job doesn't make you stupid or confused. Except about why other people think you're stupid for not having been taught whatever it is they learned wherever they learned it.

(frozen)

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Outside of activist circles, and certain academic departments, and [info]metafandom, this is the commonly accepted definition of racism.

I reiterate: please do not argue with other people's definitions of racism in this post. Being dismissive of groups that hold other opinions is a form of argument, as is stating that one's own definition is the correct one.

Thank you for sharing your definition, and your point about not everyone being aware of each other's definitions is a good one.

Freezing this subthread.

[gailmom.livejournal.com]

A racist is a person who makes assumptions or decisions about people based on race.

(I do not personally distinguish between "positive or negative" since, in my experience, even "positive" conclusions based on race (or any other definition not based on the the individual but rather on an arbitrary trait) is also inherently "negative" toward another grouping, and vice versa.)

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I was just about to make a similar comment about the inherent negativity of "positive" conclusions based on race, so I'll just agree with yours.

[laura-holt-pi.livejournal.com]

Very true. It's also often patronising to the race that receives the "positive" gloss.

[willshetterly.livejournal.com]

Ditto! (I'm old enough to remember ditto machines fondly, so if the word's been tainted by Rush Limbaugh, consider this my attempt to reclaim it.)

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I would characterise any belief in 'race' as racist.

[laura-holt-pi.livejournal.com]

Me too.

(frozen)

[elf]

I don't think so. At least, not as far as "race" also means "cultural and ancestral heritage."

There's plenty enough White Christian European-origin people trying to claim the whole world has one historical identity (and that identity is theirs, thankyouverymuch) and therefore, there's no cultural appropriation issue if they grab Egyptian symbols or Jewish prayers or or Chinese clothing or Native American dances or African hairstyles for casual use in their life or art.

(frozen)

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

Which culture is mine?

(frozen)

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Please do not argue with other people's definitions in this post. There are plenty of other places doing that right now :)

[vcmw]

This is exactly the ticky box option I wanted for question #1 above.

[elf]

Racism: all of the above.

A Racist is a person who:

I dunno. I'm working on that one. There's no ticky box for "a person who supports the institutionalized patterns of race-based stereotypes & oppression." (And maybe there shouldn't be. Because at no point can anyone coherently say, "today, I am going to support stereotypes!" or "today, I will work against institutionalized oppressions!" Those are abstracts--interpretations--not actions.)

I'm still sorting out whether I think a racist is "someone who does actions X, Y and/or Z" (in which case, I could pick some ticky boxes) or a racist is "someone whose actions support ideologies A, B and/or C," in which case, no ticky boxes apply.

Or both. But that also leads to a problematic case where we're using the same word to describe two (or more) situations, and we get confusion when trying to discuss the issues with people using only one definition. In the same way that immorality and insensitivity are both bad things, but are not the same bad things, we need a way to distinguish between actions and effects, at least verbally, in order to discuss them.

It may be a hair-splitting, academic difference, and the verbal difference can be equally hair-splitting--racism for one, racial prejudice for the other, or something like that. But while I'm still muddled on that, I'm rather lost as to whom I would label a "racist."

It's such a loaded word that it shuts down communication, and I tend to prefer to call people with despicable ideas, "despicable", and those supporting despicable institutions either "clueless" or "despicable," depending on the situation.

At this point, I don't feel qualified to decide who is a "racist." I'm still reading & learning about that.

[ktempest.livejournal.com]

hey, is it okay if I post this in the sidebar on AW? I ask because it could cause a huge influx, but I think that this conversation is important, especially in context with conversations we have about this topic there.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Please do! And thank you.

(frozen)

[lydiabell.livejournal.com]

I marked "something else" for question #1. For the purposes of the types of conversations that have been going on recently, I'm not sure it's helpful to try to determine who is or is not a "racist". (I quite liked Madeline F.'s comment (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010424.html#281913) on the subject last summer on ML, the one that ended with, "But I didn't stab you, I'm not a stabber". Heresiarch @512 in that conversation had some very smart things to say, too. And yes, I'm aware of the irony of linking to ML under these circumstances.) It seems that trying to determine who does or does not deserve the label "racist" in these sorts of conversations ends up being mostly an exercise in trying to separate the Good White People from the Bad White People, which: a) makes it All About White People again; b) takes the focus off of the effect that a particular action had on people of color; and c) encourages people who sort into the Good White People category to feel that they are thus off the hook.

On #2, I marked "all of the above", but again for the purposes of these sorts of conversations, I think the fifth is the most salient.

(frozen)

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your thoughts! This post is not about determining who does or does not deserve the label "racist;" the focus here is on what the word itself means to various people. Freezing this so the conversation doesn't get off-track, but feel free to hang out. :)

[tielan]

I don't know that there's any way to answer this question without an essay.

Everyone has the potential to be racist. Not skinhead, KKK, neo-nazi racist, but racist in their behaviours, in their words, in their presumptions, in their assumptions.

The problem is that people presume that since they're not KKK, neonazi, or skinhead, they aren't or can't be racist at all, or that being called on racist behaviour suggests they're not nice people at heart - which they totes are!!

And then there's the systemic, subtle, societal racism that happens every time someone says that there are no POC main characters in TV media because the job goes to the best actor for the part, who always happens to be white; or when 'white recasts' take place, like the recasting of Avatar: The Last Airbender; or when someone defends their right to write POC however they damn well see fit, with no apology for Magical Negroes, Chinese Launderers, the power of WeShaSha, or Exotic Ninja Courtesans.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

That's why it's helpful, I think, to discover what people's definitions of these terms are, or to articulate them if our sense of the words are kind of gut-level (which was the case for me before this all started.) Do you have a specific definition (or several) you use?

Let's stay away from the issue of how to write PoC so we don't bring that onto center stage in this post...but there are a lot of great posts about that linked by Rydra_Wong, and Avalon's-Willow has some discussions about Avatar casting happening on her blog; strictly not-racism-101 so I am not linking from this post)

[kouredios.livejournal.com]

About a year ago, I was in a workshop with Robin diAngelo, (http://www.robindiangelo.com/about-me/) and did a little bit (http://kouredios.livejournal.com/60295.html) of anti-racism blogging in my tiny circle. (http://kouredios.livejournal.com/75329.html) I'm still dealing with the repercussions of calling my brother on his asshattery there, but that's a further digression, and one I think I should post about soon.

Anyway, one of the things Robin says that really helped me to understand the distinction between privilege and racism is that *everyone* is prejudiced (conditioned in our culture to prefer those who look like ourselves), but that racism is specifically a result of systematic prejudice by the privileged group. She also introduced to me the idea of "white fragility," of which we have seen many examples in this imbroglio. She also talks about letting go of the idea that racism is only intentional and individual, as opposed to systematic and unconscious. I've seen a lot of great posts in the past few weeks that make the same points.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I like how you've phrased this important distinction:

*everyone* is prejudiced (conditioned in our culture to prefer those who look like ourselves), but that racism is specifically a result of systematic prejudice by the privileged group.

(frozen)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think it's almost counter-productive to start talking about whether or not a person *is* racist rather than sticking to describing actions or situations or beliefs as racist, because that seems to lead to people thinking it's something you are deep down in your soul and if you aren't one (which usually translates into anything other than hating every single non-white person all the time just because they are not white) your actions can't be racist.

I have many times heard stories about how somebody called a poc some slur but they just wanted to hurt them and didn't really believe they were inferior because of their race deep down (iow, they aren't a racist) therefore it wasn't racist of them to do that.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I believe there are different phenomena called "racism" which vary in intensity, gravity and broadness. However I do sill call them "racism" as the broadest word for it, even when "racism" can also be used for more pointed definitions; or when other words like "xenophobia" or "ethnocentrism" can work better as the broad concept.

Here via metafandom

[missstewart.livejournal.com]

Interesting poll.

I had a bit of trouble with this because my general method for thinking about racism is to think about what the sexist equivalent would be. But sexism has two words - sexist and misogynist - and racism just has the one.

For the first question, I think "Makes negative/positive assumptions or decisions about people based on race" are the only two descriptors that describe *all* racists... though anybody who does any of the first four things, or the two that start with "deliberately..." would be considered a racist, but they're not broad enough descriptions.

The same is true of the second question - if you flipped the sentences around, they would all be true. (So, the belief that genetic differences produce the inherent superiority of one race over another is always racism, but somebody can be racist without believing that genetic differences produce the inherent superiority of one race over another)

Re: Here via metafandom

[(Anonymous)]

Ah. Maybe we need a word for the milder stuff. Then people wouldn't be outraged when they get accused of it.

Re: Here via metafandom

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Good point! I was just thinking of posting a thing asking for some new words. "Pantsless" seems to be one way of pointing that stuff out, on LJ anyway.

[flourish.livejournal.com]

I said that a racist fulfills one or more of the following conditions:

Hates people of color
Deliberately harms people of color
Makes negative assumptions or decisions about people based on race
Unconsciously manifests or reinforces society's racial prejudices
Deliberately manifests or reinforces society's racial prejudices

I believe that racism = prejudice + power, hence you cannot be a racist if you are a person of color who hates or deliberately harms white people [because by definition you don't have the 'power' part of that equation]. In the same way sexism = prejudice + power, which is why I don't believe that women can be sexist (although they can be prejudiced).

I also believe that almost every person is in some way prejudiced against people of color because of the pernicious messages our racist society sends us. I don't think that whether you benefit from these racial prejudices is the point, because whether or not you benefit from them is not in your control (I don't "unknowingly" benefit from being white, but I can't exactly stop people from looking at me and seeing a white girl and having whatever prejudices they have).

All that said - I think that it's mostly only useful to talk about racist actions, not racist people. I do think that most white people, including myself, are racist. I'm not proud of it and I don't think anyone should be, but I also don't think that people should shy away from the definition. Only by recognizing a problem can anyone ever hope to make it better, even the littlest bit, and it's an ugly problem that deserves to be called by an ugly name.

via metafandom

[bluefall.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I hadn't thought about this before, but it seems I draw a distinct line between "racist" as an adjective and "racist" as a noun. I don't, frex, have a problem with saying "all white people are racist" (though I'd simplify it to "all people are racist," and then complicate it again further by adding that the established power structures of a given society determine in what form that racism manifests, who it hurts, and upon whom the onus of work falls - something basically akin to kouredios' division between prejudice and racism upthread), but I would need someone to be actively hateful before I would say "this person is a racist." An adjective is just a property of something, and can be changed; a noun is a definition. Or, perhaps more usefully - a piece of paper can become soggy without compromising its fundamental papery nature, and can be made un-soggy; water is always water and will always be wet. One ought to be able to call something soggy without the automatic assumption being that it is, itself, water, particularly when water is not a good thing to have or be (I think I just strained this metaphor past the breaking point).

I'm not sure, though, how much of a stumbling block to dialog that lack of obvious linguistic separation between the action and the perpetrator is, in this case. Defensive folks are going to make that connection between what they're doing and what they are regardless - you can tell because this same problem crops up in feminist discourse all the time, where the words are very different, but that never seems to stop anyone from interpreting "this here is sexist" as "you are a misogynist" anyway. Understanding someone else's definition of a word as being different from yours is secondary, I think, to the more fundamental understanding that one can do a bad thing unintentionally and still have done a bad thing, and that that doesn't automatically make one a bad person - I don't don't think it's the language use that makes people believe they're being attacked, but rather a belief that they're being attacked that prevents people from appropriately parsing the language.

Also, the sophist in me wants to know - what do you mean by "attributes," exactly? Courage, savagery, earthiness, and mathematical acumen are attributes, but so are melanin concentrations, hair texture and cheekbone height. Calling one type intrinsic to race strikes me as quite racist; calling the other type intrinsic to race strikes me as the basic starting point for the definition of race itself, making that question a difficult one to answer, for me at least.

Re: via metafandom

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Courage, savagery, earthiness, and mathematical acumen are attributes, but so are melanin concentrations, hair texture and cheekbone height. Calling one type intrinsic to race strikes me as quite racist; calling the other type intrinsic to race strikes me as the basic starting point for the definition of race itself.

Good distinction, but the definition of race itself is another tangle (particularly in America, I suspect?), thanks to the one-drop rule and various other things that I only know about peripherally.

Here's Ben Jealous, head of the NAACP:


And here's G.K. Butterfield, of the Congressional Black Caucus


Anyone want to take a crack at defining "race?" Respectfully, please, and avoiding argument, thanks!

Re: via metafandom

[bluefall.livejournal.com]

Well, I did say "starting point."

cheapskate-edit: It *is* a tangle, and one I'd have to mull for a while before I even thought about starting to comment on, but offhand I'd say it's like defining "bird." You can start with something like "birds fly." Which is basically true and fair to say, even allowing for emus and penguins. Likewise, I think you can start with basic biological racial definitions like facial structure and melanin and average height et cetera, and call that a fair start even acknowledging that the entire group is more complex than that and won't meet all criteria and will have cultural aspects, etc, that aren't accounted for by that initial building block.

Re: via metafandom

[daf9.livejournal.com]

According to the results of the human genome project it is not, or at least should not be, a biological concept. And as there become fewer and fewer truly genetically isolated populations and more racial mixing, it becomes less and less of a biological concept. Which leaves it, I suppose, as a social and cultural construct.

Re: via metafandom

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

Good distinction, but the definition of race itself is another tangle (particularly in America, I suspect?)

I think that it is very very complicated in most colonial and post-colonial societies, actually.

There's a lot of really interesting work being done right now on the social constructions of race and ethnicity in Brazil, for example.

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

Just to explain: I don't think racism needs power or actual social systems to back it up, so I didn't tick these boxes, though of course social systems can be racist and racists in power worsen the consequences of racism.

(frozen)

[marydell.livejournal.com]

Freezing this because it's not exactly a definition, and reactions to racism or discrimination against white people are OT for this post. (I have other posts under the anti-racism tag that are more open to discussion though :)

Off Topic

[cloudscudding.livejournal.com]

Ah. I thought it was on topic because the definitions had a differential in them (which I thought weird, but whatever).

Re: Off Topic

[marydell.livejournal.com]

It's off topic because this post is for sharing definitions of racism--if you think the ones in the poll are weird, by all means provide your own. And note that I didn't delete your post, I just froze it so it wouldn't lead to an ongoing OT discussion/argument, since it included your thoughts about appropriate reactions to racism, which is specifically not what this is about. If you want to say the same things in the form of a definition, that would be cool.

I know it probably seems like I'm being a crazy semantics person, but saying "racism is/includes _____________" is less inflammatory than saying "_____________ is racist." The first one is a definition and the second is a criticism.

[sysrae.livejournal.com]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/2/18/

This seems like a relevant comic contribution. It made me grin, and also think.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

LOL. Also, I think that cartoon will be Joss Whedon's next show.