BBC Expert: Strikers Should Be Executed In Front Of Their Families

[protege]

It's not that only white people can be racist. It's that racism is only the result of prejudice plus power, therefore racism is only truly practiced by the prevailing power structure of the area in question. In the USA, that's white people. In other countries, it can be different. Without power, it's not racism, only prejudice.

Bullshit. It's racism...no matter *who* it's against. To believe otherwise, is exactly why it never goes away. Sugar-coating it, like you've done, doesn't make it OK either. It's wrong either way.

See your local Sociology class for details.

What, no link for that?

[FArchivist]

Bullshit. It's racism...no matter *who* it's against. To believe otherwise, is exactly why it never goes away. Sugar-coating it, like you've done, doesn't make it OK either. It's wrong either way.

I quote:

Make sure you understand the definitions of the terms that are going to be used. The first thing you really need to understand is that the definition of racism that you probably have (which is the colloquial definition: "racism is prejudice against someone based on their skin color or ethnicity") is NOT the definition that's commonly used in anti-racist circles.

The definition used in anti-racist circles is the accepted sociological definition (which is commonly used in academic research, and has been used for more than a decade now): "racism is prejudice plus power". What this means, in easy language:

A. Anyone can hold "racial prejudice" -- that is, they can carry positive or negative stereotypes of others based on racial characteristics. For example, a white person thinking all Asians are smart, or all black people are criminals; or a Chinese person thinking Japanese people are untrustworthy; or what-have-you. ANYONE, of any race, can have racial prejudices.

B. People of any race can commit acts of violence, mistreatment, ostracizing, etc., based on their racial prejudices. A black kid can beat up a white kid because he doesn't like white kids. An Indian person can refuse to associate with Asians. Whatever, you get the idea.

C. However, to be racist (rather than simply prejudiced) requires having institutional power. In North America, white people have the institutional power. In large part we head the corporations; we make up the largest proportion of lawmakers and judges; we have the money; we make the decisions. In short, we control the systems that matter. "White" is presented as normal, the default. Because we have institutional power, when we think differently about people based on their race or act on our racial prejudices, we are being racist. Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

D. People of color can be prejudiced, but they cannot be racist, because they don't have the institutional power. (However, some people refer to intra-PoC prejudice as "lateral racism". You may also hear the term "colorism", which refers to lighter-skinned PoC being prejudiced toward darker-skinned PoC.) However, that situation can be different in other countries; for example, a Japanese person in Japan can be racist against others, because the Japanese have the institutional power there. But in North America, Japanese people can't be racist because they don't hold the institutional power.

E. If you're in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it's still not racism, even though you're in a PoC-dominated area. The fact is, even though they're the majority population in that area, they still lack the institutional power. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated police force for that area. They don't have their own special PoC-dominated courts in that area. The state/province and national media are still not dominated by PoC. Even though they have a large population in that particular area, they still lack the institutional power overall.

F. So that's the definition of racism that you're likely to encounter. If you start talking about "reverse racism" you're going to either get insulted or laughed at, because it isn't possible under that definition; PoC don't have the power in North America, so by definition, they can't be racist. Crying "reverse racism!" is like waving a Clueless White Person Badge around.

G. If you go into an anti-racist discussion and start trying to claim the colloquial definition that "racism is simply viewing or treating others differently based on race", you're going to get a negative reaction. Stick to "racism = prejudice + power". Anti-racists aren't going to take it well if you wander in halfway through the debate and start trying to make them abide by your definition rather than the commonly accepted "prejudice + power". Imagine if everyone in a classroom was chatting about a particular subject and then someone walked in and said, "No! You're all doing it wrong! The REAL definition is ABC and I don't care that all the rest of you think it's XYZ!" -- do you think that would go over well? Of course it wouldn't; the newcomer would be considered rude. (Also, making an appeal to Dictionary.com is not going to work. Pointing out that the colloquial definition is how Webster's Dictionary defines racism is not going to make anti-racists suddenly say, "Wow, you know what? You're right! I never realized it, but now that Webster's has backed you up, I see that you're totally right and racism really is just judging people based on their skin color!" Actually, they may say that, but they'd be saying it sarcastically.)

I recommend the rest of the entry as a very good Racism 101 for someone interested in social justice.

What, no link for that?

Not one that doesn't involve enrollment into an online university, which costs money.

[HYHYBT]

Traditional slave foods. Used time out of mind to characterize African-Americans as subhuman and stupid; see minstrel shows and blackface, as well as elements like "Little Black Sambo". There are those who like to claim to be unaware of the racial connotations.

"Slave food" makes sense, I suppose… though why people nowadays would be expected to know what slaves ate… well. As for subhuman and stupid, I can certainly see your other examples as qualifying, but putting it all together it sounds very much like calling anyone who enjoys certain tasty foods is subhuman and stupid.

Guessing as to who might be offended is circumventing what actually should be done: *questioning why something is funny in the first place*. This consideration takes a lot more effort, and can be unpleasant.

True. It can also, however, be unpleasant to hear some know-it-all insist that a joke depends on X to be funny, when for you that's not where the humor lies. And then they insist you're wrong (or else lying) about what you yourself find funny about it. For example: there's an old tale about an incident that supposedly happened on Password. On a password such as "deer" or "buck" or some such, the giver said "doe." The recipient heard it as "door" and guessed "knob." Now, to me, that's funny because such an ordinarily insignificant change of pronunciation, one neither would likely even notice in other circumstances ("door" and "doe" being ideas rarely possible to confuse in context), led to such a wildly wrong answer. Why someone would hear "doe" as "door," whether racial, educational, whatever, does not enter into it. But no, I'm told I'm wrong that that's what I find funny, and instead what I'm laughing at is that the stupid, uneducated, Black person doesn't speak proper English. Never mind that I know white people who pronounce "door" the same way, or that when hearing the tale I hadn't pictured the players as any particular race. Apparently someone else's theory of humor overrides what is actually in my head.

In *this* case, in context, "oh, we absolutely *have* to have a contrary opinion? OK, here's an absurd one," to me, works beautifully. And to me, that's the limit of it, if all is as represented by the transcript posted in this thread. The humor does *not* rely on it being funny to kill people, etc. The humor relies on that being so obviously an absurd position to take.

Actually, for the BBC that's quite a few, and probably the majority of them Daily Mail readers reading a selective account the day after.

About the Daily Mail… I think I've read a couple articles in that, here and there, lately. It seems, from that limited sample, that the actual articles are reasonably fair, but that the audience (judging by comments and, especially, voting on the comments) is much further to one side. Is that about right? And of course that ignores the selection of what to write an article about in the first place, which I'd have to do a lot more reading to find out than it's worth.

No, I understand it quite well. What seems to be sailing over everyone else's head is that said completely absurd counter position should not be one that shows an ism of any type, and that usage of ism perpetuates the themes of the ism and continues to reinforce the kyriarchy, preventing furtherance of social justice.

If anything, it's the opposite: treating the ism as so blatantly absurd ought, logically, to weaken it.

All isms are interconnected and, while differing from each other, indivisible. See intersectionality.
Popular media and politics are inseparable. In fact, everything is politics, as everything is a result of political process of one sort of another.

Everything is inseparable, we're all vile scum, no jokes of any kind are allowed. Got it. It's nonsense when taken as far as you do, but got it nonetheless.

If you're in an area of your city/state/province that is predominantly populated by PoC and, as a white person, you get harassed because of your skin color, it's still not racism, even though you're in a PoC-dominated area.

That it doesn't qualify, under a sociological definition, as racism does not make it less wrong.

[protege]

That it doesn't qualify, under a sociological definition, as racism does not make it less wrong.

That's the point I was trying to make. Why is it OK for them to call me a honky or a cracker...but not OK for me to call them the N word? Racial slurs are wrong, no matter *whom* they're thrown at.

[siead_lietrathua]

for the following, note this is not a personal attack to anyone, i'm using the generic form of "you", as i see this all the damn time elsewhere too.
also, pardon my more than usual use of profanity, but....

this thread is a perfect example of sticks up asses.
it's getting in a damn uproar over nothingness like this that's wrecking things in this world.
that's what it is. nothingness.
it's irrelevant.
its pointless.
it's a waste of time for those that actually WANT to change the world.
there are bigger battles for all the "isms" in the world than going after those that shine a light on the stupidity by parodying it. by mocking it.
if every person that can waste their time bitching about a comedian actually went and did something for their community it would be alot more productive.
better yet, get rid of the internet and go donate the money you would spend on that bill to a food bank. help the people in lower classes get ahead in life and stop annoying everyone else with your self-entitled egoism on the wrong of society.

[Kheldarson]

You know, this is completely appropriate here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHKIMOgoJoU

Maybe it'll help us get along.

[KabeRinnaul]

Okay, I'm really wondering now. Is this a cult thing? Is there a Church of White Guilt that I've never heard about?

I mean seriously, this Social Justice Theory idea seems to be proposing that because a person is white, they are in an unjust and inherently racist position of privilege, and as such must atone for their whiteness by campaigning for social justice.

This may have just out-guilted Catholics, and that is an accomplishment.

And yes, Kheldarson hit me for that one, but then conceded the point.

And if the context doesn't count, and a message must be evaluated regardless of intent, then Jonathan Swift must be the most horrible classist monster in history.

But let me switch political positions here and re-write this scenario for an American audience.

Let's say some celebrity goes onto a Fox News show. Somebody who's not known as a political pundit - a musician or something. Discussion shifts to gay marriage. And the celebrity in question says to the Fox News people, "You guys are supposed to be fair and balanced, and it looks like you're got the conservative side pretty well covered. But in the interests of keeping everything totally fair, I think we ought to ban religion, forcibly divorce all straight couples, and outlaw non-gay marriage."

Is this person honestly campaigning for the destruction of marriage, or just being a jackass and mocking Fox's tagline?

But wait, let me guess - it's not bigoted because we live in a predominately Christian and heteronormal culture!

[Rapscallion]

About the Daily Mail… I think I've read a couple articles in that, here and there, lately. It seems, from that limited sample, that the actual articles are reasonably fair, but that the audience (judging by comments and, especially, voting on the comments) is much further to one side. Is that about right? And of course that ignores the selection of what to write an article about in the first place, which I'd have to do a lot more reading to find out than it's worth.

Sort of. The reporting isn't bad if you can avoid the fairly obvious political bias - they are fairly selective at times. My parents read the Mail, and my mother is fairly intelligents, but my father yesterday was proclaiming that anyone on the dole doesn't want to work.

Generally speaking, the Mail loves headlines about house prices, carcinogens, and immigration.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

And if the context doesn't count, and a message must be evaluated regardless of intent, then Jonathan Swift must be the most horrible classist monster in history.

I was about to say... Satire can be a strong force. I don't want to ban satire, but by saying that what Clarkson said can't be said, that's saying that satire isn't appropriate when it comes from people in power.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sort of. The reporting isn't bad if you can avoid the fairly obvious political bias - they are fairly selective at times. My parents read the Mail, and my mother is fairly intelligents, but my father yesterday was proclaiming that anyone on the dole doesn't want to work.

Generally speaking, the Mail loves headlines about house prices, carcinogens, and immigration.

Rapscallion

http://images.wikia.com/beepedia/fi/..._dailymail.gif ?

For the record, my parents read the Mail and are intelligent enough not to take everything they read as fact. It seems a bit silly to label people according to what paper they read. For example, I read the Star cuz it's cheap and if I want to read proper news, I go online. Reading the Star doesn't make me an ignoramus.

Re this thread; what I find the most hilarious is the fact that the article calls Jeremy Clarkson "a BBC Expert".

[HYHYBT]

Well... he apparently works for the BBC, and everybody's an expert on something. It doesn't say his expertise is in anything relevant

[ParkingWitch]

And if the context doesn't count, and a message must be evaluated regardless of intent, then Jonathan Swift must be the most horrible classist monster in history.

Thank You , I was trying to remember the author and title for this piece.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Well, some people would say that cars are relevant. XD