As I’ve said many times, the key battles in the various culture wars are usually battles over words. Specifically, the meaning of words. 150 years ago, society argued about whether the word “citizen” should include people who weren’t white and male. More recently, people argued about whether the word “marriage” should include people of the same sex. And today, amongst other things, we’re arguing about what the word “racism” even means. In my article, Who Cares If America Is A Racist Country, I wrote about
Steve, "systemic racism" came up in this convo. Have you written about that?
I find the usage of that term to often seem, well, lazy and fuzzy. It's not that there is nothing one might put in that box, but I've never seen the examples justify the degree of centrality and ubiquity ascribed to it, so it often seems like a conveniently formless and mostly invisible bogeyman. It's impossible to assign a magnitude to it, or to measure it, or tell if it's increasing or decreasing. It explains everything by explaining nothing. People will give a definition sometimes, but then use the term in ways inconsistent with that.
Or it's used like Kendi's concept of racism - any different outcome can only be explained by discrimination and (systemic) racism, because to admit that not all people make the same use of a given opportunity would be to offend the gods of strict egalitarianism. It's "the system's" fault!
But if you have found more meaning to the term, I would listen. Or if you have your own deconstruction it would be interesting to compare.
One very effective way to close the racial wealth gap would be more good union jobs. Unionized black workers earn 16.4% than non-unionized black workers, unionized Latinos 40% more! I'm amazed how little attention gets paid to labor policy by anti-racist activists and thinkers. Not knowing them or what motivates them, I can't assume they're "grifters" but I do have some very different political priorities than they do.
More good points. I agree with almost all of them.
As a side point, you might want to revise your first examples, tho. The US Constitution uses citizen many times, but did not give all citizens the right to vote, a separate thing. Originally voting was restricted to landed white males, but other (white) males - and females - were still citizens. Over the decades, non-landowning white males, Black males, women, and 18 year olds got the right as well. Even minors and felons without voting rights are citizens. So the argument was about which citizens could vote, not about citizenship itself, or the definition of the word.
Also, the fight over gay marriage was not fundamentally about the definition (altho for rhetorical purposes one side sometimes framed it that way, tho the other did not). But the core meaning didn't change when homosexuals got the right. (Now if polyamorous people get marriage rights, THAT would inherently change the meaning in very significant ways; gay marriage had no similar semantic complexities).
I'm not sure if we can find good historical examples, because this tactic of top-down prescriptive redefinitions of words seems like a more recent one, perhaps inspired by post-modernism. But perhaps someone else can find good examples from history.
All of the other stuff about word definitions seems on target. I loved your excerpt from Kendi and our tautological taunt.
I don't intend to argue the definition of words like racism, prejudice, etc. with this. My root focus is on the idea that none of these things can exist without negative or positive views of whole groups as if they are monoliths. There are writers on Medium who write a new negative "white people", "whiteness" article every day. What word(s) could properly be assigned to them?
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
This is an often-used standard which often seems reasonable as a test for many things, including racism. The problem lies in the fact that people tend to see what they are looking for thru the filters of their biases.
I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use them with our verbal adversaries and not let them misuse the words when they're talking to *us*. "No, what you're talking about is *prejudice*, not racism. There's a difference." We don't have to let them set or play by the rules; we create our own and stick to them ourselves. This is the same sort of crap you get with the woman/transwoman debate or in feminism, what constitutes sexual assault or rape. And silence isn't violence, and if you think so you don't know what violence is. But it is *complicity* in violence and that's a critically important moral crime and distinction. I won't lump in the 'good little German' civilians in with the Nazis who committed the actual violence against others, but I will hold them accountable for letting it happen, just as I'm now holding Americans accountable for the state of the country.
Re BLM & the missing funds: My ex-partner was a reporter and journalist who'd once done an investigative story on charities and non-profits, and he found a high percentage of fraud and sticky fingers in the industry, like around 50%. He said you have to be very careful about charities as you never know where the money is actually going. Sure, there are administrative costs & salaries to pay, but when the money rolls in good charities, good people can suddenly be tempted and then justify to themselves why they're doing what they're doing. this is what happened to Christian televangelists who famously live pretty high off the hog on the donations and 'love offerings' or whatever that roll in from gullible viewers. I interned at a Christian TV station for two summers in college and I saw how this worked and I was appalled. I can't say they were misusing the funds but one guy was definitely feeding people horse shit to get them to send more money, and I'd see the cheques come in where the people were saying, "I'm an old lady on a limited income but I can give you this one or two dollars." Or "I can't give much because my medication is very expensive but here's a dollar or two."
Before you give to any non-profit or charity, look at their financials. If they're not transparent, they don't get my money. Make sure your money is really going toward helping the people you want to help, and not lining the pockets of the senior managers. Not surprised that BLM has become as corrupted by The Cause as so many others have.
Racism is overt and easily identified; prejudice is more insidious and harder to recognize. The security guard example is something I've experienced myself.
I have taken to using racism generically to include anti-S. We Jews are NOT a race as we include all the standard races. I include Gays and that gaggle of Letters and even anti religious bias like anti-Catholic. When I use racism this way in an article, I note my usage. The behavior of dislike, hatred, prejudice, and ignorance is essentially the same when some one is disliked on the basis of the group to which he/she belongs. Hence, I use racism generically
Oh yes, our problem is NOT racism. It is Predation. If we were not a predatory society, we would not think of harming someone because he/she was from a different group . We would not think of harming others period! BLM despite its name focused on ending predatory behavior against everyone, not just Blacks. That really pissed of Pelosi.
Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that building. I still believe this is true in a narrow sense.
But there is a second vantage on this issue. What is the effect on the VP? Particularly if it is a dramatic and systemic assumption made by EVERYONE in that location. It could be big.
So for me, this was a big mind shift. I don't need to deny the statistical reality here, nor do I need to in accurately accuse the speaker of a bias they do not have, and I can still register the very real harm that can nonetheless happen as a consequence.
Knowing this, now requires contentious people to take into account those kinds of effects and to put extra filters on their speech, and even thoughts as much as they are able. Not because they are secretly racist or even biased. Nope, simply because there is high propensity for those kinds of STATISTICALLY VALID assumptions to cause damage even as they remain valid.
I am not a fan of vilifying the speaker.. some acknowledgment of actual statistical realities should be made. At the same time, saying well this accurate should not be accepted as a defense either. We know what can cause harm, and as a member of civil society it is our duty to avoid it.
You don't say ``Hey fatso. can you come here?'' even if it is an accurate descriptor.
So that is the mind-shift for myself and for all others that could be in a position to speak in this way.
my thought for those who are spoken TO in this way is not such a popular one: It is to recognize that even when such words are said, if there is a clear statistical reality, we cannot know this person is biased, nor has ill intent. We do know they are insensitive, but we should leave it at that. Why? Because knowing that someone is good natured and bears us no ill will, but is rough and insensitive, is very different than knowing they mean you harm, or actively dislike you even after they find out the error in their assumption. Both things could be true of course, but society runs better, and we achieve more, when we assume the best interpretation when there is a real choice.
(I have the sense that maybe you already see things in the way I have frame this... somehow I decided to write it anyway ;-) )
Excellent conversation - especially after that last one that went nowhere! Nice to see an example of a good faith discussion.
M: "I do think that some people behave as if they are trying to use accusations of racism to keep white people continually off balance."
Sadly, true in my experience. I have a couple friends who are my page, one white & one POC, and we try to check each other on this - usually by shamefacedly bringing up what we did and then being willing to accept criticism (and, well, mockery) from each other. That checking of ourselves is bracing & refreshing. For the white friend, she's come clean about how she's brought up the phrase "white supremacist behavior" to shut down an irritating colleague. For my POC friend, he's also used that confounded "white supremacist" phrase to shut down disagreement from someone who annoyed him. (And he's guiltily brought up his use of the word "Latinx" because everyone else in the room was doing it. None who were actually Latin - which he is!) For me (also a POC), it was saying something like "that's very Karen of you" to someone who seemed to be trying to shut down what I was saying. I've also used the intent vs. impact line of reasoning to check someone (ugh). In all of those instances, we knew what we were doing was questionable because we each had that weird gut feeling of "this isn't how I usually talk."
For people who are familiar with the soft points of woke folk, their tendency towards group-think, and their fear of being seen as "problematic," the temptation can be almost irresistible to ether passively conform or to aggressively use their language against them.
But of course we shouldn't be doing either. I'm lucky in that I have friends who check me if I'm being hypocritical and who I can also check.
I highly recommend this article, it really opened my eyes about how to look at the often-misused word Racism and how to stop being a lazy thinker when it comes to even thinking about racism:
LOL, I keep editing this comment! But I forgot to mention how much I loved you ending on equality versus equity. That's such a big topic. And I think that equity is another one of those words & ideas that is, as the woke enjoy saying, "problematic." The idea that equity is somehow replacing equality is wild to me. And by "wild" I mean frustrating & depressing & infuriating.
Steve, "systemic racism" came up in this convo. Have you written about that?
I find the usage of that term to often seem, well, lazy and fuzzy. It's not that there is nothing one might put in that box, but I've never seen the examples justify the degree of centrality and ubiquity ascribed to it, so it often seems like a conveniently formless and mostly invisible bogeyman. It's impossible to assign a magnitude to it, or to measure it, or tell if it's increasing or decreasing. It explains everything by explaining nothing. People will give a definition sometimes, but then use the term in ways inconsistent with that.
Or it's used like Kendi's concept of racism - any different outcome can only be explained by discrimination and (systemic) racism, because to admit that not all people make the same use of a given opportunity would be to offend the gods of strict egalitarianism. It's "the system's" fault!
But if you have found more meaning to the term, I would listen. Or if you have your own deconstruction it would be interesting to compare.
One very effective way to close the racial wealth gap would be more good union jobs. Unionized black workers earn 16.4% than non-unionized black workers, unionized Latinos 40% more! I'm amazed how little attention gets paid to labor policy by anti-racist activists and thinkers. Not knowing them or what motivates them, I can't assume they're "grifters" but I do have some very different political priorities than they do.
More good points. I agree with almost all of them.
As a side point, you might want to revise your first examples, tho. The US Constitution uses citizen many times, but did not give all citizens the right to vote, a separate thing. Originally voting was restricted to landed white males, but other (white) males - and females - were still citizens. Over the decades, non-landowning white males, Black males, women, and 18 year olds got the right as well. Even minors and felons without voting rights are citizens. So the argument was about which citizens could vote, not about citizenship itself, or the definition of the word.
Also, the fight over gay marriage was not fundamentally about the definition (altho for rhetorical purposes one side sometimes framed it that way, tho the other did not). But the core meaning didn't change when homosexuals got the right. (Now if polyamorous people get marriage rights, THAT would inherently change the meaning in very significant ways; gay marriage had no similar semantic complexities).
I'm not sure if we can find good historical examples, because this tactic of top-down prescriptive redefinitions of words seems like a more recent one, perhaps inspired by post-modernism. But perhaps someone else can find good examples from history.
All of the other stuff about word definitions seems on target. I loved your excerpt from Kendi and our tautological taunt.
I don't intend to argue the definition of words like racism, prejudice, etc. with this. My root focus is on the idea that none of these things can exist without negative or positive views of whole groups as if they are monoliths. There are writers on Medium who write a new negative "white people", "whiteness" article every day. What word(s) could properly be assigned to them?
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
This is an often-used standard which often seems reasonable as a test for many things, including racism. The problem lies in the fact that people tend to see what they are looking for thru the filters of their biases.
I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use them with our verbal adversaries and not let them misuse the words when they're talking to *us*. "No, what you're talking about is *prejudice*, not racism. There's a difference." We don't have to let them set or play by the rules; we create our own and stick to them ourselves. This is the same sort of crap you get with the woman/transwoman debate or in feminism, what constitutes sexual assault or rape. And silence isn't violence, and if you think so you don't know what violence is. But it is *complicity* in violence and that's a critically important moral crime and distinction. I won't lump in the 'good little German' civilians in with the Nazis who committed the actual violence against others, but I will hold them accountable for letting it happen, just as I'm now holding Americans accountable for the state of the country.
Re BLM & the missing funds: My ex-partner was a reporter and journalist who'd once done an investigative story on charities and non-profits, and he found a high percentage of fraud and sticky fingers in the industry, like around 50%. He said you have to be very careful about charities as you never know where the money is actually going. Sure, there are administrative costs & salaries to pay, but when the money rolls in good charities, good people can suddenly be tempted and then justify to themselves why they're doing what they're doing. this is what happened to Christian televangelists who famously live pretty high off the hog on the donations and 'love offerings' or whatever that roll in from gullible viewers. I interned at a Christian TV station for two summers in college and I saw how this worked and I was appalled. I can't say they were misusing the funds but one guy was definitely feeding people horse shit to get them to send more money, and I'd see the cheques come in where the people were saying, "I'm an old lady on a limited income but I can give you this one or two dollars." Or "I can't give much because my medication is very expensive but here's a dollar or two."
Before you give to any non-profit or charity, look at their financials. If they're not transparent, they don't get my money. Make sure your money is really going toward helping the people you want to help, and not lining the pockets of the senior managers. Not surprised that BLM has become as corrupted by The Cause as so many others have.
Racism is overt and easily identified; prejudice is more insidious and harder to recognize. The security guard example is something I've experienced myself.
I have taken to using racism generically to include anti-S. We Jews are NOT a race as we include all the standard races. I include Gays and that gaggle of Letters and even anti religious bias like anti-Catholic. When I use racism this way in an article, I note my usage. The behavior of dislike, hatred, prejudice, and ignorance is essentially the same when some one is disliked on the basis of the group to which he/she belongs. Hence, I use racism generically
Oh yes, our problem is NOT racism. It is Predation. If we were not a predatory society, we would not think of harming someone because he/she was from a different group . We would not think of harming others period! BLM despite its name focused on ending predatory behavior against everyone, not just Blacks. That really pissed of Pelosi.
Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that building. I still believe this is true in a narrow sense.
But there is a second vantage on this issue. What is the effect on the VP? Particularly if it is a dramatic and systemic assumption made by EVERYONE in that location. It could be big.
So for me, this was a big mind shift. I don't need to deny the statistical reality here, nor do I need to in accurately accuse the speaker of a bias they do not have, and I can still register the very real harm that can nonetheless happen as a consequence.
Knowing this, now requires contentious people to take into account those kinds of effects and to put extra filters on their speech, and even thoughts as much as they are able. Not because they are secretly racist or even biased. Nope, simply because there is high propensity for those kinds of STATISTICALLY VALID assumptions to cause damage even as they remain valid.
I am not a fan of vilifying the speaker.. some acknowledgment of actual statistical realities should be made. At the same time, saying well this accurate should not be accepted as a defense either. We know what can cause harm, and as a member of civil society it is our duty to avoid it.
You don't say ``Hey fatso. can you come here?'' even if it is an accurate descriptor.
So that is the mind-shift for myself and for all others that could be in a position to speak in this way.
my thought for those who are spoken TO in this way is not such a popular one: It is to recognize that even when such words are said, if there is a clear statistical reality, we cannot know this person is biased, nor has ill intent. We do know they are insensitive, but we should leave it at that. Why? Because knowing that someone is good natured and bears us no ill will, but is rough and insensitive, is very different than knowing they mean you harm, or actively dislike you even after they find out the error in their assumption. Both things could be true of course, but society runs better, and we achieve more, when we assume the best interpretation when there is a real choice.
(I have the sense that maybe you already see things in the way I have frame this... somehow I decided to write it anyway ;-) )
Excellent conversation - especially after that last one that went nowhere! Nice to see an example of a good faith discussion.
M: "I do think that some people behave as if they are trying to use accusations of racism to keep white people continually off balance."
Sadly, true in my experience. I have a couple friends who are my page, one white & one POC, and we try to check each other on this - usually by shamefacedly bringing up what we did and then being willing to accept criticism (and, well, mockery) from each other. That checking of ourselves is bracing & refreshing. For the white friend, she's come clean about how she's brought up the phrase "white supremacist behavior" to shut down an irritating colleague. For my POC friend, he's also used that confounded "white supremacist" phrase to shut down disagreement from someone who annoyed him. (And he's guiltily brought up his use of the word "Latinx" because everyone else in the room was doing it. None who were actually Latin - which he is!) For me (also a POC), it was saying something like "that's very Karen of you" to someone who seemed to be trying to shut down what I was saying. I've also used the intent vs. impact line of reasoning to check someone (ugh). In all of those instances, we knew what we were doing was questionable because we each had that weird gut feeling of "this isn't how I usually talk."
For people who are familiar with the soft points of woke folk, their tendency towards group-think, and their fear of being seen as "problematic," the temptation can be almost irresistible to ether passively conform or to aggressively use their language against them.
But of course we shouldn't be doing either. I'm lucky in that I have friends who check me if I'm being hypocritical and who I can also check.
I highly recommend this article, it really opened my eyes about how to look at the often-misused word Racism and how to stop being a lazy thinker when it comes to even thinking about racism:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
LOL, I keep editing this comment! But I forgot to mention how much I loved you ending on equality versus equity. That's such a big topic. And I think that equity is another one of those words & ideas that is, as the woke enjoy saying, "problematic." The idea that equity is somehow replacing equality is wild to me. And by "wild" I mean frustrating & depressing & infuriating.