Does Racial (or Ethnic) Discrimination Equal Racism?
Racism is the trendy charge these days. I believe it is over-used and frequently misapplied.
I know that racism applies to race and not ethnicity, but that hasn't stopped many from applying the racism charge, so I include it here also.
Many of the accusations I see should have been accusations of discrimination, not racism - because I think that for discrimination to be racism requires the discrimination to have the motivation of a "superiority" impetus.
Here is an example that I think may illustrate my concept; Those Businessman Trump's businesses that were sued, (and settled), for discrimination. I believe discrimination was the charge, so I will offer it as an example. Does that discrimination equate to racism?
What say you?
GAGood question. I'd have to answer "no". Not because a suit does not indicate guilt, but because racism does require that "superiority" you mention.
I'd also have to say that the meaning is changing - that "racism" today is coming to mean any discrimination, any naughty language based on race, any grouping based on race, etc. It isn't accurate, but it gives the speaker a chance to degrade and is thus quite popular.Hi Wilderness, it is probably unnecessary, but I probably should forewarn you it is a martini nigh.
My perception is that we don't have a lot of exchanges because choir sessions aren't why we participate here. But, to keep things rolling, I will use your response to expand my point.
Obviously I agree, the charge of racism is being grossly over used. From the "statues" discussions, to the Sheriff thread, to the Trump real estate discrimination charges, racism has been the charge de' jour, and I don't agree.
To the statues issue, it seems so obvious to me that there are other perspectives that don't involve racism - even though I can readily admit that there are racist perspectives of support, but that thought has fallen on deaf ears. For the Sheriff, that isn't racism - as mentioned racism doesn't involve ethnicity, but again, the charge is made. And for the Trump charge, I can see that as discrimination that could easily be an economic motive - not a "superiority" motivated choice - so no racism involved. But, yes, again, racism is the declared motive.
My observation is that rational considerations are taking a backseat to ideological rants here, (in these forums), and I do miss some of the voices we used to regularly see.
GA"My observation is that rational considerations are taking a backseat to ideological rants here..."
You said it better than I did - the term "racist" or "racism" has lost it's meaning and is used simply as a rant any more. Playing the race card is now playing the racism card, and for about the same reason.
The words discrimination and racism can be interchanged; by modern word usage. Trying to get caught up in semantics won't help the debate. Other than the definition you are referring to we can look toward 'discrimination or prejudice based on race' as an acceptable definition. Although I question exactly how often, in modern America, either term can be shown to be true in corporate or governmental policy; I don't fault anyone for using the broader definition.
You have certainly given me pause for thought Live to Learn.
I think I have to agree with your point about the words "modern usage" meanings - discrimination does now equal racism in most minds , but I am still pondering whether I can agree that that is the right perspective.
Initially I am thinking that reasons for economic discrimination, (which could be the discrimination in the Trump businesses example), may not necessarily be racist - in the derogatory actions sense of the word, (as I see it). But, an example given for what is being defined as institutional racism - higher auto insurance rates for Blacks, (economic discrimination based on statistics) - is forcing me to secure my footing, or change positions. I'm working on it. The statistical basis for this discrimination is a part of my unwillingness to accept economic discrimination as racism - at this point.
So... even if I can understand that modern usage has equated the terms, I am not to a point that I can agree that is right. Racism has such terrible connotations that I don't think the "superiority" aspect of the word's definition can so easily be discarded.
And that is why I think the charge of racism is being overly and incorrectly made in today's conversations.
GALet me say that I agree with you. But, I have to accept and to some extent, embrace the understanding that others have when they use this word. To ignore it will make discourse difficult, at best. Discrimination cannot be fairly discussed if we are arguing over terminology. To argue can easily be perceived as an attempt to sidestep the issue. To minimize the feelings of others who are(or in jeopardy of) being victims of discrimination.
I don't believe you do have to accept it Live to Learn. Understand it yes, that facilitates a discussion, but I think to accept it is a pollution of the meaning - which doesn't help the discussion at all..
I also don't think ignoring it is right either - then the discussion isn't a truthful one, and there is no profit in that. I think this "modern usage" concept should be pushed until it at least acknowledges a difference in meaning, rather to insist the new meaning is the correct one.
I am having a tough time accepting discrimination without malice as equating with racism.
GAIs it "racist" or demonstrating "racism" to:
acknowledge that most illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic?
acknowledge that most criminals in black neighborhoods are black?
acknowledge that sickle cell anemia is far more prevalent in blacks?
acknowledge that most gang members in Chinatown are Asian?
acknowledge that most white collar criminals are Caucasian?
acknowledge that most Caucasians carry Neanderthal genes, more so than other races?
Acknowledge that the average Asian is smaller than the average Caucasian?
"Racism" carries a decided negative connotation, yet all of these are discussions of traits either or both related to race, location or culture, and not one should have that negativity about it. Perhaps we all need to deny that "racism" applies any time race (or ethnicity) is a factor and leave it where it was - an indication of a unwarranted feeling of superiority.Is it "racist" or demonstrating "racism" to:
acknowledge that most illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic?
No, but all Hispanics in Arizona are not illegal aliens and should not be approached in a way as if they are solely because of this ethnic background. Now, that is the issue here….
----------------------------------
acknowledge that most criminals in black neighborhoods are black?
No, but not all black people even in black neighborhoods are criminals and should not be treated as such solely because they are black.
--------------------------------------------------
acknowledge that sickle cell anemia is far more prevalent in blacks?
No, But all blacks do not have sickle cell anemia, so don’t presume that one you meet on the street does…
--------------------------------------------
acknowledge that most gang members in Chinatown are Asian?
No, see similar comment in regards to criminals in black communities
---------------------------------------
acknowledge that most white collar criminals are Caucasian?
But, again not all Caucasians are white collar criminals and should not be treated and suspected as such without compelling evidence beyond merely the fact that they are Caucasian. Do you see where I am going here?
-----------------------------
acknowledge that most Caucasians carry Neanderthal genes, more so than other races?
Has that been proven as scientific fact by the preponderance of anthropologists? If so, ok.
------------------------
Acknowledge that the average Asian is smaller than the average Caucasian?
That is established by scientific fact and observation, ok. But every Asian is not smaller than every Caucasian.
--------
There is negative connotation when they are used as stereotypes to blanket individuals within the group as being part of your subset. Outside some of your declarations that are supported by provable scientific research and observation, to not treat people as individuals even as part of a larger group is stereotypical and what I consider racist."No, but all Hispanics in Arizona are not illegal aliens and should not be approached in a way as if they are solely because of this ethnic background. Now, that is the issue here"
Sounds like you're saying that for every Hispanic checked we should also check a caucasian, an Asian and an Amerindian. Yes? If not, what is the gripe that most citizenship checks are on Hispanics?
"No, but not all black people even in black neighborhoods are criminals and should not be treated as such solely because they are black. "
See above
At the end of it, ALL of these things are "scientific", observed facts. The problem arises when any time a Hispanic is stopped in Arizona, or a black in a black neighborhood, etc. it is immediately "racist" because they are the ones most stopped. Reality check; they are most checked because of those scientific, observed facts, not for racist reasons. If you checked every caucasian in Arizona for citizenship you wouldn't find more than a few dozen illegals. Check 1/10th of the Hispanics, though, and you will find thousands. And that, too, is reality; a reality that says it is a tremendous waste of time and resources to "balance" things out - to pretend that it is racist to acknowledge a scientific, observed fact - a waste that we cannot afford.Sounds like you're saying that for every Hispanic checked we should also check a caucasian, an Asian and an Amerindian. Yes? If not, what is the gripe that most citizenship checks are on Hispanics?
You’re not getting it that is not what I am saying. Yes, in Arizona it is more than likely that illegal aliens are Hispanic. But just being Hispanic is not an admission of guilt. If I lived in Arizona as a Hispanic, you had better have more than the fact that I am Hispanic to justify my being hassled by INS as an illegal. It has nothing to do with other groups, within my group as Hispanic (example) you had better be prepared to fine tune your accusation with better and more compelling evidence supporting the arrest or accosting, or I will see you in court.
Let me reiterate for emphasis, I would get pretty Poed as a Hispanic, if I were stopped and detained for suspicion of being illegal solely on the basis that I am identified as Hispanic. Law enforcement must do better. And that is precisely why Arapio managed to get into so much trouble.
----------------------------------------------
"No, but not all black people even in black neighborhoods are criminals and should not be treated as such solely because they are black. "
See above
Ditto, see above
-----------------------------------------------
At the end of it, ALL of these things are "scientific", observed facts. The problem arises when any time a Hispanic is stopped in Arizona, or a black in a black neighborhood, etc. it is immediately "racist" because they are the ones most stopped.
It is RACIST when any member of either of these group are stopped SOLELY on the basis of their being either Black or Hispanic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality check; they are most checked because of those scientific, observed facts, not for racist reasons. If you checked every caucasian in Arizona for citizenship you wouldn't find more than a few dozen illegals. Check 1/10th of the Hispanics, though, and you will find thousands. And that, too, is reality; a reality that says it is a tremendous waste of time and resources to "balance" things out - to pretend that it is racist to acknowledge a scientific, observed fact - a waste that we cannot afford.
As for why most are checked, I am not so confident that bias does not play a role in the checks. Arapio was not slapped down for nothing. It is RACIST to treat any and all Hispanic people in the state of Arizona as potential criminals just because they have a Hispanic surname, can we agree upon that? Arizona must easily have 1 million Hispanic residents, most of them United States Citizens. Why should they accommodate their rights and privileges to pursue illegal aliens just because they look like illegals only from the standpoint of race and ethnicity? As for me, yes, you (law enforcement and the legal system) are going to be forced to take the long road in your investigations before I compromise my rights as an American citizen, otherwise the litigation that will ensue will virtually bankrupt the offending municipalities and counties." It is RACIST to treat any and all Hispanic people in the state of Arizona as potential criminals just because they have a Hispanic surname, ..."
No, no, and no. Cred, first and foremost, racism does not apply to ethnicity or nationalities. Secondly, your previous comments seem to say that you view your described acts as discrimination. Why do you insist on twisting things to meet your perspective?
The act may be wrong. It may be dastardly. And it may be discriminatory as hell. But it is not racism!
That is the point of the OP. Folks that make statements such as yours are declaring their distortion to be the fact. When the real fact is that it is just your distortion.
This has nothing to do with defending or criticizing the act of discrimination, it is just insisting that you stop declaring one thing to be something it isn't.
If Kathryn popped in, she might offer you definitions that would show an overlap in the meanings of racism and discrimination. And I am sure that you would see the one component missing in the discrimination definition is the qualifying component of racism - "...the belief that one's own race is superior."
Can you support the contention that Arizona Hispanics are targeted because the targetors are deeming them an inferior species, rather than just probable lawbreakers?
GA" It is RACIST to treat any and all Hispanic people in the state of Arizona as potential criminals just because they have a Hispanic surname, ..."
No, no, and no. Cred, first and foremost, racism does not apply to ethnicity or nationalities. Secondly, your previous comments seem to say that you view your described acts as discrimination. Why do you insist on twisting things to meet your perspective?
Why does it not apply to ethnicities or nationalities? Is it that anthropological definition again? You are coming across as clear as mud, what am I twisting?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The act may be wrong. It may be dastardly. And it may be discriminatory as hell. But it is not racism!
That is the point of the OP. Folks that make statements such as yours are declaring their distortion to be the fact. When the real fact is that it is just your distortion.
This has nothing to do with defending or criticizing the act of discrimination, it is just insisting that you stop declaring one thing to be something it isn't.
???????????????????????????????? What is your passion about the use of this term, racism? Is it that you are looking for a more benign term to describe the activity without really changing the meaning? Something without the hot button factor while continuing to let the perpetrators off the hook? I don’t let anyone off easily; you should know that by now.
------------------------------------------------------
If Kathryn popped in, she might offer you definitions that would show an overlap in the meanings of racism and discrimination. And I am sure that you would see the one component missing in the discrimination definition is the qualifying component of racism - "...the belief that one's own race is superior."
I have found contrary information from Meriam-Webster, surely, it is a reputable source, see previous posting to you. I tell you in all earnest that your qualifying component, is just the foundation used to support the activities that you otherwise say have no racial connotation. Racism is just a little more subtle today than just being defined as having someone burn a cross on my lawn.
-----------------------------------------------------
Can you support the contention that Arizona Hispanics are targeted because the targetors are deeming them an inferior species, rather than just probable lawbreakers?
Let’s look at this? Why are they considered probable lawbreakers? Is it just because they are Hispanic? All of them? Subjecting a group of people to policies and practices that you would not subject yourselves to has to be based upon the fact that you consider them unworthy of the treatment that you would afford yourselves. That is part and parcel of indentifying an inferior species. We Black folks said the same in the ‘Stop and Frisk’ controversy, also shot down by a good progressive court ruling. The thing that you need to understand as your red slip is showing is that no group should be a probable anything in eyes of the law. So, something here is not equal, what is it? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that is an American homily, does it really mean anything or is it just ‘lip service’?
Even allowing for your premise that all of this is not racism, is what it is that you actually identify it to be any better?
You are coming off as extraterrestrial with this kind of stuff, GA...Hi bud, sorry if my thoughts seem muddy, but your question: "Why does it not apply to ethnicities or nationalities?" seems confusing to me. You have gone so far as to include a Merriam-Webster definition of racism - which clearly states the meaning of the word applies to race, so why do you ask why, if not because you think it should include ethnicity and nationality?
Isn't that the point of this thread... calling something what it isn't because you want it to be what you think it should be rather than what it really is? (whew! I got a little dizzy typing that one)
As for my passion on this topic, it is about the intentional misuse of a negative term to imply fact where there is none. Why not call it racial discrimination? That covers the topic even when the motivator isn't a feeling of superiority. Even my online dictionary references declare racial discrimination to be different from racism.
I think there can be instances of racial discrimination that are not the acts of a racist. So, why misapply the racism label? Even understanding that these types of acts of discrimination are hard to justify, I think it might be possible for a decent person to commit an act of racial or ethnic, or nationality discrimination, with no feeling of superiority involved in even the least of their motives. My definition of a "decent" person does not allow for anyone that acts on racist motivations or purposeful acts of racism. That is why I think the term racism should be used appropriately, not just because you want to.
As for you letting anyone off easily... you are not being asked to. You are just being asked to be accurate in your accusations. How do you justify an act of racial or ethnic discrimination as racism without knowing the motive behind the act.
I think we have discussed the Merriam-Webster confusion, and yes, it is that specific component that both I, and Merriam-Webster deem necessary to apply as racism. Are you now disagreeing with M-W? You have also misconstrued my comments - I did not deny racial connotations as aspects of discrimination. That would be racial discrimination - also another M-W entry.
I agree that racism can be more subtle today, but it still requires more than racial or ethnic, or nationality discrimination to be racism.
I don't think denying that discrimination, racial, ethnic, or nationality, is the same as racism is an other-worldly concept. Unlike your exasperation at repeated efforts to convey one point that you see so clearly, I feel no exasperation on this one. I understand the reasoning - I just think it is wrong. Crimson is still not red, no matter how few degrees of difference you think separates them.
GA
"It is RACIST to treat any and all Hispanic people in the state of Arizona as potential criminals just because they have a Hispanic surname, can we agree upon that?"
No, of course not. Every person in Arizona (or anywhere else, for that matter) is a potential criminal. That is, any person, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex or anything else, could be a criminal.
Our problem is to find which is which; which are criminals (in this case illegal aliens) and which are law abiding citizens. Arizona has strict guidelines on what constitutes suspicion of that crime; that most people meeting those guidelines and thus under suspicion is a matter of fact, not not something to be ignored by pretending that the large majority of illegal aliens aren't Hispanic. You're back to the unenviable position of requiring cops check a Caucasian, an Amerindian and an Asian for each Hispanic checked - an action that will do nothing but leave the large majority of illegals roaming free."It is RACIST to treat any and all Hispanic people in the state of Arizona as potential criminals just because they have a Hispanic surname, can we agree upon that?"
No, of course not. Every person in Arizona (or anywhere else, for that matter) is a potential criminal. That is, any person, regardless of ethnicity, race, sex or anything else, could be a criminal.
Ok, everyone could be a criminal, but is it PROBABLE, as GA mentioned as the reason that Hispanics are being targeted for harassment? If we were looking for white supremacist terrorists and we knew that they were Anglo, could I stop and frisk all Anglos in reaction? The presumption that every and any American is presumed innocent is far more important than your statement about potential criminals.
--------------------------------------------
Our problem is to find which is which; which are criminals (in this case illegal aliens) and which are law abiding citizens. Arizona has strict guidelines on what constitutes suspicion of that crime; that most people meeting those guidelines and thus under suspicion is a matter of fact, not not something to be ignored by pretending that the large majority of illegal aliens aren't Hispanic. You're back to the unenviable position of requiring cops check a Caucasian, an Amerindian and an Asian for each Hispanic checked - an action that will do nothing but leave the large majority of illegals roaming free.
OK, as long as Arizona firmly adheres to the "guidelines" and they damn well better, then all is fine in River City. If you meet the guidelines and they are not race specific but provides compelling support that an criminal activity is taking place, that is ok with me. There is no quota regarding the checking, Wilderness. I don't presume that an Hispanic driving down a street is a potential criminal without an application of any of these guidelines in an arrest or accosting, and the law officer had better be able to identify which one(s) supporting probable cause or reasonable suspicion when asked to justify the reason for the arrest or accosting. As a citizen in such a position, I will surely bring on the heat if the officer makes an improper arrest. So, as I said before Arizona municipalities and counties better be careful, as even Trump cannot save them for he cannot subdue the courts.
One thought comes to mind here. When we have someone commenting on 'white people' is that racist, too? It appears to fit into the parameters of your complaint.
Yes, that is within the parameters, it applies to white folks as well.
As I have learned, Live to learn, sometimes when we have a thought - we should just let it go. At least, speaking for myself, I have found that to be sage advice.
To your thought, I would consider that stereotyping, not racism, but, as to my original point about misuse, I have seen where your stereotyping has also been frequently labeled as racism.
GAI think you missed the point. I am simply attempting to pinpoint Credence's meaning. I like Credence. Don't always agree with him. I've always believed not agreeing usually equates to misunderstanding. That clarification, by him, goes a long way in helping me understand some of the comments he has made during our exchanges.
But, thanks for the attempt to chastise and put forth 'constructive' criticism. Always appreciated. Although an example or two would have been more helpful. But, I assume it was one of your 'martini' nights and the whole thought train might have been a bit fuzzy for you.The feeling is mutual, Live to Learn. You have the right attitude and spirit. Let's continue to challenge and learn from one addressing the "difficult topics", raw and unfiltered. I have always enjoyed the exchange. Regardless of the direction our discussions may go, I will still respect you in the morning.
I am always going to have respect for those with guts to challenge me!Ha! Speaking of being chastised... "martini nights and fuzzy thoughts..."" You nailed me there Live to learn, and I may deserve it, but for other reasons than this misunderstanding.
My "thoughts ... and let them go" comment was an attempt at humor, which obviously failed miserably if you took it as chastisement. Sorry. I should have tacked-on one of those smiley faces. ;-)
I looked back a bit, but couldn't be sure which of Credence2's clarifications you were addressing, but since I almost always disagree with him - that means you are probably wrong too! ;-) [i]'Credence's clarifications' refer to many discussions over many threads.
Edit. That comment about the martinis and fuzziness was an afterthought. It amused me.
Of course is isn't racist to point out the obvious. But, you know how offensive it would be perceived for a woman in a women's bathroom to point out the obvious if a transgender person were to walk in; so we both know that offending some on the left is as easy as refusing to ignore reality.
Of course the term 'racism' is negative. Although it is meant to be, in most cases, it is offensive mostly because of what we (who don't accept it in the context used) equate it with. But, our language has never been one where we can claim changes in usage or meaning of a word is somehow pollution. It has always been fluid. Do you think you could hold a meaningful discussion if you only had one hour to sit down with someone from 200 years ago? I think many common words we use today were probably used for shock effect first; then we became used to them and, with time, they were accepted as being innocuous. I believe Harry Truman once offended a woman by saying there was a lot of manure on a farm. The acceptable way to describe it at the time appeared to be 'fertilizer'. So, maybe using the term racist out of context of what we would agree it should be used should simply be equated to 'fertilizer'.I would agree, but for one thing. The term is always used as a negative, always used to express the idea that what is being done is wrong. That hasn't changed, yet what it refers to (like the list above) is not negative at all. Just factual.
In that regard, then, it is worse than useless; it is being used to give an impression that is false to fact. And in that sense what we have done with the term, the change in meaning, is wrong.Hi Live to learn, Addressing your response about the pollution of a word's meaning, I think your explanation concerning the understanding of word meanings is correct, but I don't think that understanding that someone is saying one thing but really means another is something that should just be accepted.
In other contexts, it would probably be understood as misspeaking - I said horde but I really meant mob - those two words aren't interchangeable either. One could gather the meaning intended, but it still wasn't the right word to use.
The negativity associated with racism makes it a much less innocuous mistake. I don't think this, (discrimination = racism), is a case of language fluidity at all - I think it is an intentional misapplication that should be called out. If it is an innocent misuse, then something will be learned, if it was intentional, then someone will be called too task.
Your first response to this thread did cause me to look at my perspective, and I found it to be as valid as I originally thought it was.
GA
Well, GA, you knew well that such a topic was not going to get past me. The problem was that ‘payback is a b*tch’, and her name was Irma.
I think that this is splitting hairs or an exercise in semantics.
For example, Hispanics are an ethnic group, but distinguishing them solely based on their obviously different physical appearance, surname or self declaration from White/Non Hispanics for adverse outcomes is racism.
We all discriminate in various ways all the time. The question remains, why is the discrimination taking place? There are plenty of legitimate reasons discrimination can apply, but not based on race ethnicity, gender, etc.
Could you elaborate on your example? Discrimination is often the result of racism, while racism is not always the reason one discriminates between individuals.Hi Cred, glad to see you back online.
After previous comments prompted me to take a second look at my opinion, I hold it even more firmly than before. Racism is a specific thing, that requires a specific component - that of superiority. Calling discrimination, whether ethnic or racial, that lacks that component, racism, is a misuse of the term.
No matter how you equate the seriousness of the negative impact of your Hispanic example, to the negativity of racism, it is still not racism. Crimson does not become red just because common reference calls it red.
I would also say that your own explanation concerning the "legitimacy" of some cases of discrimination buttress my point. I think I may be paraphrasing one of Wilderness' examples, but it seems to meet your standard of legitimate discrimination; if 99% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic - why is it discrimination for law enforcement to focus their efforts on the Hispanic population?
I will elaborate on the Trump example I used - hoping that is what you meant, but your closing sentence clearly sums up my position, so an elaboration is probably redundant.
My thought is that it is very probable that the Businessman Trump companies' discrimination against Blacks in the Real Estate market was driven by economic motives rather than the superiority component of racism. I think they could give a hoot about the superiority aspect - it was all dollars and sense to them, and as such, statistics could justify that white tenants were a better financial risk. Or for a more crude reason - their white tenants might object to black neighbors. That might make those white tenants racist, but it would still be an economic motivator for the businesses.
Of course that is just a guess, but I believe it is probably an accurate one. That is why I disagree with the racism charges against businessman Trump. And that lack of the "superiority" component is why I disagree with the trend to declare "racism" at even the faintest sign of any discrimination.
As for the argument of "modern usage," that carries no weight with me. Just because it is trendy, or commonly understood, does not make it right. Crimson is not red, and without specific motive, discrimination is not racism.
GAAfter previous comments prompted me to take a second look at my opinion, I hold it even more firmly than before. Racism is a specific thing, that requires a specific component - that of superiority. Calling discrimination, whether ethnic or racial, that lacks that component, racism, is a misuse of the term.
So GA, you want to take issue with Miriam-Websters? Well, be my guest. But, it is not difficult to see whose definition I am going to give more credibility to.... As I have reiterated time and again, “racism’ has a broader meaning in practice than the narrow one that you want to present us with.
Definition of RACISM
1 :a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a :a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b :a political or social system founded on racism
3 :racial prejudice or discrimination
-------------------------------------
No matter how you equate the seriousness of the negative impact of your Hispanic example, to the negativity of racism, it is still not racism. Crimson does not become red just because common reference calls it red.
Crimson is synonymous with red and if there is a distinction, obviously it does not amount to much. It is not racism because we are not dealing with none of the three classic racial groups? It is not racism because it does not fit your definition, which I said before is wanting as being narrow and incorrect? Do we now call it ethnicism? Seems like 6 of one and half dozen of the other to me....
-----------------------------------------------------
I would also say that your own explanation concerning the "legitimacy" of some cases of discrimination buttress my point. I think I may be paraphrasing one of Wilderness' examples, but it seems to meet your standard of legitimate discrimination; if 99% of illegal immigrants are Hispanic - why is it discrimination for law enforcement to focus their efforts on the Hispanic population?
Why is this concept that I have been trying to explain so difficult? Focusing on the Hispanic population in Arizona as the most probable ethnicity for illegal immigrants is understandable, but putting all Hispanic people in Arizona through some rightwing sieve is no, mangling their civil rights so that you can discard them to focus on the guilty. And let’s be frank, white folks would holler to hell and back if we even suggest submitting any of their group to such an approach. It means that probable cause and reasonable suspicion beyond their merely being Hispanic will apply to any stops or encounter with law enforcement in the search and identification of illegal aliens. Is that asking too much, really?
--------------------------------------------------
I will elaborate on the Trump example I used - hoping that is what you meant, but your closing sentence clearly sums up my position, so an elaboration is probably redundant.
My thought is that it is very probable that the Businessman Trump companies' discrimination against Blacks in the Real Estate market was driven by economic motives rather than the superiority component of racism. I think they could give a hoot about the superiority aspect - it was all dollars and sense to them, and as such, statistics could justify that white tenants were a better financial risk. Or for a more crude reason - their white tenants might object to black neighbors. That might make those white tenants racist, but it would still be an economic motivator for the businesses.
So instead of castigating blacks, why not use an economic standard to distinguish between tenants? Income, the fact, that there is one and how much would the tenant need relative to the rent would be a system that can be justified. Would it be one quarter or one third of income? This is being used all of the time. Like I have said, racism has many interpretations and many are correct. If it were all dollars, then a discrimination based on those that have been shown to have those verses those that have not may have been more appropriate. Why accommodate white neighbors’ desire to have only white tenants. Isn’t that the basis for racism, yes, racism in so much of American life, regardless of what you might want to call it? Donald Trump is taking the mode of George Wallace and has acted in a racist manner and is in fact a RACIST. Economic exploitation has always been a linchpin of and an excuse for racism. Obviously, the courts took issue with Donald Trump’s definition of economic and commercial interest.
------------------------
Racism is not just trendy but quite real and quite accurately, sorry, but I cannot follow where it is you are leading.....Hey Cred, I wasn't taking issue with Merriam-Webster, I was just referencing an online Google dictionary: *Oh gawdd... I'm channeling Kathryn
But, for clarity, here is what I referenced:
dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship;
2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
"Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
noun: racism
Perhaps I should have researched deeper, a la Merriam-Webster, but I think the online dictionary phrase I bolded, "...based on the belief that one's own race is superior. carries the same meaning as your Merriam-Webster phrase; "a belief... ...produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
So I wasn't really arguing with M-W, just pointing out the common overlaps in the two word's definitions, with the focus on the superiority component that discrimination lacks - even according to your dictionary fellows.
Conversely, if you had checked M-W for "discrimination," you would have found a much more innocuous definition than the one I used.
M-W says:
"Definition of discrimination
1 a :the act of making or perceiving a difference :the act of discriminating a bloodhound's scent discrimination
b psychology :the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 :the quality or power of finely distinguishing the film viewed by those with discrimination
3 a :the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b :prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination"
My online definition would have been a more powerful argument for you.
So, maybe we can pass on the point of you having to determine whose definitions you would prefer?
Your point that "As I have reiterated time and again, “racism’ has a broader meaning in practice than the narrow one that you want to present us with. " is exactly the point of this thread. I have not presented you with a "narrow" meaning, nor an incorrect one, I have presented the precise meaning. Even your own dictionary research confirms that point.
It is your desire to broaden the meaning of racism that you have reiterated over and over again, not the validation of fact. As for what to call it, I am content with "discrimination," because that is what it is, but if you want to go with "ethnicism" because it says more to you - then go for it.
I think you got a little off-track with your "Why is this concept that I have been trying to explain so difficult?" paragraph - at least in reference to our discussions. I did not defend the Sheriff's discriminatory actions. I might possibly defend his reasoning, if pushed, but not his department's actions as I have read them to be. In essence, I agree with your paragraph.
... and I certainly can't speak to your "Trump business discrimination" reasoning - because I just don't know. I was only speculating. But I do know that I have not seen any proof that it was actual racism that motivated the discrimination.
Which brings us full-circle; just calling something racism because you, (generically) see it as racism doesn't make it so. And to continue to do so dilutes and pollutes the meaning of the act. That generic you could end up keeping company with the boy who cried "Wolf!"
GAOK, GA, I propose a gentleman’s agreement to agree to disagree.
But, I have to point this out, regardless. You said that you don’t know what “Trump business discrimination” reasoning was? You say that there is no proof that racism was the motivation? Well, obviously the Court hit Trump for being in violation of fair housing regulations in New York. Why did Trump and his real estate associates believe that renting to “Blacks” was an automatic liability? The regulators bringing charges against Trump certainly knew why Trump was being charged, and racism was the heart of it. Trump practiced racial discrimination in regards to who were allowed to be tenants in any of his properties. You say that it could be for economic reasons, if that were the case he could have used a discriminator based on financial qualification of proposed tenants. If you subscribe to the racist motivations of others (white tenants) as a basis for your doing business, then how is Trump not racist or any different? When I criticize the attitude of white folks it is when they say they have nothing to do with current problems yet are a partner unwittingly or not in exacerbating just that problem and disguising it with some other purpose or intent. That is what you are allowing Trump to do in your example. Either way, he is a pi$$ poor example as President, human being and a man.
That is just ‘straight talk’ there, GA.
Is there any reason to treat the white coffee cup differently from the black one when they are otherwise similar in every other way? Treating people differently solely upon their race need not have an elaborate explanation but is as old as the American Constitution, itself. If Trump thought that they (Blacks) are not fit to be judged on an individual basis for eligibility as a tenant, then there is an indication of a belief of an inherent inferiority in regards to Blacks as white eligibility is not established in the same way.
The real danger is for us is to be lulled into complacency by believing that the Wolf is no longer in the fold......I don't think I can do what you ask Cred. But, I think I do see why there is some confusion.
None of my comments have been intended as defense of either the Sheriff's or Trump's actions. It looks like you have taken them to be so.
Let's set aside the examples, and go back to the basics. You posted a definition that you accepted as authoritative. That definition included racial discrimination as a component - but, that component was conditional, the condition being the presence of racial superiority as a motivator.
That was the definition of racism you accepted.
I posted a definition of discrimination that also includes a component of racial discrimination, but it was not conditional.
So Jim, your question, if you choose to accept it is; "Is racial discrimination and racism one and the same to you?"
If the Sheriff has a Latino deputy, is he also a racist for targeting Latinos? Or, would he be a Latino practicing nationality, (in lieu of ethnic. or racial), discrimination?
If one of businessman Trump's real estate guys is a black man, is he a racist for using racial discrimination to determine what applicants to accept, or is he just a poor example of manhood using racial discrimination for his own gain?
Properly attributing blame is not complacency Cred, but accepting a misapplication of blame that paints a different picture may be.
I think it you review my comments without a consideration of whether or not I am "defending" anyone, but only arguing the misuse of the label of racism, you might see that our disagreement is not over what you think it is.
For all I know, both Pres. Trump and the Sheriff may be certifiable racists. But I have only seen circumstantial speculation and interpretation supporting that charge. When that speculation can be proven, then I would gladly accept that racism label. Until then, the label I see as proven is the one of discrimination - ethnic, racial, and nationality. None of which I think should be generally acceptable.
Ps. One of us is being stubborn, and one is being obstinate, I think I know which one I am. ;-)
GAI don't think I can do what you ask Cred. But, I think I do see why there is some confusion.
ok
---------------------------------------
None of my comments have been intended as defense of either the Sheriff's or Trump's actions. It looks like you have taken them to be so.
ok
--------------------------------------
Let's set aside the examples, and go back to the basics. You posted a definition that you accepted as authoritative. That definition included racial discrimination as a component - but, that component was conditional, the condition being the presence of racial superiority as a motivator.
Alright, If you treat one race on less advantageous terms than another solely for being a member of that race, how does that not imply some form of belief of racial superiority as a basis? What has always been the ‘basis’ or explanation? Are you saying that all of these events take place without any sense of superiority on the part of whites toward blacks?
But, after a little thought, I can give in to some of your point. When blacks discriminate against whites, which is not as evident as the other way around as blacks hold little power in society to be in a position to discriminate on a substantive basis. It may have occurred in social gatherings and such, as I was a considerably younger university student. It was not about inferior/superior, many of us simply did not want to be around them who we assume would be bringing attitudes and posturing type variables to our parties that at best would not be understood and at worse would not be welcome. Perhaps, that is the point you are making about racial discrimination, fear of the unknown, Mayberry with that new black family now has a random element that complicates everything? People like the simple and predictable.
------------------------------------
That was the definition of racism you accepted.
I posted a definition of discrimination that also includes a component of racial discrimination, but it was not conditional.
So Jim, your question, if you choose to accept it is; "Is racial discrimination and racism one and the same to you?"
Based on my new revelation, I may be able to see the difference now that I can apply it in my own circumstances-so OK, you have won this round.
----------------------------------------------
If the Sheriff has a Latino deputy, is he also a racist for targeting Latinos? Or, would he be a Latino practicing nationality, (in lieu of ethnic. or racial), discrimination?
The history of America is plastered with Uncle Toms and whatever the equivalent is in the Hispanic community. There are many of us that will play within a corrupt system rather than go without life’s comforts. We all must to some extent, but it comes to just how much and to what extent. In the days of slavery, there were black drivers of slaves even though only whites were overseers. How much dignity and self respect are you prepared to disregard as the price of ‘selling out’? If the Latino employee wanted to keep his job, he will do as the Sheriff asks and support his policies. But, I have to allow for the Ricky Ricardo types that authentically embraces the ‘system’ as his own, even though he may well be despised in return. That is a possibility that I can’t rule out.
Based on my new revelation, I may be able to see the difference only when I can apply it in my own circumstances-so
OK, you have won this round. Well played....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one of businessman Trump's real estate guys is a black man, is he a racist for using racial discrimination to determine what applicants to accept, or is he just a poor example of manhood using racial discrimination for his own gain?
See previous comment in the same vein.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Properly attributing blame is not complacency Cred, but accepting a misapplication of blame that paints a different picture may be.
I think it you review my comments without a consideration of whether or not I am "defending" anyone, but only arguing the misuse of the label of racism, you might see that our disagreement is not over what you think it is.
It is all good, you have won...
--------------------------------------------
For all I know, both Pres. Trump and the Sheriff may be certifiable racists. But I have only seen circumstantial speculation and interpretation supporting that charge. When that speculation can be proven, then I would gladly accept that racism label. Until then, the label I see as proven is the one of discrimination - ethnic, racial, and nationality. None of which I think should be generally acceptable.
OK
--------------------------------------------------
Ps. One of us is being stubborn, and one is being obstinate, I think I know which one I am. ;-)
Well, now I am neither, you have made your case and invited me to visit your argument from all sides and I had found merit in your argument from a place that I would have least expected.
----------------------------------Hi Cred, it's not about winning bud, at least from my perspective. It's about mutual understanding. It is hard to have enjoyable discussions without it.
We almost got there.
GA
Discrimination as a term and a practice has been there for ages, to an extent that it's almost a cliche now. People look for new alternatives that fit well in a broader and a more ambiguous way and that's where 'Racism' or the blah blah phobia's (mere extensions) come into the picture. So you are absolutely right in pointing 'racism' as trendy and more or less loosely used these days.
Highly unlikely that two black men or two men fighting amongst each other accuse of racism unless they interchange places, the odds are doubled. It would then more likely be a case of racism instead of discrimination. Same goes for an Asian in a Western country or vice versa.
Related Discussions
- 188
is the gop in love with bashing hispanics?
by the new left 14 years ago
Everyone now on the conservative side keeps bashing hispanics are they nuts. They should be trying to persuade us since we are the major minority and in 20 years will be the majority in many states like texas and arizona which would be up for grabs with the growing hispanic population which have...
- 109
Why is the Arizona law racist?
by Riece 14 years ago
Somebody please explain to me why they think the Arizona law is racist. You say it targets Hispanics, but nowhere does the bill say "Hispanics" and 7% of illegals are Asian, and I want them out too. All it says that papers may be asked for if there is reasonable suspicion they are illegal...
- 123
Who is the target audience for this commercial?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 6 years ago
What was intended when this commercial was created? What do they expect Dove to do?
- 81
What are your thoughts about the removal of the Condederate flag?
by Krystal 9 years ago
What are your thoughts about the removal of the Condederate flag?The South Carolina Senate gave its final approval Tuesday to removing the Confederate flag from the Capitol grounds. What are your thoughts about this? Was it fair? Was it appropriate?
- 50
it is crucial that hispanics not vote in florida primary
by mio cid 12 years ago
It is crucial that hispanics not vote in florida primary,so as to show the republican establishment who are already worried about it ,that with the current position on immigration the hispanic vote will go 90 percent democrat.
- 19
Why do white people do not understand racism?
by danicole 9 years ago
Why do white people do not understand racism?