I'm sorry but I'm getting a bit confused. In one post you're talking about culture wars and social phenomena, I react to that and the next you reply to that by pointing to specific posters here and their intent as somehow a rebuttal. I think a lot of what you think is still undecided in the "culture wars" is just dinosaurs making a lot of noise. There's no war, there's just change and some people apparently can't handle it.

From 2016 to 2020, Trump was the president of the US, isn't that enough to demonstrate that it's not over? A guy won the US election by campaigning to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans. Perhaps you just inhabit too many circles like this one, which is somewhere between quite and very left-leaning? Though even here on this forum, issues tied to the "culture war" are posted about regularly, that is why I can even talk about posters here and their various "sides". You say this argument is a waste, why can't we just accept each other's use of the term racism, that would undermine the need for this debate and more productive conversations can take place. I'm just saying that this is a productive conversation, determining what is and isn't racist is important for combatting racism and this conversation is occurring between parties that all passionately agree that racism is wrong.

I live in Australia, I can confirm that the culture war is not finished here, I'm sure banno and streetlightx could tell you how upset they are about our nation's politics. Am I correct in saying that this debate is a waste because the culture war is over / irrelevant? Why debate a change that can't be stopped right? I guess I can understand that reasoning, though I don't agree with the premise.

Except that I've already distinguished between arguing about definitions and politics. The former is happening regardless what conservatives think about it. Most of the rest will too. Conservatives always fight a losing battle where it concerns social change even if they win a lot of elections. Progressives are quite happy to leave the Conservative wallow in their reactionary circle jerks, where they used to complain about uppity women daring to demand a vote. These shifts are not new but they always end up the same, progressives ultimately win out and it becomes the new Conservative once it becomes widespread enough. Women's suffrage, gay couples, etc. Been there, done that, pay attention to how the wind is blowing.

In the Netherlands our centre right government started to discuss racism as a result of George Floyd and BLM. Before that it was "our laws defend defend equality and that is enough".

I don't know about Australia but I partially consider Trump as reactionary to changes they're not going to stop. Dinosaurs. For the rest it was also a dislike of Hillary and a fundamentally corrupt political system and politicians. People with actual issues with no where to go but the out group candidate thanks to a two party system.

I agree with this standard definition. To repeat what added in the closed thread ... my point was that the ‘item’ of discrimination by which someone feels ‘superior’ or deems a group of others as ‘inferior’ is prejudice - be this based on ‘items’ including class, nationality, perceived ethnicity, actual ethnicity, sex, political inclination and intelligence. — I like sushi

Well, prejudice seems to be not only about hostility towards other races (racism) but also includes a judgement viz. such antagonism is unwarranted. Racism is one race treating other races as inferior and must be, if it's to gain currency as it did back when slavery was the norm, a reasoned position i.e. racists justify their racism on a number of grounds. Racial prejudice, on the other hand, strikes at the heart of racism because it not only attacks racist attitudes but also the reasons thereof.

It would be nonsensical if someone was to suggest that one could be ‘prejudice’ of a certain ‘race’ of people and not be ‘racist — I like sushi

You're right on the money. Racial prejudice has two components:

1. Racism [you believe some races are inferior to others]
2. Racism is unjustified [you can't find a good reason to be racist]

These egalitarian shifts are pretty new, most of what you're talking about has taken place in the last eighty years. Things are shifting at an unbelievable pace, each new decade brings about such change. Eight years ago, when people were worried about a possible global takeover of fascism or communism, could they have predicted our present? Was the wind blowing in such an obvious direction that they should have known it'd end up the way it has?

The "progressives always win" approach is a bit of a... language issue. You're really lumping a lot of different groups together - and if for example, socialism took hold in the West, such a feat would drastically shape what we know as the "progressives" today. The progressives are a result of the history of political, scientific, economic, technological, social and cultural changes. The conservatives are trying to conserve against more than just progressives, rather, what they lose to are the changes in these areas, changes nobody can stop. The victory of the progressives is assured because change is assured but what the progressives believe in isn't. It will all depend on how things develop economically, scientifically, technologically, culturally and so on, as always.

I talk of nuances, "racism is wrong" is a foregone conclusion, we only debate nuances now. Surely, the direction of the wind is not so exact that we should already know how the questions of what racism is and what we should do about it will be answered?

These egalitarian shifts are pretty new, most of what you're talking about has taken place in the last eighty years. Things are shifting at an unbelievable pace, each new decade brings about such change. — Judaka

I don't think they're new to be honest. Magna Carta is pretty much the same thing, parliaments limiting the power of kings, human rights thinking of the 1800s culminating in abolition of slavery, Just War tradition (spanning centuries) resulting in Geneva Conventions, League of Nations and UN and condemnation of the use of force as a political tool etc. But the pace nowadays is indeed unbelievable. Exciting times, historically speaking.

The progressives are a result of the history of political, scientific, economic, technological, social and cultural changes. The conservatives are trying to conserve against more than just progressives, rather, what they lose to are the changes in these areas, changes nobody can stop. The victory of the progressives is assured because change is assured but what the progressives believe in isn't. It will all depend on how things develop economically, scientifically, technologically, culturally and so on, as always. — Judaka

Sure, what is progressives constantly changes and there's always a serious risk (a la Germany prior to WWII) that we backtrack. Even so, by and large, I think progressives shift once what they advocated becomes mainstream. Imagine 28 LGBT Republicans in the 1980s: https://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/7/20/28-lgbt-republicans

And an actual conservative should be fine with this from my understanding of conservative philosophy. If the received wisdom over generations is that LGBTQX (if I get the latest acronym right) should be recognised and respected then that's good enough reason to politically protect that. So "conservative" opposition to equality for minorities in the US is reactionary if we are to take their self-procliamed allegiance to the constitution seriously.

At times I just don't get part of the discussion. One side says "it's racism, see how blacks are affected" and the other side is "it's not racism, it's socio-economic, look if you adjust/correct the statistics like so". As if that solves the fact too many (black) people are in prison or living in poverty. I think it was @fdrake that explained at some point that the policies required to solve the problem, irrespective of the cause of the problem, would still be the same.

I talk of nuances, "racism is wrong" is a foregone conclusion, we only debate nuances now. — Judaka

You'd think differently from the exchanges at times. :lol:

Any way, thanks for your thoughts, I'm in a bit in a recalcitrant mood these days and probably agree with more than I let on in my reactions. Since I don't have much time for the foreseeable future I think I'll go back to reading.

I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi

Not, only that, but the mainstream or PC narrative seems to be that only white people can be racist. IMO this is a highly suspect and dangerous proposition. The Chinese can be quite racist, for example, Tibetans and other ethnic minorities are being systematically oppressed and discriminated against, and in my experience most racial or ethnic groups hold some prejudice against others. Racism and/or prejudice and discussions about it can also be exploited for political ends.

Yah, If you have two social groups arguing over who is racist with the assumption/social bias to think their social group is racist without proof you end up with a accusational paradox of bias.

Since its an unending paradox, politicans can use it as a reason to vote for them with the aim to reduce racism.
But that is assuming politicans are aware of such things. . .

I've had many debates about racism at this point, I want to point out that one of the major roadblocks to discussing racism is the conflation of racism and the effects racism produces. This might include poverty, police brutality, controversial laws, lack of opportunities - infrastructure - resources, lack of political representation, underrepresentation in media, portrayal in culture and so much more. The language surrounding the problem of racism is very poor and racism and the effects of racism are conflated often.

Consequently, there are clashes on how to define and solve racism.

If we conflate racism and the consequences of racism, 180's definition starts to make sense. Racism towards white people might consist of harsh words or a bad attitude but racism towards minorities has substantial, broad consequences across every meaningful area of life. Since the gravity of the consequences of racism are so much heavier than racism itself, they actually take precedence for many people and thus prejudice is secondary, it's incomparable by itself.

So it depends what one means by "racism", for example, is disproportionate police violence towards minorities racism? That is something I would list as a consequence of racism - among other factors. The disproportionality is not just due to prejudice, the problem is in the policies, laws, structure of policing in general. If one describes things such as disproportionate police violence as racism - which many often do, then racism is not merely a kind of prejudice, it describes far more than that. We could solve this problem by having a few more words but apparently racism needs to mean just about everything.

So it depends what one means by "racism", for example, is disproportionate police violence towards minorities violence racism? That is something I would list as a consequence of racism - among other factors. The disproportionality is not just due to prejudice, the problem is in the policies, laws, structure of policing in general. If one describes things such as disproportionate police violence as racism - which many often do, then racism is not merely a kind of prejudice, it describes far more than that. We could solve this problem by having a few more words but apparently racism needs to mean just about everything. — Judaka

Makes sense. I suppose this broadening of the meaning of the term is likely a reaction to affirmative action being argued as being racism as well.

In the Netherlands it's been more about discrimination, which can be justified or unjustified depending on purpose. So a doctor discriminating between old and young people as a result of triage, or even women or men if recovery rates differed meaningfully, would be doing the right thing. When I'm hiring people not so much.

Things like affirmative action are certainly caught in the crossfire of this conflation, it's somewhere between counteracting racism, being racist itself and tackling the effects of racism. Terms like "white privilege" sit between describing racism, the effects of racism and being itself a racist term. It's a common issue.

On this forum, I've had many discussions about institutionalised racism, to eventually realise that I'd be talking about racism and they're talking about the effects of racism. I see others have this issue too - though I don't think they always identify it. Sometimes people are talking about the effects of racism that is happening, happened recently or the effect of racism that occurred decades or even centuries prior.

Lately, there's much more focus on the effect of racism. This is true of other forms of discrimination too. Controversies arise because people might say "x is racist", not because of any racist act or logic but because the demographics demonstrate it - or are it. That there's a gender gap in STEM due to sexism or even that there's sexism in STEM because there's a gender gap.

Based on sushi's definition, we might be doing quite well on racism, we do unilaterally condemn it and punish people for racist comments or logic. Based on 180's definition of racism, we might be doing terribly, the legacy of racism is immense and largely unaddressed and minorities are still disadvantaged in a plethora of ways.

I think regardless of whether one thinks we're doing quite well or terribly, we can see the problem. One party talks about how well/poorly we're doing, how small/big of an issue racism is etc and the other party is likely to be quite upset.

Apparently, as a 50something, fairly well-educated, working class-raised, Black person in 21st century America, I'm still confused about some of the terms used in social and political discourses. Will someone, anyone, please replace, correct or improve the definitions below on the basis of the best, corroborable, historical, socioeconomic, anthropological, national/global demographic data currently available?

Individuals have biases.

Individual bias for or against a stereotype is prejudice.

In-group prejudice adversely against (an) out-group(s) that is enforced by the state, media, economy and/or military forces controlled by an in-group to the effective, if not complete, exclusion of (an) out-group(s), or CLASSISM, is Oppression; and where Oppression of an out-group is on the basis of (A) biological sex, it's theory & practice is SEXISM, (B) ethnicity-linguistic identity or territoriality, its theory & practice is TRIBALISM, (C) theocratic-schismatic group-identity, its theory & practice is SECTARIANISM, and/or (D) bureaucratic (or traditional) classification of "race" or skin color, it's theory & practice is RACISM. Therefore, while Oppressor and Oppressed alike are prejudiced, only the Oppressor Class (+ functionaries, collaborators & beneficiaries) controls Sexist, Tribalist, Sectarian & Racist systems of oppression.

(Note: Asking "Can an individual of any "identity" be e.g. racist?" is like asking 'can any individual be an army?' Context matters, the Oppressor-Oppressed situation must be considered. One must first determine which uniform (& tattoos) an individual, regardless of "identity", wears and flag (or colors) s/he flies as an indication of which army s/he belongs to and supports and thereby against whom – combatants and civilians alike.)

CLASSISM, refined by millennia of customary Divide-n-Control practices by almost "all peoples" on every continent, manifests and reproduces itself by instituting one, some or all of the (A, B, C, D) systems.

CAVEAT: Often, in many social or economic contexts particularly, individual members or communities identified as belonging to an Oppressed out-group will be co-opted (i.e. internalize by being indoctrinated) by the Oppressor in-group and collaborate with one, some or all of the systems of Oppressing themselves or another out-group for the exclusive benefit of the Oppressor in-group. Likewise, many non-elite, rank-n-file, proletariat individuals (i.e. the precariat), who "proudly" self-identify as belonging to the (historically dominant) in-group, collaborate in their own exploitation by refusing to acknowledge the pervasive reality of systemic in-group Oppression or enjoin in abolitionist solidarity with the Oppressed out-groups.

I'm reminded of the insightful observation from about a century ago as industrial Capitalism in the US was ramping-up feeding the migratory rural & immigrant masses into its metastatic, sprawling urban abattoirs:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair

Any wonder the enfeebled, impotent, mostly bought-off (& strong-armed) Labor / Trade-Union movement in the US has always been "populist" and yet so segregated, misogynistic and sectarian? :shade:

The landscape shifts from country to country.

Whatever it is - the prejudice - if it results in the abuse of others it is abhorrent. I don’t put ‘racism’ on a pedestal of evil above other ‘items’ of prejudice. Others here seem to do so ... I understand why they do though. That’s fine.

It makes sense to find ‘items’ of prejudice that have nothing to do with an individuals ‘choice’ more horrible than say, your choice in clothing. A poor example as people don’t often kill someone for their fashion choices!

It is also a VERY confusing matter because the term ‘race’ carries lots of misconceptions and in the current environment is an admixture of tradition and culture clashing - as the actual scientific term is of little to no consequence when it comes to outward appearance and how people group themselves as to ‘belonging’ to this or that ‘race’.

The most fiery aspect of all is it is, and has been, a primary issue of the most powerful nation on Earth for considerable time. This forces others to get involved even when they are so far removed from the epicentre of hatred the US is caught up in.

Anyway ... The responses have been a little more measured and calmer that usual so I’ll step away now I think whilst the going is good. The discussion will surface again in some form or another and I was just trying to point out something that I find to be one issue overlooked, not to ‘look away’ just step back and reevaluate what people are saying and how it is being mis/construed.

There's nothing wrong with your definition but it's not how many people use those words. See for instance Merriam Webster on racism :

A belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

That still seems how most people use it. Based on that individuals can be racist and oppressed people can be racist too - it's just that the consequences of such racism is mostly irrelevant.

Your definition is a persuasive definition that for the purposes of discussions can be used. Or we can say "racist oppression", "sexist oppression" etc. and then nobody will be confused as there's a slight redundancy from your perspective and a clarification from the "general use" perspective.

Or we can say "racist oppression", "sexist oppression" etc. — Benkei

:up: Works for me. Thanks, B.

I like your definitions, 180, but I'm surprised it makes no mention of racial inequity because that's where I usually end up getting into conflict with people of the political leaning I interpret you to have. Isn't it the case that by your definition, if in-group prejudice ceased to be "enforced" then there'd be no more oppression? Even though black Americans would still be disproportionately disadvantaged in almost every way from a statistical perspective. Is that really your position?

To actually end Class-driven Racial oppression, Marshall Plan-like government & business policies would need to be instituted to redress centuries of disadvantages afflicting communities of color. That's my position. More or less the same as the 1968 Turner Commission Report which was never implemented by LBJ in favor of going completely the other way with Nixon's "Law and Order" and "War on Drugs" policies to further oppress us by criminalizing urban populations as much as possible.

I thought that would be your position but doesn't that mean your definition is incomplete? It makes no mention of equity.

If even you understand it, then what I wrote suffices. Diagnosis here, treatment & prognosis for another thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543576

You insist equity is crucial for ending an aspect of racial oppression which is absent from your definition. Your definition of racial oppression as a kind of prejudice enforced by the in-group should only require the cessation of said prejudice. This is the second, big difference between your definition of racism and that of @I like sushi. If your definition includes inequity then inequity must be addressed through race-based economic redistribution/aid, which has nothing to do with ending racial prejudice. I am only saying this because it is yet another case of often uncharted disagreement between people who supposedly condemn racism or racial oppression together. It seems you're happy with your definition anyway so I'll leave it at that.

My "definition" of what? (re: your first sentence)

In-group prejudice adversely against (an) out-group(s) that is enforced by the state, media, economy and/or military forces controlled by an in-group to the effective, if not complete, exclusion of (an) out-group(s), or CLASSISM, is Oppression; and where Oppression of an out-group is on the basis of (A) biological sex, it's theory & practice is SEXISM, (B) ethnicity-linguistic identity or territoriality, its theory & practice is TRIBALISM, (C) theocratic-schismatic group-identity, its theory & practice is SECTARIANISM, and/or (D) bureaucratic (or traditional) classification of "race" or skin color, it's theory & practice is RACISM.

Racism.

"End racial discrimination" and "racism" are discrete, divergent (though related), concepts. Only the latter is germaine to the post you quote from. Not "incomplete", just not comprehensive; it's a thumbnail sketch, not an encyclopedia article. :roll:

Who spoke of "ending racial discrimination"? My use of the term prejudice is taken from the definition you gave as a quote. Ah, what can I say, I like your definition 180, I was just surprised you left out equity and in this case I was right, you do care about equity. If I had written your definition on racism, my leaving out of equity would be purposeful, a result of my political stance on the matter. So for the sake of making your stance clear, I think there should be some mention of equity. When people say in political discourse "let's end racism, say no to racism!", they're as likely to think economic aid for black Americans is crucial as they are to think it's racist. Wasn't this kind of response what you asked for? Well, apparently not, or at least not from me, but whatever, I will leave it at that.

You insist equity is crucial for ending an aspect of racial oppression — Judaka

Who spoke of "ending racial discrimination"? — Judaka

Guess who?

I was using racial oppression as the term Benkei suggest to you.

Your definition is a persuasive definition that for the purposes of discussions can be used. Or we can say "racist oppression", "sexist oppression" etc. and then nobody will be confused as there's a slight redundancy from your perspective and a clarification from the "general use" perspective. — Benkei

Which from his perspective is a redundancy for you because from your perspective this would be synonymous with "racism" which must include oppression.

EDIT: I am not asking for your definition to include how racial oppression should be dealt with, I'm just saying that if someone says "let's end racial oppression" and they look at your definition, doesn't it follow that they only need to stop the prejudice from the in-group? If one asks "is inequity part of racial oppression" and they look up your definition, wouldn't they conclude that it isn't? Anyway, I didn't realise this would turn into an argument of me trying to convince you, how your definition should be, I'm not interested in that. If you don't care then I don't.

edit:2 I guess benkei said "racist oppression", o well.

There seems to be a growing need for a more intricate vocabulary to discuss this topic. Having two or three words such as ‘racism,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘prejudice’ to describe the myriad of complex anthropological phenomena is simply outdated in the twenty-first century. I think it was Hobbes who wrote that to give a name to a thing is to exert a power over it. With such a feeble vocabulary is it any surprise that there are so many disagreements as to the definitions of these words?

There are more names, such as ‘oppression,’ ‘systematic racism,’ and so on, but they seem to end up being utilized for the purposes of practical action rather than abstract thought. They are names to describe something inappropriate in day-to-day life, but they are useless for conceptualizing the essence of the phenomena. In my opinion, there is a definite need for words somewhat exclusive to both domains in public usage.

An addendum in the wake of recent war crimes and atrocities committed by the State of Israel as it continues 50+ years on to oppress the dispossessed Palestinian people.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhHhL_15Nw ♡

Too many people will always find an excuse to despise and abuse those who are superficially different, including religious wear. That was evident recently when a non-white man wearing a red “Keep America Great” cap (with “45” on the side) called a nine-year-old girl wearing a hijab a “f-----g Muslim terrorist” at a (Surrey, B.C., Canada) grocery store a few months ago. The girl’s father rightly confronted the man and repeatedly called him a racist. (One can imagine the shameful pleasure felt — and rampant media posts left — by white supremacists upon learning the accused racist is not Caucasian!) As far as terrorism goes, the girl's family is far more likely to be fleeing extremist violence abroad than planning to perpetrate it elsewhere. But that fact may not matter, anyway; ‘their kind’ still not welcome.

Although some identifiable groups have been brutally victimized throughout history a disproportionately large number of times, the victims of one place and time can and sometimes do become the victimizers of another place and time. Meanwhile, during civil unrest/wars and internal persecutions, many contemptible social-media news trolls internationally decide which 'side' they hate less thus 'support' via politicized commentary post. ...

After 34 years of news consumption, I have found that a disturbingly large number of categorized people, however precious their souls, can be considered thus treated as though disposable, even to an otherwise democratic nation. When the young children of those people take notice of this, tragically, they’re vulnerable to begin perceiving themselves as beings without value. When I say this, I primarily have in mind indigenous-nation and Black Canadians/Americans. But, tragically, such horrendous occurrences still happen on Earth, often enough going unrealized to the rest of the world.

Remove race/color and left are less obvious differences over which to clash, such as ethnicity, language, nationality and religion. Therefore, what humankind may need to suffer in order to survive the long term from ourselves is an even greater nemesis (perhaps a multi-tentacled extraterrestrial) than our own politics and perceptions of differences, against which we could all unite, attack and defeat — all during which we’d be forced to work closely side-by-side together and witness just how humanly similar we are to each other. For however long that purely human allegiance lasts.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "community".

There are people who say things like "I am not racist, favoring my own race is no more racist then favoring one's own family." Those people are racists.