Smithsonian: You Are Racist If...

[KingsGambit]

The messaging of this poster seems counterproductive. Some people have racist stereotypes of black people that they are lazy welfare bums, etc., and this sort of messaging could be taken to indirectly lead support to those stereotypes. I'm certain that's not the direction the poster makers were trying to go, but it does seem like an inference that could be made.

[DivineOb]

Nonsense, there is no category error. The fact is you won't answer the question. It is just as racist to ask about the attributes of "blackness" as it is to assign attributes to "whiteness." There are no behavioral characteristics for blackness any more than there are for whiteness.

I won't answer your question because I'm not knowledgeable in that area. Nor am I really qualified to answer the question in terms of "whiteness" either since I am not sufficiently aware of differences between different social groups (even other "white" groups e.g. in Europe) to draw that distinction. I'm fine admitting that I don't know enough about this topic.

The category error you are committing is to assert that we should define the traits of the dominant population group in the same way we define the traits of a minority population group. The minority group, virtually by definition, does not have the capacity to shape society in the same way the dominant group does.

There are not *inherent* behavioral characteristics between the races (probably). That doesn't mean there aren't common behaviors shaped by society. Would you suggest that "whites" living in the US are indistinguishable in terms of their social assumptions and biases as "whites" living in Scandinavia. Of course you wouldn't. So what's the harm in pointing such things out?

[DivineOb]

Going by the overall tone of the web page that this graphic appeared on. It is clear that the graphic was a list of examples of "white culture" and "whiteness" that white people accept as "normal" but need to be reevaluated as "microaggressions" and "racism"

Re-evaluated "in light of" (possibly). I didn't take any inherent value judgements from that poster. If you think "living to work" rather than "working to live" is what gives you meaning and purpose then good for you. What's wrong with that?

some excerpts from the page:

Whiteness (and its accepted normality) also exist as everyday microaggressions toward people of color. Acts of microaggressions include verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs or insults toward nonwhites. Whether intentional or not, these attitudes communicate hostile, derogatory, or harmful messages.

Highlight the problematic portion of the above text. Again, don't be a defensive snowflake. I don't take any offense at what was written.

...
Racism is perpetuated by deeming whiteness as superior and other racial and ethnic groups as inferior. The prevalence of white dominant culture and racism leads to an internalized racial superiority for those who adhere to it.

Highlight the problematic portion of the above text. Again, don't be a defensive snowflake. I don't take any offense at what was written.

...
Confronting Whiteness
If you identify as white, acknowledging your white racial identity and its privileges is a crucial step to help end racism. Facing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear.

Highlight the problematic portion of the above text. Again, don't be a defensive snowflake. I don't take any offense at what was written.

I'm a very fortunate beneficiary of white privilege given my earlier run ins with the law. I'm not going to go to the police station and ask them to lock me up as "penance." But it doesn't hurt me to acknowledge that a PoC in the same position would probably have suffered a greater consequence. I'm not a snowflake so I can man up and take my medicine. What's your excuse?

[Sparko]

No - that is ridiculous. But that misconception is why most of you are up in arms about it.

And no, the racism in our society crosses all party and ideological lines. But a large proportion of those that are overtly racist align themselves much more closely with conservative politics (Republican or in some cases Libertarian) and equally hostile to 'liberal' politics (Democrat) as you or many of those posting here.

I find a lot more openly racist groups among liberals, such as this page denigrating whites as "privileged" and attacking white people everywhere. They just redefine racism as not racism when it is against white people. It can only be racism if it is against a minority. The BLM organization is about as racist as it comes too.

[seanD]

The messaging of this poster seems counterproductive. Some people have racist stereotypes of black people that they are lazy welfare bums, etc., and this sort of messaging could be taken to indirectly lead support to those stereotypes. I'm certain that's not the direction the poster makers were trying to go, but it does seem like an inference that could be made.

I agree it's probably not what they intended on a conscious level (though I honestly can't fathom what other message they were trying to convey), but on a subconscious level, because I truly believe a lot of liberals really do have racist tendencies in how they look down on minorities as inadequate or inferior and it comes out in certain ways (like here), usually subtle or even certain polices they endorse.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim do you believe the Founding principles of this country, the Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc... are good things.

That is a silly question. Of course I do. However, I do not accept the associated valuation of a slave (almost entirely a black population) as 3/5 that of a white man for the purpose of representation ... do you?

[seer]

The category error you are committing is to assert that we should define the traits of the dominant population group in the same way we define the traits of a minority population group. The minority group, virtually by definition, does not have the capacity to shape society in the same way the dominant group does.

That is not a category error because the question is not about dominance or lack thereof. It is about defining a race by certain behaviors. It would be racist to do that to blacks or Latinos or Asians as well as whites.

[oxmixmudd]

I find a lot more openly racist groups among liberals, such as this page denigrating whites as "privileged" and attacking white people everywhere. They just redefine racism as not racism when it is against white people. It can only be racism if it is against a minority. The BLM organization is about as racist as it comes too.

Sparko - that is mostly ignorance. As racism is defined, it can't technically exist wrt the oppressed group. Racism in the academic sense is about the oppression of a minority group by the majority group where the differentiating factor is race. That is different from the more colloquial definition which more to treat 'Racism' as a synonym for "Racial Prejudice".

The problem with your approach is that it makes it impossible to deal with the real issues that stem from Racism in the academic sense. White privilege and oppression exists only for white people, because they(we) are the ones that inherit and benefit from the privilege that is built into the culture. A black person doesn't have access to that - unless the elements of the culture that perpetuate that privilege are changed.

And some of that HAS changed. Just not enough of it to eliminate the disparities that exist across racial lines.

[Sparko]

Re-evaluated "in light of" (possibly). I didn't take any inherent value judgements from that poster. If you think "living to work" rather than "working to live" is what gives you meaning and purpose then good for you. What's wrong with that?



Highlight the problematic portion of the above text. Again, don't be a defensive snowflake. I don't take any offense at what was written.



Highlight the problematic portion of the above text. Again, don't be a defensive snowflake. I don't take any offense at what was written.



Highlight the problematic portion of the above text. Again, don't be a defensive snowflake. I don't take any offense at what was written.

I'm a very fortunate beneficiary of white privilege given my earlier run ins with the law. I'm not going to go to the police station and ask them to lock me up as "penance." But it doesn't hurt me to acknowledge that a PoC in the same position would probably have suffered a greater consequence. I'm not a snowflake so I can man up and take my medicine. What's your excuse?

If you don't see the "problematic" portions of those quotes then you are part of the problem. The rest of your post is just handwaving dismissal showing that answering you is a waste of good time I could be spending watching my toenails grow.

[seer]

That is a silly question. Of course I do. However, I do not accept the associated valuation of a slave (almost entirely a black population) as 3/5 that of a white man for the purpose of representation ... do you?

Jim you do know that the 3/5 thing was about not letting the slave states gain more representatives in Congress?

[Sparko]

Sparko - that is mostly ignorance. As racism is defined, it can't technically exist wrt the oppressed group. Racism in the academic sense is about the oppression of a minority group by the majority group where the differentiating factor is race. That is different from the more colloquial definition which more to treat 'Racism' as a synonym for "Racial Prejudice".

The problem with your approach is that it makes it impossible to deal with the real issues that stem from Racism in the academic sense. White privilege and oppression exists only for white people, because they(we) are the ones that inherit and benefit from the privilege that is built into the culture. A black person doesn't have access to that - unless the elements of the culture that perpetuate that privilege are changed.

And some of that HAS changed. Just not enough of it to eliminate the disparities that exist across racial lines.

So you have fallen for that liberal nonsense? Defining racism so it can be openly used against whites and not be racism. Have you finally given up the pretense of being a conservative who just doesn't like Trump and are admitting you are a card carrying liberal?



Racism:
1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group
2. Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Blacks can be just as racist as whites.

[Leonhard]

Jim you do know that the 3/5 thing was about not letting the slave states gain more representatives in Congress?

Then they should have devalued white and blacks equally. If this was not done, it was inexcusable racism.

[oxmixmudd]

That is not a category error because the question is not about dominance or lack thereof. It is about defining a race by certain behaviors. It would be racist to do that to blacks or Latinos or Asians as well as whites.

No - it is about defining the elements of a culture in which white people live and which excludes black people. You've got it backwards. White people have all sorts of different cultures across the world, as do black people. But in the US, the 'white' culture exists primarily in support of the white population (by race) and excludes the black population (by race) from many of its benefits.

But nothing would stop some mirror country from implementing the exact same cultural characteristics of what is a white culture in the US in a country that is majority black and in support of those citizens of the black race, granting them the same sorts of privileged whites enjoy in the US, and imposing the same sorts of oppression on the white minority that are imposed on the black minority in the US.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim you do know that the 3/5 thing was about not letting the slave states gain more representatives in Congress?

Read more carefully:

... However, I do not accept the associated valuation of a slave (almost entirely a black population) as 3/5 that of a white man for the purpose of representation ... do you?

[Cerebrum123]

Sparko - that is mostly ignorance. As racism is defined, it can't technically exist wrt the oppressed group. Racism in the academic sense is about the oppression of a minority group by the majority group where the differentiating factor is race. That is different from the more colloquial definition which more to treat 'Racism' as a synonym for "Racial Prejudice".

The problem with your approach is that it makes it impossible to deal with the real issues that stem from Racism in the academic sense. White privilege and oppression exists only for white people, because they(we) are the ones that inherit and benefit from the privilege that is built into the culture. A black person doesn't have access to that - unless the elements of the culture that perpetuate that privilege are changed.

And some of that HAS changed. Just not enough of it to eliminate the disparities that exist across racial lines.

No, that is an Orwellian redefinition of racism, and a very problematic one at that. It is a "problem" that can't ever be fixed, and just resigns minorities who accept it as true to be eternal victims. It also breeds real racism, this time just directed towards a majority.