It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Talking Race and Racism
It has become more fashionable, and at times profitable, for white folks in academic environments to think and write about race. It is as though the very act of thinking about the nature of race and racism is still seen as "dirty" work best suited for black folks and other people of color or a form of privileged "acting out" for anti-racist white folks. Black folks/people of color who talk too much about race are often represented by the racist mindset as "playing the race card" (note how this very expression trivializes discussions of racism, implying it's all just a game), or as simply insane. White folks who talk race, however, are often represented as patrons, as superior civilized beings.
[...]
No wonder then that such talk can become an exercise in powerlessness because of the way it is filtered and mediated by those who hold the power to both control public speech (via editing, censorship, modes of representation, and interpretation).
While more individuals in contemporary culture talk about race and racism, the power of that talk has been diminished by racist backlash that trivializes it, more often than not representing it as mere hysteria.
[...]
Individual black people/people of color often describe moments where they challenge racist speech at meetings or in other formal settings only to witness a majority of folks rush to comfort the racist individual they have challenged, as though that person is the victim and the person who raised questions a persecutor.
Originally posted by ceci2006
Is it about different experiences? Or is it about prejudice?
Those forces, social arrangements, institutions, structures, policies, precedents and systems of social relations that operate to deprive certain racially identified categories equality.
Originally posted by ceci2006
1)If people can recognize institutional racism, why is it so hard to understand the experiences of people of color when they describe incidents occurring as a result of it?
It's not so much about recognizing or defining institutional racism as it is.
In other discussions on the board about race, some posters of color point out issues that are glossed over by persons of the dominant color.
On the other hand, posters from the dominant culture "complain" about the faults and "bad behavior" of the group of color, and their answers are not considered "whining", "crying" or "complaining".
Why is one side "minimized" in comparison to the other?
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
3) There could be, but many would have to see beyond what is infront of them or the actions of a few.
Originally posted by ceci2006
Why do the posters from the dominant culture perceive those from groups of color as having "a chip on one's shoulder" or "having a negative attitude"?
Is it hard to accept that maybe the posters of color are simply discussing their views afforded to their treatment in American society?
2)It is amazing that no one would give their answer upon whether the situations described in the source ("Talking about Race and Racism) are accurate or not. The absence of this answer also reveals a lot about what will be answered and what won't be. Do the experiences hit too close to home?
Is this description accurate when it comes to discussions about race-relations?
3)It is also amazing to discover that the answers about "believe a person because of race" are really neutral.
...
If no one race is to be "believed" more than other, why does this occurrence happen with frequency in discussions about race?
When answers are pointed to the understanding of a "majority" of posters of one race, then others outside the group are either: 1) "forced to agree" or be considered "insane" or "ridiculous" in their answers; 2)The answers in the minority are written off and considered "inferior" and "less than intelligent" compared to the answers of the majority.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's not hard. People do understand. I'm sure 100% of people don't understand, but most do.
I disagree. I think it's important to define the terms within a discussion so we all know what we mean when we use them.
"The dominant color"? What's that? I think we do need definitions...
And I don't believe the issues pointed out by people of color are glossed over any more than the issues pointed out by people not of color.
I disagree again. There is plenty of criticism by people of color toward the white people, if that's who you mean when you say "dominant culture". White people are told that they are the problem, that they are the reason for institutional racism, that they perpetrate it (even if they don't) and that they need to fix it, that they started it.
I don't think it is, I think you may be seeing only one side of the issue. sdcigarpig's answer to you question #3 is very insightful.
You must see beyond what is in front of your face to realize that this issues isn't all one-sided as you seem to think it is.
You have to define "dominant culture". I don't think there are any people posting here who I would consider the dominant culture.
I can't speak for other people's perceptions, of course. But I don't perceive people of color as having a chip on their shoulder or a negative attitude. I do however, perceive some people as having that. But it has nothing to do with their race.
It's not hard for me to accept that. I'm actually curious about how you specifically have been treated in American culture. I have just never heard much about you and your personal experiences.
No. Not in my experience. I find the article racist in how it talks as though white people all act and think a certain way.
And many is the time I have challenged racist speech and nobody rushed to the bigot's aid.
More often than not, they stood with me and agreed. People also have told me that I'm brave for standing up to racist speech.
I just don't think these things can be generalized. There are going to be race discussions that follow the patterns in the article and those that don't. To be fair, I have never sat around in a group with the specific purpose of talking about race.
I don't think 'who is believed' is based on the race of that person at all. The people who are believed are those who have proven themselves to be honest, open-minded and able to look at several aspects of any situation and reason. They're also people who have shown that they can admit when they're wrong or have been mistaken.
Again, I don't believe it has anything to do with race. When talking about any subject on this board (say the war), there are those of "one side" who insult the "other side's" views as being insane, ridiculous or stupid. Both sides do this. Some people do this. It's not because of the subject or race. It's just that that's how some people "debate".
Glossary
Assimilation =The process whereby an individual or group is absorbed into the social structures and cultural life of another person, group, or society.
Assimilationist model =The practices by which children were socialized into the culture and worldview of the dominant Anglo society in the United States.
Dominant culture = Culture of the social or political group that holds the most power and influence in a society.
Empathy= A psychological sense of understanding and "feeling for" another person's situation.
Generalization =The tendency of a majority of people in a cultural group to hold certain values and beliefs and to engage in certain patterns of behavior. This information can be supported by research and can be applied to a large percentage of a population or group.
Marginalization= The practice of excluding a social group from the mainstream of the society, placing that group-legally or socially-on the "margins" of the society.
Minority group =A social group that occupies a subordinate position in a society, that often experiences discrimination, and that may be separated by physical or cultural traits disapproved of by the dominant group.
Normative = The fact that the norms of a society influence and regulate an individual's beliefs and behavior.
Norms = Accepted ways of agreed-upon behavior that enable similar groups of people to function in a similar manner.
Stereotypes = Beliefs about the personal attributes of a group based on the inaccurate generalizations that are used to describe all members of the group and that thus ignore individual differences.
Confronting Institutionalized Racism
The myth of meritocracy, the myth that we live with an equal playing field and that all you have to do is work hard and you’ll make it, which is the same thing as the denial of racism. The denial of racism is saying that there is not an unfair system going on. And yet a lot of people who are thinking that racism is a thing of the past, they’re denying that racism is actively impacting people’s life chances today. That myth and that denial are part of the norm or a policy or a norm that favors the differential valuation of human life. Because if you think that there is an equal opportunity, and those people are suffering or poor, they must be lazy or stupid or something.
NAEYC
Members of the dominant group readily assume that their ascendancy is a sign of their innate superiority and/or a product of their hard work. Many deny or ignore the systemic inequities of racial discrimination that provide them with advantages in their individual life prospects and choices from birth. An assumption of superiority justifies the continued economic exploitation of people of color, and the cycle of inequity continues.
Originally posted by ceci2006
1)Do you (or do you not) see that people view race differently in America?
2)Do you think insitutional racism happens in the United States?
3)Do you think that there is a middle ground for people of all backgrounds to discuss race?
4)In a discussions about race-relations, who do you believe the most by race?
5)Is it easier to talk about class instead of race? Why/Why not is this so?
Assimilationist model =The practices by which children were socialized into the culture and worldview of the dominant Anglo society in the United States.
Minority group =A social group that occupies a subordinate position in a society, that often experiences discrimination, and that may be separated by physical or cultural traits disapproved of by the dominant group.
Stereotypes = Beliefs about the personal attributes of a group based on the inaccurate generalizations that are used to describe all members of the group and that thus ignore individual differences.
Originally posted by ceci2006
1)Is it easier to answer for individual behavior than it is to discuss what members of a group do according to race?
2)In terms of race-related discussions, are people more "self-oriented" than "group-oriented"--especially when giving race attributed answers?
3)Is correctness defined by privilege?
4)Why are generalizations perceived as wrong when there is accurate evidence to back them up and there is an accounting for individual differences?
5)Is acknowledging institutional racism for what it is and the power relationships it possesses a form of blame?
6)If one racial group is proven to be above all others in a system of institutional racism, is it considered blame to simply acknowledge this fact (that is with sources proving this aspect with a recognition of individual differences)?
Originally posted by ceci2006
It would be fair for some to talk about how they benefitted from such a system while others discuss how they have not benefitted at all.
I disagree. I think it's important to define the terms within a discussion so we all know what we mean when we use them.
Why was that such a problem with the "Successful Black prejudice" thread? After all, it was argued there that "experiences" are more important and "proof" was not.
Are you saying that some questions require proof and definitions while others don't?
How are you sure? Will you elaborate on this?
Who has said that white people are the problem? Can you quote verbatim any passage where this was literally said?
the question is why do some answers from the minority group get "minimized" in comparsion to that of the majority.
Again, respectfully, the entire definition does not hinge on what you think.
I can't speak for other people's perceptions, of course. I don't perceive people of color as having a chip on their shoulder or a negative attitude. I do however, perceive some people as having that. But it has nothing to do with their race.
Whenever it is said, it is most likely used in conjunction with race.
Again, who is to be believed in this case?
And if there is another source that proves that some white people do act in that manner, would you consider it racist?
In my experience, a lot of the time people do rush to the bigot's aid, pat her or him on the back, and accuse the person of color with having bad behavior (which is considered "disruptive", "whining" and "crying"). Who's right or wrong in this case?
Any sources you can find that describe other discussions of race in a different light? It would be helpful.
Again, who's right or wrong here?
But in this case, we need to pinpoint the commonality of behaviors within the race-related threads in order to discuss the "division" as well as the "semantic disconnect" that occurs when relating examples (through source or experience) by race.
Originally posted by ceci2006
Some Other Observations
1)Is it easier to answer for individual behavior than it is to discuss what members of a group do according to race?
2)In terms of race-related discussions, are people more "self-oriented" than "group-oriented"--especially when giving race attributed answers?
3)Is correctness defined by privilege?
4)Why are generalizations perceived as wrong when there is accurate evidence to back them up and there is an accounting for individual differences?
5)Is acknowledging institutional racism for what it is and the power relationships it possesses a form of blame?
6)If one racial group is proven to be above all others in a system of institutional racism, is it considered blame to simply acknowledge this fact (that is with sources proving this aspect with a recognition of individual differences)?
Originally posted by ceci2006
The Issue of Power
Although this terminology has yet to be fully defined, these sources are one way to approach the territory of discussing "who tells the truth", "who is deemed credible" and "who is to be believed" in conversations about race-relations. Other sources are highly welcome to open the conversation up for other insights into this part of the discussion.
Originally posted by ceci2006
In short, I still think that race is more apparent in institutional racism than class, but again, let me think about this aspect too.
Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
Before I answer the second set of questions I am curious as to how anyone can say that IR still exists, when the "institutional" part has been completely removed?
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership