Insidious racism in Britain

[Traitorfish]

Wow, you totally misunderstood my post then I meant with "Just give it the right definition" that you just have to give a word an accurate definition based on what you want to describe and hence it is accurate and I meant to say here that it is pointless to debate weather the definition of racism is accurate because accuracy is measured by what is supposed to be defined and I criticize what racism is supposed to define, not how accurately that is done.
Hence, I am not concerned with accuracy.

But the concept which we are attempting to describe is something that actually exists, not just something abstract of hypothetical, so the question of form is necessarily one of content. The question of what the word "racism" means is necessarily a question of what the social phenomena of racism actually is, because if the word cannot function as an item of sociological terminology, it has no purpose.

With regards to Jews, or ape-faced Irishman I am absolutely with you, as both constituted a "perceived race".
I myself named the holocaust as an example of the consequences of traditional racism.
So

The argument isn't "if we call Jew jokes 'racist', people will take them more seriously!"

misses my point (while that was, as said, a mere assumption of intentions anyway and not crucial to my overall argument).

What I take issue with and what my argumentation aimed at is if the discrimination of say Polish immigrants in England is also treated as racism, because they don't constitute a perceived race and consequently such an idea is not the basis for their discrimination.
If we call that racism, I am under the impression we may as well call any kind of discrimination of a group linked by a specific attribute racism (xenophobia may be a good term instead). Naturally, the same basic human social workings apply with the Polish immigrant as well as with the monkey-faced Irishmen as well as with the thick-nosed black man. That of people dividing themselves into social groups and viewing other groups as rivals and hence potential enemies. What in the end only differs is the justification and the extend and kind of divisions.
And there racism - i.e. social segmentation based on a perceived race - IMO has very specific attributes which resulted in very specific historic consequences. I can see a valid base for the argument that racism was very common in our past, way before official race theories. What my argumentation apposes is lumping the modern Polish immigrant into it.

Why is the concept of "percieved race" so important in understanding the social phenomenon of race? If you look at the history of race, it doesn't simply spring out of the blue, it develops over time, alongside a lot of other forms of discrimination and bigotry that would not in your conception constitute racism. (You'll perhaps be aware that the first slaves in British North America were Irish, for example?) It's something with a concrete historical existence, developing alongside ethnic social stratifications in a mutually-informing fashion, not something that is imagined, and then applied to the real world.
I think that the real bone of contention for me is that your approach seems to subjectify race, to reduce it to a merely ideological level, and to deny it as a social reality. "Racism" becomes a question of individual conception of ethnic divisions, so that the same concrete ethnic politics may be in one case "racism" and in the other case "not racism", because the former individual believes certain ethnicities to be intrinsically inferior to him because of a percieved biological distinction, while the other individual is simply a bigot lacking in scientific pretensions. This means is that you are no longer dealing with racism as a social phenomenon, or as race as social categories. The question of racism no longer becomes one of how humans behave as a society, but of individual pathology.
And the irony is, if you then attempt to construct an even vaguely objective conception of race and racial discrimination, you find yourself without a basis for distinguishing between racial discrimination and national or ethnic discrimination, because you've already relegated race to the the realm of the "percieved", to the purely subjective. So you end up with a model that is basically identical to the one I'm proposing, you just keep losing sight of it behind the swirling mists of subjective racism and hold yourself back from understanding what is actually happening, as a set of social phenomenon.

That's a very fine line. I don't find it racist itself if Starkey simply argued that a large share of the British black population embraces a culture which is in his opinion somehow bad and that white people would be increasingly drawn to this culture.
We also don't call it racist if we speak about the culture of discipline and subordination embraced by East-Asians after all, do we?
But the way Starkey did voice this opinion and some of its elements certainly come in a very racist manner. Maybe it is best described as a symbiosis of cultural stigmatization and racism? I can't say for sure and would have to give Starkey's line of thought more thorough consideration.

Well, I picked that example for a reason, so feel free to give it more thought.

I also laid out where my opinion if adopted would lead us and I don't find that generally useless in understanding my or anyone's opinion.

Well, perhaps "useless" was unfair, but the comment still read as urging people to accept your conception of racism not because it was superior as a sociological model, but because it is rhetorically more convenient. And I guess that doesn't sit very well with me.

 

[innonimatu]

@SiLL: thanks for posting so clearly on that issue of the modern use sometimes made of the term "racism". I wanted to press that same point, but I really couldn't find the patience to do it so well.

@Traitorfish: are you being deliberately disingenuous, or are you genuinely unable to grasp the argument about this issue here? You keep claiming that racism ancient and the definition which attaches it to (artifically, I've said it many times here) "biological races" is just a late justifications for it. Them I must shift the discussion ans ask: what is race? And don't answer according to any historical interpretation you favor, answer according to what you accept as the modern meaning usually attached to that word in common public discourse. You honestly believe that poles, for example, are a "race"? Then why wouldn't gays (borrowing form your example) be a "race"? Or any other group of people which have been lumped together by other people and given cause to complain of discrimination?

Ultimately you can claim that some of the operating mechanisms of discrimination are similar. And I'll agree. But that's only one aspect of the thing. People do not equate "discriminated group" to "race". When someone makes that association it is, in my experience, in a dishonest attempt to transfer the aversion to racism to an aversion to some other specific form of discrimination. But that is dishonest because there are "degrees" to discrimination. And racism is widely reviled because it was one of the highest-degree kinds.

People discriminate against other people every day. Society cannot function without prejudice and without discrimination. For that to happen everyone would have to either be totally trusting or possess perfect information on each and every individual they crossed paths with. Humans will never have either thing. We discriminate against the dangerous-looking guy in the shadows in an alley, we're prejudiced against people where we recognize some trait of another we've had bad experiences with, we trust those we had good experiences with in the past, and those they recommend, we discriminate against those who harm animals we like, and so on. If racism equaled prejudice, would all that be racism, against or in favor of each category every individual creates in his/her worldview? And every category a race?

To sum it up: there are good and bad forms of discrimination. Some of those forms have acquires specific names which people recognize. Racism is one such name. The term should not be misused. I think that the cultural discrimination in the OP is bad, I don't not think it fits the bill for "racism". I may be wrong (and I admit it's arguable, attributing preconceived traits to anyone who are "physically identified as east asian" may fit the bill), but even if I'm wrong there it certainly doesn't make "poles" a different race in Britain, for example!

 

[bernie14]

yes...what is race? why dont we start there and with four simple questions....

1 is race biologically determined?
2 is race socially determined?
3 is racism biologically determined?
4 is racism socially determined?

i vote 1 & 3

 

[Lord of Elves]

yes...what is race? why dont we start there and with four simple questions....

1 is race biologically determined?
2 is race socially determined?
3 is racism biologically determined?
4 is racism socially determined?

i vote 1 & 3

Because... Two and four are somehow different from one and three?

 

[Ayn Rand]

@ You honestly believe that poles, for example, are a "race"? Then why wouldn't gays (borrowing form your example) be a "race"?

Because race is inherited - I can have a gay brother or sister, or have a gay child. But I can't have a pure African brother, sister or child. We are not all related to each other, and different populations have been subject to differing selection pressures and random mutations over time which have been restricted to shared [ie related] population groups and are not seen in others. It is pretty elementary.

 

[bernie14]

Because... Two and four are somehow different from one and three?

ok, how then would you say they are similar?

 

[Lord of Elves]

ok, how then would you say they are similar?

Questions 1 and 3 are identical to questions 2 and 4. You didn't exactly make much effort to relate them to the discussion, other than in the most tangential terms, either.

 

[classical_hero]

yes...what is race? why dont we start there and with four simple questions....

1 is race biologically determined?
2 is race socially determined?
3 is racism biologically determined?
4 is racism socially determined?

i vote 1 & 3

No it is 2 and 4. In America, if you are not quite white, you are black, but in Brazil, if you are note quite black you are white. The definition of "race" is clearly a social concept, since biologically speaking, there are very few differences between the so called races.

 

[bernie14]

Questions 1 and 3 are identical to questions 2 and 4. You didn't exactly make much effort to relate them to the discussion, other than in the most tangential terms, either.

well, lets see...i can see aguments being made for 1 & 4 ande even for 2 & 3

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@innonimatu You are welcome Though I must admit I had quit a struggle to articulate my thoughts on the issue at first. I never previously tried to lay them out in a comprehensive manner. But I think I finally am getting secure in it.

But the concept which we are attempting to describe is something that actually exists, not just something abstract of hypothetical, so the question of form is necessarily one of content. The question of what the word "racism" means is necessarily a question of what the social phenomena of racism actually is, because if the word cannot function as an item of sociological terminology, it has no purpose.

The assumption you convey here, that what I think racism should mean can not function as a sociological term in principle is IMO quit bumptious. It tells me that you think that my take on racism is arbitrary and incoherent. And here I thought we were just debating what is a better and more useful way to understand racism. You know, we would have saved time if you would have made this claim directly and right away.

Why is the concept of "percieved race" so important in understanding the social phenomenon of race?

To echo innonimatu: What is race to you? Regarding humans it to me constitutes a group of people who are of a certain kind by nature and who inherent this kind to their offspring. I see no reason why one needs any scientific/biological understanding to come to such a view. Rather it seems to be, that the further we go back in the past - and hence the further we move away from scientific/biological understanding - the more inclined were people to think in such ways. Such racial thinking in deed seems to generally profit greatly from as much ignorance as possible.
Why? Because to assume an inherent nature of things rather than a complex accumulation of different factors (genes, which can not be easily interpreted, but more importantly to the point environmental factors) is a way more simple way to view the world - and more plausible too if one isn't aware of said factors in the first place. Ignorance and simplicity are very good friends.

If you look at the history of race, it doesn't simply spring out of the blue, it develops over time, alongside a lot of other forms of discrimination and bigotry that would not in your conception constitute racism. (You'll perhaps be aware that the first slaves in British North America were Irish, for example?)
It's something with a concrete historical existence, developing alongside ethnic social stratifications in a mutually-informing fashion, not something that is imagined, and then applied to the real world.

I am not claiming otherwise. I recognize the dawn of racial theories in being rooted in a long tradition of racist views. I see another tradition than you for I define it differently of course.

I think that the real bone of contention for me is that your approach seems to subjectify race, to reduce it to a merely ideological level, and to deny it as a social reality. "Racism" becomes a question of individual conception of ethnic divisions, so that the same concrete ethnic politics may be in one case "racism" and in the other case "not racism", because the former individual believes certain ethnicities to be intrinsically inferior to him because of a percieved biological distinction, while the other individual is simply a bigot lacking in scientific pretensions. This means is that you are no longer dealing with racism as a social phenomenon, or as race as social categories. The question of racism no longer becomes one of how humans behave as a society, but of individual pathology.

I am not saying: "It's only racism when people say it is about race". It is racism when people treat like it is about race. And there you have your objective criteria which goes beyond mere ideological categories.
I already described what that constitutes to me. And here is the crucial objective difference to the Polish immigrant.
The Polish immigrant is not discriminated because people believe he is inherently bad or worse or just inherently different as another human being. He is discriminated because he belongs to a different cultural group with different customs. And people realize this and treat it as such.
It means that it is recognized that the Polish immigrant is in the end only differentiated by upbringing and not by nature - hence by culture. And is it not obvious how this carries very different implications? Sure, the discrimination itself can be identical in an instance, but the justification of this discrimination, how the people relate to it, its general potential is still very different.
And please tell me, how is it not possible to embrace this distinction in sociological terms?

And to pick up my original point again, racism as a social phenomena is associated with what I call racism, not with polish immigrants. It is associated with the historic consequences of how I view racism and not with the historic consequences of "mere" cultural discrimination. And rightfully so, because those simply are not interchangeable.

You want a word for the discrimination of the Polish immigrant? Why not culturalism (because that actually entails what it is about)? Or Ethnicitism? (alright, it's obvious why that won't fly, but there a lot of letters to be combined). Why does it have to be racism? Why insist on using such a misleading and historically loaded word? I see only one sensible reason - because it makes use of the negative associations of the word racism (which as already explained is IMO a terrible reason). But please, offer a better explanation, I am eager to hear it.

 

[GamezRule]

I'm going with 1&4.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I just don't understand why people feel the need to keep the definition of "racism" as some sacred cow; a definition that's unassailable and unchangeable (unlike every other word in the English language). I mean, I can't understand just why the term "racism" means so much to you. I can understand communists, for example, defending the term communism, and saying things like "that's not really communism", because they identify strongly with the term. But I don't understand why people feel so strongly about the term "racism".

Furthermore, I don't see how using the term "racism" to describe prejudices against Polish immigrants in any way devalues the term "racism" when it is used to describe lynching negroes. Nor do I see how it legitimises lynching negroes. Clearly, lynching negroes is a bad thing, and I don't see that changing any time soon, irrespective of how the term "racism" is used. The idea that people are suddenly going to start lynching negroes again just because people have identified some new form of racism is just completely nonsense. This whole thing just baffles me.

Hmm... When you said before that racist abuse is worse than other types of abuse, I assumed that you were making a clear distinction between prejudices based on ancestral/genetic aspects of ethnicity, and those based on, for example, nationality.

While I have never knowingly been abused for being white, I have been abused for being English several times, and, on two occasions, in an overtly cruel and intimidating manner. Does this mean I can talk about myself as a victim of racism? I'd always assumed that doing so would be inaccurate, and that classifying anti-English sentiments as racism would diminish the power of the word. But it seems as if you and Traitorfish are saying that what I suffered was unquestionably racist abuse. Is that right?

 

[Mise]

Hmm... When you said before that racist abuse is worse than other types of abuse, I assumed that you were making a clear distinction between prejudices based on ancestral/genetic aspects of ethnicity, and those based on, for example, nationality.

While I have never knowingly been abused for being white, I have been abused for being English several times, and, on two occasions, in an overtly cruel and intimidating manner. Does this mean I can talk about myself as a victim of racism? I'd always assumed that doing so would be inaccurate, and that classifying anti-English sentiments as racism would diminish the power of the word. But it seems as if you and Traitorfish are saying that what I suffered was unquestionably racist abuse. Is that right?

My point in the post you quoted isn't so much to define what should be classified as racist, but rather to say that even if you classified verbal abuse against minorities such as Poles as "racism", that doesn't diminish the strength of the term "racism" when applied to lynching negroes (or other more serious and harmful attacks on minorities). Being singled out because of one's skin-colour really does feel worse than being singled-out because of one's nationality. But that would be true even if we labelled both things as "racism". There are clearly different degrees of racism; different levels of harm caused by racist acts. A racist act could be shrugged off and ignored, or it could cause a massive amount of harm to its recipient. Acknowledging that there exist forms of racism that cause milder damage than lynching negroes, and labelling them all as racism, doesn't really diminish the power of the word "racism". Not to my mind anyway.

To address your point, I talk about "minorities" (and I use that term loosely, and not literally to mean "<50% of the population") rather than "nationalities" here, because I think that's important. I think it's difficult to claim that your ethnicity, class, religion or nationality is being oppressed or suffers from racism (in the way that Ayn Rand did earlier) when your ethnicity, background and nationality makes up the political and cultural elite of society. I would wager that the reason you found your experience with prejudice so cruel and intimidating is because it came from a position where you, personally, were not in a position of power. It's hard to intimidate someone who holds more power than you. But if you were, say, the only white man living in a ghetto in Detroit or something, and you experienced intimidation on the basis of your skin colour, then that would surely be racist. If you were the only Englishman living on a Glasgow council estate, and you suffered intimidation based on your nationality, then I don't see why you can't call that racism either; nor do I see how that diminishes the power of the term.

But even if you were an Englishman living in Berkshire complaining that anti-discrimination laws are an assault on the inherited privileges of the English majority, then claiming that you suffer from racism on that basis would still not diminish the power of the term "racism". Indeed, if the power of the term is diluted because of that usage, it is because people don't understand the difference between the intimidation that someone suffers when they are at the mercy of a more powerful sociological group, and the loss of privilege that happens when power is taken away from a more powerful sociological group. In other words, the power of the word "racism" only diminishes in the minds of people who don't understand why the word "racism" has so much power in the first place. People who don't understand "racism".

In any case, I'd rather get people to try to think about just why some attacks feel worse than others, than to tell them "this is racism, this is as bad as lynching negroes, don't do it". If the word "racism" includes a broad spectrum of things, then labelling something as "racism" means that people can't automatically assume that it's as bad as lynching negroes; they have to think of exactly what's causing the harm, in this particular instance, and try to stop doing that in other instances. The people who have an understanding of the underlying causes of the harm are the people who can happily apply the term "racism" to discrimination against Poles, because the mechanism is the same.

It has byproducts too: you can apply similar thinking to situations that don't involve race or nationality, such as homophobia and sexism. Sexism is still a huge problem, but like racism, people still don't get it. I don't get it sometimes either, because it's never happened to me. I don't know what it feels like to wonder whether I got that raise at work because I genuinely did outstanding work this year (i.e. the content of my character), or because my boss likes my arse. Equally, I don't know what it feels like to have people say at the watercooler that it's because of my arse, and not my work. That the term "racism" seems to have more clout than the term "sexism" is purely an accident of history; they're both rooted in the same underlying problem. Maybe it would be better if the term "racism" was diluted, to the point where people would actually have to think about the mechanisms that underlie it. Maybe it would shed light onto forms of prejudices that affect 50% of the workforce, rather than 10%.

 

[Winston Hughes]

What you say does make sense in many ways, but...

My impression is that society at large generally takes the narrower definition of racism, and thereby distinguishes it as something which is different to, and more reprehensible than, prejudice or discrimination of other types. And, moreover, we put in place laws which operate on that assumption, which might be much more tricky to defend if we accept the far broader definition of racism.

On one hand, the idea that we can specify certain types of racism (in the broad definition) as worse than others, and legislate accordingly, is going to look a lot like double standards. The question will be raised again and again: why is racism against me okay, while racism against you is not? Answers that rely on historical events or minority status are only likely to make it seem even more like some people are claiming a special status.

If, on the other hand, we do not distinguish between different types of racism (broadly defined), then an even-handed application of the law is going to see an awful lot of people branded as racist and sanctioned for things that, today, are seen as less offensive than racism (in the narrow definition). For example, I suspect you'd see an awful lot of Scots accused of anti-English racism (and vice versa), and an awful lot of Indians and their descendents accused of anti-Pakistani/Bangladeshi racism.

Perhaps that is how it should be, but I still can't help wondering if it would take the sting out of the word 'racism' in many people's minds, since they themselves would now be guilty of it.

If you were the only Englishman living on a Glasgow council estate, and you suffered intimidation based on your nationality

I wasn't living there, thankfully.

 

[aelf]

The flip side, however, is that taking great offence to comments that were not meant to offend produces an oppositional reaction. Quite often, those who make such comments feel as if they are wrongly branded as racists, and that their intentions are willfully misrepresented by people with an axe to grind. This can then lead to a sense that casual racism in general is something that is unduly criticised, making flagrantly racist comments seem less offensive by association with more innocent ones.

It seems absurd to expect people at the receiving end to read your intentions when the whole situation is to a large extent predicated on cultural differences. I suppose that is what takes the sting out jibes made between friends and groups that are less dissimilar to each other - it has to do with perceived intentions rather than actual intentions, as with many other issues.

And, moreover, we put in place laws which operate on that assumption, which might be much more tricky to defend if we accept the far broader definition of racism.

Surely this is not unprecedented. I'm sure there are other instances where the legal definition of a word is different from the social and sociological definition of it, and that doesn't seem to pose much of a problem. If anything, with regards to racism and similar kinds of discrimination, the law should be what is changed to encompass the latter rather than just referring to the former.

I understand that legal terminology needs to have precise meanings as far as possible, but I don't think that implies that meanings in other domains must be precise as well.

 

[Winston Hughes]

It seems absurd to expect people at the receiving end to read your intentions when the whole situation is to a large extent predicated on cultural differences. I suppose that is what takes the sting out jibes made between friends and groups that are less dissimilar to each other - it has to do with perceived intentions rather than actual intentions, as with many other issues.

Sometimes offence is taken even when it is abundantly clear that offence was not meant. And if it's simply the case that whoever is 'on the receiving end' decides whether something is offensive, then expect to see ever increasing claims of dubious validity, such as those underpinning the view that Ayn Rand parodied earlier in the thread.

Surely this is not unprecedented. I'm sure there are other instances where the legal definition of a word is different from the social and sociological definition of it, and that doesn't seem to pose much of a problem. If anything, with regards to racism and similar kinds of discrimination, the law should be what is changed to encompass the latter rather than just referring to the former.

I understand that legal terminology needs to have precise meanings as far as possible, but I don't think that implies that meanings in other domains must be precise as well.

My point was that any general adoption of the broader definition might erode support for laws founded on the narrower definition.

(Something that drives me crazy about some parts of the left is the constant drive for sociological definitions that are counterproductive in a political context. It seems sometimes as if such people are determined to remain ever on the political fringe - principled, consistent, and utterly irrelevant.)

 

[Mise]

@Winston Hughes: That's a fair point. I guess what I'm saying in a social sphere may have negative consequences on the credibility of laws based around the narrower definition of racism. However, I think it's possible to have a narrow, legal definition of something, and also a wider definition that encapsulates what is socially acceptable. Similar to how the age of sexual consent is legally 16, but it's still socially unacceptable for a 36 year old to date a 16 year old. And we'd probably call him a paedo, even thought he isn't under the narrower legal definition.

 

[aelf]

My point was that any general adoption of the broader definition might erode support for laws founded on the narrower definition.

(Something that drives me crazy about some parts of the left is the constant drive for sociological definitions that are counterproductive in a political context. It seems sometimes as if such people are determined to remain ever on the political fringe - principled, consistent, and utterly irrelevant.)

People prefer the status quo. So what? It's our job to push the envelope. If we just have old Oxford high table liberals sitting around debating the overlapping consensus then things would move a lot more slowly; there wouldn't be the Occupy movements and you'd just be shaking your heads all day at naughty illiberal people.

 

[Winston Hughes]

@Winston Hughes: That's a fair point. I guess what I'm saying in a social sphere may have negative consequences on the credibility of laws based around the narrower definition of racism. However, I think it's possible to have a narrow, legal definition of something, and also a wider definition that encapsulates what is socially acceptable. Similar to how the age of sexual consent is legally 16, but it's still socially unacceptable for a 36 year old to date a 16 year old. And we'd probably call him a paedo, even thought he isn't under the narrower legal definition.

I agree completely. Just need to keep one eye on the politics when prioritising definitions in any given case.

People prefer the status quo. So what? It's our job to push the envelope. If we just have old Oxford high table liberals sitting around debating the overlapping consensus then things would move a lot more slowly; there wouldn't be the Occupy movements and you'd just be shaking your heads all day at naughty illiberal people.

If you're using the Occupy movement as the exemplar of political action, your ideology is in serious trouble.

 

[aelf]

If you're using the Occupy movement as the exemplar of political action, your ideology is in serious trouble.

I think it has produced something (and it's more than I could hope for), given the circumstances and the people involved. And I think those who deny that are snobs who don't really have an answer or a solution either.