From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Racism Defined ...
Keywords: Racism, Racialism, Power, etc.
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:00:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.215437.15792@eng.umd.edu> clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
>In article <11620@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, nayak@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Krishna Nayak) writes:

>>the way I have always understood it, is that Racism is not simply about
>>making an attempt to oppress/subordinate a particular group.  

>    What is the difference between an attempt and actually doing it?
>Whether it succeeds or not?

The difference is that in order to justify their racist ideas, some people
conveniently define racism so as to not allow it to apply to them.

Racism is the the IDEA that race implies moral or intellectual characteristics.
Of course white racists claim "We are just promoting white pride, we aren't
anti-black." and black racists (like Farakahn) say the same thing (and in fact
they agree with the white racists on almost every fundamental issue).  Someone
can be a racist without ever interacting with a person of another race...like
all other "isms", racism is something you think, not something you do.

If these people think that racism is something that only whites can 
exhibit, then one has to wonder just why racism is bad.  One also has to
wonder what they call the kinds of ideas and practices they are condemning
when they are practiced by minorities...do they think it's acceptable?  Do
they think it is good?  do they think is it better than white racism?
The reason they define it that way is because they think that their kind of
racism is OK, but they still want to condemn other kinds.

>>I can "attempt" to subordinate someone by attempting to beat them up.
>>But if I don't have the POWER to win the fight, I do not really constitute
>>racism, because I have not subordinated the enemy in any way at all...

>    I have read where blacks have said that they were followed in stores
>or watched to see if they were going to steal something.   Depending on
>how racism is defined,  this may or may not be considered an act of
>racism.   If it is, then making fun of the way some whites dance might
>also be construed as racism.

What matters is the mindset involved.  If the folks making fun of whites
dancing were doing it in order to ridicule behavior which they consider to
be based on race, then it's racist.  If they are just poking fun at the 
behavior (without having the idea that being white makes one not have rhythm...
an intellectual matter) then they are not being racists.

>>Similarly, (taking a more commonly talked about situation), I would need
>>executive power, if I wanted to restrict a particular ethnic group from
>>being hired by my company.  without power, I am doing nothing.

>    So if Spike Lee hires an all-black crew, is that racist?  

Yes, because he's doing it because he thinks that all white have certain 
ideas.  That makes him a racist. (I know this from various interviews, not
just his movies.)

>I'm not
>saying one way or the other, but one could say he has power.  

Sure he does.  He has a heck of a lot more power than I do, but that
doesn't matter.  Some people who are very poor and powerless have 
a tremendously racist way of looking at the world.

>>I always thought that having the subordinating ideas in your mind
>>was one thing (racialism), and that to actually constitute RACISM
>>you would need the Power to implement your views.  

>   I think the distinction ought to be made.  Nevertheless, people
>have a hard time separating the two.   If I call you an ABCD, then that
>may not be a racist act, though it may be a racialist act.  Not knowing
>the definition of racialism, I would have to defer the definition
>to someone like you who knows more about the topic.

What I want to know is why any criticism of one wouldn't apply just as well
to the other?

--Brian