From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: is power needed for racism?
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:21:47 GMT
	<1992Oct5.112955.12011@vms.eurokom.ie>
Distribution: soc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie's message of 5 Oct 92 11:14:48 GMT

ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
|>So, do blacks need "institutional power" before they can be racist?  Can an
|>individual be racist if he/she is not white?
|> 
|Having got into a stand-up argument (my first for years!) on this
|subject last week, I'll try to approach it calmly!

|Is there such a thing as a "Black racist"? I don't think so, but it
|depends how you choose your definitions.

|You can make two kinds of definition of "racist"; and one of them will
|allow "Black racist" to make sense while the other won't.

|The first defines "racism" in terms of a set of characteristics, things
|like "reaching decisions about people on the basis of their perceived
|ethnicity" or maybe "discriminating against people on the basis of their
|perceived ethnicity". You can refine those definitions but it won't make
|much difference. Under that kind of definition "Black racism" is obviously
|a concept that makes sense, and its existence could only be denied by
|claiming (strong form) that Black people never discriminate on that basis
|(not very plausible, one counter-example, easy to find, is enough to
|disprove that claim); or by claiming (weak form) that discrimination by
|other than whites is so rare and marginal that it is misleading to point
|to it and claim some symmetry between "white racism" and "Black racism".
|But that just means saying that "Black racism" exists but is not very
|important. So under this kind of definition, "Black racism" does exist.

|The second defines "racism" historically. In the context of America
|(or more generally of the catastrophic and genocidal impact of Europe
|on the rest of the world) "white racism" has been the racism of people
|who run society against the oppressed and exploited, and it has functioned
|to help white people feel good about oppressing and exploiting. Nothing
|that might be called "Black racism" has had anything like the same
|impact. "White racism" has been part of a system of power whereas "Black
|racism" has been a reaction against a system of power. So it seems
|misleading to try and put them on the same footing, it sounds like the
|beginning of an attempt to dress up the role of Europeans in history:
|"There's a bit of blame on both sides, let's take a balanced view ..."
[...]

This is a nice summary of the issue.  Personally, I prefer the first
definition and refer to the second as "oppression."

Further--without making value judgements--I consider most "Black
racism" to be reactive, as opposed to original.  Intelligent people
can disagree on whether there should be a distinction in a social
context (clearly I think the answer is yes in a historical context).

The *real* problem we have to deal with is the inertia of the
oppressive system.  On average, White folx can't help but to benefit
from the system (men can't help but to benefit from the system)
because of the way its geared and because the historical inequity
generates present inequity.  It is very difficult to get people to see
this because they infer it as charge of "guilt"--something folx are
always ready to resist.

--
Peace.
          "Any Black man who's educated and speaks articulately is not 
           considered 'really' Black.  It's the same reason people think 
           you're a dyke."
"People think I'm a dyke?"
          "Take it as a compliment,  I've learned to."
                                    -Kyle Baker, Why I Hate Saturn
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-