From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: is power needed for racism?
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:22:35 GMT
	<ISBELL.92Oct5092147@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct5.172958.12012@vms.eurokom.ie>
Distribution: soc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie's message of 5 Oct 92 18:26:00 GMT

ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
|I agree with Charles Isbell's distinction between original and
|reactive racism, 
|I wonder though whether it's a good idea to call "reactive racism" racism at
|all, I mean racism conjures up all sorts of images and reactions which I don't
|think should apply to "reactive racism". Because if you have a term like
|"reactive racism" it's going to be applied to all kinds of stuff. 

I had an argument with a psuedo-liberal pal of mine on this issue.  He
was arguing about the redefinition of "racism" to prejudice+power,
claiming it to be correct.  I said that I prefer using "oppression" or
"systemic oppression" to describe it because racism is a set of
beliefs, not a set of actions.  In other words, the same arguments
we've seen on the net.

In the end, I discovered his underlying motivation.  He basically
cornered me into agreeing that some action was strictly "racist" but
still okay (it wasn't affirmative action, but it was something like
that).  He said "aha!"  We should distinguish between "good" racism
and "bad" racism and--since racism was such an ugly word--we shouldn't
call "good" racism, racism.

A wierd argument, I thought at the time, but for cultural reasons,
it's impossible to say "this is a little racist (by definiton)" but
still has a net positive gain.  That's why its called "self-defense"
or "serving your country" instead of murder, after all.  Same action
at the objective level, but intent is implied by our choice of words.

Therefore, the United Negro College Fund may be, by a strict
definition "racist" or "discriminatory" but its hardly bad.  For very
good historical reasons it is a very, very good thing.  It *at worst*
is a reactive racism (if it's even that--I'm pretending it is for the
sake of argument).

The problem of course, with the prejudice+power definition is that it
has the same problem on the other end.  We end up not calling "racist"
things racist.

What we need, I guess, are new words for "bad racism" "good racism"
"racism with an impact" and "inconsequential racism."

Or something.
[... on Black dorms, houses, culture centers, that sort of thing...]
|It is discrimination, but the phrase "discrimination in reverse" implies that
|it's just like Jim Crow backwards, which is nonsense because it's trying to
|correct an imbalance, not to reinforce a system of power.

Right.

Now to be devil's adovcate:  are these "corrections" trying to create
a structure equally as "bad" that acts as a countervailing force (two
wrongs may not make a right but they even the odds)?  If so, is this
good? 

|Charles Isbell refers to "historical inequity", "guilt", "inertia of the
|system" ... I think these are the key concepts. A lot of meritocrats
|say "Yes I 
|agree that historically African Americans were oppressed etc, but that's
|history, it's nothing to do with our generation, as long as we make sure that
|discrimination in employment, housing, etc isn't allowed today, then
|everything 
|should work out." Well who wiped the slate clean? As he points out "white folx
|can't help but to benefit from the system," so how convenient to have a
|moratorium on historical debts. Financial debts last quite a long time, I
|believe people who owned shares in Tsarist Russian firms that were confiscated
|after 1917 are getting something back now. How about historical debts? Sounds
|to me like the term "black racism" could be used to condemn any attempt to
|right historical wrongs, since any such attempt would necessarily involve
|distinguishing on the basis of the very same oppressive categories in
|which the 
|wrongs were committed in the first place.

Nothing to add, but it bore repeating.
--
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
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american