Skip to main content

Are You a Racist?
Compiled by the DiversityInc staff

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 DiversityInc.com

January 09, 2006

Countless e-mails begin this way: "You'll probably think I'm racist for asking this, but ..."



But what, exactly, makes a person a racist?

Writing for The Miami Herald, Mary Sanchez, an opinions-page columnist for The Kansas City Star, says that the word "racist" often is misused by the people who use it on others.

Far too often, simply posing an honest question garners this assault, questions that some in society have deemed too "sensitive" to ask, Sanchez writes. And, she says, having an in-depth conversation also becomes out of the question.

Racism, as defined by Sanchez, is about power and money, and people are not racist if they simply dislike you. The definition of racism, Sanchez writes in her opinions article, is using a race or ethnicity-based belief to hurt someone economically. If someone is denied a job, a bank loan or a promotion because of their race, that is racism. Everything else, Sanchez writes, is simply bias or prejudice. And we all do that.

Racism is economic. It is about hurting someone in a tangible, bankable way. Which is also why, in years past, white people had a far greater chance of being racist than people of color. They simply were more likely to be in powerful enough positions to leverage their hatred.


* I guess that speaks volumes about jim crow and this country even to this day.....the racism associated with everything financial from hiring to lending to releasing information about valuable resources still exists.....but some of the fools in here wonder why there needs to be laws to change behaviors.....well....duh?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Racism, as defined by Sanchez, is about power and money, and people are not racist if they simply dislike you.


Okay. No problem here.

quote:
The definition of racism, Sanchez writes in her opinions article, is using a race or ethnicity-based belief to hurt someone economically.


Okay. I got a problem with this. If I banish white folks to the back of the bus; or refuse to sale them a hamburger; or deny them admission to the college of their choice of college, even though they meet the qualifications; or withhold resources for pre-school education, but only in rural areas, or depict them exclusively as criminals or servants in the press and on primetime TV, all because they are white, have I hurt them economically? Have I exhibited racism.

"Mary Sanchez" of Miami. What do you bet that she is 3rd generation white Cuban? And, her great-grandparents would have, and maybe her grandparents, referred to her as Maria.
quote:
Racism, as defined by Sanchez, is about power and money, and people are not racist if they simply dislike you. The definition of racism, Sanchez writes in her opinions article, is using a race or ethnicity-based belief to hurt someone economically. If someone is denied a job, a bank loan or a promotion because of their race, that is racism. Everything else, Sanchez writes, is simply bias or prejudice. And we all do that.


I only have one problem with this. By my understanding, racism is simply a specific form of prejudice. At its core, its no different than classism or sexism. The question is "What is the bias?" not "Is there a bias?" For a person to say they are not racist, they are saying that they are not prejudice, that they do not pre-judge.

But, as she said, we all do that. Prejudice is one of the ways we quantify our suroundings with the small amount of information given in a short amount of time. I don't think it's a question of "Am I racist?" Of course I'm racist, as much as I am classist and sexist. The question is how much do I allow it to control my life. I think racism and other forms of prejudice only do damage when we forget what it is, a PRE-judgment. When we do that we close ourselves off to new information, so we never get past the prejudice itself.

Prejudice is like a backseat driver. So long as it remains in the backseat, it can't hurt us or anyone else, and it might even be an occasional help. But if we let it get behind the wheel it can cause incredible amounts of damage, to us and anyone around us.
quote:
But, as she said, we all do that. Prejudice is one of the ways we quantify our suroundings with the small amount of information given in a short amount of time. I don't think it's a question of "Am I racist?" Of course I'm racist, as much as I am classist and sexist. The question is how much do I allow it to control my life. I think racism and other forms of prejudice only do damage when we forget what it is, a PRE-judgment. When we do that we close ourselves off to new information, so we never get past the prejudice itself.
by Black Viking

appl Very astute. appl
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Racism, as defined by Sanchez, is about power and money, and people are not racist if they simply dislike you.


Okay. No problem here.

quote:
The definition of racism, Sanchez writes in her opinions article, is using a race or ethnicity-based belief to hurt someone economically.


Okay. I got a problem with this. If I banish white folks to the back of the bus; or refuse to sale them a hamburger; or deny them admission to the college of their choice of college, even though they meet the qualifications; or withhold resources for pre-school education, but only in rural areas, or depict them exclusively as criminals or servants in the press and on primetime TV, all because they are white, have I hurt them economically? Have I exhibited racism.

"Mary Sanchez" of Miami. What do you bet that she is 3rd generation white Cuban? And, her great-grandparents would have, and maybe her grandparents, referred to her as Maria.


bump bump

Just like "Samuel Alito" probably originally had some more Italian-sounding name, and he probably became an arch-conservative to appeal to the Anglo-Saxxon crowd so they would forget about his "Italian-ness".

Alot of non-Anglo-Saxxon Whites are more outwardly and openly racist (as well as status-quo protecting) to impress their Anglo peers and "get in good" with them.
I agree that racism is inextricably linked to the power to subjugate another group, or otherwise interfere with their social or economic acension.

I don't believe a self-loathing need-to-grow, even if acting as a gatekeeper, can be a racist, although that does make him a prejudiced or bigoted dullard... not to mention a whole azz.
There is excellent differentiation going here.

The next question of course is: Is a racist a practitioner of racism?

The definition that has generally been accepted on the board is that racism is prejudice, or discrimination with the power to make it true.

Can that be accompanying definition of a racist?

I don't consider myself a racist, nor ever having been a racist.

Yet, I do discriminate.

On many bases, including race and ethnicity.

Not color.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience.

Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that discriminate against people based on their perceived or ascribed "race". Primarily, it refers to an assumption that the human species can meaningfully be divided into races, together with hostility to people of certain races or a belief, conscious or unconscious, that people of different races differ in value. Some people whose thinking about others uses racial categories believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale.

I understand the economic aspect she is getting at. I read articles by black people that view racism from this perspective. The economic aspect is just a tool of the racist.

But by definition – prejudice is prejudice and racism is racism.

To PRE judge means that you have no knowledge or experience with what or who is being judged. This can't apply to modern day America. The "melting pot" has been bubbling and bowling for awhile now. We've been integrated for awhile now. And though you can still find those that have a limited experience and view of others, and therefore have made POOR judgments, it doesn't explain or minimize modern day racism.

But once you do have "direct experience ", how do we explain the continued prejudice? It is racism, classism, and sexism.

So if a white person still believes that blacks are less intelligent, are they racist or prejudice? If they have been living under a rock or in a cave...it's prejudice other wise it's racism.

Dr. Phil had this as part of his race issue yesterday. He had a older white man who was prejudice (he had limited or no experience with blacks AND had been taught to dislike them when growing up). He was sent to visit the comedian George Wallace's family. He went to church, had dinner, and interacted with black people in a meaningful way for what seem to be the first time in his life. It gave him a new outlook.

IF he continues to hold his prejudice THEN he is a racist.
I see what your getting at MLM. The only problem I have is about those who have direct experience, and that direct experience supports all of their prior prejudices. For example, if I grow up believing that Asians are the smartest people in the world even though I never met one. Then I go away to college and meet some, and they all seem to get better grades than me. I percieve that they are all smarter than me. Prejudice supported by direct experience.

Do you think that white man on the Dr. Phil show would have changed his mind about black folks if he had been sent to the home of a black family that fit his stereotype?
Last edited {1}
While I do agree that being racist has more to do with the power someone can have over another, I also take into account the fact that I have associates that are latino, asian, and the like, and older family members do make stereotypical cracks about them, which I don't appreciate. In that sense, I would consider them racist remarks.
Honestly, and with all due respect, I'm not sure I understand why we're debating these semantic distinctions. Whether a racist is one with power, or merely a bigot, is not really meaningful to me. At the root, is the exact same sore - festering inside someone. If that sore exists - then it merely awaits an opportunity to infect others.

I could certainly create a belief system that says that racism is one who makes judgments based upon race and that discrimination is the impact of one's racist decision's - but what do I know. bsm
Honestly, and with all due respect, I'm not sure I understand why we're debating these semantic distinctions. Whether a racist is one with power, or merely a bigot, is not really meaningful to me. At the root, is the exact same sore - festering inside someone. If that sore exists - then it merely awaits an opportunity to infect others.

I could certainly create a belief system that says that racism is one who makes judgments based upon race and that discrimination is the impact of one's racist decision's - but what do I know.---MBM

I agree about the 'semanticism'.

There is, however, a difference. Maybe it has to do with pragmatism.

Certainly there are decisions based simply on race that are valid, and not pejorative. Such as the decisions made by geneticists.

There are decisions based on race that are discriminatory, and without malice. Such as the call a response to a search for persons of Asian/Mongoloid ancestry.

There are decisions based on race made with malice. They are clearly racist.

But the question then becomes, is THAT racism per se. Clearly, it is racist.

The person making the decision may have zero power to make that perferance true.

I would call that racist without the leverage of racism.

We are inclined to say one is the other without being concerned about the difference.

Maybe because we don't see the difference.

But clearly there is a difference.

The practitioners may be similar.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Some of you may have seen this article, but I thought I would throw it into the mix from the site Race Traitor .

The White Anti-Racist Is an Oxymoron:
An Open Letter to "White Anti-Racists"
By Tamara K. Nopper


I received an annoying e-mail about white people and their struggle to do anti-racist work. I keep reading and hearing white people talk about their struggle to do anti-racist organizing, and frankly it gets on my nerves. So I am writing this open letter to white people who engage in any activist work that involves or affects non-whites. Given that the US social structure is founded on white supremacy, and that there is a global order in which white supremacy and European domination are at large, I would challenge any white person to figure out what movement or action they can get involved in that will not involve or affect non-white people.


That said, I want to begin with what has become a realization for me through the help of different politically conscious friends. There is NO SUCH THING AS A WHITE ANTI-RACIST. The term itself, "white anti- racist" is an oxymoron. In the following, I will explain why. Then, I will begin to detail how this impacts non-white people in organizing work specifically, along with how it affects non-white people generally.

First, one must realize that whiteness is a structure of domination. As such, there is nothing redeemable or reformable about whiteness. Intellectuals, scholars and activists, especially those who are non- white, have drawn our attention to this for years. For example, people such as Malcolm X, W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Ida B. Wells, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and many, many others who are perhaps less famous, have articulated the relationship between whiteness and domination.

Further, people such as Douglass and DuBois began to outline how whiteness is a social and political construct that emphasizes the domination, authority, and perceived humanity of those who are racialized as white. They, along with many other non-white writers and orators, have pointed to the fact that it was the bodies who were able to be racialized as "white" that were able to be viewed as rational, authoritative, and deserving. Further, and believe me, this is no small thing, white people are viewed as human. What this means is that when white people suffer, as some who are poor/female/queer, they nevertheless are able to have some measure of sympathy for their plight simply because they are white and their marginalization is considered an emergency, crisis or an issue to be concerned about.


Furthermore, even when white people have been oppressed by various dimensions of classism, homophobia and heterosexism, they have been able to opt for what DuBois, in his monograph "Black Reconstruction" brilliantly called "the psychological wage of whiteness." That is, whites that are marginalized could find comfort, even if psychological, in the fact that they were not non-white. They could revel in the fact that they could be taken as white in opposition to non-white groups. The desire for this wage of whiteness was also what drove many white people, albeit marginalized, to engage in organized violence against non-whites.


Of course, legal cases such as the Dred Scott Decision along with many different naturalization cases involving Asian individuals, has helped to encode a state-sanctioned definition of whiteness. But there are other ways in which white people can be racialized as white by the state. They are not stopped while driving as much as non-white people. Their homes and businesses are not raided and searched as much by police officers, INS or License and Inspections (L&I). White people's bodies are not tracked and locked up in prisons, detention centers, juvenile systems, detention halls in classrooms, "special education" classes, etc. White people's bodies are not generally the site of fear, repulsion, violent desire, or hatred.

Now some might point out to me that white people are followed, tracked and harassed by individuals and state agents such as the police. This is true. Some white women get sexually harassed and experience state-sanctioned discrimination. Queer whites are the subject of homophobia, whether by individuals or by the state through laws and the police. Some queer whites are harassed by cops. Activist whites are stopped by police. White people who play rap music and wear gear are stopped by cops. Poor whites can be criminalized, especially by the state around welfare issues. What I want to point out is that, while I do not condone police violence and harassment, there is a way in which white people will not be viewed as inherently criminal or suspect unless they are perceived as doing something that breaks particular norms.


Conversely, other racial groups, particularly Blacks and Native Americans, are considered inherently criminal no matter what they do, what their sexual identity is or what they wear. Further, it has always struck me as interesting that there are white people who will attempt to wear what signifies "Blackness," whether it is dreadlocks (which, in my opinion, should be cut off from every white person's head), "gear," or Black masks at rallies. There is a sick way in which white people want to emulate that which is considered "badass" about a certain existential position of Blackness at the same time they do not want the burden of living as a non-white person. Further, it really strikes me as fucked up the way in which white people will go to rallies and taunt the police with Black masks in order to bring on police pressure. What does it mean when Blackness is strategically used by whites to bring on police violence? Now I know that somewhere there is a dreadlocked, smelly white anarchist who is reading this message and who is angry with me for not understanding the logic of the Black masks and its roots in anarchism. But I would challenge these people to consider how they are reproducing a violence towards Blackness in their attempts to taunt and challenge the police in their efforts.


Now back to my point that white anti-racism is an oxymoron. Whiteness is a social and political construct rooted in white supremacy. White supremacy is a structure and system of beliefs rooted in European and US imperialism in which certain racialized bodies (non-white) are selected for premature negation whether through cultural, physical, psychological genocide, containment or other forms of social death. White supremacy is at the heart of the US social system and civil society. In short, white supremacy is not just a series of practices or privilege, but a larger social structure and system of domination that overly-values and rewards those who are racialized as white. The rest of us are constructed as undeserving to be considered human, although there is significant variation within non-white populations of how our bodies are encoded, treated and (de)valued.


Now, for one to claim whiteness, one also is invested in white supremacy. Whiteness itself is a political term that emerged among European white ethnics in the US. These European ethnics, many of them reviled, chose to cast their lot with whiteness rather than that with those who had been determined as non-white. In short, anyone who claims to be white, even a white anti-racist, is identifying with a history of European imperialism and racism transported and further developed into the US.


However, this does not mean that white people who go around saying dumb things such as "I am not white! I am a human being!" or, "I left whiteness and joined the human race," or my favorite, "I hate white people! They're stupid" are not structurally white. Remember, whiteness is a structure of domination embedded in our social relations, institutions, discourses, and practices. Don't tell me you're not white but then when we go out in the street and the police don't bother you or people don't ask you if you're a prostitute, or if people don't follow you and touch you at will, act like that does not make a difference in our lives. Basically, you can't talk, or merely "unlearn" whiteness, as all of these annoying trainings for white people to "unlearn" racism will have you think.


Rather, white people need to be willing to have their very social position, their very relationship of domination, their very authority, their very being...let go, perhaps even destroyed. I know this might sound scary, but that is really not my concern. I am not interested in making white people, even those so-called good-hearted anti-racist whites, comfortable about their position in struggles that shape my life in ways that it will never shape theirs. I recently finished the biography of John Brown by DuBois. The biography was less of a biography and more of an interpretation by DuBois about the now-legendary white abolitionist. Now while John Brown's practice was problematic in many ways--he still had to be in control and he had fucked-up views that Blacks were still enslaved because they were too "servile" (a white supremacist sentiment)--what I took from Brown's life was that he realized that moral persuasion alone would not solve racial problems. That is, whites cannot talk or just think through whiteness and structures of white supremacy. They must be committed to either picking up arms for other people (and only firing when the people tell them so), dying for other people, or just getting out of the way. In short, they must be willing to do what the people most affected and marginalized by a situation tell them to do.


Now I am sure that right now there are some white people saying that other people cannot understand what is going on, that they do not have the critical analysis to figure stuff out, or that non-white people have fucked up ideas. This is just white supremacist bullshit because it is rooted in the idea that non-white people have not interpreted their experiences and cannot run things themselves. It also assumes that there are not internal conversations within communities--which I do not think white people need to be privy to or participate in--in which people struggle out their own visions for society and how to go about achieving them. In short, this perspective by whites that non-white people cannot be in control of our own destinies is rooted in a paternally-racist approach to non-white people.


Further, it is also rooted in the idea that white people are not racist or do not benefit from racism. Rather, white people at meetings will often discuss how they feel "silenced" by non-whites, or that they are being "put in their place." Let me make one thing clear: it is impossible for a non-white person to put a white person in her place. This is not to say that non-white people cannot have a sexist or homophobic attitude towards a white person. But to say, or even hint at that as a "WHITE" person someone is being put in their place--whoever says this just needs to shut the fuck up because that is some bull. It is impossible for whiteness to be put in one's place, because that is a part of whiteness, the ability to take up space and feel a prerogative to do so.


Further, the idea that white people are being put into their place relies on the neo-conservative view of reverse racism that has characterized the backlash against non-whites, especially Blacks, in the post-civil rights era. So when you say these types of things you are actually helping to reproduce a neo-conservative racial rhetoric which relies on the myth of the "threatened" and "displaced" white person.


Additionally, white activism, especially white anti-racism, is predicated on an economy of gratitude. We are supposed to be grateful that a white person is willing to work with non-white people. We are supposed to be grateful that you actually want to work with us and that you give us your resources. I would like to know why you have those resources and others do not? And don't assume that just because I have to ask you for resources that it does not hurt me, pain me even. Don't assume that when you come into the space, that doesn't bother me. Don't assume that when you talk first, talk the most, and talk the most often, that this doesn't hurt me. Don't assume that when I see you get the attention and accolades and the book deals and the speaking engagements that this does not hurt me (because you profit off of pain). And don't assume that when I see how grateful non-white people are to you for being there, for being a "good white" person that this doesn't hurt me. And don't assume that when I get chastised by non-white people because I think your presence is unnecessary that it does not hurt me. Because all of these things remind me of how powerless non-white people are (albeit differently) in relation to white people. All of these gestures that you do reminds me of how grateful I am supposed to be towards you because you actually (or supposedly) care about what is happening to me. I am a bit resentful of economies of gratitude.


Further, this structure of white supremacy known as white anti-racism also impacts the larger social world because it still makes white people the most valued people. Non-white people are forced to feel dependent and grateful to white people who will actually interact with us. We are made to feel that we are inferior, incapable, that we really do need white people. And the sad thing is, that given all of the resources that whiteness has and that white people get and control, there is an element of material truth in all of this, I am afraid. But white people need to think of how their activism reproduces the actual structure of white supremacy some--not all whites activists--profess to be about. This structure of white supremacy is not just in an activist space, it actually touches upon and impinges on the lives of non-white people who may not be activists (in your sense) or who do not interact with you in activist worlds.


But consider what your presence means in a community that you decide to set up your community garden in, or your bookstore in, or your meeting space in, or have your march in. What does it mean when you decide that you want to be "with" the oppressed and you end up displacing them? Just because you walk around with your dreadlocks, or decide that you will not wear expensive clothes does not mean that your whiteness does not displace people in the spaces you decide to put yourself in. How do you help to bring more forms of authority and control in a neighborhood, whether through increased rent and housing costs, more policing, or just the ways in which your white bodies can make people feel, as a brilliant friend of mine once asked, "squatters in somebody else's project"?


So what does this mean for the future of white anti-racists? This might mean to first, figure out ways in which whiteness needs to die as a social structure and as an identity in which you organize your anti-racist work. What this looks like in practice may not be so clear but I will attempt to give some suggestions here. First, don't call us, we'll call you. If we need your resources, we will contact you. But don't show up, flaunt your power in our faces and then get angry when we resent the fact that you have so many resources we don't and that we are not grateful for this arrangement. And don't get mad because you can't make decisions in the process. Why do you need to? Secondly, stop speaking for us. We can talk for ourselves. Third, stop trying to point out internal contradictions in our communities, we know what they are, we are struggling around them, and I really do not know how white people can be helpful to non- whites to clear these up. Fourth, don't ever say some shit to me about how you feel silenced, marginalized, discriminated against, or put in your place. Period. Finally, start thinking of what it would mean, in terms of actual structured social arrangements, for whiteness and white identity--even the white antiracist kind (because there really is no redeemable or reformed white identity)--to be destroyed.


In conclusion, I want to say to anyone who thinks that this is too academic or abstract, I write as a non-white person, meaning that from my body, my person, I experience white supremacy. I also draw my understanding of white supremacy from non-white people, many engaged in various struggles of activism, but most importantly just to speak out and stay alive. They did not get accolades from many for speaking out but instead experienced constant threats on their lives for just existing and doing the work that they did. Moreover, I want to know when a discussion of whiteness, white supremacy and domination became seen as abstract and not rooted in the everyday concrete reality that we experience?
quote:
Originally posted by hotcocoa:
I completely disagree. Anyone can be racist, it doesn't matter if you have power or not. If you are dead broke and have feelings of pure hatred for a specific group, you are a racist. Having the power to discriminate is something different.


We all seem to agree. Anyone can be a racist.

The discussion evolved into the determining when that becomes 'racism'.

We agree again.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
We all seem to agree. Anyone can be a racist.

The discussion evolved into the determining when that becomes 'racism'.

We agree again.

PEACE

Jim Chester

Well I may be in disagreement. Racism is structural, systemic, and institutional. Being racist has to do with your place/position within the structure, the extent to which one benefits or is privileged - consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, I believe that it is almost impossible for a person of color to be racists. Conversely, it is equally difficult for a white person not to be racists.
Well I may be in disagreement. Racism is structural, systemic, and institutional. Being racist has to do with your place/position within the structure, the extent to which one benefits or is privileged - consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally. Thus, I believe that it is almost impossible for a person of color to be racists. Conversely, it is equally difficult for a white person not to be racists.---kresge

I almost agree with that.

Per Venn, if 'itis almost impossible'...'to be racist', it must therfore be 'possible'.

It it is 'equally difficult'....'not to be racists'.

You rationale seems to collapse on itself.

I see your point of an individual being 'within' a construction. That doesn't preclude that person having the authority of their own decision, but without the power to make it true.

Ex: My classmate didn't want me to play in the playground where he was playing, but he did not have the power to make it true.

Because I would kick his ass.

His preferred situation was racist.

He lacked the power, the 'ism', to make it true.

That is the distinction I am tryiing to make.


PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×