Is Racism Something you ARE, or Something You DO?

[alcibiades_mystery]

There's been a lot of talk about race on these boards of late, mostly, it seems, spurred by the quality (or lack thereof) of Crash and the Best Original Song winner at the Academy Awards. I think such discussion is a good thing. In the 1990's, we were supposed to have a national conversation about race, but the conversation went nowhere. After Katrina, we were supposed to have a similar conversation, but it fizzled fairly quickly. Is it impossible to have such a conversation? I don't know, but it makes people very uncomfortable.

During the recent conversations here, I noticed one of my main disputes with some people centered around the following difference: they think racism is something you ARE, while I think it is something you DO. Perhaps we can have a discussion on this question. I'd first like to explain the distinction, then I'll explain why I think it is important.

The "something you are" thesis supposes that people are racists, that racism is inherent in individuals. This is the most common understanding of racism. So, some Storm-front white supremacy guy is a racist, even when he's just sitting on his couch playing a video game. He can stop being a racist, of course (think American History X), but until he does, his quality as a racist is complete: it attaches to his person.

The "something you do" thesis supposes that racism exists outside individuals, but needs individuals to function. This takes a little more doing. Here, opinions and actions are racist, but they do not inhere in individuals. Rather, they circulate socially. Think of it like a virus. A virus exists outside individuals, but needs individuals to function. The upshot here is that people are not racist: rather, opinions and actions are racist, but these exist socially. A person performs racism only when he or she puts these opinions and actions into operation. So, the same Storm-front dude would not be a racist when he is just eating an ice cream cone, say, but he would be performing racism when writing some hate screed for the web site. The tough part here is in thinking opinions and actions as impersonal social entities. We like to think of our "opinions" as our own, some precious possession of our Selves. But, in fact, most opinions (all?) are developed socially and held in common. The idea that for every effect there is a cause may be your belief, but it is first off a social belief held in common. The same, I would argue, goes for racist thought and actions: they are first off social products; they only infect individuals. They are not an individual's private possession.

So, why is this distinction important? First off, it heads off the objection that one can deny racist action by referring to heritage (the Condoleeza Rice Problem). So, you'll see a lot of this: "How can I be racist against black people? I am black myself!" The first thesis would make this objection valid, but the second calls it into question. As an example: A black person holds the opinion that most black people are lazy and stupid. This is clearly a racist thought, almost by definition, but our friend would argue that she can't be racist, because she is black. The second thesis would say that it doesn't matter what your culture is: since it is the opinion that is racist, and not you, we can very easily begin to look at it regardless of your cultural heritage. In this case, a black person would be seen to hold a racist opinion against other black people, and her own cultural heritage would be irrelevant.

It heads off a far more dangerous objection as well. On the show America's Next Top Model last night, one of the contestants was making some racist points (about affirmative action). When called on it, she said something to the effect of "You don't know how I feel inside, and inside I know that I'm not a racist." Now, this may seem like a silly example, but I would argue that this is precisely the response that most people give: "I AM not a racist (and, as a correlate, you would be unable to show that I was a racist anyway, because you don't have access to my closed off interiority)."

The second thesis will have none of this. It doesn't matter, for the second thesis, whether you "are" a racist, nor is it necessary to refer to your private, interior world to demonstrate racism. If racism exists only in operation (call it racist pragmatics), then we look at the actions and opinions themselves, and not at the person performing them. The question would not be "Is this person a racist?" but rather "Is that opinion racist? Is that action racist?" Such a view also gets us out of the idea that either one IS a racist wholly or one IS NOT. One could be perfectly progressive in most of his thought and actions, but still perform racism in a particular way with one opinion (the "black friends" problem). The second thesis allows a discussion of opinions and actions without - one hopes - provoking the familiar defensive postures that people quite rightly assume when accused of being racists.

I wanted to lay out this distinction and its consequences primarily to spur a discussion. I'm certainly not looking for a flame war, and I think I've been guilty of flaming quite a bit on this question. Here I'd like to draw back from that and examine the question theoretically, and I apologize to those I got into it with; I was often out of line. But I think the discussion is important. So, my question (with apologies to Morrissey): Is racism something we are, or something we do, or something in between? Can we talk about racism without immediately attaching it to people? And is there any benefit in doing so?

[Orsino]

1. It may be, technically, something you ARE...

...but no one ever notices or cares until it makes you DO something dumb/cruel.

I believe that most (maybe all) of us are concealing racist instincts or beliefs. Heck, such traits probably had survival value at some point in our evolution. I'll do my best to judge people on how they ACT because or in spite of racist tendencies.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. The point of the second thesis is that you don't judge the people

You judge (or examine) the actions and opinions themselves.

[Orsino]

9. We can't truly judge opinions...

...only the expressions of those opinions. Deeds, not thoughts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. When thoughts are manifested

Either in argument or other kind of action, then they become deeds. A thought not in action may be no thought at all.

[Orsino]

16. This is hair-splitting, I think.

I don't believe that you're seriously proposing that we police thought. We should work to influence it, of course, but IMO we should legislate only against deeds.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Not police, but question

I am of course not proposing that we should "police thought." But if somebody presents a racist opinion, I would like to question that opinion without necessarily judging the person holding it. That's the point of thesis 2.

[greyl]

22. Then, like you said,

you would say "that's a racist opinion" instead of "you are a racist".
What's the big deal? If they reply "are you calling me a racist?", you would say "Not yet!". :)

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. No, I would say

No, not at all. And it's not about you. And the purpose of this isn't to determine, eventually, if someone is a racist. It's not about that person at all. And I think that is the big deal. Even when examining opinion and actions, it is not towards judging whether the person is a racist. people are not racists. Rather, people perform racism. And I think that is a big distinction, for the reaons enumerated in the OP.

[greyl]

25. Define "are". nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. It's a good question

I think for my purposes here, I mean "to be" as a predicate that would attach to a subject (the person) outside of any actions related to it. So, for example, we think of someone being a doctor, even if not at that moment performing health services. The point I am making is that racism is not that kind of predicate, or rather, that racism functions as a verb rather than an adjective or noun: you do racism, but you are not racist. I'm separating the act from the actor, basically.

What I am really trying to get around is the idea that if I examine somebody's opinion as racist, I am making a judgment about that person. I think this is a trap we fall into when we turn the ACT (or verb) of doing racism into the noun of the racist. As another analogy, we might think of the verb "to run." Yes, we consider some people "runners" and say "I am a runner," etc. (this is what Nietzsche calls a trick of language), but we might also say that what is important is the running, the act of running, or the various acts and practices that prepare one for running. We need not turn the act into a noun (the runner). This has both positive and negative results, to be sure, and it may be useful in some cases to think of the person as a runner, rather than focusing just on the act, just as it may be useful to think of people as racists, rather than focusing on the performance of racism. The second thesis supposes that it is not always useful, and that it traps us into certain ways of thinking, and provokes responses that leave us at an impasse when discussing race. To wit: it is seemingly impossible under the first thesis to focus on an action or opinion without that action or opinion immediately being claimed by a person.

We see it even in the responses in this thread that would seem to agree with the second thesis. people say: I only judge the person based on his or her acts. the second thesis, rather, would call on us not the judge the person at all, to have done with the judgment of the person performing the act and begin to examine the act itself.

[greyl]

33. Then keep asking it.

I think we're speaking past each other, here.

"We see it even in the responses in this thread that would seem to agree with the second thesis."

Do we? I don't see that at all. Count the "votes" again.
The second thesis is as true as the first. (unless "are" means "inherent and unchangeable").
I think there is some other info to be gleaned from the responses to this thread.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. I believe I've answered it

In terms of the responses here, there is indeed much to learn from them all. I hope you don't take my responses to you as hostile.

In terms of the responses which seem to agree with the second thesis actually replaying the problems of the first, I offer these:

"I'll do my best to judge people on how they ACT because or in spite of racist tendencies."

(The second thesis calls on us not to judge people at all!

"In looking others, on the other hand, I personally believe you should take your time, and not judge at the drop of the hat."

(Again, it is not about judging people)

"IMO, it is imperative that racism be defined by a person's actions. To label people inherently racist as they sit around ironing their clothes is wrong. You must judge every person based on their actions."

(Need I say it again?)

As for "inherent and unchangeable," I don't believe that I used this definition for "to be" (or its conjugations), but I also don't believe that Thesis 1 and 2 are the same unless we use this definition. As I stated in the OP, the "are" thesis need not consider racism "inherent and unchangeable," here: "He can stop being a racist, of course (think American History X), but until he does, his quality as a racist is complete: it attaches to his person." In short, I have explicitly stated from the beginning that the first thesis can assume change. The problem is not that it is inherent and unchangeable, nor is this what distinguishes the first and second thesis. The problem is, rather, the tendency to fold action back on to a doer, and then lodge it there, such that it becomes impossible to examine or critique the action (or opinion) itself without also critiquing the doer. One need not assume the "inherent and unchangeable" quality of the doer for this folding back.

[greyl]

41. Then stop asking it. :)

Listen, enough about "judging people" vs "judging actions". That issue is unrelated to knowing what racism is.

How are we to be honestly introspective about who and what we are if the all we consider on the matter is our social behavior?

I think it's important to own up to being racist/having racial bias even though most of us don't like to believe that about ourselves.

The elastic semantics you're using only come in handy when trying to politely confront others with a negative opinion of their actions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. I've appreciated this discussion with you

I disagree that it is a matter of semantics or polite confrontation. I think it goes to the question of how racism actually works (how it takes people up in its current) and the possibilities of thinking and talking about it in our society. I think our conversations about racism would be more productive if the first move was NOT to fold it back on to a conception of our selves, but to look at it as sets of opinions and actions that work through us. The immediate reaction "Are you calling me a racist" is a kind of blockage that prevents productive discussion, and the assumptions lodged in that view may prevent us from understanding the mechanisms through which racism works.

[Orsino]

37. Okay, though I would include the presentation of an opinion...

...among that person's actions--and one possibly worthy of examination.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Yes

That's exactly what I'm saying. Any presentation of an opinion is an action.

[Orsino]

40. Okay. We might also agree that a peaceful presentation...

...of an opinion should be judged less harshly than other actions that harm someone. This may have been part of your point.

[frankly_fedup2]

26. There are a lot of racist people in the area where I live; however, if you

did not know these people, you would never guess they are racists. When they sit in groups and talk and someone of a different race, religion, nationality, amount of education, sexual orientation, size of a woman passes them by, then they will start with the ignorant names that we have all heard before. (oops, let's not forget "class" descrimination.)

For example, my husband and I went to Ohio to visit with our best friends. They introduced us on a blind date and the rest is history. We had our son with us and I have never allowed anyone to use any racist remarks around him because I do not think he should hear anything like racist remarks coming from friends or family. I'm sorry to say that my father and his generation seems to be more racist then my generation. My dad was a veteran in WWII and he just does not believe in mixing races (i.e. black with white) because of the children, (how many times have we heard that?) Mixed-race (cannot spell "miloten"?) children, I have found, are the most beautiful children I've ever seen. Also, in my father's day, it may have been that way but now, I do not think so.

Anyway, back to my point. We got there and my husband's friends neighbor was outside working in the yard. He is a black man. The man and my husband's friend had been talking until we pulled up, obviously joking with each other. My husband's friend introduced the young black man to my husband and everyone was polite, cordial, and the men were very talkative (and they say women are, huh). Anyway, I went in with my friend and she helped me get our bags. My son stayed outside with the guys talking and then he and my husband and our friend (my friend's husband) came into the house. My friend and I were talking and her hubby is a big time GOP idiot. She is now but only because he is. He likes to make remarks out of the blue to get me arguing. I don't call it debating because he will only reply with, "You are a bleeding-heart liberal and Clinton ruined this Country." He says everything Bush has done is perfect and he loves the way Dick Cheney is. I told him he must be in that lower 17% approval rating for Cheney and laughed.

When he saw that cutting Clinton and praising Bush wasn't going to get me started, he looked at me and said, "So what do you think of my next-door (N)the N word instead of saying "Next door neighbor? Both me and his wife hollered at him for using that word, me for using it in front of my son, and his wife because she tells him it is disrespectful. He went on because he saw it bothered me and said, "Whhhhaaat? Everybody should have at least one." You're from the South so don't act like we are so racist." I told him that as far as I knew, the people I spend time with do not make those stupid remarks; however, I know in small towns there are very few blacks, and it's because of the way the white's treat the black people. Finally, my husband talked him into going to a pub for a little while and when they got back, my husband's friend apologized for using the words he used in front of my son. To me using stereotypically cruel words about another human being is like using four letter words around me or my son. A total waste of breath. Name calling to me was like he had started using the "F" word and other four-letter words in front of my child.

Sorry for the long story. :nopity:

What bothers me the most is that good, decent people like my friend's husband would give the shirt off of his back to his neighbor. He would give him his last dime if he needed it and visa versa I'm sure. He was a very nice man that I would like to have as a neighbor because one of my neighbors is a real A-hole. But behind closed doors, my friend's husband still degrades him in an attempt to be funny just because of his color. He claims that Archie Bunker is his hero (as a joke). He claims his neighbor probably uses racist remarks about him as well. This may be true; however, it does not justify what he did. I told him he really needed to get out of the habit of his two-faced behavior. Needless to say, it went on deaf, right-wing ears.

I remember seeing a movie not too long ago. It was during the end of WWII. Then there were black regiments but they were separate from the whites (this was before segregation). There were also black pilots that saw battle as much as their white counterparts. However, when the blacks came back from the war, a Japanese immigrant or a German immigrant, anyone who had the same nationality of our main enemies at that time could use the same bathroom as the whites; however, our black heroes could not even go into most of the stores or restaurants let alone use a bathroom. They could not even use the same water coolers. They are Americans first and foremost. Anyone that served this country proudly (white, black, brown, yellow, red, green, purple, I don't care), should have never been treated as nothing less than the true heroes that they are.

There will always be racism because there will always be stupid people and Republicans. Sad to say but I really believe this. I've been discriminated against due to my weight and because I was a female. It's not just a black and white issue anymore.

One question I would like to ask everyone. Has anyone noticed that the darker the skin of poor people that live in third-World Countries with extreme poverty, no opportunities for an education, no work, mistreatment of women and children, hunger and ultimate starvation (children and women first, of course)and just no hope for survival, the worse the people are ignored and/or treated? Even in Africa in Somalia there are different tribes and there is another tribe that has the darkest skin color. This tribe is treated the worst. The people with the lighter the skin throughout these countries the better off the light-skinned people are treated. Am I wrong here? :shrug:

[bryant69]

2. I don't know

It's an interesting question. We all have negative tendancies that we struggle against, I would imagine. Feelings of racism probably falls under that heading. So what do we judge ourselves on - are we the sum total of our negative tendencies, or are we the person who is struggling against those tendencies?

It's also a matter of whether such criticism is directed inward or outward. Looking in myself, in so far as I see racism, I don't think I should give myself a pass because those racist thoughts don't manifest themselves in actions. In looking others, on the other hand, I personally believe you should take your time, and not judge at the drop of the hat.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[mdmc]

5. nice post bry.

:kick: for the rational discussion on racism.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. It is my intention with the second thesis to eliminate judgment of people

entirely.

Racism is not about whether a person is racist, and judged as racist. It is about whether an action or thought is racist.

[mdmc]

3. we are racist, our racism drives our behavior.

There is a great deal of benefit to discussing racism and the underlying debunkment of racism, that we are all in effect, each other...interdependent.

[greyl]

4. That's black and white thinking. ;)

It's both.

""I AM not a racist (and, as a correlate, you would be unable to show that I was a racist anyway, because you don't have access to my closed off interiority).""

Not so. Scientific "tests" (IATs) have been devised that reveal hidden attitudes, of which racial prejudice is one.
Try one of the computerized tests here: www.implicit.harvard.edu

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Of course the answer is bunk

But the point is that even these "hidden attitudes" are social products, and not the private possession of the people in question. The scientific tests would only show that people hold these opinions; they would not be able to hash out the mechanisms by which these opinionms circulate, nor answer the question of whether they are private opinions or social opinions. The consequences are severe, in my view. If they are private opinions, then we are forced to call people racists, to judge people and provoke the familiar defensive posturing. If they are social opinions, then we can examine the opinions themselves without attaching them to the people performing them. Of course, our "individualist" dogma that says our opinions are our own would be threatened, provoking a different defensive posture, but at the very least it wouldn't be a question of whether someone was a racist, so the "I am not a racist" defense would be out.

[greyl]

15. Then you aren't really talking about racism.

You could replace racism in your question with any other implicit trait/behavior under the sun and ask the existential question "is it what you are or what you do?"

"our "individualist" dogma that says our opinions are our own would be threatened,"

Does anyone really believe that their opinions formed independent from their environment?
I doubt it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. That is of course true

But it is useful to put such questions into context to see how we would respond differently if we took a different tack. The "existential" question is itself only important because it helps us work through questions that affect behavior. So, yes, it really is about racism, but it is approaching racism through that framework (and why shouldn't it).

Now, people may not believe that their opinions are formed outside of their environmentr, but if you question someone's opinion, you damn skippy that they will take it as a questioning of their personal being. if I say to somebody "That's a racist opinion," they almost invariably respond "I am not a racist," regardless of whether they believe that their opinion is formed independent of environment. That is, even if we believe (and I'd suspect most of us do) that our opinions are formed in a social environment, once they are internalized, they appear to be our own, so any questioning of the opinion becomes a questioing of the person holding it. And it is precisely here where the existential question touches our social behaviors with respect to race. You cannot separate the two.

[greyl]

21. Let's back up. It depends what the meaning of "are" is.

I think you're using more than one definition. The one I disagree with is "are" meaning "inherent and unchangeable in quality" rather than simply its normal meaning as a form of "be".
So, your argument for the second thesis is based on a specification of "are" that is weighted in favor of the second thesis. Even if we resolved this issue with defining "are" we'd be left with your question which I believe to be a false dichotomy.

The link I gave demonstrates how unconscious racial bias can be revealed. The racial bias isn't created out of nothingness at the moment the choices are made on the test, they are latent in the test-taker. I think it shows how most of are racially biased, though our social behavior may show no evidence of it.
That's why I originally said that racism is something that we are and that we do.
By no means should that be taken as racism is inherent and unchangeable.

[genie_weenie]

23. I have a problem with these hidden attitudes

I recall these tests. The Skin-Tone IAT was bullshit in the way the questions were framed. The way in which the test are performed are inherently biased. And once you start ascribing to people hidden/inherent prejudices how much longer until rules and laws must be enacted in perpetuity to counter them...

[greyl]

29. You're talking about something different.

There aren't any questions on the test.

I suppose you're speaking in the past tense because you didn't follow the link?

[genie_weenie]

30. Perhaps "Questions" is the wrong word

No, by questions I meant the way the test offers you the choice to press E/I to indicate which is good, which is bad. And that is what I was refering to as biased. And there was dissent as to how accurate these tests are...

[greyl]

32. Yeah, right. nt

[Minnesota Libra]

7. Personally, I think racism is something in between, example.........

.....in the United States people are African/American, Cuban/American, German/American, Italian/American, and the list goes on and on.:wtf:

What would the national consciousness look like if we suddenly became American/African, American/Cuban, American/German, American/Italian, and on and on??:grouphug:

In other words we divide ourselves into different races and then wonder why the issue of race is always right there below the surface.:shrug:

[genie_weenie]

12. Well thought out post

IMO, it is imperative that racism be defined by a person's actions. To label people inherently racist as they sit around ironing their clothes is wrong.
You must judge every person based on their actions.

The other difficulty which you did not mention is frame of reference. Who determines what action is racist? Person A may not view their callous comments as racist but Person B may, is there a standard, are all actions conditionally racist.

I have a problem if people wish to hold the belief that actions are racist based upon the opinions of the observer, because then every action IS racist since someone, somewhere may find it to be so...

Good post.

[cynatnite]

13. There are varying degrees...

of racism, bigotry, and prejudices that it makes it hard to know who is what.

I really don't know the answer. I wish I did.

[lonestarnot]

14. Well if pretty is as pretty does, I think it's both.

[The White Tree]

17. It's a tough call, studies have been done on this.

In particular, my wife took a sociology course several years back and one of the extra credit assignments was to go see a woman at another college give a guest lecture about this. i can't remember her name but basically she was a teacher in the midwest, Iowa, Idaho in the 60's and she decided to try this experiment on her grade school students all of whom where white.

Essentially what she did was reinforce in all of them the idea that certain students because of a specific label (I think they were the purples and the greens?) where inherently more privileged more deserving or just plain better then the other students just because they were part of that group. What she found, if I remember correctly, was that in both groups an institutional racism developed where the favored group students treated the unfavored poorly and the unfavored students felt that they were inferior.

In essence she presented the idea of racism to those who supposedly did not know what it was and found that it very easily flourished with in both the oppressor and the oppressed.

I think this is because of both aspects that influence our behavior. In my opinion all individual behavior occurs from a combination of genetic traits and environmental factors. So the ability to be racist is inherent in all of us (perhaps because it bestowed, at some point, a survival benefit) but that environment factors (i.e. being around a culture of racism) are what causes it to emerge and flourish. The potential to be racist is the powder keg, the exposure to factors that lead to racist expression is the fuse. The size of the keg and the length of the fuse (which are really indeterminable) determine the extent of the explosion of racism within the individual.

[cantstandbush]

20. You can BE anything. It's what you DO that matters. n/t

[Neil Lisst]

27. racism is probably a corollary to our biologic nature

Forget we're humans and remember we are animals.

We are clan animals, which means we have two conflicting urges. Nature tells us to be both attracted to and repulsed by other humans who do not share our traits. Animals often accept more readily those of its species who share the most traits with them.

Our brains allow us to think these things out, however, to be self-aware, and to reject racism and other evolution-based urges.

Being civilized is overcoming animal urges.

[derby378]

28. Neither - it's something you THINK or BELIEVE

Racism, put simply, is making blanket judgments about a particular person based solely upon that person's skin color or ethnicity.

One thing I often hear from white racists is that race, like love, is a force of nature. Kind clings to kind, they argue, and there's nothing to be done about it and no need to apologize for it. It's simply nature in action.

My answer to the National Alliance and anyone else who says anything similar, however, is to point them to the various instances in nature where members of one species adopt members of another species, like a mama dog who adopts and raises a baby deer, or a cat and mouse who somehow wind up friends for life. Just turn on Animal Planet, already. And my argument is that this is also nature in action. No apologies, no fix needed, and no regrets.

And if a cat and a mouse can get along without one of them becoming dinner, then what the hell is wrong with us as one united humanity?

[TahitiNut]

34. Something simpler: "Is 'smoker' something you are or something you do?"

"Is 'alcoholic' something you are or something you do?"
"Is 'homosexual' something you are or something you do?"

Even when posed against (arguably) simpler do/be issues, the conundrum remains. If it's inherently physiological/psychological, does that make it 'better' or 'worse'? Is it to be regarded as a malady or merely an attribute?

I think the only political question is whether the (resulting?) behavior is sufficiently harmful to others that some ameliorative public policy need be established. If the answer to that is 'yes' then we're faced with the choice of approach. Clearly, a failure to comprehend the genesis of such behavior almost certainly assures that we're flying blind. The efficacy of an ameliorative public policy, if any, hinges on that comprehension.



Lamentably necessary caveat: I do NOT personally regard homosexuality as either a 'choice' or an attribute requiring any public concern. The least of our 'problems' in this society is any question of who someone loves. It just ain't a problem!

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. These all cluster around a way of looking at actions and their subjects

Certainly. And I agree with you with respect to public policy.

What I'm trying to determine is whether our discussions (and public policy presupposes healthy discussion) would not be more healthy or productive if we scuttled the kind of thinking whereby racism is attached to a doer, and began thinking of it more as an action. One could certainly call this theoretical navel gazing, at some level (I admit it! I admit it!), but I also think it is to a purpose. We have plenty of diucussions on these boards where one or the other position is assumed, so critical examination of these assumptions could help free up those impasses and let the discussions develop in other ways.

But yes, of course, the purpose, in the end, would always be to promote a more just society.

[porphyrian]

35. It's something you are, but with a temporal component.

Racism isn't something you do like play tennis, it's much more all-encompassing, effecting everything you do while you are a racist. You aren't born a racist, but you can become one. You can also stop being one, you just have more to prove to those who know you as a racist.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. I think that position is extremely problematic

As a thought experiemnt, consider a person who behaves progressively towards racial issues in every way, with the exception that he holds one relatively minor opinion that could be considered racist. His actions are almost never what you would consider racist, but once in awhile, he expresses this one relatively minor racist opinion.

How could you interrogate this racist opinion and get him to examine it? How could it even be considered a racist opinion if racism is presupposed to be "all-encompassing" and "effecting everything you do while you're a racist"? Wouldn't we have to say that the opinion is not racist, precisely because it is not part of an "all-encompassing" racist self?

This strikes me as a blockage to honest discussion. If our good progressive friend immediately begins pulling out his non-racist credentials (all in good order) when you mention the racism of the opinion, we have stopped moving forward. If our good progressive friend's response is "I am not a racist," (and mind you, he is CORRECT in this response) then how do we discuss the opinion productively? Wouldn't we be prevented, under your theory, from even calling it a racist opinion, or investigating how this opinion circulates socially?

My problem with your view is that it goes too easy on all the little racisms that we practice in our daily life; moreover, I'd argue that racism in society is really the accumulation of all these minor and major racist actions and opinions. But if we restrict racism to the person, we suddenly have to meet a significant threshhold of "racism" to make a "racist," and all those little racisms escape notice, or are shunted aside as not sufficient to amount to a "racist" self. So, because our good progressive friend is not a racist, we are prevented from exploring the racism of the opinion, or how the opinion works, or where it comes from. In this way, I would argue, racism survives and proliferates.

It's easy to spot the neo-Nazi or even the Archie Bunker types and say "Hey, there's a racist!" Too easy, and too easy to deny that any given opinion or action is a racist opinion or action if you can demonstrate that you ARE not a racist.

[porphyrian]

46. Nope, I'm right, you just don't like my language.

It appears you got hung up on my terminology, so allow me to explain.

When you think or act racist, you are racist. A half-sour pickle isn't any less a pickle than a dill. Yes, there are degrees and breeds of racism, and not all of them make you a horrible person, just a flawed human. Not all racism is conscious. A great deal of racism is institutional and mindless, with its practitioners largely unaware of it at all. That isn't to excuse racism, just an attempt to be honest about it. However, this wasn't my intended focus.

The point I was trying to make is that our universe is dynamic and temporal. We change from one moment to the next. We can be racist and work against racism - that isn't a contradiction. We can also be racist today and not racist tomorrow.

[alcibiades_mystery]

48. Then you and I agree

I'm not sure how you square your current version with the "all encompassing and effecting everything" version, for it seems that the latter would prohibit the dynamic and temporal aspects (if that's getting "hung up on terminology," fine, but I can't really think of another way to read the terminology: how do you get from "all-encompassing" to "changing from moment to moment"?).

It is the dynamic and temporal aspects (racism in action) that I am interested in. My only difference would be that it doesn't attach to the person: people perform racism, but they are not racists. But I think we're trying to get at the same phenomenon: the racism in action, the idea that we can both perform racism and anti-racism, and that there is no contradiction there.

[porphyrian]

51. While you are a racist, it affects everything you do.

I don't understand what you don't understand.

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. Oh, I understand

I just disagree with one of your two possible arguments, and find your presentation internally incoherent. If it is a moment to moment operation, then how could it affect everything you do? There seems to be a slippage between the idea of a set time period of some significant duration (say, a year, two year, thirty years) during which you "are" a racist and the idea of a moment-to-moment change. I would only agree with moment-to-moment change because that would focus less on the idea of a unified self who "is" a racist for some length of time and more on the actions that are being deployed at any given moment.

Either way, I don't think racism is something that somebody is, but something that somebody does. That said, I agree that racist actions and opinions affect other actions and opinions that a person performs, and that examining how they interrelate is important.

[greyl]

53. Substitute "racial bias" for "racism" and

weigh the accuracy of these statements:

People are racially biased.
People have conscious and unconscious racial biases.
People can act on their biases consciously and proudly.
People can perceive and react because of their unconscious biases.

[porphyrian]

54. You keep doing it.

It's simple. Person A is a racist for part of their life. During the time they are racist, they are racist. During the other time, they aren't. I don't understand why that's hard for you to understand.

You seem hung up on my terminology. Just get over it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. It is not hard for me to understand

I just don't buy it. Why you must portray my disagreement as misundertanding is a mystery to me. We can have this conversation without thinking that the other position is lodged in misunderstanding.

Your previous post on bias is question begging. It assumes thesis #1 from the outset. As it stands, I already anticipated your psotion in the original post, when I note that under thesis 1, a person can change (the American History X case): "This is the most common understanding of racism. So, some Storm-front white supremacy guy is a racist, even when he's just sitting on his couch playing a video game. He can stop being a racist, of course (think American History X), but until he does, his quality as a racist is complete: it attaches to his person." It's not difficult to understand that; it is the most common understanding of racism, but it is precisely the one I am calling into question.

[Ron Green]

42. Racism is a sub-set of "Other-ism"

The truth is that we are all One at the most important level, which is the eternal and infinite one. Our challenge here on earth, it seems to me, is to overcome the false knowledge that people are different from each other, and in doing so find our true selves. Public policy that separates us by encouraging a market-driven "otherism" (your teeth aren't white enough, you're not skinny enough, you don't drive a good enough car), or even worse, makes war upon some "other" perceived to be an enemy, has been the rule for the past several decades. On the other hand, public policy that seeks to force us to confront and understand our "other" (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Peace Corps, the National Endowment for the Arts) is in short supply these days.

I believe this is why Libertarians are wrong: They think that if the government stays out of the way, our "better selves", through some magic of the "marketplace of ideas," will seek to do the hard work of confronting, understanding and becoming the Other. I believe our animal fear will not allow such painful hard work, but will seek the comfort and familiarity of our "own kind."

Only the State can put into practice the higher teachings of the Church. The Market will always seek the easy way.

(I am using the terms State, Church and Market in the broadest possible way)

[Ron Green]

44. Therefore, racism is not something you DO, it's something you DON'T do.

(I'm adding to my own post because the editing period expired)

The primary question of the OP is whether racism is about doing or being, and I need to conclude my thoughts in that direction. Our BEING is that we are all bound by space, time, fear and culture, and our DOING must be to overcome these bonds. So to avoid the hard work of accepting the "Other," whether it be another race or gender or anything different, is to remain Being in the fearful sense and avoid Doing in the loving sense.

Two cents' worth.

[buckettgirl]

47. this is a good discussion

I have never thought of it quite like that, and it all makes sense.
A person is not born racist - they are taught racism. It really is a belief that infects people...
That being said.... The white supremist sitting on the couch playing video games is still a racist even though he is not actively participating in racist propaganda. He doesn't stop believing in his racist views just because he is not acting on them.
But then again... the whole either you're a racist or you aren't is too black and white. I don't think that I am a racist... I'm pretty open-minded and am for equal opportunity in all things for all races... HOWEVER, I have made the occassional racist remark or used slang terms to refer to other races. I would also be like Sandra Bullock in the movie Crash... but I'm not against other races nor do I hate people because they are not white.
I think that racism can be both something you are and something you do. I think for people who have never been exposed to anything but racist ideas and hate those not of their skin color are as close to "being" a racist as one can get. I think that most Americans have made racist remarks (both intentional and not)and used slang terms, however they would not "be" a racist, they have only done something racist.
You have an excellent, thought-provoking post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[Karenina]

49. Having read so many of the OP's posts

in the past year, I find the distinction moot.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Please explain

I say this without hostility. What do you mean?