How would you best define whether an act is racist?

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: How would you best define whether an act is racist?

There's been a lot of discussion about The Cartoon, and it seems the argument often gets down to the definition of racism. There are some who claim that whether an act is racist or not is a matter of intent and intent alone. There are others who claim that racism is a matter of public perception; an act is racist if a significant number of people believe it to be so. Still others believe that a racist act is somewhat like pornography; you know it when you see it. I think this is a fertile ground for discussion. How do you think the term is most accurately applied?

[XemaSab]

1. My only post on the topic:

2 months ago if someone had posted a picture of the president as a dead chimp, it would have made the greatest page.

I think the cartoon was racist because it draws, intentionally or unintentionally, on previous offensive racial stereotypes. The Post clearly didn't think this through at all.

[grannie4peace]

2. i thought the same thing

[Uncle Joe]

5. My guess is if two months ago someone had posted a picture of the pResident

as a bullet riddled dead chimp, they would have recieved a call from Agent Mike.

[Time for change]

27. Yes, but it also had racially maleavolent intent

I think that the racially maleavolent intent was more important in making it racist than the fact that it used a racial stereotype.

If a person uses a racial stereotype but has no maleavolent intent, then I would tend not to call it racist -- or perhaps it could be considered a much more benign form of racism than if there was maleavolent intent.

[kirby]

3. Mind reading?

"An act is racist if many people believe it is racist." - sounds like mind reading. Kinda like someone who is a lifelong Democratic supporter posting a completely well intentioned post of their opinion here on DU and being called a freeper troll. I'll go with option #1. Though I probably should have chosen the new option #5.

[Occam Bandage]

12. #5 isn't new.

The edit was changing the wording of #4 to be less ambiguous.

[kirby]

14. Dang, I missed that the first time...

Probably need open #6 - its like pornography, I know it when I see it. None of this is clear cut. I originally gave some benefit of the doubt to the cartoonist until I looked up and viewed his earlier anti-gay, anti-Obama (terrorists cheering the election) cartoons.

[MADem]

4. People can have the best of intentions and still be very racist.

People can even be unaware that they're being racists, and get defensive when they're called out on it.

The same thing goes for sexists, as well. "Gee, it was meant as a compliment, honey-sweetie-baby!"

It requires being a bit attuned to one's environment, to know it when you see it, because there are those who are deliberately obtuse about the matter and who are deliberately blind to it when it rears its head.

[Vattel]

26. exactly

well-said

[Cleita]

6. None of the above.

If the Pillsbury Dough Boy (often a racist symbol of white people) had been put in a cartoon as the reason for an undesirable action to the cartoonist, I think those RW racists would view things differently. A lot of people can't admit their prejudices and recognize them as such until it hits them in the face.

[mmonk]

7. If none of all the various coincidences of history

did not all come together to one point at one particular cartoon at one particular point in history, you might have a stronger argument that it in no way could be construed as racist.

[Occam Bandage]

9. I don't think anyone has ever said, with the possible exception of the Post itself,

that the cartoon cannot be reasonably considered racist.

[mmonk]

13. I was responding to show that some of the answers

one can choose in the post ignore all the historical notations. Not to accuse.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Some of 'em do, yeah. I tried to cover historical notations in #3,

being the choice for where racism is defined neither by intent nor by perception, but rather by what the act itself is. In the case of the cartoon, #3 would be saying, "The cartoon is racist because it draws on imagery that his been historically used to slander black people." Voting number three also suggests, though, that it is possible (though it would defy imagination to come up with an example) that an act could be intended as racist, received as racist, and yet not be racist.

Honestly, I didn't really expect many people to vote for #2 or #3. I included them so that #4 could be more complete.

[mmonk]

16. Yep, you did.

It was there for anyone to pick.

[Occam Bandage]

18. I don't know quite what that means.

I allowed people to pick it. I intended for some people to pick it, in the sense that I provided the option and thought it was reasonable that someone might think that it was the best definition. Certainly I think it's a pretty good definition, if a flawed one. Still, I didn't expect that many would pick it, since #4 is more attractive. What's your point?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. #4 is not attactive to me because of #2.

"Many people" is far too ambiguous, and frankly, far too easy to manipulate on false pretenses. Eg. "Lipstick on a pig" fiasco. #1 and #3 would be my choices, but I chose #3 because I only had one choice.

On edit: I also chose #3 because it would be awfully difficult to imagine it not also encompassing #1. If you're drawing on historic imagery, stereotypes, and connotations, which would be a sufficiently narrow definition, in my opinion, it's rather difficult to imagine that it's not malevolent as well, if not woefully ignorant.

[Occam Bandage]

21. I briefly considered adding "more than one (but not all) of the above might be sufficient"

but then thought it was a bit too specific and might be confusing. Perhaps I was in error in my omission.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I'm probably thinking it through too much.

But it's a topic that deserves more than cursory thought.

[mmonk]

25. It was an acknowledgment, not a point.

[Ex Lurker]

8. if the victim perceives it as racist, it's racist n/t

[kirby]

10. Reporting you to the mods...

I perceive your post as racist.

[Occam Bandage]

11. So #2, then?

[omega minimo]

17. Strange that some think pulling the puzzle pieces apart will somehow reveal the Big Picture

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Big Difference As To Whether Something Is Considered Racist Or Actually IS Racist.

It's all about intent. If the person didn't intend it as racist and there is a plausible explanation that is not racist, and the person meant it in the non-racial manner, then regardless of how it was received the action wasn't racist. The action might've been ignorant; due to a better foresight that should've been incorporated; but that ignorance doesn't make it racist.

[damntexdem]

23. I can't vote. I would choose 1 and 3 but not 2.

That people feel that something is racist is important, but there should be some objective criteria. For example, were a cartoonist to compare a chimpanzee to an African American politician by referring to the chimp as the author of a bill associated most-strongly with that politician, I would argue that there is sufficient evidence to call the act racist. Moreover, to show police killing said chimp might be taken as providing evidence of the likelihood of arousing political violence against said politician, despite the fact that the cartoon draws on a recent episode where the police killed a chimp.

[Occam Bandage]

24. kick.