It is entirely possible for a group that is racially oppressed itself, to have members who (in a smaller environment) themselves racially oppress others. In my 30 years of interracial marriage, we have developed a list of places we don't go for dinner and people we don't interact with if we can avoid it (e.g. the local city permits guy). Some of those places and people are white. Some are black. The experience of getting shit from them for our interracial family is... remarkably similar.
Racism between oppressed groups happens. But it can be a distraction in conversations regarding systemic racism. IME, it is far more often brought up to distract from systemic racism than to actually solve anything.
I see. So your implication is that I mention it "to distract from systemic racism than to actually solve anything" ? Most kind.
Assume what you want. You brought it up, so I made the statement to hopefully keep things in perspective. That line often derails the discussion regardless of the intent of the speaker.
When you respond to my post by making a general statement about bad motives behind posts of the sort I just made, what else am I supposed to think? At the best you are warning me that my post is inappropriate and distracting, and you are attempting to shut down my part of the discussion. At worst, your remark equates to indirect speculation about my evil motives.
I’m not trying to shut down any actual discussion. I’m trying to keep things in perspective.
It is true that oppressed groups can be racist towards other oppressed groups.
It is also true that this is irrelevant to solving systemic racism.
Come to think of it, it is also irrelevant to this thread.
It would seem clearer to me if the conversation were framed in terms of racial prejudice, racial discrimination and racial oppression, where clearly a group lacking power can behave in line with the first two but not the last. But maybe that's too muc effort. Sadly, I think a lot of debates today are done by people who find it easier to use fluid terms, as it enables lots of get-outs and verbal sleight of hand.
I originally posted this to try and get a bit of clarity after reading - admittedly in a hostile article - that a basic tenet of BLM is that "blacks (sic) cannot be racists" by definition of racism. (sic because I don't know if BLM would use the term).
I would say I disagree with lilbuddha pretty often (and vv!), but I have found the emphasis on the actual effect of language and words in concrete situations, as opposed to the abstract discussion of meaning, a useful approach. At one time I read a lot of J L Austin (in my youth) and he is very strong on language as act.
So I happen to agree that talking about the racism found in oppressed groups is a distraction, with the idea of saying we're all the same, it's just that whites are better at getting the reigns of power. Ya boo sucks!
If talking about racism within minority groups is used as a distraction (and it often is) then it should be treated as such.
If it's used (as @Lamb Chopped did) as a recognition that human beings can be deeply creative in finding ways of looking down on others, that seems to me to be a very helpful insight.
By the way, last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
How far, in your view, is it the case that he was wrong ? That we now live in a world where the laws and institutions of our western societies treat black and white people the same, but racial tensions and race consciousness haven't gone away ?
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
Way back when..... late 1970s...... I was in London and trying to find a church. For the last six months before yet again moving, I finally found that belonging in a small north west London Baptist church.
Up until that point I was a country bumpkin, let loose in a city. I had No Clue.
So it came as something of a shock to discover that Every Member of my small group , except me , had been stopped by the police whilst out and about in their daily life.
More, that most of the congregation had as well.
Whilst I and one other white congregant had Never been stopped.
I grew up a little, the weekend I realised that..........
And I leave this here Just in case it helps anyone to realise exactly why BLM
last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
How far, in your view, is it the case that he was wrong ? That we now live in a world where the laws and institutions of our western societies treat black and white people the same, but racial tensions and race consciousness haven't gone away ?
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
The laws may (up to a point, though consider differential sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine in the US), the institutions clearly do not.
last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
<snip>
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
How far, in your view, is it the case that he was wrong ? That we now live in a world where the laws and institutions of our western societies treat black and white people the same, but racial tensions and race consciousness haven't gone away ?
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
It seems to me that racism is powered by threatened people who do not want the benefits they enjoy to be shared (dissipated) with those who have even less. In my mind it's white fear that drives racism, not black envy.
"we now live in a world where the laws and institutions of our western societies treat black and white people the same". When white police can kill black protesters, I don't think we live in this world.
So I happen to agree that talking about the racism found in oppressed groups is a distraction, with the idea of saying we're all the same, it's just that whites are better at getting the reigns of power. Ya boo sucks!
If you're talking about systemic issues, then we all know what the people who have the power look like, and we all know what the people who get crapped on look like. And it doesn't really matter whether "we're all the same" and "they'd do it to us if they had the power" - that doesn't actually make it better.
last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
<snip>
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
This
It seems like a fundamentally racist explanation for black anger at being treated like shit for centuries. But I maybe overacting to the choice of the word “resentment”.
It is not simply about what people have now - it’s about what was taken in the first place.
A book I read on racism from a sociological point of view looks at it this way (paraphrase):
Prejudice: believing that all members of some group are in some way (the same way) inferior to your group.
Discrimination: acting on/acting out your prejudice
Racism: acting on/acting out your prejudice from a position of power over your victims
It's entirely understandable that a sociologist would wish to make a distinction in language between
- society-wide discrimination against a certain group as part of the culture of that society
- individual acts of discrimination against the same group, driven by personal experience rather than culture.
Fair enough to say that a society in which women don't drive heavy machinery because it's considered unfeminine is not the same phenomenon as an individual employer of truck drivers who doesn't like women (or whose personal experience is of women employees with health problems) and is therefore resistant to hiring them.
If we want to make that distinction in our language, then we need two separate terms. In that example you might perhaps say that the first is sexism and the second is misogyny.
What usage do you (or the writer you're summarising for us) suggest with regard to race ? Or are they only interested in societal characteristics and therefore don't see any need to talk about individuals at all ?
(I would of course reject the notion that an individual is "in a position of power" just because others share their outlook. Individual Conservative voters have no more or less power than individual Labour voters, regardless of the size of the government majority at any particular point in time.)
I think you are failing to consider the multiple forms of power. You seem to be assuming that if you don’t immediately have access to coercive control, you don’t have power.
I would of course reject the notion that an individual is "in a position of power" just because others share their outlook. Individual Conservative voters have no more or less power than individual Labour voters, regardless of the size of the government majority at any particular point in time.
That is the problem with considering people solely as individuals. (As if an army is no more than the equivalent number of soldiers.)
Power is the ability to achieve one's goals in one's particular circumstances. If other people are working independently towards the same goals then that is power.
Some political theorists I believe exclude force from power, force being the threat of violence (or actual violence). If one excludes force from power then all power consists of having people share your outlook.
last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
<snip>
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
This
It seems like a fundamentally racist explanation for black anger at being treated like shit for centuries. But I maybe overacting to the choice of the word “resentment”.
It is not simply about what people have now - it’s about what was taken in the first place.
I don’t disagree with that. I was just picking out of Russ’s possibilities the fact that we haven’t yet reached Heinlein’s imagined point of black people enjoying the same benefits as white.
That is the problem with considering people solely as individuals. (As if an army is no more than the equivalent number of soldiers.)
Power is the ability to achieve one's goals in one's particular circumstances. If other people are working independently towards the same goals then that is power.
Some political theorists I believe exclude force from power, force being the threat of violence (or actual violence). If one excludes force from power then all power consists of having people share your outlook.
I would count force (the ability to get people to do what you want by threat of violence) as a form of power. And wealth (the ability to get people to do what you want by paying them). And charisma. And authority - the power that comes with position (e g. as director of the firm or general of the army).
And you could argue for a power of organisation - people working together being more effective and thus having greater power than the same people working independently for the same aim.
But if you and I should happen to find a subject that we agree upon, that doesn't mean that your power or my power is increased thereby. It just means that what we agree to is (slightly) more likely to happen if your power and my power are both (independently) behind it than if one is arguing for and the other against.
But if you and I should happen to find a subject that we agree upon, that doesn't mean that your power or my power is increased thereby. It just means that what we agree to is (slightly) more likely to happen if your power and my power are both (independently) behind it than if one is arguing for and the other against.
I don't agree. Imagine a man who beats his wife. Put him in a society where nobody agrees with him, and his wife has options. She's going to find plenty of support when she escapes him, she's going to find people willing to protect her, and prosecute him. Put him, instead, in a society where wife-beating is normal, and she's screwed. If she manages to escape from him, everyone's going to laugh at her, pat her on the head, and send her back to her abuser.
Her abuser, therefore, has much more power over her. He can mete out whatever treatment he likes, and his society will abet him.
Her position is undoubtedly worse if nobody will help her.
Does he have more power in that situation ? He clearly has no greater strength, or wealth, or charisma, or expertise. But you could write the scenario so that such a society gives a man more authority over his wife.
But you could also write it that he is unchanged from one scenario to the other and her plight is worse only because she has to oppose her will to everybody's power, rather than opposing only his power with the help of allies who have power of their own.
But if you and I should happen to find a subject that we agree upon, that doesn't mean that your power or my power is increased thereby. It just means that what we agree to is (slightly) more likely to happen if your power and my power are both (independently) behind it than if one is arguing for and the other against.
The fact that two people working towards the same end independently are slightly more likely to achieve their goals is power.
More to the point, even if that's true when the results are entirely independent, in practical terms if the two people are both in the same society the results will not be entirely independent.
The fact that two people working towards the same end independently are slightly more likely to achieve their goals is power.
Think I'm suggesting that if they collaborate then their joint power may be more than the sum of their individual power. But not if they don't.
And that it's a misunderstanding of the relationship between groups and individuals to attribute the power that comes from the group to the individuals within that group.
Once again, it's the distinction between
- knowing that I can count on your support whatever I say (because of my charisma, or because I'll beat you up if you don't, or because I'm your boss and you're looking for promotion, etc). That is having power.
- finding that you happen to agree with me on one issue, through no power of mine.
More to the point, even if that's true when the results are entirely independent, in practical terms if the two people are both in the same society the results will not be entirely independent.
Yes, in the scientific sense that if we live in the same society there will be common cultural influences on both of us. No, in the legal and moral sense that we could both invent the same thing independently (i.e. without drawing on each other's work, without being influenced by each other).
Comments
Whites aren't in a position of power in our country because people agree with them. It's because of 400 years of systemic racism.
It is true that oppressed groups can be racist towards other oppressed groups.
It is also true that this is irrelevant to solving systemic racism.
Come to think of it, it is also irrelevant to this thread.
I originally posted this to try and get a bit of clarity after reading - admittedly in a hostile article - that a basic tenet of BLM is that "blacks (sic) cannot be racists" by definition of racism. (sic because I don't know if BLM would use the term).
I would say I disagree with lilbuddha pretty often (and vv!), but I have found the emphasis on the actual effect of language and words in concrete situations, as opposed to the abstract discussion of meaning, a useful approach. At one time I read a lot of J L Austin (in my youth) and he is very strong on language as act.
So I happen to agree that talking about the racism found in oppressed groups is a distraction, with the idea of saying we're all the same, it's just that whites are better at getting the reigns of power. Ya boo sucks!
If it's used (as @Lamb Chopped did) as a recognition that human beings can be deeply creative in finding ways of looking down on others, that seems to me to be a very helpful insight.
By the way, last night I reread a Robert Heinlein from the early 50s. He mentions in passing that in the future he depicts racism is no longer a problem. Once black people enjoyed the same benefits as whites, they stopped being resentful. Somehow it's an innocent explanation of the ugly reality we have today.
How far, in your view, is it the case that he was wrong ? That we now live in a world where the laws and institutions of our western societies treat black and white people the same, but racial tensions and race consciousness haven't gone away ?
And conversely how far is it the case that we've just not yet got to that point ?
Good.
Just want to throw something into the mix:
Way back when..... late 1970s...... I was in London and trying to find a church. For the last six months before yet again moving, I finally found that belonging in a small north west London Baptist church.
Up until that point I was a country bumpkin, let loose in a city. I had No Clue.
So it came as something of a shock to discover that Every Member of my small group , except me , had been stopped by the police whilst out and about in their daily life.
More, that most of the congregation had as well.
Whilst I and one other white congregant had Never been stopped.
I grew up a little, the weekend I realised that..........
And I leave this here Just in case it helps anyone to realise exactly why BLM
The laws may (up to a point, though consider differential sentencing for crack vs powder cocaine in the US), the institutions clearly do not.
It seems to me that racism is powered by threatened people who do not want the benefits they enjoy to be shared (dissipated) with those who have even less. In my mind it's white fear that drives racism, not black envy.
"we now live in a world where the laws and institutions of our western societies treat black and white people the same". When white police can kill black protesters, I don't think we live in this world.
If you're talking about systemic issues, then we all know what the people who have the power look like, and we all know what the people who get crapped on look like. And it doesn't really matter whether "we're all the same" and "they'd do it to us if they had the power" - that doesn't actually make it better.
It seems like a fundamentally racist explanation for black anger at being treated like shit for centuries. But I maybe overacting to the choice of the word “resentment”.
It is not simply about what people have now - it’s about what was taken in the first place.
I think you are failing to consider the multiple forms of power. You seem to be assuming that if you don’t immediately have access to coercive control, you don’t have power.
Power is the ability to achieve one's goals in one's particular circumstances. If other people are working independently towards the same goals then that is power.
Some political theorists I believe exclude force from power, force being the threat of violence (or actual violence). If one excludes force from power then all power consists of having people share your outlook.
I would count force (the ability to get people to do what you want by threat of violence) as a form of power. And wealth (the ability to get people to do what you want by paying them). And charisma. And authority - the power that comes with position (e g. as director of the firm or general of the army).
And you could argue for a power of organisation - people working together being more effective and thus having greater power than the same people working independently for the same aim.
But if you and I should happen to find a subject that we agree upon, that doesn't mean that your power or my power is increased thereby. It just means that what we agree to is (slightly) more likely to happen if your power and my power are both (independently) behind it than if one is arguing for and the other against.
I don't agree. Imagine a man who beats his wife. Put him in a society where nobody agrees with him, and his wife has options. She's going to find plenty of support when she escapes him, she's going to find people willing to protect her, and prosecute him. Put him, instead, in a society where wife-beating is normal, and she's screwed. If she manages to escape from him, everyone's going to laugh at her, pat her on the head, and send her back to her abuser.
Her abuser, therefore, has much more power over her. He can mete out whatever treatment he likes, and his society will abet him.
Does he have more power in that situation ? He clearly has no greater strength, or wealth, or charisma, or expertise. But you could write the scenario so that such a society gives a man more authority over his wife.
But you could also write it that he is unchanged from one scenario to the other and her plight is worse only because she has to oppose her will to everybody's power, rather than opposing only his power with the help of allies who have power of their own.
More to the point, even if that's true when the results are entirely independent, in practical terms if the two people are both in the same society the results will not be entirely independent.
And that it's a misunderstanding of the relationship between groups and individuals to attribute the power that comes from the group to the individuals within that group.
Once again, it's the distinction between
- knowing that I can count on your support whatever I say (because of my charisma, or because I'll beat you up if you don't, or because I'm your boss and you're looking for promotion, etc). That is having power.
- finding that you happen to agree with me on one issue, through no power of mine.
Yes, in the scientific sense that if we live in the same society there will be common cultural influences on both of us. No, in the legal and moral sense that we could both invent the same thing independently (i.e. without drawing on each other's work, without being influenced by each other).