Why call one of these experiences racism,” but not the other? Why can’t we just call both of them “racism,” and keep in mind that the average experience of racism towards people of color is going to have a larger impact and be harder to escape than the average experience of racism towards white people?

You ask a question, then appear to hear an answer, learn nothing from what has been said except that you’ll “keep in mind”(probably pretty far back there) and then repeat the same question again.

It sounds like on some level that you are trying to equalize racism towards White people with racism towards people of color through language but you can’t. That would be based on an assumption that our society places all racial groups on an even playing field and it’s been built and maintained on institutional racial inequalities. It’s also apparently based on some assumption that a little bit of racism against Whites is equal to centuries of past and ongoing racism against people of color and that’s just not true on its face. In fact, that’s part and parcel of racism against people of color by Whites to even be in a position to make that statement.

bean said:

The difference is how easy it is for the “victim” of that situation is able to get away from that situation.

I would agree with that there is a gap in the severity and impact of manifestations of racial prejudice towards whites in comparison to people of color. We also agree that both of those manifestations are worthy of moral condemnation. Where we seem to disagree is on what to call these manifestations; specifically, which of them qualify as “racism” or not.

Why call one of these experiences racism,” but not the other? Why can’t we just call both of them “racism,” and keep in mind that the average experience of racism towards people of color is going to have a larger impact and be harder to escape than the average experience of racism towards white people?

Aegis is right; I can’t accept that statement without empirical evidence. And I don’t see anything in your posts that provides it.

I’m white and make a working-to-middle-class income. I can’t afford to live in a white middle-class suburb. (Nor do I want to - my parents probably white-flew out of the city in the 60s.) However, I can afford to live in a mixed-race neighborhood with slowly rising property values. What do I do?

We weren’t looking for a $200,000 gentrified loft in the neighborhood (we can’t afford that, either). My (now) wife bought a house for $83,000 6 years ago.

I think RonF has a good point upthread as to the redlining and block-busting done in the 1950s and 1960s . The problem is, where do we go from here? How do we avoid perpetuating segregation without ejecting people from the neighborhood, and how do we reverse white flight? (One way is to go after the predatory lenders and keep the more voracious speculators out - I vandalize the “sell your home - cash quick!” signs that illegally appear on utility poles.)

And I don’t want the $12 faux-Mexican restaurant in the neighborhood either. Catalina’s is wonderful, and so is La Sirenita (although ms_xeno thinks the food there doesn’t agree with her….)

Except that I imagine it will turn out somehow that all white people can escape black power, and no black people can escape white power.

This reeks of special pleading. At least Rachel’s formulation accepts its own foundational definition and works within the terms.

If racism is power + prejudice, then it shouldn’t matter where the power (or the prejudice, for that matter) come from - just that they exist.

…highlights of today’s Sunday women’s news, all of us feminist women bloggers, writing our own Sunday paper.
…

Perhaps the problem I have is that racism is a wider concept than “nigger” which was a specific word in English used in America as a slur against black people, whereas racism has existed, and does exist, in other contexts and other societies.

But here the context is American racism. It’s as invalid an expansion of reference as comparing the human reaction to the Roman and American versions of slavery…freed Roman slaves could become full citizens, and even noblemen. American slaves had to get out of town if they were freed.

Context matters.

Seriously, if you want to engage after a week you should email me or something when you do. I’ll probably not see it otherwise.

Perhaps the problem I have is that racism is a wider concept than “nigger” which was a specific word in English used in America as a slur against black people, whereas racism has existed, and does exist, in other contexts and other societies.

Looking back, I may have come across as itching for a fight, which wasn’t my intention, and the comment

Or, if racist is to white like nigger* is to black — as you have implied in your blog, shouldn’t racist then be politely reserved for intra-white relations?

was bit careless, and was not meant as any substantive point. Quoting the post in full just seemed darn inefficient.

My response to “racist” is generally “How am I/how is this racist?” Or “Yeah, whatever, but let’s discuss the original issue.”

You’re what’s known as a statistical outlier.`

If he says that he does not mean that racist is intrinsic to white like n***** is to black, he can correct me.

Intrinsic? A curious word I’ve never approached.

I don’t hide behind technicalities. But when people switch the topic of conversation mid-thread from whatever else you werew talking about to the post Amp linked, I think you should let folks know…or accept whatever rudeness comes your way.

So let’s recap. “Niggerism” is the degraded condition common to Black people in the USofA prior to the legal end of Jim Crow. It was forced upon the culture to make it fit the demands of a “racially” distorted economy and political system. Too many still suffer from it, and these people are called “niggers.” Racism is the degraded condition common to white people in the USofA prior to the legal end of Jim Crow. It was forced upon the culture to make it fit the demands of a “racially” distorted economy and political system. Too many still suffer from it, and these people are called “racists.”

That’s what I said.

What’s your problem with it?

And not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people. It makes them crazier. White people don’t want to hear you talk about ANY white person being racist. They’ll start telling you how many Black friends they have (I was going to quote an example from the net, but nevermind).

My response to “racist” is generally “How am I/how is this racist?” Or “Yeah, whatever, but let’s discuss the original issue.”

IME my unwillingness to stop the debate at hand to discuss my supposed racism makes quite many people “crazy”, so to speak, which supports a theory that the term is used as a slur to shut people up far too often, enough so that the term has been devalued.

YMMV, but for such rote generalizations, plenty of opposing data points exist. I have absolutely no problem in admitting that I may be bit racist if the subject comes up in a relevant context, nor do I have any problems with the idea that many whites are racist. Just with the idea that racist is limited to whiteness, and also with the idea that minorities can not be racist against whites, just against each other and themselves, because some supposedly all-pervasive White Supremacy covers everything.

But that’s besides the point. Whether or not P6 argues what you say, he does not and never did say or imply that in a generalizable way “racist is to white like nigger is to black.”

RonF:

Racism is racism, independent of the race of either the originator or the target. If a black person hates a white person solely because he’s white, it’s racism, not “reverse racism”.

P6:

Nope. It’s niggerism (pop culture not withstanding).

P6 is free to correct me. If he says that he does not mean that racist is intrinsic to white like n***** is to black, he can correct me.

I

Give it a complete reading and get back to me.

I do not have high hopes that you will address any substantial points I have made, such as:

the idea that black people can not be racist against whites because racism is (supposedly) defined be prejudice and power, a reasonable criticism is to point out that there are situations where a black person can have power over a white person and thus, if combined with racial prejudice, should be labeled by your very own logic a racist.

If no, then why not? So far you are dodging the question by nitpicking on technicalities.

But P6 had never said or implied that. That makes what you said either an honest error or a lie.

However, P6 does argue that the word racist can only apply to whites.

I don’t think he actually does - for instance, I doubt he’s say that it’s impossible for someone of one minority to be racist against someone of another minority, in the right circumstances.

But that’s besides the point. Whether or not P6 argues what you say, he does not and never did say or imply that in a generalizable way “racist is to white like nigger is to black.”

P6, you may note that I did not attribute not acknowledging other sorts of power than institutional power to your comment,

I had no way of knowing that. Now that you mention it, so acknowleged.

I didn’t claim it was a complete reading.

Then you know you’re not saying anything attributable to me.

Give it a complete reading and get back to me.

(sorry for the sloppiness)

(calling it “careless” is giving you a large benefit of the doubt)

I didn’t claim it was a complete reading. However, P6 does argue that the word racist can only apply to whites.

But hey, Lord knows I just oppose you guys because my ideology so totally opposed to you or something.