There's a pattern to everything, but EVERYTHING is in the pattern. The human failing is to make patterns from parts, and call it the whole.
from some book in my library, by Michael Moorcock
Let's look at some unequal transactions.
It's some holiday. There are three schools and an enormous pile of toys, one random toy for each kid in each school (numerically speaking). The rules are the kids in school A get to pick first, the kids in school B choose next, and the kids in school C get what's left. Ask the kids in school A and they'll tell you everyone gets to pick a toy. Ask the kids in school and they may tell you it's the day they're given a picked-over toy that most of the kids didn't want. "Every kid gets a toy" would be a true but inadequate description.
Okay. Now let's look at race relations, pre-1964.
White folks always saw racism as something they can affirm, deny or ignore. It's a personal decision to white people, to believe or not believe the stories. They could choose to go against the social norms, and many did. On the other side of the transaction was Black folks who, because it was a social norm, did not experience racism as discrete actions. Racism was an environment...signs conspired to reduce them without direct human intervention. Sympathetic officers would arrest Black folks for going to the wrong bathroom.
The whole situation was racist. But, making patterns from parts, we each call our own specificly experienced aspect of it "racism." White people see it as willful, evil and something they'd never choose to be or do (we will ignore "the wisdom of crowds" for the moment). Black people see it as a wet blanket thrown over our lives. We see it as individual only in that some individual will perform the specific offensive act.
Now, none of this is precise because we're dealing in words as though they actually fix meaning permanently. They do not...being a libertarian means something entirely different in a feudal economy like the USofA had in 1776, and an industrial capitalist economy where the scale of the market requires collective/corporate action. The things we called racism then may need new terminology, but they still exist. We need to accurately indicate them in order to talk constructively about these issues.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Outstanding!
I gotta let that cook.
Building up
The term "racism" is used by different groups to denote different experiences.
[The next part, you wrote in the context of pre-1964 race relations. If I make the verbs present tense, does it still apply?]
White folks see racism as something they can affirm, deny or ignore. It's a personal decision to white people, to believe or not believe the stories. They can choose to go against the social norms, and many do. On the other side of the transaction are Black folks who, because it is a social norm, do not experience racism as discrete actions. Racism is an environment.
You would be in a better
My opinion is yes, particularly on the Black side of the equation. You would be in a better position to say about white folks than I am.
my little two cents
Racism means the same thing in meant pre-1964. It's just the most white people willfully obfuscate the true meaning.
It's like sexism. When talking to a group of women, whether black or white, there's no question what sexism means. It's only when talking to men that all of a sudden sexism doesn't mean what it meant.
Racism means the same thing
If I unpack "racism" into the components that were its recognized components pre-1964, they are all still problems.
Now: what did white Americans perceive racism to be?
I don't know if folks really remember Archie Bunker in all in the Family, but I do, because some profound shit was said on that show. Archie once blamed Mamie Eisenhower for all the race problems in America...said something like, "Before she started talking about colored people, we didn't even know they wuz there!"
Don't confuse the volunteer slave breakers with the general population. Most white people believe racism is defined by their experience, as we do. The trick is to understand that whatever reality actually is, its complex enough that it can look to you as it does while simultaneously looking to me as it does.
Defining reality
Sure. I understand that perception is reality and all that.
Here's the thing. I'm 26. I'm in that supposed generation that grew-up in completely intergrated schools. I mean, I was the only black person in 3 of 6 of my classes in the 11th grade, the fact that my school was basically 50/50 notwithstanding. So when I think of racism, I don't narrow it down to lynchings and "colored only"/"whites only" sign. To me, it's the larger system. It's the difference between the way teachers who had taught with my mother and knew my GPA treated me and the white students, and the way new teachers who knew neither my mom nor my GPA treated me and the rest of the black students.
So, this whole notion that Imus or G Ferrarro aren't racists is obfuscation to me. And, what I really take issue with is white people believing racism is defined by their experience. What experience? They don't experience anything! I mean, if we're really an "honest" society, wouldn't common sense be that you let those who are most affected by racism testify about it? Not the ones who benefit and sometimes perpetrate racism?
So, not to confuse the willful perpetrators with those who can't see their own whiteness, I just have little patience for obvious stupidity and specious logic - that white people are credible "eye-witnesses" of racism. Like the specious logic that Clinton's supporters have to be "respected." Clinton's supporters have to be "respected" after her mocking Obama and his supporters for being naive and hopeful and all that.
I'm just listening to Stephanie Tubb Jones. Can someone PLEASE tell me her days are numbered! Do the Clintons have something on her? I don't live in her district, by I'd be willing to make some GOTV calls for her primary or 3rd party opponent.
So, not to confuse the
We are truly brothers in spirit as far as that.
What I am doing is looking at the way they use the word 'racism' and saying it's just not the way we use it. I'm trying to understand what they see so I can say where they go wrong when talking about what WE see. Ignoring the fuck out of the willful, of course.
Comments and a test.
Me too, also. And this is so good and true it makes me feel happy:
Talking with my wife last night, I came up with a question that might be useful. It goes like this:
If answered honestly, I'm guessing at least 3 out of 4 white folks would have to say, "No, I would not have gotten that break." I have to confess, that would be my answer.
So what's the point? If you can get someone to answer "Yeah, being white gave me an advantage," that's a little step forward. And it opens another door a crack--that person might not think of the person who provided that break as racist, but it still happened because of privilege.
BTW, my wife can honestly answer differently. I posed the question to her before I explained what I was up to. Her biggest break was being hired as a counselor at a summer camp for city kids. She had to talk her way in because the camp director wasn't sure a white girl from the 'burbs would fit in.
[Added in update:] Also, P6, I tried out the question you proposed the other day on my wife. I asked her "What is racism?" and she identified the individual, evil stuff. Then I described the institutional and asked "What's that called?" She said, "That's racism too." And then I explained what has been going on in this thread.
I asked her "What is
Birds of a feather...would you have married someone that answered otherwise? Still, notice which was her reflexive answer. There's things you learn, and things you know. The killer question would be, "Are they the same thing?"
Calling them the same thing makes you expect them to share a single root nature. It's more like one is the rock going into the lake and the other is the splash that wets you on the shore.
trying to see where others come from
I can get with that. Though, from everything I've read, including psychological studies, lots of white Americans can be awfully defensive about their privileges.
Quaker and Mrs. Quaker notwithstanding.
Totally.
Totally, absolutely right. The problem, I think, is that people hear "privileged" and hear "undeserving." Their reaction is "Hey, it's not like somebody just handed me everything," which is not really the point. These same people have no problem with the term "underprivileged" but get upset when you name the other side of the coin.
Maybe it's inevitable.
Maybe it's inevitable. As a member of the dominant culture, there aren't institutional barriers that deny me admittance. I'm taught by my circumstances that my results depend on my actions.
If you're not a member of the dominant culture, there ARE institutional barriers. You're taught that your results are affected by influences beyond your control.
Think back to the biggest
I've used versions of that question before, and the ratio is closer to 4 out of 4 thinking white people who answer no. Some reflexively answer yes, but unless they have a real good story to back it up, like Mrs. Quaker, they eventually come around to no.
Null answer
I often run into answers that are deeply personal--"When I met my wife," etc. It's hard to make those fit a pattern.