>The poster is distinguishing between discrimination and the term racism.

You and the poster seem to misunderstand what racism is. Racism is a type of discrimination. The term discrimination covers a wide range of things, it doesn't only deal with race. You are free to disagree with the actual definition of racism, but you don't get to reinvent the english language. Whether or not something is racist has absolutely nothing to do with power.

Its as if you and the other poster read the definition of racism and decided that the words used to describe it weren't horrifying enough, and so you made up a definition that better represents how you feel about it.

Here is text from Wikipedia: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." So I'm not making things up. To address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging the relevance of power to the perpetuation of racism being institutionally enforced.

Apparently its a popular idea, but both of the papers Wikipedia cited as references for the existence of that idea found that racism does not require power. Furthermore, they both found that the idea is often used as an excuse for racist behavior by those who don't hold power.

To address things scientifically you need to talk about groups not individuals in isolation. Ghettos, police profiling, stop and frisk, exonerated death sentences based on DNA testing, dog-whistle politics, voter ID laws, and U.S. media can statistically be argued to show that the U.S. is racist against racial minorities. To speak scientifically you need to address group behavior and what perpetuates that group behavior. If you want to address Black or Latino racism then show the group power which is oppressing whites.

>If you want to address Black or Latino racism then show the group power which is oppressing whites.

This doesn't really address what I was talking about. I'm not saying that whites didn't oppress blacks(because they did) or that white people are now being oppressed by minorities(because they aren't). I was simply explaining that racism is not a synonym for racial oppression. Racism is a specific word with a specific meaning. There are racist members of every ethnicity because being racist has absolutely nothing to do with a person's or a group's ability to oppress a group of people.

Focus solely on individual behavior when addressing racism will only cause institutional racism to be hidden in society. Statistics will show what institutional bias exist and then legal interventions done where required. Maybe the U.S. is not capable of fixing its racist problem. But history has shown that state force has been required in schools, the military, and the private sector to reduce racism.

>Focus solely on individual behavior when addressing racism will only cause institutional racism to be hidden in society.

I'm not focusing on individual behavior. As a matter of fact, I wasn't talking about behavior at all. I was just talking about the meaning of the word racism.

As I posted elsewhere. Racism Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.

Source: US Civil Rights Commission

How is a white person subordinated and controlled in the U.S. based on race to where that white person does not have recourse to the the law, the courts, the police, them finding another job, or just avoiding the offending person? If you have a problem with a person you avoid them or address the law. Racially oppressed people don't escape the situation so easily hence why racism is debilitating.

If you are white in the U.S. you are not going to get racially subordinated. Stop worrying, you are just going to make yourself sick.

The dictionary definition of the term "racist" refers to a systemic discrimination based on race. The problem is that the colloquial use of the term simply means that one is prejudiced against races that aren't their own. To clarify the issue one is trying to discuss, it's better to use the term "institutional racism" in order to clarify the point you're trying to make.

Your definition of racism is at odds with common dictionary definitions of the word. Leftist academics have tried to redefine the word.

There are many useful things to be talked about. Individual prejudices, individual behaviors, and self-reinforcing societal power systems all get called "racism". Quibbling over which arbitrary word is bound to which concept looks like an avoidance of actually grappling with the issues.

The issue at hand is that claiming that only white people can be racist is itself a racist statement according to the traditional definition of racism. Even with moo's definition of racism, the statement cannot be true in states where non-whites are the majority and hold power.

Again, I am not claiming that whites face racial oppression across the US. That's silly. This is whole thread only exists because of people twisting the definition of words to suit a purpose.

The same behavior is recorded in the political histories of Ancient Greece. It's nothing new. I'm just calling it out as the political trick that it is.

It's almost like you didn't read my comment at all.

As I posted above quoting from Wikipedia: "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." To scientifically address issues affecting people as a group and not as individuals, anti-racist people would see the benefit of acknowledging the relevance of power to the perpetuation of racism being institutionally enforced. To deny the power component of racism is to make racism an argument about individual behavior which will never progress beyond "he said she said" which is not how science is done. Science is not done at the individual level but at the group level.

If you call a person a racist, you're saying 1) that he has certain views about race, and you may also be saying 2) that he takes certain actions in line with those views. Saying someone can't be racist without power is saying "if criteria for definition 2 aren't met, then criteria for definition 1 are not met," which is silly.

Racism Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.

Source: US Civil Rights Commission

How does your point 1 above satisfy the "subordinates an individual" criteria for the definition of racism by the US Civil Rights Commission? It doesn't! For your point 2, to subordinate someone you need power or institutional power backing you up. If you don't have institutional power then the person you're bothering ignores you, tells others and gives you a bad reputation with people, takes you to civil court, calls the police and you are then in jail. The repercussions commensurate with your actions. I argue that your point 2 does not subordinate a white person beyond that of being attacked by an individual or small group of people because you do have recourse by law to defend yourself or have them arrested. The same with any physical assault. The significance of racism is when the person may not have recourse to defend themselves or protection by the law because of racial bias then they are put in a position of subordination and controlled.

The references for that Wikipedia statement are both from the last five years. One reference is an article titled "Only white people can be racist." That's hardly an unbiased definition of a much older term.

Since 1933, the definition of racism according to Merriam-Webster has been "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Why the more recent trend of redefining a clear term to include results of racism when institutionalized by those in power? That seems disingenuous and counterproductive.

I wouldn't look to 1933 white people to define racism. Yes, the Merriam-Webster definition stinks. Go with the US Civil Rights Commission's definition. They are more researched and sensitive to the issue. Here is the Civil Rights Commission's definition again:

"Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally."

In case you think I'm making a non sequitur again, the power component comes from the word "subordinates."

What?!!! How the hell were schools in the U.S. South desegregated in the early 60's but with force of troops.

Huh? What does that have to do with changing the meaning of words?

Racism Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.

Source: US Civil Rights Commission

How is a white person subordinated and controlled in the U.S. based on race to where that white person does not have recourse to the the law, the courts, the police, them finding another job, or just avoiding the offending person? If you have a problem with a person you avoid them or address the law. Racially oppressed people don't escape the situation so easily hence why racism is debilitating.

Nobody said that white people are oppressed. There is some kind of communication breakdown going on because you keep accusing myself and other individuals of claiming that we as white men are afraid of being oppressed. No one under my comment you responded to said that, so please stop acting like we did.

The difference here is one of degree, not kind, as institutional racism is built out of a whole lot of individual racism.

Anyone who mistreats someone because of the color of their skin or defends the practice is doing wrong and I see no value in defending that. Standing against individual racism is a necessary part of standing against institutional racism and I don't think a reasonable person can condemn one but not the other.

A difference of kind is evident when people say racism is the same whether referring to racial prejudice by a Black US person or White US person. People are using a 100 year old dictionary definition to say racism is just racial prejudice. Wikipedia's first sentence says it is racial prejudice AND discrimination. While the US Civil Rights Commission is stronger in saying you have to also subordinate someone based on race. You want to say racism is derived from everyone's individual racial prejudice but you miss the economic exploitative motives from 200 years of slavery and group behavior. So let us be clear it is not just personal racial prejudice behind racism. To subordinate someone you really are talking about racial prejudice and discrimination with power backing it based on institutional racism, hence power. Otherwise you are talking about racially based prejudice that is based on the individual and not the group or its historical circumstances. People here want to address racism by lifestyle choices and racism is not fixed by lifestyle but by law, institutional changes, and starting with the recognition of what racism actually is.

The newspapers are not going to report on a street riot if I go out by myself on the street and break windows and set fires. To report me as a street rioter there should be a street riot which makes me part of a group dynamic. Racism is a group dynamic effort to oppress another racial group. If someone is not a street rioter without a group dynamic of street rioting how can someone be racist without a group dynamic of racism to oppress another racial group. To have a group dynamic of racism to oppress another racial group you need power.

You may not intend this, but you have been implying that racial prejudice is somehow tolerable.

Your down votes are proof that it is not and that we must judge people not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, as a wiser man than me once said.

I think we're being trolled. This moo character is a master of non sequitur.