Racism, Sexism, Antisemitism and other things one can unwittingly be

That was just a extreme example I used, I wasn't saying anyone here was making that specific claim.

I'm personally a bit suspicious of anyone who rants about evil Zionists because Zionism is a term frequently used by people who just really dislike Jewish people.

This is a false analogy because language requires specific, acquired knowledge. Discussing racism is not nearly as clear cut.

You're also commiting the Appeal to Authority argument by designating minorities as an authority on racism. I can accept that many people will have more personal experience with racism than I do, but that does not mean that I have to accept their word without argument.

Edit: I should also note that simply having experience with racism does not mean one is guaranteed to draw correct conclusions about issues of racism.

I'd also like to see some examples of racism that you think most people wouldn't identify as being racist.

edited 25th Aug '12 10:40:18 PM by Talby

YES EXACTLY!

Politicians badmouthing "urban welfare recipients" (it always means "poor black people"); as mentioned before, people ranting against "Zionists" because they can't rant against "Jews".

We're basically in agreement on that point then, racism isn't always overt. Racists have gotten pretty good at disguising their racism using certain terms and language.

Speaking as a Jew, I"m always a bit ticked off when someone uses claims Anti-Semitism to dismiss criticism of Zionism or Isreal.

The reason there is often an overlap between Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, is because most. if not all Anti-Semites are Anti-Zionists.However that does not mean all Anti-Zionists are Anti-Semites. Zionism is an ideology (and a nationalist one at that). And like any ideology, there will always be people who disagree with it for various reasons. To claim that they are 'all; Anti-Semitic is preposterous.

And let us not forget the existence of Anti-Zionist Jews like Neturei Karta who oppose Zionism for religious reasons.

Now, obviously not every single anti-Zionist is anti-semitic but it's such a common thing that the ones that aren't seem to be more like exceptions that prove the rule. If you can point to a handful of anti-Zionists who aren't anti-semitic the fact that you had to do it, and the fact that you can only gather a handful, proves that most of them are, no?

Diving into the anti-Zionist Jews to prove that anti-Zionists aren't anti-semitic is a little like saying "here are some black Republicans, therefore the Republican party isn't racist".

I would argue that there are some that are anti-zionist but don't self-identify as thus. For instance, just reading the Wikipedia page on Zionism, if I had to place myself as pro or anti-zionist, I'd go with the latter.

You see @Black Humor? Because of you, Tomu is now an Anti-Semite.

edited 26th Aug '12 5:36:09 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Eh, BH's statement can be simply amended to be "self-identified anti-zionists are usually racist" rather than "anti-zionists"

I mean, I'm mostly anti-nationalist in general, so it doesn't make sense for me to identify as an anti-zionist per say.

A better title would be "The majority of vocal self-identified anti-zionists are usually Anti-Semitic."

"I mean, I'm mostly anti-nationalist in general, so it doesn't make sense for me to identify as an anti-zionist per say. "

...You wouldn't happen to be a dirty Marxist/Anarchist would you?

Hey, don't use labels. People slap labels on themselves and then are expected to keep behaving in congruence with everything that's associated with that model. Like a black kid thinking he ought to eat Soul Food or like Hip Hop (by the way, what sense does it make to say "urban voters" as an euphemism for black? aren't an awful lot of black people rural? aren't most people who live in cities non-black, except for Baltimore?)

Also, internationalism is not a matter of being marxist, it's a matter of sheer rationality: nationalism is irrational, unfair, and, well, evil: it requires that you see people that are not "of your country" as less-than-human, and exploitable.

Since when has racism ever made sense?

I wouldn't say I'm a Marxist, no (though the American Right would). And I'm certainly no anarchist. I just think that national and cultural identity isn't an intrinsic property of human consciousness, and that as thus, making it your defacto identifier seems kind of wonky.

One world nation has problems because then people can't "vote with their feet" and all that, but I don't think there's anything wrong with removing national boundaries intrinsically.

edited 26th Aug '12 6:21:39 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

First the "Marxist/Anarchist" thing was a joke.

Secondly, "Also, internationalism is not a matter of being Marxist, it's a matter of sheer rationality: nationalism is irrational, unfair, and, well, evil: it requires that you see people that are not "of your country" as less-than-human, and exploitable."

Yes, all nationalists are pure evil minions of the devil sent down to cause havoc on the earth and view anyone who is not from there country as mere pawns for there sadistic pleasure. Taking pride in your country is so wrong.

Wait, are you one of those people who distinguish "nationalism" from "patriotism" .

edited 26th Aug '12 6:32:14 AM by DeviantBraeburn

I'm questioning the fact that it is racist. How is the expression used? What connotations does it have? What makes you think it refers to black people specifically? If it does refer to black people specifically, why is it racist instead of, say, an euphemistic, conflict-avoiding, morally-neutral way of referring to a demographic, kind of like "youth literature" means "literature for little children" while "young adult" means "teenagers"?

"urban" means "black" when used by Republicans to talk about black people. This needs context much of the time. When I say "urban planning and development" I obviously am not talking about planning and developing black people. But if I'm talking about, say, children working as janitors in their schools and I use the word "urban" and also have a record of saying "I think black people should expect jobs not food stamps" it's hard not to think "urban" is just an attempt to use the same message but with different words. That being said, that may be self-fulfilling prophecy and all that-I mean, if we think someone is using racist rhetoric, how do we know when they've dropped the rhetoric if all things translate into the same rhetoric?

Hmmm...

I'm replying to the first half of the OP. I didn't yet read the rest of the comments.

Being a [something]ist without realizing it, or doing or saying something [something]ist without realizing that it is [something]ist, is something that happens really often. People obviously don't like being accused of being the bad guys, or doing something bad, so they (we) either rationalize their [something]ist behavior or say "you're being oversensitive" and stuff like that.

I noticed that when I accuse someone of being sexist, or doing or saying something sexist, they would retort with "no, I'm being normal, YOU'RE being too politically correct" and then they go on to give me their rationalization. I would then point out that because they refuse to even CONSIDER their actions/words as MAYBE being sexist, this is what makes them sexists.

And then I thought "what if I'm doing the same thing? Always assuming that I'm right and all accusations about me being sexist/racist are wrong?"

So I decided that the best way to respond to such accusations is to not instantly reply, and instead to say "sorry, I'll try not to do that". It's very likely that I'm blind to my own prejudices just like others are. I would later think about what I said, I'd think why others could view it as racist/sexist. If I reach the conclusion that I really wasn't being racist/sexist, I could now think of a better way to convey my intention without being misunderstood.

I think that there's a certain state of mind where a person basically "believes" nothing (in the context we're talking about), so they feel they have the right to joke about those topics in a form of satire becoming reality. For instance, if you've ever had friends who are mostDefinitelyNotRacists who make black jokes to show how stupidAndReprehensibleRacismIs. Or guys who make getInTheKitchenAndMakeMeASandwhich jokes, not because they're "actually" misogynistic, but because they're a self-satire of misogyny. But, I mean, isn't that really just the same thing as a racism and sexism?

That's where I tend to be, actually.

Jewish Self-Deprecating Humor is often like that,though I often feel that this and other N-Word Privileges phenomena are actually Internalized Categirism with "we are parodying the bad guys" being an unacknowledged excuse. Notice how "proud" minorities, like the rich, do not mimick what Bomb-Throwing Anarchists have to say about them.

edited 26th Aug '12 11:18:32 AM by TheHandle

Think Tomu's talking about the sort of people who do that despite not being part of the disadvantaged group in question. You see why that might put you on shaky ground, no?

Satire and irony only really work when they're clearly distinguishable from that which they're mocking. Otherwise they're just more of the same.

edited 26th Aug '12 11:35:50 AM by Iaculus

The question is: are they really? Even when made by the targets? Why would they be less suspect of racism than others who do not belong to that group, yet harbor no prejudice against said group?

Because racism, by definition, is about inequality and power differentials. The insults of more privileged people weigh heavier on more disadvantaged people because they're a reinforcement of that inequality in a way that self-deprecating jokes simply can't be (because the insulter and insulted are on the same level by dint of being the same person).

... I didn't see it that way. For me, it was more of a matter of who could be most effective at propagating the bad prejudices and so on, and if it's "the same person" or "someone of the same group" saying it it's worse, I think, That sort of stuff... it's not that one shouldn't joke about it or parody it, one should not even acknowledge it in any way that isn't flat refutation.

I don't agree with that, or N-Word Privileges for that matter. Racism is racially-driven prejudice towards any racial group in a Society, regardless of power differentials and equality — after all, minorities can be racist towards the majority and a minority can be racist against another minority, even if they look outwardly the same.

It's with power, though, that it becomes meaningful. Prejudice from an equal or superior is more damaging than from an inferior, no?

Doesn't matter, it's still Racism irregardless of where it comes from and how powerful the person is...