How do you define racism and racist?

The terms ‘racism’ and ‘racist” have real meanings legally and in psychology.

Howbeit the terms are often used as insults, especially by the left. There have been REAL, actual racists in our nation’s past, but these were outspoken, openly racist individuals, mostly a very specific political strain that no longer claims connections with the way that party is today.

Today, we are seeing young, white, college students of privilege sometimes calling people of color and immigrants ‘racist’ simply because they have discovered that they have conservative views or don’t go along with the narrative the accusers are espousing.

Any time someone discriminates based on a person’s race, that is racism.

A racist is usually defined as someone who pre-judges or actually hates, on a deep psychological level, someone or some group, culture, or subculture because of their ethnicity

Classification by race or seeing the human family in terms of a tapestry of races are a more “true” definition of racism, but the term is not generally used that way.

I have a very narrow definition of “racism” that is much narrower than the common definition, which seems to make it simply a synonym of “bigotry” and “prejudice”. To me, “racism” is much stronger than bigotry and prejudice and it’s specifically related to one’s physical racial identity. It is the belief that a person’s race entails certain immutable traits that determine a person’s behavior or worth. Which is why I have a problem with people calling things like Islamophobia and anti-Semitism “racism” because “Jew” and “Muslim” are not races. Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are forms of bigotry, but I wouldn’t call them racism.

It doesn’t matter how one person or one group defines anything. What matters is what the real, actual definition is.

Who determines the “real, actual definition” though? Ultimately a word’s definition is determined by how it’s used. If the word “racism” is used by enough people to mean “synonym with prejudice” then that will be the real, actual definition. I still hear the more narrow, original meaning used so I’m not discounting it yet but I recognize that definition will probably lose out.

Racist: Someone who believes that race alone should define social stratification.
Racism: An institutional system that mandates social stratification based on race alone.

Where the liberals and conservatives are misaligned is with all of the auxiliary issues surrounding this. Conservatives often downplay these issues and sometimes miss things that really are racist while liberals usually overextend them to encompass things that are not.

I think part of the difference is that conservatives use “racist” and “racism” as the terms actually are defined. Racism is a belief system that considers someone else inferior based solely on their race. Racist is someone that adheres to racism. Liberals tend to throw out the term “racist” as a way to shame someone or to shut them up. You can see this from many examples: Trump calling Baltimore a rat and rodent infested mess has nothing to do with race, yet the left called him a racist for it. You hear liberals screaming about “white privilege” which is, in itself, a racist comment. You are denigrating or determining a whole group of people are flawed based solely on their skin color. When someone says they don’t support illegal immigration, they are termed a racist and accused of not liking brown people when, in fact, they may just be in favor of enforcing our immigration laws and our borders for the safety and stability of our nation. The examples go on and on.
There are racists on all ends of the political spectrum. The conservatives will acknowledge that, the liberals will not.

^^ Well put.

Interesting article that makes me realize I’m not the only one who sees this as an issue. Not exactly on topic, but related. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-13/trump-voters-racism-politics-white-supremacy?_amp=true

@JLeslie An interesting take on things. But really, aren’t all Trump supporters dumber than fence posts? At least that is how most liberals see Trump supporters. How would codes work on them?

@seawulf575 Actually, the code comments I find a little off base. The go back to your country I don’t think is code. How is that comment speaking to Trump’s base? It got Democrats rules up more than anything. I think of republican base code as the religious language. Using words the Evangelicals identify with and most of us who aren’t Evangelical Christian don’t even understand what it means.

Trump says a lot of things that people say behind closed doors, and it’s both people who are not racist and who are. The problem is he says it out loud as president, and it does fire up racist people. That is a serious problem. It’s irresponsible, undignified, and inappropriate.

It matters what the message is from the top. The president should be encouraging unity, acceptance, and multicultural. This is America. Anyone who doesn’t understand that America is diverse is missing something.

“Trump says a lot of things that people say behind closed doors”

Not in my experience.

@ARE_you_kidding_me A lot of things is an overstatement. I agree he says a lot of bat shit crazy things that I don’t hear said by people I know. However, since the comment about go back to your countries was raised in the article, even my husband has said things like that about his own sister when she goes on her tangents complaining about America and idealizing Mexico. The difference between her and the 4 representatives, is my SIL is talking about MX being better when she’s complaining, while none of the 4 congresswomen were idealizing the countries their families were from.

As far as calling countries shit holes, I really think it’s horrible to use that term, especially for the president to use it, but are you seriously going to try to say that some of the countries people live in aren’t in a really bad state? I’m not talking about the people, I’m talking about the countries. Unsafe, dirty, violence, limited education accessibility, some have really messed up governments, or almost anarchy, extreme poverty in large numbers, severe constraints on women, we could go on. Not that America doesn’t have some of these things, but some places you can not compare. I would never call a country a shit hole, but I would use words like disaster, mess, corrupt, and unsafe.

@JLeslie I agree that Trump is about as polished as an old tennis shoe. That is his style. He blurts stuff out and doesn’t always choose his words carefully. The go-back-to-your-country comment was a perfect example. I understand what he was trying to say, but he said it to several people that were from the USA. So it really just made him look silly in my book.
Now, I’m supposed to be part of Trump’s base. At least that is how many liberals view me. I don’t key on words from Trump’s statements…Christian comments, for example, don’t suddenly make me think he is somehow right or morally good. It would depend on how that comment comes out as to what it tells me. I’ve seen too many people try to use God and religion as a way to scam people. But if he says something that sounds like “there is an effort to persecute Christians” I might go along with that. I believe that to be a mostly true statement. So it really depends on what is being said as to whether it resonates with me
And I agree with you that the message is from the top. But let’s stop and back up a minute. Are all the messages “from Trump” actually from him? As in did they actually come out of his mouth in the context it is put out to the people? I gave some examples earlier that apply. Was his comment about Baltimore really racist? I didn’t think so. And if you actually include the entire context of his statement, it was even less so. But the media has a responsibility to do honest reporting and that is where much of the problem occurs. Look at Trump’s speech after the two shootings…El Paso and Dayton. He made a very good speech where he called for unity and acceptance and to condemn racism. Do you remember what happened with the press? The NYT created a headline that said “Trump Urging Unity vs Racism”. The left heard about that and was so incensed that they would write a favorable thing about Trump that there were calls to boycott the NYT. So they changed it to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns”. That way they could say something negative about Trump. So your statement that the president should be encouraging unity, acceptance, and mulicultural is spot on. But doesn’t that also apply to the press? If they refuse to acknowledge that the president does that when he does it, isn’t that just as bad…maybe worse?

@seawulf575 Yes, it also applies to the press. They have to report, it’s important to our democracy, but they also can have influence over whether we feel united or at each other’s throats.

But, think about this, the press is basically a corporation now. Their goal is profit. The president should not be motivated by money and headlines, his position should be purely for the American people. His moral and ethical obligation is to the people.

We may want the press to be more fair, but fairness was removed years ago when they changed the requirement for the press to be balanced.

The idea that Christians are under attack in America is just politicians and religious leaders using fear to manipulate Christians in my opinion. I agree they are under attack in other parts of the world, and I’ve said for years how horrible it is, but not in America. Where? How? Who? Christians aren’t being kept from their churches, their bibles aren’t being burned, there isn’t a wave of violence against them.

@JLeslie No…they aren’t being kept from their churches, their bibles aren’t being burned and there isn’t a wave of physical violence against them. But look at the many assaults they have had to put up with, especially from the left, that other religious groups don’t have to put up with. A high school coach says a silent prayer after winning a football game (doesn’t require or even ask anyone else to join in) and he is fired for it. A Christian baker is sued for not wanting to participate in a same-sex marriage, yet the several Muslim bakers just up the road are not touched. A Kentucky clerk of courts, after asking for a reasonable accommodation and having it denied, is put into a position of either taking an action that goes against her religious beliefs (and is illegal as per the state constitution) or being persecuted. The list goes on. Here are a few links

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/09/17/7-examples-of-discrimination-against-christians-in-america-n1701966

https://www.newsmax.com/US/iraqi-christians-escaped-denied-asylum/2015/10/02/id/694501/

I could keep going, but you get the idea. Persecution and suppression don’t always have to be physical in nature. When a person is sued for holding or acting on a particular religious belief, that is persecution. It is an attack on Christianity. When a group like the SPLC starts listing all sorts of Christian groups on their list of “Hate Groups” merely for holding Christian values, that is an attack.

^^i can’t answer in full right now, but Muslims certainly have had challenges to what they want regarding their religion also. Challenges with the schools regarding cleansing rituals, challenges regarding their call to prayer being blared out from their mosques, challenges with wearing a hijab, and they have had their mosques BURNED DOWN and VIOLENCE against them. The things you mention are in such smaller numbers of cases than what happens to the minority religions here. The country is 2% Jewish, maybe 2% Muslim, and yet there are many many more instances of oppression and violence than against Christians.

As far as the woman who worked for the state, too bad, she needs to perform her job. The cake baker won in court, and I’m ok with that. I gotta run.