Members of the Academy are Racists?

[rainbow]

There's a reason why it is actually pretty moronic to claim that blacks can be racist to white people. Just look at what she is claiming. That sums it up right there.

You think black people can't be racist against white people?

Of course. Races don't exist. There are no 'white people' to be racist against.

[Brian Peacock]

Indeed. Just gingers and all the rest.

[Forty Two]

There's a reason why it is actually pretty moronic to claim that blacks can be racist to white people. Just look at what she is claiming. That sums it up right there.

You think black people can't be racist against white people?

Of course. Races don't exist. There are no 'white people' to be racist against.

Oh, man.... don't say that.. . that's a microaggression. No true progressive would say something as hurtful as that.

[Forty Two]

There's a reason why it is actually pretty moronic to claim that blacks can be racist to white people. Just look at what she is claiming. That sums it up right there.

You think black people can't be racist against white people?

When you define racism simplistically, sure they can. But when you look at what the concept of racism means, the more oppressed a group is the less they can actually be bigoted towards their oppressors. Look at an extreme example to see what I mean: In a racist country 95% of the population was white and 5% black, would it really make sense to say that blacks could be racist to whites in such a society? That's basically Australia. Can Aborigines be realistically racist towards white Australians? Or what about apartheid South Africa. Would it really make sense to claim that blacks could be racist to whites in that society?

It certainly can be said that where one race is 80 or 90% of the population, then racism by that population against a small minority of people can have greater impact or damage. But, that's different than saying the small minority race "can't be racist" against other races or the majority race.

It makes perfect sense to say that blacks can be racist to whites in such a society. What makes no sense is to group people together as "classes" which are not actually "classes." Just because there is smaller percentage of one race in a group doesn't mean that races are homogeneous.

Can an aborigine be racist towards a white person? Sure. If he hates white people because they are white, then he's a racist. Whether that means it has any impact overall on the society or group dynamics doesn't change the fact that he's a racist. If you view people as individuals, with individual dignity and value outside their membership in groups based on genetic characteristics, then of course he's just as racist as a white person who hates black people because they are black.

What the folks who talk of blacks not being able to be racist are doing is altering reality in order to serve an ideology. They want to divide people into groups, and use class-analysis to view members of each class as oppressed or privileged (even when individual members of those classes may or may not be oppressed or privileged). They don't want to allow a discussion of women being sexist and blacks being racist because it's not racism or sexism that they are really concerned about -- what they are concerned about are power dynamics where one class is oppressing and the other class is being oppressed. Of course it's ok, in that context, for women to hate men, and drink their tears and to hit them -- women are oppressed, and anything they can do to get one up, as a class, on men is valid. Men, of course, cannot do the same things, because they are dominant and oppressive. So, instead of saying that both can be sexist, but over the years male sexism has dominated, they just want say that women cannot possibly be sexist.

[Forty Two]

First link in google:

In sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5] Other definitions also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][6] 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.[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

The prejudice plus power one is rather silly. Racism doesn't have to "manifest itself as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon" to be racism. That's just saying that some racism is worse than others, which certainly makes sense. If you had one guy in a society of millions who was of a different race, and he just hated the majority race with a passion because they are a different race, then he would be a racist, but his racism wouldn't matter.

it's only when you define racism as exclusively something of group dynamics and as a matter of "class", disregarding the individual as having any relevance, then definitions that apply only to groups makes sense.

Sure, racism by certain minorities may well have little impact on society, and may not manifest as pervasive, but racism doesn't have to manifest AT ALL in order to be racism. A guy who behaves otherwise normally, never says a bad word about another race, hires all races fairly, and is polite to everyone, who inwardly seethes with hatred of black people, thinking them akin to lesser beings, well, he's a racist. His racism doesn't matter, because he keeps it to himself. It doesn't "manifest pervasively" -- but, it's still racism.

[Forty Two]

Some of my colleagues in the Academy thought people might be interested in the points I raised in the email I sent to Cheryl Boone Isaacs (below). I have not received a response.

Dear Cheryl Boone Isaacs,

I understand your need to respond to the criticism the Academy has recently received about the lack of diversity among the Oscar nominees. However, I am baffled at your and the board’s choice of a response.

I worked in the industry for over 20 years, most of that time as a film studio executive. Because of that, I am currently a full voting member of the Academy. Under the new rules it appears as though that right will be denied me in order to make the Academy and therefore the Oscar nominees "more diverse."

Are you saying I am racist or have racist tendencies and need to be excluded from voting? Are you saying if I worked another 10 years I would vote differently? Are you saying that I have not made my voting choices on quality but rather on the color of the artists’ skin? Are you saying that I have voted (consciously or unconsciously) to exclude women, members of the LGBT community and other minorities? I find it insulting and ignorant. I take my membership responsibilities seriously and am honored to be part of the Academy. I have paid my yearly dues, cast Oscar ballots each year, voted in categories only when I have seen all the films and consistently been involved in and voted on other AMPAS matters since I was invited to join in 1995.

I am a gay man and my father is a Latino immigrant. Please explain to me how denying me my right to vote makes the Academy membership and the Oscar nominees more diverse?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Mark Reina

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/g ... ens-859044

Nope, Mark, what you're missing is that they aren't concerned about individuals making decisions without reference to race. They think that folks claiming to make decisions without referencing race is a microaggression. The best person should win the Oscar? That's racist.

[Seth]

Some of my colleagues in the Academy thought people might be interested in the points I raised in the email I sent to Cheryl Boone Isaacs (below). I have not received a response.

Dear Cheryl Boone Isaacs,

I understand your need to respond to the criticism the Academy has recently received about the lack of diversity among the Oscar nominees. However, I am baffled at your and the board’s choice of a response.

I worked in the industry for over 20 years, most of that time as a film studio executive. Because of that, I am currently a full voting member of the Academy. Under the new rules it appears as though that right will be denied me in order to make the Academy and therefore the Oscar nominees "more diverse."

Are you saying I am racist or have racist tendencies and need to be excluded from voting? Are you saying if I worked another 10 years I would vote differently? Are you saying that I have not made my voting choices on quality but rather on the color of the artists’ skin? Are you saying that I have voted (consciously or unconsciously) to exclude women, members of the LGBT community and other minorities? I find it insulting and ignorant. I take my membership responsibilities seriously and am honored to be part of the Academy. I have paid my yearly dues, cast Oscar ballots each year, voted in categories only when I have seen all the films and consistently been involved in and voted on other AMPAS matters since I was invited to join in 1995.

I am a gay man and my father is a Latino immigrant. Please explain to me how denying me my right to vote makes the Academy membership and the Oscar nominees more diverse?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Mark Reina

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/g ... ens-859044

Nope, Mark, what you're missing is that they aren't concerned about individuals making decisions without reference to race. They think that folks claiming to make decisions without referencing race is a microaggression. The best person should win the Oscar? That's racist.

Exactly. Your last three posts are very well constructed and I thank you for making such a clear point. The purpose of repurposing the word "racist" is the epitome of Orwellian Newspeak in its intent. As you suggest, it is a revisionistic attempt to immunize certain subjectively defined classes (a thoroughly Marxist practice by the way) against criticism for their attacks on their chosen "microaggressors," thus giving them free rein to verbally and even physically assault people who may or may not have actually done anything to harm them on the premise that merely by existing and being of the disparagable class they are automatically guilty, thereby justifying anything and everything that their purported "victims" might say about them or do to them.

It's very clearly just an iteration of the Marxist dialectic of propagandizing and indoctrinating the proletarians into class-based hatred and warfare, and the repurposing of the word "racist" has no other intent than to deliberately and falsely trade on the universally pejorative connotation.

[pErvinalia]

It proves that yet again you were wrong in your claim.

You do know there's links to references in wiki articles, that you can check yourself, right??

You do know there's links to the dictionary definition of "racism" that you can check yourself, right?

You, or Wikipedia can be as philosophical and revisionist as you like, but that doesn't change the actual definition of the word nor does it mean that black people, or any other minority, can't be racist. I know you (and the BLM crew) would LIKE to doublespeak your way to a free pass for blacks to be racists without being called racists, but that's not going to happen because racism is as racism does, and that's pretty much it.

A sociological definition of racism proves you wrong. It's got nothing to do with me or Wikipedia. It's a fact. You don't get to invent your own facts, Seth.

[pErvinalia]

In any event, none of the above vitiates the fact that blacks can be racists.

Of course, in a given context they can be.

That doesn't change the fact that the examples rEv quoted show the inherent asymmetry in racism, given a context of a group with power, and a group without.

There is no asymmetry in racism. Racism is racism is racism. It means what it means and the dictionary defines what it means, and that meaning is applied to the relevant behaviors and beliefs no matter who hold or expresses them.

Wrong. That's one definition (the literal, and context-free definition). Other definitions offer a more realistic description.

[pErvinalia]

There's a reason why it is actually pretty moronic to claim that blacks can be racist to white people. Just look at what she is claiming. That sums it up right there.

You think black people can't be racist against white people?

When you define racism simplistically, sure they can. But when you look at what the concept of racism means, the more oppressed a group is the less they can actually be bigoted towards their oppressors. Look at an extreme example to see what I mean: In a racist country 95% of the population was white and 5% black, would it really make sense to say that blacks could be racist to whites in such a society? That's basically Australia. Can Aborigines be realistically racist towards white Australians? Or what about apartheid South Africa. Would it really make sense to claim that blacks could be racist to whites in that society?

It certainly can be said that where one race is 80 or 90% of the population, then racism by that population against a small minority of people can have greater impact or damage. But, that's different than saying the small minority race "can't be racist" against other races or the majority race.

It makes perfect sense to say that blacks can be racist to whites in such a society. What makes no sense is to group people together as "classes" which are not actually "classes." Just because there is smaller percentage of one race in a group doesn't mean that races are homogeneous.

Can an aborigine be racist towards a white person? Sure. If he hates white people because they are white, then he's a racist.

Yes, but it makes little sense to look at it that way. A black person being racist to a white person in Australia affects so few white people as to be a statistical blip. But the other way around: A white person being racist towards a black person supports a systemic effect, that has massive effect on the vast majority of black people.

What the folks who talk of blacks not being able to be racist are doing is altering reality in order to serve an ideology.

No they're not. They are using a practical realistic definition of the effect that applies to the real world. Calling a 5%er black person a racist against a 95%er white person is really a pointless label. Sure, by a literal definition it is right, but that doesn't make it any less uninformative.

[pErvinalia]

First link in google:

In sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5] Other definitions also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][6] 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.[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

The prejudice plus power one is rather silly. Racism doesn't have to "manifest itself as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon" to be racism. That's just saying that some racism is worse than others, which certainly makes sense.

I was simply proving Seth's claim, that there is only one definition of racism, wrong. Whether you or he agrees with the sociological definition is irrelevant to the fact that he was quite simply wrong (as usual).

[rainbow]

There's a reason why it is actually pretty moronic to claim that blacks can be racist to white people. Just look at what she is claiming. That sums it up right there.

You think black people can't be racist against white people?

Of course. Races don't exist. There are no 'white people' to be racist against.

Oh, man.... don't say that.. . that's a microaggression. No true progressive would say something as hurtful as that.

I will say what I want.

If you disagree it is simply due to programming from your inferior DNA that is making you deluded.

[Forty Two]

First link in google:

In sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5] Other definitions also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[2][6] 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.[7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

The prejudice plus power one is rather silly. Racism doesn't have to "manifest itself as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon" to be racism. That's just saying that some racism is worse than others, which certainly makes sense.

I was simply proving Seth's claim, that there is only one definition of racism, wrong. Whether you or he agrees with the sociological definition is irrelevant to the fact that he was quite simply wrong (as usual).

That particular sociological definition is ideologically driven. It's not the dictionary definition, and yes we all know that many folks assert the definition "prejudice plus power." That's the definition that is mainstream in feminism today. They really do believe they cannot be sexist against men, even if they discriminate against men, hate men, or whatever. Example is Bahar Mustafa of Goldthwaite university in the UK -- she declared herself, as a minority woman, of being incapable of being racist or sexist against men, because of the prejudice plus power definition, even though, as a diversity officer, she discriminated against men.

It's the same definition feminist use when they claim to be engaged in ironic misandry or to not be sexist when they are declaring that they drink male tears or want to "kill all men," etc. See, e.g. Jessica Valenti and a myriad other feminists.

This weird belief that women cannot be sexist is a prevalent idea. It's mainstream among feminists.

[Forty Two]

There's a reason why it is actually pretty moronic to claim that blacks can be racist to white people. Just look at what she is claiming. That sums it up right there.

You think black people can't be racist against white people?

Of course. Races don't exist. There are no 'white people' to be racist against.

Oh, man.... don't say that.. . that's a microaggression. No true progressive would say something as hurtful as that.

I will say what I want.

If you disagree it is simply due to programming from your inferior DNA that is making you deluded.

Oh, man, I'm being microaggressed ... you're insulting my DNA as "inferior" and accusing me of being mentally ill by virtue of delusions....

Oh, wait, I'm a white guy, so it's o.k. Carry on. I'll just be over here checking my privilege. :-)

[Brian Peacock]