Saint Louis Beacon

Thursday
Aug 21st
           | 
Home arrow Voices arrow Columnists arrow All tangled up in racial terms
All tangled up in racial terms Print E-mail
By Kira Hudson Banks, Special to the Beacon   
Last Updated ( Monday, 30 June 2008 )
 

Talk of "race," "racism," people being "racist," and the rise in hate groups makes me think we need to step back and make sure we're on the same page with what we mean when we use these terms.

One factor that makes the conversations on race most tangled is the failure, or perhaps unwillingness, to understand racism at multiple levels. We're too quick to label an action or person as racist and "condemn" it or "disown" the person rather than fully analyze the situation.

It is such an emotionally charged topic that it makes sense that people want to avoid dwelling on the complexities (especially, when we want so badly to believe that race doesn't matter anymore). However, analysis will arm us with the ability to have true dialogue. Otherwise, we talk around each other while assuming we are actually communicating directly.

We don't have to agree, necessarily, on definitions to have these conversations, but we do need to understand how each party defines terms. Let's start with race. Biologically, we know that more genetic variation exist within groups we call races, rather than across these groups. So, all that scientific "evidence" from early 20th century that claimed racial deficiencies on the basis of skull size, etc. has been found to be false, to be social opinion posing as objective research. That leaves us with the reality that race is a social construct we have created and reified through laws and social dynamics.

Building on that definition, racism is a system of advantage based on racial classifications that benefits one group over others. Another way to think of it is prejudice plus power. For example, I might have bias, or prejudice, toward red-headed individuals. But unless I (as a non-red-head) hold the power to dictate outcomes for red-heads, we don't have an ism.

Let's say that society had a classification system that separated individuals based on hair color, and non-red-heads continually held power and made sure (through laws and personal decisions) that red-heads did not have access to positions of power, education, and basic services. This would be a system of advantage based on hair color that systematically benefited non-red-heads over red-heads.

Closer to home, it can be argued that, while women can be hatemongers toward men, only men can be sexist. Men have had the power to systematically disadvantage women (i.e. withholding the right to own property, vote, etc.) but not vice versa. It's all based on who has the power in an institution and what they do with that power.

Racism occurs on three levels. There is institutional, cultural and individual racism. Institutional is the most insidious type; however, we'll start with individual racism since we are most familiar with it and most adept at pointing it out.

Individual racism

Individual racism includes telling racially derogatory jokes, choosing not to speak to/hire/support/etc. someone because of their racial group or engaging in hate crimes. Individual racism most easily comes to mind when racism is brought up - the KKK's cross burning is one of the most common examples I hear when introducing these distinctions.

Since Sen. Barack Obama has emerged as the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, white supremacy groups have touted an increase in interest and activity. While this is of concern and suggests that individual racism remains relevant, it's important not to lose sight of ways in which other acts, which aren't so extreme, also constitute individual racism.

Cultural racism

Cultural racism involves the larger society (e.g., whose values are promoted or denigrated, who is omitted or distorted in the media?).

An easy way to grasp this concept is to consider religious values. The post office, schools, etc. are closed during Christmas and usually over Easter. As a Christian, this set-up is convenient for me. Society caters to the fact that I might want to travel to be with family, or be off of work to commemorate the holiday. However, the same cannot be said for Yom Kippur, Ramadan or Divali.

Some might say, "Well, we can't have all of those holidays off!" I'm not dictating how we should rectify this cultural racism; I'm simply trying to raise our awareness of it as one way in which we enact this thing called racism. Another example might be the way in which you see people of color in limited roles in primetime television (e.g. narrow portrayals of Indian Americans or Latinos).

Institutional racism

Institutional racism occurs on another level where decisions made by the system (e.g., government, corporation) enact systematic advantage. Education is a prime example. Previously, regardless of whether an individual wanted to integrate or not, separate-but-equal education was supported by law.

Of course, these levels intersect. Individuals come together to pass the laws that govern the institutions. Housing, health care and the judicial system are other institutions in which you can see historical examples of institutional racism. These institutions produce outcomes that differ by an individual's race. Biological differences do not dictate these outcomes (see above). It's the way in which we as a society limit access that then creates discrepancies that, over time, look natural.

For example, after World War II, this country had a wonderful opportunity to integrate housing. However, the FHA chose to use redlining, and we continue to see the ramifications today - both in segregated housing and economic outcomes. For example, a house in the suburbs might be worth three times the same house in a formerly redlined district. When parents take the equity out of their home to send children to college, one set has access to a great deal more money than the other. This difference is not a matter of one set of parents being lazy and not taking care of their child. It is linked to institutional decisions that were made on the basis of race. The difference in housing prices is just one example of how institutional laws trickle down to affect a host of issues. I share these examples to say that we need to understand the difference between these levels of racism. The rise in white supremacy groups is fueled by individual racism and the personal fear that Obama will win the presidency. The controversy over LeBron James' Vogue cover was not about the magazine being racist. It was an issue of cultural racism given the historical ways in which black men - in relation to white women in particular - have been portrayed. The issue of the achievement gap has a number of causes, but unequal resources (e.g., teachers with advanced degrees, books, computers, etc.) rank top on the list of ways our government (local, state and federal) has enacted institutional racism and disproportionately provided access to some but not others.

These distinctions can be expanded to help examine other types of isms in our society (e.g., classism, sexism, heterosexism). Unfortunately, they are linked. If you understand one ism well, you can understand another. Having a more complex understanding of these systems can help us not feel so overwhelmed, not knowing where to start, when something happens in our town, office or country related to race.

Knowledge really is power - to be able to analyze an incident for yourself rather than relying on someone else to label it for you. You can have a better handle on things while the media continue to get tangled up in messy definitions.

Kira Hudson Banks, PhD., is assistant professor of psychology at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Ill. The native of Edwardsville is a regular contributor to the Beacon. To reach her, contact Beacon features and commentary editor Donna Korando.

 


   

Users' Comments  RSS feed comment
 

Average user rating

 

Display 6 of 6 comments

Polls Schmolls

By: nhollway (Registered ) on 02-07-2008 18:11

Penn and Teller have a great bit on polls, and I don't even like Penn and Teller. The gist is to never take poll results at face value, b/c the context is always more telling than the result. I completely agree that folks are lying about who they plan to vote for - white and black. And there are a good number of blacks who don't consider Obama black enough, being, in fact, only half black and raised by the white side of his family.  
 
What we're both saying is that there are layers to the issues, hence the human tendency towards discussion. Whether that discussion comes from a place of wanting to understand and make an informed decision or being "obsessive" is another issue. 
 
That same Gallup poll has Conservative Republicans 90% for McCain, and one must only listen to Rush Limbaugh for 5 minutes to know that conservative republicans don't always agree - and I'm sure there are some blacks in there. Gallup also measures that 78% of black say race will not be a factor in their vote as do 88% of whites. So, using my head, I would deduce that even with a margin of error and an allowance for people lying to not be honest about their concerns, the reasoning that leads that 91% (as of this week) of blacks polled to say they will vote for Obama has to do with policy, issues and the fact that blacks are traditionally Democrats (liberal democrats said they were 90% likely to vote for Obama as well). That math, to me, is a bit more thorough and observant of the big picture.  
 
That is, if we're going to talk polls, which (I think) we both agree are pretty manipulative.  
 
I agree with you that you don't have to be "in power" to effect another individual's situation negatively based on fear and ignorance. But when you apply the accepted academic terms, the larger issue of power or "upper hand" come into play by definition. Again, it's whether or not you agree with the academic terms. 
 
And for the simple reason that prejudice does exist on an individual level, the law being made up of individuals, it's not something that will go away with application of the law (in my opinion). Additionally, there are so many other layers going on that need to be addressed - at least be individuals. I know that you _can_ change people when it comes to these matters. I've seen it happen. Numerous times. And in my opinion it's a much more effective and lasting change if it happens on an individual level as opposed to a rule or law.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

» See all 1 replie(s)

a waste of time

By: flyover0909 (Registered ) on 02-07-2008 16:43

Here is why I see it as counter-productive. You are never going to change some people. I can show you organizations in this town where there is prejudice shown if you are a German Jew or Russian Jew. I live between two country clubs, neither of which would ever let me join. Not WASP enough for one, not Jewish enough for the other. There's even prejudice amongnst dark skin blacks by light skinned blacks. My position is that if you just leave it alone, enforce the law when necessary you will make more progress than the continual whining about it. The constant chorus that seeks to be equal but different does nothing but call attention to the differences. Most poeple don't care about race anymore, but many people care about reverse discrimination and as times get tougher, that number will increase. But, I agree some do still care about race in many aspects of life. If you are so impressed by polls, there are plenty on the "Bradley effect" where whites lie in surveys about whether they are going to vote for a black. I believe you are going to see that in this election, too. I also believe it works in reverse. I believe blacks say race doesn't matter when it probably does to many. One only needs to use their head. According the most recent Gallup Poll, 93% of blacks support Obama. You couldn't get 93% of blacks to agree on what to have for lunch or what color to paint the bathroom. I am not saying they are doing it in a hateful way, if I had to guess, I would say they are proud and for them it marks a major societal milestone. That's fine, Just admit it. Does that make them racists? That was my entire problem with the underlying commentary that only those with power can be racists.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

Excellent point

By: nhollway (Registered ) on 02-07-2008 15:27

"I saw it on MSNBC" / "I don't consider the Washington Post an objective source of information"  
 
You point out a very important point, that each of our individual experiences and opinions don't change the experiences and realities of the rest of the folks in the world. You don't appear to see racial dialogue as relevant and it's your opinion that it does more harm than good. Others have the opinion that it's necessary. Others live every day that it's necessary. Others are simply open minded/hearted and see people frustrated and consumed by these issues and are willing to participate in getting as many people as are willing on the same page.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

Coverage

By: flyover0909 (Registered ) on 01-07-2008 21:12

It was on MSNBC the night of the West Virginia primary. If you want to see it look it up. I don't conisder the Washington Post as an objective source of information, sorry. Do you think 90+% can be a coincidence? And that was against Hillary. It will probably be even higher against McCain,. I understand for them its a pride thing. I am not blaming them, I am just pointing out the obvious: they are voting for Obama because of his race. That is beyond any dispute. I just do not believe this constant divisive racial analysis is helpful to our society. The law is the law. If you are being discriminated against, you have a remedy. Use it. However, when you want to be equal but different, you shouldn't be surprised when people view you as different. Its time to move on. Affirmative action discrimination is killing us in the global economy. Its time to be Americans, not (insert group)-Americans.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

Hate groups' newest targets

By: nhollway (Registered ) on 01-07-2008 13:03

For Flyover: 
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2008/ 06/21/AR2008062101471.html 
 
Could you link to your polls showing black voting for Obama on the "simple reason of race?" Thanks

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

Again we disagree

By: flyover0909 (Registered ) on 01-07-2008 09:43

Your definition is flawed. Using simple logic, your theory that one must "have power" over the other can be applied to any group. I am sure your definition is meant to say, although you didn't say it, that blacks cannot be racists. Blacks have the power to stereotype whites, to hate whites, to target whites, etc. Therefore, using your definition, blacks can also be racists. As a white guy, I must have missed all the increase in white hate groups. What do you consider white hate? Being against Obama? To the contrary, being against Obama makes you a sensible conservative given his socialistic objectives for the country. Blacks have the power to vote for Obama as a homogeneous group--which they are doing and polls have shown they are doing for the simple reason of race. Does that make them racist because they have the power to vote for him? Is affirmative action racism because employers and universities have the power to discriminate? I am almost willing to suffer through four years of Obama simply so the country can end its obsession on race...almost. I am unwilling to hope for it because the institutional infrastructure of those who make their livings dividing us by race still won't be satisfied. Using your definition, the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's and the tens of thousands of others who depend on racism continuing have the power to stop, but the money is just too good.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

» See all 1 replie(s)

Display 6 of 6 comments



Add your comment
Only registered users can comment on an article. Please login or register.


mXcomment 1.0.6 © 2007-2008 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved

Manufacturing harmony: Wicks Organs

Read the story and see a larger version of this slideshow

Voices in the news

  • vote100.jpgWhether by old-line boys on the bus or hot-shot bloggers, elections are covered like a horse race: Who's ahead? What are the odds? But the old-time journalistm was pretty straightforward, giving just what the candidate said. Now, cable and others mix analysis with the facts, and opinions are freely offered. Is the electorate confused or enlightened? Retired professor Lana Stein raises questions she hopes people will study.

Columnists

  • guzy100.jpgColumnist M.W. Guzy remembers a time when conventions actually mattered. As the Democrats and Republicans return to the "nominating" arena with everything carefully orchestrated, he wonders what the ratings will be for Nick at Nite. 

Blogs

  • Law Scoop

    Sen. Barack Obama told Pastor Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church forum that he wouldn't have appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, partly because of inexperience. Conservatives responded, charging that Obama is less qualified than Justice Thomas.

The Lens


heliumplusbeacon200sq.jpg

The Beacon, through Helium.com, invites writers to respond to questions we pose on timely topics. Winning articles appear in the Beacon. 

To see the latest winner, read "Reduce the stigma of reporting medical errors "   

Our next topic: Read "Nearly naked in the St. Louis night" and write about your impression of St. Louis. For details, visit Helium.

facebook2.jpg

Join the folks who have already found the Beacon on Facebook, the social networking site. See the most popular stories of the day, photos, videos and upcoming events. Visit the St. Louis Beacon page on Facebook and become a fan.

twitterbutton100sq.jpg

Twitter is a "microblogging" service where users can provide short updates about what they are doing. stlbeacon is our official Twitter feed – check it out to find our featured stories and the news that matters.

mortgageicon.jpg

The Beacon and KETC/Channel 9 are covering mortgage forclosures – how they're affecting St. Louis area residents and where you can find help. 

Visit our special section to read coverage of this issue, watch Channel 9's stories and access resources to find help.

rss75.gif

What's this icon? It's the standard icon for RSS.

RSS gives you another option for reading the Beacon, in a way that may be more convenient for you. As explained below, you can use our RSS feed to get alerts about new Beacon content. The Beacon's main RSS feed is here.

For more about RSS, read this quick introduction or watch this video: RSS in simple English.