Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9AHCQ914707; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <LAW2-F132myJv1lY8sI0000f28e@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:173] Re: Defining Our Own Racismtill Individ X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 4824 Lines: 107 Karen asks what word we apply when people act on their prejudices if we don't call it racism? How about discrimination? (Though in the case of the shooting, it's certainly more than discrimination--racially-motivated murder?) I think that when we broaden the definition of racism to include every act of discrimination that has an element of racial or ethnic prejudice, we dilute its power to trigger historical analysis, reflection and action. When we consider racism as institutionalized, we situate it in a historical and societal context and make clear that "undoing" it is not only a matter of individual attitude shifts but of systematic change. Defining racism as an institutional problem challenges us to act together as well as to individually overcome our own stereotypes. Discrimination, action based on prejudice against members of a certain group or groups, is wrong too. Just because we call it discrimination instead of racism, or differentiate between actions sanctioned by an institution and those not backed by systematic power, doesn't mean that discrimination is okay. Eileen >From: "Jones, Karen" <jonesk@sosmail.state.mo.us> >Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@nifl.gov >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> >Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:172] Re: Defining Our Own Racismtill Individ >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:49:18 -0400 (EDT) > >I'm still having trouble with definitions. (Apologies if that seems petty >but if we are going to communicate we have to have words in common.) If >"racism" includes power then, yes, it would seem to me that Blacks refusing >to serve Asians is "racist" in that little corner of the world because in >that setting they had the power even if they didn't have it in general. If >it is only "racism" when the power is widespread general and >institutionalized, than what is it when people not of a generally dominant >group use race to treat each other in a degrading way? We're saying it's >"prejudice" but that seems much too weak a word. "Prejudice" can and >probably often does exist without our ever acting on it. Part of this >struggle is learning not to act on our prejudices. Prejudice is in my mind; >it feeds other negative things, it warps my sense of reality and other >people's personhood, but to act, to actually, actively do another human >being damage because of their color or ethnic affiliation is something >beyond felt "prejudice." Looking at the Asians and thinking "I don't like >them - they're Asian" is prejudice. Refusing to serve them is a step >beyond >that. Anopther example: A member of another minority group looking at a >Korean immigrant (for example)and thinking he's ugly or stupid is >prejudice, >but shooting him because he's Korean is way beyond prejudice no matter what >group the shooter comes from. What word do we attach to that if we aren't >going to call it racism? >Karen Jones >-----Original Message----- >From: Kate Gladstone & Andrew S. Haber [mailto:kate@global2000.net] >Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 2:00 PM >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:127] Re: Defining Our Own Racismtill >Individual > > >Karen Jones writes: > > > The use of the word "racism" to denote only the attitudes of a dominant >or > > privileged group is new to me, but it makes sense and I'm comfortable >with > > restricting the use of the word to that situation. > >I, for one, don't feel comfortable with that restriction: > >since "racism" includes "white people excluding Asians from restaurants," > then (to my mind) it equally includes "blacks excluding Asians from >restaurants." > >To me, behavior does not change from "racist" to "non-racist" because the >person committing the behavior has a different skin-color: > in fact, I regard such an assumption >(that whether to identify a behavior as "racist" >depends on the skin-color/ethnic-group membership >of the person(s) performing the behavior) > as in itself racist. > > >Yours for better letters, >Kate Gladstone - Handwriting Repair >kate@global2000.net, kate@WriteMe.com >http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair >325 South Manning Boulevard >Albany, NY 12208-1731 >518/482-6763 *or* (for toll-free dialing in the USA/Canada) >ENTER ACCESS CODE 04 at my new 800 number, 800/394-9482 (800/EX-HW-ITAlic), >access code 04 > (remember: > EX for EXcellent, HW for HandWriting, ITA for ITAlic ... then, access >code 04) >AND REMEMBER ... you can order books through my site! (Amazon.com link - I >get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold) > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:26 EST