Photo by Pixaby
Multiple friends have told me lately that they would like to be a part of more conversations about race but something is holding them back.
Definitions.
And I get it. I mean, it’s incredibly difficult for people to have a constructive conversation about anything, much less race, without a common understanding of key terms.
It’s like trying to play monopoly for the first time only to find the instructions are missing from the box. The players might do their best to make up the rules up as they go along but the game is likely to end in an argument and one person flipping the board over before storming off. Although honestly, I’m pretty sure that’s how 95% of all monopoly games end anyway…
The point is, rules can be very important. They provide common ground between the players. And even when players don’t like the rules, there is still a mutual understanding of how the game is to be played. Having conversations about race is similar.
That is not meant to imply that I think discussions about race are to be treated as a game or that there are explicit rules for doing so. I simply mean that it is a serious topic, and I think it’s one that frequently involves some key words and phrases. And anyone who attempts to engage with others in serious talks about race would strongly benefit from defining them.
As for my friends, they’re pretty sharp. And I’m sure they’ve heard most of the words and phrases before. But it’s possible that they’re not very confident in how to actually define them. Or perhaps there are some new terms being thrown out that they’re unfamiliar with. Or maybe they could be using definitions that just don’t align with how others use the very same words.
What about you? Are you unsure of some of the terms people use when discussing race? Or is it possible that you choose to use certain words differently from how others do?
I’m sure my own personal definitions have changed over time, as is often the case with words. But I thought it would be helpful to share my current working versions for three specific words that I strongly encourage everyone to define before attempting to engage in conversations about race. Perhaps they might be helpful for someone to consider, but I also thought it would be valuable for me to see them written out so even I could reflect on them.
The words are: prejudice, discrimination, and racism.
But first, how do you define the words? If you’ve never done so, take a minute to think about it.
I believe prejudice is bias towards a group of people. It’s more than just hating a person or group of people. It’s a sociological method for how we make sense of the world. It’s the underlying assumptions that help us evaluate people and situations. And it’s not just a negative thing. Sometimes we prescribe positive values like intelligence or success to a person simply based on the group someone belongs to. We’re all guilty of being prejudiced. All of us.
I believe discrimination is action based on prejudice. It’s not the same as prejudice. It’s more than that. It’s treating someone differently based on those prejudicial beliefs. And it manifests itself in different ways. It’s denying someone a job or excluding someone from an activity. And it can be temporary or contextual. But it’s treatment that negatively impacts a group of people. Which means, by definition, another group benefits from it. Just like prejudice, we’re all capable of discriminating against someone else. And it’s even possible for a group to be prejudiced and discriminate against their own group.
I believe racism is a system of practices and beliefs or actions that preserve the idea of a racial hierarchy where white is the dominant race. It’s way more than prejudice and discrimination. And it’s more than a single person’s actions, even when those actions are deeply rooted in hate and racial prejudice. Yes, an individual can promote racism, but prejudice is still one person’s belief. Racism is a system. It’s the structure and operation of institutions that provide policies and cultural messaging. It’s a system of advantage based on race that benefits white people.
You may be asking, like my friend did, if I think people of color are excluded from being racist. To that, I would say yes. Because people of color don’t benefit from the system of racism. Nor do they elevate their race above others. Yes, people of color want better access and treatment. But it’s the same access and treatment already being offered to white people, nothing more.
I realize my definition may be something new to consider for many, especially if your definition is the common version that limits racism to treating someone differently based on their race. I don’t like that definition because it implies people of color are just as capable of being racist as white people, to which I disagree.
Take slavery for example. I think white people who supported slavery were racist, but I don’t think slaves were racist for despising owners, even if they hated owners solely based on their skin color. I just don’t believe the two are equal. Personally I believe slaves hated owners simply because they were owners, not just white, but regardless, slaves simply did not have the institutional power to support any racist ideas they might have had. Even today, people of color still don’t have that power needed to advance themselves past white people. And truthfully, it’s not about getting more than white people. It’s about simply catching up.
So, back to you. How do you define prejudice, discrimination, and racism? Do you consider them to all be synonymous? Do you think people of color are capable of being racist?
I really believe those are three terms worth defining if you’re truly committed to being antiracist and engaging in conversations about race with people of color. But, the more I think about it, there are two other terms worth considering. Microaggressions and privilege are also frequently used and often misunderstood. So how do I define those?
I define microaggressions as subtle questions or comments that diminish someone’s value simply for being a member of a marginalized group. It’s things like…
You don’t sound black.
You’re so well-spoken and don’t have an accent. I forget you’re Asian.
Your name is hard to say. Do you have a nickname?
No… where are you really from?
Even when meant as a compliment, they still give a negative connotation about the group of people they refer to. And they’re not things a white person is likely to say to another white person. They’re reminders that someone of color is different, and they uphold racist assumptions and stereotypes.
I define privilege as the systemic advantages afforded to a people group. They’re the benefits granted to people simply for being included in a group, regardless of whether those in the group asked for them or did something to deserve them. And they apply to all people groups.
Take male privilege as an example. Men have the privilege of being paid more than women simply by being men. And men are typically able to go for a run in a park without fear of being attacked or abducted while females are often on guard. And men don’t have to worry about leaving a drink unattended at a bar for fear it might get spiked.
I define white privilege as the benefits afforded to white people simply for being white. Things like not having to fear for your life during traffic stops with the police. It’s the benefit of white people being widely represented throughout media and television. And it’s having the ability to opt out of conversations about race whenever things get uncomfortable or overwhelming.
What white privilege does not mean is that all white people are assumed to be upper class or that all white people are exempt from facing barriers in life. On the contrary, many white people are victims of difficult circumstances and have had hard lives. But they’re not victims of racism. Even impoverished whites benefit from white privilege, and those benefits are granted without any effort or hard work by those who reap the rewards. That last part is hard for some to reconcile because we would like to believe that the world is fair and everyone deserves what they get. But, if we’re honest, we know that’s simply not true. Just look at slavery.
So how do you define microaggressions and white privilege? Do your definitions differ from mine? Do any of the terms or definitions I’ve mentioned make you feel uncomfortable?
If so, know that discomfort is not my intention. As I mentioned, my hope is to encourage those who want to engage in conversations with people of color about race but stop short of doing so for lack of confidence with how to use certain words. If you’re willing to define these words, even if your definitions differ from me, maybe you’ll be more prepared for the conversations.
So… are you ready to start talking about it with your friends?
Or is something else still stopping you?
Jeff, you are correct about definitions. An honest conversation on any topic requires an understanding of the language that is being used. And I also believe that for an honest conversation to be had, it must be wanted.
I appreciate the depth of thought and honesty you have in your blogs. I hope a large
following is developing for your writings.
I want to discuss some of the terms you mention in this blog because you ask the question, “How do you define prejudice, discrimination, racism, microaggression, and
white privilege?”
Prejudice – You write, “And it’s not just a negative thing.” I’d like to suggest the sentence, “And it’s not necessarily a negative thing.”
Because, as you state, “It’s a sociological method for how we make sense of the
world.” It’s a bias. We are all biased. It’s part of the human condition.
It’s the way we are wired.
But it’s what we do with a bias, a prejudice, that becomes good or evil.
It’s at this point that we get into a much deeper topic – what is the standard of truth that defines good versus evil? Let’s keep this complex topic a little less complicated and just state what’s in the Declaration of Independence at the moment:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And what does this section from the Declaration of Independence mean?
That’s part of what our entire national debate is about now. We won’t solve it here…but we can take a step in the right direction, and hopefully, anyone who reads your blogs will join in.
But before we next get into discrimination, I’d like to mention conformity.
Another “wiring” we, as humans have, is the desire to fit in or conversely, the desire not to stand out. Psychological experiments have demonstrated that we, as a human species, generally believe that if everyone else is participating, it must be ok for us to participate. We don’t want to be viewed as the outsider.
Conformity can flow into discrimination. Discrimination is negatively (generally) acting upon a prejudice. And if we are part of the larger group, we, more often than not, follow along (conformity).
I believe conformity is another reason it is so hard to break the cycle of racism.
So, I would like to ask a question here. In this section of your blog, you write (reference racism), “It’s a system of advantage based on race that benefits white people.” Is racism not also true in the current China-Uighur situation? (And other examples can be named.) I’m curious as to why you phrased it as you did?
Concerning microaggressions, I’m interested in your perspective on the following:
· “Your name is hard to say for my English speaking tongue. Would you help me pronounce it correctly?”
· “I’m just curious. May I ask, please, what is your heritage?”
Microaggressions, I believe, are an area we all must become more sensitive to and work toward identifying our blind spots. At the same time, this can morph into the double-edged sword of political-correctness where everyone is walking around on eggshells.
One personal example – until I had an Asian-American step-daughter, I didn’t realize that the use of the word “Oriental” could be considered a microaggression.
Since there is so much that can be said here, I will simply say that we all need to be willing to listen, learn, and use conflict and tension as an opportunity to build trust and develop relationships, not to tear down and destroy.
Jeff, I find your definition of privilege to be the same as mine, and your definition of white privilege is enlightening. I do not disagree, and I do want to think about it more, not about the definition but about what all it does mean.
In the end, I think all of this boils down to the “sin nature of man.” And in our great nation of America, anyone is free to agree or disagree with me on that (or any) point.
In the meantime, I’m hoping that here on July 4, 2020, our great nation is on the verge of a revival, a renewed commitment to our Declaration of Independence. One where we truly…
…hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Skip
Skip,
I hope you’ll forgive the delayed response with the holiday weekend as well as the lengthy reply. But you pose some good questions, ones worth more than a sentence or two.
First, thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to craft your comment. I do hope the blog and @ChooseToBeAware on FB, IG, and Twitter develops a following, but, even more so, I hope it fosters conversations such as this.
As for your suggestion to change just to necessarily, my definition of prejudice does go beyond hate and involves prescribing positive values like intelligence or success. So for now, I’ll leave it as is.
We both agree on everyone being guilty of being prejudiced, but I would say that we disagree on good and evil being introduced only after someone acts on prejudiced ideas. It reminds me of something called the good/bad binary way of thinking when it comes to racism. Have you heard of the term?
It says focusing on racism in terms of good and evil limits our understanding of bias and its implications. And concentrating only on individuals as racist or evil hides, or ignores, the systemic and structural nature of racism. Even open-minded people with the best of intentions can have racist moments, which I wrote about in the post after this one.
First, sometimes the underlying beliefs are worth examining, not just the resulting actions. Since we’re both Christians, let’s use the New Testament as an example. Jesus said adultery is a sin, but so too are lustful thoughts. In other words, lust isn’t ok provided it’s not acted upon. And nothing can be learned or taught to declare someone exempt from lustful thoughts. The same goes for prejudice. Instead, it’s something to be aware of and monitored so it can be identified when it presents itself. Labeling something as evil based only on action suggests it’s ok to think hatefully so long as it’s never on display for others to see. And I would argue that allowing some thoughts and biases to go unnoticed or unaddressed can be just as, if not more, insidious than actual overt discrimination.
Second, not all bias results in action that is evil. Something called the model minority myth describes how even good intentions can perpetuate racism. For instance, I wouldn’t consider using the term oriental as evil, but I would consider it inappropriate, even if someone didn’t mean for it to be.
Lastly, it suggests that people stay on the “good” side simply by never doing anything considered hateful. If they don’t do evil things and have good intentions, they aren’t to be considered racist. Rather than seeing racial awareness as a continuum that is never fully completed, it suggests those on the “good” side are exempt from the problem and should keep doing what they‘re doing to stay on the “good” side. People can never be fully aware of the biases they hold, much less actually ensure they never act on them.
I also strongly disagree with using the preamble of the Declaration of Independence as the standard of truth when defining good versus evil. Would it be more appropriate to use the New Testament?
I must admit I’m not sure what you mean by the current national debate over the Declaration of Independence, but a framework by Robin DiAngelo comes to mind. She says rather than focusing on whether something is true or false (such as the preamble), it can be more worthwhile to consider how it functions in the conversation. How does the Declaration of Independence function in conversations today regarding racism? Many remember how only white men were granted citizenship to the newly formed nation. And those signing the doc may have said it was self-evident that all men were created equal but all men were certainly not treated equal. Churches didn’t even teach everyone was created with God’s unalienable rights, as they excluded slaves from baptism and salvation.
Perhaps the debate you refer to involves some people of color referring to July 4th as “your Independence Day” while reminding that many of those who signed the document owned slaves. As did men who later signed the Constitution which declared slaves to be worth 3/5 of a person. Some may look back at the original Independence Day with pride and as proof of people who fled tyranny for a better life, by forging a new path in the spirit of manifest destiny. But that’s not the universal experience or opinion shared by all. There was still a group held captive under a different type of tyranny after that first July 4th, and they weren’t allowed to forge their own path in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. In other words, the nation’s social landscape didn’t actually reflect those often-quoted words from the document.
You pose a good point about conformity, and I have plans to write about herd mentality in the future. That’s the behavioral phenomenon you reference where people often behave differently when in groups than when alone. And there’s actually a term for that conformity when it comes to racism, white solidarity. I do agree with you that it’s a stumbling block for many when it comes to standing up against racism. But I actually see your awareness of its existence as good news, as it gives you a leg up in being antiracist. Fighting racism may be uncomfortable, but I believe it’s a necessary fight.
When it comes to defining racism, it’s worth reiterating that race is a human construct, which means its effects are not universally shared across the globe or history. Racism in the United States isn’t the same as racism in China or other places. For instance, South Africa officially recognizes “colored” as a race to describe mixed people of both black and white. Not only would some consider that term offensive here in the United States, we also often refer to mixed people as the race that isn’t white. Obama is a great example. My definition was with regards to racial dynamics in the United States, which has maintained a racial hierarchy with white on top. When it comes to understanding racism and injustice in other countries, I would lean to natives or experts more familiar with those situations.
As for microaggressions, I see opposing them as a matter of treating and speaking to people in a way that dignifies them in the way they want to be treated. And discovering their preferences requires a humble desire to learn. Unfortunately, it can also involve un-learning ideas that have been taught or reinforced over time, and perhaps that is what causes the feeling of walking on eggshells. I wonder if we would still be so nervous to speak if we didn’t already have offensive and biased views? It doesn’t help that many probably weren’t taught to consider feelings and experiences of others when deciding if something is or isn’t acceptable to say. And yes, unknowingly saying micro aggressions out loud can result in awkward moments, even discrimination. But that furthers my idea that not all biases are evil, and it’s still worth considering where even the not-so-evil ones come from.
As for the two specific microaggressions you shared, I once again think it’s helpful to use DiAngelo’s framework. How do these questions function in conversations?
Your reference to the name being hard for your “English speaking tongue” is interesting, especially if asked to someone who also speaks English. I’d be curious if you first heard the person say their name and are asking them to repeat it or if you read the name without hearing it and simply approached the person and started a conversation with that question. As with just about everything, context is essential. And again, how does the question function in the conversation? Some consider the question as coded language to say, “Your name isn’t a typical American name which makes me think you’re not from here and your name is a foreign one that I’m not comfortable trying to pronounce.” It’s possible you may not have meant it that way, but some do mean it that way.
When it comes to microaggressions, I think a simple question to consider is, “Is this something I would say to someone like me?” When it comes to someone’s name, why not simply ask, “How do you pronounce your name?” That doesn’t highlight otherness with racial or ethnic differences, and it’s a reasonable question that one white person would even ask another, especially one with a unique name.
As for your other question, I’m curious to know what you mean by heritage. I also didn’t notice your specific definitions for prejudice, discrimination, racism, and microaggressions and would love to know those, too! But back to heritage, I’m assuming you’re asking the question to someone in the United States. By heritage, do you mean nationality? If so, it implies they aren’t American. By heritage, are you asking what ethnic culture someone identifies with? If so, it implies they are to be distinguished from your definition of American based on looks, name, etc. By heritage, are you asking where someone’s parents or family may have immigrated from? If so, that implies they aren’t truly fully American and highlights otherness by calling attention to some other part of them that isn’t American.
Continuing with the idea of asking questions appropriate to ask white people, you might think to ask, “Where are you from?” Because maybe that’s something you’d ask another white person who has a heavy accent. Personally, I still think that’s different than asking the question to an ethnically ambiguous person. But most importantly I’d ask, even if it’s a white person with an accent, what is to be gained by asking it?
To me, the question only serves to categorize someone for personal gain by the person asking the question. Think about it. If the person you encountered thought it was important or relevant for you to know, I’m sure they would offer it. I’ve heard people say the intent of the question is to affirm the other person, but I would argue the question is still more for the benefit of the person asking it. And even if the answer is a place or region you’re familiar with, that can lead to bias, as well. The question only highlights that someone is different, and it’s not a question commonly asked to white Americans. The question really speaks to the normalcy and pervasive nature of white being associated to American. Instead of the question, why not simply get to know the person over time?
I’m not simply suggesting you should go around treating everyone the same and to use white people as the barometer for how people are to be treated. What I’m suggesting is to ask that simple question as a way to call awareness as to whether you are treating someone differently than how you would treat someone like you. And if you are treating someone differently, it’s worth considering if you’re dignifying the other person, or people, in their preferred way. It’s also possible for something to offend one person and not someone else. But that doesn’t mean those who are offended are wrong. It just means people, even ones in the same racial group, think differently. And I think transgressors aren’t the ones to determine if something is acceptable or not. It should be up to those transgressed upon.
As for a renewed commitment to the Declaration of Independence, I worry many want to give credence to that standalone sentence you quoted multiple times as something to be held on to while ignoring what the document represented or what else it said. The sentences that followed said whenever a government is not upholding those ideas, it is the right of the people to abolish it. Some might argue some of the indictments listed about King George are still being experienced today. And not everyone was granted rights by the document which even referred to Native Americans as merciless savages.
All of that is why I think it’s hard for some to see the original July 4th as a day to be celebrated or as an era to be glorified. The same argument can be made about the MAGA phrase, which is often viewed as covert racism. Some ask, “What year or era was so great in American history that people want to return to?” Because, at every step of the way, there has been some group of people who were oppressed.
Why not just say, “Make American Great”? Why not make a new statement that says, “We believe all men and women were created equal and we are going to ensure their unalienable rights are provided and preserved”?
Referring to 1776 as an inspirational era and to those who signed the Declaration of Independence as visionary heroes who got things right alienates so many who weren’t actually afforded those unalienable rights.
Our history isn’t perfect, not as individuals or as a country. But it does give us many examples to learn from and to grow. I’ve often heard people say that with age comes wisdom, but I think wisdom actually comes from evaluating experiences, not just from the passing of time. I wish our history was something we evaluated more honestly, and more often, as we pursue something better.
Jeff