protect or not protect their customers ... based on their race
protect or not protect their customers ... based on their race
Racism is the practice of including race in the construction and maintenance of social hierarchies defined by legally and culturally enforced norms of dominance and submission. In other words, racism isn't simply about race, per se. It's about power, and specifically power with long-standing support in the customs, laws, and economies of the racist society.
Taking steps to reject that power and the systems that maintain it inevitably means treating people of one race in a way that's different from the way they've been treated to date. A policy that says "we're not going to respect your privilege" is obviously not going to treat everybody equally since not everybody had privilege to begin with. However, it does tend towards a point where, in the absence of engrained racial privilege, a more egalitarian society can emerge.
If you're a decent human being who has privilege but doesn't rely on it, that's a positive development. But if you do count on it - or worse, take enjoyment from abusing it - then this shift will not be as welcome.
Sorry, but there are millions of people who strongly disagree with your perspective, and the points they have to make are very fair ones indeed. You may not like them, and you may not agree with them. But saying the matter isn't even open for discussion? In a free country, censoring speech and debate in that fashion simply isn't you prerogative.
You say race signifies nothing meaningful and that all races should be treated the equally? Fine. Others say race is deeply connected to power, and because power has been distributed so unequally - and so unjustly - then any position that carefully (or furiously) evades this basic truth is a part of the problem, not the solution. That seems - at the very least - like a reasonable topic for discussion.
Of course, if we were working from a place where race was as irrelevant as eye color, and we were talking about introducing a class system based on race, then your "base no judgements on race" position would be an admirable defense of egalitarian values. But applied to a society where huge racial inequalities are the norm, the opposite is true. Given this reality, there's nothing admirable about policies that act as if those inequalities don't exist. Indeed, suddenly becoming "color blind" is one of the surest ways to ensure that injustice remains firmly entrenched.
To give you an ides of how ridiculous it sounds when people ignore such obvious inequalities, consider the absurdity and cruelty encapsulated in the remark that "The law, in all its majesty, prevents the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."
co-incidentally (and perhaps unsurprisingly), your justifications sound alarmingly similar to new-wave feminism movements, that, in general, seem to be themselves horrendously sexist.
i didn't invent the last 10,000 years of human culture, and there are plenty of things that i dislike about it. i believe someone's racial/sexual identity should not be a discriminating factor in their lives. for someone else to deny me of input on either side of the discussion about how to implement those ideals, because of my "privilege" is idiocy.
Support for Prop. 209 was: white 63%, black 26%, latino 24%, asian 39%.
Another article [2] says that exit polling showed 27% of people that voted for 209 "also voiced support for 'affirmative-action programs designed to help women and minorities.'" (The question was in fact, "Are you in favor of both private and public affirmative action programs designed to help women and minorities get better jobs and education, or are you opposed to them?" It's from the L.A. Times exit poll [1])
Note that the overall proportion on that question was 54% in favor, 46% opposed.
I now invite you to divine what proportion of each minority group was in fact confused voters.
Now, this is affirmative action, not the definition of racism, personally I'd expect exit polls asking "Is it racist for a black store owner to ban whites from his store?" to get "Yes" with quite a higher proportion across all the population than what you see here. (And "Is it racist for a white store owner to ban whites from his store?" would get a ton of yesses too.)
[1] http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2008-10/43120439.pdf [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/1205/120596.opin.opin.2.html
That's an unusual definition, and most certainly much broader what most people complaining about racism in any context are complaining about. By that definition, taking the patient's race and information about race-based propensities for different conditions into account in making medical decisions when faced with diagnostic results that were not on their own definitive would be "racism".
Racism isn't just a collection of things that you, or people generally, feel is distasteful. When there are actual differences between races, racist policies are the way to go.
This is rapidly descending into a rabbit-hole of semantics; but my dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races", without regard for historical social status.
Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to
justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges,
rights or goods among different racial groups.
If you're going to say "we don't tolerate racist behaviour" with the caveat that race is taken into account when considering a complaint, not so great.
Let me rephrase that: My dictionary defines racism as "discrimination against or antagonism towards other races". It does not say anything about historical social status in its definition of "racism".
Given that we're still living with its very ill effects, what legitimate can there be for ignoring its source?
Trying to correct the continuing effects of past racism can be a justification for discriminating on the basis of race. But the fact that it is a justifiable form of racism doesn't mean that it is not a form of racism.
Right now there's a lot of contention surrounding the definition of racism because the definitions in contemporary dictionaries does not reflect the understanding that racism is a structural problem. Focusing exclusively on behaviors and not on deeply rooted systems strikes victims of those unjust systems as a form of moral evasion. If you're not a committed to preserving and propagating racist systems, then you shouldn't have any problem changing the definition to one that everybody can agree on . And if you do have a problem with an insufficient definition…well, then maybe you're a part of the larger problem the people are now addressing.
One more thought on definitions; remember that the US Constitution used to define black people as 3/5th of a human being for purposes of calculating the size of congressional delegations and 0/5th for everything else. The point here is prevailing definitions encapsulate broader social conventions. When dealing with words that have become bones of contention, it's advisable to make sure you're aware of the conventions the are being included in the definitions you choose to defend.
So you say 'racism' has been co-opted by those in power? And then get angry that everyone uses this white-centric words to define the concept of racism without all the baggage of history?
Its clear you are having communication problems. You already stated the word 'racism' has been redefined by those races in power - why do you keep using it then?
If every rant about racism has to be accompanied by a long winded explanation of how the word 'racism' should really be defined you are only hurting your cause.
This is the handwavey part of the "Social Justice Warrior" position that I've never understood. Do you have any evidence that this will happen?