Joseph Graves | Race, Racism & the Church

So perhaps we should specify when we are talking about Black and white in some kind of global sense and when we are talking about the American context.

1 Like

I think the histories and cultures of racism in the UK and US, particularly in relation to people of African descent, may be quite different. I’ll speculate that that is largely because institutional slavery was practiced right here, and we have, built into our history and laws and population, everything that went along with preserving it, fighting it, defending it, reworking it, and maintaining the power of one group over another. That the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s is still seen here as suspicious and/or irrelevant by many (most?) whites is telling. That churches in the U.S. are nearly entirely segregated is telling.
I’ve lived my whole life, hearing things like, “Well, I never participated in slavery. My family didn’t even own slaves. I can’t be a racist.” It’s so much deeper. So much more in our bones.

2 Likes

They may also simply mean that they use the term racism and bigot interchangeably. Many do. There are dictionaries that do.

So when someone says someone is racist, they mean that the person is treating people of another race as lesser solely because of their skin color.

One of my neighbors is a black man and he’s very racist. He talks badly about white people often. He calls them pinkies and crackers and other racist slurs. He says stuff , “ I f-ing” hate white people. He thinks that white people are a cursed race of Ham and that all white people go to hell because Jesus died for Jews, Samaritans and gentiles. He thinks that the Romans in the days of Jesus was all black. He thinks that Asians, Hispanics and so on are all actually from blacks and that whites are a cursed race that simply looks humans and that if you go back further snd further in time we become these monstrous cave dwellers.

To me he’s a racist and it’s the same as being a bigot. They are interchangeable terms.

The problem today, as showcased in the discussions is that they are wanting to merge racist with classist. But not everyone does that. Some instead use it interchangeably with bigot. Most understand this too. Like when I said that black dude was a racist it was not confusing. No one was like “ whoa that dude in power did what” or something. They understood I’m referring to a bigot/ racist. A person who hates others solely because of their skin color. It’s really a pointless battle to try to demand others use racism in just the way that fits with the classist narrative of it.

1 Like

In this dictionary it cites multiple definitions of the word racist.

A.
having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race (see RACE entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

B.
of, relating to, or characterized by the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

So it can be used in both ways. Maybe in the future it will carry just the one B definition. But that’s not the sole way it’s used now. It’s strictly a political drive to demand that the only correct interpretation and use is B when clearly A is still common and is interchangeable with bigot.

Yes, but we aren’t talking about dictionary definitions or how people normally use vocabulary. We’re talking about sociology and the current discourse around race, where racism is typically defined as race-based prejudice enforced by societal power, and the word “racism” describes the functioning of systems and institutions and “racist” is an adjective to describe the injustice of those systems. The point isn’t to go around calling individuals “racist” or “not racist” based on their attitudes, the point is to identify how people participate in and perpetuate racist systems.

4 Likes

Except for me, again, when I use the term racism it means bigot. Same thing. No difference.

So I say a black person can be racist and it’s based off of the way it’s being used today. In the podcast it was stated only a person in power can be racist and that people confuse racist
For bigot.

But he’s wrong. He may be correct about genetics. But he’s wrong about the definition and use of the word.

That’s why the discussion has been about.

The discussion has been that only white people can be racist in America at this time and black people cant be racist only bigots. But that’s a lie. That’s just political propaganda and has nothing to do with the actual definition and use of the term. Or rather the demand that only definition B can be used instead of definition A and B. If we are not using dictionaries to define a term then what are we using? In this case what’s being used is a politically charged agenda of the term.

But I feel like I proved my point using practical sources. I have no reason to continue. It’s semantics. It’s not about the issue of laws undermining the freedom and rights of blacks. I just was aware that he misspoke and was wrong and that it was being treated as if it was correct. But there is no evidence to support that except within the politically charged narrative that is ignoring the actual definitions. If that’s what he meant, these systems of power then he should not have worked it as “ people confuse racism with bigotry and that black people cant be racists just bigots”. He was stepping down into the arena of everyday use of the word.

Hey, SkovandOfMitaze,
I think you make good points here and demonstrate an important difference in understanding uses of the term racist. Graves is using it as a technical term, rather than the more common use. We see the same kind of differences in use, when commoners like me misuse scientific and legal terms, because we haven’t worked with them as technical terms.
I encourage you to just sit with Graves’s use of the term “racism” being tied with power. Acknowledge that he means something different from “bigot”. Eventually, you will recognize Graves’s use in other quarters, and you will better understand the nuances of the conversation that you are overhearing. It’s ok to bristle. It’s ok not to like the use. Just sit with it, though, and listen.

As for your neighbor, I have had and do have similar experiences. My conversations with black friends and coworkers, and my work with literature by black authors has been helpful to me, as it has forced me to hear not only similar claims, but also the reasoning behind the claims. I don’t like it, but I also see that the racism that has maintained white power structures in the U.S. has been the mechanism for building resentent and distrust among people of color. I recognize that I don’t automatically get respect or trust from someone who sees me as a member of a group whose main purpose is maintaining personal and race-based power. I may never gain or earn that trust or respect. Grasping this helps me function better with people who don’t trust me. I focus on service (I am a public servant), rather than defense of my reputation. And I pray for grace to deal graciously with people who don’t trust or even like me, and for wisdom to recognize my sins and repent of them.

If you want to do some reading, Nikki Giovanni’s old book “Racism 101” is a good place to start. She’s a deeply insightful writer and a patient teacher. At work I work a good deal with the poetry from Broadside Press (Detroit, MI) from the 1960s and 1970s. All of the authors were black, and I find most of the poetry powerful and instructive. Broadside authors I particularly value: Gwendolyn Brooks, Nikki Giovanni, Sonya Sanchez (brace yourself), and Etheredge Knight.

This is a really hard discussion to enter into. It will take the rest of our lives and longer. But entering it is valuable and rewarding, even if it hurts a lot.

2 Likes

I’m not surprised at all. It’s a result of internalised racism and colourism.

1 Like

Yes, he’s using the word the way it is used currently in sociology. He’s not wrong, he’s using a standard academic definition. You can use the word differently and informally, you just should know you aren’t talking about the same thing.

Using the standard sociology definition, this is true. You can’t impose a different meaning on the word and have what he said make sense. What he said has everything to do with the standard use of the word in academia, which is the context Dr. Graves is speaking in.

Usage. Eventually the dictionaries will catch up. They are always behind the curve. And people don’t really consult dictionaries on a daily basis to decide how to use words, they use words the way they hear them used. You have heard racist used a certain way, but it is a fact that in sociology and in academic studies of race, it is used this other way.

It is. And it’s hopeless to tell other people they are using a word wrong. The most common usages will eventually prevail.

He was acknowledging the word is used differently informally, and yes maybe he shouldn’t have said it was an “incorrect” use. But part of making progress in the conversation about race is getting people to actually hear what different sides are saying. When Black activists say “the judicial system is racist” they are absolutely not saying that the judicial system is full of people who are bigots. They are talking about power and privilege built into the system no matter what the individual attitudes of the people navigating the system. If all people hear is “That person is calling white people bigots/racists,” then no communication has happened.

So go ahead and use racist to mean a bigot if you want, but know you are using the word differently than it is being used in the current national conversation on race and that is not how most people talking about what to do about racism in our country are intending to communicate.

5 Likes

Although slavery in America was completely of the scale, we need to remember that Britain also participated and greatly benefited from it. I keep hearing from reliable sources that however bad it is for Black people in UK, it’s 10 times worse in America. Not saying this to make out like Britain it’s soo much better than America and you should take example from UK because truth is that things are just more complicated here. You are going to experience a lot of racism even if you’re white if you’re from what’s perceived to be a poor country. Not as much as a POC, but it’s definitely there. Then some European countries without history of slave trade can be extremely xenophobic, not towards POC in particular but just any foreigners, even white Europeans or Americans.

I don’t know why say it’s a problem? We all know racism goes hand in hand with inequality. Class system depends on inequality. If you’re rich it’s unlikely you’re going to be discriminated to the same extent. I once watched an American comedian living in UK make a joke how advanced racism in UK is(where class system is alive and kicking) since we found a way to also discriminate our own people.
Think about racism towards refugees. Now compare it with how multimillionaire “expats” are treated(see? They aren’t even called immigrants)

1 Like

I came across other anti racist educators making this distinction too. I think the reason why it’s important to them, is to dismantle that common knee jerk reaction “but Black people are racist too!” normally followed by some wishy-washy examples. It’s not even a good excuse in the 1st place, certainly not for a Christian, but I keep hearing it all the time. Recently there was a local story of a Black man being taken to court accused of discrimination because he called his colleague a “White old guy”.

1 Like

I just don’t think it’s a more technical term. He’s using one definition of the word that has another definition used just as much and just as often and in the episode
He was not using a technical way. He was saying it’s not possible for blacks to be racist, they can only be bigots. He was wrong. He , and the others here, are trying to politically charge a word and ignore its definitions. I corrected it.

Ultimately y’all can regurgitate the same thing to me a thousand times. It’s not going to change the fact he was simply wrong and he simply was ignoring definitions in favor of a political agenda.

No one has any ground to stand on for which they ignore the actual definitions of the word and demand it can be only definition B. Definition A is just as much of a definition. People of any race can be racist because racism is hatred and bigotry towards another person solely because of their race.

A black guy hating a white guy just because he’s white id just as racist as a white guy hating a black guy just because he’s black. That’s a definition of the word. That’s a typical and common, and accurate definition of the word. When someone brings up this as some kind of argument it’s because they have ran out of actual arguments and so they drop to semantics and want to separate racist from bigotry because they can’t argue whatever point they were trying to make. Same tactic used by people who are crappy workers and get fired for being crappy workers and say “ I was fired because of my skin”. So I can understand the use of both definitions of the word. I use both definitions of the word. But to ignore one definition for another when the context is clear is just lazy and ignorant.

If a black man was calling me a Turkey cracker and threw a brick at me and said he hates white people and I called him a racist , because he was, and then other said no he’s not a racist he’s a bigot he can’t be a racist they are the ones being silly and they are the ones trying to ignore the actual problem Oct semantics when the word means definition A just as much as definition B and within the context used it was used 100% accurate.

Someone can also refer to racism within the context of definition B about an oppressive system that across the board discriminates against a minority. But you can’t ignore definition A within definition As context and say it can only mean definition B which is what Dr. Graves did. That’s the sole reason I countered it with actual definitions and uses.

1 Like

But you are wrong. It is. I studied this in grad school and had multiple professional development trainings as an educator based on this technical use. In academic circles talking about race, racism=prejudice+institutional power. Just because it’s outside your experience, doesn’t make it wrong. Plus you have participated in dozens of threads at this point where this definition of racism has been explained to you, and you have resisted it in the same way you are doing now. It’s not like you are unaware that a there is a huge conversation going on using words differently than you, or you wouldn’t feel so compelled to always point out that you and your friends don’t use the words that way.

He was using the definition he gave and according to the definition of racism that he is using, he is making a valid point. You have to accept people’s definitions to understand their meaning.

5 Likes

You hear the term “racism” tied to power often now, but the understanding is not new by any means. It has simply, finally hit the mainstream, and of course the culture wars. Recognizing the tie between racial discrimination and power is an important step in understanding systemic racism (at least in the US) and how it functions. Again, I refer to black authors, like Nikki Giovanni, but many before her as well. Try James Baldwin, W. E. B. DuBois, and even Frederick Douglass. The concept is not new. The new thing is that white people in the U.S. are finally being confronted with it in ways they can’t ignore…for a while.

3 Likes

Um, SovandofMitaze, I’m not regurgitating anything here. You can take what I wrote in good faith and civility, or you can leave it. You have no reason to be demeaning, because you disagree with me.

What I wrote was based on decades of reading, experience and conversations, not some infantile acceptance of what has been spoon-fed to me. Just like other people who distrust me, I don’t expect you to take my word for anything here. But I DO expect you to be civil.

You can take my advice or not. In the end, I don’t really care. I DO care how you treat folks who engage in conversations with you in this forum.

3 Likes

I’m not wrong. You can use the term to refer to definition B and you can use the term to refer to definition A. That’s a fact. Does not matter what letters you have before your name. This is a political push and has nothing to do with the way the term is used. But I’m bouncing from this silly left wing discussion. This is my biggest issue with BioLogos. It goes beyond actual science and social issues in favor of political based propaganda repeatedly. It’s the number one complaint I see by others.

Graves stated ,” they confuse bigotry with racism “ when the fact is the terms are interchangeable. It’s literally in the dictionaries.

But I said it before and then decided to respond anyways. Won’t do it again. So I’m truly bouncing from the discussion and ignoring it. I imagine down there road it will just get edited out anyways. Y’all won’t change my mind because I know you’re wrong and y’all feel the same.

I stand against racism. That includes racists from every race and that includes those who try to justify it. Minorities can carry out racist hate crimes just as much as white people in America can.

1 Like

I have no reason to feel bad about anything I’ve stated. Neither was it rude to anyone.

If that is my point? Of course that is my point. But mostly that Black people can be racist against white people. But the racism of white people is orders of magnitude worse than the racism of Black people. In the same way that Christian anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly worse than Jewish racism and anti-Arab sentiment. .

1 Like

You’re right about that.

1 Like

Another thought–This brings to mind those heartbreaking studies that showed that Black children preferred playing with white dolls over black dolls.

1 Like