I don't buy into this big-R, little-r racism but "well if they'd just work harder, or get a better job," and "they" refers to black people, that's racism.

> Racism is very much a matter of intent.

No. Unconscious bias, which by definition does not include intent, can still be a form of racism.

I do agree that sometimes other forms of bias or prejudice is taken for racism. Many times it's a class issue; many richer people want to avoid poor people but if people of color are far more likely to be poor, they're more likely to be avoided.

> Unconscious bias, which by definition does not include intent, can still be a form of racism.

I think there's little utility to this version of racism outside of discussions about sociology. In particular, there's no real way to show someone is not racist given this definition. So if someone was determined to be unconsciously racist, there's nothing really to do be done about it since there's no way to get a "clean bill of psyche".

Ah, but there is something that can be done. When one is made aware of their unconscious biases, they can make conscious decisions to counteract them.

The point is not to label people as racist, but thoughts, beliefs, and actions as racist.

I think you're missing my point, which is that without an objective way to identify "racism", it becomes an exercise in exerting power more than an impartial pursuit of fairness and equality.

I think you are talking about something different. The parent is saying that little-r racism isn't the result of one single person deliberately trying to be racist towards someone, it's the aggregate of things people do collectively without thinking about it that are racist. For example, someone named DeQuan is less likely to get an interview callback compared to John, even if they have the same resumes. Or instead, a black teenager is a lot more likely to have the cops called on him for walking down the street in a residential area than a white teenager. It has less to do with intention and more to do with implicit biases that collectively result in systemic discrimination

Impact is the important part of racism, not intent. You can have the best intentions and still be racist.

Say you're a nice, white mother in the 1950s, and the subject of desegregation comes up. You have no problem with black people, but you don't think the disruption would be good for your daughter's educational experience, so you favor maintaining segregation. You can say, 'I'm not racist. I'm just thinking of my daughter,' but guess what? The Poc negatively impacted by your stance don't give two shits, and they shouldn't. It's racist.

Of course, we don't have to go back in time at all to see this sort of thinking, but, for the sake of the example, I thought it worked better.

Can't you continue that line of thinking to include, "I have no problem with black people but slavery is my family's means of economic security, I'm not being racist, just selfish"?

Just because the people in these examples claim they aren't motivated by racism doesn't mean they aren't (at least partly) motivated by racism, maybe even unconsciously.

If I care about the suffering of my own race, but not those people over there because they're a different race - that's discrimination. That's my point about intent, the mother may feel she is just "indifferent" but the impact is certainly racist.

I didn't create the mother example but it's the same with the slaver holder. Even with a non-racist intent, supporting and participating in a racist system is still racist - no matter the justification or motivations.

I think you are defining racism so narrowly it only defines people who state "I'm superior to this race" where their actions alone can never be racist unless they say that.

I already replied to the tornado comment but weather can't hold beliefs, it's a non sequitur that doesn't support your argument.

You have to think about the effects of what you are saying.

Let's say you have the "non-racist" slave owner. No matter what they personally believe about the equality of individual humans, they create a world where the people who come after will believe fundamentally different things about races.

You can't say, slavery IS wrong, but we are going to do it anyway because we are selfish. The act is racist, because the people who come after you will justify your decisions and cement a racial worldview that you contributed to.

Racism is a set of beliefs. Tornados, door knobs, planets, these things can't have beliefs - only people can - which is why the argument makes no sense.

I really hope you read this CNN article in full but here is a quote that I believe directly applies to your argument:

> "When some whites talk about racism, they think it's only personal -- what one person says or does to another. But many minorities and people who study race say racism can be impersonal, calculating, devoid of malice..."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/us/ferguson-racism-or-racial-b...

Tornados can't have beliefs nor do they target specific neighborhoods because of the people that live there obviously. Separate but equal schooling had good intentions, doesn't make the impact less racist.