Is it possible that:
* the MSG mythology in some Western nation was proposed by those with some degree of bias against foreign things or chinese cuisine or people specifically
* it caught on and was repeated by people who were enthusiastic about it because of some degree of that bias
* MSG was attended to in some food but not in others because of some degree of that bias
* as this reached critical mass in western culture the idea became common wisdom even among those with no particular bias and exported anywhere that western culture has reach
People sometimes refer to this kind of construction as "systemic" racism. The majority of people subscribing to the myth might be entirely innocent of any kind of identifiable racial stereotyping or discrimination and yet inputs from people who are might be enough to tip the system that way.
Maybe there's other equally credible explanations, but this one is hardly incredible.
But I wish there was another word for it, or that racism were not used interchangeably with systemic racism.
There's a hell of a difference between "you're racist" and "you're spreading misinformation that only exists because your grandparents were racist".
The latter will get a reaction from the vast majority of people like "oh shit, I had no idea, that's awful". The former will cause anger, frustration, defensiveness and denial.
If the idea is to get everyone on board with the idea that the deck is still stacked against minorities even in the absence of conscious contemporary racism (which I believe to be true), telling people they're racist is probably the worst way to go about that.
Chinese Americans have higher incomes than white people on average. In terms of income mobility: Vietnamese Americans who came here in the 1970s as refugees went from being among the poorest groups in the country, to parity with white Americans today. Asian Americans are richer, have higher income mobility, and live longer than white Americans. Once you adjust for age and citizenship status, they’re also pretty close to evenly represented among billionaires and Fortune 500 board members.
That is not to say they don’t face unpleasant racism, xenophobia, and stereotypes. But saying “the deck is stacked against them” is a much stronger statement. It implies a structural racism that impairs prosperity. While some minority groups do face such structural racism, specifically, Black and indigenous people, others do not: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/135/2/711/5687353.
https://reason.com/2020/11/16/equity-report-north-thurston-a...
Under a policy proposal by the Evanston, IL superintendent, white and Asian students would be held behind doing remote learning while other students were prioritized for return to in-class education. When people opposed the policy, they were called racists. The condemnation was worse for Asians who objected to their kids being given a worse educational experience on account of their race—they were called, in essence, traitors to non-white solidarity.
Critical theory has some really f—ked up premises about Asians. The classical liberal, even left-liberal view, doesn’t require an explanation for Asian economic success. Asians don’t face the legacy of say Jim Crow, and the American system is otherwise basically fair, so Asians have been able to prosper even if roadblocks have hampered other groups.
Under critical theory, however, the country and its institutions are considered systematically racist and white supremacist. That creates a dilemma with respect to Asians. How can they have prospered in a system of white supremacy? The solution is to suppose that whites “allowed Asians to succeed” to “serve as a wedge with other non-whites.” Asians are thus stripped of agency—their success isn’t their own, but instead the byproduct of a ploy by whites.
Therefore, when an Asian complains when his child must continue distance learning while other students return to in-person education, they’re not merely being self-centered. They’re not merely failing to acknowledge that other kids suffer from disadvantages that their own children don’t. That would be the typical liberal view. In the critical theory view, they are collaborators. They owe their status due to white supremacy and they’re complicit in white supremacy unless they act in solidarity with other non-whites. Even if that means suffering disadvantageous treatment in schools, etc.
I guess, but this viewpoint fails pretty badly at explaining why Asians prosper so much more than whites do.
> Asians are thus stripped of agency—their success isn’t their own, but instead the byproduct of a ploy by whites.
To be fair, critical theory says exactly the same thing about blacks -- their lack of success isn't their own, it's the product of a ploy by whites. I don't see why we'd expect a different analysis for Asians.
More to the point - I agree with the comment above about how the term "racist" (and "white supremacist") makes people have fairly strong emotional reactions, and we'd probably have better discussions if we somehow avoided those words. But I hope we can move past them and analyze what this theory is saying to see if it's true. As a wise man once said: "If a statement is false, that's the worst thing you can say about it. You don't need to say that it's heretical. And if it isn't false, it shouldn't be suppressed."
So let me make an analogy. You and I both pay taxes to the US government (or so I assume), which on occasion does some pretty unethical things (cf. "We tortured some folks.") We also both benefit from living in a country that's so powerful that it can get away with unethical things; such a country also gives us all the opportunities in the world. We could object and refuse to be "collaborators," in one of several ways, whether by just arranging our work situation so we don't pay, or moving to another country, or whatever. But we don't - so we are choosing to be collaborators!
But no one really faults us for not doing so - while we all understand that if it weren't for the collective tax payments of all US taxpayers, the US military couldn't commit any war crimes, we are happy to say that the individual culpability of any tax payer is negligible.
And nobody really says that we're stripped of agency and our success isn't our own simply because we chose to e successful professionals in the US, even though if you dropped us into the median country, we'd certainly be less successful.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we don't care about not doing war crimes, or about the good of other countries! We, collectively, the taxpayers / voters, ought to hold our country and especially its military to a high moral standard, and ought to admit wrongdoing (and make restitution, where possible). If we fail to do that, it's a shame on our country. And we the taxpayers / voters need to ensure that the US is not what it is at the expense of other countries, and even above that, there is bipartisan support for foreign aid.
If we're comfortable with all of the above, and we don't think that anyone is making "f--ked up" claims about individual American taxpayers when they accuse the country of having committed war crimes or anyone is impugning the agency of individual American professionals when we call America the land of opportunity, I don't think we should shy away from analyses of the "model minority" that would say that collectively, across society, improvements could be made.
(And, as a child of Indian immigrants to a deeply segregated town in the South, I have seen first-hand that the rational thing for non-white non-black immigrants who care about their success and their children's success is to assimilate into the dominant culture. They have the choice, and it's an easy choice to make. The term "complicit in white supremacy" also provokes an emotional response, but it would be pretty hard to argue that such rational-acting parents who love their children are not, at least a little bit, comfortable with using the reality of race in America to improve their own standing by placing themselves in proximity to whiteness!)
The phrase “using the reality of race in America to improve their own standing” really gets to the heart of the issue. Consistent with critical theory, it implies that Asians benefit from the existence of white oppression of other non-whites. Critical theory posits that Asians “improve their own standing” by helping perpetuate white supremacy.
But consider the counter-factual. Say the US was just white and Asian people. Would Asians be as successful in that case? Under the traditional liberal view, the answer is yes. The existence or non-existence of oppressed groups doesn’t help or hurt Asians. Under the critical theory view, the answer is no. In a system of white supremacy, if Asians aren’t helping oppress other non-whites, there is no reason to “allow” them to succeed.
Empirically, we know the critical theory view is wrong. Countries like Canada and Australia don’t have the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and aren’t segregated. But Asians enjoy high economic mobility in those countries as well.
The basic error in your reasoning is assuming that the existence of segregation changes the incentives or the outcomes for Asians. To the contrary, it’s “rational” for Asian immigrants to assimilate into the dominant white culture whether or not segregation exists. Indeed, it’s rational for pretty much any immigrant in any country to assimilate into the dominant culture, regardless of whether there is also another, oppressed culture in the country.
Are multi generational pockets of poverty-stricken caucasians granted "of color" status by Thurston County?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...
This sounds like the difference is due to things like immigration status and citizenship, not race. Most Asians are immigrants, and many aren’t citizens. That limits opportunities quite a bit even within the realm of “comparable” jobs.
Nowadays that aunt is racist, her whole family is racist, and it's the reason why everyone else can't get ahead in life.
I think you're taking the accusation of racism as much stronger than it actually is. No one has claimed that this is uncommon, or "the end of the world", or "her whole family is racist", or "it's the reason everyone else can't get ahead in life". They've simply said it's racist, and that claim seems uncontroversial given the definitions.
For example, if it turned out someone gave 1 cents more on average to white vs non-white beggars (due to unconscious racial biases), that would clearly be racist, but it also wouldn't be the end of the world, and I don't think person would be a particularly bad person.
If something fits the definition of racism, it doesn't become not racism just because someone feels attacked by calling it racism.
Now, in common parlance, racism is a loaded word, so I don't think it's advisable to call someone racist over these issues, and I wouldn't do so. But that doesn't mean we should censor ourselves when discussing these topics in the abstract. Otherwise, we're basically practicing political correctness.
The spectrum that the word "racist" covers is simply too large.
That's why I've pointed out that it used to just be called "stereotyping" but there's been a concerted effort on the part of those pushing identity politics, to make this about power. It's to the point where they've redefined "racism" to mean "at a minimum, stereotyping another person from a position of power or authority".
The implications of that new definition are that many people who were previously guilty of stereotyping, are now racist. In fact, basically any white person who stereotypes, because they generally have privileges' and power in society, are now "racist".
I don't agree with the redefinition, and I think it's an example of a pendulum that has swung too far.
Nitpick: you left out “on the basis of race/ethnicity”.
But the bigger problem is that while that definition is somewhat controversial (and not at all recent), it was a narrowing of the pre-existing and generally accepted definition, which is identical but without the restriction “from a perception of power or authority”.
> The implications of that new definition are that many people who were previously guilty of stereotyping, are now racist.
No, the implication of the “new” (50 years old this year) definition is that members of disadvantaged racial minorities cannot, generally, be properly viewed as “racist”. It narrows, rather than expands, what is understood by “racism”.
I'm glad that society as a whole recognizes systemic "racism" and how unfair the world is for many. I'd love nothing more than for us as a world community to move toward a reality that is a true meritocracy and equal opportunity isn't just a buzz word. Who can honestly say they enjoy unfair advantage? No one.
That said, not everything is a product of your race/gender. We have a long way to go and I hope we don't eat each other before we get there. The cancel culture and reverse racism that I'm seeing is an unfortunate side effect of "progress".
The trouble is, because of the way pendulums work, the harder you push it in one direction, the harder it swings back the other way.
The level of polarization in the US right now is dangerous and cancel culture is playing with fire in a room full of gunpowder.
Cf. alien machinery: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
This is selection bias. The ratio of police shootings to arrests is not higher for black people. Police shootings of black persons are national news, police shootings of white persons are not.
Assuming that's true, all it says is that, once you're getting arrested, you're about even on the probability of being shot. What it doesn't address is the increased probability of Black me to be arrested to begin with.
Which is the thing the other poster had the false impression was not the case.
> What it doesn't address is the increased probability of Black me to be arrested to begin with.
But now you're talking about a totally different issue. And if black men commit more violent crimes as a result of historical and other factors, what do you propose that the police do about that?
> This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.
The systemic racism happens one step removed from that. Police are far more likely to engage into interactions with Black men, as a result of more aggressively policing Black neighborhoods, bias in engaging with someone in different circumstances, etc.
Especially where in this case it's much more like systemic culturalism.
Suppose the same thing had happened, but rather than the initial dispute being between the vendors of British food and the vendors of Chinese food, it was between the vendors of British food and the vendors of Italian food. So you would have a lot of people believing that they're allergic to the gluten in pasta, when almost none of them really are, and also ignoring that plenty of British food contains gluten as well.
It would be pretty hard to argue that as racism unless you're using a definition of racism not characteristically used in America, but you can still imagine the same thing happening in the same way. So what does that tell you?
But I wish there was another word for it,
or that racism were not used interchangeably
with systemic racism.
Many people learned an overly simplistic definition of "racism" at some point. Essentially, "overt racism" or "active racism" -- using slurs, joining the KKK, refusing to hire people of a certain race, etc.
Anything less overt than this is not "racism" to them. Having generally steered clear of such actions in their lives, they are dismayed to consider the possibility that there are a lot of other institutions and individual actions that are racist.
We could invent a new term for "systemic racism." But, ultimately, it's still racism. To the people experiencing it, it has the same net result as other forms of racism. If a white person in a predominantly white society doesn't hire you because you're non-white, there's no material difference to you whether that person did it for overt, conscious reasons or otherwise. That is why is it is useful to think of systemic racism as racism, rather than inventing a new word for it.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Think of the people in your life who are vehemently opposed to the use of the term "racism" to include systemic racism. Suppose we actually did invent a new term for systemic racism so that they could feel more comfortable. How do we think these people would respond?
I think a significant number of them would complain about the new term just as much. I can hear them now in my mind. "First we have to worry about being 'racist', now we have to worry about $SOME_NEW_TERM!?!? What will 'they' think of next?!?"
Because it's not really about words for them. It's about a refusal to examine their own actions.
The recent distinction is between “prejudice” and “effect on racial equity.” Ibram Kendi distills the view quite clearly. He explains that the lower tax rate for capital gains is “racist.” He doesn’t say it’s motivated by racial prejudice (either overt or implicit), or deny that it’s nearly universal in the developed world, including in non-white countries. What he means is that the tax preference has the effect of delivering more benefits to white people because white people are more likely to own capital assets.
In the traditional view, by contrast, racism is a mental state—it’s an attitude that’s held by people, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Studies show that these attitudes, what’s now called “prejudice,” is probably overstated and isn’t the dominant driver of racial differences: https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-we-really-measure-impl....
The recent approach has been to reuse “racism” to refer to systems that create or perpetuate racial disparities whether or not they’re motivated by what’s now called prejudice.
An example of this usage is saying that “standardized testing is racist.” To people familiar with the traditional definition, this implies that test makers have racial prejudice and, consciously or unconsciously, designed tests to hinder minorities. Under the new definition, this just means that the practice of using standardized tests perpetuates racial disparities because it hurts students that have suffered disadvantages.
Of course we had words for this before. I studied what would now be called “environmental racism” in law school. We would say “minority communities suffer disproportionately negative effects from the siting of coal plants.” We don’t need to come up with a new term for this, as you speculate. That’s a concept I could easily explain to my Trump-voting in laws and they’d get it. But when you call that “racism” that implies (not only to my in laws, but to my Biden voting non-white dad) that people involved in the siting decisions were motivated by racial prejudice. They’d say, “no, they’re just putting the coal plant where the land is cheapest.” Under the traditional view, a decision like that based on purely objective, relevant, non-race factors can’t be “racist” because that concept refers to a state of mind (whether overt or implicit).
Now, there is a logic to academics and activists using the term “racism” for that. As you observe, the effect on the groups themselves is similar. Most important, by framing “racism” in terms of effects rather than mental state, it forces a consideration of racial equity impacts on otherwise race-neutral policies.
I mean that sincerely. I'm afraid it may read as sarcasm, but it is not.
Of course we had words for this before. I studied
what would now be called “environmental racism”
in law school. We would say “minority communities
suffer disproportionately negative effects from
the siting of coal plants.”
The recent approach has been to reuse “racism” to refer to
systems that create or perpetuate racial disparities whether
or not they’re motivated by what’s now called prejudice.
Whether the year is 1860 or 1960 or 2020, surely even the most fundamental understanding of racism has always required an understanding of both intent and effect.
When I was in school in the 1990s, we learned about the many "kindly" slaveowners who viewed themselves as benevolent caretakers of their slaves, whom they viewed as simple savages that would not prosper on their own. We learned how race-based humor could have innocent intent but negative consequences. And so on. The frequent dissonance between intent and effect was in my opinion vastly underemphasized, but this was not a new line of thought even 30 years ago.
[The coal plant thing] is a concept I could easily explain
to my Trump-voting in laws and they’d get it. But when you
call that “racism” that implies (not only to my in laws, but
to my Biden voting non-white dad) that people involved in the
siting decisions were motivated by racial prejudice. They’d
say, “no, they’re just putting the coal plant where the land
is cheapest.”
I would certainly agree that labeling such acts as racism precludes many people from understanding these concepts. We have been taught that racism is one of the greatest of transgressions and nobody wants to think of themselves as racist. I don't even think many members of white nationalist groups even consider themselves "racist."
On the surface your suggestion of a different word seems reasonable but it’s not.
People are perfectly capable of choosing to seek understanding of nuanced use of words and phrases. The fact that they disengage rather than doing so is not the responsibility of the speaker.
I encountered the "MSG is Harmful" trope in university in the 1980's ... it's literally been around for generations now.
Appropriating words to steal the emotional strength of them for your own, novel concept is silly. Not everyone will buy the new definition, and you'll end up with two groups yelling at each other, about different things, with no common understanding.
If you cannot read "racism isn't about intentions" and not laugh, you are doing yourself a disservice.
While I have very little doubt that xenophobia was a large factor in the hysteria over MSG in the United States, there's definitely no need for a "Maybe" here. Just look at the "pink goop" claims about McNuggets that range from two decades out of date to completely falsified - people are willing to believe all kinds of nonsense that fits their preconceived notions.
When you make a claim that a statement someone makes displays racism, that usually implies indirectly that the speaker is actively/knowingly/intentionally being racist. Being a racist voluntarily implies a lot of negative baggage. It often implies not only ignorance but more consequently, unjustified: bigotry, hatred, willingness to commit violent acts against another on this bias, and so forth.
When you promote an idea that happens to prop up or create institutional racism, the vast majority share only one feature: ignorance. We're all ignorant of somethings to different degrees so I wouldn't put a scarlet letter like "racist" on someone due to ignorance. Unfortunately, this also sets the stage for sociopaths to push academic dishonesty, to essentially truly be racist in the traditional sense and promote/support features of institutional racism while feigning ignorance, so you'll get some false negatives, but I think it seems reasonable.
I'm not exactly sure what the term, phrase, or linguistics should be but I think something new and distinct from "racist" and "racism" needs to be developed, otherwise the terms become wild cards for any and every type of bias that may arise, even if the bias has no real intent of being racist, directly or indirectly. The more you throw "racism" and "racist" around outside the well established context, the less power it carries in language. Right now it carries a lot of weight still and I don't want to see that language lose its power.
I propose the following question: are people who eat at Chik-fil-A anti-LGBT (specifically gay) rights because they financially support a business through continued purchases that support anti-LGBTQ activities? Probably not (some are, a lot of people... just like their chicken sandwiches). I'm LGBTQ and I occasionally eat one of their chicken sandwiches. Customers may be indirectly supporting systemic opposition of LGBTQ rights, but I think most average people aren't looking at these n-th degree removed effects, nor could anyone be asked to all the time (I think consumers are being a bit too negligent on this front but that's another story).
From a few studies I've read, it's actually harmful to give small sums of money to homeless panhandlers because it perpetuates their situation where higher volumes of money and support services are needed to actually help them. Does that mean people who donate money to homeless people are trying to keep them homeless or cause harm, if that's exactly what handing a panhandler a $20 bill does? Probably not.
We don't have words for these types of biases (systemic or not), but if we did, I don't think it's reasonable to claim anyone who has any n-th order contribution that sways a bias one way or another happens to be anti-whatever to the degree racists are against the basically fictional concept of "race." Every action you take likely helps someone and hurts someone else and the same could be said about inaction.
Motive and intent are quite important IMHO. Both are incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to prove undeniably but the advantage of many racists is that they're actually proud to be racist and tell you their intent.
> I think you do, otherwise this opens the door to anyone and everyone being a "racist" by some secondary, tertiary, or nth order effect.
Surely there's something in-between. Say, perhaps, black people make you uncomfortable, such that you're inclined against hiring them and you preferentially hire whites instead. Then, you wouldn't knowingly possess a racist motive but would be definitely acting racist and perpetuating racism.
Everyone has, from their own point of view, good motives and intentions.
That seems pretty clearly to be a racist motive. "Black people make you uncomfortable" is literally traditional racism, and action taken based on that motive is racist. Doing something like that without thinking through your intentions too hard doesn't make the act unintentional, because the intent is there whether you consciously evaluate it or not, and it doesn't change the motive. That person wants to be racist, and then directly is.
Someone who buys a chicken sandwich only because they want a chicken sandwich has no such motive or intent.
Good, you caught what I was saying.
> Doing something like that without thinking through your intentions too hard doesn't make the act unintentional, because the intent is there whether you consciously evaluate it or not, and it doesn't change the motive.
This seems to require a tortured interpretation of "intentional". Especially as it can be subtle and difficult to tease out the reasons we do things and make snap judgments. When your mind tells you "he just didn't seem like 'an engineer'" or "I don't think he was a culture-fit" or "I got a bad vibe about how he'd treat the rental property" --- we don't necessarily see the chain to [because he's black and not able in this instant to look 3x more professional than would be required of an equivalent white candidate for a positive impression]. There's no intention there, even if the outcome is racist. And in this scenario, it's not impossible for the black person to get hired, but the bar is unconsciously higher. That's one reason why this is all so insidious and so hard.
> Someone who buys a chicken sandwich only because they want a chicken sandwich has no such motive or intent.
Someone might have a hell of a lot more idea why they want a chicken sandwich than why they are making subtly biased decisions against disadvantaged people.
The point I was making is that labeling a racist, IMO, should require a conscious action linked to a bias along racial groupings, just like sexism and ageism do as well because it implies so many very negative characteristics that should only be linked to someone making a conscious decision that they hate some race, sex, age, or whatever. I guess I'm arguing how we should go about addressing the underlying problem and I don't agree that classifying someone racist and crucifying them, in the systemic context, is the way to go about making positive change.
I don't think labeling people purely ignorant of these side effects in a directly negative and confrontational way is productive at all, it might instead insight resentment and further entrench these stereotypes.
When you observe an example that was stated above where a hiring person said they "don't look like an engineer" or something to that effect, you may instead ask them to clarify what they mean--force them (politely) to ponder what are those attributes that make someone look like an engineer? What is the stereotyped biased picture they hold in their mind.
Chances are that person just picked up or borrowed a pattern they saw and have nothing consciously against black people or some other race. By pushing someone to consciously identify and quantify those characteristics you bring their biases to light and hopefully a connection quickly clicks and that person now realizes "holy crap, was I stereotyping against that person and not trying to look at it objectively? Did I just unknowingly discriminate against that person based on purely on race?" I've seen this happen many time when people are made aware of their biases and I've seen people genuinely try to change as a result.
Some people may require a bit more directed questioning to make these observations and surfacing the stereotype alone won't get you all the way there.
This is how you stamp out these biases: you make people consciously aware of their biases. Once they're aware of the bias, it becomes a conscious act of deciding if they want to reject that bias or continue to adopt it. If they reject the bias, they're probably not what I would call a racist. If they accept the bias, then that's a racist. We're all surrounded by bias and I'd argue there are biases deeply embedded in humans previously used as survival shortcuts that no longer apply or run counter to modern cultures and rules of societies. What matters is how we consciously identify such biases and how we then act on those observations and work to improve ourselves to become less biased, especially when the bias harms others for no good reason.
And you will almost always make more progress by addressing those sincere motives than you will by labeling them racist.
Without the systematically bad outcome for a group of disadvantaged people, there is no big problem, after all.
So call it what it is. If the intentions look good, go about it in a gentle way.
Not getting a job because the hiring manager is outwardly racist and not getting a job because the hiring manager worries you're a poor "culture fit" or that your HBCU degree isn't prestigious enough has the same effect on the job applicant.
A couple of the books that turned me around here: Kendi's "Stamped from the Beginning", a history of racist ideas. And Loewen's "Sundown Towns", a look at the wave of ethnic cleansing during the Nadir that happened across America. I had known about the Tulsa Massacre, but what I didn't know was how common smaller-scale events were for decades.
Note that when Kendi talks about “racism” he’s talking about anti-Black racism specifically. I think folks try to generalize his ideas in a way that goes beyond what he actually purports to address.
[1] My Bangladeshi mom had a tinge of skepticism upon first learning my girlfriend (now wife) was from Oregon, “because they eat snakes.”
Just from what I've read, I'd again recommend Loewen's Sundown Towns. He covers the post-Reconstruction past in the early chapters; latter chapters bring it to the present day. The combination of historical data with historical testimony was very convincing to me. The Atlantic has had a number of good articles on this over the last decade. E.g.: https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=atl...
There's a lot in the employment world. A study that was really eye-opening for me was this one: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
I also found some manager-focused classes on implicit bias very helpful in seeing how subtle the problem gets. An online course might help you as well. And the Project Implicit tests from Harvard helped me see some of my own implicit biases, which were notably different than my conscious beliefs.
And lastly, I strongly recommend breaking one's personal filter bubble: https://medium.com/@bjmay/how-26-tweets-broke-my-filter-bubb...
That was especially valuable for me in turning academic knowledge of the past into conviction about the present. When I listen to the daily lived experience of other people, it eventually became obvious to me that the same forces were at work. Racism has been diminished, and most racists know they can't speak openly [1]. But the problems have never gone away. As Faulkner said, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Evolution_(1...
The Implicit Association Test at Age 21: No Evidence for Construct Validity [0]
> The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is 21 years old. Greenwald et al. (1998) proposed that the IAT measures individual differences in implicit social cognition. This claim requires evidence of construct validity. I review the evidence and show that there is insufficient evidence for this claim. Most important, I show that few studies were able to test discriminant validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit personality characteristics and that a single-construct model fits multi-method data as well or better than a dual-construct models. Thus, the IAT appears to be a measure of the same personality characteristics that are measured with explicit measures. I also show that the validity of the IAT varies across personality characteristics. It has low validity as a measure of self-esteem, moderate validity as a measure of racial bias, and high validity as a measure of political orientation. The existing evidence also suggests that the IAT measures stable characteristics rather than states and has low predictive validity of single behaviors. Based on these findings, it is important that users of the IAT clearly distinguish between implicit measures and implicit constructs. The IAT is an implicit measure, but there is no evidence that it measures implicit constructs.
The Creators of the Implicit Association Test Should Get Their Story Straight [1]
> The problem, as I showed in a lengthy rundown of the many, many problems with the test published this past January, is that there’s very little evidence to support that claim that the IAT meaningfully predicts anything. In fact, the test is riddled with statistical problems — problems severe enough that it’s fair to ask whether it is effectively “misdiagnosing” the millions of people who have taken it, the vast majority of whom are likely unaware of its very serious shortcomings. There’s now solid research published in a top journal strongly suggesting the test cannot even meaningfully predict individual behavior. And if the test can’t predict individual behavior, it’s unclear exactly what it does do or why it should be the center of so many conversations and programs geared at fighting racism.
Psychology’s Favorite Tool for Measuring Racism Isn’t Up to the Job [2]
[0] https://replicationindex.com/2019/02/15/iat21
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/iat-behavior-problem...
[2] https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-...
What I said is that it was helpful to me personally. Which it was, in that it helped me recognize my own implicit anti-black bias. Unless you'd like to prove that the whole concept of unexamined biases is 100% unreal, please move along and let people have a discussion untainted with irrelevant interruptions.
It is also true that people are skeptical of different foods period. But more than one thing can be be happening at once.
Skepticism of foreigners and the food they eat is universal to human societies. Enslavement of a distinct minority group, amounting to 1/8 of the population, for hundreds of years, and the social and economic consequences that remain when slavery ends and the groups must subsequently live alongside each other, is sui generis. It's not analytically useful to look at both things through the same lens. The causes, consequences, dynamics, and solutions are more or less completely different.
Skepticism of Chinese food ingredients is much better understood through the lens of the experience of prior generations of immigrants: Germans, Irish, Italians, etc. Anti-German antagonism in World War II accelerated uptake of English in German-speaking communities in the midwest and caused people to change their names; JFK's candidacy was met with charges of Popery; and people were actually quite skeptical of Italian food and unfamiliar ingredients like garlic.
That you keep building straw men out of what I say makes me think this is not a great use of my time.
That is not in fact my basic premise.
My basic premise, is, as I said: "it's worth asking both questions: Is racism really at play? And given America's lasting, endemic racism, is there reason to think something makes it absent in a given case?"
If America's history of racism were somehow only limited to Black people, then perhaps we could dismiss out of hand the notion that said racism could have something to do with a fact-free hysteria about "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome". But that's demonstrably not true.
Note that I've never said the two things are necessarily linked. I'm just saying that we can't presume a priori that racism isn't involved. We shouldn't assume that it is, but we mustn't assume that it isn't.
Yes, and this premise is flawed. You’re thinking of “racism” as one phenomenon weaving together the enslavement of Black people and skepticism about Chinese food. My point is that this is not a useful way to understand what’s happening.
Look at it this way. In Bangladesh, where I’m from, we also have many negative stereotypes of Chinese food. My impression is that such sentiments are common across the sub-continent. But obviously we don’t share what you’re calling “America’s lasting, endemic racism.” What you’re calling anti-Chinese racism is an expression of the xenophobia that exists in nearly every human society.
Anti-Black racism in America is completely different. It didn’t cause slavery. It was constructed to justify slavery and colonization: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/08/europe.... There is a superficial similarity, insofar both involves in-group versus out-group antagonism. But anti-Black racism isn’t just one expression of the ordinary out-group antagonism that exists all over the world. It’s something quite distinct.
Is that related to a broad human tendency to xenophobia? Sure. But that xenophobia is channeled through and reinforced by cultural elements. Many societies demonstrate racism, but none of them demonstrate it exactly equally to everybody else. Like it or not, there's a history and a structure here, and I think it's worth studying.
I understand that a lot of people have the hobby of pretending racism is a much smaller problem, or perhaps no problem at all. But since those people have been consistently wrong in the US for the last couple hundred years, I don't aim to devote a lot of energy to taking them seriously.
It is justified with following reasoning. If:
1. I trust that my body will enjoy the taste of well-prepared food from healthy fresh ingredients, and will inform me when I ate enough.
2. MSG makes anything taste better.
It follows that:
3. With MSG added, my body can be fooled into eating unhealthy food and it can be fooled into wanting more food than it needs.
4. All else equal, I will assume that a chef who does not use MSG is more skilful than a chef who does.
This logic may well be faulty, superstitious, misinformed, etc., but what it is not is racist.
(Addendum: “Chinese restaurant syndrome” is a different thing though, and unlike basic distaste for MSG it does give off an antagonistic vibe. It’s interesting that it happens in the US of all places—I bet many people around the world associate MSG first and foremost with snacks from American brands like Pringles.)
The majority of people have only leared on a superficial level of of the intertwined racism of America's past - often times mostly the light touches they learned in elementary school. And what's taught in elementary school is intentionally simplified to something deemed appropriate for children. Some summary of slavery is bad, MLK, Rosa Parks, sit-ins...
Most people don't actually learn anything about American's history and ties with racism at an adult level. So instead people think they know the history of it, and as a result think (based on what they've learned) it's overblown.
Anyone I know who has actually taken time as an adult to read about American history and its relationship with racism, comes away with a very different view point.
It's so intertwined it's incredible.
And it's no coincidence that I learned this in a suburban school with a student body that was 1% black. In a state that was 14% black. And that had a long history of racial exclusion and white flight.
I'm shocked now at how one-sided my initial education was on this. Shocked, but not surprised.
That is no reason at all to erase the deep endemic racism or the harm it causes daily to people. "You would be even more fucked in Japan" does not make anything better.
If not, then I think a focus on the US's particular brand of racism is warranted.
I do agree with you that it is fairly remarkable that the US is as stable as it is given the large mix of cultural views and values... but that doesn't let us off the hook for the problems we do have.
I would recommend looking into the treatment of the Indigenous in Canada [0].
https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/
(I link Sam Harris because of his bigger point about people echoing talking points completely divorced from the data, as you have done. You can check his data sources.)
... and then he goes on for many paragraphs about several police shootings of black men, and how awful and unjustified they are, so... he seems to agree after all that this is a problem? Finally, he tries to muddy the waters by essentially claiming black people seem to "deserve it" more, because apparently black people are involved in more crime than white people? Which, again, doesn't seem to be very well supported by data.
So... I don't really get why you're using this link to try to refute what I said, because it does not do that, at least not in a logically consistent, evidence-based manner.
> But your claims aren’t back by data either.
I believe they are. Let's look at some actual data that we can easily read, rather than attempting to extract something useful from a meandering 15,000 word podcast transcript that rambles on forever.
This[0] shows that out of all US police shooting deaths from 2107 through now, 27% were of black people, and 49% were of white people. But black people only make up only 13% of the US population, while white people make up 60%, so that sounds pretty disproportionate against black people to me.
But this data is only for shooting deaths; likely someone like George Floyd, for example, wouldn't be counted in that data as he wasn't shot.
So let's take a look at this study[1] from last year (reported on here[2]) that suggests blacks are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than whites.
I could go on, but I'll let you educate yourself further if you're so inclined; "police killings statistics by race" is the search I used.
> people echoing talking points completely divorced from the data, as you have done.
I don't believe that's what I've done; Harris' own views seem completely divorced even from what little data he presents, if one can be expected to actually find data in that nightmare of a transcript.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-06/race-and-...
I don't think you're being fair to what he said. He said that black communities have higher crime rates, which should rightly deserve more police attention, hence their interaction with police on a per capita basis would increase.
You seem to be implying that cops are, subconsciously or not, more interested in using deadly force against black people than white people. The data you're using from statista seems to have many equally plausible explanations, but you've chosen to only accept the racism one.
"Interaction" is one thing; police killing people is another.
(An aside: if we dig deeper to figure out why black communities often have higher crime rates... welp, there we go again, it usually boils down to some form of systemic racism.)
> ... but you've chosen to only accept the racism one.
Why do you feel the need to steer people away from racism as a cause? Nowhere did I say that racism is the "only" thing; please don't put words in my mouth. But it is, by and large, the root of the majority of the problem.
I've already spent more time than I care to on this topic, so I'm not going to go digging again, but if you look at studies around general police behavior (who they are interested in, who they detain, how long they detain them, stats around escalation, arrest vs. warning rates for same offense, etc.), it's pretty clear that police target -- whether consciously or subconsciously -- non-white people, and black people in particular. You can call that "bias" or "prejudice" or whatever you want; I call it racism.
But regardless, bottom line: black people are killed by police at a disproportionately large rate when compared to people of other races. That is what the data shows, plain and simple. I'm not really interested in quibbling over vague claims that racism has little or nothing to do with it, as that's clearly false. If you want an acknowledgement that racism isn't 100% the entire picture, then sure, ok, fine. (Though you don't seem particularly interested in venturing forth any suggestions or data pointing to other causes, so I question your motives here.) But racism is a huge contributor to these disparities. If tomorrow we could magically eliminate racism from everyone's mind, I guarantee you ant disparities would be so small as to not really garner anyone's attention.
So here's my question for you: what are those other non-racism causes of this disparity? And if you can name some, do the causes of those causes not actually boil down to systemic racism in the end?
I understand why it feels that way, but all this data does is show correlation. As soon as you attempt to draw any meaningful conclusions about causation, the data is lacking.
I think the focus on racism is detrimental to the truth because it forces a feedback loop: we're tracking the race of victims of police shootings so that we can show more correlation that feeds back into the same narrative that racism is the problem. There's no data that shows poverty level, education level, etc. in these shooting statistics. If being poor increased your chances of being shot by the police, it would certainly explain the numbers, but since we're only interested in the race variable, we'll never know.
Given that in the west it was also dubbed "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" I would think some form of prejudice played a part.
Pretty much the same reason why Americans think it's bad for health. It has a scary-sounding name (it's also called "MSG" in Korea), it sounds like a "chemical", and you can find it in ingredient lists of all popular junk foods - most notably instant ramen, which is basically an MSG+salt solution masquerading as noodles.
Give something in food an exotic name, and people will invent reason to fear it, like all those people demanding gluten-free bread.
Besides, if "racism" is the explanation behind it, how are you going to explain the immense popularity of Chinese food everywhere in America?
Probably in the same way that one could explain how the existence of Taco Bell does not preclude racism towards Mexicans.
American Chinese food is a lot sweeter, thicker, and more soy sauce based.
Your equivalent statement about Mexican food would be that you assume Taco Bell is what most Americans are eating as Mexican food. That doesn’t seem a valid assumption at all - maybe for a certain demographic (e.g. young) that’s true, but I’m very skeptical that such a claim would stand up to scrutiny.
Similarly, you cannot group the corner store (nominally) Chinese restaurant owned by a Chinese (or as likely in much of US, Korean) family as being in the class of highly processed, pre-made food as Taco Bell. Sorry but no.
In China, 味精, "essence of flavor".
Non-instant ramen is also essentially salt + oil + glutamate flavoring + noodles.
If you like you can take instant ramen and add a soft-boiled egg, some vegetables, and some fatty pork, or whatever other set of toppings you prefer.
Not sure what noodles to source, tho.
And for slightly more goodness, Asian marts will generally carry ready made broths and alkaline noodles. And one can whip up a broth from box stock if one wants something better.
However, my local Hippy Organic Community Grocery Store has all sorts of products proudly claiming the absence of MSG.
My friend and I had a competition to point out the most ridiculous gluten free indicated packaging. I won with sand.
There were certainly other factors in play (and in this case, nobody needs to avoid msg) but once you sees the thought in people’s mind that something should be avoided, they’ll come up with all sorts of reasons on their own.
I wonder if they label tomatoes with that? if so they are falsely advertising as it naturally occurs in tomato.
you'd think the name would give it away, but people are so quick to dismiss racism that this blaring red flag is just glossed over
My language? That's the f@#$ing name society attached to it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51139005
So you calling it a racist cliche means that you're agreeing with me that the origins of this hoax IS racism.
Given that 60 years ago the only place anyone in the US would run into manufactured MAG was in a Chinese restaurant, calling it that doesn’t seem the least bit related to race.
And given that I’ve grown up in Canada and the US, eat Chinese food regularly, and have never heard this term before today, it seems incredibly overblown.
At least the Swiss own their MSG addiction and are listing Aromat as part of their "culinary heritage": https://www.patrimoineculinaire.ch/Produits#449
I’m almost positive Koreans think they are better than Chinese, and the Chinese think they are better than Koreans, and they both low key hate Japan’s uppityness (Of course the Japanese consider them ‘less than’, we can certainly throw in some historical advantage taking to add flame to this). This is like a age old tale in almost any region (think Pakistan/India/Bangladesh).
So ya, I can bet you there’s a level of passive aggressive racism to this day, like everywhere else on planet earth.
There’s a lot of anger across Asia for Mainland Chinese these days. Practically all countries look down on Mainland Chinese, even those in Hong Kong does too. They think Mainland Chinese are dirty and loud and obnoxious because as tourists they are very obnoxious.
Koreans have general hate towards Japanese because of the war, but prefer Japanese to Chinese and all other Asians are looked down on, like Vietnamese, Philippines, etc.
Definitely some ingrained racism between all these different Asian ethnic groups.
This practice has successfully crossed from Korea to China. :/
I mean, if you think Koreans' fear of MSG is somehow related to our prejudice against Chinese/Japanese cuisine, then clearly you haven't seen many Korean dishes.
(But of course, only when it's added as factory-made "chemical" - if it's from dried anchovies and seaweed, that's natural, so of course that's totally OK, either in Korean, Chinese, or any other cuisine.)
In China during the Rape of Nanking Japanese also did horrible atrocities, like cut open pregnant women and gamble on the sex of the fetus. Really horrible things but in America is only sounds like only white people commit racism, which is not true.
The most modern incidents of genocide happen in Asia. Cambodia in the 1970s and even Myanmar committing genocide in the last few years against Rohingya, lead by former Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi.
In Korea, many half-Korean Half-black children from American army were born and until recently they were openly spat on by Koreans in public. Until Hines Ward who is half Korean half Black won MVP for NFL Super Bowl, then it raised awareness in Korea over this.
So please don’t think racism is only in the US. What blacks experience today is much better than what they experience in other countries where there is true hate, not just stereotyping.
I know of the historical factors but that's like saying Germans are still racist because they have a history of being Nazis - I was more interested in what kind of experiences of racism between Asia are happening in modern times which I've seen you've written so thanks for that. I was also curious whether there were any parallels in one of the bigger issues like police brutality of minorities in Asia.
There is a whole other discussion when talking about true hate vs. stereotyping.
Similar to Karens in America, we don’t have outright segregation, we have a diluted form of it, which of course is a far cry from what it was.
The water is not totally filtered yet, need a few more pass throughs (few more generations).
As to why I think it’s way higher, it’s simply because the West has strong shallow racism. But the East actually knows the nuances of their region and still find ways to be prejudiced. That just simply takes more bigotry imho, where as in the West they only need pure ignorance.
The first time I heard something about avoiding MSG foods was from upper middle class fresh transplants from HK. Others of less means never mentioned it. So it’s news to me that someone would apply a blanket accusation as to where the myth comes from.
I'm not taking a position on whether "MSG is bad" is purely due to racism, but I can't really buy "I'm Korean and I don't like MSG" as evidence against that claim.
Here's popular chef (and half-Japanese) J Kenji Lopez-Alt discussing how he experiences "MSG Symptom Complex" rarely, and that his Japanese grandmother was intimately familiar with the idea that msg overconsumption could those symptoms
https://twitter.com/kenjilopezalt/status/1291880511577546753
https://twitter.com/kenjilopezalt/status/1291882403506475008
The racism angle totally takes over people's minds and this has quickly become a "taboo" subject where any questioning of the new order makes you a villainous racist, even though the science very clearly does not rule out msg causing these symptoms and concludes "more research is needed".
Is what it is, I'm pretty left-leaning in most ways, marched with BLM, and aggressively vote for racial equality: but I guess I'm a racist for not believing that this is settled science. And, as you mention, many east asians must also apparently be racist against themselves.
Prejudice is probably a more accurate term than racism.
I mean, it wouldn't be at all surprising for Koreans to be racist against Chinese, unless you take a specific American perspective in which Koreans and Chinese are the same thing.
Who knows whether it's MSG - I definitely don't experience that lethargy eating Japanese food. But I'm also unconvinced that MSG and konbu/katsuo dashi are the same thing. The viewpoint "chemical x is chemical x in all its delivery mechanisms" is remarkably naive. The chemistry of digestion is really quite complex and the purified salt of something rather than in-aqua extraction to direct consumption REALLY is not the same thing. You ignore all kinds of subtle interactions that could be going on and is wholly unnuanced. Anyone who has spent any time in a chem/biochem lab knows all too well the strange and weird world of solvation and impurity and its effects on reactions, not to mention enzyme chemistry is insanely sensitive.
It's not the same but just compare smooth vs pulpy orange juice vs eating a raw orange. The nutrition profiles of that already are different even if you are par for #oranges consumed.
Invoking racism and gender discrimination when it’s not the reason, causes more racism and it gives more than ample opportunity to actual racists within us to exploit it for their own nefarious needs.
And now you’re saying that people who call this racism for what is is are the ones responsible for the racism. You’ve got to be kidding.
If that's the most recent example, I'd call it an "ancient history of racism", not a "long history of racism".
> Exclusion was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased [to 2000/year from the "Asiatic barred zone"] with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.
Everyone involved in setting these barriers are dead.
It still has significant impact.
> MSG sensitivity has never been shown to be true in a replicable clinical environment in humans.
> The few studies that have shown this to cause symptoms use extremely large doses of MSG that aren't used in food (for one thing, the dosages involved would be unpalatable even for those without the symptoms;
In any case, yes, you are correct here. As per the fine article, the dose at which symptoms become common is six times the normal dose. Do you find it utterly impossible that some people could be sensitive at one-sixth the dose that "most people" become sensitive at?
No, some studies have shown that high doses or unusual methods of introduction (e.g., IV) of MSG can cause symptoms; no properly controlled studies have shown sensitivity (i.e., a trait in which people are prone to symptoms at lower thresholds that are typical, such that they might experience symptoms with doses that might actual be encountered outside of deliberate mass ingestion.)
> Do you find it utterly impossible that some people could be sensitive at one-sixth the dose that "most people" become sensitive at?
“It’s not utterly impossible” is not the same thing as “clinical studies have provided evidence for it”.
Sort of sounds like the same thing as "the more you test for COVID the more cases there will be"
I've read your sentence like 10 times and it makes no sense to me. How would one exploit someone calling out (false by your definition) racism to cause more racism?
Hence people don't take it seriously... Racism fatigue.
Kinda like quarantine fatigue when particular mitigations don't make scientific sense.
Edit: take my own advice and change "you" to "one."
--------
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Will this cause more racism? Inadvertently, yes. Racism occurs due to bigotry and ignorance, one which needs to be systematically exposed and the other requiring remedial education (what you think you know is not right). If the problem requires intellectual engagement and discussion, and the intellectual battlefield is a Vietnam helicopter drop off where your average time of survival is 7 minutes before you die, lots of people will be dodging that draft.
So the war never gets fought.
So, wait, you're saying if someone who's not a racist gets called a racist that's going to be enough to turn him in to a racist?
If that's all it took they were probably racist to begin with.
> enough to turn him in to a racist
If I were to call you a sexist for your choice of pronouns (and throw in "self hate is the worst kind" if your pronouns happen to be he/him), and you were to see several other likely unwarranted accusations being thrown around against you and others, you'd be less likely to take notice when real sexism is called out. Fewer people taking notice of real actionable cases of sexism would likely result in more sexism over time.
From that premise we can proceed to the idea that "racists" act on those impulses, while people who are "not racist" resist them. However, these impulses can be extremely subtle, and no matter how we struggle, I don't believe that that any human being lives a life avoiding racist acts entirely.
Would you still argue that I'm a racist perpetuating a false claim as an excuse for my own racism? I mean, I accept that I'm prejudiced and every once in a while racist despite my best efforts, so that part is true in a sense. I'm don't think I'm trying to excuse myself, though.
2. East Asian can also be racist against other East Asians.
Not saying that discrimination against MSG is racist, but your argument falls way short.
Koreans hold it for non-racist reasons do not prove the rest hold it for the same reasons
I see MSG as Japanese, since the purified process was invented there. I have no idea if Koreans in general consider it a Japanese invention?
Equally it could be the power of Hollywood. It changes culture.
But it's not "being misinformed". It's well know MSG is ok. MSG can also replace fat and sugar for taste, I'd consider this a worse public health issue than the anti-vaccine movement (outside of pandemics) for instance.
In particular, what you're indulging here is the naturalistic fallacy, or the is/ought fallacy. What's natural tells us nothing about what's good. Tooth decay is natural and your toothbrush is artificial. But I'd bet you're not going to stop brushing your teeth just to stay philosophically consistent.
Come to think of it, racism is like a social heuristic. Antivirus software uses heuristic analysis to quickly group certain classes of malware based on code similarity. In the same vein, humans do it to categorize people, based on slightly fuzzier logic.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-msg-got-a-bad-rap-f...
And funny enough there's another comment saying
> If the only food they know to contain MSG is Chinese food then it’s a stretch to call that racism.
and that's exactly where this hoax started
after all, it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots when the vernacular for msg problems is "chinese restaurant syndrome"
The diagnoses that have succeeded it do not only apply to women, and they also have more specific requirements.
"... a disturbing undercurrent of racism that seemed to blame the unsavoriness of Chinese food"
You can't be racist towards food. Chinese people aren't the only people capable of cooking food originally consumed and prepared in China. If you don't like Chinese food and find it unsavoury, no normal person would think you're a racist. This whole "red under the bed" approach to racism is getting out of hand.
The twisted MSG belief system is just a less overtly racist version of "Chinese restaurants serve cat and dog". i.e. This ethnic food is not trustworthy and worthy of derision, as are the people by extension.
I know many Asian Chinese; they tend to really like saying "long time no see" because they find the saying so intuitive.