Does racism exist in America? Do Americans blog?

What I like about the Internet is I can be very selective about who I interact with, and on my blog, about who gets to post comments. I know how to delete.

Interesting post, while I do believe racist or sexist individuals should be chastised and educated, i think next question would be 'how'. You can't make people conform to your worldview, especially ingnorant folks.

I like to answer questions with questions...

Is power being exerted either consciously or subconsciously to limit certain people in the blogosphere?

In a space when access and presence are, for the most part, universally available to all (for the purposes of this will ignore the digital divide) can someone be a racist?

Do we still have to define the differences between racism and prejudice?

and, finally, a hypothesis:

The blogosphere, by it's very nature, is inclusive. That does not mean, however, that individual blogs must be. Or should be.

I definitely think the differences between racism and prejudice have to be defined. As someone who teaches the subject of race and ethnicity, this is always a very real topic for me - and like you Jason, I like to expore it from all angles.

For me, the question is how much are we self-segregating in the blogosphere.

less mixing = more racism

Are we giving people from different backgrounds a reason to stop by and socialize?

stir it up...

Racism in the blogosphere?! I'm shocked and appalled!! LOL

Of course there is, but it is more of an annoyance. All that manual deleting of posts. IP banning. In the past I was very likely to cuss you out if you came in with racial taunts and homophobic rants. I just delete, ban and rebuild.

I'm already pulled in too many directions. I blog based on my life and my choices, so if it doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't appeal to you. It is no way a form of racism because we're diverse and somewhat set in our ways.

Someone wrote an ARTICLE about this? Amazing how the painfully obvious can be "explored."

I guess I'll have to be the one to write about the essentialist Black Blogging world. Stay tuned.

I suppose I should have mentioned that the reason John Lee, the writer, found these blogs of interest, is b/c they are backed by money, modled to make money, and have a futher media reach than your everyday blog.

I've been running into mad racist blogs lately. Or maybe I'm interpreting them as racist because they are written from a typical white perspective. I guess because blogs are take on the personality of their owners I should trip, but damn what happened to the global community? This wouldn’t be an issue but have the brothers I know don’t even own a computer, much less a blog, so I can't chop it up with them.

Eric asked, "For me, the question is how much are we self-segregating in the blogosphere. [snip] Are we giving people from different backgrounds a reason to stop by and socialize?"

Frankly, my blog is my own editorial space, to say what I want about what I want. If you agree you can comment. If not, you can move on. I feel no compulsion to engage differing opinions. I do that on the listservs.

Hey, I'm not saying people have a responsibility to fight racism. Do whatever you want. On my blog I try to foment discussions on race because it is interesting to see how people respond. But that's just my own personal style. You gotta walk a fine line discussing race. People get upset and start calling each other names. Sometimes it backfires on me. But that way we get things on the table, and people might say things that they otherwise would not. But yeah, racism is out there and I've deleted about 10-12 racist posts over the last 6 months. But it has never been as bad as the flood of gangbanger "threats" I had going for awhile. Simply had to shut the whole post down and it is still one of the most popular pages on my site to this day.

The problem with the concept of racism is that as it is identified in modern society, it criticizes truthful opinions, rather than malice, or at least often makes no distinction between the two.

For example, to say that a person is black, is therefore distinct from a person who is white, and can therefore be said to be distinct because they have black skin, is a simple truth. No-one would deny that, notwithstanding other differences (i.e. not just skin colour). However, for example, to opine that black people are less intelligent would be viewed as racist. Why? Ultimately, the statement is either true or false, but even if it is false, it can't make the person racist. This is because a statement of a belief of fact or of a situation is not in itself 'prejudiced'. "Facts" can't be racist!! In both above examples, that's to say allegedly non-racist and racist statements, these are simple assertions about the differences in race.

The reason the first is 'not' racist and the second 'is', is because the first isn't pejorative or in anyway significant or damaging to black people - in this case. So what if they have a different colour skin? It's just a colour, after all. However, the second is viewed as racist because it can be seen to be detrimental. But because it may be detrimental through what it says, it doesn't mean it's racist; surely by that same degree, anything that was complimentary would be racist? No, the point about racism is that it makes no sense as a label unless malice is present in the claim or comment.
If you hold the opinion that based on experience, data or evidence you feel that black people are less intelligent that white people, then you should be allowed to think that as a point of fact. After all, we're allowed to think that there are certain medical differences between races without being accused of racist opinions (e.g. blood types, sickle-cell, etc).

The fact that the label 'racist' makes no distinction between a statement derived from malice and one derived from an honest, thought-through opinion shows the problem with the whole issue. Because quite simply, if it was on the basis of evidence your GENUINE opinion that blacks were less intelligent than whites, you shouldn't be classed with the same people who willingly go out to persecute people solely on the basis of their race. Otherwise, we're on the very dodgy ground of saying that one thought is as bad as one horrific action.

Around the mid-80s people in the UK were nervous of calling blacks black; this was because they thought they might be perceived as racist. Why? Because the underlying rule is that it's not truthfulness that is considered or even looked at in the race debate, it's whether the race in question could be looked down upon were people to be influenced by your opinion. So favourable opinions are in, disfavourable, or even neutral[!] ones are out.

The point above demonstrates that even the most ardent 'non-racists' are not genuine, because even they get caught up in their own silly rules and oppressive dogma. They get confused because they don't know when you can be truthful and when you can't; any condemnation of anyone on the basis that they were being truthful is inherently wrong as it is misdirected. No good comes out of such deception and concealment.

Lastly, the viciousness with which people are accused of racism and shunned accordingly is so a) calculating, b) enjoyed and c) pursued incessantly by its progenitors that it possesses all the hallmarks of the black and white thinking of so-called racists. It also closely mirrors the attributes of fasicm. If you make a point-by-point comparison of the attributes of the anti-racists and the so-called racists, you will find they match; after all, they both:

1) Show extreme intolerance
2) Ignore rational debate
3) Blur truth and emotion into one
4) Deflect criticism by changing direction or 'shouting down'
5) Enjoy the punishment of their foe
6) Address the whole issue on an all-or-nothing basis (the hallmark of intolerance)