Update: If you want to see the video and hear a Tarleton State administrator talk about the party at Tarleton you can click on this MSNBC link. P. Moore also has a good local newscast up. I have to say I am impressed with the young man who hosted the party at Tarleton. He actually gave a real apology, not those half baked ones we have been seeing lately. I’m also impressed with the administrative responses at the two schools. It also struck me that the young man who hosted the party at Tarleton had a Black roommate for two years, so much for the contact hypothesis although it could account for his seemingly genuine apology.
Editor’s Note: P. Moore over at The Think has some of the pictures from two recent “ghetto” parties–you know the parties where whites dress up in costumes and try to imitate African Americans. The pictures include one that was supposed to be a Martin Luther King party at Tarleton State in Texas and another one thrown by University of Connecticut law school students called “Bullets and Bubbly.”
I figured I would focus my attention on UConn case (You can check out the photos here on the Smokinggun.). For those of you who don’t know, I graduated from UConn. I was a graduate student there, not at the law school but at the main campus in Storrs. Since I am a UConn grad and I know that several UConn grad students read my blog, I thought this would also be a good time to note that the graduate student representative to the Board of Trustees was at the party. Here’s a quote of from him in the Hartford Courant:
Michael Nichols, a graduate student member of the UConn board of trustees, attended the party along with several other student leaders. He wore a tuxedo, he said.
“At the time we felt that nothing was wrong or mean-spirited. Since then we have learned that many of our friends and fellow students were hurt. For this I am truly sorry,” he said, adding that he hoped the discussion would raise sensitivity to other students’ feelings.
I’m not going to call for Nichols to step down from his position because I’m not a student anymore and because he didn’t dress up like this. However, he was at the party, and I do find it troubling that he would participate in this kind of behavior. At the very least, people should write him a letter letting him know that his behavior does not reflect the concerns of graduate students at UConn. If you are a UConn student, you can send Nichols a letter letting him know that this behavior is unacceptable. Here is his trustee office address:
Mr. Michael J. Nichols (Student Trustee)
c/o 352 Mansfield Road
Storrs, CT 06269-2048
Mr Nichols is an elected representative; thus, he needs his constituents to hold him accountable for his behavior.
It may also be time to revisit the fact that the law school has had a virtual lock down on the graduate student trustee position over the years. I remember this being a big controversy when I was at UConn. In either 2002 or 2003, the main campus fielded a candidate for student trustee who was trying to challenge the law school grad students, who are usually preparing for their political careers and don’t have the interest of the vast majority of graduate students in mind. It may be time to revisit this, and see if the Graduate Student Senate can find a good candidate from the Storrs campus. There were somewhere around 70 law students at this party, so this is not an isolated handful of people, and it may be a symptom of a need for change in that position.
It is not easy to get into law school these days, and UConn is fairly good law school, so we are talking about some well educated people, which leads me to ask–do these people really not know that this is offensive? Haven’t they learned about this? One side of me says, I’ll take their claims at face value. Maybe they genuinely don’t know. On the other hand, another part of me says, they have to be lying because anybody who has come of age in this country should be aware of the offensive nature of blackface and general mockery of African Americans.
I remember being taught that it wasn’t right to say “bad things about black people” when I was a kid. In fact, I distinctly remember one incident, when my brother was in his early elementary school years, and we were sitting at the dinner table. My brother hauled out with the n-word. He must have picked it up at school. My Dad said, “What did you say?” My brother was acting like a little smart alec and came out with the n-word again, like it was funny. (He knew what he was saying was wrong, but he seemed to think this was a funny thing to say.) At this point, my Dad whooped his butt. Yeah, my parents taught me this was wrong. And it was wrong enough to result in an “ass whoopin'” to use my Dad’s terminology. Now, I couldn’t figure out why nobody said anything when my parents went to visit our relatives, and a few of them liberally used the n-word and made disparaging remarks about black people. I tried to ask my parents about this a few times, but never really got an answer that made sense to me. I supposed that is fairly typical of the hypocrisy of growing up white in the US. We often get mixed messages about race. However, when I was younger it seemed fairly clear to me that blackface and the n-word are wrong. I pretty much knew that was bad.
Which leads me back to those UConn students, I don’t really know what kind of messages they grew up with, but I am glad to see that the University is using this as an opportunity to let them know that this behavior is offensive, inappropriate, unbecoming, and unprofessional. The new dean, who started just this week (what a welcome!), expressed dismay over the incident, as did the interim dean. As educators it is part of our role to explain why this behavior is offensive, and I’m formulating a post on this for a later time. However, you’ll have to pardon me being suspicious about these claims of ignorance.
It is truly sad to see that these folks are our future lawyers. The criminal justice system is arguably the most racially biased institution in the US, and these students represent the future.
But the issue is what then? What happens when it turns out that as it happens, it was a firecracker and not a gunshot?
Is the response “Oops! Sorry I shot at you, thought you were shooting at me!”; is it
“Don’t try to even tell me it was a firecracker, you untrustworthy slime!”
or is it “Fuck you, so what if you weren’t shooting this time; you and your kind will probably shoot at me some other time anyway!”
No, it’s more along the lines of
1) Im not obligated to listen to your intent. Statement of intent doesn’t really work so well after the fact. ” I didnt mean to hurt you” does not change the fact that you did. The obligation is on you to correct it, not me. And offering excuses does not do that.
2) Ignorance is no excuse. ” Well, I didnt know doing xyz would be offensive, because *I* didnt mean it that way” is a weak arguement. And again, the obligation to listen to your excuse does not fall to me.
3) much of what Im saying can be found in books. This subject has indeed been written about. Why haven’t you looked?
4) you’re still operating under the belief that just because someone says they didnt intend to be racist, the racist act is lessened (ie firecracker) the offense should be lessened and you still do not see what the inherant problem in that is. Its *your* perception that it’s a firecracker and should be viewed as a firecracker. As I said before, due to certain racial priveledges bestowed upon you, your perception of it is skewed. And rarely is it ever skewed in a manner that is NOT to your benefit.
And what happens if it actually IS a firecracker?
You say Im sorry. Without excuses or reasons or qualifiers.
Oh, and as the target/offended one, it’s MY call to decide if it was indeed a firecracker.
Not yours.
Jake,
Yes, you’re 100% correct. AND, I don’t think bludgeoning people on the subject of “trans” every single time something inappropriate happens is productive.
That’s the key — productive. As I say, let’s work on the problem, not on each other.
There’s a lot of education that self-styled trans-allies (and this goes for white-allies, which is the relevance here, and every other kind of “ally” as well) should be taking out to the non-trans universe and doing. It tends to not happen with any more regularity than education by white allies happens on the subject of race, and that’s a major problem that really needs being worked on. I think Pheeno has every right to be pissed, and I think Pheeno has every right to hold white allies feet to the fire.
At the same time, I think my comment about not turning discussions about racism that should be at an introductory level into something a lot more advanced is spot on — I mean, look at the kinds of comments and questions that are coming up. The questions that are coming up show a real lack of understanding of the connection between stereotyping and more overtly harmful behaviors. What’s happened is predictable, whether the subject is trans, race, gender or class. People who might otherwise be reached are shut down because their self-concept is not of themselves as transphobic, racist, sexist or classist. Sure, people who are either thick-skinned or committed enough might plow on through and get to a point where they finally, fully and completely understand all the issues Pheeno is raising, but many are going to bail out and conclude that Pheeno, and everyone who agrees with him (which includes me and you) are just a bunch of loud-mouthed jerks.
I am particularly dumfounded by the argument, as I always am, that the “ghetto” theme party isnt about race because–wait for it–the racist stereotype that “the ghetto” or “ghetto culture” is about black people isnt true.
“The ghetto” is nothing but a racist, classist stereotype, related to the “udnerclass,” the “Welfare Queen,” the “crack baby” on and on and on. Of course it isnt true. that doesnt mean that it cant be used in a racist way! it means its almost impossible not to use it in such a way.
(not of course, impossible. It is possible to imagine, and even identify in real life, instances in which riffs on “the ghetto” are used to make fun of hte absurdity of the ghetto as a racist stereotype. It would be hard to imagine an instance, however, which involved UConn law students, and the kinds of costumes pictured on the link which met this standard.)
CuriousGyrl,
First, I don’t think theme parties except for ones own group are okay. There’s a lot of ignorance about different groups’ histories and someone is going to get hurt. AND, a lot of the messages, including your entire list, lead to people thinking the next act is acceptable. It’s all about conditioning and I think getting people to be aware of racist / sexist / classist conditioning is the first step. The biggies are obvious — don’t treat other people like crap just because of race / sex / class. I think we all get that and I think most everyone here is on board withthat objective.
From there I think we have to get people to become aware of the messages that fly around society, and that includes things that people might think are “fun” but are part and parcel of how racism is taught. Like having a “Bullets and Bubbly” themed party. Because that IS how racism is taught. Well-meaning kids get exposed to all sorts of messages and without being aware of all the negative meanings infused in those messages, they slowly absorb them.
Furry, I get you that people have to talk about racism in a way that is educational, but I think you, we whatever, must be aware of balancing that with the duty not to tell people who are pissed off about racism particularly peoole of color who experience racism, that they shouldn’t be angry or sound angry, since that scares the white people.
When I’m teaching I have to take a calm approach most of the time, but I also think that this crap makes people angry as it should. I’m also not convinced that law students at UCoonn really “didnt realize” that this might be racist or offensive. I mean, that is where the “fun’ and the titilation come from, it seems to me, in having a party like this. You konw you are doing something wrong–etiher because you are doing bad by “acting black” or because you are doing bad by “acting” racist.
I buy the ignorance exucse oof of my frsehman, but at some point the innocence thing starts to wear a little thin, no?
sailorman writes:
Yes. Pheeno is both serious and correct. You can get it or not, that’s up to you. I’d prefer that you just say “Got it” and ask questions of white people until you actually DO get it.
“Pheeno is raising, but many are going to bail out and conclude that Pheeno, and everyone who agrees with him (which includes me and you) are just a bunch of loud-mouthed jerks. ”
Her *L* Im a she.
An analogy that might come close to explaining the points Im trying to make
Say Joe runs over my foot with his car. My foot is broken. I (understandably) am quite pissed over this. It hurts like hell and it’s going to affect my life. Joe claims it was an accident. It may have been, but my foot is still broken. I’m still understandably pissed. Joe then gets defensive and expects me to take HIS feelings and intent into account, even though neither will magically unbreak my foot. Joe responds with ” Well, Im sorry, it was an accident you dont have to be so damn pissed about it”.
That right there, that response is an example of entitlement and priveledge. Expecting the injured party to understand, forgive or even feel less injured so YOU feel better is wrong. Making expectations of them because you feel they should see it your way is wrong.
Pheeno,
To use your foot example, there is a difference between being pissed off that your foot is broken, and being pissed at Joe for running over your foot. If Joe didn’t mean to run over your foot, you shouldn’t be as pissed at him as if he was aiming for your foot. Admittedly, this doesn’t take away the pain in your foot, but it should ease your mind that Joe was not out to get you.
And if Joe said he didn’t mean it, I don’t understand what that has to do with entitlement or privilege. He either aimed for your foot or he didn’t. If he didn’t mean to hurt you, it is not the same thing as saying he felt he was entitled to hurt you.
CuriousGyrl,
What I’d like to see is something that we don’t have, which is an effective body of white people out there doing this kind of education.
I think Pheeno’s more productive offense should be at the non-existent white allies doing “Racism 101” education in large enough numbers for things like this to never happen. I think that’s a huge problem whether or not anyone ever has another “Bullets and Bubbly” party so long as we all live. Someone on that invitation list SHOULD have understood this was a bad idea and SHOULD have been committed enough to anti-racism work to have stomped it into the ground before it got started. That’s what being committed to anti-racism work is supposed to be about. It’s something we’ve (white allies) failed at doing and it’s something we, as white allies, need to fix.
The questions that are coming up show a real lack of understanding of the connection between stereotyping and more overtly harmful behaviors.
FCH,
I see what you are saying, but the problem comes back to the same thing. The privileged are telling the oppressed HOW to speak about privilege and oppression. pheeno is angry about the issue to begin with and then has to suffer the privileged telling him/her what tone should be used. If you look back to the initial thread that I referenced (male privilege), you can find several knowledgeable feminists complaining (rightly) about the exact same thing.
It is our job as the privileged to accept the anger in pheeno’s tone as justified. It is our responsibility to deal with that anger and actually read what pheeno is writing. Instead, we (in the class sense) instantly deny, talk about intent, dicker about exactly what is and isn’t racist. Why not just listen to pheeno, acknowledge that we have heard what pheeno has written and see what we can do to address the complaints that pheeno has brought to our attention?
We don’t because our privilege allows us to deny pheeno’s validity and to feel good about not being racist since pheeno has no idea what he/she is talking about. We can leave this thread and not have any of it affect our lives further. We can minimize actions and stereotypes because they aren’t harming us.
That’s the key — productive. As I say, let’s work on the problem, not on each other.
But we aren’t allowing it to be productive if we assert our privilege to dictate what and how pheeno can speak. The problem is us. We are not listening, we are trivializing pheeno’s anger and vehemence as “unproductive.” The problem is us. We need to work on us.
Do I think I’m a racist? No, I don’t. Do I think that it’s possible that I sometimes behave in a racist manner? Yes. What should I do when confronted on a behaviour that somebody finds racist? IMO, I should apologize and do my best not to repeat that action. If the offended person is open to it, I should find out why what I did was offensive if I can’t figure it out on my own. However, I should not begin my response by asking why what I did was offensive, I need to begin by apologizing and acknowledging the offended party.
Honestly, the last quote that I pulled from FCH is a textbook example of the privilege dynamic at work. The privileged have no question that they get to set the rules for what a productive conversation is. I have been guilty of this myself, as can be seen in that initial male privilege thread, so I’m not saying that you, FCH, are a bad person. I just think that you’re not seeing your role in the dynamics in this particular thread.
Saying he didnt mean it is quite different from demanding that I believe he didnt mean it, forgive him because he claims he didnt mean it or stop feeling what I feel because HE didnt mean it. Meaning it would be rated at 10 on the offense meter. Not meaning it is a 9. Not a zero. And if he did it because he was an idiot, thats a 9 1/2. Either way, anger at Joe for running over my foot is still justifiable anger. Regardless of how he thinks I should view it.
And if he tries to qualify it with ” I didnt know it would break your foot” the sheer stupidity of that brings it right back up to 10.
And jakeSquid hit the nail on the head.
I think you can be legitmately mad a soem meathead who *accidentally* runs over your foot even if they didnt mean to.
I also dont get why we are assuming that these people didnt *mean to* be racist or how intent becomes the central issue of an event like this.
I’m thinking of the pee-wee football game thread.
Sorry, pheeno. I didn’t read your comment stating that you’re a woman until after I’d posted my previous comment.
I like antiracist education. But I really wonder if calm pedegogy or righteous anger has done more to combat racism over the last couple of hundred years. Both are important, but i think it is easy to act as though ignorance is the main cause of racism. I’m not sure that is the case.
I **LOVE** YOU! :D
of course the anger is justifiable. and the same way that you ask that you are entitled to be heard when you say you are angry, the UConn partygoers should be heard when they say they didn’t mean it, and not summarily dismissed as liars or idiots.
with that basic understanding of mutual appreciation of what happened – members of the community were offended, and the committers of the offense did not mean to offend – can the community begin to find ways to prevent such an offense in the future.
The response that this could be prevented if the offenders stop being idiots is not an answer.
How about
“get up off their priveldged little asses and pick up a book”
Why do both the aggrieved and the agressor have an equal righ “to be heard?” Especially when one set of ideas is heard all the time and the other is generally dismissed and ignored? I think the party goers will benefit from listening to the people they’ve pissed off, but they dotn really need to explain what they *really* intended. But discussion isnt going to educate POC on any point they dont already know/havent already heard.
healing in these instances need not be an exercise in mutual understanding. POC already understand a lot about how white people thing thanks to living in a white dominated society.
This from Trustee (for now?) Mike Nichols early this morning:
because that’s what a discussion is. Otherwise, it’s just yelling, and that falls on deaf ears.
Why is it the insulted party’s job to make the insulters feel better? If you f*ck up – even if you didn’t mean to – the adult thing to do is apologize, ask how to fix whatever you did and promise to try to do better next time. The onus of responsibility lies with the person who fucked up, not anyone else.
What happens to us grown ups in the REAL WORLD when you f*ck up? What is the *adult* thing to do? For example, I fucked up at work a little bit ago. I realized what I did (it was an accident) and I immediately talked with my boss about it. I started with, “I screwed up, I’m sorry… [explanation of accident here], what can I do to get this resolved?”
The ADULT thing to do is to a) accept responsibility for my actions – own up to it and that it was indeed a mistake.
b) attempt to correct the mistake in the best way how, and allow the people I have/will hurt by my mistake to tell me HOW to fix my mistake.
This is called taking responsibilities for one’s actions.
What is happening in this thread here…
UCONN Law students did something stupid – in my opinion pretty overtly racist, whether they intended to or not, but clearly stupid, seeing as how afterward, when they realized other people were upset, they said so themselves.
Some people here are trying to say that they didn’t really do anything wrong (incidently, most of what I have read about the ACTUAL people involved in this situation have not really done that – I actually commend the way things are ACTUALLY going at UCONN, but this thread is a whole different story).
Then they debate about how it wasn’t really racist at all (no, even if my boss thinks I f*cked up, I didn’t really. He’s just seeing things from the wrong perspective!)
Then, people say, ok, well maybe it was wrong, but since I didn’t MEAN to be racist, then I don’t have anything to be sorry about. It’s not my fault other people are too sensitive (Ok, boss, maybe I did screw up, but I really didn’t mean to, it was an honest mistake, so you can’t really be mad at me, I mean it was just a tiny mistake in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter, even though you think it’s a big deal) – can you imagine if you really and truly said something like this to your superior?
THEN, they get upset because the people who are offended/insulted in the first place are angry not only about the initial event, but now, they are pissed that people aren’t listening to them – HOW DARE THEY? They should listen to my excuses and round abouts and understand that since *I* don’t think I did anything wrong it means they MUST be overreacting.
Let’s be honest here – Law students are not 10 year old kids. These are college educated ADULTS who acted poorly. Why not except adults to accept the consequences of their own actions like adults? (and again, from what I have read, they are largly doing this, but the people in this thread continue to make excuses).
I’m tired of allowing people to act stupid, insenstively, racist and not have to deal with the consequences. If you do racist things, I’m going to call it racist. As Rachel said, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then let’s call it a damn duck. It doesn’t mean you are an evil person – it means you did something racist.
The ADULT thing to do is this:
“Wow, I’m really sorry that my behavior was so offensive and racist. It was not my intent for my behavior to be offensive or racist…. now that I understand what was offensive and racist about my behavior, I can do better not to repeat these racist actions in the future.”
I suspect that both pheno and Angel H would have been pretty ok with that kind of statement had anyone made it.
Jake,
I think you missed the part where I said that if Pheeno wants to direct her anger at me that I’m perfectly fine with that. I’m certainly not telling her not to be angry. I get that she’s angry, has every right to be angry, and certainly has more than legitimate reason to be angry.
But at the same time, I think that all forms of education of this type aren’t facilitated by “Rawr! I’m angry! Rawr!”. I don’t think it works with trans education or feminism education or anti-racism education. Not that people affected by it aren’t justifiably angry, but that people who are willing to take on this task of cleaning up our own backyards need to work on how to “get the message out there”.
If we do a bad job, and I think with anti-racism work that whites are doing a bad job, we have that discussion as well. How do we build a self-sustaining body of “committed white folk” so that we’re not having debates about which racist stereotypes are “okay” and which aren’t and are analogies about running over someones foot accidentally really valid or whatever.
“But at the same time, I think that all forms of education of this type aren’t facilitated by “Rawr! I’m angry! Rawr!” FCH
I think reducing someone’s legitimate concerns about being degraded on the basis of stereotypes about their race being used as a costume to “Rawr! I’m angry! Rawr!” just shows how people in the unoffended class hear the argument, which is to say, they don’t hear it at all, but just see anger and then subsequently dismiss it as irrational or unjustified.
Why should those who are offended by incidents like this have to tippy toe around to make sure that white people aren’t upset and don’t get defensive? There are two ways, as I see it, to communicate one’s views on offense to this party: 1.) Be angry and let people know why it offended you, 2.) Be calm and nurturing towards the people who offended you, assuring them know you understand they didn’t “mean” to offend people, but it still hurt you. In scenario 1.), the non-offended parties are going to block their ears and write you off as hypersensitive (see “Rawr! I’m angry! Rawr!” argument). In scenario 2.), the offending parties are going to think it really wasn’t that big of a deal because you didn’t make a big deal out of it. So, if I’m stuck with those 2 options, I choose 1.), because maybe over time, it will be of some effect and at least draw attention to these issues when they arise.
DJ,
Okay, I’m missing something in my communication because your example keeps coming back as how you’re hearing me.
1). I’m not suggesting that anyones anger is misguided, unwarranted, trivial, worthy of being dismissed, or anything else that should be construed as “Please don’t make me feel bad!”
2). I am suggesting that there are people on this planet who have stepped up to the task of addressing whatever it is that their own class — whites who are committed to ending white racism, men committed to ending male domination and our rape culture, non-trans people who are committed to ending transphobia — is doing and those people have an obligation to carry out their commitment.
3). Class members are not under any obligation to do anything to clean up everyone elses mess. There are enough out-class members who are committed to whatever it is to figure out the problem on their own and get the message out to their own class members.
3). Education is a process. It starts, as do all forms of education, with laying down the basics. Oppression based on personal characteristics is wrong, it needs to be stopped, this is how (list examples …) it occurs, etc.
But that is what happens, no? I’m not living in the universe in which someone expresses a lot of anger and everyone just immediately receives the message and changes their behavior. If you are, please tell me where you live so I can move their, express some anger, and then everything is going to be all better.
Since I don’t live in that universe, I try to find ways of conveying the message so that it’s received. Maybe I’m wrong or overly idealistic or just plain stupid. But I spent a lot of time going “Rawr! I’m angry! Rawr!” on the whole subject of trans and it got me … nowhere!
FCH,
pheeno disagrees. There are also many feminists who disagree when we speak of male privilege. DJ’s last paragraph is a good explanation of why this is so.
If I had to guess, I would say that this is far from pheeno’s first time dealing with this issue and that she feels that this IS the most effective manner in which she can communicate and educate. It is from your position of privilege that you are stating that it is not.
From personal experience, I have to say that justified anger is an effective way to communicate this sort of problem. I learned a lot on that male privilege thread, even though I was a target of some of that anger. I learned things that I hadn’t in other threads in which the obvious anger was not present.
I didn’t enjoy being the subject of the anger, but it clearly communicated that there was something important that I wasn’t getting. I think that there is room for both types of communication on an issue as important as privilege.
Well maybe you’re content with constant repetition, but some people are sick of it. It’s your personal responsibility to educate yourself. Stop asking other people to do it for you. Go to your local library. Pick up a book. Inform yourself before you ask *more* of the same questions that have been asked and answered since the damn 60’s.
You not liking or recieiving my message because my anger puts you off in no way excuses you not taking the initiative and finding out things for yourself. Like, perhaps finding out if your questions, beliefs, or ideas have already been brought up a million times. In no way is *anything* you’ve tried to say new or original. It’s been asked. It’s been answered. Whats your excuse for not knowing that?
Jake,
Personally, I’ve tired of watching people get turned away by “justified anger”. As I wrote, I’ve tried it ’til I’m blue in the face with trans issues, as well as feminist issues.
If I’m wrong, so be it. Been wrong before, will be wrong again. But at this point in my life, I’m up to trying a different approach. Not out of disrespect or privilege, but out of sheer exhaustion.
Pheeno,
Not sure who you’re addressing.
Who are you addressing?!?
Damn, remind me not to move to your city.
Where I live, shit happens all the time. To everyone. Folks get bumped on sidewalks. People get beer spilled on them in bars; they get their foot stepped on in elevators; they get cut in front of in line.
Some folks react to every occurrence as if it were a personal attack. It doesn’t seem to do much for anyone, nor does it solve their problem.
See, for most people theres a big difference between someone stepping backward where they could reasonably expect to be empty (true accident) or being careless and stepping on your toe as they squeeze down an aisle, or intentionally doing so. And I’m happy to say that reactions should (and mostly do) differ.
you seem to think that with race, everything is viewed as a full throttle racial offense. So there’s not a whole lot of difference between the UCONN party and the blackface one at A&M in texas, for example. That’s a very monotonic way to view the world.
Do you, yourself, ever say “oops, sorry, i didn’t mean to?” Do you distinguish between knocking someone down intentionally and purposefully? Between making an “A-OK!” sign to someone who interprets it as an insult, versus giving someone the finger?
I mean hell, if you want to banish intent as a general factor in your life, go ahead. But i suspect you probably don’t do that. And if not, it’s disingeneous–and dishonest–to claim “intent doesn’t matter” when it suits your cause.
You ave no obligation to listen to my excuse, I suppose. then again, in a general sense I have no obligation to listen to you yell about your injury–I may fix it, or compensate you for it, but I don’t have to care how it makes you feel. That’s what the discussion is for.
I have indeed read some stuff on this–various articles over the years. i agree with some of it, disagree with other parts of it. You do realize, right, that there are things on which intelligent people can disagree?
Oh sure, I see what the inherent problem is. It’s pretty obvious that adopting the “intent neutral” view of acts will vastly increase the classification of acts as racist as opposed to the “intent positive” view.
I lean towards the intent positive view because I lean that way in almost every analysis–from legal to moral. i distinguish between negligence and intent. I distinguish between manslaughter and murder. i distinguish between an accidental slip and a grievous insult. Don’t you?
One introspective thing I am constantly battling in the race arena is to try to distinguish how much of my belief that racism issues should be viewed through an intent-positive lens is due to my general moral beliefs, and how much of it is due to the fact that I, s a white, benefit from such an analysis.
But it doesn’t take a genius to note that the other side is subject to the same problem. BOTH sides are subject to the insidious effect of bias. Yeah, you too.
Just as whites are probably predisposed to prefer intent-positive analysis so that they will be found “right” more often, nonwhites are probably predisposed to prefer intent-neutral analysis so that they will be found “right” more often. We’re all human, you know.
Could be. I have quite a few perceptions and beliefs which are most assuredly not to my benefit. As for race, I’m still confused and I’m working on it.
But hello? Are you speaking from behind the curtain? You do not possess a magically “unskewed” perception. You have your own set of biases–different, to be sure, but probably just as strong as mine.
I try to be objective but admit I’m probably not. You claim to be objective and don’t seem to entertain the possibility you’re wrong. Why?
And how the fuck do you expect to ever GET to the point where you apologize, seeing as
-you don’t believe him
-you don’t talk to him
-you don’t accept his apology
-you get as angry as if it were a gunshot
and so on?
Sailorman,
Let’s say you live in a city and peoples’ feet are getting run over all the time. Then one day all the people whose feet are getting run over sit down and have a discussion and discover — they are all left handed. Go figure. What are the odds? All the careless people manage to somehow just accidentally smash the feet of left handed people. Sure, they apologize, but still — my feet hurt from being smashed so much.
Then those people — lefthanders, all — talk some more. Not only are they having their feet run over, they are also had their heads smacked from behind as children. Oh — and the counters at all the retail stores, they are completely wrong for signing a check lefthanded. And there are no lefthanded scissors either. Or lefthanded pencil sharpeners. And the hot water faucet? On the left hand side, so when they grab the first faucet that comes to mind, they get scalded, but right handed people don’t. And would you believe the worst news of all — lefthanded people die younger.
The more they talk amongst themselves the more they see — it’s not just some “Oops, sorry about your foot!” experience.
Still think it’s just an accident? Still think those lefthanded people need to take it a bit less seriously?
There’s a difference between seriousness and appropriateness. no one is denying the seriousness of these events or this issue.
But if, in your example, amid all the foot stomping and head-smacking, there was someone who did accidently step on your foot, how would you know if you don’t take the time to ask.
What’s worse is that it doesn’t seem to me like you would even care. So long as there was enough intentional foot stomping going on that you could lump it all together.
PS,
Because I expect that there will be people who are aware of the biases against lefthanded people who’ve educated all the non-lefthanded people of the world that one thing lefthanded people experience is an inordinately large number of non-lefthanded people smashing their feet.
I would then expect that the non-lefthanded person who accidentally — truly accidentally — smashed my foot would extended the APPROPRIATE apology and not think I’m being overly sensitive. Because they would be aware that my foot has been smashed countless times in my life by people who really DO have it out for the lefthanded. And when they don’t apologize, I’m going to think that they are just like every other non-lefthanded foot smasher out there.
There’s also a difference between offering an apology and demanding someone listen to you give it. You’re not making that demand so they feel less targtted by the incident. You’re demanding it for your own selfish reasons. Then further demanding they explain to you why it hurt, in a manner in which YOU approve no less, thats not sincere. Thats not discussion. Thats cowardice and dishonesty. Going on to whine ” Well you wouldnt believe me anway” is a childish and not so subtle implication that they’re “just looking” for reasons to play the race card.
Again, every single thing brought up is *not* new, is *not* original and has indeed been addressed in books on the subject. WHY don’t you know this?
I’ll ask again to make sure it stands out
WHY don’t you know this?
“You’re not making that demand so they feel less targtted by the incident. You’re demanding it for your own selfish reasons. ”
I’d just like to make a brief note on this and it’s not necessarily related to the specific apologies by the party-goers in this case, but I have noticed that a lot of times when people make apologies for doing offensive things, they’re saying “I’m sorry you were offended” not “I’m sorry what I did was offensive.” There’s a big difference, and the former is very condescending and dismissive. And if the former “apology” isn’t accepted, then there’s likely to be the “What more do you want?! I apologized!” argument. It then redirects the attention on the “apology-giver” instead of on the issue, which goes to Pheeno’s point that there are ulterior selfish reasons for such apologies, namely, placating the target of the offense to avoid further judgment and shame.
Novelty and originality are not identical synonyms for “correctness”. And that an argument has been argued against – in book form, no less – is no intrinsic proof of its wrongness (or rightness, for that matter).
I cannot speak for other people, but when I persistently make an argument, it is generally because I believe the argument to be true. I generally make the assumption that this is true of other people, as well. Although I am certainly no scholar in the field of race relations, I have done some reading of the authors and works I think you’re alluding to – and I find much there of value. But I find much to disagree with as well, and will probably persist in my obstinate pursuit of the right as I see it.
It seems – and perhaps I am misunderstanding you, pheeno, and please correct me if I am – that you are requiring the other participants in the discourse extend you an extraordinarily high level of deference and privilege. Your narrative is to be not only heard but heard without question – the former of which is your undisputable right. I’ll probably persist in the narrative-questioning, too.
It seems very likely to me that you have insights and information that are of high value. I hope that we find some way in which you feel like sharing them.
# FurryCatHerder Writes:
January 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
PS,
Because I expect that there will be people who are aware of the biases against lefthanded people who’ve educated all the non-lefthanded people of the world that one thing lefthanded people experience is an inordinately large number of non-lefthanded people smashing their feet.
I would then expect that the non-lefthanded person who accidentally — truly accidentally — smashed my foot would extended the APPROPRIATE apology and not think I’m being overly sensitive. Because they would be aware that my foot has been smashed countless times in my life by people who really DO have it out for the lefthanded.
OK. And what would that apology be?
Should they give the same apology they would give everyone else but you?
And if that apology (because of the behavior of other foot-stompers; because of the poor experiences of other left handed folk; or because of anything similar) is insufficient from your perspective, then what?
And when they don’t apologize, I’m going to think that they are just like every other non-left-handed foot smasher out there.
That sort of group bias is your right.
But let’s go back to this for a moment, because it’s a helpful hypothetical.
Remember, this WAS an true accident in this example.
So let’s say the stepper apologizes with a “standard” apology, calculated for the level of offense (small) of stepping on your foot.
let’s say the steppee (who has been mistreated and stomped on, and who has organized against that, etc. as per your example) isn’t happy with the standard apology.
then what?
This reminds me of relationship counseling for some odd reason.
You know: Sometimes your SO does something which is relatively minor (doesn’t wash the dishes) and you feel incredibly angry at them. You’re not taht angry because they didn’t wash the dishes–you’re angry because you see it as a overall trend in your relationship of no respect/etc etc.
They, OTOH, are bemused at your anger. THEY see it as a simple failure to wash the dishes.
Both of you may well be right.
And that’s what I think this argument is about.
Is the recent spate of college parties which have racial themes both worrisome and inappropriate? yes–I don’t think anyone here has disputed that.
But should the UCONN party in particular bear the anger directed at the GENERAL problem? i’m not so sure it should–because the party itself was, in fact, debatably problematic. It’s getting “lumped in” with the blackface parties and the MLK day parties and the like.
And i think some folks are expressing their anger at the overall TREND by expressing their anger at the particular PARTY. And that’s what I, for one, have trouble with.
# pheeno Writes:
January 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
There’s also a difference between offering an apology and demanding someone listen to you give it. You’re not making that demand so they feel less targeted by the incident. You’re demanding it for your own selfish reasons. Then further demanding they explain to you why it hurt, in a manner in which YOU approve no less, thats not sincere. Thats not discussion.
I agree–demands are not discussion.
I don’t entirely agree about the “why did it hurt”? part. A good apology is personal and tailored to the degree of harm. the reparations, if any, are specific. If you don’t want to explain, the “sorry” will be generic. It’s usually the choice of the injured party.
What DOESN’T really happen in life is that a default apology is maxed out to cover all circumstances. If I step lightly on someone’s foot, I don’t launch into an apology appropriate for “I broke your toe, destroyed your new Jimmy Choos, and ruined your wedding day” unless I know I did so.
And if someone responds to my “I’m so sorry–are you OK?” by refusing to tell me anything, i’ll never know I broke their toe.
(side tracking a bit here; were we talking about apologies, or a lack of willingness to hear them?)
Thats cowardice and dishonesty. Going on to whine ” Well you wouldnt believe me anway” is a childish and not so subtle implication that they’re “just looking” for reasons to play the race card.
I don’t think I mentioned belief myself. YOU brought it up by noting aht YOU wouldn’t believe the person’s apology.
As for the race card: Whites certainly use the “they’re just playing the race card” line to discredit blacks, even when the race issue is crucial to the discussion. Blacks certainly use the race card to discredit whites, even when the race issue isn’t crucial to the discussion. BOTH races are human, and are subject to human foibles, tendencies, and a desire to win their arguments. BOTH accusations are unprovable statements, usually (not always) ad homs, which should be avoided when possible.
Again, every single thing brought up is *not* new, is *not* original and has indeed been addressed in books on the subject. WHY don’t you know this?
What makes you think I don’t know what the view is? Does “knowledge of” mean “adhere to the tenets of” all of a sudden? I “know” what essentialism is–and I don’t adhere to that belief. And so on. As I said: intelligent people can disagree.
Actually, you’ve got a pretty offensive stance on this, which I might sum up as “if I don’t agree with you, it’s your fault.” Are you really unable to understand there is a view other than your own? Unable to even discuss the aspects where you may be wrong, or right? Because so far, you haven’t responded other than to say “there are books!”
its not trustee “for now”, its trustee until his term is up
as well it should be
“Actually, you’ve got a pretty offensive stance on this, which I might sum up as “if I don’t agree with you, it’s your fault.” Are you really unable to understand there is a view other than your own? Unable to even discuss the aspects where you may be wrong, or right? Because so far, you haven’t responded other than to say “there are books!””
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, Pheeno, but I think the point isn’t that all of the answers are sitting in the library. And there’s not one uniform explanation on race relations in America. I think the point is that there is a general unwillingness to research and learn (through books and through people’s life experiences), and then discuss those findings, because these are not issues of general concern to non-minorities as it probably doesn’t affect them on a daily basis. So, when a white person says that something isn’t racist because they have arrived that conclusion simply because in their opinion they don’t think it is, it’s hard to take in as a legitimate, well-thought, educated response. Am I on point on this, Pheeno?
Some of this is new to me. Some of it is not new but things that I’ve not thought deeply about. Yes it’s a privilege.
Why don’t I know this? I haven’t needed to learn it yet. It was pointed out upthread that it’s not difficult to avoid being offensive. So I haven’t bumped into it that way. None of the classes I took in college focused on racism. Time was limited and I chose to learn other things. So I don’t have a deep education on the subject.
And I wasn’t there. I’m just interested in discussing it, and reading discussion about it.
Also I may not be well educated in race relations but I’m still going to try to form and state an opinion as best I can.
But should the UCONN party in particular bear the anger directed at the GENERAL problem? i’m not so sure it should–because the party itself was, in fact, debatably problematic.
And that’s the thing that’s upsetting us the most. The fact that people – people who have, for the most part, never felt less than due to their race, sex, sexuality, etc. – feel the need to question whether or not this incident is in fact offensive. I ask you this: How many people need to be offended by something in order for something to be labeled as offensive?
It’s getting “lumped in” with the blackface parties and the MLK day parties and the like.
And i think some folks are expressing their anger at the overall TREND by expressing their anger at the particular PARTY. And that’s what I, for one, have trouble with.
Why? Did we not express enough anger at the other blackface parties? Were our yells of outrage not loud enough. Sorry. We’ll be louder next time.
And I really hate to say that, but I’m sure that there will be a next time. And a next time. And a next time. Because each time someone believes it’s not a big f***ing deal, it gives the next person a green light to pull the same stupid mess.
If it seems as though people are more upset by this party than the last one, all I’ve got to say is DAMN STRAIGHT! One would think that when the first incident broke the news, people would’ve seen how many were offended. Then the other party happened, and the other party, and PEOPLE STILL DON’T GET IT!
Because so far, you haven’t responded other than to say “there are books!”
How about because GROWN PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER!
Not to open up an entirely new sub-topic of this issue, but did anyone visit thesmokinggun today to see that there was another “ghetto party”? It was at Clemson, on MLK day, girls dressed in similar attire as the UConn party, one girl stuffed her pants to make her behind look large, and one white guy even dressed in blackface. More upsettingly, several members of a black fraternity were there. Some people have been saying that the UConn party wasn’t racist b/c there were some people of other races there (although I seriously doubt there were very many invited, seeing as how there likely would have been a backlash against the party in the first place). What do people think about the perception that a party like this is ok if there are people of color there, essentially putting a stamp of approval on it? I know where I stand on the issue, but I’d like to hear what other people think.
Angel H, right on.
Like I said, I am reminded of the Pee-wee football incident, where once the parents of small children in black face could not be defended, the debate became one about whether there was a growing trend of incidents with racist blackface/minstrelry as a central theme. The clearly racist incident was dismissed as a singular anamoly.
When I brought up more incidents, those (including a similar party which took place near me in Brooklyn called ‘Kill Whitey’ and which admitted revelers free who brough fried chicken) those were dismissed as not sufficiently racist.
Now, nobody can deny the trend, so the focus is for some reason on the one party that some feel is ‘debatably” racist and offensive.
Dj;
I feel like that the way I feel about women who attened ‘pimps and hoes’ parties or just more generally feel that they must aquiesce to their own denegration at the hands of men in order to be accepted/liked. I feel sad, and realize that I’d like to see a little more (not less) righteous indignation cultuvated among antiracist folk of any race.
Novelty and originality are not identical synonyms for “correctness”. And that an argument has been argued against – in book form, no less – is no intrinsic proof of its wrongness (or rightness, for that matter).”
Im not making that assertation. I AM saying ” this information and specific line of discussion has been covered. Its been cleverly hidden in books. Go read one please, before you conjure up indignation at my response. We can only repeat ourselves so many times before we DO get sick of it. Ignorance of these texts and research is no excuse. If you’re going to engage in a discussion (which is supposedly your goal) at least TRY to have a little knowledge.”
You might find it interesting to note that while the questions have changed over time from flat out ” you’re just imagining it you uppity (insert slur here)” to ” what if its really just a ‘firecracker'” the answers have not. When your arguement mirrors those of racists, you might want to stop and think about that. When you claim knowledge from discussion is the goal, at least have the courtesy to read up on it so you’re not making everyone else drop what theyre doing to once again hold someones hand and walk them through some pretty basic shit.
“I cannot speak for other people, but when I persistently make an argument, it is generally because I believe the argument to be true. I generally make the assumption that this is true of other people, as well. Although I am certainly no scholar in the field of race relations, I have done some reading of the authors and works I think you’re alluding to – and I find much there of value. But I find much to disagree with as well, and will probably persist in my obstinate pursuit of the right as I see it.”
The “right as you see it” is part of your problem. As you see it has no relevance to how it affects me, and has some deep, traceable roots to priveledge. How you see it and how it actually affects minorities are two very very vastly different things. How you see it does not change how racism affects me. And FYI, we’re pretty aware of how you see it. We get told often enough.
“that you are requiring the other participants in the discourse extend you an extraordinarily high level of deference and privilege.”
What Im requiring is that others get up and actually go find information before they propose very old arguements that still boil down to ” I know better than someone who lives with it, simply because I think I do”. What I require is something that rarely gets done. Listen after you ask a question. Try doing so without the myriad “yeah buts”. Just. Listen. Stop trying to give me 10 different ways it could possibly be something else “less bad”, recognize that the very act of trying to do that is
1) insulting to our intelligence. We have brains and the capability to reason. We DO consider other alternative explainations. We have more to weigh them against. It’s NOT necessary to explain to us that it could be something else. Unless you think we’re too damn stupid to come up with that without your help, we can think for ourselves, if its all the same to you.
2) a result of priveledge.
3) doesnt get you the response you want. Ever wonder why? I mean beyond thinking its OUR problem and not oh say, maybe something *you’re* doing or saying?
“Are you really unable to understand there is a view other than your own? Unable to even discuss the aspects where you may be wrong, or right? Because so far, you haven’t responded other than to say “there are books!” ”
Are you really unable to see the problem with
” the minorities really need to stop and consider where they may be right or wrong”
Hint
The implication there is that we dont and need your assistance in doing so.
Good post on related material at Pandagon. I think it is important to note what is not a random trend of increasingly acceptable racism in the mainstream media and in public life in general, racism which meets only the most technical standards of plausible deniablity. When called on it, the response is almost universally–“that was insensitive, not racist!”
There, I said it.
http://pandagon.net/2007/01/30/there-i-said-it/
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/28/were-not-racist-we-just-hate-niggers/
on the pandagon link above:
I think the classic version of the form of racism I’m seeing here and there and everywhere–the plausibly deniable form, really does just boil down to the moment when some white person repeats Chris Rocks bit about “black people” and “n*ggers.”
It was f*cked up when Chris Rock said it, but that white people think it is okay to repeat this riff, that its the most hilarious thing ever…well. The joke, from a white person expresses the precise spurious distinction that people are making here to defend the good, “not racist” UConn party. The argument is that ghetto parties “not racist,” ‘we’re just mocking ghetto people, not all/just black people!
I love black people! I just hate n-ggers.’
Sailorman,
I’d expect, first, that the apology be unconditional and not some kind of wishy-washy thing. Secondly, I’d expect that it not be of the “Oops, sorry!” kind, like what happens when you’re walking down the hall and, oops!, someone comes out of a side hallway and you just so happen to bump into them or smash their foot or whatever.
Why?
Because systematic oppression is something that people of character are supposed to care about. And when people who care about this stuff make HONEST mistakes they recognize the exceptional nature of their mistake. If you step on my foot, and my foot has been stepped on my entire life, it really does have a different significance. If you want to stomp out (heh) sinisterism (the dislike of lefties …), you demonstrate that you’ve made an HONEST mistake by clearly communicating that you get the gravity of the offense.
Here’s an example.
Let’s say that Pheeno invites me over for dinner — BYOB and a potluck dish. I know nothing at all about malt liquor and race (can’t know everthing, right?), but I’ve been drinking Colt 45 ever since I found out that it’s just like a German barley wine I had once on a trip to Europe. I love the stuff — I even have a recipe I use to make it myself at home (in real life I really do only make malt liquors). Completely and totally innocent, right? So, I show up at Pheeno’s with my BYOB in hand and when I go to put it i the fridge she makes a face at me like “What the HELL is that?” Depending on how I read her look I might say any number of things, but at some point either she or another guest clues me in — “Julie, it’s really offensive to bring malt liquor to this party. Don’t tell me you brought fried chicken for your dish?” “Wow, Jake, thanks for cluing me in. I bet Pheeno thinks I’m a real jerk. I should go and apologize to her.” “Hey, Pheeno, I’m sorry about the drink. I’d never heard about that before and Jake told me how offensive it is. Show me where your trashcan is and I’ll get rid of it.”
Where things go from there are up to Pheeno, just like where things would go after you make your apology for stepping on my foot would be up to me. Pheeno can ask how some white woman came to have a thing for Colt 45 and I can ask how you came to have a thing for stepping on people’s feet. She might learn that I make my own beer and I might learn that you’re blind in your right eye. But what we’d all, hopefully, learn is the importance of being aware of the extraordinary meanings of certain actions and the need to be respectful.
One of my favorite shows throughout college was “Da Ali G Show.” For those of you who don’t know, this is the same comedian that does Borat. Basically, Ali G. is played by a British-Jewish middle class male. The Ali G. character, however, is the epitome of “ghetto” culture.
Here is an excerpt from the show’s websight:
o just who is Ali G, and how did he get on TV?
In his own words: “Me woz born in da heart off da Staines ghetto. I has lived wiv me Nan in Staines at 37 Cherry Blossom Close from da day me woz born, coz wiv both me parents havin been smoked, dere werent no one else around to look afta her. Me has been carin for her ever since. Me woz failed by da skool system and hated every minute me spent in da classroom. In fact added together, dat time woz probly da most borin 3 hours of me life – altho me do still go to a skool re-union every second Monday at Staines Job Centre… As well as bein unemployed – i iz also got a lot off well important careers. As head of Da West Staines Massive, me control da most peace lovin and violent gang in da hole of Barkshire. Afta happearin on some crap programme dat woz on at 11 a clock or somefin, it werent long before me ad me own show. Dis meant me was able to take a in depf look at a lot off serious issues…. I iz now easily da most respekted face on Brittish telly and it iz probably only a matter off time before me get offered me own slot on Channel 5 – or hopefully even cable…”
Now, the premise of the show is that he conducts all these interviews with unsuspecting high class Politicians, Proffessionals, Academics, etc., in his Ghetto character, in much the same way as the Borat character conducted interviews in that movie. The culture clash (to me, and apparently many others) is halarious.
To those of you on either side of the argument, how does this show fit into the analysis of the Uconn Party. More offensive? Less offensive? Why? I don’t mean to change the subject at all just wanted to get people’s thoughts.
That’s the Best explanation of why the UCONN party was racist I’ve seen yet.
I’m focusing on that one because that’s what the post was about.
Sailorman writes, responding to Pheeno:
My experience is that is very rarely the case. For starters, it’s generally a losing proposition. Anyone who’s white and that clueless isn’t going to react any better because they’ve been bogusly called out on their racism. What would even be the point? Whites drag out “the race card” accusation because we can — we’ve got the power and it takes power to dismiss someone’s argument completely out of hand.
Secondly, minorities of all stripes who give you enough time out of their life to clue you in are probably looking for a reaction that indicates you’re not an asshat. If someone treats my girlfriend like she’s my “roommate” I’m not going to conclude they are down with us big queers. I’m going to mentally stamp “asshat” on the picture I keep of them stuffed in my head. I don’t owe straights any explanation about my life. I don’t owe right-handed people any explanation either — I sit on the corners of tables so I don’t have to put up with you and your damned elbows.
Thirdly, when other whites take the time out to patiently explain this stuff to you, you really should shut up and listen. In many instances it took some pretty big mistakes on our part. I remember when I learned 20+ years ago why black people always seemed to be so nice to me. Did I ever feel like an idiot for saying how much I liked blacks because they were all so nice to me and my lily white ass. Some people like to yell, and others of us don’t, but whether we’re yelling at you or trying to be all quiet and reasonable, we’re trying to teach you something because we believe in your fundamental humanity. And we’re hoping that maybe, just maybe, this time it sinks in and you get it.
Re: Ali G, I’ve never seen the show, but I have heard of it and know the basics about the show. It sounds like a parody and a satire. I don’t know the comedian what the comedian would say is the basis for his show, but I would think he created it to display those stereotypes and tape people’s reactions to them, especially if the people he is interviewing are high class politicians who are supposed to remain cool under pressure, but if interviewed by him are more likely thinking “Who the F**K is this guy?!). But like I said, I haven’t seen the show, so maybe I’m giving it too much artistic/social credit.
I think a t.v. show or movie or sketch, while having racist/racial elements, can effectively provoke conversation, dialogue, and interest in issues of race and racism through parody. The Office is a great show to illustrate this — the boss, Michael, frequently says extremely inappropriate things, and the reason it’s funny is because he is so unaware of himself. The show isn’t saying that it’s right or OK to be unintentionally offensive; rather, it’s saying exactly the opposite through this exaggerated buffoon of a character. The boss on that show has been put in check on several episodes for being inappropriate. Shows like The Office, and I would guess Ali G, show how ignorant someone is by poking fun at the ignorant person when they do ignorant things.
There was no “audience” per se, at the UConn party– everyone who was there was wearing the costumes and there didn’t seem to be any real value to this theme of “ghettofabulousness” other than to be an ironic dress code for a bunch of (mostly, probably) well-off white kids.
On Ali G (played by Sasha Cohen, the same guy from Borat), part of the joke is that people get confused about his race because he’s so ghetto. They look like idiots because of their racism.
Is there a reason that my post about what adult behavior should look like has been totally ignored by the apologists? Is it because I used their favorite rhetoric of “personal responsibility” and turned it all around on them?
For what it’s worth, I would like to say that I continue to commend UCONN’s response to this thing – including and especially partygoers like Mike Nichols. His apology that was posted was pretty above board. I still find it incredibly sad that a bunch of Law students didn’t realize this party would be offensive, and I’m not entirely certain that I buy that NONE of them knew it would be, but, nonetheless, they have used this as a teachable moment rather than wanting to defend themselves and I must say that they are doing a far better job of growing as a human being than a number of the usually intelligent adults on this thread.
Is there a reason that my post about what adult behavior should look like has been totally ignored by the apologists?
Because when one cannot deny and one is unable to admit error, one ignores.
Kate,
As I wrote upthread, I think that the issue is that by and large, the apologists don’t see themselves as being “racist” because, again, as I wrote upthread, the most commonly taught-in-schools examples of racism are things like slavery, lynching, job discrimination, housing discrimination, criminal justice system injustices, police brutality, etc. A “ghetto party” isn’t one of those things and I think they are reacting with this sort of incredulity. Police dogs being turned on blacks, that’s racist. White kids dressing up as gangstas isn’t in the history books. Yet.
They aren’t saying racism is okay, but “How is this racist?”
Some people have said “Well, you’re just saying that’s racist to win an argument”, and that shows a real lack of awareness in how power structures work, but the bulk of the discussion has been “How is this racist?”
This is the point I was trying to make earlier — these kids aren’t in need of being taught Racism 101, they are already convinced of the wrongness of racism. What they need now is Racism 201, “Introduction to Racial Power Structures”. Or perhaps, and I think several of the more articulate posters here could have a real go at it, “Racism for Dummies”. (FWIW, in order to make sure someone else hadn’t already written it, I googled “Racism for Dummies” and found this movie.
I also found this thread, which was particularly scarey!)
I haven’t been trying to apologize but I’ll answer anyway. The part of this that I’ve found most interesting is the discussion of whether the Uconn party crossed the line between silly, unprofessional and rude into racist.
to me it seems obvious that there is such a distinction. I still think that the Texas and other parties were on the racist side and the Uconn was on the silly and unprofessional side. Mostly because I don’t see hip/hop or ghetto style as ‘black’.
There’s a separate question of what to do when you ‘step on someone’s toes’ to use the chosen analogy. I don’t have much disagreement with what’s been said there and I don’t have much to add that hasn’t already been said. Whether they meant to or not the Uconn students offended and hurt a lot of their classmates. I agree that they’ve reacted appropriately.
I hope that answers your question.
One L, I’m glad that there is some progress being made. Little suggestion?
>Those of us who attended the party are deeply ashamed that our actions offended anybody.
What you should be deeply ashamed of is YOUR ACTIONS, not other people’s reactions to those actions. As I’m sure your law professors are beating into your head every day, precision in language is extremely important.
I dont see hip/hop or ghetto style as ‘black’.
First, “hip hop style” and “ghetto style” are two different things. though both are frequently used as racially coded words.
Second, its irrelevant whether or not you personally see it as ‘black.” Obviously “the ghetto” (whatever that is) is not all black and not all blacks are ghetto.
However, the term has a history as a racist stereotype. I’m glad you are not taken in by the stereotype. But, it is a racist stereotype whether you personally believe that stereotype or not.
Joe said,
But that’s the duality of the issue here, not only are they ignorant in their potrayal of a subsect of black culture (which can be traced to a historical line of such caricature of black culture) but you are still INSISTING on how to codify racism against black folk (being that you’ve experienced it and understand the full ramifications of such behavior).
Honestly, do you think if no one had called these kids out and made them aware of their actions, this would be the only “racially ignorant” thing they do?
You know what, whenever an issue of racism crops up again, I’ll be sure to check with you.
Side note: They really are not kids. Graduate students are adults.
FCH,
Yes, obviously, power structures in the outside world are quite imbalanced. power structures HERE are such that (one hopes) we can have discussion without modifying our conversations to much, otherwise there’s no discussion.
Outside this blog, men may be privileged and entitled and able to interrupt, overtalk, and generally be assholes to women. here, they get banned or shouted down. And so on.
We all recognize that. That is part of why I would not express these views via a letter to the editor, for example: Too possible that some weenie would ride on them to god-knows-where.
but this ISN’T a really public forum, and the power dynamics for many things are different here, don’t you think?
——
As for the other issue you wrote about:
On a personal level, I am unwilling to believe that any race or sex has superior nonphysical characteristics to any other race. So I do not hold truck with claims that whites are “more intelligent” or Asians are “more careful.” I don’t think that women are inherently more likely to falsely accuse people than men are. i don’t think that blacks are “worse people” by virtue of being black. I don’t think that someone is a “better person” because they were born white.
But because I see that as a pattern, I’m also unwilling to grant anyone God status. I don’t think that rape accusers occupy a magic world where nobody ever makes a false accusation. And I don’t think blacks are “better people” or are magically immune to the foibles that affect everyone else on the planet. Neither do I think I’m a “worse person” because I was born white.
I see a lot of pretty universal traits in life. People who have power (any power) tend to exploit it; folks usually act in their self interest; people don’t like to see things which contradict their existing viewpoint; selective perception is rampant; nobody knows as much as they think about either themselves or anyone else.
And often, I see someone claim that they (or their group) are “exempt” from these otherwise-universal traits. Politely put, I think that’s unlikely.
“People who have power (any power) tend to exploit it; folks usually act in their self interest; people don’t like to see things which contradict their existing viewpoint; selective perception is rampant; nobody knows as much as they think about either themselves or anyone else.”
Sailorman, I couldn’t agree with you more on this – I just think we may disagree on who in this thread those statements should be directed toward.
Sailorman writes:
Of course — and that’s why I said that blacks making bogus accusations of racism are a rare occurrence. To what end would they do so? To further enrage an already racist white populace? Looking at “blacks make false accusations of racism to play the race card” in terms of actual benefit, blacks can’t benefit, by and large, from doing so. That’s what racism is about — power structures based on race. It’s not JUST about randomly slinging around the n-word, it’s about what that word, and all the ideologies associated with that word represents.
Or put another way, being called a “cr@ck3r” is less threatening to me as a white woman than being called a “n*gg*r” is to a black woman. They simply aren’t the same, even though both words can be used as racial slurs. One carries all the force of a racist society behind it and the other is opposed by that same force. This asymetry of power insures that behaviors are asymetrical as well, as to expected outcome. Thus, if we assume that people act rationally and in their best interests, blacks must surely realize that any accusations of racism, real or imagined, will enrage white racists and result in a less favorable outcome. I think it is reasonably predictable that, therefore, blacks would tend to avoid accusations of racism, and especially false accusations.
Sewere Writes:
I’m not insisting on anything. I’m saying that the behavior at the Uconn party doesn’t look particulary racist to me.
I have no idea.
I’m note trying to say that I’m an expert. I’m just explaining why I’ve come to the conclusion that I did.
curiousgyrl Writes:
I dont see hip/hop or ghetto style as ‘black’.
I guess I’m interpreting hip hop and ghetto as a culture independent of race.
Bullets and Bubbly is similar to
bikers and bubbly is similar to
bud and bubbly (bud as a short hand for stoners and hippies.)
or Budweiser and bubbly (some people wear foam hats, big hair and nascar apparel)
I am aware (more now than before) that this isn’t the common interpretation here.
I really think that Pheeno has the most informed best supported position on why there will be more “themed parties.” It has everything to do with priviledge. The priviledged use the terms to mock and degrade for their own reasons and when the targeted group is offended they try to re-define what is racisit behavior.
I would just leave all those priviledged people that attended the “themed parties” with one bit of advice – you will have to answer for that behaviour one day. Those pictures will cost you a position at the law firm of your dreams, you may not be appointed a judge because those pictures (agree or disagree) indicate bias against a group of people, and finally your dreams of a career as a Congressman, Senator, President, or as the head of a federal agency is now over. These actions will take place because as Pheeno stated the world is now holding you accountable for the actions you took at the “themed party.”
Please note I did not call it racist but I think the rest of the world that will judge you later will.
Think before you act.
Aside from the hope that “one day” students will have to answer for their actions, a day which may or may not ever occur, what do people think should happen to these students right now? And by that I mean, what action do you think the school should take in dealing with them?
I already commented upthread — people who attend ghetto parties should have to go to one.
I say, strip them of their non-academic whatevers (frat membership, academic group membership) for a semester and give them 100 hours of community service in an underclass neighborhood.
FCH,
I’ve been thinking about your excellent malt example. Let me try to respond:
Just to be sure we’re reading off the same script: I am taking this to mean you had NO racism going into this and NO knowledge this would even potentially piss someone off. If that is not a correct reading, the rest of my response won’t make any sense.
OK, now here’s where it gets interesting.
OK, facts so far, put in GENERAL language to better make my point:
-You did something factually polite, which can be interpreted as impolite.
-They interpret it as impolite (they’re wrong), and confront you.
If you view this as a “normal” encounter (e.g. not race relations) they have acted worse than you have, by assuming bad things about you (more on this later).
And in a “normal” encounter what would happen is this:
1) YOU would politely explain the misunderstanding (“No, sir, I didn’t steal your coat; your coat is right over there.”)
2) THEY apologize for the misunderstanding (“Oh dear, I’m so sorry to have accused you of taking my coat!”)
3) YOU say “oh never mind, it’s fine”
Now, this isn’t normal, it’s about race. But before we get into the special circumstances of race, can we agree on what happens generally? i want to make distinctions and similarities and I’ll stop here till you respond.
Actually, Sailorman,
If it was a friend, or someone I CARED about having a decent relationship with – if they were offended or annoyed by something I did – whether I think it was wrong or not – I would apologize, find out why and try not to do it to them again.
My feelings about my desire to have a good relationship with this person MATTER MORE TO ME THAN BEING RIGHT.
Sure, Kate, I agree. I’d act differently if it were a good friend or someone I cared about.
Though I tend not to have a lot of one-sided friendships. So as a result one thing I hope for from my friends is that they not assume the worst of me–they’re my friends, right? It’s a courtesy that I extend to them, and they to me.
I assume they’ll borrow my stuff and not steal it; I assume that if they offend me it was accidental. I tend to find out what really happened BEFORE I get hard up in their face–and if they or I start acting/assuming otherwise (in other words, not trusting each other) I end the friendship. Don’t you?
So yeah: It’d be different if it were me and a good friend. I’d be more apologetic. So would they. It might be a whole different hypothetical. But as it stands, does the general thing make sense? With a “they’re not friends” caveat, do you think it’s accurate?
Sailorman, the same token applies to this example you gave:
, which aside from being oddly off-topic, wouldn’t stop bothering me. No inherent inability to falsely accuse, true, just a whole lot of mistreatment and grief as the only “incentive” for doing so. I agree with a lot of the rest of your post and apply similar logic when interpreting others’ statements, but I think that the context of certain situations weighs in favor of giving accusers the benefit of the doubt.
Sailorman,
I think what Kate and Trillian wrote at 173 and 175 speak well to what you said.
But let’s say that Pheeno was a complete and total stranger and I just happened to get invited to this dinner, I’d still respond as I stated. Whether or not someone will cut me slack in the future depends, I think, in large part on how I handle situations like what I described. If shes “The trash can is over there”, well, the bottle goes in the trash and that’s the end of it. If she says “That’s really interesting, perhaps you could bring some of your beer next time. But I’m still offended by that 40 you’ve got tucked in that brown paper bag, so I’m going to ask you to throw it away in that trash can over there.”
Take, for example, the fact that I really do only brew what would be classified as a “malt liquor” here in Texas — a fermented malted barley beverage having an alcohol content greater than 4.5% by volume. I might mention this in a technical discussion about brewing such things (“I added an extra pound of malt to improve the flavor and that much extra malt sugar raises the alcohol content”), but I’m not going to run around advertising that I have a 2 liter bottle of malt liquor tucked under my arm.
The thing, as Kate said, is that the relationship IS more important than being “right”. What I’d hope for, in a situation like what I’ve described, is a relationship in which a lot of racial baggage is not present. As a white woman there are barriers to having a trusting relationship with someone who’s black, and that’s based on the history of race relations in this country. AND, that history is something whites did, so the burden is on ME, not on her.
Now, is any of this “fair”? I dunno. What does “fair” mean? Is it fair that whites have a history of treating blacks so poorly that blacks distrust whites as a means of survival? Doesn’t sound fair to me.
Oh — you meant “Is it fair that I’m being distrusted?” Well, yes. It’s “fair”. It’s fair because distrusting white people really is a survival skill.
Well sure, so would I. But there’s no way to make the baggage disappear once it’s there. So the question then becomes what to do with it, and how to avoid making it worse.
Yup.
Well, see my comments above. I really doubt we’ll agree much on this.
I venture to say that should I try to think on it (I don’t) chances are that I–or most people–could find something that almost every group (including blacks) has done historically which is “bad” (don’t forget that the “historical burden” people are also usually of the “intent or reasons don’t matter, only actions do” camp.)
I don’t disagree with you about history, you know. Just about what to do with it.
It’s really about control. For many centuries, whites could do whatever the fuck they wanted, and blacks had to remain in control. We all know the problems that caused.
Now, that has changed for the better (still a ways to go but it’s much better). People who are angered can show their anger; people who are offended can show their offense. I think that’s healthy for society.
I am perfectly willing to encourage, enable, and avoid causing problems with someone else’s control over what THEY do or say. Communication is good.
I am not at all willing to grant anyone the ability to limit, stifle, or otherwise control what I do or say. Whether it’s “in the name of racism activism”, “for the good of the country”, “for the glory of god”, or anything else.
Sailorman writes:
I think many of us are well aware that there are differing viewpoints. It’s just that over time we’ve learned that “facially equal” is “effectively privileged”.
True story — about 28 years ago, right around the time I started college, I spent some time thinking about affirmative action and concluded that it was a good and necessary thing. Thinking about this to myself I thought that 25 years would just about solve the problems. Whenever I thought about affirmative actions, that was the background conversation — “We need to keep doing this for another X number of years.” As time passed and the end of 25 years approached, I started to realize that so many people were opposed to affirmative action that it was going to take more than those 25 years.
“Facially equal” says that whatever messed up system we’ve got today — just ignore it. As I got older and learned about “facially equal” (“The rich man and the poor man are both equally forbidden from sleeping under a bridge” was the example that taught me the point), I learned that “facially equal” maintains the dominant class in a position of dominance. The poor man, who has no choice but to sleep under a bridge, is imprisoned and labeled a criminal because he has no house to sleep in. And now that he’s a criminal, he’s even less likely to escape poverty or homelessness.
That’s the classic problem of formal equality (or formal systems, more generally) versus an attempt to hit an outcome target. The best justice system (using the sleeping under a bridge example) would tailor every sentence to perfectly resonate with the circumstances and needs of everyone in the system, from the sleeper to the passersby to the property owner next to the bridge to the public works people who maintain it to…
The difficulty with this “best” justice system – the one that no decent human being, myself included, would disapprove of – is that we don’t know how to do that. We know what it would look like in the finished product – complete justice for all – but we don’t know how to make that product. We DO know how to have a justice system based on formal rules which – however unfair they may turn out to be in particular cases – are at least objectively knowable in advance, and justiciable without reference to opinions. (Did he sleep under the bridge, yes or no; yes = guilty.)
Attempts to reach the perfect system where we take everything into account run squarely into the fallibility of human reason and the laws of human nature and psychology. Look at affirmative action in college admissions – with nothing but good intentions, an effort to fix the racial balance so that it’s “right” (rather than having formal rules that specify what attainments are necessary to get into a particular school) has led us to the perverse situation of the state actively discriminating against a racial minority group in the name of non-discrimination.
“And as you discuss below, you seem to be going into the described relationship feeling like you have a heavy burden before you even begin the conversation.
I don’t. What I aim for is to avoid expecting anyone else to defer to me because of my status. And I try to avoid allowing anyone else to demand deference from me in return. If they do demand it, I generally refuse to give it. (And yes, though I’m a white male, there are plenty of situations in my life in which I don’t happen to be the person with privilege in a given encounter).”
Sailorman, I think you are right about us never coming to an agreement. I’d just like to point out that I suspect it is your very privileged state that allows you to feel like you have no burdens before anything begins. Although I personally benefit from white privilege, I also happen to be at a disadvantage in terms of gender privilege and this I suspect gives me an ability to empathize with the position a person of color is in when dealing with me.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but here is what I see you are saying:
“I personally don’t treat anyone any differently when I meet them based on silly things like race, class or gender. I don’t personally hold biases against people based on their ascribed statuses, and so if in a random act or interaction, I do or say something that someone in a subordinated position deems to be racist/sexist/offensive whatever, as long as I didn’t INTEND for my remarks/actions to be that way, they have no right to demand that I see things from their perspective. My intentions were not suspect, even if they assumed otherwise, and since the offended party is the one who jumped to a conclusion about my intention, I have no responsibility to apologize. Rather, the person who thought badly of me in the first place should apologize to ME for incorrectly assuming mal-intent.”
I strongly suspect you can comfortably feel this way because you are a person whose privileges abound. The problem (as I see it) with this perspective is that it assumes a clean slate. While there may be an individualized clean slate between you and the other individual, or even between you and an entire class of people from your end – there is no such thing as a clean slate for a person of color when it comes to dealing with white people. They have experienced racism from individual white people and white power structures many times throughout their lives. While things may not be as “bad” as they once were, you yourself stated that there is certainly a long way to go.
I think, part of the long journey is precisely the reaction you have to this whole situation. Because you assume a clean slate, you are defensive about being called on your actions or words (or in this case, the actions or words of others like you). And in your defensiveness, you indignantly proclaim that there was no malicious intent and so it is unfair and uncalled for that a person get upset about the action. Again, if the clean slate thing were TRUE, then I *might* see your point, although I’m still not entirely sure I would… But, there is no such thing as a clean slate for the person of color. Just because your personal end is clean, does not invalidate the collective history of people of color, or women, or any other oppressed group. It also, does not invalidate the personal experiences of individual people of color TODAY in dealing with people from the dominate group. Those experiences are painful, plentiful and seared into one’s mind. As FCH said, being suspect of white people is a survival skill for people of color. Just as being suspect of strange men is a survival skill for women (and if you disagree with that, tell me, what will you teach your daughters about how to maintain personal safety as they get older?).
If you can TRY to jump into the position of a person of color for a moment. And try to imagine a lifetime of unfair, racist stereotypes, assumptions and treatment, then look at the UCONN party or the Clemson party pictures. Really try to put yourself in that position. What is your gut reaction to those photos – not your academic reaction, not a logical reaction. A personal, emotional, gut reaction. Because even though racism has little or no emotional meaning to most white people, it is a deeply personal and emotional experience for people of color (at least as I imagine, since sexism is a deeply personal and emotional experience for me). Now, if you have been able to really place yourself in the shoes of a person of color with all the racist crap they have experienced in their lives and you see those photos and you find them offensive (I’ll even be nice and leave off the word racist), do you think it really matters much in the grand scheme of things whether or not the people in those photos MEANT to offend?
Because here’s how I see it – if they didn’t mean to offend, and they really cared about not offending people, then the logical response would be, “Damn, I’m really sorry, I never meant any harm. I never really thought about why that would be offensive. I’m sorry.”
OR if the person is not terribly interested in not offending people and doesn’t really care whether they do or don’t, the reaction would be, “I had no idea that is what it would mean to you, I didn’t MEAN it that way, and so you are being oversensitive. You can’t presume to know my intentions and call me racist. THat’s not fair. This is stupid. It’s no big deal. Get over it.” (or any other variation).
The difference between those two reactions is that the first tells the offended party that the person cares more about establishing a decent relationship than they do about getting called on for actions they didn’t mean to be harmful.
The second response tells the offended party that the person in question cares a great deal more about defending himself than he does about establishing a good relationship. Bottom line, I care a hell of a lot more about myself, and making certain I don’t have to feel about about what I did, than I do about your feelings.
And that, my friend, is why people of color would continue to be skeptical of white people. If your reaction is the 2nd, it’s a pretty clear demonstration that ultimately you don’t really care about equality or decency you care about defending yourself and not having to be uncomfortable. And it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be doubly hurt/angered by that, particularly when it is couched in language and rhetoric of, there is no way to extrapolate racism from my actions without intent. You are simply overreacting.
Also, people of color would have other reasons to be upset, even if there was absolutely no malicious intent. Seeing as how a good number of white people, as well as most people of color would take one look at those pictures and see racism, it’s pretty disturbing the people in those pictures had no idea it would be seen that way. That tells us that people are not getting an education that really tells the story of the social history of the US. See, if the future law students at the UCONN party really and truly meant no racist intent, then I find that far more disturbing than if they kinda did, but got caught and are now backpedaling (that would be a fairly typical response – people want to cover their asses). We are talking about intelligent, well educated people whose futures certainly include varying degrees of power. If they really and truly did not know that stereotyping “ghetto culture” and using it as an opportunity to ridicule it is not racist, then I think it’s a damn good example of how institutionalized racism plays out. You see, the education system doesn’t have much room for real discussions of racism or the racist history of this country. The media certainly have far too few censors or opportunities for critical discussions about what is portrayed in the media and who controlls it. And all of that filters down to a bunch of well educated adults not knowing something could possibly be offensive… and something that then reproduces itself.
And further the response of white people telling people of color what is or is not offensive is just one last turn of the knife already dug in the back. It is the ultimate dismissal, and can only be done because the offending party is in a power position. It is the ultimate demonstration of where people of color’s place in the hierarchy remains.
I didn’t explain that very well, my apologies, my brain is tired. I hope someone understood what I meant.
Ultimately Sailorman, I don’t find your response unusual or surprising, which is probably partly why so many people like pheeno are so exasperated by it. I don’t find your arguments condescending or mean – I actually have to say that the conversation thus far has been very civil. But, I also think that the reason you can comfortably talk of rational behavior and how it is not your job to appease someone who infers bad behavior on your part if there wasn’t any comes from the fact that you have not systematically been in positions of deference or subordination. Not in any ongoing, structurally supported way. (Granted, those are assumptions on my part. I will have no problem if you tell me otherwise). If my assumptions are incorrect than I might have to scratch my head a bit and wonder where your empathy chip got lost along the way, but ultimately, that’s where I see our perspectives diverging.
I, and others in this thread have empathy for the people of color who are outraged by this disgusting trend. It appears, that you do not. (Ok, that sounds a whole lot more self righteous and snarky than I mean it to be, please understand that).
Let me give what I think is probably a more parallel and more personalized example than the “scenerios” described above.
Say you are dating a women you have not known for very long (just pretend for a minute). You have known her long enough to be at a point in the relationship where you are playfully physical (and maybe even more than that…eh, just go with me). You and she are watching a movie, you get distracted and begin tickling her. She starts to giggle, you start play wrestling and suddenly, you are on top of her and her face kind of goes white, she suddenly changes her entire tune and says, “Get off!” And tries to push you off. You get off of her as requested and ask what is wrong and gently try to put your hand on her shoulder or something. She recoils and says kind of snippy, maybe even borderline nasty, “Don’t touch me!”
Now, at this point, you really and truly haven’t done anything wrong. You haven’t done anything out of bounds, but her reaction was pretty extreme and severe and not very nice considering the otherwise pleasant relationship you two have going on.
What is your reaction?
Do you listen to her and back away and say, “Did I hurt you? Are you Ok? What’s wrong?” (or something to that effect)
or do you say, “Geez, I didn’t do anything, what are you so upset about?” (or something along those lines)
I’m still wondering about this” intent” argument. Because it seems like people forget that the history of steroetyping black folk had less to do with ridiculing black folks than it did with entertaining white folk. I mean a lot of the folks who donned blackface interacted with black folks and may have had the proverbial one or two black friends, but that did that really stop them from using blackface to entertain a predominantly white audience? I mean, where these kids really thinking “wait I wonder how a black woman would feel if she saw me wearing this” vs “this is going to be so much fun”?
The student representative is already going through the necessary steps of addressing this issue but I’m not willing to give out cookies until I see actions. The more troubling part are the Sailormans and Larry’s who feel that they are better able to say what does or does not constitute racism.
The history of blackface is that it was done for two reasons — the first was to create buffoonish caricatures of blacks, and secondly because it was illegal for blacks to perform (or attend, but we’re talking about performance, so I’ll mention that first and then add a distracting parenthetical remark :) ) in theatres whites attended.
It wasn’t like “Hey, I’ve got this play and I have to put it on RIGHT NOW OR I’LL EXPLODE and I have a nice respectable black character and I need a black actor RIGHT NOW OR I’LL EXPLODE!” There were plenty of black actors. They just weren’t allowed to perform in front of whites, and besides, whites didn’t want to see blacks play characters that weren’t degrading to blacks.
I’ve been reading “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and it mentions that one of the justifications for slavery is that blacks LIKED slavery. That they actually enjoyed it. And when the Confederate troops encountered blacks who were fighting for their own liberation it shocked them, because they believed that blacks WANTED to be slaves. Blackface wasn’t neutral, it was part of the process by which whites were indoctrinated to believe that blacks were animalistic, over sexed, lazy, stupid, and a slew of other negative things. It would be nice if this were taught, but teaching that would be, uh, EMBARRASSING to white people.
bean writes:
While I agree with you in theory, I disagree in practice. The fine art of the apology has been lost, along with the fine art of accepting responsibility for ones actions. I view “I’m sorry you were offended” right up there with “For all intensive purposes”. “I’m sorry” and “purposes” have stayed behind, but the original phrasing has long since gone away, and with it, the linguistic meaning. I’d be curious to know what someone thinks is an “intensive purpose”.
Thanks, bean — there are many other malapropisms at that website.
But even that website doesn’t answer the question “What the heck is an ‘intensive purpose’?”
I’ve been following this post from the beginning of this whole mess. I always start from the beginning and read to the bottom. A very clear pattern has emerged. The emotions that are displayed here represent the rolling swells of emotion experienced everytime something like this happens. The frustration, anger, self-restraint, need to lash out, numbness, wanting to educate, hope, defeat and rawness of those who have been affected sometime in their life by a sometimes callous, mostly insensitive and the definetly naive action of someone done somthing to someone is glaringly present. Mirroring that are the emotions of the affectors. Some may genuinely feel the cut and shame of what they have done and want to learn. Some feel bad for being caught only and can’t wait till they get back into their saftey zone with others who feel as they do and claim the unfairness done to them. Some want to dismiss the feelings. Some don’t get the big deal. Some try to tell those offended that what they are feeling is wrong. “Oh, you are being silly. That’s not what I meant.” Some when confronted individually turn it on the confronter and then act like the confronter is speaking for every single person that confronter may look like. Some have guilt.
It is always painful to be betrayed. An entire betrayal of trust against each other. It is a display of misunderstanding and sometimes it brings out the truth in people. Some people do not care that they misunderstand the person next to them because they have their group who feels the same as them.
All of us deal with this everyday. Someone does something to us that makes us stop. Sometimes we don’t try to fix it because we know it is hopeless. But, when we do, part of that decision comes out of hope and trust and passion. We are hoping that the person we speak to will be enlightened, not feel cornered, just be able to look at us and want to understand where they went wrong. Hoping that at least one time in speaking to someone they will look back at you and you will know that they get it.
It happens to me everyday.
What I get most out of it is that everyone is talking and no one is hearing and understanding. People listen- only to words. Not your meaning.
The only time I notice it hit home is when the people in the conflict really genuinely respect one another. If the offender doesn’t have a personal interest it is usually a lot harder to get through.
I wonder if the people who threw these parties would have done it in a public place as in a bar? I wonder if they would have felt as comfortable or not seen anything wrong. I wonder if they may have hesitated. If there was hesitation then… well, would they have still done it? If they wouldn’t that hesitation right there shows that they knew it would be offensive. They also knew why.
Re: Fonzy’s last post–“I wonder if the people who threw these parties would have done it in a public place as in a bar?”
The only way I could see them doing this in a public place is if this “public place” was out of Hartford, and say, the party was tucked away in a privately rented room of a restaurant or bar in a predominantly white town like Farmington or Avon. And, even then, such a plan seems highly unlikely.
Those students may not have thought this party theme through to the point of analyzing it as something that is racist, but that just shows that it’s so deep in their heads as something that is ok for them to do that they don’t even think about it. I would bet my house that they wouldn’t have walked around in Hartford like that b/c they would know as well as I do that they’d get their asses kicked. And why, exactly, would they fear getting their asses kicked by a community largely comprised of blacks if there was absolutely no innuendo of race by wearing ‘do rags, gold chains, grills, and drinking 40s? Hm.
I t is unfortunate that their are people who choose to celebrate in such an unforgiving fashion. I am only dishearten because the same ignorant people that celebrate this way are going to be future teachers and leaders in the same world that my future family and I have to live. Most importantly a month or so shy of the 400th year the African American were first brought to this country and very little has changed. I have no sympathy for them or the acts that they chose to participate in. Hope student
“We DO know how to have a justice system based on formal rules which – however unfair they may turn out to be in particular cases – are at least objectively knowable in advance, and justiciable without reference to opinions. (Did he sleep under the bridge, yes or no; yes = guilty.)”
There’s advantage in formal rules being knowable in advance, though most people don’t know the ins and outs of the law and thus this element is mitigated somewhat. But formal rules are based on opinion as well; an individual judge may not have as much opportunity to inject his own opinion, but whether that is better or worse than giving more weight to the opinion of the legislature or of tradition instead, is something that must be judged on a – appropriately enough – case by case basis.
If anyone’s ever involved in a racially themed party, by the way, accept while saying that you’re doing a video project on college life. Take down names and request interviews.