[Note: In 2005, this piece was originally entitled “How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism”. I changed the title in 2011. The wording of the quote from Prometheus 6, however, isn’t mine and so I haven’t changed it. Also, the URL contains the original wording, and I don’t want to nuke all the links to this post by changing the URL. :-( My sincere apologies to disabled people who object to the wording. –Amp, 2011]
Prometheus 6 wrote something that has stuck in my head ever since:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people.
It’s true – a lot of white people, hell, most white people turn ten different shades of pissed off and shoot steam out their ears if someone suggests they’ve said something racist. And if you make a point of talking about race and racism, sooner or later someone will accuse you of being racist, fairly or unfairly.
Frankly, I think we whites – especially, we whites who think of ourselves as against racism – have to get over it. So here it is, in honor of “blog against racism day” (okay, it’s now the morning after blog against racism day, so I’m slow):
Amp’s Guide to Not Being a Doofus When Accused of Racism.
1) Breathe. Stay calm. Stay civil. Don’t burn bridges. If someone has just said “I think that sounds a bit racist,” don’t mistake it for them saying “you’re Klu Klux Klan racist scum” (which is a mistake an amazing number of white people make). For the first ten or twenty seconds any response you make will probably come from your defensiveness, not from your brain, so probably you shouldn’t say whatever first comes to your mind.
2) Take the criticism seriously – do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism comes from a person of color – people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites overlook. (On the other hand, don’t put the people of color in the room in the position of being your advocate or judge.)
3) Don’t make it about you. Usually the thing to do is apologize for what you said and move on. Especially if you’re in a meeting or something, resist your desire to turn the meeting into a seminar on How Against Racism You Are. The subject of the conversation is probably not “your many close Black friends, and your sincere longstanding and deep abhorrence of racism.”
Think of it as if someone points out that you need to wipe your nose because you’ve got a big glob of snot hanging out. The thing to do is say “oh, excuse me,” wipe your nose, and move on. Insisting that everyone pat you on the back and reassure you that they realize you don’t always have snot hanging from your nose, before the conversation can be allowed to move forward, is not productive.
4) Let Occasional Unfair Accusations Roll Off Your Back. Sometimes, even after you’ve given it serious thought, you’ll come to the conclusion that a criticism was unfair. Great! Now please let it go. Don’t insist that everyone agree with you. Don’t enlist the people of color in the room to certify you as Officially Non-Racist. Don’t bring it up again and again, weeks or months after everyone else has forgotten about the original discussion. In other words, see point #3.
Shorter Ampersand: Don’t make it a whacking huge deal if you say something racist, or something others perceive as racist. Apologize, move on, and consider the criticism seriously so that you can improve your thinking, if need be.
Gad, I love that last phrase! Hope you don’t hae it copyrighted, because I’m gonna be pirating it forever.
People of color is a collective description of folks who are on the receiving end of oppression based on skin color and includes Asians, Latinos, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, African Americans and Native Americans.
“Person of color” means “non-white.” The term essentially refers to everyone except for (non-Hispanic) white people.
And even if [there was a scientific basis for racial classification], it would not justify treating any human being like crap because of that classification.
No disagreement there. I was trying to point out that race is real because one of the posters had said that it was just a social construct. My saying that race is real was not an attempt to defend myself against charges of being racist nor have I (on this post at least) claimed not to be racist or become defensive at the thought that someone might call me racist.
No. With only several generations the only differences (if any) that might show up would be the result of founder effects, not enough time for any real selection or drift.
I didn’t say that there would be huge differences; unless there were tremendously different selection pressures the two populations would probably be nearly identical for many, many generations. But the two groups would probably view themselves as separate clans, tribes, or what-have-you. By my definition, you would have two new races; although it would likely be many, many generations before the two races diverged genetically a noticeable amount, in the absence of extreme selective pressure.
That’s why blacks were counted a 3/5 of a man and women weren’t counted at the beginning of our great experiment.
Actually, (and saying this never gets old) the “three-fifths of a man” thing is canard. First, it was not blacks per se but only black slaves who were counted as 3/5 of a man. (Freemen were counted fully). Secondly, this was only in effect for the determination of the representation that a state would get in the House of Reps. The Southern states had wanted to count slaves as part of their population during the census to increase their representation (although slaves were not to be allowed to vote), and the North did not. The compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining representaiton for a state in Congress. If slaves had been counted fully, all it would have accomplished would have been to have given Southern whites more power in Congress.
I also want to agree with P6 that we have added a level of social construction to race on top of the biological reality. Things like the “one-drop rule” are social constructs, I won’t disagree with that.
I think that as for the particular issues of race relations in the U.S., there are two main causes for particular manifestations of racism in the U.S., that is, why there has been so much anti-black sentiment, customs, and laws.
(1) Unlike, e.g., South America. the U.S. slave population was mostly native born. This is because Africa is fairly distant from the U.S., and transporting slaves across the North Atlantic to North America was far costlier than across the South Atlantic to South America. Therefore, it was often cheaper in the U.S. to breed the slaves here, as opposed to simply working them to death and then transporting more in.
As a result, the U.S. slave population became more homogenized and most slaves were brought up knowing a common language (generally English). This made organization and slave rebellions much more likely than in countries were each slave knew his won language and where slaves from different tribes might be less likely to trust each other. Moreover, U.S. slaves who were born here would have a much better knowledge of the lay of the land, and would therefore have an easier time fighting.
So a lot of the restirctions on blacks began in order to keep black slaves from seeing freemen and to prevent them from dreaming that freedom was actually achievable.
(2) And this will surely be controversial. On average, black men tend to have mor “masculine characterstics” than white men (more muscle-mass, darker skin and hair, broader nose). This is probably the reason why a lot of people assume that black men have bigger you-know-whats.
In any case, a lot of white men were insecure and afraid that they would not be able to compete with black men for mates. Or, in more colloquial terms, they were afraid htat black men would “steal” “their” women.
A great deal of Jim Crow was designed not to provide whites with economic benefits, but to make certain that blacks could not achieve a social status that would make them eligible husbands for white women. (A lot of southerners admitted that they thought that Jim Crow hurt their economy, but wanted to keep it anyway).
So no, I am nor denying that there is a historical context for race relations.
Amp, I like those suggestions very much – I think they are a good starting point. Maybe you could work up a parallel set for white people who want to point out racist comments to other white people? And also, as a general question, can someone who is white point to racist comments made by a person of color without being perceived as condescending?
Examples I had in mind when writing this post:
1. I was filling the gas tank of my car at a two-pump service station. A black woman was filling the gas tank of her car at the other pump. A Chinese woman and her grandmother drove up behind me. The Chinese woman got out of her car and asked me if I could hurry, because she needed to get her grandmother to a doctor’s appointment on time. Meanwhile, the black woman finished at the pump she was using and drove away. I apologized, bowed to the grandmother, and finished up as quickly as I could. They used the pump I was using as soon as I drove away, not the pump the black woman had been using that had been standing unused as I finished up my business. As a white person, I didn’t think then and still don’t think now that I could have made any better response. But if there is one, I would like to know for the future.
2. A black parent at my children’s school was expressing frustration about the low return of a fundraiser, and blamed it on the Asian parents, “because, you know all those people are so cheap they won’t put in a penny more than they have to.” I protested that it wasn’t a fair statement, but she was offended by my statement. A better way to handle it?
Glaivester:
Lift weights and work in the sun (won’t help with the nose, though…)
Lee:
You recognize you can’t heal the world. I can only suggest you heal those you can and don’t hurt the rest.
I just blogged this wonderful post. Thanks.
Here is an example of how white-supremacist thinking pervades the posts of even the best-intentioned commenters here. Charles of Mercury Rising writes:
Americans, though, have an extra barrier in overcoming racism. Slavery, the conquest of northern Mexico, and the genocide against the American Indian creates a sense of guilt and fear among many white Americans, especially those who are most openly racist. To overcome racism in the US will require ending its ill effects, so that we can look at one another without wincing over the past, until all the bitterness and death becomes something our children or our children’s children can no longer imagine.
It sure looks to me like Charles is saying that the consequences of “slavery, the conquest of northern Mexico, and the genocide against the American Indian” are that white Americans experience fear and guilt — that it is the experiences of fear and guilt by white Americans that are the important consequence of racism in the U.S., not the various experiences of African slaves and their descenants, Spanish settlers and their descendants, or native Americans.
I don’t think that this is necessarily what Charles meant to say, but it is what he actually wrote. The programming of Americans with the doctrine of white supremacy is deep and subtle. Which, it seems to me, is one of the assumptions that goes into Ampersand’s po0st
it strikes me there is a huge difference between pointing out that a comment/action/assumption is racist, which is fully legitimate and productive, and being outright called (usually by a total stranger or an acquaintance) “a racist.” Like, how often does that have more basis in fact than in emotion? how often is the phrase “you’re a racist” anything but an attempt to manipulate a situation and disempower the person against whom the accusation is made (considering especially in schools and workplaces, these accusations can cost your job)? those are the kinds of things that raise the anti-racist hackles: it may not be productive to fire back with the same amount of emotion, but maybe being called out as “racist” gets white people so riled up is because it is often based in other people’s assumptions, emotions and prejudices, and it is often an attempt to put them in their place. It wounds in the same way racist epithets do, not because of the historical significance of the word, but because the intention behind it is the same.
Not very. Usually it’s based in an experience, and expressed with the emotion the experience inspires. Not an optimal response, but white folks don’t handle it much better…
It’s usually something other than that.
The culture has turned against enforcing civil rights laws to the benefit of minorities, so you can relax about the threat to your job.
And it is the historic significance of the word that makes it sting.
Why is it that those on the anti-racist side so often turn to ad-homs, instead of reasonably arguing the point?
I don’t buy the idea that humans are inherantly racist at all. It’s learned behaviour, and it can be unlearned.
Have you ever watched kids in a playground? At a very young age they don’t even seem to be aware that different races exist. They learn to be racist from their families, or their communities, or their teachers, and so on. Some never pick up this particular learned behaviour, other pick it up to greater or lesser degrees. Pretending that it’s inevitable is an excuse to avoid doing anything about it, IMO.
I do think that we need to remember that racism isn’t limited to white people, though. I have Filipino in-laws who are virulently racist against the Japanese. The fact that they’re not white doesn’t make their racism OK (if you want an example of just how not OK it can get, take a look at some of the stuff Michelle Malkin writes about the internment). Luckily, the older generation do not seemed to have passed their prejudice down to the younger one, which once again proves that there’s nothing inherant about it.
That’s the point. Different races don’t exist. They’re social constructs which have no real existence ‘out there’. They only exist in our minds.
Also, this was interesting (about the idea of in-groups)
“Now, people are not necessarily naturally racist in the sense that they are hardwired to define “their own kind” in terms that are based on race; generally it is based on whom they associate with; however, for most of human history people were a lot more segregated by race than they are now, so “their own kind” was determined racially. Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family) and race is probably the easiest category for people to develop the sense of “ones’ own kind” with.
Just look at how many “primitive” tribes’ (i.e. not integrated into modern civilization) names for themselves are “the people”? or “the true people” or something like that.”
Here’s the thing. More and more as time goes on and mass communications, cheap and frequent travel etc become factors, what people see as signifying “one’s own kind” may be changing.
Take me as an example. When I think of “my kind” race has nothing to do with it. I’m much more likely to identify people of a different race who belong to the same subcultures as me (goth, BSDM, artsy/creative) as “my kind” than people of my own race who look superficially like me but do not share my subcultural identifications. So, for example, a white Evangelical soccer mom with 3 kids who is as conventional as can be and has never left the town in Arkansas she grew up in? Not “my kind”. Someone involved in the Japanese visual kei scene with a creative job? “My kind”. Bill O’Reilly? Not “my kind”, even though we’re not only both white but both Celts who were brought up as Christians. The woman I met last week on the train who is trying to carve out a career for herself as a dancer who I spent half an hour talking leftist poltitics with, who happens to be from Brazil? “My kind”. Race is only one of the factors that make up identity.
Of course I had a wierd upbringing (ex-pat/Third Culture kid) and that may have something to do with it, but I think that outside the poisonous racial politics that still prevail in much of the US, the idea of race as one’s primary marker of identity is on the wane, at least for a certain (admittedly elite) section of society. Honestly, I think that most Americans don’t realise how much more blatantly racist than most other societies their country is. I’ve never been anyplace as race-concious as the American South.
Which is another relevant point. The idea of race in most societies is intimately bound up with the idea of class. The higher up the social ladder you look, the less race matters. This is true in every country I’ve ever lived in, and I’ve lived on 4 different continents.
I’m probably getting a bit off topic so I’ll quit now, but I do think it’s worth noting that the obsession with the idea of race as the one and only way to classify people, and the refusal to recognise how class is tied into that, is somewhat of a uniquely American issue.
Also, I’d argue with the idea that people always historically defined “their own kind” by race. If a population was geographically isolated and had no contact with other racial groups, how would that even be possible? the idea of race is oppositional in nature – how would people define themselves that way if they had no outside group to compare themselves to?
This part in particular freaked me out.
” Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family)” If you’re suggesting what you seem to be suggesting, I can only point out that in every society in which people of differing races have co-existed, they have had sex with and had children with each other. If your idea that a “prference for one’s own kind” is related to the imperative to “spread one’s genes” was true, that wouldn’t happen, and yet it does, every time. Proving, once again, that there’s nothing inherant about racism.
Daran – true, as proven by the fact that children have to be taught to perceive racial differences. Left to their own devices, the distinctions they make look more like “pretty/ugly” or “good at soccer/bad at soccer”, or “nice/wouldn’t share his or her candy with me, so I think he/she is mean!”.
An ad hom is an argument in the form “the speaker has characteristic X, and therefore the speaker’s argument is wrong.” [*] What you quoted is not in this form, and so is not an ad hom argument.
Regarding your question, my general observation is that in any debate there are many people people being rude on both sides. I have not noticed that either side of any major political debate has a monopoly on any virtue or vice. (I don’t assume that you disagree.)
[*] The exception to this rule is if the speaker’s argument makes a specific claim about characteristics the speaker possesses; in that case, arguments based on the speaker’s characteristics aren’t necessarily ad hom.
Argumentum ad Hominem
Translation: “Argument against the man” (Latin)
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate …
Subfallacies:
Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent’s position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: “Of course, that’s what you’d expect him to say.” The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument’s acceptance.
(From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html)
I don’t think it’s necessary to write the argument specifically in the form you specified. The clear implication of the words quoted top is that the other’s argument was predicated upon their personal advantage, and therefore to be dismissed.
I don’t disagree, however I was not complaining about mere rudeness, but the specific argument which (in its various forms) goes: “Men/whites/white men argue against [whatever] because they stand to lose their privilages.”. My question was rhetorical. I know why they do it. I find it tiresome, disruptive of debate, and I just wish they’d stop.
I recently encountered a Studs Terkel interview with a former Klansman that seemed relevant to the discussion (as well as the MRA/Feminist/male privilege/female privilege debate in other threads).
While reading this, I found myself tearing up more than once. I think there’s a lot to learn from it about how to talk to the people one disagrees with and how to find common ground in oppression rather than to turn inward and use the oppression of your group to deny the oppression of another.
http://www.cjonline.org/terkelEllisIntervu.htm
—Myca
Daran:
Regarding ad hom, I pretty much agree with the definition you quoted. You wrote:
I don’t think it has to be written in that form. Let me restate myself: All ad hom arguments can be restated in the form, “the speaker has trait X, therefore the speaker’s argument is wrong,” without changing the substance of the argument.
In this case, I don’t think the specific argument we’re talking about, viewed with a reasonable benefit of the doubt, does boil down to that form. Here it is again, with a fuller context:
Debator A claimed that allegations of racism are used to disempower people by threatening “your job.” Debator B rebutted by saying that the situation has changed, so there is no longer a “threat to your job.”
In context, P6 wasn’t talking saying that earache’s particular traits proved earache wrong; he gave an argument for why earache was wrong (lax enforcement), and he reused earache’s language to argue that the specific harm earache cites is not a concern. That’s sort of echoing is just ordinary debate rhetoric, not ad hom.
Interesting thread, Amp, I liked what you wrote in your initial posting.
A lot of interesting and informative comments.
Just one word on the Kenyans success in the steeplechase. A lot of their success in long-distance running is due to their culture, geography, diet and the training systems in place in Kenya. From the time they first walk, most Kenyans run anywhere from 5-15 miles back and forth from school daily. They do not ride in cars, and do not lead sedetary life styles. Running is a mode of transportation and a cultural value, as more and more it has become a means to provide a good lifestyle to the athletes and their families.
Most of the Kenyans who are distance runners live in the mountains, so they have been exposed to living and running at high altitudes their entire lives. This gives them a stronger heart, with thicker ventricle muscles, higher lung capacity, V02(Oxygen volume capacity) and more red blood cells to carry oxygen. Most of the first Kenyan athletes came from the Rift Valley, though that has changed. Even those living in the valleys often have trained in the mountains.
both the altitude and the lifestyle create an endurance base for Kenyan runners, that’s almost impossible to compete with.
The majority of the Kenyan diet consists of corn mush, which is its staple, along with vegtables, some grains and very little meat.
The training of Kenyan runners has become more of a systemic operation. Some Catholic priests and monks have opened Catholic schools where running is a staple, first to men, but increasingly to women and girls as running becomes a more socially acceptable option for Kenyan women. Kenyans train extraordinarily hard, but they’ve spent their lives in a sense building up their bodies and internal systems to handle the rigorous training. Also, their emphasis is more on teamwork, than individual success.
I’ve read a lot of material on the Kenyan runners and I met with, trained with and been friends with many of them. One of my first friends, was Julius Kariuki, the first Kenyan to win a gold medal in the steeplechase in Seoul(1988).
Kenya is not the only African country with successful runners. In fact, Ethiopia has eclipsed them in many disciplines. Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, etc.
Interesting posts….
In the United States, I’m not so sure this is true. In some respects, I think race matters more the closer you get to the top of the social ladder. Or if not more, just in different ways.
White people experience classism, if they are poor or working-class. So do African-Americans and other racial groups who are also disproportionately represented in these groups. Yet, when White people move up the ladder, the classism they experience diminishes, and racism never was a reality for them. However, for African-Americans, racism follows them whereever they go, even if they are wealthy.
If a White person drives a car through an upper-class neighborhood, how likely are they to be stopped by a police officer or a private security guard, because they do not look like they belong or live in that neighborhood? What about a Black person who lives in that neighborhood?
How will a White person in that neighborhood be treatd by others in her neighborhood? Will her neighbors be nice to her, or look at her and her family members with suspicion and fear?
(and in many cities, the wealthier an African-American is, the more likely they might be to live in a predominanlty White neighborhood.)
Also, there have been studies done that have determined that Middle-Class or wealthier African-Americans have more difficulty getting mortages for their homes than African-Americans in lower economic classes with worse credit ratings. One possible explanation provided was that the more money African-Americans had to spend on housing, the more likely they were to integrate into predominantly White neighborhoods.
Also, African-Americans often are steered by realitors into shopping for prospective homes in “Black” neighborhoods.
My employers are fairly well-off economically as are some of my friends. But they still experience racism. Still are viewed suspiciously when they go into shops to spend their money. Still may have their cars searched when stopped by police. Still receive poor service compared to White customers at restaurants. And their kids still have to deal with racism as well.
A parent of a White teenaged son in the upper economic classes may wait up all night until he comes home from an evening out safe and in one piece. So does a parent of a Black teenaged son, with the added fear that something might have happened to him at the hands of a police officer.
I concede.
“If a White person drives a car through an upper-class neighborhood, how likely are they to be stopped by a police officer or a private security guard, because they do not look like they belong or live in that neighborhood? What about a Black person who lives in that neighborhood? “
It doesn’t happen often, but I was once stopped after leaving a catering gig. The party was in an area called Indian Lakes and is home to the wealthy of the area. I was driving a beat up rust bucket, wearing a restraunts uniform. I know he pulled me over to find out what I was doing in that area. Just another nuisance in a nuisance filled life.
Of course, I’m one of the few people I know that has ever had a felony stop executed on them by accident. (And no I didn’t get an apology for having to eat gravel in the rain in January).
Racism exists and it should be fought. Racial profiling exists and it should be fought in whatever form it appears.
I think his advice is a good starting point, to help White people think before they start throwing up all the roadblocks to any “real” dialogue on race. Most of those dialogues don’t get started because of the defensiveness of White people in the ways Amp describes. And we’ve seen some of that defensiveness on this thread already. And most if not all of us have done it ourselves, no matter how equilitarian we say we are, and how much we say that we don’t see race and gender in ourselves and other people(usually, a sign that this person is in the most priviliaged racial and/or gender groups b/c only those folks have the choice of ignoring issues like race and/or gender.).
The times I’ve been told something I did, or did not do, said or did not say, was racist by a person of color, 9.99 times out of ten I deserved it. The one time I didn’t, was mistaken identification for someone else. I’m still learning.
I’ve also been called a racist by many Whites, which is a whole separate issue, including on my blog. Those times, the people doing this are unable to articulate their reasons for doing so. I’m just a racist….just because. They most likely would call a person of color a racist, as well. Any mention of racism….you’re a racist, period.
I think some of them are actually confusing the term “racist” with “race traitor”(which I’ve also been called). Others have this warped belief system that White people are the real victims of racism. I’ve seen that on my blog too, from the White cops in our department who crashed it. They believe that the Black officers who make up 7% of the department are the priviliaged ones at their expense. They then go out and treat the public accordingly.
Most people, it’s defensiveness b/c they inherantly know especially when it’s pointed out to them that they benefit in some form, whether it is their choice or not, from racism.
I bring this up, because in my experience, that’s one reason why dialogues on race stall, is because of White people’s many defense mechanisms that society teaches them to use, and teaches them that it’s better if they use them., than if they don’t.
I think the comments on the effectiveness of diversity training were interesting. Though in LE, the programs they have, are more like throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire.
Very true. Very evident in California, for example and other places.
My bad, Mendy, I did not account for classist profiling, done by police in more affluent neighborhoods based on assumptions about vehicles and clothes, hair length(i.e. long hair for men) and other characteristics. I had several experiences where I was mistaken for a criminal for living in the “wrong” neighborhood, but they were fairly isolated.
Terrifying, but in the sense that I couldn’t imagine what it must be like to face them on a more regular basis. My first experience with seeing that perspective, was with a boyfriend I had, who had Salvadorian and Peruvian ancestory. Cops in my city loved to pull over interracial couples, b/c they assume the woman must be a prostitute. My boyfriend lived in a predominantly white, middle-class neighborhood and he would work long days, come home and exercise. When the cops passing through saw him exercising, they’d stop him. Or when he was driving near his house. Never given tickets, and on one occasion taken in a squad car in handcuffs to be IDed by a woman who’s purse was stolen. The woman was adament that it was not him. He eventually sold his house and moved to O.C. Why live in a neighborhood where the police harass you as an “outsider”?
And no, they don’t apologize for their mistakes, or they do rarely. I think I’ve heard of one incident where an officer apologized in passing while he was fleeing the scene after he realized that the two Latino men he had a shotgun pointed at, while they were on the ground were there to deliver newspapers.
White people can be racially profiled if they are in lower-income predominatly Black neighborhoods, by officers using the premise that White people are good, Black people are criminals, and if you see a White person in a Black neighborhood, they must be up to no good.
My mom tutored young women in South Central L.A. and was pulled over a few times by LAPD asking her what she was doing in that neighborhood. I think they thought if a White woman was there, they must be there to buy drugs b/c why else would any White person want to be there? They rarely if ever think outside that box.
The vast majority of racial profiling by police involves Black and Latinos and even if it is done against White motorists, it is more to label a minority neighborhood as “bad”. It’s done in neighborhoods where African-Americans are the predominant residents, and police say, well they are the predominant residents therefore they must be the ones pulled over most often. However, they are profiled by police in predominantly White neighborhoods and make up the bulk of traffic stops done in those neighborhoods at least in my city.
Black motorists have the highest release rates, the lowest arrest rates, the highest search rates, yet the lowest rate for seizure of contraband in any neighborhood in my city. White motorists are predominantly pulled over by traffic officers, whose primary responsibility is to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and enforce traffic laws, issuing citations or warnings to violaters. Black motorists and Latino motorists are predominantly stopped by patrol officers whose primary responsibility is to do pretext traffic stops. These stats are not unique. I think you will find these trends in most major cities, and probably many smaller ones.
All these factors can point to racial profiling, though our department adamently denies it through a hand-picked ex-cop turned sociologist who analyzes their raw data on an annual basis. Our city held its first forum for discussion on the racial profiling study. What happened has ensured that the city and the department will not sponsor a second one. It wasn’t quite the PR junket that the city and the department had hoped it would be.
Pingback: derivative work » Blog Archive » bias [draft]
earache made an important point is suggesting that there is a vast difference between saying that a comment a person made was racist and calling that person a racist. All of us know enough about communicating with each other to know that there’s a big difference between telling a child that sticking a fork into an electric socket is a dumb thing to do and telling the kid he’s an idiot. A critique should focus on the action, not the character of the person. People make mistakes, but they aren’t their mistakes.
Sure, I believe that a Whites, including myself, are conditioned to be racist, but not everyone accepts that definition of racism and it would be overly doctrinaire to insist on folks recognizing their racism and dealing with it. I merely can insist that their actions and words don’t express their racism – at least, not in front of me.
I am fairly comfortable pointing out a racist comment or action…though there have been times I let it slide because of circumstance — and then stewed about it for hours with guilt that I didn’t speak up. However, I don’t try to make it about a person’s character…because accepting that I am as infected with racism as they are makes it fairly easy to recognize that people of good will and good hearts can make a racist comment wihtout staining their character for life. I have also pointed out the bigoted comments made by people of color, for example, the use of Jew as a verb. If you are kind and make clear that your interest is not in trying to project that you are morally superior to the person whose comment you are objecting to, I find that folks are fairly appreciative of discovering that they could offend people without meaning to. After all, most people, and of course this is also a personal belief, are basically good and don’t want to hurt others.
My rule of thumb is to simply say, “I think that using Jew as a verb is pretty offensive to a lot of people, especially Jews. It’s based on the old prejudice that Jews are greedy. Wouldn’t it be better to just say bargain and not hurt anyone’s feelings?” I used just about those same words to an African American woman who acknowledged that she had never thought about that and thanked me for telling her — particularly since her new boss was Jewish. Imagine if she had used it in front of him!
I know I am appreciative of the heads-up I received from a Latina whose English who was speaking to me in heavily accented, though correct, English. Since I am fluent in Spanish, I just switched to her language. This offended her because I was assuming the privilege of deciding what language we were going to talk in. I merely thought I was being helpful, but knew that if it bothered her, I should just apologize and move back to English, so I did. Still, I thought about it quite a bit, wondering if her response was typical or particular to her. Finally, I asked a couple of Latino friends (good enough friends that I can ask them this sort of question) whether folks ever spoke in Spanish to them as soon as they knew they were Latino and got an earful.
It turns out that even people who may have only gotten to 101 invariably begin rattling of in Spanish despite the fact that these folks not only speak flawless English but are published authors in English. One told me that she immediately begins speaking in rapid-fire Spanish using the most obscure words she can think of and the intrepid Spanish-speakers just smile, nod and say si, si, si. Thanks to that woman telling me that I was offending her, I have avoided making that mistake again. Now when a Spanish-speaker is struggling with English, I volunteer that I speak Spanish and ask if they would rather speak in that language. And no, they don’t always say yes, or no. So simple…and it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
Basically, if you acknowledge that you make mistakes yourself and occassionally do or say something racist, it’s much easier to point out the errors of someone else because you know you do the same thing from time to time. It also doesn’t hurt to admit to them that you screw up yourself so you let that person know that you don’t think they are a bad person because of what they say…particularly since you assume they didn’t intend to offend. And you know, that last bit is important, you really should assume that the person who made the racist remark didn’t intend offense. That may not be true, but it will be true more often than not.
(When someone accuses you of racism), “Stay civil. Don’t burn bridges”.
Nice thought, but that train leaves the station with the accusation.
mj: Nice thought, but that train leaves the station with the accusation.
What, if someone tells you “you just said something dumb” you resolve never to speak again, or never again to speak to the person who warned you that you just said something dumb? One of the most-easily fixed mistakes in the world is generally the “I just said something dumb” mistake: you apologize, you take note of your error, and take care not to repeat that error again.
It’s your choice on how to address criticism regarding racism, but society does give you that choice.
And at least you won’t be wasting someone else’s time and energy, trying to explain anything to you.
Kija:
This seems like a good approach. You didn’t say “You’re being antisemitic” – you didn’t even say “That’s an antisemitic statement.” If someone says to me, “The word ‘niggardly’ is offensive to a lot of people, etc.”, we’re likely to have a sensible conversation. If I’m accused of racism, to get back to the title of this post, no useful conversation is likely to result. (Winston Smith made a similar point well above.) The difference is what Jes for example is missing above.
Thanks, Rilkefan….though I don’t know if you would really agree with me. I believe that the comment is anti-semitic and the person making the comment is anti-semitic just as I believe that whites are conditioned to be racist and that you and I are racist. I just think that starting out with “you are a racist” plugs the ears, whereas “many people, including me, could perceive what you just said as racist and be offended by it” gets the point across without setting people’s backs quite so far up.
I’m not thinking that the speaker is any less anti-semitic or racist, I just acknowledge that not everyone shares my understanding of racism and tend to define racism down to the white-sheet variety. If that’s your definition of racism, then you will go insane when accused of it.
Kija: I think that treating one another with respect and with the presumption of good faith is at least as important as the theory under which we arrive at that behaviour.
In the example you cite above, I think it’s perfectly possible that an African-American using “jew” in that sense might have no awareness of its antisemitic origin. There are of course words in English that have evolved to have the same spelling, for example – and most people have little awareness of language in any case. In my example above, “niggardly” is unrelated to the n-word, but people might use it in a racist way under the misapprehension that it is – people have objected to it under that misapprehension. In my view it’s wrong to attack people based on assumptions about what they think, which is why I like your approach. You’re free to make whatever inference you like about the speaker above, but you’ve addressed the language, the correct starting point.
“as I believe that whites are conditioned to be racist and that you and I are racist.”
I take it that you are white, and that you believe I am? Does my race matter here? What about my nationality? What if I’m white but French or from Africa?
“tend to define racism down”
Of course some might see this post as defining racism up, or “only whites can be racist” as defining it down. We have to share our languages even when our versions don’t overlap, which gets back to the point about assumptions.
Pingback: Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » Don’t Use the “R” Word - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer
Quite by accident ( I was looking for a conversational Spanish class- go figure) I saw your bolg. I thought I would check it out. I was so pleased to see racism being addressed on such a positive level. From what I read you are right on when you say communication is the key. The more we can demystify the issue the more we can understand each other. An of course we as African-Americans must be willing to open up and ask when we think we’ve heard a racist statement. I do and I have found opportunites to educate & be educated. On more than one ocassion it has been an avenue to discuss other issues and realize things we all thought were “ethnic”(mine or theirs) were shared by each other there by removing unknown sterotypes.
I have been reading this thread for a while and I fail to see what the problem is. I do enjoy the writing of most in here who apear to be very intelligent people. This subject does not seem to be rocket science to me. This thread paints Black to be ultra sensitive peole who will call you racist at the drop of a hat. Have most of you actually had experiences like that? It would seem logical to me that if you say something offensive to someone that you apologise??? If you dont say anything racially insensitive you dont need to apologise??? Its pretty clear cut to me. I am Black (oh my god!!), and reading this thread I am slightly offended by ths thread in general. Why? Because of the lovely picture that is being painted of Blacks and other minorities as super sensitive creatures (not human perhaps) that you have to handle with care.
What I would like to read is some examples of what has been said that cause a defensive response from someone of a minority group. High school kids dont count because many of them will tell an adult anything so that they can get thier way. All I see here is how to handle a group of people who are irrational and hyper sensitive. Damn, I thought the sixties were dead and gone.
What I run into lately more than anything is people of the fair skinned persuasion crying about reverse discrimination:
1)”Why cant we call the niggers when they call each other that?”
Anyone who uses that word is ignorant regardless of color. There is a new phenomena in America where kids of ALL colors are calling each other “my nigga” as if its cool. I ‘m sorry that has caught on as a cool thing to say.
2) “When I say something insensitive one of them calls me racist.”
Hahahahahaha.
Need I answer that. I think that alot of whites have been so isolated that they are just now encoutering people of other races in close proximity. When that happens (white or Black) , tripping over your tongue will be a common ocurrence. Because you dont want to tell them the same thing that your parents told you in private, then released you into this melting pot that we call the USA.
I’m testing the ability of someone to add a post. I just joined a group on race dialogues in Boston. The session has ended and the participants want to continue talking. I looked online for an existing blog and found this one. If this post goes through, I’m going to invite the other participants to write.
Americans are no longer considered rugged individuals, fearless pioneers, or even “free.” Thanks to the “ugly American” caricature, and the marauding tendencies of self-interested “leaders,” we are now famous worldwide as a society of whiny, angry, finger pointing victims. Lawsuits are preferable to accountability, and semantics equate tangible results. The fact is, as a nation, we’re embarrassingly over weight, under educated, and miserable in our excesses. When faced with the consequences of ignorance Americans are notoriously defensive.
Doesn’t it feel just a little dicey to be complaining about losing inalienable rights to an oppressive government while living in the shadow of the Pueblo and alongside people whose families were here long before we had a constitution to protect? How do “we the (rest of the) people” begin to reclaim our individual sovereignty and create solidarity? Just like that. Humbly acknowledge the difficult truths. Then, with heartfelt gratitude and a deep sigh at the irony of it all, we can pass the Thanksgiving turkey.
My ancestors were at war with each other. That doesn’t mean I have to be at war with myself. If we don’t choose to be at peace, free and bravely at home in our own skins, “visualizing” world peace is a ridiculous waste of time. Just as ridiculous as the idea that a government can provide anything that it doesn’t inherently possess, for instance, integrity, morality or personal security. Only “we the people” have the option to exercise those qualities on a momentary basis, one person at a time.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments
A couple more guidelines…
1) just cause you didn’t *mean* to be racist, doesn’t mean you weren’t
2) if you screw up, apologize for REAL. “i’m sorry you feel that way” is not an apology. “I’m sorry I hurt your feelings” will get you much farther. oh, and mean it.
Pingback: Non-Prophet: Nutty Racism
Pingback: American Family » A Gift
Pingback: fatshionista: Clothes and politics
Pingback: kits_meow: *sigh*
Pingback: witchwillow: I am NOT your magical negro
Pingback: vito_excalibur: my mother called me racist once. ONCE
Pingback: SIVACRACY.NET: How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism
Pingback: Feminist SF - The Blog! » Guidelines for Participation
Can’t figure out how to do a real trackback…
[…]On a community I’m watching, a white man commented that he saw little racism or sexism happening within the community. I wrote him the following response on how to become more aware of racism and sexism and how to deal with it appropriately. I include it here in case it’s useful to anyone.[…]
(please approve this one if you would, rather than my first attempt; I remembered to include the link this time. :-P)
Pingback: As I Please: What to Do When (Not If) Someone Calls You on Your Racism
Pingback: Jane Awake: On Holiday Togetherness
Pingback: Things You Need to Understand #5 - Color Blindness « The Angry Black Woman
Pingback: White Liberal Guilt « The Angry Black Woman
Pingback: Chrononautic Log 改 » Blog Archive » Gimme that ole-time religion
This list, while offering some practical tips (namely #1 and 2), ventures into the ridiculous with advice points numbers 3 and 4. Starting with number 3: Pardon me, but if someone accurately or inaccurately levels this sort of accusation my way (especially if it’s at a meeting with others present), it has EVERYTHING to do with me, as it is inherintly a comment on my upbringing, experience, and character, and everyone in the room with half a wit knows this. Asking the recipient of such criticism to first reflect aggressively but then move on passively is absurd, and will only add to the discomfort in the room. Furthermore, the recipient would do well to add “I’m sorry if you think so. Once this meeting is adjourned we can discuss it further.” to that apology. If this person really is in need of enlightenment, the accuser should be ready to back their claim up; such is anyone’s responsibility when making this sort of accusation, most notably when they do so in a group setting.
Moving on to number 4: No one, not anyone, should EVER let the bomb of being falsely accused of such a serious impediment “roll off their back”, unless the accuser’s comment is easily recognizable by many as moronic (as the case may be), or the comment was not made in public. In either scenario, the recipient has every right (after quick reflection) to come right back at the accuser and say, “I think your comment is absolute bunk. Moving on.” Vocal vigilance against racism necessarily includes addressing those who would carelessly fling about accusations (and these people are out there) with all the shame and ridicule they deserve. And if the accuser honestly doesn’t know what they’re talking about, they need to be made aware of it pronto, however diplomatically possible.
Finally, change the title of your entry to “…A Guide For People”. Plenty of boxed-in folks of various ethnicities would do well to read tips #1 and 2; it’s a shame you think non-white racists have nothing to benefit from your guide.
Pingback: How Not to be Insane When Accused of Transphobia (A Guide For Cis People) « Questioning Transphobia
Pingback: Some articles to keep track of… « Merope’s Weblog
i disagree with just letting it roll off your back. when you know you did or said nothing wrong . in this day and age when people lose their jobs and get sued for racially offending someone who is not white, just letting false accusations roll off your back is pandering to someone who is race-baiting. I do think discrimination based on race is wrong, but i also think that too many people use the race card incorrectly.
There is a general opinion these days that only those who enjoy social power and privilege (i.e., whites) can be racist. The disenfranchised cannot, by definition, be racist because they lack the power to institutionalize any prejudices they may have. There is a corollary to this argument that goes like this: all whites are by definition racist. The privilege of white skin, the argument goes, makes this inevitable.
Most of that paragraph was simply copy/pasted from http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2002/12/only_whites_can.html with a little added to the start for structure purposes.
I bring this up because there was a comment earlier that basically said white people can’t complain about non-whites being racist towards whites, because in the past whites did some horrible things to non-whites. Well, I can’t speak for my grandfather’s grandfather, but I can say with certainty that I have never committed or supported slavery, genocide, or the spanish inquisition. So why should I be punished (i.e., held responsible) for things done long before I was born?
I have personally had a disagreement with a black woman about ten years my senior (I’m a young white man) that essentially went something like this:
Her: *lots of stuff about her interpersonal problems* (Summed up in the end with the exact phrase:) All white people are racist. (Seriously. She really did say that.)
Me: Ummm…. Don’t you think that’s a bit racist to say, in itself?
Her: No, only white people are racist because only they are in a position of authority and control. They have the power to put the racism into action.
Me: But racism doesn’t require action to be racism. A white man in Alabama on his porch griping about blacks has no more power over you than a black man in an LA ghetto bitching about “whitey” has over me.
Now, here’s a link about a sensitivity training video that was found to be offensive because it was racist against white people. (The only offensive person in it was a white guy. You would think that some of the black/asian people, or maybe a woman could switch out for the “do not be like this” role at least once in a while.)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JJNFqafBxwk&feature=related
The second link is to a clip from the show Rescue Me in which Dennis Leary’s character and the fire crew he works with have to undergo sensitivity training much like in the link above. At the very end, it more or less sums up my view on the matter.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JdzP36lgdMA
For those who don’t want to watch the video, my opinion is this: People are way too touchy and get offended too easily, not always with good reason. If someone gets offended by something you say, stop to consider it, and if they’re being unreasonable, tell them so. If you’re offended by something someone says, all I can say is that it’s best not to attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to ignorance/insensitivity/stupidity.
Not so much true, as if that guy gets off his porch and attacks or kills a black person, he would have the support and protection of law enforcement for most of US history, and even now would be far less likely to face prosecution or punishment for the act than la guy bitch about “whitey” would, should he choose to do something about whitey.
Not so much true, as if that guy gets off his porch and attacks or kills a black person, he would have the support and protection of law enforcement
do you really believe that?? when is the last time you heard of a black man charged with a hate crime?? ever?? i think the truth may be that if the black man in LA killed a white person , he would have the support of the black community, guilty or not . examples ; mike vick, oj simpson, the jena six.
the difference is that if a white person has a complaint about a black person or what a black person does , he is considered a racist for voicing that complaint. if a black person has a complaint about a white person or something a white person does , that behavior is considered normal, almost expected. this applies to all aspects of life . the double standard is that black people can say what they please about white people , but white people must carefully select what they say to prevent being considered a racist.
intolerance for things like gangs , thuggery , sexual irresponsibility and ebonics is often called racism. im sorry , but if someone is acting innapproiate , and i dont like that behavior , it does not constitute racism. no matter what color they may be.
when is the last time you heard of a black man charged with a hate crime?? ever??
Well, in 2006, 20.6% of hate crime convictions were against black offenders.
intolerance for things like gangs , thuggery , sexual irresponsibility and ebonics is often called racism. im sorry , but if someone is acting innapproiate , and i dont like that behavior , it does not constitute racism. no matter what color they may be.
No, but assuming that gangs, thuggery, and sexual irresponsibility are “black problems” is racist. And intolerance for non-academic forms of the language just makes you a snob. Intolerance for non-academic forms of language that you associate with certain racial or ethnic groups, though, is certainly suggestive of racism.
“do you really believe that?? when is the last time you heard of a black man charged with a hate crime?? ever?? i think the truth may be that if the black man in LA killed a white person , he would have the support of the black community, guilty or not . examples ; mike vick, oj simpson, the jena six. ”
Look at the FBI stats for hate crime. “Only whites get accused of hate crimes” is an urban legend that you should promptly avail yourself of. And I could’ve sworn Mike Vick killed some dogs and the Jena 6 didn’t kill anyone. I’d have to say that confirmed killers of innocent people of any race get a big thumbs down from me. I’m pretty sure that I can assume that LA’s residents are somewhat similar in their views, if only for the sake of common sense. Have you actually sat down and spoken with a few members of LA’s black community regarding their beliefs on murder, or read a few reliable polls (perhaps Zogby, Pew, or Gallup) on the matter to get a nationwide perspective on black opinions?
” the double standard is that black people can say what they please about white people , but white people must carefully select what they say to prevent being considered a racist.”
You know this is false…a white/non-black person can go to virtually any other place on the Internet and complain about black people in general, and they will rarely get called a racist, unless it’s REALLY extreme Nazi-esque hateful invective. In many corners, mild to moderate-level complainers may get a cookie, a backslap, a high-five, a belly rub, and people loudly proclaming “a pox on the houses of those who would dare to call him/her racist.” Both groups “say what they please” about each other in the company of other members of that group, because members of the same group often give each other a “free pass” on racist beliefs… shrugging it off because the offender is likeable/related/attractive/angry/old/young/going through tough times/going through a phase/joking, doing logical gymnastics to interpret what they’ve said as “not really racist”, crap like that. I personally don’t play that crap, but most people do. You pretty much have to be wayyy beyond the pale (no pun intended) for members of your own group to widely consider you a racist. I’m talking about all racial groups here, so don’t get your knickers in a twist, brian.
“the difference is that if a white person has a complaint about a black person or what a black person does , he is considered a racist for voicing that complaint. if a black person has a complaint about a white person or something a white person does , that behavior is considered normal, almost expected.”
So you’re telling me that, for instance, if a white person in a restaurant has a black waiter that served cold soup (that’s not gazpacho) and complains to the management about it, the customer is generally considered a racist? Dude, no. What you’re suggesting is utterly preposterous. And everyone is fully expected to complain about everyone else by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It’s part of living in a world with other fallible, annoying people. However, when those complaints become based on misconceptions and blanket generalizations about groups of people that share little more than a general place of origin about a few hundred years ago, it gets ugly, and really dumb.
“im sorry , but if someone is acting innapproiate , and i dont like that behavior , it does not constitute racism. no matter what color they may be.”
Your strawman burns so brightly, and it feels so delightful to be near it in the midst of cold, crisp January air. As long as the behavior you deem inappropriate isn’t too arbitrary, like “That man’s shirt is appallingly large!” or “That woman uses ‘You know what I’m saying’ as filler, when she should know that only ‘like’ is appropriate!”, it’s perfectly fine for you to have standards and general expectations… we all do, and believe it or not, a lot of them are shared by blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Natives and everyone in between. I hope you can separate differing cultural norms (harmless) from inappropriate behavior (harmful). If a person is speaking in Ebonics with people who understand and don’t have a problem with it, what business is it of yours? When talking to family members, I use Ebonics sometimes. Big freaking deal. When you say “apartment” to another American (even in London), should any nearby Brits get all huffy because you neglected to refer to it as a “flat”? If your answer is no, then there’s hope for you yet, brian.
Oh, and what Roy said.
BananaDanna,
What do you think of the n***** word used by black people ? Do you think they shouldn’t use it, or that they should talk however they like and whites shouldn’t pay attention ?
brian:
The problem here is that you are thinking of the black community as a collectivised entity, rather than as the aggregate of many individual people with diverse views. You will not be able to even understand BananaDanna’s reply until you correct your thinking in this respect.
This is a false dilemma. “They shouldn’t use it” and “they should talk however they like” are not only possible options here.
“BananaDanna,
What do you think of the n***** word used by black people ? Do you think they shouldn’t use it, or that they should talk however they like and whites shouldn’t pay attention ?”
StefanU, I personally have never used it (or any other racial slur) in my life (with either suffix) and strongly abhor its use by others, black, white, Asian, et al… my father, not surprisingly, feels the exact same way. I’m in the process of “breaking up” with a non-black friend over their use of it (in a joke, in the “proper black context”, with the “less offensive” suffix), and have harangued quite a few other black people about using the word to refer to me in a “friendly manner.” And no, I’m not the only one… for some reason, in conversations about the n-word, the black people who don’t use it BECAUSE they find it offensive never, ever come up. Someone should pay a little “attention” to people like us. When people that feel the way I do are ignored, it pretty much means that we don’t matter, and that consistency and a empty sack is worth the sack in the eyes of people trying desperately to measure a modicum higher than the lowest common denominator. If I were examining the mainstream “n-word discourse” from afar, I’d think that people like me were as rare as a unicorn, or there was some kind of insurmountable compulsion that all black people (and many people from other groups) have to use the word. And I’m just breaking 20 too, so it’s not “black people of a certain age” either. So, when the word is used, the offending party shouldn’t console themselves with the delusion that it’s just “those hypocrites who want to keep all the fun racial epithets to themselves, and oversensitive hypocrites who maintain a double standard that claims that the behavior of the latter is just peachy” who the person falls out of favor with. The person gets on our $#!%list, too, with none of that unhealthy cognitive dissonance that comes from double standard maintenance.
That being said, other people, as autonomous entities, ARE (it’s not a question of “should we let them?”) going to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of what I, you, or Batman thinks about it. If they (black, white, Asian, et al) honestly cared about the possibility that their speech would adversely affect someone, they’d err on the side of caution and omit the aforementioned offensive speech from their vocabulary of their own volition, unadulterated by misplaced and frankly silly resentment. Before the n-word’s use became widespread and/or notorious among blacks, people from other groups used it (a hell of a lot, actually…), and those non-blacks who see fit to do so will continue to use it if every single black person on earth refuses to say it again, so excuse me if the commonly used “I could possibly be construed as emulating people who I dislike and whose behavior I generally see as uncouth and wrong, so I should get a free pass and not hold myself accountable/be held accountable for my own conduct” sounds like a bull$#!% excuse to me. “Well, he does it, too!” is for 5 year olds. No one should choose their own behavior based on what they feel other people are getting away with, because the natural result is an endless cycle of retaliation and one-downmanship (plus, you’ll become a very bad person with very bad habits, because, let’s face it, someone, somewhere, is literally getting away with murder). People should ask themselves if it’s right, if it’s courteous, if it’s respectful, if it’s good, not “In Bizarro world, if I were _____, would this be considered normal by some people?” This sucks because, among other reasons, if you’re the least bit well-versed in the vastness of human cultural variation, you know that the aforementioned rationale gives anyone that employs it carte blanche. Fighting for the right to be equally rude and offensive is a fight that everyone loses, and personal accountability isn’t just a handy prescription for everybody else. “Be the change that you want to see in the world,” StefanU. I know that I’m trying to be, and it gives me (avowed pessimist that I am) a little bit of hope when I see a few other people out there fighting against the tide. I would apologize for the length of this post, but dude, you had to know you threw an essay question at me. I’m giving my wee hours to you, so you better listen to me! *points finger sternly*
roy ;
assuming that gangs, thuggery, and sexual irresponsibility are “black problems” is racist. And intolerance for non-academic forms of the language just makes you a snob. Intolerance for non-academic forms of language that you associate with certain racial or ethnic groups, though, is certainly suggestive of racism.
i did not suggest that these are black only problems , i said that a lot of black people assume that if you are intolerant of these things , that makes you racist.
dont twist my words. as far as ebonics goes , i work in a field where communication is important, when someone intentionally misuses the language or refuses to speak like a professional , it makes the whole company look bad , so they are usually let go, white and black people have been let go for not following communication guidelines. since ive been with this company , 6 white and 4 black people were let go . 3 of the 4 black workers claimed discrimination , even when there was fair warning and opportunity to correct this problem. im not saying that discrimination or racism doesnt exist , i am however saying that the race card is often used when it really does not apply.
i think there is a double standard in this country when it comes to who can say what. look at don imus and the reaction to what he said about a basketball team. is ‘ nappy headed ho ‘ really violating someones civil rights?? no , but it caused outrage across the country. even death threats against his family. where was the outrage when the leader of the new black panthers party said that the duke lacrosse players ‘ were guilty of white privledge? or when ray nagin talks about ‘ it will be a choclate city at the end of the day’ ? if the mayor of hanover ,vermont said ‘ this will be a vanilla city at the end of the day’ there would be outrage , protests and possibly violence. some things are offensive , but some people are looking to be offended or getting offended at everything that others say.
In case I don’t see you again before a mod gets here…
Bye bye brian.
There are some problems with the argument made by the cartoon:
1. You never answer the question posed in panel 2.
2. You never substantially rebut the complaint in panel 5.
3. Panels 6, 7, and 8, are red herrings.
4. Panel 10 is probably a strawman. Even if it isn’t, it’s an ad hom.
5. Panel 12 appears to be making the argument that the protagonist’s complaint is trivial, but you defend trivial complaints made by feminists.
its not about who can say nigger and who cannot , its about one group can say whatever they want without concequence and one group cannot say anything without consequence. look at it without the political correctness that americans are forced into and you may see a difference.
one sided censorship is as bad as racism
You realize that censorship is imposed by the government, right, Brian? Unless the police have knocked on your (or anyone else’s) door for casting aspersions on black people, unless hate speech is illegal here like it is in England and Canada (while you’re taking our freedoms here for granted), your argument is that mere social standards of politeness and conduct = censorship. It’s not censorship if people think that I would be a jerk for referring to the lady at the grocery story counter as a “disgusting whore” and would ostracize me for it if I did. Seriously, what planet are you living on?
“one sided censorship is as bad as racism”
Name one person that one-sided, socially-imposed “censorship” has ever killed. And if they’re equally bad in your eyes, why do you seem much less incensed by the former than the latter?
“look at don imus and the reaction to what he said about a basketball team. is ‘ nappy headed ho ‘ really violating someones civil rights?? no, but it caused outrage across the country. even death threats against his family.”
What I saw was a little bit of fake outrage from the media (Didn’t he hop from one giant media conglomerate to another with little hullabaloo and a lot of cash? A goldfish could get more outraged than that…), and a lot of “who cares”, with a generous helping of “Well, they do it too!” from “the country”. I think Imus is a right ass, but I wasn’t “outraged”, probably because I expect the worst out of people. And, yeah, there are crazy people who send death threats… surely, you’re not suggesting that these people represent a significant portion of any group except “crazy people who send death threats”. Hank Aaron got death threats for being a black man that challenged Babe Ruth’s record. Barry Bonds gets death threats for the same. J. Lo has recieved death threats for donning fur. The Dixie Chicks got death threats for slamming Bush. All death threats prove is that a few people of all races and political leanings are bat$#!% crazy/take things way too seriously. That, and entourages do have their purpose.
“where was the outrage when the leader of the new black panthers party said that the duke lacrosse players ‘ were guilty of white privledge? or when ray nagin talks about ‘ it will be a choclate city at the end of the day’ ?”
Funny, I’ve run into MANY people who were absolutely livid about the latter. Do you talk to other white people about these issues much? I think that you’d be delighted to know that your beliefs are extremely common and popular. Perhaps you’ll feel less put upon and censored as a result of this revelation. In addition to that, I’d never heard about the NBP’s comments until you told me, and it’s fitting, because everyone is well aware that they are an extremist hate group. (Huey Newton, founding member of the original BPP, has even said he wanted nothing to do with them) Come on, do you expect to see on the crawler on CNN, “the Grand Dragon (lulz) of the Ku Klux Klan offers these thoughts on the Duke Lacrosse scandal….”
“i am however saying that the race card is often used when it really does not apply.”
Who gets to decide when it applies and when it doesn’t? The dominant group. Unless you’ve seriously, personally looked into a lot of alleged discrimination/racial bias and harrassment cases, you have to admit that neither you or I have any real idea how often it “applies.” My personal fear is that if I get discriminated against, I will be accused of “playing the race card” and won’t be believed. Not because “other people are overusing it/crying wolf”, but because people would rather believe that I’m a liar than that there’s anything less than a fair playing field and a strict meritocracy. There’s lots of talk about the power of the “race card”, but none about the power of “liar/oversensitive misinterpreter of circumstances” card that often trumps it, not to mention that the fact is that some white people use the race card, as well. For instance, having a default assumption that AA is the reason for a failure to acquire a job or educational opportunity, information to the contrary be damned. That being said, if the employees in question were honestly using Ebonics while conversing with clients, that’s bad form and anomalous, to boot. Most Ebonics speakers, in my experience use Standard English at work, unless they’re in an informal setting with friends, like during lunch break. This is especially true in white collar jobs… in blue collar occupations, varying vernaculars are deemed more acceptable for general use. I’d like to know what the specific, stated reasons that they proffered were for filing discrimination charges… unless saying so would constitute a breach, or something. Then again, are you honestly listening to any of us, or just venting on autopilot, brian?
If the “double standards” and “social censorship” are issues that you feel strongly about, why don’t you get together with some like-minded people (of which there are a veritable legion) and actively hold the media institutions that you think are responsible accountable for this? Write some well-thought out letters about how you feel to the TV stations who you feel perpetuate this double standard. If a show features a person who says things about whites that you consider racist/uses slurs, make note of the sponsors, call them, ask them if that’s the kind of thing that they want to support, and if they’re fine with you relinquishing your patronage as a direct result of that continued support and actively urging others to do the same. You can do the same thing with coverage of racial issues that you consider unfairly “slanted.” If you truly believe that this is an injustice against you in particular and whites in general, there’s ways for you to fight it. You’ll most likely feel much less put upon, and much more empowered as a result. You’re a passionate hardhead, and if you channel that in a constructive way, you, even as an individual, can do big things and gain peace of mind.
Oh, and brian, I think it’s kind of mean that you completely ignored my first post to you.
Daran:
If you believe that, there really is no hope for you. Why are you even reading here?
i had no intent to hurt anyones feelings or cause a problem, and i apologize if i did, but there are people who think like me and people who think otherwise. i can only make my assesment based on my personal experiences , or at least how i percieve what i see .i dont consider myself racist(by true definition)because i dont hate anyone, even people who do things i do not agree with. i also realize that there are good and bad in all races and classes. i know that many may think that i am closed minded , but i feel that i am more intolerant than anything else. although it seems that noone here agrees with me , i am also entitled to my opinions and nobody has the right to tell me im wrong anymore than i would have the right to tell anyone here that they are wrong. sorry if i offended anyone. i will no longer post my comments here as it appears that they are not welcome.
” am also entitled to my opinions and nobody has the right to tell me im wrong anymore than i would have the right to tell anyone here that they are wrong.”
Uh, that’s not true. You came in here telling us that we were wrong, and now you’re playing the “hey, babettes, it’s all just opinions” card? Tres transparent.
“sorry if i offended anyone. i will no longer post my comments here as it appears that they
are not welcomeare not uncritically accepted and given a ticker tape parade.”Fixed that for you.
It’s confirmed, he was on autopilot… and I wasted a lot of time.
For what it’s worth, I really got a lot out of reading your replies to Brian, and maybe some lurkers did too.
Yeah, I liked your replies too :)
(and I’m The Ultimate Lurker :)
Thene (quoting me):
Hey, I may be stupid, but I can learn.
I’m not disputing the truth of points made in those panels, nor their wider importance. They just don’t seem to be relevant to the point of the cartoon.
It’s a bit like the stereotypical “Millions of children in Africa are starving. So eat your dinner” non sequitur.
Pingback: Privilege « DaRain Man
I think that all black people should be publically apologized to when a dum-ass cracker makes a remark that deserves an upside the head smack. Fuck that shit about moving on. Did slaves get to move on? Do black people get to say “oops my bad” when they say something that’s not so pc for white America? Hell no. They get thrown in jail or demoted or loose their jobs. So why are you giving these crackers a chance to get off with a slap on the wrist? That’s what’s wrong with this country. None of y’all know what it’s like to be black then when you trip up and say something fucking crazy, you think you all high and mighty cause you said “oops, my bad.” Get down on your knees when you fuck up and BEG that my black ass lets you off so easy.
Reported, “Darius”. *eye roll*
I am a white high school teacher who was accused of racism for reprimanding a misbehaving Hispanic student. I was attempting to change undesired behavior, which had nothing to do with race. My wife is an immigrant from Mexico. Can anyone explain my racism against Hispanics? I became infuriated, and I will not apologize to anyone for merritless comments. I called the sdudent’s parents, and the student was reprimanded by the parent. I also sent the student to the office with a referral.
Your suggestions are way off! Many people invent racism because they are looking for excuses. It’s high time people stopped looking for excuses and started looking for solutions. To suggest an apology from people who are falsely accused is ludicrous!! The people making false accusations need to apologize.
Phillip:
1) Anecdotes like this aren’t very meaningful, because we’re only hearing one side of the story. If your student and his/her parents could be here, posting in this thread, would their account match yours?
2) Putting that aside, even if everything happened exactly as you say it did, one incident does not equal “many people.”
3) Because you have a Mexican wife doesn’t mean you can’t be racist. Nor does it mean you are. But bringing it up at all is irrelevant, at best.
4) I never suggested that people who are falsely accused need to apologize.
If someone posted here with an anecdote about how they’d been racially harassed, would you respond by saying “we’re only hearing one side of the story”?
Probably not. I don’t pretend to be objective; all else being equal, I’m more likely to point out the logical flaws in comments intended to refute me, than I am in comments intended to agree with my point.
No doubt I’m the only one who behaves this way. :-p
I appreciate you’re honest reply.
I tend to point out the logical flaws in any argument, whether I agree with the conclusion or not. That is, if I spot them. I think it’s inherently harder to spot logical flaws in arguments both whose premises and conclusions you agree with.
I’m sure you’re not.
I try to be fair. I try to operate under a strong presumption that people are honest about their experiences of being victimised, and to do so, whether or not those experiences support or detract from my political stances. I wouldn’t call this presumption objective. I just try to apply it fairly.
Incidently – and this will probably be surprising to many people here – the ethos behind that presumption comes from my background in rape support. It’s just the maxim “believe the survivor” applied to victimisation of all kinds, including being falsely accused.
We do not, however, need to use Darius as a guide in order to find evidence for racial harassment of blacks. Meanwhile, I can’t even tell what Phillip meant to say.
BananaDanna , thanks for the explanation in post 174 , I’ve noticed it only today.
I meant 166.
Pingback: The Humiliation of Sexism « Ta Aphrodisia
You’re welcome, Stefan.
Pingback: Privilege « Girly Thoughts
Pingback: derivative work » Blog Archive » cultural appropriation, property rhetoric, acknowledgment
What if people accuse you of being racist, and then refuse to explain WHY what you said was racist, just keep calling you a racist. Like I said “I don’t want x group to become close-minded and self absorbed, acting as if they’re the onlygroup that’s ever suffered discrimination, like Blacks are.”
Nobody has ever explained to me why that statement is racist, or not true. Apperantly I should know why it’s racist. All I can figure out is it’s racist because I mentioned Black people. I mentioned that while nobody questions all the criticisms Black people make of White people in a broad sense, nobody can even mention Black people without having claims of racism thrown at them. Then they are told, but it’s ok to discuss race? What, how can you discuss race when there’s always that one group of people you can never refer to without being called a racist?
Well, you did accuse millions of people — most of whom, odds are, you’ve never met — of being “close-minded and self absorbed” identifying them solely by skin color. If what you said wasn’t racist, then explain how it wasn’t, sans grade-school “Well, people I and many others consider racist can do it and not get called on it by other people!” finger-pointing.
M-W’s definition of racism:
“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
You said that blacks — a racial group — were closed-minded and self-absorbed. The latter qualities are human traits, and evidently you believe that blackness is the primary determinant (or at least an important one, seeing as you deemed it notable enough to mention in tandem with these traits) … unless you believe that correlation is not causation in this instance, or that a**holes just eventually become black as a result of said attributes (that the traits are the primary determinant of race instead, lol).
” I mentioned that while nobody questions all the criticisms Black people make of White people in a broad sense, nobody can even mention Black people without having claims of racism thrown at them.”
Patently false. People question broad criticisms that black people make regarding whites all of the time, and black people can indeed be mentioned without claims of racism being thrown at them…. why misstate the entire state of discourse on race in America to provide excuses for yourself? You pretty much said “black people suck.” You were called on it… so either prove that we indeed suck, or admit that what you said was wrong. Fight, or get your flag out.
Here, let me try:
Jackie, I am probably one of the more conservative folks here, and even I have no problem seeing the racism in your statement. I’ll parse it for you:
I don’t want x group to become close-minded and self absorbed,
This part is a bit obnoxious–who are you to judge whether an entire group is close-minded or self abosorbed? Glass houses, stones, etc. That said, it’s not racist per se.
acting as if they’re the only group that’s ever suffered discrimination
This part is more problematic. You are linking “close minded and self absorbed” with “acting like they’re the only group that’s ever suffered discrimination.”
It’s the second part that is the bigger problem. What does that kind of “acting” look like? Does it–surprise!!–look exactly like “acting like they are a member of a group that suffered extraordinarily bad discrimination?” Because, you know, that second part is true for many people, which should be relevant here.
On to:
like Blacks are.
Now that you’ve made two general attacks on certain traits (see above) and have described those traits as negative, you are assigning these traits to blacks in general. In other words, you are saying that blacks are acting like they are the only group who has ever suffered discrimination, and that blacks are close-minded and self absorbed.
Wow.
Do you not see the problem with this? Do you not see how this is racist? If not, I can’t help you much, other than to advise you not to be to, um, “close-minded or self absorbed.”