Editor’s Note: I’m absolutely not going to let this thread turn into a discussion of how whites really aren’t racist, and people of color are really the problem. So if you want to leave a whiny comment about Al Sharpton or illegal immigrants or any other distraction, I’ll delete it.
I want to pull several seemingly unrelated posts together to make a point about contemporary racism. Yesterday, I read this post over at Racialicious. Carmen closes the post with the following sentences about Don Imus and Michael Richards:
The Richards incident started with the racist ravings of a white man, complete with references to lynching, but ended up as a public discussion of why black people keep using the n-word towards each other. The Imus incident started with the racist and misogynist remarks of a white man, but ended up as a public referendum on misogyny in hip hop.
It’s fascinating to me that all roads seem to lead back to discussions of how black people are supposedly oppressing themselves.
I am struck by how common this phenomenon is. The basic pattern that these discussion follow is:
- White person makes incredibly racist statements.
- Some people express outrage over those statements; others seek to downplay the statements.
- Those who want to downplay the statements are able to win the “hearts and minds” of the vast majority of whites, who want operate by the anything but racism philosophy.
- The conversation the turns to how it really isn’t racist or wasn’t intention of the person. Since this allows people to think it is not that person’s fault, they then proceed to the last step.
- Blaming the real victims of racism.
This leads to sentiments like notion Don Imus called women nappy headed hos because of Hip Hop. Once we reach the 5th step the conversation is almost beyond repair. Whites are reframed as victims people of color (in particular blacks) are framed as the real source of the problem, and then the debate has totally shifted.
Professor Black Woman’s post here gives several examples of this phenomenon. In particular, she focuses on how Tucker Carlson discussed the Jena 6 case by discussing Carlson’s reframing:
In the “new” face of racism, two things have to happen: 1. acknowledge that the certain aspects of any racist incident are extreme (not unfair, extreme) or that the black community is acceptable to you & 2. then posit a racist overlaying narrative that essential reframes the discussion around the unfair and extreme behavior perceived to be experienced by white people.
After reading those Carmen’s and Professor Black Woman’s posts, I was reminded of the discussion we had here and at Alas about the Don Imus controversy. I put up very few posts about the Don Imus case, but the discussion generated in those posts two posts reveals how these contemporary racist tactics work.
Let me start by going through the discussion on Rachel’s Tavern. At Rachel’s Tavern, most of the people who commented on the Imus post are black, not everybody (but most). Dcase (who I really like; I promise) was the first person to bring Hip Hop into the discussion, which lead to a focus on Blacks not Imus. He said,
Moreover, there is some hypocrisy inherent here in that many of those who are up in arms about Imus referring to them as such but use such language everyday in their own speech and bob their heads to it from their music. This especially true among blacks: the hateful stuff that they commonly direct to each other is often worse than anything a racist could think up.
This statement unleashed criticism from most of the subsequent posters, many of whom pointed out the logical flaw that it is unfair to assume that the people who were upset were necessarily the same people who condone the use of sexist and racist language in Hip Hop. (It’s worth reading the whole thread.) I think Gandolf Mantooth’s post summarized it well:
I don’t understand the “so what blacks do it, too” defense. So, Dcase, if Imus had used the N-word on air, would you still have the same opinion? Moreover, I don’t think that if say, Chris Rock (since he seems to be one of the whipping boys of the moment) had called the Rutgers team the same thing on some chat show that there would not have been similar outrage. Perhaps some non-African Americans might have sat on the sidelines and watched, however there would have been a problem, and for him, it would have started at home.
What is even MORE baffling is how many people are trying to pull rap music into the discussion (not only coming from the White right, but from Black talk radio). It seems that lately, any time a White guy mouths of we gotta talk about hip hop.
What’s interesting to me about this is the underlying tone about how we approach women athletes in the public sphere
I replied:
Which is one reason why many reasonable and non-sexist black men don’t say that bullshit. These stupid pundits think Too Short and Two Live Crew represent that typical black men.
Yeah, we always have to bring up hip hop and ignorant black people as an excuse for whites’ racism.
Angry Independent joined in the Hip Hop criticism later in the discussion by asking me:
Surely you aren’t trying to make excuses for the Rap Community?
Why shouldn’t they be held to the same standard for doing far more damage than Don Imus on a daily basis?
This caravan of criticism & accountability shouldn’t stop with Don Imus… We should drive this thing all the way to the doorstep of Hip Hop, urban radio, the record executives, the rappers, BET, and all the rest.
To which I responded:
No I’m not excusing it, but I do think it is not relevant to Imus. Just because some sexist black men degrade black women by calling them hos doesn’t mean it’s Ok for white men to do it.
This is the classic condemn the condemners strategy. It’s like the guy caught on tape committing a crime, and the first thing he says is “Other people stold too.” But you’re the one on tape, you’re the one everybody caught. You’re the one on trial.Sexist hip hop artists and sexist black men can get their trial on another day, but it is not relevant now.
Then Angry Independent said:
Whoa!!!
I think you might have misunderstood me. I am completely against what Imus did… just to make that clear. And I AM NOT saying that Imus should be allowed to get away with it because rappers do it.
I am basically saying almost the opposite…. I am saying that ALL should be condemned…and that the African American community has to look within at this same kind of behavior, which (in the Black Community) is far more damaging. Yet, I don’t see Sharpton and Jesse & others working as vigorously or with the same determination to organize boycotts, or to get people fired at these radio stations, record companies, at rap concerts, against BET, etc.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of rap not being relevent to the Imus situation. IT IS VERY relevent. The two cannot and must not be separated. One has facilitated the other. One has desensitized the society to such a degree that someone like Imus thought that this would be O.k. or that it would blow over.The two issues are inseparable.
Then I responded:
I don’t think you are saying this personally, but I think the outcome of always bringing up sexist comments from black men or attacking the character of blacks who note these racist comment allows white racists to feel better.
On the issue of blaming hip hop…..I feel sexism and the “whore” image of black women existed way before hip hop. Sexist rappers may have helped it along, and they should be held accountable, but they didn’t create the problem anymore than preachers, politicans, and other sexist men.
Do you think Imus was out listening to hip hop, and it influenced him? I don’t think so. White men have stereotyped black women as “hos” going back a long way…back to slavery. They used this as a justification for rape and exploitation. This started way before hip hop.
Now for the record, I do think Hip Hop deserves criticism, and I do think both Angry Independent and dcase mean well. I’ve read enough comments of theirs to know that, but the reason others folks and I were so frustrated at that line of reasoning is that it is used by many in politics, mass media, and academia to avoid discussing white racism. I agree that there is a time and a place for Black Americans, like dcase, Angry Independent or any of the other folks participating in that thread, to talk about Blacks who degrade other Blacks, but that discussion needs to happen not because a white guy like Imus degrades Blacks.
The thread at Alas was even worse. Since there is no way I can actually recreate the 216 comments, I’ll just summarize what happened. When one commenter focused only on the sexist aspect of the comments, I reminded her that “It also matters that the women were black.” To which Brandon Berg responded,
It’s not at all clear that it does, given that he then went on to say, “the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute,” and they’re black, too (as far as I can tell—the video clip isn’t very clear). His choice of whom to insult and whom to compliment was based on his perception of their attractiveness, not their race.
I responded to Brandon, by saying it was obvious that he would not have called a white woman nappy headed. I also noted that references Black women as “hos” were much more common than references to white women as hos, to which Brandon responded:
He called them hoes because they had tattoos. The perception of an association between tattoos and promiscuity and/or general trashiness is not something that’s limited to black women. For example, lower-back tattoos on white women are called “tramp stamps.” It wouldn’t strike me at all as unusual if a man were to call a group of white women with visible tattoos “hoes.”
I’m not sure what you mean about Google. “White hoes” gets slightly more googits than “black hoes,” and likewise “hos”. Are you talking about quantity or quality?
The only other time I’ve ever heard the phrase “nappy-head” was back in high school, when a Mexican boy called a Mexican girl with straight hair a nappy-head. I realize that one meaning of nappy is the texture of a black person’s hair, but it also means icky or unappealing, and is used as a generic insult. You can argue that the second meaning has racist origins in that it was derived from the first, but words tend to get divorced from their origins, and people use them without understanding where they came from.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that it wasn’t a bad thing to say. I’m just saying that I’m not sure race factored into it much if at all. Racism is one of the few things that’s more or less universally regarded as unacceptable in American culture, so as a rule non-nuts don’t say things which are clearly racist. Which is why most of the examples of racist comments that you post are ambiguous.
For the record, Brandon never met a case of racism that he actually thought was racism. This was part of an on-going tit-for-tat between he and I, in which I would put up a post about an event or practice that I felt was racist, and he would come in an say it wasn’t racism.
On the upside, there were several people challenging Brandon, but as the thread went along racism apologists started to outnumber (or it was at least equal) the people saying Imus’s comment was not racist. Then at some point the discussion ended up moving away from the original content, and the racism apologists helped move us to a discussion of what is racist and who is racist. They wanted to define racism so narrowly that almost nothing is defined as racist. Robert made this claim:
Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.
To which I responded (you can click on this link for the full comment):
To Robert and everyone else,
The problem here is the very simplistic thinking. White racism runs the gamit from very virulent violence that can result in bodily injury to more subtle things like not feeling comfortable in a room where there are people of color or not listening when people of color give their points of view.When we reserve the term racism for only the most violent acts, we ignore the cumulative affects of those more subtle forms of racism, which add up over time.
(To Robert) Take your early reaction to Angel H. She was clearly ticked off, and even though I don’t agree with her in theory, she was trying very hard to be heard. She was saying as a black woman I find this offensive, and then what happened? Rather than making any attempt to confirm her feelings or acknowledge why she was hurt and frustrated, you came in with your theory. In doing so, you dismissed her frustration, your dismissed her view, you dismissed her anger, and you dismissed her as a black woman. Because you were so fixated on being right and creating a good theory, but you did really seem to connect with her everyday experience. (I saw the same thing with pheeno on a thread about a month ago.)…..
But letting go of racism and privilege is so very hard for most white people. So rather than being able to serious engage Angel and acknowledge her feelings we have to go back to our precious worldviews. We just can’t let the focus be on the black women who were insulted by such language. No instead we have to insult black male leaders and go over what we think are their shortcomings, talk about really nice white guys, who help kids with cancer. Then we start to talk about the great freedom of speech principle, and on and on and on……Ok, white folks and men. It’s not all about us and our views all the time. Just take a minute to put yourself in someone elses shoes.
What was also disturbing about that thread was that all of the black women, especially Angel H. and Ann, were dismissed or ignored as if their perspectives weren’t important, which was incredibly insulting since the racist and sexist comments by Imus were directly at Black women.
That Alas thread was one of the most exasperating and annoying exercises in contemporary racist rhetoric I have ever seen. A few posters wanted to talk about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (because every time white guys screw up we have to talk about both of them); another one wanted claim that there are basic genetic differences between whites and blacks; Michael wanted to talk about how black women are doing great because Oprah Winfrey is doing well, and an idiot called GET OVER IT admonished those of us complaining about Imus’s comments to:
FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT. ALMOST ALL OF YOU COMPLAINERS OUT THERE ARE GUILTY OF DOING THE SAME THING ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. IF THIS WAS EDDIE MURPHY OR SOME OTHER BLACK PERSON THAT SAID THIS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVEN SAID ANYTHING.
It got so bad that Ampersand, banned 5 different people from posting on the thread, and we had a really long discussion both on and off the site about how we were going to change the comment policy.
Here’s what frustrates me: we need to talk about white people’s role in racism. We need to have a discussion about white racism that is not derailed. After all, Whites hold the vast majority of power in the US (and in the global political and economic institutions), and we have the most influence over racism. We need to stop pretending that Hip Hop, or Black criminals, or anyone who acknowledges racism is the problem. The analogy I have used for the past 10-15 years is the analogy of alcoholism. One of the basic tenets Alcoholics Anonymous is that a person has to acknowledge his or her alcoholism before he or she can get better. Well the same is true for white racism. No matter what people of color are doing. We whites don’t need to make an excuse, saying when Black people do better then we will stop being racist. First, it unfair to make glaring generalizations about how bad black people are based on the behavior of a select few blacks, and second, we don’t have to wait for every black person (Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans, too) to be perfect before we stop being racist. If we want to stop racism, we have to acknowledge that the problem is ours. We need to have a conversation about ourselves where racism is at the forefront. We need to stop the distraction tactics, stop the victim mentality, stop the whining, and focus on what we can do better.
This pattern of behavior needs to stop. Just like alcoholism, white racism doesn’t need enablers, and it doesn’t need excuses. For racism to stop we need whites to acknowledge the problem and then to start working on it.
What is even MORE baffling is how many people are trying to pull rap music into the discussion (not only coming from the White right, but from Black talk radio). It seems that lately, any time a White guy mouths of we gotta talk about hip hop.
It amazes me too how “rap” seems to come up even when you are simply disagreeing with one of the Rush Limbaugh types. A former co-worker who was a manager was a Fox News/Rush Limbaugh fanatic. I felt rather sorry for him because he was a short, unattractive type and he was really nasty and didn’t take input from his staff without somehow shouting them down and telling them to do what he said to do.
Anyhow, our office downsized (and ultimately closed) and he was the only manager left in the office. Technically I didn’t report to him but he was the only person with a title left. Someone got the bright idea to do some team bonding and they made plans for us to play laser tag. Aside from the fact that it was last minute and I already had plans, I wasn’t thrilled with the idea of running around chasing people trying to “kill them” with my laser. I cannot say I even liked playing tag or “it” when I was a kid so definitely wasn’t feeling trying it as a middle aged adult. So when they asked me if I was coming, I said no because a) I already had plans b) I wasn’t really into “simulated violence.” Well this set the little creep off and he goes “yeah, kinda like rap is violent.” I cut my eyes at him and ignored him because that was just plain racist! First of all, at 46, I could not say that I had any rap music in heavy rotation and hadn’t since hip-hop was first launched in the late 70s/early 80s. Secondly, it had nothing to do with the issue at hand which was my lack of desire to run around like a kid with a group of folks that I didn’t care to see outside of work playing laser tag! The way people like this manage to interject rap into every conversation without any relevant context just slays me. Had I not known that the company was on the way down the drain, I might have made a bigger deal about it but I’d heard that little twit belittling and going off on his subordinates before. I’m not sure why he was so perpetually angry but that seems to be par for the course for the white men who want to spew ignorance and venom without ever accepting responsibility for it.
I don’t know if this helps, but the “racists are evil – the worst kind of evil!” comment you quote is an example of the all or nothing logical fallacy – ironically, also called the black or white fallacy.
I think that logical rigor is one of the best ways to combat racism in discussions, because racism is inherently irrational. Also, a strong moderation policy is in order. Unfortunately, it’s just really hard to get white people to talk about racism. The tendencies towards minimization and derailing are very high. I don’t why this is so, I’d guess insecurity among other factors, but it’s an issue in every online community I’ve ever frequented.
I think the way to fight it is just not to let it drop. To make posts like this one. to keep brining up racism, not just in the midst of a scandal, but in general. Some white folks get really defensive, so maybe it would help to make intentions clear? It might help some if white anti-racists started conversations about how living in racist society continues to infect their own thoughts. I think this would help because some whites seem to be suspicious that anti-racist whites are trying to demonstrate smug superiority.
I think the problem is that most people don’t see how the “b-b-b-b-but Sharpton!” thing is irrelevant. Black culture may or may not be far more accepting of racism on their part than white culture is. But the point is that it doesn’t matter. When blacks are in a position to oppress whites, then their racism becomes important. But in most cases, the whites are in the position of power, so even a little racism in that regard is much more harmful.
Look at it this way: let’s say that 9/10 bosses are white, and the other 1/10 is black. Then let’s imagine if half of all blacks are racist, and only one-quarter of whites are racist. In that case, you still have 4.5 racist white bosses for every one racist black boss. So you have far, far more white racists in positions of power.
That’s why white racism is more important, and must be fought unyieldingly when ever it’s seen, regardless of it’s comparative prevalence.
What a great post! We talk about this all the time at work. As white people we are racist. We need to acknowledge it and begin to do the work of ending racism. So many white people think racism is saying something about a particular race yet they don’t understand the power component of racism. All of institutions in society, which wield a great deal of power, are racist. I wish I knew how institutional racism could be solved. My only solution is to call it racism when I see it.
On the subject of differing definitions of racism, Doug Muder has a great little essay.
Why Imus Thinks He’s Not Racist. Not as good as Red Family, Blue Family (my favorite of his work), but very good.
SamChevre:
Good link.
I’ve got to dig for it–maybe you know and can save me the digging, Rachel–but wasn’t there a post fairly recently somewhere on a major blog about whether (and how) whites can discuss racism at all?
I agree with you, incidentally, that it will take major action by whites to cure racism, seeing as whites are the main controllers of power. But I think that you often run into a conflict between process and results in trying to establish that change.
Sailorman, that’s interesting. I’d think for significant progress to be made, white people absolutely have to discuss racism honestly, and discuss it with people of color. I’d love to read that post.
Of course, that’s not really related to whether white people in general are able to discuss racism. I know many simply aren’t willing to, hence the diversionary tactics discussed in Rachel’s post. It’s a huge blind spot for many. Inexcusably so, even.
It is so fucking ridiculous. It is so stupid. I am white, and when I was younger I heard so many racist and sexist things that I thought were “okay” because (in the privacy of our homes, where nobody could call us out on it, ’cause gee, that takes the savor out of it for sure!) everybody was saying them. Just recently, a boy who sat in front of me in class was looking down at the courtyard, where a large group of black people happened to be innocently standing outside. And he called it a “blackout”. Which implies that there were too many people of color, not enough whites to balance it out. Or later when another boy was talking to a Pakistani student, joking about how “he threatened to bomb the school”–the Pakistani student didn’t seem to think it was funny. In fact, he looked pretty pissed. Or when the subject of Christian mythology came up, and the fable of Adam and Eve, and how of course “girls would fuck things up”. It makes me sick. I hear things like that all the time, and it’s dismissed because the (white) majority thinks that they’re just kidding.
All three of incidents were by–WHOOPS–white males. Coincidence? I think not. But what I do think is that we have to talk to idiot white people, who go around under the guise of “good-non-racist-non-sexist-Christian-whites”, but then say things that they think are “okay” or “true” just because they are so commonly said. White people confuse stereotypes with racism—like, it is a stereotype that black women all have huge asses, or that all Asian people are smart, but it is just plain racism to say that Asians are bad at driving, or that all black men are after (fat) white women. I used to think that they were stereotypes–and they are stereotypes–white-made stereotypes, and white people and Carlos Mencia shouldn’t think that their opinion=truth. No amount of “well, white people are bad at dancing and basketball” will make that that okay, because white people come top at everything else in America, because they are (duh) the majority!
I think my point is, that people, black, white, yellow, red, brown, whatever, need to learn the difference between racism and stereotypes and be taught that that’s wrong. White people need to be asked, “Do you think other races think that about themselves?” Better yet, people need to be asked, “Do you think other groups think that about themselves?” That is how you know the difference between right and wrong. And that is how you erase all the years of white-male-Christian brainwashing from your head, by asking yourself questions, and answering from another person’s perspective.
Pingback: links for 2007-10-23 at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture
This is a great, well-reasoned post. Mind if I link to it on a group blog I write for called Quench?
Thanks for spelling it out. The process is so obvious it insults anyone with an ounce of intelligence yet, we get manage to end up off-track every time.
I wonder what would happen if White people (who are racist) really did have to “deal” with their racism without being able to deflect the issue elsewhere? I reflect back to that experiment on Oprah a few years ago, where the audience was separated by eye color. While the Blacks caught on quickly, many Whites became outraged at the notion of being treated differently. Things got so out of hand, the point of the experiment nearly got lost.
Based on that observation alone it could be a long rehabilitation process.
Excellent post. As a black woman, I am happy to have stumbled upon both it and your site — happy and astonished, because in my, quite extensive, experience, white America steadfastly refuses to talk about racism. Back when I used to try to talk to folks about it (I have long since given up; it’s exhausting work and I’m not getting paid nearly enough) I tried to lessen the inevitable knee-jerk defensiveness that precludes any meaningful conversation by pointing out that our society itself is racist. Therefore it is impossible to have grown up inside it without internalizing some racist tendencies. Even black people have internalized them. It’s not your fault! It’s only your fault if you don’t address these internalized beliefs, because, lord knows, you are acting upon them. Racism is not evil, it’s just human. The real evil lies in lies in trying to deny this fact, to make racism a strictly night-riding, southern phenomena that has nothing to do with oneself or anyone one knows and therefore can be safely ignored and not thought about.
I agree.
Racial injustice will not cease until Whites change their behavior and their perceptions. This is not something Blacks can do for them through ‘cleaning up their act.’ Racism will continue to pervade all of America’s social, cultural, and legal institutions until Whites admit to their racism and work to change that mindset.
I am a White person who is sick of the irrationality of racial prejudice and I’m trying to confront my own racism. It is not easy and I haven’t made it too far yet. But that is almost completely irrelevant because any personal progress I make will not do anything significant to advance racial equality.
So there’s a more important question: how do I, how do we persuade more White people to examine their racial prejudice?
So Whites are racists. Yes. I agree. Does calling them racists, does using that exact word ‘racist,’ seem to be working? What I see happening is that anti-racists mean one thing: unconscious or semiconscious racial prejudice, advantage garnered from White privilege, a ‘blame them for my bigotry’ reaction, and Whites hear another thing: you want to lynch Blacks. Just as repeating the same sentence louder and slower, over and over again is not going to help someone who doesn’t speak your language understand you, I do not think assailing Whites with ‘racist!’ is going to accomplish the goal that I’m supposing we share.
I am not saying we should go easy on the fight, bide our time, not ruffle any feathers and all that other, to be frank, bullshit. I am saying that I don’t think this method works, and that I wish there would at least be a discussion of alternatives.
I did not come to understand my own racism by having racial activists tell me I was racist. I thought they were being ridiculous and I held them in roughly the same contempt I held evangelical moralists. The rhetoric sounded exactly the same, and the image the word ‘racist’ brought to mind was so radically different from what I thought were obvious facts about my own behavior (I don’t lynch Blacks, I don’t call them ‘niggers,’ I’m “color blind”).
I come to understand my own racism by moving from my extremely White college town to a racially mixed city, specifically to a majority Black neighborhood, and running head on into the more insidious forms of racism that are the real problem today. I was extremely uncomfortable as the only White person on a bus. I thought all Blacks who didn’t dress like me were criminals, and acting like it even as I was telling myself “come on, you don’t actually think that.” I also spent time in a country where I was a racial minority, and due to language infamiliarity and foreigner status, at a power disadvantage. It was bewildering and upsetting. I could barely process my experiences with the framework of White privilege taken away. It has been exhausting admitting my racism and trying to figure out how to break it down and build up a new, anti-racist way of seeing the world by seeking out information and shutting the hell up to listen to people who are actually subjected to racism speak (I could leave the country where I felt discriminated against at any time; and did. POC often don’t have that option). I only changed my perspective because of unusual circumstances.
What happened to me will very rarely happen to other White people. So what I’m asking is: how? How do we do it? What seems to work and what doesn’t? Does the tack of angrily attacking Whites when they’re engaging in racism and expressing how offended you are work? It is justified, I am not questioning that, I am asking –does it work–? Does it change people’s opinions?
I don’t know what the alternative would be. I am not very experienced with this area and I am not well-informed. But in reading so far, I haven’t really seen one put up on offer, and I just wish that there was one on the table.
wtto, We’d be happy to have a link.
Very excellent post. I’ve noticed this as well especially when cruising race related news topics and reading the comments and talking with whites. White racism is basically always blamed on minorities. I remember a few months ago I was arguing with a white kid (who was dating a black girl which he felt made him not racist by default) who tried to argue that the reason for whites making up over 70% of drug users was because blacks were moving into the major cities, forcing whites to move to rural and suburban areas where they had to do drugs out of boredom. He was dead serious. And a few hours earlier he was lecturing me on how black males should start taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Needless to say after countless “discussions” with whites, online and off line, I’ve simply given up. The majority of them were exactly as you described.
1. Can’t see outside of their own worldview or simply aren’t willing too
2. Won’t let you get a word in edgewise. I had one white guy talk non-stop after calling his white buddy a “nigger” when he didn’t realize there was one black guy at the party who happened to be standing behind him. He wouldn’t let me get a word in edgewise after I agreed to talk with him about racism. The “discussion” went on for about 25 minutes.
3. They simply blame minorities for their racism or turn the focus onto them
Out of all the whites and for all the years I’ve tried to explain or discuss racism, racial inequality, white priviledge, etc (including my best friend) I’ve only gotten ‘one’ to say “Alright. Maybe there’s alot of stuff I didn’t know about that I should really look into. Thanks a lot.” And that was some random high school kid on facebook who was spouting the typical ignorant nonsense, in a black discussion group, you hear from patronizing whites who think they’re worldy experts on racism and race relations. In other words he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about but was positive that he did.
Overall it’s ridiculously frustrating and that’s why I only talk about racism and racial issues with other minorities at this point in time. Even when we don’t see eye to eye we can at least have a meaningful, productive, and informative discussion. That rarely happens when discussing racism with whites.
Thank you so much for this article!
It also ticks me off when ppl say Sharpton isn’t doing this or that…I’ve bee listening to his radio show for about 6 months and everything they say he isn’t doing, HE IS. It’s just b/c they don’t see it in the MSM, they think it doesn’t exist.
On a forum I visit, I got called the “Sharpton” of the boards b/c I brought up a lot of bad things happening to black people and women….I was even asked “what about the white menz?”
Thanks again for this post.I really needed it. I’m so for real.
Any ideas on how to approach such a conversation? In my experience it so very easily devolves into “well, what about rap?”
Rachel:
For the record, I’ve corrected this particular misapprehension of yours twice, with a specific example. Had I half the zeal for alleging libel that you have for alleging racism, that’s what I’d be doing right about now.
Now, I’m willing to believe that you just didn’t notice the last two times I corrected you on this point—the threads run long here, and who has time to keep up? But that’s no excuse. “Brandon never met a case of racism that he actually thought was racism” is not a conclusion that can reasonably be drawn from the fact that I expressed disagreement with your application of the term “racism” to about half a dozen different issues over the course of a year or more, especially when there’s an obvious bias in that sample: “Me too” comments are boring, so you only hear from me when we disagree.
IIRC, the first time you jumped to this particular conclusion was the time I said that there wasn’t any real evidence that racism was a factor in that Delta Zeta purge. As it turned out, I was right to be skeptical—racial minorities weren’t really overrepresented among the expelled sisters after all, even though the NYT reporter tried to make it sound as though they were (incidentally, it’s stuff like this that’s taught me to be skeptical of allegations of racism).
Anyway, I expect a retraction and an apology.
Thanks. I think that the quotes you picked really capture the defensiveness aspect that quickly turns into an attack.
It’s amazing what the white mind can do – turn someone saying that something is not relevant with regard to something else and understand that statement about relevance as an attack against them. Suddenly, they are not racist and in fact, they are the victim and it’s all about them being “falsely accused of racism.” And then there they are, a white person accusing someone else of attacking them.
As a white person myself who often sees this pattern of behavior in other white people, I try to observe my own behavior and not react this way. It seems so irrational and illogical and I hope that I don’t behave his way, but because people so rarely get called out, perhaps I’m just as bad as the next guy. I try to be aware of the feelings and behaviors that a racist culture is tryign to train me to have in order to help maintain domination. But most of the time, I just wonder what it is that causes people to be so blind that they think that making these sorts of jumps and diversions is okay.
Also, I don’t know where the idea of black people “facilitating” racism comes from. To think this way, someone would have to imagine racism as completely divorced from a system of power and oppression.
Do we need a new word for racism so that we can talk about about it without inspiring the “How dare you accuse me of wanting to lynch people” reaction?
The words “prejudice” and “discrimination” come to mind as expressions of comparatively less severe forms of racism, though others may disagree.
I do think it’s a bit of a semantics game.
I do not believe a different word is necessary. I do not believe that “discrimination” and “prejudice” adequately describes what happens here. I also believe that it doesn’t really matter what word you use to describe it, the people who have the privilege will deny it’s happening, and will resort to any convenient argument to avoid examining that privilege.
Discrimination and prejudice are also non-specific. After all, you can experience either because of your sex, your orientation, your gender identity, your religion, your politics, and so on. Referring to racism by those labels removes the context – that racism exists at all.
I do not believe in coddling the sensibilities of those who choose to propagate racist (or any other bigoted) attitudes. I would rather name what I see and not compromise on this. I do not care if they’ve rationalized away the idea that they could be racist because racists lynch people of color, they don’t simply tell bigoted jokes about them with their white friends.
I believe that racism implies the cultural power white people have over people of color in the United States. I am tired of this being the elephant in the living room and would like to point it out when I see it.
For the record, Brandon, an example where you state that you were “pretty sure” racism occured, isn’t a ringing endorsement.
Also, when a White man says,
when speaking about instances of racism that are so blatantly racist (At least to me, anyway; but I’m just a Black woman, what would I know?) it makes me frustrated.
Rachel, I wouldn’t change a thing.
Sorry if this seems obtuse, but where do you mean by “here?”
Why do you make that assumption?
I’m going to step outside of racism for a moment to talk generally. And in GENERAL, people are more willing to accept that they did something which was less offensive, and less willing to accept that they did something that was highly offensive. So I’ll have an easier time convincing someone that they said something unintelligible (not bad); harder that they said something rude, or blatantly rude, or a little offensive, or incredibly offensive, or so horrible that it brands them as an idiot to anyone who ever knows they said it.
Racism as some people use it these days encompasses the entire spectrum, from feeling curious about black hair maintenance to lynching. And when you use a word that broad, it leads to miscommunication: some folks feel more upset than you intend. Some folks feel wronged because they think you are accusing them of a high level of immorality. As a result, they respond worse than they would otherwise do.
You are free to not care about that. But miscommunication doesn’t lead to good outcomes. So I think it’s important to address.
I agree that the term discrimination (as opposed to “racial discrimination”) is non specific. But how does using the term mean that racism–or racial discrimination, for that matter–doesn’t exist?
Why? Why is it more important to say what you feel than it is to have an effect on the people to whom you are speaking? That isn’t a very successful strategy, I don’t think.
Rephrase: “I do not believe that prejudice or discrimination adequately describes what happens when white privilege harms people of color.”
That’s not what I said. To translate, “calling it prejudice or discrimination makes it sound like it’s not a specifically a racial issue.”
Because if you shift the terminology, people will still deny their racism. I’ve seen it with sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and racism. Because the only time I’ve seen anyone define “racism” as “white hoods, night riders, nooses, and burning crosses” is when they’re saying racist things and getting called on it.
My experience when calling people out on these things is that it does not matter whether you tell them they’re being bigoted, or discriminatory, or prejudiced is that they react the same way – defensive denial, insults, complaints about “political correctness,” some patronizing comments about civil rights, or they’ll find some other way to dismiss the criticism.
As a lesbian trans woman, I find that allowing the dominant groups (men, cisgendered, heterosexual) to define discourse about me results in said discourse not being in my favor. I don’t see how racism really should be any different. I don’t think white people should be setting the terms under which racism can be criticized (and I say this as a white person).
A new word? One could try “offensive” as in “I find your comment/action to be extremely offensive with regards to race”. However, in reality, this won’t work–nothing will work–if the individual isn’t truly willing to learn anything. Using offensive instead of racist may work better to start a true dialogue, but with someone who’s intention is only to shock and appall, they will force the issue into a confrontational role where the word “racist” eventually comes out–whether it be from them or you.
White folks purposely skew the convo to something other than their responsibility out of a sense of white guilt they cannot or will not even acknowledge. This is evidenced by the numerous times you can hear the phrase, “I never owned slaves!” Okay, nobody ever said you did. But we are saying that your actions and comments–right now–are not cool and are reminisicent of the same thoughts and actions that people who DID own slaves expressed. No, you are not a white sheet wearing, cross burning, Black male genitalia castrating individual. (I don’t believe) But the things you do and say are reminiscent of those same individual’s beliefs.
That would be my nice intellectual approach.
In real life, I would probably cuss them and beat them over the head with their own ignorance with words until they either punch me or run away crying. Sometimes, the latter option is more satisfying. But not very conducive to conversation, or teaching white folks about their racism or racist ways. So I save the intelligent approach for work colleagues or other folks I think might actually benefit. But I do believe that we DO have to talk about it. To just stop talking to white folks about it just allows them to continue on in their blissful ignorance. And then we get nowhere.
Thanks–that’s not what I had guessed, so I’m glad I asked ;)
To bring up a topic from the end of your post: do you feel this way about everything that can be classified as racism?
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are racists acts and beliefs which are really racist, disgustingly racist, etc… and there are acts which are less so. (at least from my opinion.) I deliberately used two quite different examples: to me, those shouldn’t be defined by the same word.
I am NOT suggesting that the word “racism” be put out of use, but simply that more words are needed to define something which spans all the way from lynching to hair products.
Hmm. i agree that those words make it more clear that it is “simply” (bad word, I know) the racial manifestation of a problem that exists across many other spectra. But isn’t this in fact true? Isn’t it OK if the language acknowledges that?
Your experience is different from mine, which is not surprising. In my experience, the type and strength of denial varies significantly with what you are accusing someone of doing.
We are in only partial disagreement here.
I agree that pretty much everyone will respond to accusations (of any kind) with defensiveness. It’s almost a universal human trait, by no means limited to whites.
However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that people are equally defensive about everything. It just makes no sense!
I’ve been to, read about, and heard about my fair share of therapy. One of the core issues is that you have to complain to (or try to change) your partner/friend/boss/coworker in a way that THEY will respond to. Which is most assuredly not the way that necessarily makes you feel good.
A classic therapy exchange might be
Q: “OK, John, so when you want Bob to open up to you, what do you do?”
A: “I yell at him for being too quiet.”
Q: “And does that work?”
A: “No, it just makes him clam up more.”
Q: “Is it more important to you to yell, or to have Bob open up?”
A: “To have him open up, I guess.”
and so on.
That last question is the kicker. I know for myself what types of conversation will make me pay attention, and what will make me roll my eyes and tune out. Let’s say you’re having a conversation with me about an issue and you know what the “tune out” lingo is. Would you use it?
Now, say you’re talking to Joe Normal White Person, who defines “racism” as the worst 10% of what you would call “racism.” If you use the word racist to describe what Joe is doing, Joe will tune you out. Would you still do so?
Well, I know that I respond a lot better when somebody says, “What you are doing hurts me” than I do when somebody says “You are being racist”. The latter is open to debate (though I take the point that it is often better not to), while the former is indisputable.
Additionally, it seems kind of counterproductive (and even a little passive-aggressive) to use the term “racism” when you’re talking to somebody whom you know has a different definition of the word, without telling them that you are using your own definition and not the dictionary definition. You know that, unless they’ve been schooled to the feminist definition of the word, that they are going to take your accusation as something far more severe and deliberate than you mean. If your goal is to try to get them defensive, this is a great idea; however, if your goal is to engage in productive dialogue, then it seems counterproductive.
I really don’t like all of this “rewording” business just because White people don’t like to deal with race and their own racism. Racism is an ugly matter: It causes pain to those who experience it. Of course, it may cause some pain to those who are accused of it, as it should.
Racism is harsh, it’s ugly, and it’s cruel. There’s no “softening the blows” for those of us who have to deal with it and a constant basis.
Sailorman, I will respond to you soon – I just don’t have time at the moment.
Bjartmarr,
But this also narrows the scope of the challenged action. If you say “women suck” and I say “You know, it hurts me personally when you attack women like that,” it then becomes about my feelings, and not about the fact that you like to say nasty things about women.
The last time I checked, I’m not telepathic. I also know that most people define bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice as things they don’t do…so when I say “you’re being racist” or “that’s racial discrimination” I’m already outside the territory defined as “racist” or “discrimination” by the person I’m challenging.
It’s completely unrealistic to expect me to ask “Do you think what you did was racist or just prejudiced?” before saying “Okay, what you did was racist or prejudiced.” It’s not passive-aggressive to use language naturally, but it is passive-aggressive to expect that I should automatically know what language you will find acceptable when I call you on your hypothetical bigoted behavior.
Most people in a position of privilege are deaf to any criticism of that privilege, so the question is getting enough of their attention to get them to acknowledge they did anything at all, and this has little to do with the perceived strength of the words used.
Also, How Not to be Insane When Accused of Racism.
Yeah, it does, and I can see how you might not want to do that. But it also gives that person a really good reason to quit doing it, which may lead to some reflection later. ‘Cause nice people realize that people who know that they’re hurting other people, and keep doing it for no good reason, are dicks. On the other hand, if they feel like you’ve made an unfair accusation, they’re more likely to react defensively than reflectively.
I don’t expect you to know how anyone else defines racism. But it’s pretty good odds, if you’re outside a feminist forum like this one, that the person you’re talking to is using the dictionary definition and not the feminist definition. And you know that two definitions exist, while they are likely unaware that the feminist definition exists and that you are using it. So there ends up being two problems: first, that they don’t understand the word the way you want them to understand it, and second, the original problem that they don’t realize that what they did fits your definition of the word.
Furthermore, they are unlikely to understand you without an explicit explanation that you mean something different than the dictionary definition. And even if you do take the opportunity to explain, doing so after leveling an accusation isn’t likely to find them in their most receptive state.
Read it, thanks. Accepting criticism calmly, whether deserved or not, is a great skill to have; unfortunately it’s rare. But the post also points out that the word “racist” makes white people crazy. The point of my post is twofold: (1) to offer an explanation of *why* it makes people crazy, and (2) to point out that crazy people are less likely to consider what you’re saying with an open mind.
What concerns me in this discussion is that over time, it turned into a discussion of how people fail to have meaningful conversations about racism because people (presumably often people of color) are being too accusatory to start a conversation.
Suddenly, once again, the problem has morphed back into people of color being “too mean” to white people. The magic conversation refocus happened even in this thread!
Re: wtto
~ cosigned
I once had a very heated discussion about racism on a another site. When I called people out on their white privilege and racist attitudes, I was called “hostile”, “snippy”, “sarcastic”, “mean”, etc.
I’m putting this at the top, because it is true. The problem begins and ends with the fact that a racist act was committed, not whether the racist act is identified in language acceptable to the person who committed the act.
I apologize if my posts facilitated this shift. I’m trying to do the opposite.
Sailorman:
Yes. It all comes from white privilege.
It’s not unfair, though. It’s true. When you’re in a position of privilege, it’s not hard to want to define the terms of engagement or refute the accusation entirely.
If a person of color says, “What the hell? That was racist” it’s not hard to ask “What did I do?” rather than argue over whether his definition of racist matches your definition. You’re not the aggrieved party, he is.
Okay, it is hard for some people, but they’re already disposed to react defensively, in my experience. It takes some effort to stop and listen rather than argue.
I didn’t say people are equally defensive about everything, nor did I say white people are more defensive than people of color. I was saying that people with privilege, when told they’re using that privilege, tend to flat out deny it. If I tell a man he just said something sexist, or a white person he said something racist, the typical response is to deny it, to turn it around, to find some way to get out away from it and disown it. I can use other words, and I will get similar responses, because the root is the same, and no one likes to think of themselves as racist or sexist.
Since the language doesn’t make a heck of a lot of difference, I feel it’s important to emphasize that racism is not just hoods and lynchings – or that sexism isn’t just demanding that women be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen – but rather systematic and pervasive social conditioning that influences how people interact with women or people of color. Actions that arise from that conditioning are racist or sexist.
This puts all the responsibility for JNWP’s behavior in my hands. Now it’s up to me to make him own his racist behavior once it’s brought to his attention. I cannot take responsibility for other people’s wrongdoings. I cannot be held responsible for them accepting that they’ve done wrong.
There’s two conflicting motives here:
JNWP doesn’t want to be seen as a racist, and defines racism as stuff that’s nastier than what he does. I want John to realize he’s a racist. Odds are, when I tell him he’s being racist, no matter what language I use, he’ll go insane.
Why? Because as far as he believes, he’s not racist. That means the same thing as he’s not prejudiced, he doesn’t discriminate against people of color. God forbid, he might even think he’s “colorblind.”
And this still comes back to white people defining the terms under which people of color can criticize racist behavior, which simply provides another lever for dismissing such criticism when it comes up, which ultimately means it’s just a way to avoid dealing with the existence of white privilege.
Bjartmarr
The dictionary definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
Discrimination and prejudice both show up in those definitions. I don’t think what I’m talking about steps outside the dictionary definition.
Also, if you do something racist, you’ve earned the accusation. You are not wronged because you’ve been accused of racism. You have most likely been accused of racism because you said or did something that wronged a person of color. If you freak out because he calls you on being racist, you’re simply compounding the fact that you’ve wronged him by dismissing and probably silencing him.
Yeah, but we keep getting back to “white people get to dictate how people of color express their grievances,” and that’s not an acceptable premise, because the basic problem here – the root of racism – is that white people culturally have more power than people of color. If we tell people of color how they can address their “Hey, you’re being racist” statements at us, that’s racist. If you do or say something racist and get called on it, the person who calls you on it is not at fault for using language you don’t like when he says “Hey, that was racist,” nor is he necessarily trying to attack you.
Did you mean “can”, or “must”? ‘Cause I’m totally with you on the “must” thing. If you actually meant “can”, well, then I’ll just clam up.
I’m not dictating anything. Nor do I think that anybody is trying to attack me or anyone else. I’m making an observation and a suggestion. If you think my observation is wrong, or my suggestion is unhelpful or unwelcome, that’s perfectly okay with me.
You keep arguing from specificity, and I don’t see how you got there.
In other words, I don’t see how you’re claiming an exception to “general” rules (you may disagree with the general rules, but I’m not getting that either.) I.e. generally speaking people like to define the terms of conversations; generally speaking people tend to prefer to refute accusations rather than accept them.
So unless you disagree with those general rules, I don’t get how people’s normal actions are based on “white privilege,” just because they are talking to a nonwhite.
Note that I am not denying that white privilege exists. I just think that in part of the conversation, there needs to be some way to distinguish between what is based on racism, and what isn’t. Defensiveness is universal, isn’t it?
Sure. And I am saying that the manner of pointing out that privilege has a lot to do with whether or not they deny it. Which is why I was talking about the range of issues with the single word. If you know that people are not equally defensive about everything, why noty adjust your speech to minimize the changes of a defense, and maximize acceptance of your position?
No, nobody does. Which is why, if you want to convince them, that the language matters.
Sure. However, this (as you undoubtedly know) is a fairly different definition than many people use.
So you’ve got two choices: you can start out with your definition, and THEN when they are on board with it, you can talk about how they are racist under that definition. They may feel–many people do–that your definition is too broad. But that’s a separate issue.
Alternatively, you can start out by calling them racist. They will then get offended (surprise!) and distant (surprise!). because you will have forced them into cognitive dissonance. THEY think that “racist” is “cross burning lynching person.” YOU just called them racist. Their dissonance gets resolved by 1) adopting a belief that they are akin to KKK, 2) adopting a belief that you’re a fool, or–very rarely–3) asking for clarification. But having seen this in action, #2 is the most common. (I don’t think you’re a fool, of course.)
Yup! That sucks, doesn’t it. But yes, it’s true. You have to be the “bigger” person here.
Why? Because in all likelihood, Joe doesn’t care much about what you think. Joe might care just a little bit, which is why Joe is listening to you in the first place.
But what are you asking? You’re not offering change on your end; you’re not offering a payoff to Joe. In fact, if anything, you’re asking Joe to make personal maneuvers which may have an instant disadvantage, for the benefit of society as a whole (or a segment of society.)
Note that I deliberately wrote the above paragraph in an extremely general way. I did that on purpose Because if you look at what you’re trying to do generally, and remove any self righteousness you feel about what you or Joe are thinking, and if you simply look at the question
then the answer becomes more obvious.
Well then, leave Joe alone. You’re obviously trying to change things, or you wouldn’t be talking to Joe in the first place. And if you care enough to change things, you have an obligation at the least to avoid doing things that will make JNWP less open to similar communications in the future.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe coming on hard will convince Joe eventually. But generally speaking, I doubt it.
Do you want Joe to realize he’s a racist, or do you want Joe to change his behavior that you consider to be racist?
In other words: are you gunning to assign Joe an unpleasant label, or to change Joe? Because I am telling you that those are two very different things.
Ya. And while I really DO understand where you’re coming from, and agree with what you’re saying here–you think Joe is really going to respond to this attitude? Do you think that
[shrug]
It’s really a universal truth:
You can say anything you want. But if you want people to actually listen to you and give a shit, you CAN’T say anything you want. The choice remains yours.
See above. You, I, POC… we can say anything we want. It just doesn’t have much effect.
Pingback: politicalpartypoop.com » Blog Archive » Whites Need to Take Responsibility for Their Racism (Alternate Title: Stop Giving White People 2nd, 3rd and 4th Chances When Blacks Get Zero Chances)
Brandon, [material deleted by Amp]
You don’t have a case for libel.
And while you’re at it, tone down the demonstration of the massive entitlement complex, because you don’t have a “right” to demand a retraction either.
Littlem, let me remind you that personal attacks on other comment writers are very discouraged on this blog. Please don’t do that again.
That said, I disagree with Brandon that he has a case for libel. (If he thinks he does have a case, maybe he doesn’t; he didn’t actually say that he does.)
Brandon’s certainly right that it’s not literally true that he has never seen a claim of racism he thought was racism. However, I think most readers would recognize that a sentence like “Brandon never met a case of racism that he actually thought was racism” is hyperbolic, not literal.
Rachel’s hyperbole is based in truth: Brandon disagrees with assessments of racism relatively frequently, and possibly more frequently than any other commenter here. And hyperbole is hardly an unexpected or unknown thing in blog debates.
That said, contrary to your statement, Brandon has the right to object to hyperbole, and to say he “expects” an apology and a retraction. Everyone always has that right, in internet debates. What he doesn’t have is the right to receive a retraction and apology.
Pingback: Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2007-10-31
Sailorman –
(I’m probably too late to this post and thread to engage but…)
You fail to consider that interactions between the person called out (our Joe White Person) and the person calling him out on a racist statement or action are not just about those two people.
Changing Joe’s mind is not the only possible goal the person might have. I can think of a number of others, for example, standing up for oneself has benefits in and of itself; assuming they are not alone then other people who are not directly confronted may be convinced to re-think their own actions or the actions of other white people they interact with (without the same defensiveness as if they were personally confronted); and other people who also thought the statement or action racist may feel emboldened to stand up for themselves and confront racism in similar situations in the future.
If Joe White Person is already somewhat sympathetic to your position (such as when these kinds of things happen in groups that are dedicated to adressing inequality, poverty, sexism, etc., or when Joe White Person is a good friend that you have a certain amount of trust built up with) then direct confrontation may indeed yield the desired self-reflection by Joe.
If Joe White Person is not at all sympathetic to your position, then the likelihood of “changing his mind” is already low enough that maybe the other benefits of direct, forceful, confrontation outweigh the possibility that you are losing out on convincing him by using strong language. If instead, you embolden other people to confront such things strongly, and if Joe White Person frequently goes around saying racist shit, it’s more likely you’ll someday “convince” him to change if multiple people, over a course of time, call him out on it. By modelling that, you’re making it more likely, over time, that he will be convinced. And the possibility that you could have convinced him today, by being “nicer” approaches nil.
One thing that whites fail to realize is that black people define words very differently then their dictionaries. We have a language all our own. I am not offended by what I hear in hip-hop. Hip-hop does not define me as a female — that is not it’s purpose. Black people need to stop responding to white people. We are giving them too much power by wasting our time – power they do not deserve and time we do not have. Believe me, white folks know who they are, that is why they conspire against anyone that is not white.
of course white people are going to blame black people for their own oppression. it’s called functional denial. did carmen just become a person of color recently or something? before that, it was that god mandated that blacks were inferior by his design. they are going to deny their racism BECAUSE THEY ARE RACISTS. they have the power, so they don’t have to take charge or admit anything. obviously.
If “nappy headed” and “hoes” are insults, and Imus clearly meant them to be, considering his apology was not that he thought those were good things , and that the next clause in the quote is an explicit antithesis to those descriptors, then they are racist and sexist remarks. PERIOD. Whether the targets being described fit those criteria or have other characteristics that trigger the line of thought is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. And if anyone can’t see that, then I’m going to go ahead and say they’re racist, too, end of story.
If “nappy-headed”=bad
and “hoes”=bad
and “nappy-headed”=”hoes”=bad
and all of those /= “cute”
YOU ARE RACIST
and if you think any of those attributes is more applicable to female athletes than to male athletes or males in general, YOU ARE A SEXIST.
and @ sailorman: you’re missing the point when you frame it as POC confronting JNWP. It is JNWP that is confronting the POC with his racism. Any response from the POC is automatically appropriate.
@wtto: BINGO.
I bet we could play another bingo game or two with this thread…
and @Bjartmarr in my experience, the only difference in the way people respond to “what you’re doing hurts me” and “you’re a racist” is their tone of voice, not their actions. Only people who want to change will, and those people are not usually alienated by anger or wording alone. Their reaction has nothing to do with the tone or wording of the “accusation”; it only has to do with their perception of themselves. Those who aren’t responsible for their own cognitive dissonance will not own their actions, no matter what anyone else does and they certainly won’t own the train of thought that lead to it, which frankly I’m more concerned with.
Only how I chose I address their issue is ever up to me. Being nice while I confront it just doesn’t rumple my feathers as much, but then any discussion of how to confront someone is really only applicable depending on how much I value that relationship and what signals they value most in my behavior and how well they go to getting that particular individual to shut up. Personally I’d just rather not be with a racist than have them respect my “preferences” while in my company. That may be a little unrealistic on my part, but I have a right to it.
If nothing else, a better argument for your point of view is that when you acquiesce to the counter-accusation, you give those around you further grounds to prejudicially dismiss your argument afterward. That is mostly because our -ist culture subsists on the myth that emotionality and rationality are mutually exclusive and people use the myth to manipulate facts and perception, not because people take offense to the ideas presented by those who are being wronged. How people are perceiving the “accusation” just becomes a convenient cloak to hide behind for people who are averse to change to begin with. In fact, THAT was the real reason behind pacifistic civil disobedience, not that “racists will trip over the strong wording on their honest yet arduous way to being better human beings, so look out”. See Ghandi for reference. Non-violence had nothing to do with aversion to violence and honoring the feelings of the oppressors, so check your privilege, it’s skewing things. That’s all well and good (until it distorts reality and you end up setting yourself up as a strawman in someone else’s argument), because then we have your point of view, but it’s also part of the problem being described and therefore probably is not a likely solution. That you think what you’re proposing is “how it works” best is really indicative of your own bias toward presuming you’re unbiased; and that the person who disagrees with you is therefore biased as opposed to informed, simply because they disagree with you; and then explicitly saying that whites are correct to expect positive treatment in the wake of their own offensive behavior is a total recreation of the original post. i realize that you disagree with the OPs premise, but I am saying that you have also managed to justify it in your particular arguments. Which is usually what “I’m not racist, but” arguments usually do, ironically enough.
{AND FOR *&$% sake, it’s not about “JNWP is hurting my personal feelings*!” why do people always go there? Because they’re privileged enough to only have to worry about their feelings, and they can’t even imagine it being a bigger issue, which is why the “teaching POC of color how to address racism with whites so that they feel more comfortable” train of thought even gets started. Must find study that white people think that being liked is the most important thing in the universe, while everyone else would just like to be respected first. Must find. UGH.} Excuse me. Ahem, great post. Sorry to show up to it so late and lay it out like that. And really sorry for the classic derailment in the comments.