The White Guy's Fallacy

>

Last week, Senator Bob Bennett cracked a joke, suggesting that his colleague Ben Campbell (the only American Indian in the Senate) fix a drought by performing a rain dance.

I initially wrote it off as a harmless joke, but – as I said in an earlier post – Susan Harjo’s reasoning changed my mind:

In the comments to that post, Kevin Drum (aka Calpundit) wrote:

Now, I have a lot of respect for Kevin – his politics are too far right for my tastes, but he’s very smart and means well. Nonetheless, I think he’s made an error here.

I need a name for this fallacy, because I sure see it come up a lot. For now, I’ll call it the White Guy’s Fallacy (I’m a white guy, so I’m allowed to make fun). The way it goes is that a person (not always a white guy) thinks, “well, would I be offended if someone say the same thing about me?” The answer is often “no,” and the initial complaint is thus judged (and dismissed) as “hypersensitivity.”

The problem is, the comparison is usually irrelevant. Take Kevin’s example. Ignoring the fact that Senator Campbell is not, so far as I know, a shaman (which is the closest counterpart to “chaplain” I know of), the fact is that Native American culture and spirituality has, for centuries, been a fairly constant subject of white mockery and disdain. For a powerful white man to make jokes like that on the Senate floor is calling to mind, and perpetuating, that history of dissing Native Americans.

What Kevin’s chaplain example does, in effect, is to say “suppose we take what Bennett said, and divorce from it all the context that made it offensive. Then it’s no longer offensive, right?” Right, but so what?

Kevin’s comment that “hypersensitivity… sometimes has a political agenda of its own” is interesting, because it seemingly presumes that having a political agenda is always a bad thing.

But is it really? I think there are many worthwhile political agendas that are served when minorities and women demand respect (“demand respect” is, I realize, a loaded term; but so is “hypersensitivity”).

1. When the nation’s leaders speak in public, they are setting the tone for the rest of the culture. If Senators and Congressmen felt comfortable referring to “kikes” and cracking Jewish jokes in public, then that indicates that doing so is mainstream and polite; and anyone who objects would be out on the margins (and perhaps even hypersensitive). Policing how leaders talk in public is a legitimate political agenda.
2. A marginalized group that can’t even command minimal politeness in public – that can’t, for example, reasonably expect that its sacred rituals won’t be publicly mocked – has much less chance of having any more substantive policy agenda put through.
3. Respect and courtesy are legitimate political ends to seek, in their own right.

Finally, I should point out that it’s not Susan Harjo making a big deal of this – it’s Bob Bennett. If he had done the right thing at the start, by saying “I apologize for my careless remark; it was never my intent to offend,” then that would have been the end of it.

When I step on someone’s foot, I don’t complain that their toes are overly sensitive, nor do I make elaborate explanations of how I came to step on their foot (“you have to understand, where I meant to put my foot was…”). I apologize and move on. Most of the time, inadvertent racism (homophobia, sexism, etc) should be dealt with the same way.

And for folks like Senator Bennett, who are so adverse to apologizing when they give offense… well, would it be wrong if I suspected them of hyperinsensitivity? And if I suspected that hyperinsensitivity (so common among, although not unique to, straight white men) of having a political agenda all its own?

.