As is often the case during major online blowups of one kind or another, I have lately found myself having to explain more often than I would care to the difference between “You said something racist” and “You are a racist.” Granted, a lot of people, including anti-racist activists, make a step from the first statement to the next with no problem. But it isn’t always the case that someone who says racist or sexist or other oppressive/prejudiced things is themselves a prejudiced, racist, or sexist person. They can be, certainly. And if you give certain people enough time and space to talk, they’ll prove themselves so.
But not always.
I want to try and unpack this in a way that will benefit future discourse because I think this is a very important point. I’m not the only person to point this out, of course. But it helps me to be a better debater in the future if I make posts and put my thoughts in order.
The truth is, everyone can make prejudiced, offensive or oppressive statements. Many people have prejudiced thoughts. And I mean people as in humans as in everyone, not just those whose groups have historical power.
In the case of those who do not belong to the dominant group, those statements can be hurtful, but often do not have the same impact. This is due to power imbalance.1 When someone in the dominant group says something prejudiced or offensive, many people will (perhaps correctly) assume that they said such a thing because they really think and believe it. And if a person really believes that prejudiced thing, they must be prejudiced themselves. This is not illogical.
However, humans often are.
Bias, prejudice, wrong thinking can be the product of conscious thought or unconscious/unexamined thought. It seems to me that a large percentage of people who bust out with really ignorant statements often do so because they have not ever, ever truly thought them through to their logical conclusions. If they did, or if someone challenged them to, their thinking could change.
Most activists realized this about people long ago. And thus many attempt to make a distinction between “You said something X-ist” and “You are a X-ist.”
Doing this is hard. Especially when the words that come out of people’s mouths are so very, very hurtful or very, very ignorant. It also doesn’t help when the person is acting like a jerk, all prejudicial talk aside. That is usually when people make the leap from “you said” to “you are” — I include myself in this.
So, two thoughts. One for those who say things that get them in trouble, one for those who hear/read these things.
First, the guide to How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism is very, very useful and I suggest you read it. Also, I urge you to read or listen carefully when someone takes exception to something you said/wrote. Are they saying that you’re an X-ist? Or are they saying that what you said is X-ist? If they say the latter they’re trying to make the distinction I’ve been talking about here, and you will not help the conversation by assuming they’re accusing you of the former.
If you are being accused of X-ism, then it would behoove you to examine what about your statement made people say that about you. Do not attempt to destroy, suppress or otherwise derail the discussion of racism (it’s not helpful either to you or to other arguing against you). And remember that admitting that you were wrong to say that X-ist thing is not the same as admitting you are an X-ist yourself.
Second, for those who see or read offensive, X-ist, prejudicial, or stereotypical things, I suggest attempting to make a distinction between what folks say and what they are. It’s not an easy path to take, and it involves a lot of giving the benefit of the doubt, patience, and tolerance. But I think it does help to start by saying “you said something x-ist/offensive” instead of “you are an x-ist because you said that” unless this person has proven, through past or further statements and actions that they are indeed x-ist.
Then you can have at.
That’s my advice, take it or leave it as you will. I do admit that for the activist, this can be hard. Especially when you run up against the thousandth instance of a particular prejudicial or offensive mindset. I make no claim on being perfect or even halfway decent in this regard at all times. I’m just trying.
I’m hoping for better discourse, but I have little hope of getting it from certain quarters of the population.
And now a word from our sponsor...
| Your ad could be here, right now. |
- A black person calls a white person a cracker: that’s not cool. But it does not have the same impact, or have the same level of wrongness, as a white person calling a black person a nigger. Still, doing both things is wrong, period.
If only you’d posted this yesterday, I could have avoided a long Facebook discussion with my brother-in-law by just pointing him here :-)
Ignorance is one thing. We are all ignorant about something or other. We all start that way, so there is no shame in it. What’s most revealing is when you are confronted with your ignorance. Are you willing to listen? Will you engage in honest debate with intent to hear and be persuaded? Or do you cling to your ignorance because preserving your worldview is more important than having to admit you were ignorant? Is your only objective in discussion to win? Are you more worried about countering what you hear than processing it?
That goes for both parties in the conversation, of course.
If I could magically cause this one sentence to be tattooed on the forehead of every pundit in America, a lot of pundits would be growing their bangs out. Great post!
Sometimes though, people do deliberately confuse the two stances. Plenty of people are aware of the difference between X-ist actions and X-ist but conflate them anyways because they *are* X-ist and do wish to defend the value of that sentiment in certain ways. This was blatant in the Sotomeyer nomination process. Other people sometimes don’t like you and will try to conflate your X-ist action into you’re a X-ist, such as the PUMA tactics during the presidential primaries.
The how not to be insane link is really important. Sometimes it isn’t about you, and you need to disengage. Sometime it IS about you and you need to make it not about you. Figure out the circumstances within and without yourself and act accordingly.
Politics…
Perhaps there are people who only use the word “prejudiced” to mean “consciously, deliberately prejudiced”. However, subconscious prejudice still counts as prejudice. Therefore, someone can still be prejudiced even if they don’t consciously believe anything explicitly, obviously prejudiced, and don’t intend to be prejudiced.
Is there any subject–not just the subject of race, but any subject at all–on which you or I could claim to be 100% bias-free? I don’t think so. Much less could there be any person who is bias-free on a subject as volatile as race. So, I don’t think poorly of people for being racially prejudiced, because we all are. But I do think poorly of them if they are grown adults who have made pitifully little progress in forming more reasoned beliefs with which to counter their prejudice or in decreasing their prejudice itself (based on my own idea of what counts as pitifully little, of course). Or if, when confronted about their prejudice, they become defensive and resistant and cling to their ludicrous image of themselves as non-prejudiced people, thereby also clinging to their prejudices.
@RonF: There is no shame in true ignorance–not having the facts. But what if you have had the facts right in front of you but just haven’t thought them through clearly because you preferred to rely on your unexamined assumptions? Or if you don’t have the facts themselves but could easily find out, and didn’t bother to find out even though you would agree that it’s an important subject?
For an example of how this conversation can go even when you explain the difference between what you say/do and what you are, however, see my discussion with my brother-in-law. I wish you all better luck in convincing a white conservative that his view of the world as divided into Racists and Not-Racists may be missing some details. (The reference to Jesse Jackson is his famous statement, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery — then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”
PG: Having worn out the last thread, I’m repeating the question I was left with about some white conservatives’ mindset. Why isn’t racism another moral failing that most of us have and that we should be seeking to overcome, and that we should not condone in others (just as we do not condone the occasional lie even from someone we don’t consider a habitual liar)? Why is racism an on-off switch rather than a spectrum?
BiL: I’m not about to speak for ALL conservatives, nor am I about to speak for all white people. I agree with both PG and Avenue Q that everyone is just a little racist. I personally would like to think that MOST people have the capacity to set their own personal prejudices aside and make decisions in a professional mature manner.
Here’s the divide: It is the default position for white conservatives to assume that because they aren’t overtly racist themselves, other white people in a similar situation wouldn’t be racially motivated either. On the other hand, it seems that if something bad happens, the default minority position is that racism is the primary motivating factor. (as was stated in the last thread.) The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Let me take that one step further… I think liberals define “racist” as someone who has prejudices against another race. In that sense, YES everyone is a little racist. I think conservatives tend to define a racist as someone whose worldview is primarily driven by race. A conservative might say, “I’m not like that neo-nazi shithead on TV… therefore I’m not racist.” He may be prejudiced, but as long as his prejudice doesn’t affect his decision making process, he won’t see himself as a racist. This is also the thought process that leads conservatives to say dumb things like, “I have a black friend… obviously I’m not racist.”
PG: “I personally would like to think that MOST people have the capacity to set their own personal prejudices aside and make decisions in a professional mature manner.”
Yeah, I don’t understand how that works psychologically. If I have a nearly-instinctive belief that black men are more dangerous than white men, how exactly do I just turn that off? It’s not like I get onto the subway thinking, “It’s OK to be racist here!” Police officers in particular have to give credence to their instincts for danger. If that instinct for danger has been influenced by the idea that black men are more dangerous (as mine has been, as Jesse Jackson’s has been), then that’s going to play out.
“On the other hand, it seems that if something bad happens, the default minority position is that racism is the primary motivating factor. (as was stated in the last thread.)”
Who stated that? I specifically began the last thread by saying that I thought any racial issue was less important to the interaction than police authoritarianism. I haven’t seen anyone claim that Officer Crowley arrests the black Miss Manners who is bowing and scraping to him. I have seen a lot of people make the logical fallacy of assuming that “Had Gates been white, this probably wouldn’t have happened” = “Gates was arrested because he is black.”
BiL (quoting the prior thread): “More importantly, I think it’s ridiculous to think that a black man being arrested in that situation wouldn’t at least wonder if his race was a relevant factor.” = default position. Again, my position was more “if X = asshat, then Y=arrested”
PG, I think your previous comment helps to shed light on the “spectrum vs. binary” question on the original post. A liberal might weigh the practicality vs. morality of a racist sentiment. I think a conservative would just say, “that’s either racist or it’s not.” Regardless of how many people may get fired by a sexist CEO, it would be completely wrong either way.
PG: “a relevant factor” =/= “racism is the primary motivating factor”
It’s not “practicality vs. morality of a racist sentiment.” All racist sentiment is bad on moral grounds, regardless of whether it causes any practical harm to anyone. It is morally bad for me to be looking suspiciously at the black guy on the subway and clutching my purse. Some of it is ADDITIONALLY bad because it can cause practical harm. My suspicion of the black guy on the train causes no appreciable practical harm, but a cop’s similar impulse to assume the black guy is dangerous can end up with said black guy arrested, beaten or dead. This is due to the power differential between me and the cop. Thus while one might say on moral grounds the cop’s racist sentiment is no worse than mine, with regard to the effect on the black guy, the cop’s racism is a lot worse.
BiL: “relevant” and “primary motivating” are shades of gray. Either way, it still relates to the mindset of the default position.
Do you grab your purse EVERY time you see a black stranger on the train, or only when you see an intimidating black person? (I’m assuming you would grab your purse if you saw a scary white guy too.)
PG: But the distinction between “relevant” and “primary motivating” is huge. I’ve said throughout (and no one has disagreed with me on this) that the “primary motivating factor” was that the cop felt dissed and didn’t like it. I’ve also said that I think it’s possible that either the feeling dissed in the first place, the extent to which the diss was resented, or the level of reaction Crowley had to it (arresting the guy who dissed him), may have been influenced by race. So everything I’ve been saying has been to distinguish between “relevant factor” and “primary motivating factor.”
What constitutes an intimidating black person vs a scary white guy? If I get nervous around a black guy wearing a ball cap, jeans and white T, but not around a white guy wearing a ball cap, jeans and white T, I suppose someone could say “Ah, but the black guy’s cap was backwards, his jeans sagged more, he walked in a more swaggering manner, and his white T was of a thinner material than the white guy’s in order to exhibit his muscles, so clearly that greater fear of him is NOT based on race because I can find a few things other than race to distinguish the two.”
Anyway, this guy just got arrested for disorderly conduct, for jokingly saying where a cop could hear him, “I hate the police.” But I am sure it was wholly uninfluenced by his particular minority status.
BiL: So you found an anecdotal example of an asshat cop. I never claimed there weren’t asshat, racist, or asshat-racist cops out there. Just that they weren’t all that way.
PG: The article wasn’t about a racial minority, but whatever.
I think a cop who arrests people for criticizing him, when their doing so poses no physical danger to him or others, is an asshat. What do you think?
BiL: I recognize that wasn’t a racial minority… the term “asshat” referred to the cop in the story you sited. I would also assert that a cop who behaves as you mentioned above is an asshat, regardless of his motivation – whether it be racial, sexual orientation, gender, geographic, or just that he/she is having a bad day and wants to take it out on someone. Would you agree?
PG: Sure, that behavior is asshattery. I’m just confused as to why you’re convinced that Officer Crowley must have been an asshat devoid of any specific motivation.
BiL: Just as I’m confused as to why you would automatically assign a specific motivation. Why couldn’t it be that Crowley simply felt dissed? (i.e., why go to the default position… there was a black suspect, OBVIOUSLY racism played a part) After we wore out the last thread, why are we back here?
PG: But I didn’t automatically assign a specific motivation. At what point did I say, “I *know* that this arrest was due to racial bias”? I think race *might* have played into it, and I’m troubled by how many white people, especially white conservatives, feel compelled either to defend the arrest as legitimate and Constitutional, or to concede that the arrest was illegitimate but maintain that it *for sure* had nothing to do with race. Like Obama, I feel no surety of any role played by race in this specific incident, but the fact that race does play a role in other incidents makes it difficult for me to feel as absolutely certain as I have seen some white people be that race *couldn’t possibly* have played any role. I don’t believe that if I entertain the possibility that race was involved that I’m calling Crowley a racist, whereas that seems to be the inevitable result of such speculation for other folks — “if it’s possible there was racial bias, he’s A RACIST!”
BiL: Because Crowley didn’t do anything overtly racist. He was doing his job, responding to a potential robbery (at a house that was recently broken into). Gates initiated and perpetuated the racial slant. I think white conservatives picture a scene where a cop asks a potential burglar for ID, and hears “Why, cause I’m a black man in America? You’re a racist cop.” At this point white conservatives loose all sympathy for Gates’ plight. Again, the expectation is that if I loose my head and yell at a cop, I’m probably going to end up in handcuffs. (constitutional or not.) If I would get handcuffed for the same behavior, it’s reasonable for white America to presume that racism didn’t play a factor here.
I also hope like hell that if one of my neighbors report a person forcefully opening my front door with their shoulder, the police would be diligent in their investigation.
PG: “Gates initiated and perpetuated the racial slant.”
I guess this Colbert bit was more accurate than I realized.
So there’s nothing of race involved until someone actually says something about race, and the person who says it is the person who “initiated and perpetuated the racial slant”?
“a scene where a cop asks a potential burglar for ID, and hears ‘Why, cause I’m a black man in America? You’re a racist cop.”
This assumes that the police report is accurate. And we’re already seeing that that is not the case. For example, the report claims that the 911 caller was saying it was 2 black guys w/ backpacks trying to break in. But the released tape of the call shows that Whalen said no such thing; she said it was 2 guys, she couldn’t tell what race, they had luggage with them, and she said several times that it might not be a break-in, they might be having trouble w/ the key.
The only racial identification the 911 caller gave, when she was repeatedly pressed to give one, is that maybe 1 guy was Hispanic.
The police report claims that Crowley had to go back outside to finish radio communications with CPD because Gates was yelling so loudly that Crowley couldn’t transmit information over the radio. Yet the tape of those communications shows that Crowley was clearly audible and Gates can barely be heard in the background.
That’s just how the tapes from the day contradict the report. So why do you assume that a cop whom you agree was engaged in an asshat abuse of power would be 100% truthful in his report of the incident, and that his account is more believable than Gates’s?
I would hope that if someone reported a guy in a suit and carrying luggage as pushing open the front door with his shoulder, while I stood next to him after having struggled to open the door without such pushing, and the person making the report noted the luggage and said, “Maybe they’re just having trouble with the key,” that the police’s diligence would include mentioning that and keeping it in mind in the course of their investigation.
BiL: Look, you’ve still shown absolutely nothing that proves racist intent. You have it stuck in your head that he’s racist, I have it stuck in my head that he’s not. I’m going to agree to disagree and move on.
PG: “You have it stuck in your head that he’s racist”
I think we had better end the discussion if this is honestly what you believe after the literally dozen times I’ve said, (1) I don’t equate being influenced by race in a particular incident with being “a racist”; (2) I don’t know if Sgt. Crowley even was influenced by race in this particular incident, I’m just open to the possibility instead of instantly dismissive of it.
BiL: Again, that’s where we disagree. (for the dozenth time.) If someone’s prejudices actually play a part in their decision making process, THEY’RE RACIST. If they don’t, they’re not. Period.
PG: Hmm. So Jesse Jackson, and every other person who has slowed his pace back to normal when he realized that the guy behind him on a dark and empty street was white instead of black, is racist.
BiL: OK, I’m done.
@PG – maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like your BiL and you are on two totally different issues. I think you would both have to agree to talk about one aspect of it before you can really debate it. He seems to be coming from “Where is the racism apparent in Crowley’s actions?” and you seem to be talking about …well, you have several points, actually.
(I actually had to reread your post a couple of times before I realized you were quoting a discussion. I was like, “Why is PG responding to PG? Did someone take the account?” I got it now.)
ST,
The problem I think he and I were having is of the type identified in Amp’s post: to him, there was no racial issue in the incident until Gates raised it by mentioning race. In the absence of someone actually saying something related to race (or gender or sexual orientation), my BiL’s stance is that race couldn’t have been relevant.
(I’m not sure what *action*, as opposed to words, from Crowley would be deemed proof of racism: no matter how extreme his response to Gates was, so long as it was based solely in actions — arresting him; beating him; tasering him; even shooting him — those *actions* don’t in themselves proclaim that race was relevant. For every *action* the cop could have taken, there will be a white conservative pointing to an incident in which a white person also was arrested, beaten, tasered or shot, and this will prove that there is nothing inherently racist about such actions, and therefore they constitute no proof of racial bias at work.)
In the white conservative mindset, the fact that men of color are very disproportionately stopped and arrested without cause has no bearing on any specific incident nor does it raise concern about racial bias in any specific incident, even though that disproportion is not coming from stops and arrests in which the cop helpfully uses racial slurs to make clear that he is A RACIST.
If nothing can be attributed to racial bias in the absence of the actor’s clearly adverting to race, then there’s as little racial bias in America today as conservatives want to believe, because
(a) even people consciously acting on racial bias generally are smart enough not to make that obvious through their words; and
(b) people unconsciously acting on racial bias — as Jesse Jackson does when he relaxes upon finding that the man behind him is white instead of black — rarely admit to themselves, much less anyone else, that race could have been in their minds.
Someone who refuses to examine the facts because they are afraid that they’d have to change their views if they did so is being wilfully ignorant and intellectually (at the least, if not morally) dishonest.
I have advanced the proposition that “me = good and not-me = bad” is an instinct that goes back to the beginnings of the species. It’s expressed in various predjudices starting with familiy vs. non-family, progressing to tribe vs. not-tribe, [my_religion] vs. not[my_religion], my city/state/nation vs. not-my city/state/nation, etc., etc. Racism would seem to be a natural variant of that instinct. Therefore it’s reasonable to propose that everyone has at least some racism, just like they have numerous other sins in their soul. So it’s not shameful to acknowledge that you have had racist feelings or thoughts. What’s shameful is to embrace it and promulgate it as opposed to seeing it as a failing and overcoming it.
I’ve also said in my life that racism is taught, not inherited. What I’ve come to understand is that while people start out with those kinds of feelings, contact with people of other races under the ordinary conditions of life is going to show you that they want the same things that everyone else wants, they’re not monsters, etc., etc. But a racist with influence over you (such as your parent) can overcome these observations and teach you to become an overt racist.
I have been criticized for saying this. The claim is that I’m trying to let people who have racist thoughts off the hook. But I don’t think so.
Exactly; or they’re just not thinking about what they say, period. Anyone who’s done scholarly editing has probably run across this: a stray sentence in a manuscript that you have to call to the author’s attention with, “you know, as it’s written, this sentence seems to say [something horrible and out of character with the whole work].” And the vast majority of writers will quickly say, “oh! you’re right, that’s awful, thank you so much for catching that, whew.” They truly didn’t mean what the original sentence said. They’re relieved that the original sentence will never see the light of day.
But most of what people say out loud or write online doesn’t go through any outside editing, so those unfortunate sentences *do* get wider exposure. When they do, the reasonable author can only say “oh, you’re right, that’s awful, I didn’t mean to say that at all. Please let me correct myself now.”
Writing or speaking clearly is difficult (more for some than others). There are usually some mismatches between what we want to say and what we do say, in any stretch of text. It’s generous to acknowledge this in others, and wise to acknowledge it about ourselves.
I agree with what you said, PG – that’s why I’m a big fan of statistics when it comes to racism. Sure there’s no institutionalized racism in Southern California…until you look at a map of where the poor areas are and where Blacks and Hispanics are. Without finding the statistic again, which I think is on a government website, I really can’t express how awful that truth is. It’s not just that Blacks and Hispanics are poor and therefore live there (there’s plenty of poor areas in SoCal) but that things like the building of the 105 go right through Compton…cause you bet they couldn’t fight it. It’s…egregious.
As far as the whole Gates/Crowley thing, no one but them (and God, if you will) knows what happened, but I’m inclined to say that the truth no longer matters because now it’s a symbol of black man vs. white cop in America. It’s moved beyond the actions themselves.
Penny @ 10:
This assumes that many of the things that are said, and which are found “offensive” in some reading or another, are intended in the way they are read, and not some other way that’s blocked because of the writers bent of ideology.
If I write here “I’m a Conservative”, whatever I write on the subject of Race is filtered through the lens of “What Conservative Means to Me on the subject of Race” by the reader. But if I take my Conservative values informed statements elsewhere, they are interpreted as either Socialist or Communist, again because there is a lens through which people process what they read — a “Conservative” is never pro-Liberty for Brown-skinned-people, therefore a person who refers to the “Liberation of Cuba” must be a Communist.
Now, I’m among the first to say “Authorial Intent is Dead”, and textual criticism and constructive discourse is greatly aided by comprehending that Authorial Intent is, in fact, Dead, but the replacement ideology “The Reader’s Reading is Authentic” is no less flawed and leads to assertions about original intent on the part of the writer that may exist only in the mind of the reader.
This is absolutely essential to free, honest and open discourse because it denies authority to to the writings of the writer and the readings of the readers. It forces both parties to acknowledge that one doesn’t know the experiences, filters and lens of the other. Neither gains the upper hand by claiming authority over the words or thoughts of others.
There are many times when writers and speakers MEANT to say what they wrote, but the interpretations of readers and listeners, when filtered through the lens of the consumers’ own biases, can lead to no acceptable interpretation. Thus, The Word often needs to be augmented by, and filtered through the lens of, Actions and Results. As powerful as The Word is as a form of communication, The Word is not, except for G-d, that which causes results. Results, which are the ultimate form of bottom line, only come about through Action.
Writing or speaking clearly is difficult (more for some than others). There are usually some mismatches between what we want to say and what we do say, in any stretch of text. It’s generous to acknowledge this in others, and wise to acknowledge it about ourselves.
Very true. When it comes down to having a long drawn out dedicated discussion I don’t have much experience because I live in an area where such conversation is very, very, very, rare. Mind you I’m not trying to say that the people that live in my area are not intellegent its just that living in a place like where I live (like seriously imagine Mayberry with more poeple of color and no pharmacy) topics like human rights, -isms, etc… don’t come up very often. And this lack of interaction on such subjects is part of why I started blogging.
But anyway I have a question that has been rolling around in my head for a while but it can be a pretty nasty landmine (and a offtopic I would say)so I understand if its ignored or modded out so here goes.
Reading this footnote made me think of a question:
A black person calls a white person a cracker: that’s not cool. But it does not have the same impact, or have the same level of wrongness, as a white person calling a black person a nigger. Still, doing both things is wrong, period.
I’m sure most of you are familiar with institutional power when talking about -isms. I understand how institutional power can when brought into the equation can reveal how one -ist statement/action/etc. might have more historical baggage than its counterpart. But what is getting me how can one use this institutional power to call one action an -ist but its vice versa isn’t? Bear in mind I’m not questioning what institutional power is or what baggage it can reveal I’m questioning how comparing levels said power and baggage can be used to answe whether or not an action/statemen/etc. was -ist or not.
But what is getting me how can one use this institutional power to call one action an -ist but its vice versa isn’t? Bear in mind I’m not questioning what institutional power is or what baggage it can reveal I’m questioning how comparing levels said power and baggage can be used to answe whether or not an action/statemen/etc. was -ist or not.
In my opinion, they’re both -ist, but one can be more so than the other.
Danny @ 13:
IMHO, because “-ists” and “-isms” don’t exist without institutional power.
Can they be hurtful remarks, derail conversations and create hard feelings? Sure. Are they bad form? Yes. Not a good idea? Yes. But a hurtful / harmful / oppressive statement, without the ability to “realize” the statement, is just fighting words. And institutional power is what can turn “fighting words” into genuine acts of violence or oppression and not just an overly colorful turn of a phrase.
Okay, so I’m a “cracker”. Now what?
There are some people (and the number is growing) who thinks that “-ists” and “-isms” can exist without institutional power, but my experience is that allowing words like “cracker” to have the same power (in the sense of determining that someone is an “-ist” or something is an “-ism”) is used more often than not to reverse the power dynamic and claim “oppression” when the person claiming “oppression” couldn’t be oppressed if their life depended on it.
There are some people (and the number is growing) who thinks that “-ists” and “-isms” can exist without institutional power, but my experience is that allowing words like “cracker” to have the same power (in the sense of determining that someone is an “-ist” or something is an “-ism”) is used more often than not to reverse the power dynamic and claim “oppression” when the person claiming “oppression” couldn’t be oppressed if their life depended on it.
I have to say that I am one of those growing number. And the reason so is not to allow cracker to have the same power as nigger and this is where institutional power comes in and explains and explains why one may have a longer and more painful history but the longer and more painful history does not excuse cracker from being racist. In my own experience the people that try to use that longer and more painful history as a reason to say that something is not -ist are usually excusing their own group. Perhaps they are trying to spare their group from the emotional charge of being called an -ist?
You can say and prove that calling Bill Cosby a nigger is worse than calling Glen Beck a cracker but in the end calling Glen Beck a cracker is still a racist thing to say.
(Thanks for the feedback I did a post on this a while back on my own blog but didn’t get much response on it and I really wanted to bounce it off other people. Sorry for the interuption.)
Danny @ 16:
I think this sort of “exclusion” happens because of what all the “-ists” and “-isms” were about.
Slavery wasn’t bad because Africans were being paid 2/3rds the wages of Europeans. And lynchings weren’t bad because someone stepped on the guy’s foot by accident. And voter suppression wasn’t bad because they had to fill out a ballot by hand instead of getting to pull a mechanical lever.
These weren’t minor problems — and I’m not saying that wage inequality isn’t a big deal, just making a comparison between unequal pay and involuntary servitude.
These distinctions are, I think, very important. We distinguish between involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter and premeditate murder. In that same way, I think we need to distinguish between “-ists” and “-isms” on the one hand, and “offensive”, “rude” and “uncouth” on the other.
Calling Glen Beck a “cracker” is offensive. But I don’t think it rises to the level of being “racist”.