How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People)
| December 2nd, 2005Prometheus 6 wrote something that has stuck in my head ever since:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people.
It’s true - a lot of white people, hell, most white people turn ten different shades of pissed off and shoot steam out their ears if someone suggests they’ve said something racist. And if you make a point of talking about race and racism, sooner or later someone will accuse you of being racist, fairly or unfairly.
Frankly, I think we whites - especially, we whites who think of ourselves as against racism - have to get over it. So here it is, in honor of “blog against racism day” (okay, it’s now the morning after blog against racism day, so I’m slow):
Amp’s Guide to Not Being an Insane-O White Person When Accused of Racism.
1) Breathe. Stay calm. Stay civil. Don’t burn bridges. If someone has just said “I think that sounds a bit racist,” don’t mistake it for them saying “you’re Klu Klux Klan racist scum” (which is a mistake an amazing number of white people make). For the first ten or twenty seconds any response you make will probably come from your defensiveness, not from your brain, so probably you shouldn’t say whatever first comes to your mind.
2) Take the criticism seriously - do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism comes from a person of color - people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites overlook. (On the other hand, don’t put the people of color in the room in the position of being your advocate or judge.)
3) Don’t make it about you. Usually the thing to do is apologize for what you said and move on. Especially if you’re in a meeting or something, resist your desire to turn the meeting into a seminar on How Against Racism You Are. The subject of the conversation is probably not “your many close Black friends, and your sincere longstanding and deep abhorrence of racism.”
Think of it as if someone points out that you need to wipe your nose because you’ve got a big glob of snot hanging out. The thing to do is say “oh, excuse me,” wipe your nose, and move on. Insisting that everyone pat you on the back and reassure you that they realize you don’t always have snot hanging from your nose, before the conversation can be allowed to move forward, is not productive.
4) Let Occasional Unfair Accusations Roll Off Your Back. Sometimes, even after you’ve given it serious thought, you’ll come to the conclusion that a criticism was unfair. Great! Now please let it go. Don’t insist that everyone agree with you. Don’t enlist the people of color in the room to certify you as Officially Non-Racist. Don’t bring it up again and again, weeks or months after everyone else has forgotten about the original discussion. In other words, see point #3.
Shorter Ampersand: Don’t make it a whacking huge deal if you say something racist, or something others perceive as racist. Apologize, move on, and consider the criticism seriously so that you can improve your thinking, if need be.
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:33 am
Of possible interest: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002475.html
This comment was written by Ann Bartow.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:06 am
That’s excellent advice. Thank you. :-)
This comment was written by Gail.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Good advice. Sometimes with the best intentions, I say something that I don’t recognize as racist until it’s pointed out. Sometimes it isn’t racist at all. Either way move on.
Thanks. My first trip to this site but not my last.
This comment was written by Ann Adams.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 5:49 pm
Nice post…I think I’ll actually use this along with a couple of other readings in my Race and Ethnicity classes next semester.
This comment was written by MAJeff.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Very good.
This advice will help you keep your balance. It does not automatically bring you into agreement with the person and if you pretend it does you will be seen as patronizing.
Let me also say: it is more that possible the Black person is insane-o. In this case, do what I do with insane-o white people: listen until the surge dissipates, but listen. When they’re done, or at least paused, ask them, “is this what you’re trying to say?” and tell them what you understand. Rationality almost always ensues.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:47 pm
What if you’re accused of being racist because the troll you’re disagreeing with over a completely different topic claims that he’s suddenly black. Are you allowed to publicly mock that troll for all time while laughing uncontrollably?
Sorry, I’m trying to think of a time I’ve had bullshit accusations of racism leveled against me, and that’s it. Usually people who claim to be falsely accused of racism say remarkably racist things. Like, “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are black!! I even overlook their obvious gang membership and crack addictions!!”
Anyway - excellent post, Amp.
And P6- indeed, insanity knows no racial boundaries.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Interesting, except for one quibble. I wouldn’t apologize unless I think that I was actually being racist. You are right that it is counterproductive to try to prove that you are not racist, and that one ought to be able to let unfair criticisms roll of their back. However, if I don’t think I am wrong, I would not apologize in anticipation of deciding that I am wrong later.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 2nd, 2005 at 11:12 pm
I wouldn’t apologize unless I think that I was actually being racist.
Actually, being stingy with apologies could possibly be counterproductive. At least say “Gosh, I am sorry that something I said made you feel that I was being racist. Please tell me how what I said sounded to you so I can never make this mistake again.”
Otherwise, you’re potentially making the mistake of putting your pride ahead of communication. You could end up coming off the worse for what would appear to be arrogance.
Just saying.
I am a very fair-skinned white guy with a strong southern accent living in Georgia. I dress kinda redneck because I work outdoors as much as I can. (Fair skin + outside work = good idea to rock the cowboy hat.) Every now and then I say things that startle people for their frankness, especially if they don’t know me and know that I am being sarcastic or glib. (ex.- A friend of my wife was describing his brother’s job, which is in western Illinois. His brother is a person of color, and we were talking about winter up there. He said “Yeah, he was driving there to take the job in January, and when he looked out the car windows, it was white in every direction.” and I said “I wouldn’t assume that quality to be limited to the snow, actually.” Now, Irving didn’t know, COULDN’T have known, that I was speaking from a position of sympathy for his brother’s unfortunate pilgramage into a land where he will be a 1% minority, and that I was somewhat glibly offering the opinion that Western Illinois can be a bit of a cultural wasteland. So he said, “Er, what exactly do you mean?” and I explained. Clamming up and refusing to honor the request for clarification or getting pissy and saying “You know damn well what I mean” would have been, shall we say, fucking stupid.)
Just saying, y’know.
This comment was written by patrick.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:54 am
great advice. i know a guy at work i’d like to give this to…
This comment was written by ding.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:58 am
Good post, Amp. I try to remember in such situations that regardless of what I meant, the fact that someone felt the need to call me out on something means that there is something to be examined (for the sake of this post I’m ignoring the possibility that the offended party is insane or just trying to start a fight). Whether what I said was in fact racist or I made an unfortunate choice of phrasing or, like patrick, I failed to convey the sarcastic, ironic or otherwise indirect meaning behind my words, whatever I just said is probably something I don’t want to say again. There is great value in being able to examine what I just said and pick out the offensive bits, especially if I can ask the offended party to help me do so.
I have had many experiences like this, but usually in respect to sexism rather than to racism. I have been lucky in that I tend to surround myself with people who are willing to examine my mistakes with me and work through them to help me become more aware of the effects of my male privilege.
This comment was written by Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:58 am
That was awesome, and necessary. Thank you.
This comment was written by JDCasteleiro.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:17 am
Why is this post targeted solely at “white” people? Is it OK for a “non-white” person to respond defensively to an accusation of racism, but not appropriate for a “white” person to do so? I guess I need some clarification of the context of the accusation that the described response is appropriate to. As it stands, this is close to the stupidest thing I’ve read on a blog anywhere (with the exception of about 99.7% of what I’ve read on the right-wing blogosphere, which is, not surprisingly, more stupid)
This comment was written by islandearth.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:57 am
If the word “sorry” bothers you, try something like, “Ok, that came out wrong…” or “You know Black and white folks hear things differently sometimes, I meant blahblahblah.”
Don’t cap off a rational attitude with stupid pride. But that’s not race relations advice, feel me?
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:09 am
Um, P6, I’m going to go out on a limb here, but isn’t the second of your alternatives to “I’m sorry” going to come across as racist?
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:17 am
[...] How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People) [...]
This comment was written by Monica Jackson » for white people who have considered homocide when the rainbow (racism talk) is enuf.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:38 am
Reasonable advice, but it eschews a real dialogue about race.
This comment was written by Matt Stoller.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:47 am
Personally I have to commend the innovation of the term “insane-o”.
I use “wack-o” generally for right-wing nutcases, often expanded to “wack-o fund-o” for Intelligent Design advocates, James Dobson clones and the like.
I have felt the need for some time for an additional descriptor to deal with people I occasionally encounter here in Academia and elsewhere; a broader term that can be used for non-reality based communities with markedly different dimensions than Wack-os. A term that recognizes the large class of nutcases whose dilusions are frankly orthogonal to those of fundo-s or wack-os.
Insane-o really does the job nicely.
The advice part of the post is good too.
This comment was written by Ba'al.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:51 am
I am a teacher in a NYC public school. Sometimes kids will call me racist for things like not letting them go to the bathroom or asking them to pay attention to the classwork. I always point blank ask them how I am being racist. I want to know. (and to embarrass them)
That example was silly, but I was in PA and I went to the teachers section of the local Kmart where I found these multicultural stickers of kids faces. When I took them back to nyc, it suddenly dawned on me that there might be a problem. I showed them to the kids who thought they were cute. I said I thought they might be racist. A student said that they weren’t and that I should give black faces to the black kids and White faces to the white kids.
I put them in my drawer and never used them
This comment was written by ken.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:00 am
As a white person who, by virtue of my job, is daily in a position of power over black people (and others), this is excellent advice. As a case manager, I cannot be effective at my job if my clients truly believe I’m not on their side. Being constantly conscious of my language, my body language, my assumptions, and my own prejudices is a vital part of my job.
Saying “I’m sorry” costs nothing and pays huge dividends. It is also essential to be able to let unfair accusations roll off your back, because frankly they’re going to happen. On a couple of occasions, I have been caught in assumptions that were racist, and being called on it was genuinely helpful to me.
As for Matt: This isn’t about dialogue about race. This is about courtesy between human beings. There are many, many situations that don’t allow for dialogue, but which do allow for racism, or perceived racism. Being able to handle those situations in stride (for all involved) is important.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:21 am
From ken above:
“I am a teacher in a NYC public school. Sometimes kids will call me racist for things like not letting them go to the bathroom or asking them to pay attention to the classwork. I always point blank ask them how I am being racist. I want to know. (and to embarrass them) ”
Maybe I’m taking this wrong, but I really hate it when teachers use their position of power over children to belittle them. Almost every public school teacher I know has various power issues with everyone around them, including the adults.
This comment was written by ManOnBlog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:45 am
Your advice also applies to other situations when you’re blindsided–such as the big cheap shot at men: your wife saying you only think of yourself.
This comment was written by wounded duck.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:52 am
ManOnBlog:
To embarrass is not necessarily to belittle. Embarassment can be quite educational.
This comment was written by nobody.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:04 am
1.The same can be said for “genderism” or “sexism”. As a woman I am acutely aware of sexist comments made by men, and even by other women. Sometimes I make a stink and sometimes I just let it go.
2.Your comments can be applied to people who hear something they think is racist. Don’t always point it out. Sometimes you just have to let it go.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:34 am
ManOnBlog - kids say some stupid shit. If you just go around agreeing with them because you don’t want to “use your position of power over the children to belittle them” they are going to end up ignorant assholes. One of the lessons of growing up is learning that just because you’ve heard something from your friends, doesn’t make it true.
I think we are going to find that a great deal of the racial sensitivity training done recently has done a great deal of harm along with the good. The problem I’ve seen is that people can learn one of two lessons from being told that white people cannot get rid of all of the racism in them. 1) It may seem impossible, but I will try. 2) Fuck this shit. In that case, I will arrange my life so that there are no black or brown people in it to be offended by me. The second lesson is the one learned more often than people realize. Racism becomes a little source of smug transgressiveness.
I do think looking at the problem through the lens of politeness is the way to go. My response to perceived racism in fellow whites “I don’t give a fuck who you think is the least of your brethren, I really don’t. But if you consider yourself a Christian, you need to treat them as well as you would treat Jesus.” Usually shuts them up. Haven’t had the same problem with Jewish friends.
This comment was written by NotThatMo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:44 am
Here’s an observation:
Human beings are naturally racist. We are all conscious of skin color, we all tend to draw the circle so as to include people like us and exclude people different than us, and we all seek reasons to justify why certain people are good and certain people are bad. One can find examples of racism from around the world (See Frank DiKotter’s Discourse on Race in Modern China for some jawdropping examples of racism).
So, to *not* be racist is almost inhuman. Angelic, perhaps.
Americans, though, have an extra barrier in overcoming racism. Slavery, the conquest of northern Mexico, and the genocide against the American Indian creates a sense of guilt and fear among many white Americans, especially those who are most openly racist. To overcome racism in the US will require ending its ill effects, so that we can look at one another without wincing over the past, until all the bitterness and death becomes something our children or our children’s children can no longer imagine.
As a practical matter, organizations such as the Hurricane Relief Fund (organized by the Algebra Project), ACORN, Common Ground and others are working to mitigate the disaster in New Orleans. Keeping Katrina survivors in your hearts and on your contribution list not only this year, but for 5 or 10 years to come is a good place to start to begin the healing.
This comment was written by Charles of Mercury Rising.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:21 am
While I don’t think that the old saw “I’m not racist, by best friend is black.” is ever helpful, I don’t think that rolling over and apologizing/moving on is the right advice.
It seems likely to me that most of the people who read this blog are not racist (or are at least trying not to be). If someone in this website’s audience makes a statement that someone interprets as racist, it seems likely that it was a mere slip of the tongue or misunderstanding, and not a genuinely malicious comment. The best action to me seems to be to confront the situation, not gloss over it.
The Case Manager and the linker to sivacracy.net above point in the right direction, I think. Admit that you didn’t mean to offend, by apology if necessary, and then engage a dialogue about what you said and how it was offensive. Work it out. Not with peripheral, defensive statements about how great a person you are, but by engaging the person who was offended.
One really big pitfall to the approach suggested by Ampersand seems to be that if you don’t try to work through this kind of problem immediately, then it will hang over you in the mind of your accuser, if not with everyone else who was around.
This comment was written by Andy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:29 am
Human beings are naturally racist.
No. Really sick of hearing this come up on every thread, because no. We’re not naturally racist any more than we’re natural speakers of a particular language. Capacity to learn language? Yes - but which one depends on what we’re surrounded by. Capacity to categorize people? Yes, but which categories we draw depend on who surround us. The way history has played out means that the vast majority of the world’s population grow up surrounded by people of the same (general) race - but it’s odd, no, I think pathetic, to try to ‘privilege’ racism as a natural instinct. It’s not.
Can’t we at least give human nature the benefit of the doubt on this one, and accept that racism is *our* problem to deal with?
This comment was written by Painini.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:42 am
I don’t buy the “humans are inherently racist” argument. Children play with each other regardless of race or language or ableness or class or other barriers. It is only as we get older that we are taught things such as “I don’t want to see you playing with her” or “he doesn’t belong around here”.
Some people are naturally eager to embrace new situations and like people who are more different from themselves, and others prefer situations that are familiar and like people who are more like them. Neither group is necessarily racist. “Same” and “Different” have many, many connotations, and race is only a small piece of it.
Only in certain regions did people grow up with others only of the same race, and even in those regions, people invented differences in order to develop prejudice. An interesting example of this are the Hutu and Tutsi people of Africa. They are both African peoples, from the same region, and until about eighty years ago, they were considered one tribal group. White Europeans came in, however, and started distinguishing between tribal members based on height and skin tone, and gave privileges to those who were taller and paler than other tribal members. These people developed into the Tutsi, and the remainder into the Hutu. Conflict grew, not from racial issues, nor from distinguishing physical characteristics (because these characteristics plainly cannot breed true in a few short generations, and the groups still widely intermarry) but based on power structure. In fact, it’s safe to say that most “racial” divisions are based on power inequalities, not characteristics of a particular group of people.
What might be inherent to humanity is the quest for illegitimate power over others based on easy to identify group traits rather than more legitimate power based on individual abilities. Though that is still up in the air.
This comment was written by odanu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:00 am
Your false dichotomy of agreeing with them or belittling them is not what I meant at all. I was objecting to what I percieved as a bullying attitude, which is cruel (and counterproductive to learning).
This comment was written by ManOnBlog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:02 am
I find this post’s barely implicit assumption that white people accused of racism are usually at fault - well, kind of racist. Hope you’ll take this criticism seriously and apologize, then move on and improve your thinking if need be.
This comment was written by rilkefan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:16 am
I think humans tend to be somewhat xenophobic - partly due to upbringing, partly due to evolution, and who knows what the weighting there is. Some of it can be rationalized to some degree, some can’t, but I think most of us would agree it is a net negative.
I wish that we as a species could grow out of this via societal advancement, but throughout history we seem to keep finding ourselves repeating the same serious mistakes over and over (which causes me no small amount of continual anguish).
That should not be read as a reason to do nothing, but what is the long-term fix here? I can only imagine it is something along the lines of robots replacing us at the top of the food chain, or perhaps some serious genetic engineering to make us inherently more intelligent and thoughtful.
This comment was written by ManOnBlog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:25 am
I should come back to this thread more frequently.
The point is, acknowlege the differing perception and clarify your point. I leave the specific language to each of you to determine based on the situation at hand.
I don’t see such an assumption. Check out point four.
We did not always use appearance to determine absolutely who is like us, or use it to identify good and bad people.
Appearance has always been noted, but its significance was purely cosmetic. Before the creation and enforcement of the legal framework that created American chattel slavery, Africans were indentured servants like Europeans, and they rebelled against poor treatment together, ran away together and intermarried from the start.
Yes, by nature we differentiate people. We do not do so by invalid parameters without extensive conditioning.
This is not to say your functional approach is a problem, by the way.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:25 am
Humans are not naturally cautious much less fearful and racist. While caution is essential to survival, fear is a tool of the patriarchy.
This comment was written by rose.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 am
Great advice, Ampersand. Some of the most interesting and informative discussions I’ve ever had about race have come from sticking my foot in my mouth and saying something inappropriate. The trick, like Patrick said and you suggested, is to count to ten and try not to speak from your defensiveness.
This comment was written by eponymous.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:07 pm
For those who claim that it is human nature to be racist: You are probably right, BUT THAT DOESN’T EXCUSE IT. Just because someone is jaywalking doesn’t mean you’re allowed to hit them.
For those who claim that it couldn’t possibly be in human nature: Do you honestly believe anyone accepts that as true? Look at both mankind’s written and evolutionary history and feed me that line again, just for fun.
Last thought: Don’t forget that most of racism stems from economic status. The wealthier the circles you hold, the less you see of it. Its often a crutch for frustration with other issues in life. There are always exceptions, of course.
This comment was written by Blogtopus.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:22 pm
I’ve only ever been accused of being racist, to my face, once.. At work.
I did my best to ignore it. I may indeed be racist, although spend considerable time evaluating and challanging my own assumptions, I suspect none of us, menaing none of us, is entirely free of racism.
But, in fact, the charge was absurd on its face in the siuation it was leveled. Being entirely confident that was so, I ignored it and continued on with what I was saying and doing.
I didn’t need to understand why the person who made the charge made it, and I didn’t care.
I reccomend that course of action
This comment was written by 16.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:29 pm
“Reasonable advice, but it eschews a real dialogue about race.”
Kudos for use of the word “eschews.” And I’m inclined to agree with the sentiment that this is good advice, but it stops short of solving or accomplishing anything. But that raises the question: What is a “real dialogue about race”? I have heard this phrase at least 19 skillion times since the Rodney King verdict and I’ll be damned if I have any idea what it means. And I don’ t think anyone else does either. And what would such a dialogue entail? What would be exchanged? And who WANTS a real dialogue about race? What would be gained? What do people want to accomplish? If I had to predict, you’d have one group of people trying to compel atonement from white people, while another group would be trying to legitimize whites’ use of racial slurs because 50 Cent uses them on his albums, etc etc…
We’re always trying to be high-minded and talk about the need for a dialogue on race. Funny how we haven’t gotten around to actually doing that. Just as well that we pass up providing a forum for opportunistic self-flagellation, or race-baiting in the guise of “open debate,” or being beaten over the head with the Race card, and so forth. The only dialogue required is the civilized dialogue we’re expected to carry on person to person in order to get through the day. Just because that modicum of civility is too much to expect from some people doesn’t mean it’s too much to demand. And it’s far from an oversimplification of the problem. If anything, the problem has been overly complicated, which is much of why it’s a problem — lots of paths end in “you couldn’t possibly understand.”
Do unto others, etc. This isn’t complicated. Difficult, maybe, but not complicated.
This comment was written by KPatrick.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:29 pm
It makes most white people uncomfortable to acknowledge that they are racist — mainly because our stereotypical racist is a klansman or a neo-nazi — but those are only the most extreme examples of racists. We live in a racist society that teaches us racist stereotypes from our infancy and to think that we can come through a lifetime of American socialization without being influenced by the racist subtext of our culture is ludicrous. Of course, many of us consciously struggle to overcome our training and act and speak and act in a anti-racist way, but we slip up from time to time. Unfortunately, the majority of us think that so long as we don’t use racist epithets, we have done our part. But how racism works in our society is much more complicated than that.
To give one current example, there’s a fairly obvious form of white supremacy occurring in these comments. It’s not easy for a person of color to tell someone that something they said was racist. In fact, take the snot metaphor a little further. Doesn’t it make you uncomfortable to tell someone (other than close friends and family) that they have a booger or that their slip is showing or that they are unzipped? Don’t you sometimes leave it for someone else — particularly if you don’t know the person that well. When a person of color is telling you that your comment is racist, they are taking a risk — they are giving you a gift. But instead of seeing that way, some of you are saying you have the right to judge how they should feel about what you said — that your white supremacy gives you the right to decide what is and isn’t racist. In essense, you are arguing that you, not the person of color, gets to decide whether or not what you said is offensive to people of color, and more arrogantly, to that person in particular. And maybe the intent was not racist, but the impact was…and that’s what matters.
I would actually like to add to Ampersand’s list of suggestions. Thank the person who told you for taking the risk, for caring enough about you to help you avoid the same mistake again. Sure, if you think they are wrong (and it’s possible they are from time to time) then simply apologize and move on without trying to defend what you said — and never defend it without really, seriously thinking about it for a week or two. But if you get why it was offensive and recognize the fault, then thank the person for pointing it out to you, just as sincerely as you would thank the person who pointed out the booger in your nose.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:46 pm
First of all, there’s no biological basis for race. Period. The concept of race is a rather recent human invention, used mostly to justify slavery.
That said, I believe that humans, like most other animals, are genetically apprehensive. Unless and until a person becomes acclimated to living and working in ethnically diverse environs, they will have an almost uncontrollable ethnocentric reaction to those outside their ethnicity.
Like the mythology of race, the underlying and (if you believe instinct is a physical attribute) the physiological basis for what is called “racism”, along with other social ills, needs a lot more public exposure and discussion.
This comment was written by draftedin68.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 12:54 pm
I was once in a meeting at work where I remarked that I was “Shanghai-ed” the last time I travelled to our head office, since I was supposed to be there for one day and ended up being kept there for a week to help on a project. A colleague who is Asian-American (altho frankly, I had no idea until she told me) became extremely offended and told me that “Shanghai-ed” is a racist term. Of course I responded badly. I immediately asked for an explanation, and then told her she was wrong, because the term derives from a completely non-racist practice of the Royal British Navy impressing British working-class men into service in the Far East by getting them drunk and having them revive when they were already at sea. At no time did I insinuate that she was too sensitive or anything, but my natural inclination to defend myself resulted in quite an argument about it, so I wish I had read your post. At any rate, I still think she was wrong (she claimed it derived from British Imperialist treatment of Asians), but I should have just apologized and moved on, instead of arguing. It still steams me, though, because we never did recover our relationship. Ah well.
This comment was written by rebmarks.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Well, you should take every reasonable, well-intentioned criticism of yourself seriously, so we can agree on that. Ben Franklin or somebody says we should cherish our critics because they help us become better people.
But as for bad-intentioned or patently false charges of racism or sexism? Well, it’ll depend on the circumstances…but that’s like calling me a Nazi in my book. Under certain circumstances, those are–literally–fighting words.
I take bigotry very seriously. I naturally have very egalitarian tendencies and have worked to wipe out any vestige of inegalitarian ones that remain. I’m not perfect, but I’m pretty damn fair. I have the natural advantage that genital configuration and skin color have just never mattered very much to me, so I don’t deserve much credit for and of this, incidentally. But given how seriously I take this stuff, asking me to let unfair charges roll off my back would be rather like asking me to let unfair charges of murder or child abuse roll off my back (except for the jail part). Not gonna happen.
It seems unreasonable to me to expect peopel to both (a) understand–really understand–the wrongness of bigotry and (b) not mind that much when they’re unfairly accused of it.
This comment was written by Winston Smith.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:23 pm
“there’s a fairly obvious form of white supremacy occurring in these comments”
Kija, you’re a racist too. Apology accepted in advance. You’re welcome in advance too if you get why it was offensive - if not, we can discuss this in a week or two after you’ve had a really serious think.
This comment was written by rilkefan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:30 pm
I don’t object to saying “I’m sorry that you were offended.” On personal issues, I don’t mind apologizing even if I am not at fault.
But when it comes to ideology, to apologize for your opinions is to admit that they are wrong, and I won’t pretend that I think Iwas wrong if I don’t.
For example, if I oppose Bush’s amnesty/guest-worker program, and someone accuses me of being racist for not wanting to increase immigration, I am not going to apologize and pretend that I think I was wrong to oppose increasing immigration to the U.S.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Well, it’s always interesting when a post one makes inspires universal disagreement.
I agree with Odanu that children play with one another without regard for skin color. That’s a valid point to make. But children will also play with alligators. Does that prove that human beings lack an innate tendency to protect themselves from predators? As good an argument as Odanu makes, I don’t think it wins the day.
There are many innate tendencies, such as sexuality, which are not fully expressed in children. They mature and express themselves as this amorphous thing called culture. One of those tendencies seems to be defining ingroup and outgroup. Skin color happens to be a convenient marker, but one even sees the phenomenon in one of the most genetically homogeneous populations that exists, Honshu (Japan mainland). The Hutu/Tutsi conflict that Odanu cites seems to have been stimulated by the Belgian colonial occupiers (see http://www.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v5/v5i3a16.htm, which I stumbled across while trying to remember the details), but as Odanu notes, it apparently arose spontaneously on its own. Why, if the tendency is not innate?
Odanu ascribes it to power differences. Maybe so, though I can’t see that in the Honshu case. But even if so, the explanation does not get away from the question is whether it arises from an innate tendency.
Maybe the difference in perspective here is semantic. The tendency to define ingroup/outgroup is (loosely) equivalent to racism. Race is an artificial, culturally-defined concept, as are most definitions of ingroup/outgroup. Power is certainly artificial and culturally defined. The Hutu and Tutsi have defined one another as distinct races despite the absence of any obvious physical differences.
A *lot* depends on how we handle our innate racism. Let me propose an analogy. There are happy drunks, and there are obnoxious drunks. By analogy, happy racists love differences between people and see them as adding to the interest and variety of life. Obnoxious racists, like obnoxious drunks, use differences in skin color to justify hate and violence.
I wish I could continue the debate, but the fact is there many excellent blogs and only so many hours in the day. Please feel welcome to drop by Mercury Rising.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 1:52 pm
First of all, there’s no biological basis for race. Period. The concept of race is a rather recent human invention, used mostly to justify slavery.
Wrong. A race is an extended family that inbreeds to some degree. Any claim that it is merely a social construct is based purely on postmodernist wishful thinking. If you believe that there is no biological basis for race, you also must believe that there is no essential difference between a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua, since different breeds of dog are the same thing as different races.
Tribes, clans, nationalities are all terms for race at different levels. The only “recent invention” is that we now tend to define race in terms of macro-races (e.g. Caucasians, East Asians, Africans) and do not think as much in microracial terms (e.g. English vs. Irish, Polish vs. German).
What happens is that people get isolated into groups and those groups mostly breed within the group. Over time, the two groups evolve differently, partly by chance, partly by selection (e.g. people living in climates that get more sunlight tend to have darker skin to protect them from UV light, people in climates with thin air tend to have more efficient respiration). The fact that the people in the groups mainly breed with other people in their own group helps to maintain said differences.
Are people naturally racist? Well, yes, people tend to prefer people whom they perceive as their own kind, and people tend to perceive “their own kind” as defined by their family, and as race is an extended version of family, people tend to perceive “their own kind” by race.
Now, people are not necessarily naturally racist in the sense that they are hardwired to define “their own kind” in terms that are based on race; generally it is based on whom they associate with; however, for most of human history people were a lot more segregated by race than they are now, so “their own kind” was determined racially. Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family) and race is probably the easiest category for people to develop the sense of “ones’ own kind” with.
Just look at how many “primitive” tribes’ (i.e. not integrated into modern civilization) names for themselves are “the people”? or “the true people” or something like that.
None of this is to say that racism is a good thing, but it is patently incorrect to say that people didn’t think about race until 200 years ago.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:07 pm
While I think Ampersand makes a good point, it seems to fall apart when extended to the related issue of accusations of anti-semitism.
Anti-semitism remains a serious problem, is far older than American slavery, and has led to the worst genocide in world history. While it may not be racism, it certainly is harmful prejudice, and many believe that the accusation of being an anti-semite is even worse than that of being a racist.
Thus, the logical extension of Ampersand’s argument is that liberals should apologize to David Horowitz or the FrontPageMag crew when they engage in (their frequent) accusations of anti-semitism on the left. They should also apologize when they are called anti-semites for attacking neo-conservatives, because some people (Patrick Buchanan, for example) have used it as a cryptic term for Jewish people.
Yet, as Winston said above, nobody is going to accept that. Nor should they.
In any case, the accusation of racism really is a “whacking huge deal”, Ampersand, because racism is a “whacking huge deal”. I don’t think you can have the one without the other.
And yes, pride does matter- we’re all human beings, and human beings are driven by pride. If individuals start believing that they are doomed to be racist no matter what they do, cognitive dissonance will ensure that they eventually conclude that being a racist is fine. Accepting the structural racism in our society may be necessary, but denying agency entirely will only make progress in ending that structure impossible.
This comment was written by Demosthenes.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:27 pm
First off, I just wanted to say that it is really interesting to read a discussion on race relations that tries as hard as it can not to be a discussion on race relations. Somebody’s dead mother is stinking up the closet… It is really heartening to be able to witness such a truly progressive back-and-forth as this. Having said that, though not wanting to dilute the reasonable and intelligent line of this thread, i thought i might add an anecdote of my own.
A few months ago or so, a female African-American friend of mine(an artist=completely insane), in a fit of anger, called me a, “racist nigger loving bitch,” then tried to kick me down a flight of stairs. Needless to say I laughed for a good 15 minutes on that one. Of course she didn’t remember the night in question, but the next time I saw her I jokingly reminded her about the happening. She apologized and told me that she was sorry, but that she grew up in a basically all white neighborhood and wasn’t used to being around blacks….
She’s a terrific artist, BTW, but she’s just as racist as, well, as all of you. LOL. Ask her and she’ll tell you so. My opinion is that her bias is actually of a more class conscious nature than race based, since she does hang out with me occasionally, and I’m black. But that’s not really the point is it? She called me a racist and after I dodged a crotch bound sandal I let the comment slide, went back into the bar, had a drink, had a laugh.
This comment was written by allmost.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
“It seems likely to me that most of the people who read this blog are not racist (or are at least trying not to be).”
That equation - between the first part of the sentence and the parenthetical - is I think key to the problem the OP is addressing. People tend to think, when someone says of their statement that “that was racist,” that this is the same thing as saying “you’re a bigot.” It’s not. There are so many racist ideas ingrained in conventional American ways of talking and thinking that pretty much everyone, especially among whites given white privilege, thinks and talks in racist ways occasionally. It’s not a matter of hating or despising non-whites, and it’s *not* a moral failing - it’s counterproductive in the extreme to take unconscious racism as something to judge people by. It *is* something to be careful of, however.
So probably most of the people who read this blog aren’t racists, in the sense that they actively try to avoid being racist, or aren’t consciously racist. But almost certainly most of us are racist, in the sense that some of our ideas inevitably will stem from or play a part in racism. This applies to those of us of all colors, but is something white people need to worry about most.
Which brings me to rilkefan’s sarcasm:
“I find this post’s barely implicit assumption that white people accused of racism are usually at fault - well, kind of racist. Hope you’ll take this criticism seriously and apologize, then move on and improve your thinking if need be.”
This is bullshit, frankly. It’s exactly the kind of mindless defensive reaction the post is trying to get you to avoid, and shows no attempt to think seriously about how racism works in our society.
Racism is *not* a symmetric relation. It’s fundamentally a matter of power, not one of emotional reaction to the other - which is exactly why it’s not part of human nature. In any context of racism, one group is on top, and in the U.S., that’s whites. As part of that, they’ll be racist. ‘Assuming’ this isn’t racist, it’s recognizing the effects of racism. You cannot equate the experience of white people accused of racism - or, say, ‘victimized’ by affirmative action - with the experience of black or brown people subject to racism, unless you’re prepared to argue that there really is no power differential in the U.S. at present or that non-whites are on top. Which requires a peculiar kind of blindness.
This comment was written by Kalkin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:48 pm
There are many innate tendencies, such as sexuality, which are not fully expressed in children.
It’s a good thing nobody clued the ancient Greeks in to the innateness of sexuality, because otherwise they might have engaged in sexual conduct as deemed appropriate to their age and class. Oh, wait…
Odanu ascribes it to power differences. Maybe so, though I can’t see that in the Honshu case.
well, it’s clear you’ve looked very hard at other possibilities.
for most of human history people were a lot more segregated by race than they are now, so “their own kind” was determined racially.
Actually, that sounds like “their own kind” was defined as human, since all of the people in a region would tend to similar phenotypes and they wouldn’t have much comparison with other colors of people. (So to speak) And due to that long segregation by geography, each group would speak a different language. Have different technology. The early mass contact (say tricking in by the hundreds or storming in by the army) between these groups of previously-isolated people would indeed set the tone for the next several generations. Who would, in turn, be maintaining or changing the situation as they saw fit, impacting the next several generations.
Social animals can change slow or fast, but something ignored or taken for granted is far less likely to change than something troubling to the society.
Since some of the naturalists here seem equally fond of the long-term view of history, can’t it be admitted that it’s a little early yet to know anything about how “different” races might/might not be programmed to react to one another?
This comment was written by Painini.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:48 pm
Glavister-
This comment was written by Impor Hisky.I’m sorry but you are wrong. Race as a unified scientific concept (5 races defined by skin color etc.) applying to the whole of “mankind” (there’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms entirely), was first used to justify the European slave trade relatively recently. Many social and cultural groups are suspicious of outsiders, but many are not and welcome visitors from other places with deeply ingrained formal hospitality rituals whether it is convenient or not, ie. Hernan Cortez in Mexico. Your conflation of race, family and ethnicity is part of the decline of definition in modern discourse. The uses of this degradation of meaning are illuminated very well in a book by George Orwell entitled 1984. The idea that there is an ‘English’ race is ridiculous on its face as the population of that country is the result of a somewhat equal mixing of Celts, Danes, Scandanavians, Angles, Saxons, French, Germans, etc., etc. All separate micro races by your very broad definition. This also applies to races like Chinese, Indian, Hispanic, etc. As a concept the idea of ‘race’ does not survive the rigor of logical investigation except as a justification of the ‘natural’ inferiority of the targeted groups of people. For the record I’m a white (Norway, Wales, Scotland, France, Germany…Mom’s side 1621, Dad’s side 1870’s, american) guy with a black stepfather. I have many of my own racist stereotypes ingrained by my culture. I agree with everything that Kija said, using the word supremacy just drives the point home, and it seems like it speaks right to the original comment by Prometheus 6.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:51 pm
“If you believe that there is no biological basis for race, you also must believe that there is no essential difference between a St. Bernard and a Chihuahua, since different breeds of dog are the same thing as different races.”
That doesn’t follow. People who believe there is no biological basis for race (such as myself) are not arguing that it’s somehow logically or physically impossible that there could be human races, which were as different as Chihuahuas and St. Bernards. We argue rather than in fact, humanity is not divided into subspecies like dogs, though theoretically it could be. There are genetic variations within humanity, certainly, and many of them are even geographically distributed. But they are not generally correleted with each other or with skin color in any systematic way (sickle cell anemia is one of the only exceptions), and the vast majority of them - I think the figure is something like %90 - occur within people of African descent who are conventionally lumped together as “black.” Moreover, even the geographically-based variations that existed two or three hundred years ago are rapidly disappearing; not many white people in the US have no (relatively recent) African ancestors, and even fewer blacks have no white ancestors.
This comment was written by Kalkin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Glaivester,
Not to burst your bubble, but your analogy between breeds of dog and race is not a good comparison to make. I work with dogs, and different breeds are different breeds for a reason, not just because of how they look. Dog breeds have distinctive behaviours and different temperaments. Humans, regardless of race, are the same. Asians are no different from caucasians. The only difference between them is their skin colour. Any other differences are result of how individuals are raised and how culture and society affects them - differences that are not biological.
This comment was written by Donna.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Glaivester:
My understanding (based upon my dim recollections of an article published in a scientific journal some years ago. No, I can’t cite.) is that in humans, the inter-group genetic differences are much smaller than the intra-group differences, in comparison to the intra- and inter-breed differences between dogs, indeed so small that the only reasonable scientific conclusion is that there is only one race of humans.
Tribes, clans, nationalities are all terms for race at different levels. The only “recent invention” is that we now tend to define race in terms of macro-races (e.g. Caucasians, East Asians, Africans) and do not think as much in microracial terms (e.g. English vs. Irish, Polish vs. German).
The second conclusion from that article is that such intra-group that occur do not break along (using your terminology) macro-racial lines. A black tribe in Africa may be more closely related to a white tribe in Europe than to their African neighbours.
To put it another way, macro-race is literally only skin-deep.
And we do still think in microracial terms. We just use the word ‘nationality’ rather than ‘race’.
The differential evolutionary pressures upon skin colour are so great that the white ethnic Europeans living in South Africa will be jet black within a few tens of thousands of years, way to soon for any significant genetic difference to develop.
I agree with the rest of your analysis.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Outstanding post. I liked it so much, I referenced it on my own blog. Here are some comments I made with it:
This comment was written by Scribe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:01 pm
The first rule of resolving a problem is to agree on what exactly is the problem.
Apply this to the word “racism”: it means different things to different people. So when I hear “racist” the first thing I do is try to understand what the user means by it.
Speaking very broadly, I think white people tend to define “racism” as an intentional act motivated by negative beliefs about a race — such as not hiring someone because you don’t like black people.
I think blacks and other minorities have a much broader definition — such as blacks having trouble getting jobs because most jobs get filled based on factors such as who-you-know and having things in common with the person doing the interview. Nothing intentional against blacks, but the effect is the same.
This comment was written by Oberon.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
On the issue of saying “sorry” and moving on… that’s good, if you are the kind of person who gets all bent out of shape about having people point this kind of stuff out to you… and if you are in a seminar, or work environment, or whatever. But if you actually like to talk about this kind of stuff with people, apologizing just because someone critiques something you said as racist can be sort of counterproductive. Sometimes a better approach is to go “Huh? I sort of disagree. Why do you say that?” Then you can have a conversation.
One of the sneaky ways all this racial stuff works is that whites don’t actually feel comfortable talking about it, which has lots of unfortunate effects. Its ok to have an opinion about race that doesn’t mesh with what the person calling your comments racist has; in fact, anti-racism work sort of demands that you get comfortable with the fact that not all black people know what the heck they are talking about when it comes to this topic, and not all white people DON’T know what they are talking about. In fact, sometimes white people have a better understanding of how race works in this country than black people do! Go figure!
So yes, breathe (if you need to)
apologize (if you think it is appropriate)
talk (if you - and they - are up to it)
stay polite (unless you really, really can’t hack it)
and remember - you are more than your skin color. Just like the people you are talking to.
Joe
P.S. - Don’t forget political economy.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:23 pm
to the moderator - I wouldn’t mind if you changed “Nice Post” to my name. Thanks.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:05 pm
You know what I think?
I think the discussion of whether or not race is a real biological thing is a huge digression. The whole animal taxonomy was based on appearance. DNA evidence is only recently starightening that mess out. That being the case, you will always be able to argue for a biological basis for race and convince the unreflecting.
I say the unreflecting because it takes little thought (or even less historical knowlege) to see the American concept of race isn’t about skin color. Old heads like me may remember the phenomenon known as passing. Black folks who passed for white held that secret closely, not even telling spouses most times. No matter how they looked, if it ever got out they were Black, they’d lose everything.
Not, the American concept of race is not about about skin color at all.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:30 pm
I work with dogs, and different breeds are different breeds for a reason, not just because of how they look. Dog breeds have distinctive behaviours and different temperaments. Humans, regardless of race, are the same. Asians are no different from caucasians.
Right. It is only a coincidence that Kenyans dominate the steeplechases in the Olympics.
Your conflation of race, family and ethnicity is part of the decline of definition in modern discourse. The uses of this degradation of meaning are illuminated very well in a book by George Orwell entitled 1984.
No, race, nationality, and family are different applications of essentially the same concept. Ethnic group is something else.
The idea that there is an ‘English’ race is ridiculous on its face as the population of that country is the result of a somewhat equal mixing of Celts, Danes, Scandanavians, Angles, Saxons, French, Germans, etc., etc. All separate micro races by your very broad definition.
You can divide a race into smaller races as long as the rce can be divided into smaller groups that mostly inbreed. The concept of “region” is similarly fuzzy, but no one denies that it is useful to talk about different “regions” just because region can be used to refer to the divisions of a town, of a country, or of a continent.
This also applies to races like Chinese, Indian, Hispanic, etc. As a concept the idea of ‘race’ does not survive the rigor of logical investigation except as a justification of the ‘natural’ inferiority of the targeted groups of people.
Sure. The Chinese can be divided into many sub-races. So can Caucasians, blacks, any group. Moreover, races are dynamic; they can merge, diverge, regroup. If you took 1000 black people and 1000 white people and put 500 on of each on each of two isolated islands, and the people on each island chose a mate randomly (i.e. a black person is as likely to find a white mate as a black mate and vice versa) you would, after several generations, produce two new races; how similar these races were would depend on selection pressures.
My understanding (based upon my dim recollections of an article published in a scientific journal some years ago. No, I can’t cite.) is that in humans, the inter-group genetic differences are much smaller than the intra-group differences,
One might as easily concludethat hurricanes are not that significant, because the motion of individual gas molecules at room temperature is so much faster than the wind speed during a hurricane.
The differential evolutionary pressures upon skin colour are so great that the white ethnic Europeans living in South Africa will be jet black within a few tens of thousands of years, way to soon for any significant genetic difference to develop.
Why is that too soon for any significant genetic difference to develop? Evolutionary pressures are great for a lot of factors other than skin color.
There are genetic variations within humanity, certainly, and many of them are even geographically distributed. But they are not generally correleted with each other or with skin color in any systematic way (sickle cell anemia is one of the only exceptions),
Cystic fibrosis? If you define race as a population that mostly breeds within itself rather than by skin color, then what about Tay-Sachs?
Skin color is a red herring, by the way. Skin color can be a useful marker for race, but it is not the same thing as race.
Also, if it were really true that no significant genetic variations have developed between the races, why were the Native Americans so susceptible to European diseases? Isn’t that a significant difference?
Why were the Native Americans so susceptible to alcoholism whereas Jews and Japanese people are not. unless different selective pressures (specifically, that the Jews and Japanese have had alcohol for millennia, while Native Americans were only recently introduced to it and so selection against people who are susceptible to alcoholism has not had as much time to alter the population).
Why are Asians so much more likely to be lactose intolerant than Caucasians?
In any case, why is it bad to point out racial differences? Isn’t part of celebrating diversity realizing that diversity actually exists?
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Why were the Native Americans so susceptible to alcoholism … Why are Asians so much more likely to be lactose intolerant than Caucasians?
Not your intention, I’m sure, but this makes the point against “racial differences” wonderfully. Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerant than Europeans - more likely, not universally. The frequency of biological factors enabling digestion of lactose varies in the respective populations, but members of either population can while other members can’t.
Even at the level of genetics, it’s more useful - health-wise, socially, in every way - to work on a person-by-person basis, because there’s so much variation in any population, and it overlaps inevitably with the variation in other human populations - that race is simply not a useful basis for judgments.
This comment was written by Painini.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:10 pm
I’ll say one thing about Galvister, he’s a supporter of Darwin and evolution! (My apologies in advance if I have sexed you wrongly.) I would just say again that your definition of race is so broad as to be unusable. Historically race theory, which is where we’ve inherited our particular American racial attitudes from, believes in Asiatic, African, Native American, Caucasian and Inuit/Eskimo as the five races. According to these historical theories all other groupings are sub-categories. As far as the inbreeding thing creating new races quickly goes it just doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. P6 is right in stating the fact that race in America isn’t even really about race, if you catch my drift. The guys that invented the idea of ‘The World’s Races’ did it for a specific economic and social purpose. The needed to be able to justify their actions to the kings and the church. That’s why blacks were counted a 3/5 of a man and women weren’t counted at the beginning of our great experiment. It created a legal and ‘natural’ framework to justify their ‘worth’ as the property of ‘men’. Kind of like laws promoting ID over science in school. Kind of like that Woo guy from Berkeley finding no blood or permanent physical damage equals no torture. Kind of like peace from the muzzle of a gun. Kind of Orwellian. Freedom is Slavery! When you have a cohesive, not necessarily coherent , rationale, it is much easier to get the results you want. Also for all you folks who keep bringing dogs into the discussion, I’m personally offended to be compared to an animal of a lower order! I’m an inveterate specieist! Apologies accepted in advance.
This comment was written by Impor Hisky.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 8:57 pm
The premise that only minorities are legitimate judges of racism (and only women are legitimate judges of sexism, etc.), and that such accusations should be normatively presumed valid, strikes me as seriously flawed. Can’t we, while recognizing the reality of racism and sexism, also recognize that some minorities and women are going to be paranoid about racism and sexism, both because of their experience and because they’ve been primed by identity-politics ideologues to see racism/sexism even where it isn’t? In my view, the advice to apologize and move on can only merely perpetuate the victim mentality that people like John McWhorter, for instance, have written about.
Furthermore: let’s say that in a college class that includes 10 black people, one of them finds a professor’s remark racist while the other nine do not. Is there any reason to privilege the perception of the one person who sees the remark as racist? Doesn’t that demean the other nine by implying that they are blind to their own oppression?
And what happens when anti-racism and anti-sexism (or anti-homophobia) collide? i.e. when some black activists claimed that it was racist to deplore the acquittal of O.J. Simpson or to applaud the rape conviction of Mike Tyson? When I was a student at Rutgers University in the mid-1980s, we had a so-called civil rights attorney, C. Vernon Mason, speak on our campus and say that black women who are battered by black men and report their abusers to the police are collaborating with the oppressor. When campus feminists (and others) expressed outrage at this, they were accused of racism.
In my view, true respect for people as individuals requires challenging unsubstantiated accusations of racism, sexism, etc.
This comment was written by Cathy Young.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:05 pm
wow, you people are totally self-obsessed. maybe you should just realize that people of color are more qualified to identify racism than you are. if you are called “racist” by a person of color. stop talking and start listening.
This comment was written by jellyroll.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Glaivester:
Hurricane force winds are insignficant to the question of determining the race (state of matter) of a given body of Nitrogen-Oxygen mix. It is as gaseous as the air on a windless day.
However one metric tonne of hurricane force wind is very different, thermally, from a metric tonne of liquid air. Of course, to survivors of a hurricane the differences are significant.
Nowhere have I suggested that genetic differences between the races don’t exist. What I’m saying is that these differences are too insignificant in comparison to other differences justify the claim that the division of humanity into roughly five different races based upon either skin colour or regional ancestry is one justified by science. It isn’t.
And even if it was, it would not justify treating any human being like crap because of that classification.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:30 pm
Can we not also, while recognising the reality of racism and sexism, also recognise that some minorities and women are going to make false or abusive accusations of racism and in order to secure advantage to themselves that they do not deserve.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 10:38 pm
Can someone explain to me why “person of color” is acceptible, but “colored” is not?
Daran, person of albido.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Scenario 1. A white youth is walking down the street, when he is suddenly confronted by a group of black youths. After a short stand-off, the white youth is attacked and beaten up. Later the white youth expresses views somewhat negative towards blacks.
Scenario 2. A black youth is walking down the street, when he is suddenly confronted by a group of white youths. After a short stand-off, the black youth is attacked and beaten up. Later the black youth expresses views somewhat negative towards whites.
Question 1. What much racism can you identify in the above?
Question 2. Are the interests of racial harmony best served by telling (a) the white youth, or (b) the black youth, to just shut up?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:52 pm
Can someone explain to me why “person of color” is acceptible, but “colored” is not?
Daran, person of albido.
For the same reason “Daran” is an acceptable way to address you and “Dork-on” isn’t–you get to decide for yourself what you wish for others to call you.
This thread is incredibly depressing. I wish I could use some kind of super-elite technology to beam half the people who have commented into a state called perspective. The defensiveness and avoidance being displayed here is truly phenomenal. For all everyone protests that they’re not racist (or at least “not *trying* to be racist,” which is worth about as many good behavior points as me “not *trying* to drive over old people in crosswalks”) the very self-centered nature of these comments gives lie to that claim. “Your people suffered a genocide? Huh too bad. But but today SOMEONE CALLED ME A RACIST OMG I’M MELTING!!!!” “Racism, gosh, that must kinda suck for you. But but but more importantly, racism is only natural! I CAN’T HELP IT!!! Oh and I am not a racist, how dare you???”
And all the crap about chihuahuas and collies makes you sound like a 19th century good ole boy “scientist” giving a presentation on why “negroes” are a step behind on the evolutionary ladder. You can dress your bigotry up in as many scientific or pseudo-scientific terms as you want, and it’s still bigotry. You can justify it with any number of psychological or “evo-bio” terms and jargon and it still stinks just as badly as it would if you put on a white sheet and picked up a torch.
That goes TRIPLE for all the amateurish babbling about Native Americans and alcohol. Read a few actual scholarly papers on the topic, preferably out of a couple different disciplines, as this is hardly a one-dimensional problem. Then get it through your skull somehow that North America is a very large continent and an awful lot of different people have inhabited it. As far as genetics, the average Tlingit person in Alaska has more in common with a person from Japan than she does with a Zuni person in New Mexico. Although, even generalizing to *that* extent is a sloppy and hazardous statement to make. Anyone who has anything approaching an *actual* grasp of anthropology and genetics realizes that, and that’s why you mostly hear this “well Native Americans barbarbarbar alcohol barbarharrumph!” from arrogant and under-educated amateurs.
I suggest that those whose area of expertise is dog breeding confine themselves to commenting on the genetic differences between dogs. And those who are too squeamish to face up to the fact that everyone who lives in a racist society as part of the majority bears some measure of responsibility, however small or large, for the injustices that continue–well perhaps they’d best leave any matter concerning race relations to someone who is more constitutionally fit for the ordeal.
This comment was written by Lilith.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 12:00 am
> Can’t we, while recognizing the reality of racism and
> sexism, also recognize that some minorities and
> women are going to be paranoid about racism and sexism,
> both because of their experience and because they’ve
> been primed by identity-politics ideologues to see
> racism/sexism even where it isn’t?
Sure, but I think you’re immediately demonstrating the potential risk of doing so.
It’s only intellectually valuable to recognize that kind of thing if you can retain a strong sense of nuance—the recognition that, while the opinions of a minority are not axiomatically correct, it’s still worth respecting them in the lion’s share of all cases. That most people *aren’t* paranoid, no matter how much or little privilege they have, and that most people worth talking to in the first place *aren’t* helpless pawns of ideologues. That if you’re talking to someone who’s sane about everything else, they’re probably sane about prejudice, too.
Of course Ampersand’s advice is only useful in, I dunno, maybe 80% of all cases; and if I’m wrong and it’s less than 60% or more than 95%, my worldview needs some shaking. ^_^
But . . . well, isn’t it throwing out the baby with the bathwater to prep a list in advance of all the reasons why minorities might not be worth listening to?
Responding now to Daran instead:
> Can we not also, while recognising the reality of racism
> and sexism, also recognise that some minorities and
> women are going to make false or abusive accusations of
> racism and in order to secure advantage to themselves
> that they do not deserve.
Enh. All the above goes double for you. Maybe even triple. ^_^
I mean, can’t we just take people seriously, instead of jumping straight to putting them on the pedestal of “honest 100% of the time” in order to knock them off of it?
I mean, isn’t it a bit of a poison to spend too much time thinking about all the ways in which minorities can be misled, foolish, evil, stupid, or even overly virtuous? Even if you stick to “well, a percentage must exist?”
Rebecca
This comment was written by Rebecca Borgstrom.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 12:02 am
Glaivester:
Cystic fibrosis? If you define race as a population that mostly breeds within itself rather than by skin color, then what about Tay-Sachs?
So, you’re basically saying ‘race’ means ‘genetic population.’ Yes, humanity can be divided into different populations with different genetic characteristics. The reasons not to call those races are that (1) skin color is not a useful way to so divide (2) they overlap in multiple ways rather than having correlated attributes (3) the ’science’ of race has a horrific history.
Skin color is a red herring, by the way. Skin color can be a useful marker for race, but it is not the same thing as race.
It’s part of the history of the term race. If you’re just trying to be scientific, why not use a conventional term, like populati0n? Why do you feel the need to preserve or rescue the vocabulary of racism?
Also, if it were really true that no significant genetic variations have developed between the races, why were the Native Americans so susceptible to European diseases? Isn’t that a significant difference?
Yes, it’s a significant difference - though genetically a fairly simple one for most diseases. But note that in other ways Native Americans are often very close to East Asians. This is point against the theory of races.
Why were the Native Americans so susceptible to alcoholism whereas Jews and Japanese people are not.
Is there any evidence that Native Americans are genetically more susceptible to alcohol? It’s certainly a common stereotype…
In any case, why is it bad to point out racial differences? Isn’t part of celebrating diversity realizing that diversity actually exists?
Diversity exists without races; it’s not a genetic term. And while the kind of ‘racial’ differences you’ve cited here have no significant political implications, the notion of genetic differences between ‘races’ has blood on its metaphorical hands. Unless you’re going to defend the unified, appearance-correlated theory of genetic differences between people historically associated with the term ‘race,’ using it only misleads and is likely to offend.
This comment was written by Kalkin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 12:12 am
It’s so much easier to be a conservative.
Axiom 1: At heart, everyone is an asshat.
Axiom 2: Everyone has the power within them to act better than their intrinsic nature.
There, you’re done. Someone is acting like an asshat? See Axiom 1. Someone is acting nice? See Axiom 2, and commend them for taking the effort to be nice.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 1:01 am
Robert:
Axiom 3: If you are conservative, and something is said which has the remotest chance of changing your world-view, you can switch of your brain by uttering the word ‘liberal’. It’s sort of a self-inflicted Vulcan nerve-pinch.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:32 am
Black People Love You!
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com
This comment was written by Person that Black People Love.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:33 am
You can call me “dork-on” if you like.
And I’ll call you “Lillith”. However, if you were to express a wish to be called “Lillith of the Valley”, I might humour you for a while, but it would be back to “Lillith” within a very short period of time.
I commonly use the words “black”, “white”, and “Asian” commonly to the major race groups I have occasion to refer to. (I realise that some people may not fall clearly (or at all) within any one of these groupings.) These terms do not appear to be objectionable, in general, to the people so described. “Coloured” does, and I avoid it for that reason. “Person of colour” makes me feel that I’m being asked to jump through hoops in order to demonstrate something, and I’m not quite sure what it is.
That’s a strawman. In fact, I can’t see anyone getting upset over being called “racist”. My reaction is to yawn.
As Ampersand pointed out, everyone who tries to take part in discussions about race get called a racist sooner or later, (and more likely sooner than later). And that indicates to me that the opperative definition of “racist” is “someone who has a different opinion on race than I have”.
And that is the tragedy of it. It’s not that being called “racist” is offensive. It’s that it makes reasoned discussion impossible. Either I unquestioningly agree with everything you say, or I’m a racist.
Who is “you”? I certainly didn’t say anything remotely like this. What I said about the scientific evidence can be summed up in the following sentence.
There is only one race: the human race.
I can only assume that as soon as the discussion strayed into that area, the clouds gathered across your eyes, and you simply didn’t read what what I said.
Amazingly, that’s almost exactly what I said, except that when I say it, it’s “bigotry”.
I said that too. Incredible!
When there is an eruption of violence, such as happened in, for example, Bradford, England a few years back, when white and Asian gangs battled it out on the streets and attacked homes and businesses of members of the other community, then that is an indicator that something has gone very, very wrong.
These problems didn’t develop overnight, and they don’t have a single cause. Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep. One cause is that the very structure of the urban renewal programs that were supposed to help these comunities actually forced them into conflict. You’re not even reading this, are you? You’ve called me a racist and the white clouds are before your eyes. la, la, la, and doesn’t know where to find them. They had to compete with each other on a “who lives in the worse shithole” basis, for access to resources. That’s a recipe for disaster. The inevitable result is that simmering resentment built up on both sides over years and years.
You don’t solve this problem by pointing the finger of blame at one community or the other. You solve it, to the extent that a solution is possible, by identifying these structural problems, and you do that by listening to people from both comunities, and not silencing the members of one by calling them racist.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 2:42 am
Kalkin:
An excellent point which is worth abstracting just to highlight it.
For the same reason, I’ll repeat a point I made earlier:
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 5:08 am
Daran: and you do that by listening to people from both comunities, and not silencing the members of one by calling them racist.
Suggest you re-read Ampersand’s post that started this thread, Daran. When someone calls you racist, their intent is not to “silence” you - unless you have nothing to say but racist stuff, which I am sure is not true. Read Ampersand’s advice, which strikes me as being pretty good, and learn how not be silenced when someone says you said something racist, but learn from it and move on, hopefully not making that mistake again.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 6:14 am
Okay, one thing that annoys me is people who immediately leap to the irrational as excuses for their preferred behavior.
No one has said minorities are the only judge of racism. On the other hand Black people have never been the obstacle to integration. Black people are STILL not the obstacle to integration.
And I want to drop one more bit of info for you to consider…the geneticists someog you cling to so tightly say there are greater differences between individuals within each racial grouping than between racial groups. You know what that means?
It means that even if biological differences are a legitimate means of categorizing humans, you have your categories wrong…otherwise the biological differences of significance would actually align with what we call race.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 6:25 am
Oh, one more thing.
This thread has become a serious object lesson. When we discuss white folks particular race problem notice how folks pop up to defend the white race against even the possibility that someone of color might be justified in pointing out a racist action…the rejection of the idea that Black folks are even qualified to make that judgement. Notice the change in topic and sadly, notice how easily the discussion is twisted into something quite useless.
Get real…when a person who looks white to white people suffers social repercussions when it’s discovered they “are black” (don’t take my word, Google Toi Derricott, check her picture and her book) race is not a biological issue.
It’s like you guys never studied homonyms in elementary school…race-the-biological-concept is no more difficult to sort out from race-the-social-issue than a run in you socks from a run in the bottom of the eighth. And if you keep it sorted a lot od silly conversation simply never arises.
You may now return to your silly conversations.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Who was it who said, “If everyone were suddenly turned into the same “color”, there would be a new prejudice by nightfall?”
It’s not about black or white, it’s about having power over another by a constructed view. Male or Female, White or People of Color, Rich or Poor…it’s all the same dismissive view that one is “different” from the constructed “ideal”.
Besides, if you believe in evolution, we all came out of Africa, and therefore, we all have African blood running through our veins.
This comment was written by robbie393.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 8:42 am
No. With only several generations the only differences (if any) that might show up would be the result of founder effects, not enough time for any real selection or drift.
You can pick any number of genetic markers and call them “racial”, and you’ll end up with so many “races” that it makes a mockery of the term “race” … which is exactly what Cavalli-Sforza showed (a population geneticist with a thing for historical migrations). The majority of genes do not follow the geographic clines that are refered to as “race”. Science does not support the use of the term “race”.
Human genetics also demonstrates that “racism” is not inherent. Human marriage tends to exogamy, but not extreme exogamy… we like to marry “close, but not too close”. Throughout history there has been “race mixing” whenever there were multiple “races” in the same culture, so our understanding of what constitutes an “outsider” is cultural, not genetic or “racial”.
So let’s put to rest any genetic or evo-psych claims that there is anything “inherent” about “racism”, or anything scientific about the construct of “race”.
Now, is it racist of me to get cheesed off when someone who is pig-ignorant of the language claims that “master/slave”, “niggardly”, “Shang-haied” etc are racist? Because I refuse to not get cheesed off. I also get cheesed off when people forget to use adjectives, so maybe that’s just a product of pedantry.
Are we (generic), as “white” individuals in a “white” society racist? Of course. It’s part of the cultural territory, so ingrained that we don’t notice it. To correct it the culture itself has to be corrected, but we can try to be aware of it and correct it in ourselves. That doesn’t mean that every negative “racial” interaction is racist, we should never encourage stupidity to have a sense of entitlement. Conversely, the OP is correct. If something we say or do is percieved as racist we should spend at least ten seconds trying to understand how and why it is so percieved, with our mouths shut, preferably.
This comment was written by JR.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 9:15 am
P6 writes:
Great idea. And after you’ve finished putting words in the insane-o Black person’s mouth, calmly but firmly suggest that he/she go take a “time-out.” When he/she and all the other insane-o Black people have left the room in a huff, congratulate yourself on having restored “rationality.” Works every time.
Prometheus 6 writes:
(I’m no longer being sarcastic here.) White people are generally accustomed to being viewed and treated as individuals rather than representatives of a category, and as human beings rather than as “a something-or-other.” What is infuriating about being called “a racist” is not just the accusation itself, but being reduced to a thing or category. This is how it feels to be on the receiving end of a racial epithet.
Oberon writes:
Yes. This is called “institutional racism” or “structural racism.” Unlike individual attitudes, structural discrimination can’t be undone through respectful discussion alone; it requires political action. It’s stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp this distinction.
Kalkin writes:
Agreed. In addition, we can admit that there are scientifically verifiable genetic variances among populations of people without having to label these differences “race.” Genetic variances and the visible or invisible traits they result in are real. “Race,” on the other hand, is a fictional idea: the definition of race, and who counts as what race, varies across societies and historical epochs, and is often arbitrarily determined by law (”the one eighth-rule,” for example). Historically, the concept of “race” has had no use other than as a rationale for colonization, enforced servitude, and the like. Unfortunately, the legacy of this history means that we’re now stuck with that term and need to use it occasionally if we want to undo some of those wrongs.
This comment was written by amy h.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 9:21 am
I think some people are missing a very important point–someone can make an unconsciously racist remark without intending to be racist. I am a white person who was raised in the South; I know that, because of the milieu in which I was raised, I do have some racist attitudes that are pretty deeply ingrained. Mississippi is still heavily segregated; I went to a private school that was pretty much all-white (we had one or two black students, but they didn’t stay long). I have tried, and am still trying, to root out my prejudices, but I can’t do that if I refuse to listen to someone who is hurt by something I said.
This comment was written by Snowe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Well, I didn’t read all the posts, but I have another bit of advice that might help.
When someone confronts you about being racist, you must confront them back. But do it subtly.
One way is to ask the accuser: “Please tell me, what part of what I said do you consider racist.” Then, if they can logically explain how what you said is racist then apologize: “I’m sorry, I guess I didn’t see it that way. I didn’t think I was being racist. Thanks.” If you really didn’t say anything racist, but the accuser is oversensitive or actually racist himself, you then have to just confront them about it (nicely), that is, IF you want to change their mind. If you want them to keep thinking that you are racist and tell others, or if you want them to think that everyone with that thought is racist, then leave them to perpetuate the paranoia.
This comment was written by Jason.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 10:44 am
i don’t see why anyone would hold up amp’s suggestions as poor ones. he basically just said, “if you’re accused of racism, apologize for the perception (not necessarily for the reality), minimize the public-embarassment factor, and discuss it later in grown-up, rational ways.” sounds good to me.
my concern is the unvoiced accusation of racism. i confront that problem much more often in my daily life. my recent example:
a new student in my school (a Black girl) was struggling in my math class. it was clear to me that she was unprepared for the class, and that moving her to a slower class would be better for her mathematically and academically (so she wouldn’t have to spend inordinate hours studying for math to the detriment of her other classes). she didn’t want to be moved, but she had no way to understand how quickly she would fall behind in the faster course. the principal and i decided to move her. of course, in her head (understandably), she thought i advocated moving her for some kind of racist reason (get the Blacks out of my class? Blacks can’t handle my class? something like that). she was very cold to me in the halls. i felt terrible. the fact is that racism probably did figure into that move, but not racism from me–the systemic racism that failed to prepare her for my class in her mostly-Black school of origin. based on her academic progress after she moved, it was clear that i was right about the appropriate course for her.
all turned out okay, and she was much friendlier to me when about 3 weeks later i sent over the next kid to her class–a new White boy. and then 2 months later another White boy who wasn’t new. She’s perfectly nice to me now that she believes my decision wasn’t motivated by race. the point being, she’s not an unreasonable person.
the moral is: i rarely get accused of racism to my face. i get accused in situations like that. or even in situations where i ask a disoriented looking Black person at work if i can help them find something–i’ve gotten the “what, you don’t think i belong here because i’m Black?” look several times for that.
i can’t blame the Black people for instinctively assuming racism. and i don’t think i am impervious to having to be careful about appearing racist. but what’s a person to do? bringing up race in that situation makes it more about race than it was in the first place, IMHO (”i know you think i’m moving you to a different class because you’re Black, but really, i mean it, that’s not why”–not a good way to handle it). there might not be a good answer here…this might just be one more way that systemic racism harms our daily lives.
any thoughts?
This comment was written by Polymath.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Amptoons’ original post has sparked some of the more thoughtful and respectful internet conversations on race that I have ever come across with the exception of a few posters who strove for cleverness over honesty and reflection. I wanted to post to point you to a great resource for those of you who are doing anti-racist classes and workshops in your church or school or who, as individuals, want to work to be a strong anti-racist ally. Where I work, we have put much of our anti-racism curriculum on-line so people can use it in their own organizations. You can download the free anti-racism resources here.
This comment was written by RuthAlice.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 11:29 am
I guess I will have to qualify my characterization of this conversation since I said it was thoughtful and respectful before I had read all the posts…and it has drifted away into what so many conversations about racism on the internet end up being — arguing whether or not race is a legitimate division of humanity. Perhaps those who think that race is genetically determined can explain why the Irish, Eastern Europeans and Scandinavians were not considered white in the United States until after the Civil War.
As to the term people of color, it is non synonymous with Black. People of color is a collective description of folks who are on the receiving end of oppression based on skin color and includes Asians, Latinos, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, African Americans and Native Americans. It is a term used to encourage the recognition that racism is a social strategy to maintain White supremacy.
This comment was written by RuthAlice.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites overlook.
So basically what you’re saying is “Those People are touchy about that sort of thing.”
J/k. But seriously, one problem with people’s reaction to this advice is that they tend to confuse “seriously consider the criticism” with “take for granted that the criticism is true.” This is a flaw in the listener, of course.
(Just yesterday a friend of my girlfriend’s aunt said “You don’t look Jewish. And you’re very mannerly.” I decided discretion was the better part of Shakespearean cliches.)
This comment was written by Hershele Ostropoler.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
amy h.
But white people are both, and to pretend otherwise just marks you as delusional.
Did you actually read the post Amp linked to?
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Hershele,
Did you consider that your discretion means that the friend of your girlfriend’s aunt won’t learn to do better? Of course, you are under no obligation as a Jew to point out every single anti-semitic remark that comes your way. You have to choose your battles and decide whether you have the energy to help someone understand how offensive their remarks are.
It’s too bad that some non-Jewish ally was not there to speak up and say, “Ouch, that’s something that could really be offensive to Jews. Jews look all sorts of different ways and speaking of manners, …”
Like I said earlier, folks who speak up when their group is the brunt of an offensive remark are taking a risk. It’s much better when someone who is part of the dominant culture speaks up for several reasons. First, since Jews did not create anti-semitism, it’s not really their job to educate and reform the anti-semites. That job really belongs to the people whose culture and social structure have benefitted from anti-semitism. If your folks build an obstruction, your folks are responsible for tearing it down. Moreover, because anti-semites are conditioned to discount the objections of Jews and are inclined to say “there they go playing the anti-semitism card again,” a non-Jew’s objection will carry more weight and be more effective. No one is going to say their paranoid, neurotic or any of the other stupid things folks like to pull out of their hats to excuse their anti-semitism.
Clearly, race and racism work the same way and anti-racist whites should speak up when someone makes a racist remark…not just to help folks realize their error, but to lift the load for the people of color who are always being asked to educate us about race.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Not to derail the discussion, but I wanted to point out that while this might have been the “Hotel Rwanda” version of the history, it’s not actually the whole truth.
The two groups have existed for much longer, what happened during colonialism was that they were cemented - whereas in the past you could marry out and raise your children as the other ethnicity, what the Belgians did was bring in labeling so that once a Hutu, always a Hutu - which because extremely important since they faboured the Tutsi.
This comment was written by JL.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Gad, I love that last phrase! Hope you don’t hae it copyrighted, because I’m gonna be pirating it forever.
This comment was written by Porlock Junior.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 12:24 am
People of color is a collective description of folks who are on the receiving end of oppression based on skin color and includes Asians, Latinos, African Americans, Pacific Islanders, African Americans and Native Americans.
“Person of color” means “non-white.” The term essentially refers to everyone except for (non-Hispanic) white people.
And even if [there was a scientific basis for racial classification], it would not justify treating any human being like crap because of that classification.
No disagreement there. I was trying to point out that race is real because one of the posters had said that it was just a social construct. My saying that race is real was not an attempt to defend myself against charges of being racist nor have I (on this post at least) claimed not to be racist or become defensive at the thought that someone might call me racist.
No. With only several generations the only differences (if any) that might show up would be the result of founder effects, not enough time for any real selection or drift.
I didn’t say that there would be huge differences; unless there were tremendously different selection pressures the two populations would probably be nearly identical for many, many generations. But the two groups would probably view themselves as separate clans, tribes, or what-have-you. By my definition, you would have two new races; although it would likely be many, many generations before the two races diverged genetically a noticeable amount, in the absence of extreme selective pressure.
That’s why blacks were counted a 3/5 of a man and women weren’t counted at the beginning of our great experiment.
Actually, (and saying this never gets old) the “three-fifths of a man” thing is canard. First, it was not blacks per se but only black slaves who were counted as 3/5 of a man. (Freemen were counted fully). Secondly, this was only in effect for the determination of the representation that a state would get in the House of Reps. The Southern states had wanted to count slaves as part of their population during the census to increase their representation (although slaves were not to be allowed to vote), and the North did not. The compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a person for purposes of determining representaiton for a state in Congress. If slaves had been counted fully, all it would have accomplished would have been to have given Southern whites more power in Congress.
I also want to agree with P6 that we have added a level of social construction to race on top of the biological reality. Things like the “one-drop rule” are social constructs, I won’t disagree with that.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 12:43 am
I think that as for the particular issues of race relations in the U.S., there are two main causes for particular manifestations of racism in the U.S., that is, why there has been so much anti-black sentiment, customs, and laws.
(1) Unlike, e.g., South America. the U.S. slave population was mostly native born. This is because Africa is fairly distant from the U.S., and transporting slaves across the North Atlantic to North America was far costlier than across the South Atlantic to South America. Therefore, it was often cheaper in the U.S. to breed the slaves here, as opposed to simply working them to death and then transporting more in.
As a result, the U.S. slave population became more homogenized and most slaves were brought up knowing a common language (generally English). This made organization and slave rebellions much more likely than in countries were each slave knew his won language and where slaves from different tribes might be less likely to trust each other. Moreover, U.S. slaves who were born here would have a much better knowledge of the lay of the land, and would therefore have an easier time fighting.
So a lot of the restirctions on blacks began in order to keep black slaves from seeing freemen and to prevent them from dreaming that freedom was actually achievable.
(2) And this will surely be controversial. On average, black men tend to have mor “masculine characterstics” than white men (more muscle-mass, darker skin and hair, broader nose). This is probably the reason why a lot of people assume that black men have bigger you-know-whats.
In any case, a lot of white men were insecure and afraid that they would not be able to compete with black men for mates. Or, in more colloquial terms, they were afraid htat black men would “steal” “their” women.
A great deal of Jim Crow was designed not to provide whites with economic benefits, but to make certain that blacks could not achieve a social status that would make them eligible husbands for white women. (A lot of southerners admitted that they thought that Jim Crow hurt their economy, but wanted to keep it anyway).
So no, I am nor denying that there is a historical context for race relations.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Amp, I like those suggestions very much - I think they are a good starting point. Maybe you could work up a parallel set for white people who want to point out racist comments to other white people? And also, as a general question, can someone who is white point to racist comments made by a person of color without being perceived as condescending?
Examples I had in mind when writing this post:
1. I was filling the gas tank of my car at a two-pump service station. A black woman was filling the gas tank of her car at the other pump. A Chinese woman and her grandmother drove up behind me. The Chinese woman got out of her car and asked me if I could hurry, because she needed to get her grandmother to a doctor’s appointment on time. Meanwhile, the black woman finished at the pump she was using and drove away. I apologized, bowed to the grandmother, and finished up as quickly as I could. They used the pump I was using as soon as I drove away, not the pump the black woman had been using that had been standing unused as I finished up my business. As a white person, I didn’t think then and still don’t think now that I could have made any better response. But if there is one, I would like to know for the future.
2. A black parent at my children’s school was expressing frustration about the low return of a fundraiser, and blamed it on the Asian parents, “because, you know all those people are so cheap they won’t put in a penny more than they have to.” I protested that it wasn’t a fair statement, but she was offended by my statement. A better way to handle it?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Glaivester:
Lift weights and work in the sun (won’t help with the nose, though…)
Lee:
This comment was written by P6.You recognize you can’t heal the world. I can only suggest you heal those you can and don’t hurt the rest.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2005 at 11:42 am
I just blogged this wonderful post. Thanks.
Here is an example of how white-supremacist thinking pervades the posts of even the best-intentioned commenters here. Charles of Mercury Rising writes:
Americans, though, have an extra barrier in overcoming racism. Slavery, the conquest of northern Mexico, and the genocide against the American Indian creates a sense of guilt and fear among many white Americans, especially those who are most openly racist. To overcome racism in the US will require ending its ill effects, so that we can look at one another without wincing over the past, until all the bitterness and death becomes something our children or our children’s children can no longer imagine.
It sure looks to me like Charles is saying that the consequences of “slavery, the conquest of northern Mexico, and the genocide against the American Indian” are that white Americans experience fear and guilt — that it is the experiences of fear and guilt by white Americans that are the important consequence of racism in the U.S., not the various experiences of African slaves and their descenants, Spanish settlers and their descendants, or native Americans.
I don’t think that this is necessarily what Charles meant to say, but it is what he actually wrote. The programming of Americans with the doctrine of white supremacy is deep and subtle. Which, it seems to me, is one of the assumptions that goes into Ampersand’s po0st
This comment was written by Alan Bostick.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 1:17 am
it strikes me there is a huge difference between pointing out that a comment/action/assumption is racist, which is fully legitimate and productive, and being outright called (usually by a total stranger or an acquaintance) “a racist.” Like, how often does that have more basis in fact than in emotion? how often is the phrase “you’re a racist” anything but an attempt to manipulate a situation and disempower the person against whom the accusation is made (considering especially in schools and workplaces, these accusations can cost your job)? those are the kinds of things that raise the anti-racist hackles: it may not be productive to fire back with the same amount of emotion, but maybe being called out as “racist” gets white people so riled up is because it is often based in other people’s assumptions, emotions and prejudices, and it is often an attempt to put them in their place. It wounds in the same way racist epithets do, not because of the historical significance of the word, but because the intention behind it is the same.
This comment was written by earache.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 3:10 am
Not very. Usually it’s based in an experience, and expressed with the emotion the experience inspires. Not an optimal response, but white folks don’t handle it much better…
It’s usually something other than that.
The culture has turned against enforcing civil rights laws to the benefit of minorities, so you can relax about the threat to your job.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 3:28 am
And it is the historic significance of the word that makes it sting.
This comment was written by P6.Report this comment to the moderators
December 6th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Why is it that those on the anti-racist side so often turn to ad-homs, instead of reasonably arguing the point?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 1:12 am
I don’t buy the idea that humans are inherantly racist at all. It’s learned behaviour, and it can be unlearned.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Have you ever watched kids in a playground? At a very young age they don’t even seem to be aware that different races exist. They learn to be racist from their families, or their communities, or their teachers, and so on. Some never pick up this particular learned behaviour, other pick it up to greater or lesser degrees. Pretending that it’s inevitable is an excuse to avoid doing anything about it, IMO.
I do think that we need to remember that racism isn’t limited to white people, though. I have Filipino in-laws who are virulently racist against the Japanese. The fact that they’re not white doesn’t make their racism OK (if you want an example of just how not OK it can get, take a look at some of the stuff Michelle Malkin writes about the internment). Luckily, the older generation do not seemed to have passed their prejudice down to the younger one, which once again proves that there’s nothing inherant about it.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 1:55 am
That’s the point. Different races don’t exist. They’re social constructs which have no real existence ‘out there’. They only exist in our minds.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 2:30 am
Also, this was interesting (about the idea of in-groups)
“Now, people are not necessarily naturally racist in the sense that they are hardwired to define “their own kind” in terms that are based on race; generally it is based on whom they associate with; however, for most of human history people were a lot more segregated by race than they are now, so “their own kind” was determined racially. Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family) and race is probably the easiest category for people to develop the sense of “ones’ own kind” with.
Just look at how many “primitive” tribes’ (i.e. not integrated into modern civilization) names for themselves are “the people”? or “the true people” or something like that.”
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Here’s the thing. More and more as time goes on and mass communications, cheap and frequent travel etc become factors, what people see as signifying “one’s own kind” may be changing.
Take me as an example. When I think of “my kind” race has nothing to do with it. I’m much more likely to identify people of a different race who belong to the same subcultures as me (goth, BSDM, artsy/creative) as “my kind” than people of my own race who look superficially like me but do not share my subcultural identifications. So, for example, a white Evangelical soccer mom with 3 kids who is as conventional as can be and has never left the town in Arkansas she grew up in? Not “my kind”. Someone involved in the Japanese visual kei scene with a creative job? “My kind”. Bill O’Reilly? Not “my kind”, even though we’re not only both white but both Celts who were brought up as Christians. The woman I met last week on the train who is trying to carve out a career for herself as a dancer who I spent half an hour talking leftist poltitics with, who happens to be from Brazil? “My kind”. Race is only one of the factors that make up identity.
Of course I had a wierd upbringing (ex-pat/Third Culture kid) and that may have something to do with it, but I think that outside the poisonous racial politics that still prevail in much of the US, the idea of race as one’s primary marker of identity is on the wane, at least for a certain (admittedly elite) section of society. Honestly, I think that most Americans don’t realise how much more blatantly racist than most other societies their country is. I’ve never been anyplace as race-concious as the American South.
Which is another relevant point. The idea of race in most societies is intimately bound up with the idea of class. The higher up the social ladder you look, the less race matters. This is true in every country I’ve ever lived in, and I’ve lived on 4 different continents.
I’m probably getting a bit off topic so I’ll quit now, but I do think it’s worth noting that the obsession with the idea of race as the one and only way to classify people, and the refusal to recognise how class is tied into that, is somewhat of a uniquely American issue.
Also, I’d argue with the idea that people always historically defined “their own kind” by race. If a population was geographically isolated and had no contact with other racial groups, how would that even be possible? the idea of race is oppositional in nature - how would people define themselves that way if they had no outside group to compare themselves to?
This part in particular freaked me out.
” Moreover, as the preference for “one’s own kind” is related to the biological imperative to spread one’s genes, “nature’s intent” as it were was for the preference to be racial (i.e. to benefit those in the same extended family)” If you’re suggesting what you seem to be suggesting, I can only point out that in every society in which people of differing races have co-existed, they have had sex with and had children with each other. If your idea that a “prference for one’s own kind” is related to the imperative to “spread one’s genes” was true, that wouldn’t happen, and yet it does, every time. Proving, once again, that there’s nothing inherant about racism.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 2:35 am
Daran - true, as proven by the fact that children have to be taught to perceive racial differences. Left to their own devices, the distinctions they make look more like “pretty/ugly” or “good at soccer/bad at soccer”, or “nice/wouldn’t share his or her candy with me, so I think he/she is mean!”.
This comment was written by BritGirlSF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 5:36 am
An ad hom is an argument in the form “the speaker has characteristic X, and therefore the speaker’s argument is wrong.” [*] What you quoted is not in this form, and so is not an ad hom argument.
Regarding your question, my general observation is that in any debate there are many people people being rude on both sides. I have not noticed that either side of any major political debate has a monopoly on any virtue or vice. (I don’t assume that you disagree.)
[*] The exception to this rule is if the speaker’s argument makes a specific claim about characteristics the speaker possesses; in that case, arguments based on the speaker’s characteristics aren’t necessarily ad hom.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 7:16 am
Argumentum ad Hominem
Translation: “Argument against the man” (Latin)
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate …
Subfallacies:
Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent’s position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: “Of course, that’s what you’d expect him to say.” The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument’s acceptance.
(From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html)
I don’t think it’s necessary to write the argument specifically in the form you specified. The clear implication of the words quoted top is that the other’s argument was predicated upon their personal advantage, and therefore to be dismissed.
I don’t disagree, however I was not complaining about mere rudeness, but the specific argument which (in its various forms) goes: “Men/whites/white men argue against [whatever] because they stand to lose their privilages.”. My question was rhetorical. I know why they do it. I find it tiresome, disruptive of debate, and I just wish they’d stop.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 8:04 am
I recently encountered a Studs Terkel interview with a former Klansman that seemed relevant to the discussion (as well as the MRA/Feminist/male privilege/female privilege debate in other threads).
While reading this, I found myself tearing up more than once. I think there’s a lot to learn from it about how to talk to the people one disagrees with and how to find common ground in oppression rather than to turn inward and use the oppression of your group to deny the oppression of another.
http://www.cjonline.org/terkelEllisIntervu.htm
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Daran:
Regarding ad hom, I pretty much agree with the definition you quoted. You wrote:
I don’t think it has to be written in that form. Let me restate myself: All ad hom arguments can be restated in the form, “the speaker has trait X, therefore the speaker’s argument is wrong,” without changing the substance of the argument.
In this case, I don’t think the specific argument we’re talking about, viewed with a reasonable benefit of the doubt, does boil down to that form. Here it is again, with a fuller context:
Debator A claimed that allegations of racism are used to disempower people by threatening “your job.” Debator B rebutted by saying that the situation has changed, so there is no longer a “threat to your job.”
In context, P6 wasn’t talking saying that earache’s particular traits proved earache wrong; he gave an argument for why earache was wrong (lax enforcement), and he reused earache’s language to argue that the specific harm earache cites is not a concern. That’s sort of echoing is just ordinary debate rhetoric, not ad hom.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Interesting thread, Amp, I liked what you wrote in your initial posting.
A lot of interesting and informative comments.
Just one word on the Kenyans success in the steeplechase. A lot of their success in long-distance running is due to their culture, geography, diet and the training systems in place in Kenya. From the time they first walk, most Kenyans run anywhere from 5-15 miles back and forth from school daily. They do not ride in cars, and do not lead sedetary life styles. Running is a mode of transportation and a cultural value, as more and more it has become a means to provide a good lifestyle to the athletes and their families.
Most of the Kenyans who are distance runners live in the mountains, so they have been exposed to living and running at high altitudes their entire lives. This gives them a stronger heart, with thicker ventricle muscles, higher lung capacity, V02(Oxygen volume capacity) and more red blood cells to carry oxygen. Most of the first Kenyan athletes came from the Rift Valley, though that has changed. Even those living in the valleys often have trained in the mountains.
both the altitude and the lifestyle create an endurance base for Kenyan runners, that’s almost impossible to compete with.
The majority of the Kenyan diet consists of corn mush, which is its staple, along with vegtables, some grains and very little meat.
The training of Kenyan runners has become more of a systemic operation. Some Catholic priests and monks have opened Catholic schools where running is a staple, first to men, but increasingly to women and girls as running becomes a more socially acceptable option for Kenyan women. Kenyans train extraordinarily hard, but they’ve spent their lives in a sense building up their bodies and internal systems to handle the rigorous training. Also, their emphasis is more on teamwork, than individual success.
I’ve read a lot of material on the Kenyan runners and I met with, trained with and been friends with many of them. One of my first friends, was Julius Kariuki, the first Kenyan to win a gold medal in the steeplechase in Seoul(1988).
Kenya is not the only African country with successful runners. In fact, Ethiopia has eclipsed them in many disciplines. Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, etc.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Interesting posts….
In the United States, I’m not so sure this is true. In some respects, I think race matters more the closer you get to the top of the social ladder. Or if not more, just in different ways.
White people experience classism, if they are poor or working-class. So do African-Americans and other racial groups who are also disproportionately represented in these groups. Yet, when White people move up the ladder, the classism they experience diminishes, and racism never was a reality for them. However, for African-Americans, racism follows them whereever they go, even if they are wealthy.
If a White person drives a car through an upper-class neighborhood, how likely are they to be stopped by a police officer or a private security guard, because they do not look like they belong or live in that neighborhood? What about a Black person who lives in that neighborhood?
How will a White person in that neighborhood be treatd by others in her neighborhood? Will her neighbors be nice to her, or look at her and her family members with suspicion and fear?
(and in many cities, the wealthier an African-American is, the more likely they might be to live in a predominanlty White neighborhood.)
Also, there have been studies done that have determined that Middle-Class or wealthier African-Americans have more difficulty getting mortages for their homes than African-Americans in lower economic classes with worse credit ratings. One possible explanation provided was that the more money African-Americans had to spend on housing, the more likely they were to integrate into predominantly White neighborhoods.
Also, African-Americans often are steered by realitors into shopping for prospective homes in “Black” neighborhoods.
My employers are fairly well-off economically as are some of my friends. But they still experience racism. Still are viewed suspiciously when they go into shops to spend their money. Still may have their cars searched when stopped by police. Still receive poor service compared to White customers at restaurants. And their kids still have to deal with racism as well.
A parent of a White teenaged son in the upper economic classes may wait up all night until he comes home from an evening out safe and in one piece. So does a parent of a Black teenaged son, with the added fear that something might have happened to him at the hands of a police officer.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I concede.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
“If a White person drives a car through an upper-class neighborhood, how likely are they to be stopped by a police officer or a private security guard, because they do not look like they belong or live in that neighborhood? What about a Black person who lives in that neighborhood? “
It doesn’t happen often, but I was once stopped after leaving a catering gig. The party was in an area called Indian Lakes and is home to the wealthy of the area. I was driving a beat up rust bucket, wearing a restraunts uniform. I know he pulled me over to find out what I was doing in that area. Just another nuisance in a nuisance filled life.
Of course, I’m one of the few people I know that has ever had a felony stop executed on them by accident. (And no I didn’t get an apology for having to eat gravel in the rain in January).
Racism exists and it should be fought. Racial profiling exists and it should be fought in whatever form it appears.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I think his advice is a good starting point, to help White people think before they start throwing up all the roadblocks to any “real” dialogue on race. Most of those dialogues don’t get started because of the defensiveness of White people in the ways Amp describes. And we’ve seen some of that defensiveness on this thread already. And most if not all of us have done it ourselves, no matter how equilitarian we say we are, and how much we say that we don’t see race and gender in ourselves and other people(usually, a sign that this person is in the most priviliaged racial and/or gender groups b/c only those folks have the choice of ignoring issues like race and/or gender.).
The times I’ve been told something I did, or did not do, said or did not say, was racist by a person of color, 9.99 times out of ten I deserved it. The one time I didn’t, was mistaken identification for someone else. I’m still learning.
I’ve also been called a racist by many Whites, which is a whole separate issue, including on my blog. Those times, the people doing this are unable to articulate their reasons for doing so. I’m just a racist….just because. They most likely would call a person of color a racist, as well. Any mention of racism….you’re a racist, period.
I think some of them are actually confusing the term “racist” with “race traitor”(which I’ve also been called). Others have this warped belief system that White people are the real victims of racism. I’ve seen that on my blog too, from the White cops in our department who crashed it. They believe that the Black officers who make up 7% of the department are the priviliaged ones at their expense. They then go out and treat the public accordingly.
Most people, it’s defensiveness b/c they inherantly know especially when it’s pointed out to them that they benefit in some form, whether it is their choice or not, from racism.
I bring this up, because in my experience, that’s one reason why dialogues on race stall, is because of White people’s many defense mechanisms that society teaches them to use, and teaches them that it’s better if they use them., than if they don’t.
I think the comments on the effectiveness of diversity training were interesting. Though in LE, the programs they have, are more like throwing a bucket of water on a forest fire.
Very true. Very evident in California, for example and other places.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 7th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
My bad, Mendy, I did not account for classist profiling, done by police in more affluent neighborhoods based on assumptions about vehicles and clothes, hair length(i.e. long hair for men) and other characteristics. I had several experiences where I was mistaken for a criminal for living in the “wrong” neighborhood, but they were fairly isolated.
Terrifying, but in the sense that I couldn’t imagine what it must be like to face them on a more regular basis. My first experience with seeing that perspective, was with a boyfriend I had, who had Salvadorian and Peruvian ancestory. Cops in my city loved to pull over interracial couples, b/c they assume the woman must be a prostitute. My boyfriend lived in a predominantly white, middle-class neighborhood and he would work long days, come home and exercise. When the cops passing through saw him exercising, they’d stop him. Or when he was driving near his house. Never given tickets, and on one occasion taken in a squad car in handcuffs to be IDed by a woman who’s purse was stolen. The woman was adament that it was not him. He eventually sold his house and moved to O.C. Why live in a neighborhood where the police harass you as an “outsider”?
And no, they don’t apologize for their mistakes, or they do rarely. I think I’ve heard of one incident where an officer apologized in passing while he was fleeing the scene after he realized that the two Latino men he had a shotgun pointed at, while they were on the ground were there to deliver newspapers.
White people can be racially profiled if they are in lower-income predominatly Black neighborhoods, by officers using the premise that White people are good, Black people are criminals, and if you see a White person in a Black neighborhood, they must be up to no good.
My mom tutored young women in South Central L.A. and was pulled over a few times by LAPD asking her what she was doing in that neighborhood. I think they thought if a White woman was there, they must be there to buy drugs b/c why else would any White person want to be there? They rarely if ever think outside that box.
The vast majority of racial profiling by police involves Black and Latinos and even if it is done against White motorists, it is more to label a minority neighborhood as “bad”. It’s done in neighborhoods where African-Americans are the predominant residents, and police say, well they are the predominant residents therefore they must be the ones pulled over most often. However, they are profiled by police in predominantly White neighborhoods and make up the bulk of traffic stops done in those neighborhoods at least in my city.
Black motorists have the highest release rates, the lowest arrest rates, the highest search rates, yet the lowest rate for seizure of contraband in any neighborhood in my city. White motorists are predominantly pulled over by traffic officers, whose primary responsibility is to ensure the smooth flow of traffic and enforce traffic laws, issuing citations or warnings to violaters. Black motorists and Latino motorists are predominantly stopped by patrol officers whose primary responsibility is to do pretext traffic stops. These stats are not unique. I think you will find these trends in most major cities, and probably many smaller ones.
All these factors can point to racial profiling, though our department adamently denies it through a hand-picked ex-cop turned sociologist who analyzes their raw data on an annual basis. Our city held its first forum for discussion on the racial profiling study. What happened has ensured that the city and the department will not sponsor a second one. It wasn’t quite the PR junket that the city and the department had hoped it would be.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
[...] David’s response reflects a broader problem in responses to critical engagements with sexism, racism, and other biases, which is, when racism or sexism is called out, to engage in one or more knee-jerk denials: “There’s no sexism here!” or, classically, “I’m not racist!” or “I’m not sexist!” as if it were a personal insult. One can observe three kinds of major knee-jerk responses: One, to become so politically correct that one becomes a caricature of one’s own politics. Two, to deny the critiques, and censor the critics by calling them politically correct. Three, to do the crazy white panic (”I’m not a racist! You don’t think I’m racist, do you? But I’m so not racist!”), so beautifully dissected by Alas, a Blog. [...]
This comment was written by derivative work » Blog Archive » bias [draft].Report this comment to the moderators
December 10th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
earache made an important point is suggesting that there is a vast difference between saying that a comment a person made was racist and calling that person a racist. All of us know enough about communicating with each other to know that there’s a big difference between telling a child that sticking a fork into an electric socket is a dumb thing to do and telling the kid he’s an idiot. A critique should focus on the action, not the character of the person. People make mistakes, but they aren’t their mistakes.
Sure, I believe that a Whites, including myself, are conditioned to be racist, but not everyone accepts that definition of racism and it would be overly doctrinaire to insist on folks recognizing their racism and dealing with it. I merely can insist that their actions and words don’t express their racism - at least, not in front of me.
I am fairly comfortable pointing out a racist comment or action…though there have been times I let it slide because of circumstance — and then stewed about it for hours with guilt that I didn’t speak up. However, I don’t try to make it about a person’s character…because accepting that I am as infected with racism as they are makes it fairly easy to recognize that people of good will and good hearts can make a racist comment wihtout staining their character for life. I have also pointed out the bigoted comments made by people of color, for example, the use of Jew as a verb. If you are kind and make clear that your interest is not in trying to project that you are morally superior to the person whose comment you are objecting to, I find that folks are fairly appreciative of discovering that they could offend people without meaning to. After all, most people, and of course this is also a personal belief, are basically good and don’t want to hurt others.
My rule of thumb is to simply say, “I think that using Jew as a verb is pretty offensive to a lot of people, especially Jews. It’s based on the old prejudice that Jews are greedy. Wouldn’t it be better to just say bargain and not hurt anyone’s feelings?” I used just about those same words to an African American woman who acknowledged that she had never thought about that and thanked me for telling her — particularly since her new boss was Jewish. Imagine if she had used it in front of him!
I know I am appreciative of the heads-up I received from a Latina whose English who was speaking to me in heavily accented, though correct, English. Since I am fluent in Spanish, I just switched to her language. This offended her because I was assuming the privilege of deciding what language we were going to talk in. I merely thought I was being helpful, but knew that if it bothered her, I should just apologize and move back to English, so I did. Still, I thought about it quite a bit, wondering if her response was typical or particular to her. Finally, I asked a couple of Latino friends (good enough friends that I can ask them this sort of question) whether folks ever spoke in Spanish to them as soon as they knew they were Latino and got an earful.
It turns out that even people who may have only gotten to 101 invariably begin rattling of in Spanish despite the fact that these folks not only speak flawless English but are published authors in English. One told me that she immediately begins speaking in rapid-fire Spanish using the most obscure words she can think of and the intrepid Spanish-speakers just smile, nod and say si, si, si. Thanks to that woman telling me that I was offending her, I have avoided making that mistake again. Now when a Spanish-speaker is struggling with English, I volunteer that I speak Spanish and ask if they would rather speak in that language. And no, they don’t always say yes, or no. So simple…and it doesn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.
Basically, if you acknowledge that you make mistakes yourself and occassionally do or say something racist, it’s much easier to point out the errors of someone else because you know you do the same thing from time to time. It also doesn’t hurt to admit to them that you screw up yourself so you let that person know that you don’t think they are a bad person because of what they say…particularly since you assume they didn’t intend to offend. And you know, that last bit is important, you really should assume that the person who made the racist remark didn’t intend offense. That may not be true, but it will be true more often than not.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
December 10th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
(When someone accuses you of racism), “Stay civil. Don’t burn bridges”.
Nice thought, but that train leaves the station with the accusation.
This comment was written by mj.Report this comment to the moderators
December 11th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
mj: Nice thought, but that train leaves the station with the accusation.
What, if someone tells you “you just said something dumb” you resolve never to speak again, or never again to speak to the person who warned you that you just said something dumb? One of the most-easily fixed mistakes in the world is generally the “I just said something dumb” mistake: you apologize, you take note of your error, and take care not to repeat that error again.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 12th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
It’s your choice on how to address criticism regarding racism, but society does give you that choice.
This comment was written by Radfem.And at least you won’t be wasting someone else’s time and energy, trying to explain anything to you.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 13th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Kija:
This seems like a good approach. You didn’t say “You’re being antisemitic” - you didn’t even say “That’s an antisemitic statement.” If someone says to me, “The word ‘niggardly’ is offensive to a lot of people, etc.”, we’re likely to have a sensible conversation. If I’m accused of racism, to get back to the title of this post, no useful conversation is likely to result. (Winston Smith made a similar point well above.) The difference is what Jes for example is missing above.
This comment was written by rilkefan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 5:25 am
How to not be insane when accused of racism. White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege White Like Me, Interview.
This comment was written by i <3 areolas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Thanks, Rilkefan….though I don’t know if you would really agree with me. I believe that the comment is anti-semitic and the person making the comment is anti-semitic just as I believe that whites are conditioned to be racist and that you and I are racist. I just think that starting out with “you are a racist” plugs the ears, whereas “many people, including me, could perceive what you just said as racist and be offended by it” gets the point across without setting people’s backs quite so far up.
I’m not thinking that the speaker is any less anti-semitic or racist, I just acknowledge that not everyone shares my understanding of racism and tend to define racism down to the white-sheet variety. If that’s your definition of racism, then you will go insane when accused of it.
This comment was written by Kija.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
choose to believe that race will not affect their families. I disagree. I’m no expertI’m in the very beginning stages of dealing with this issue. But if you want a broad range of viewpoints on the issue of racism and being a racist I encourage you toread this post and, more importantly, the comments responding to it. Interesting, thought-provoking stuff. *I almost wrote “our adoption journey”. I could have written that, but then I would have had to go outside and heave a number of times. I think perhaps a
This comment was written by grrlTravels.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Kija: I think that treating one another with respect and with the presumption of good faith is at least as important as the theory under which we arrive at that behaviour.
In the example you cite above, I think it’s perfectly possible that an African-American using “jew” in that sense might have no awareness of its antisemitic origin. There are of course words in English that have evolved to have the same spelling, for example - and most people have little awareness of language in any case. In my example above, “niggardly” is unrelated to the n-word, but people might use it in a racist way under the misapprehension that it is - people have objected to it under that misapprehension. In my view it’s wrong to attack people based on assumptions about what they think, which is why I like your approach. You’re free to make whatever inference you like about the speaker above, but you’ve addressed the language, the correct starting point.
“as I believe that whites are conditioned to be racist and that you and I are racist.”
I take it that you are white, and that you believe I am? Does my race matter here? What about my nationality? What if I’m white but French or from Africa?
“tend to define racism down”
Of course some might see this post as defining racism up, or “only whites can be racist” as defining it down. We have to share our languages even when our versions don’t overlap, which gets back to the point about assumptions.
This comment was written by rilkefan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 18th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
[...] Alan points to a superb post by Ampersand, who in turn links to Prometheus 6, a meaty blog we hadn’t come across before. Check out the quote from Prometheus, “Not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people.” (To which Debbie, while agreeing, also says that in many cases “nigger” makes white people crazier than it does Black people as well.) [...]
This comment was written by Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » Don’t Use the “R” Word - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:15 am
How not to be Insane when Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People
This comment was written by Rark, the Magick Drachen.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
a law like that should probably create the legal ownership of someone else’s body that the men advocating forced abortions seem to want while also creating a situation where they’ll have to consider the implications of what that really means.By the way, and I don’t know where else to cram it, but this post on how white people need to chill when it comes to the word “racist” is a classic. I’m stashing it here, because it’s simple, really.
This comment was written by Pandagon.Report this comment to the moderators
March 16th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Quite by accident ( I was looking for a conversational Spanish class- go figure) I saw your bolg. I thought I would check it out. I was so pleased to see racism being addressed on such a positive level. From what I read you are right on when you say communication is the key. The more we can demystify the issue the more we can understand each other. An of course we as African-Americans must be willing to open up and ask when we think we’ve heard a racist statement. I do and I have found opportunites to educate & be educated. On more than one ocassion it has been an avenue to discuss other issues and realize things we all thought were “ethnic”(mine or theirs) were shared by each other there by removing unknown sterotypes.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2006 at 8:07 pm
from:http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/ Not to put too fine a point on it, but “racist” is the only word that makes white people as crazy as “nigger” makes Black people.
This comment was written by Lauren Riot - MySpace Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
June 30th, 2006 at 2:23 am
discussion, which wasn’t meant to accuse individuals of racism, but to bring up the point that identification and assumption based on race is offensive and, in fact, racist. Another member of her club pointed members to the Alas blog and the post How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism (A Guide for White People). Liz from Mom-101 endured her own version of playground politics when a local nanny made her feel bad about her little girl: “Really? Not walking? Is she standing? Crawling?” “Crawling sure,” I said. “She’s waving to you by the way.” I indicated to
This comment was written by Mommy & Family | BlogHer.Report this comment to the moderators
July 7th, 2006 at 1:08 am
And then Badger posted her own thoughtful points on the importance of discussion in a community. I’ll post it here if she gives permission. She cited this link as well, which I probably should have read before this whole fracas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/ 6/28: Badger’s full message, which I hope everyone absorbed: Weighing in with a couple of points I think are important: - This is not actually a flame war! It’s a healthy discussion, that I am grateful we get to have, and it shows what a strong and
This comment was written by the adventures of leelo and his potty-mouthed mom..Report this comment to the moderators
July 21st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
race and class and gender, oh my!: or, growing up geeky south of the Mason-Dixon Line (aggravation warning for some of the comments). [IMG [info]]perigee on anger and hostility in anti-racist arguments How not to be insane when accused of racism and How to be a real nice guy Two personal sites of anti-racist writing I’ve only just begun to explore: Jelani Cobb and Tim Wise [IMG [info]]rachelmanija describes “Some Approaches to Multicultural Casting”:
This comment was written by coffee & ink.Report this comment to the moderators
August 8th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
I have been reading this thread for a while and I fail to see what the problem is. I do enjoy the writing of most in here who apear to be very intelligent people. This subject does not seem to be rocket science to me. This thread paints Black to be ultra sensitive peole who will call you racist at the drop of a hat. Have most of you actually had experiences like that? It would seem logical to me that if you say something offensive to someone that you apologise??? If you dont say anything racially insensitive you dont need to apologise??? Its pretty clear cut to me. I am Black (oh my god!!), and reading this thread I am slightly offended by ths thread in general. Why? Because of the lovely picture that is being painted of Blacks and other minorities as super sensitive creatures (not human perhaps) that you have to handle with care.
What I would like to read is some examples of what has been said that cause a defensive response from someone of a minority group. High school kids dont count because many of them will tell an adult anything so that they can get thier way. All I see here is how to handle a group of people who are irrational and hyper sensitive. Damn, I thought the sixties were dead and gone.
What I run into lately more than anything is people of the fair skinned persuasion crying about reverse discrimination:
1)”Why cant we call the niggers when they call each other that?”
Anyone who uses that word is ignorant regardless of color. There is a new phenomena in America where kids of ALL colors are calling each other “my nigga” as if its cool. I ‘m sorry that has caught on as a cool thing to say.
2) “When I say something insensitive one of them calls me racist.”
This comment was written by Confused.Hahahahahaha.
Need I answer that. I think that alot of whites have been so isolated that they are just now encoutering people of other races in close proximity. When that happens (white or Black) , tripping over your tongue will be a common ocurrence. Because you dont want to tell them the same thing that your parents told you in private, then released you into this melting pot that we call the USA.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 17th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
“How to Suppress Discussions of Racism”: http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html “The Problem with Pirates” : http://gaudior.livejournal.com/182488.html “How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism” : http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism “What Starship Troopers and Anansi Boys have in common” : http://rachelmanija.livejournal.com/349054.html “The context of black privilege” : http://nojojojo.livejournal.com/81836.html “Me, Myself and My Skin Colour (Part I)”:
This comment was written by Higher Cohomology is Inevitable.Report this comment to the moderators
October 13th, 2006 at 3:20 am
I’m testing the ability of someone to add a post. I just joined a group on race dialogues in Boston. The session has ended and the participants want to continue talking. I looked online for an existing blog and found this one. If this post goes through, I’m going to invite the other participants to write.
This comment was written by Elizabeth.Report this comment to the moderators
November 1st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Chris Sturhann’s Pop Art Mosaics! Cthulhu v. Nigerian Phisher DNA of Literature - Interviews @ The Paris Review Damon Knight Talks Plot Earthwatch First Amendment Project Flying Spaghetti Monster Hitchhiker’s Guide - Series One How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism In The Matter of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Malcolm Gladwell Melville’s Marginalia Project Gutenberg Seven Minutes In Deadwood South Park You! The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered
This comment was written by And We Shall March.Report this comment to the moderators
December 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Americans are no longer considered rugged individuals, fearless pioneers, or even “free.” Thanks to the “ugly American” caricature, and the marauding tendencies of self-interested “leaders,” we are now famous worldwide as a society of whiny, angry, finger pointing victims. Lawsuits are preferable to accountability, and semantics equate tangible results. The fact is, as a nation, we’re embarrassingly over weight, under educated, and miserable in our excesses. When faced with the consequences of ignorance Americans are notoriously defensive.
Doesn’t it feel just a little dicey to be complaining about losing inalienable rights to an oppressive government while living in the shadow of the Pueblo and alongside people whose families were here long before we had a constitution to protect? How do “we the (rest of the) people” begin to reclaim our individual sovereignty and create solidarity? Just like that. Humbly acknowledge the difficult truths. Then, with heartfelt gratitude and a deep sigh at the irony of it all, we can pass the Thanksgiving turkey.
My ancestors were at war with each other. That doesn’t mean I have to be at war with myself. If we don’t choose to be at peace, free and bravely at home in our own skins, “visualizing” world peace is a ridiculous waste of time. Just as ridiculous as the idea that a government can provide anything that it doesn’t inherently possess, for instance, integrity, morality or personal security. Only “we the people” have the option to exercise those qualities on a momentary basis, one person at a time.
This comment was written by Isabel.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
[...] There have been a lot of excellent responses to the thread at Twisty’s; some are direct rebuttals, others are just thoughts brought to the fore by the current mess. Some of the posts I especially enjoyed: Little Light, the entire discussion at Women of Color Blog, The Silver Oak Leaf, Angry Brown Butch, and Tiny Cat Pants. Spotted Elephant has a good post decrying anti-disabled rhetoric used by some folks on both sides of this debate. (back)Cisgendered is a term meaning, roughly, “not transsgendered or transsexual.” (back)Remember when Betty Friedan argued against “The Lavender Menace”? (back)One prominent anti-gay-marriage blog, Family Scholars Blog, in effect banned all discussion of homophobia from its comments. Later on they banned comments altogether, which was probably a mercy for all concerned. (back)I think a lot of what I wrote about how white people react when criticized for racism also applies to many cisgendered feminists criticized for transphobia. (back) [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments.Report this comment to the moderators
March 12th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
A couple more guidelines…
1) just cause you didn’t *mean* to be racist, doesn’t mean you weren’t
2) if you screw up, apologize for REAL. “i’m sorry you feel that way” is not an apology. “I’m sorry I hurt your feelings” will get you much farther. oh, and mean it.
This comment was written by Jordan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 am
[...] Here is an excellent guide you and people just like you need to read. [...]
This comment was written by Non-Prophet: Nutty Racism.Report this comment to the moderators
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
[...] Amy’s comment (two posts below) encouraged me to go back and read the comments in the How not to be insane when accused of racism post over at Alas, a Blog. [...]
This comment was written by American Family » A Gift.Report this comment to the moderators
March 26th, 2007 at 10:44 am
[...] anything back.It may be a non-issue for you, but that is your privilege speaking.(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. sirriamnis 2006-07-19 04:18 pm UTC (link) My privilge… Wow,because it was colonized by other white folks. So there’s my privilege for you.(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. bias_cut 2006-07-19 04:22 pm UTC (link) My privilge… Wow, I’ma flick of a hand when a person of color tells you that something offends them.(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. - sirriamnis, 2006-07-19 04:36 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing.ii) Indian chicks stop wearing t-shirts.love, me(also oh so highly privileged)(Replies frozen) (Parent) Re: Clothing is clothing. starkeymonster 2006-07-19 04:39 pm UTC (link) My privilge… Wow, I’mperson dealing issues of racism. It’s thoughtful, it’s interesting and stuff.(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. - _ghostlove, 2006-07-19 04:49 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing.debate is about as comparable to modern-day racism as pasta is to apple pie.(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. - sirriamnis, 2006-07-19 07:40 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing.injustices conveniently divided so that they can’t form a coherent whole. (Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. bias_cut 2006-07-19 04:30 pm UTC (link) So sorry that my andPOC’s lived experiences of racism are hindering your personal agenda.(Replies frozen) (Parent) (Thread) Re: Clothing is clothing. - sirriamnis, 2006-07-19 04:35 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing.- bias_cut, 2006-07-19 04:36 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing. - yvetteforget, 2006-07-19 04:39 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing. - etana, 2006-07-19 07:23 pm UTC Re: Clothing is clothing. ariellabella 2006-07-19 04:32 pm UTC (link) I would say — as someone who is also just pulling it together, admittedly with a lot of upward mobility — that what is really dividing us is the notion that we can somehow put one issue down and pick up another one. Racism and classism and homophobia and ablism and on and on and on are all interrelated. The very notion that we should “put down” racism and “pick up” classism is inherently tied in to white privilege, because your race isn’t working against you. [...]
This comment was written by fatshionista: Clothes and politics.Report this comment to the moderators
March 27th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
[...] wanders off singing “kumbaya”*;)(Post a new comment) vito_excalibur 2006-05-09 04:43 pm UTC (link) You could try pointing her at this: Ampersand’s “How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (AFor White People)”.(Reply to this) (Thread) kits_meow 2006-05-09 04:58 pm UTC (link) OMG, that’s FABULOUS!!!(Reply to this) (Parent) sagefemme11 2006-05-09 06:02 pm UTC (link) Thisis one of the best pieces I have seen on handling such a situation ever! Thanks. [...]
This comment was written by kits_meow: *sigh*.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
[...] me. Angiepen said she came from Metafandom. Witchwillow posted her rant to…Metafandom. With a link to Angiepen’s post. She didn’t have to track down Angiepen and staple it to her forehead, it was amy rant to my journal. Someone else submitted it to Metafandom. I have no idea who. metafandom is a link blog. Check again and you’ll see that only the moderators can post to Metafandom and they post theand snippets of the entry. The link to the commenter on Te’s journal that was in my rant? Was to let people know what pissed me off.Asin an early comment in my journal she says:…But I didn’t just happen to show up here. metafandom linked this post directly. You should take it up with whoever compiles that list if you don’t wantwtf? Seriously - Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.(Post a new comment) delux_vivens 2006-09-29 06:29 am UTC (link) I think for some people, real emotions like frustration, impatience, aggravation, anddisappointment, let alone anger, are unacceptable from POC. [...]
This comment was written by witchwillow: I am NOT your magical negro.Report this comment to the moderators
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
[...] your cousin Vito (vito_excalibur) wrote,@ 2007-04-01 08:41:00 Current music:there’s a million ways to be, you know that there are Entry tags:fandom, race my mother called me racist once. ONCE Fan of Color (Or White Ally): Hey, y’know that AU story you wrote where everyone on the show was a Nobel-prize winning genius except for the only two black characters, who played their wisecracking cleaning ladies? I gotta say, I think there was some racism going on in there.Author, Who Really, Really Did Not Intend To Be Racist: ZOMG you are bugfuck crazy, this conversation is over because you have just accused me of being Hitler, I was not thinking about race at all when I wrote that story! Plus, half the cleaning ladies I know are white! You’re being racist for claiming that cleaning ladies are black!Fans of Color Who Are Really, Really Tired Of Being Called Crazy When They Point Out The Blatantly Obvious Fact That Racism Is Still A Factor In Our Society, A Society Which Fandom, Incidentally, Happens To Be Part Of: *shoot spikes out all over their bodies, begin breathing flames through their nostrils and eyes*Author Who Really, Really Did Not Intend To Be Racist, And 500 Mostly White Fans Who Enjoyed The Story Without Thinking At All About Race While They Read It:*swell to ten times their natural size, begin rampaging through downtown Tokyo*And so the opportunity for rational discourse is lost.The point that is being missed here by Author is that it is perfectly possible - in fact, most likely, these days - to be racist without intending to be, and in fact, often while not thinking about race at all. There seems to be some sort of popular conception that there exists a creature called a Racist, which walks around thinking, “Hmm, how can I oppress the mud people today?!” and is easily recognizable by its bloodshot eyes and hideous broken, mossy teeth. So when Author looks in the mirror and does not recognize any of these features - and honestly, genuinely knows that she was not thinking, “These characters are black, they should be the maids!” when she wrote her story - she feels quite sure that she has not accidentally turned into a Racist. And therefore that those people who are accusing her of it are, indeed, delusional.Maybe it should be pointed out that some quite nice people can be racist at times. Maybe it should be pointed out even more that people who are not only nice, but genuinely invested in equality, can behave in racist ways without realizing that that’s what they’re doing. This is where that old term white privilege begins to rear its ugly head. It is the freedom to not notice when what you’re doing has to do with race. Having it doesn’t make you a bad person.But being willing to recognize when you’re doing it, when someone points it out to you, and to stop it - makes you a better person.(Post a new comment) wild_irises 2007-04-01 03:47 pm UTC (link) Yes, yes, yes, and yes.Two useful links in this regard: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/and http://www.rachelstavern.com/?p=395The first one helps in these discussions. The second helped me figure out what was going on. [...]
This comment was written by vito_excalibur: my mother called me racist once. ONCE.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
[...] To celebrate Day After Blog Against Racism Day: Terrific advice by Ampersand. [...]
This comment was written by SIVACRACY.NET: How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 6:18 am
[...] While a diversity of experiences & opinions can lead to different perspectives on particular issues, good faith experiences and views, expressed honestly and in good faith, are important to share. Sometimes there will be no right answer. Sometimes there will be a right answer and someone will be wrong. Sometimes there will be anger and disagreement, but that’s okay. We anticipate intense discussions and disagreements. The core principle is respect for each other as individuals, who are entitled to their own statements of their experiences, intentions, and beliefs — even if you do not respect the belief itself, or question their representation of their intentions. For example: Name-calling is almost always simply disrespectful, and not helpful (”You’re not a feminist!” “You’re racist!”). Seeing and pointing out sexism, racism, heterosexism, in action or statement, is constructive although sometimes difficult to say or painful to hear. What to do when someone says your comment is racist or sexist. (See: How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People) at Alas (a blog), which applies to men accused of sexism, straight people accused of heterosexism, and so on) (more examples plus bibliography links) [...]
This comment was written by Feminist SF - The Blog! » Guidelines for Participation.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Can’t figure out how to do a real trackback…
[…]On a community I’m watching, a white man commented that he saw little racism or sexism happening within the community. I wrote him the following response on how to become more aware of racism and sexism and how to deal with it appropriately. I include it here in case it’s useful to anyone.[…]
(please approve this one if you would, rather than my first attempt; I remembered to include the link this time. :-P)
This comment was written by Rachel Virginia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 9:57 am
[...] I have good company: the redoubtable Ampersand at Alas, a Blog was a day late: [...]
This comment was written by As I Please: What to Do When (Not If) Someone Calls You on Your Racism.Report this comment to the moderators
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
[...] Veronica said, “I tend to just say, ‘Hey, that’s racist/ sexist/ homophobic/etc.’” To read more about how people tend to respond to that kind of language, check out this older post at Alas, a Blog. [...]
This comment was written by Jane Awake: On Holiday Togetherness.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
[...] Amp from “Alas, A Blog” has created a list on what to do when accused of racism. [...]
This comment was written by Things You Need to Understand #5 - Color Blindness « The Angry Black Woman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
[...] an excellent related post on Alas, A Blog: How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People) [...]
This comment was written by White Liberal Guilt « The Angry Black Woman.Report this comment to the moderators
September 7th, 2007 at 1:04 am
[...] complaints of discrimination against religious writers. Strangely, not the same! (See also: “How not to be insane when accused of racism (a guide for white people).” It works for other things, [...]
This comment was written by Chrononautic Log 改 » Blog Archive » Gimme that ole-time religion.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 10:23 pm
This list, while offering some practical tips (namely #1 and 2), ventures into the ridiculous with advice points numbers 3 and 4. Starting with number 3: Pardon me, but if someone accurately or inaccurately levels this sort of accusation my way (especially if it’s at a meeting with others present), it has EVERYTHING to do with me, as it is inherintly a comment on my upbringing, experience, and character, and everyone in the room with half a wit knows this. Asking the recipient of such criticism to first reflect aggressively but then move on passively is absurd, and will only add to the discomfort in the room. Furthermore, the recipient would do well to add “I’m sorry if you think so. Once this meeting is adjourned we can discuss it further.” to that apology. If this person really is in need of enlightenment, the accuser should be ready to back their claim up; such is anyone’s responsibility when making this sort of accusation, most notably when they do so in a group setting.
Moving on to number 4: No one, not anyone, should EVER let the bomb of being falsely accused of such a serious impediment “roll off their back”, unless the accuser’s comment is easily recognizable by many as moronic (as the case may be), or the comment was not made in public. In either scenario, the recipient has every right (after quick reflection) to come right back at the accuser and say, “I think your comment is absolute bunk. Moving on.” Vocal vigilance against racism necessarily includes addressing those who would carelessly fling about accusations (and these people are out there) with all the shame and ridicule they deserve. And if the accuser honestly doesn’t know what they’re talking about, they need to be made aware of it pronto, however diplomatically possible.
Finally, change the title of your entry to “…A Guide For People”. Plenty of boxed-in folks of various ethnicities would do well to read tips #1 and 2; it’s a shame you think non-white racists have nothing to benefit from your guide.
This comment was written by Aa.Report this comment to the moderators
October 31st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
[...] 1st, 2007 at 2:14 am (gender, transgender, transphobia, transsexual) Ampersand of Alas, a Blog, posted an article for white people, explaining how not to go insane when … In the spirit of that essay, I would like to explain to cisgendered people how not to go insane [...]
This comment was written by How Not to be Insane When Accused of Transphobia (A Guide For Cis People) « Questioning Transphobia.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2007 at 8:40 am
[...] How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People) [...]
This comment was written by Some articles to keep track of… « Merope’s Weblog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
i disagree with just letting it roll off your back. when you know you did or said nothing wrong . in this day and age when people lose their jobs and get sued for racially offending someone who is not white, just letting false accusations roll off your back is pandering to someone who is race-baiting. I do think discrimination based on race is wrong, but i also think that too many people use the race card incorrectly.
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2008 at 4:17 am
There is a general opinion these days that only those who enjoy social power and privilege (i.e., whites) can be racist. The disenfranchised cannot, by definition, be racist because they lack the power to institutionalize any prejudices they may have. There is a corollary to this argument that goes like this: all whites are by definition racist. The privilege of white skin, the argument goes, makes this inevitable.
Most of that paragraph was simply copy/pasted from http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2002/12/only_whites_can.html with a little added to the start for structure purposes.
I bring this up because there was a comment earlier that basically said white people can’t complain about non-whites being racist towards whites, because in the past whites did some horrible things to non-whites. Well, I can’t speak for my grandfather’s grandfather, but I can say with certainty that I have never committed or supported slavery, genocide, or the spanish inquisition. So why should I be punished (i.e., held responsible) for things done long before I was born?
I have personally had a disagreement with a black woman about ten years my senior (I’m a young white man) that essentially went something like this:
Her: *lots of stuff about her interpersonal problems* (Summed up in the end with the exact phrase:) All white people are racist. (Seriously. She really did say that.)
Me: Ummm…. Don’t you think that’s a bit racist to say, in itself?
Her: No, only white people are racist because only they are in a position of authority and control. They have the power to put the racism into action.
Me: But racism doesn’t require action to be racism. A white man in Alabama on his porch griping about blacks has no more power over you than a black man in an LA ghetto bitching about “whitey” has over me.
Now, here’s a link about a sensitivity training video that was found to be offensive because it was racist against white people. (The only offensive person in it was a white guy. You would think that some of the black/asian people, or maybe a woman could switch out for the “do not be like this” role at least once in a while.)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JJNFqafBxwk&feature=related
The second link is to a clip from the show Rescue Me in which Dennis Leary’s character and the fire crew he works with have to undergo sensitivity training much like in the link above. At the very end, it more or less sums up my view on the matter.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JdzP36lgdMA
For those who don’t want to watch the video, my opinion is this: People are way too touchy and get offended too easily, not always with good reason. If someone gets offended by something you say, stop to consider it, and if they’re being unreasonable, tell them so. If you’re offended by something someone says, all I can say is that it’s best not to attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to ignorance/insensitivity/stupidity.
This comment was written by Ookamiza.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Not so much true, as if that guy gets off his porch and attacks or kills a black person, he would have the support and protection of law enforcement for most of US history, and even now would be far less likely to face prosecution or punishment for the act than la guy bitch about “whitey” would, should he choose to do something about whitey.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Not so much true, as if that guy gets off his porch and attacks or kills a black person, he would have the support and protection of law enforcement
do you really believe that?? when is the last time you heard of a black man charged with a hate crime?? ever?? i think the truth may be that if the black man in LA killed a white person , he would have the support of the black community, guilty or not . examples ; mike vick, oj simpson, the jena six.
the difference is that if a white person has a complaint about a black person or what a black person does , he is considered a racist for voicing that complaint. if a black person has a complaint about a white person or something a white person does , that behavior is considered normal, almost expected. this applies to all aspects of life . the double standard is that black people can say what they please about white people , but white people must carefully select what they say to prevent being considered a racist.
intolerance for things like gangs , thuggery , sexual irresponsibility and ebonics is often called racism. im sorry , but if someone is acting innapproiate , and i dont like that behavior , it does not constitute racism. no matter what color they may be.
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2008 at 7:10 am
when is the last time you heard of a black man charged with a hate crime?? ever??
Well, in 2006, 20.6% of hate crime convictions were against black offenders.
intolerance for things like gangs , thuggery , sexual irresponsibility and ebonics is often called racism. im sorry , but if someone is acting innapproiate , and i dont like that behavior , it does not constitute racism. no matter what color they may be.
No, but assuming that gangs, thuggery, and sexual irresponsibility are “black problems” is racist. And intolerance for non-academic forms of the language just makes you a snob. Intolerance for non-academic forms of language that you associate with certain racial or ethnic groups, though, is certainly suggestive of racism.
This comment was written by Roy.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“do you really believe that?? when is the last time you heard of a black man charged with a hate crime?? ever?? i think the truth may be that if the black man in LA killed a white person , he would have the support of the black community, guilty or not . examples ; mike vick, oj simpson, the jena six. ”
Look at the FBI stats for hate crime. “Only whites get accused of hate crimes” is an urban legend that you should promptly avail yourself of. And I could’ve sworn Mike Vick killed some dogs and the Jena 6 didn’t kill anyone. I’d have to say that confirmed killers of innocent people of any race get a big thumbs down from me. I’m pretty sure that I can assume that LA’s residents are somewhat similar in their views, if only for the sake of common sense. Have you actually sat down and spoken with a few members of LA’s black community regarding their beliefs on murder, or read a few reliable polls (perhaps Zogby, Pew, or Gallup) on the matter to get a nationwide perspective on black opinions?
” the double standard is that black people can say what they please about white people , but white people must carefully select what they say to prevent being considered a racist.”
You know this is false…a white/non-black person can go to virtually any other place on the Internet and complain about black people in general, and they will rarely get called a racist, unless it’s REALLY extreme Nazi-esque hateful invective. In many corners, mild to moderate-level complainers may get a cookie, a backslap, a high-five, a belly rub, and people loudly proclaming “a pox on the houses of those who would dare to call him/her racist.” Both groups “say what they please” about each other in the company of other members of that group, because members of the same group often give each other a “free pass” on racist beliefs… shrugging it off because the offender is likeable/related/attractive/angry/old/young/going through tough times/going through a phase/joking, doing logical gymnastics to interpret what they’ve said as “not really racist”, crap like that. I personally don’t play that crap, but most people do. You pretty much have to be wayyy beyond the pale (no pun intended) for members of your own group to widely consider you a racist. I’m talking about all racial groups here, so don’t get your knickers in a twist, brian.
“the difference is that if a white person has a complaint about a black person or what a black person does , he is considered a racist for voicing that complaint. if a black person has a complaint about a white person or something a white person does , that behavior is considered normal, almost expected.”
So you’re telling me that, for instance, if a white person in a restaurant has a black waiter that served cold soup (that’s not gazpacho) and complains to the management about it, the customer is generally considered a racist? Dude, no. What you’re suggesting is utterly preposterous. And everyone is fully expected to complain about everyone else by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It’s part of living in a world with other fallible, annoying people. However, when those complaints become based on misconceptions and blanket generalizations about groups of people that share little more than a general place of origin about a few hundred years ago, it gets ugly, and really dumb.
“im sorry , but if someone is acting innapproiate , and i dont like that behavior , it does not constitute racism. no matter what color they may be.”
Your strawman burns so brightly, and it feels so delightful to be near it in the midst of cold, crisp January air. As long as the behavior you deem inappropriate isn’t too arbitrary, like “That man’s shirt is appallingly large!” or “That woman uses ‘You know what I’m saying’ as filler, when she should know that only ‘like’ is appropriate!”, it’s perfectly fine for you to have standards and general expectations… we all do, and believe it or not, a lot of them are shared by blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Natives and everyone in between. I hope you can separate differing cultural norms (harmless) from inappropriate behavior (harmful). If a person is speaking in Ebonics with people who understand and don’t have a problem with it, what business is it of yours? When talking to family members, I use Ebonics sometimes. Big freaking deal. When you say “apartment” to another American (even in London), should any nearby Brits get all huffy because you neglected to refer to it as a “flat”? If your answer is no, then there’s hope for you yet, brian.
Oh, and what Roy said.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
BananaDanna,
This comment was written by StefanU.What do you think of the n***** word used by black people ? Do you think they shouldn’t use it, or that they should talk however they like and whites shouldn’t pay attention ?
Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
brian:
The problem here is that you are thinking of the black community as a collectivised entity, rather than as the aggregate of many individual people with diverse views. You will not be able to even understand BananaDanna’s reply until you correct your thinking in this respect.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
This is a false dilemma. “They shouldn’t use it” and “they should talk however they like” are not only possible options here.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
“BananaDanna,
What do you think of the n***** word used by black people ? Do you think they shouldn’t use it, or that they should talk however they like and whites shouldn’t pay attention ?”
StefanU, I personally have never used it (or any other racial slur) in my life (with either suffix) and strongly abhor its use by others, black, white, Asian, et al… my father, not surprisingly, feels the exact same way. I’m in the process of “breaking up” with a non-black friend over their use of it (in a joke, in the “proper black context”, with the “less offensive” suffix), and have harangued quite a few other black people about using the word to refer to me in a “friendly manner.” And no, I’m not the only one… for some reason, in conversations about the n-word, the black people who don’t use it BECAUSE they find it offensive never, ever come up. Someone should pay a little “attention” to people like us. When people that feel the way I do are ignored, it pretty much means that we don’t matter, and that consistency and a empty sack is worth the sack in the eyes of people trying desperately to measure a modicum higher than the lowest common denominator. If I were examining the mainstream “n-word discourse” from afar, I’d think that people like me were as rare as a unicorn, or there was some kind of insurmountable compulsion that all black people (and many people from other groups) have to use the word. And I’m just breaking 20 too, so it’s not “black people of a certain age” either. So, when the word is used, the offending party shouldn’t console themselves with the delusion that it’s just “those hypocrites who want to keep all the fun racial epithets to themselves, and oversensitive hypocrites who maintain a double standard that claims that the behavior of the latter is just peachy” who the person falls out of favor with. The person gets on our $#!%list, too, with none of that unhealthy cognitive dissonance that comes from double standard maintenance.
That being said, other people, as autonomous entities, ARE (it’s not a question of “should we let them?”) going to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of what I, you, or Batman thinks about it. If they (black, white, Asian, et al) honestly cared about the possibility that their speech would adversely affect someone, they’d err on the side of caution and omit the aforementioned offensive speech from their vocabulary of their own volition, unadulterated by misplaced and frankly silly resentment. Before the n-word’s use became widespread and/or notorious among blacks, people from other groups used it (a hell of a lot, actually…), and those non-blacks who see fit to do so will continue to use it if every single black person on earth refuses to say it again, so excuse me if the commonly used “I could possibly be construed as emulating people who I dislike and whose behavior I generally see as uncouth and wrong, so I should get a free pass and not hold myself accountable/be held accountable for my own conduct” sounds like a bull$#!% excuse to me. “Well, he does it, too!” is for 5 year olds. No one should choose their own behavior based on what they feel other people are getting away with, because the natural result is an endless cycle of retaliation and one-downmanship (plus, you’ll become a very bad person with very bad habits, because, let’s face it, someone, somewhere, is literally getting away with murder). People should ask themselves if it’s right, if it’s courteous, if it’s respectful, if it’s good, not “In Bizarro world, if I were _____, would this be considered normal by some people?” This sucks because, among other reasons, if you’re the least bit well-versed in the vastness of human cultural variation, you know that the aforementioned rationale gives anyone that employs it carte blanche. Fighting for the right to be equally rude and offensive is a fight that everyone loses, and personal accountability isn’t just a handy prescription for everybody else. “Be the change that you want to see in the world,” StefanU. I know that I’m trying to be, and it gives me (avowed pessimist that I am) a little bit of hope when I see a few other people out there fighting against the tide. I would apologize for the length of this post, but dude, you had to know you threw an essay question at me. I’m giving my wee hours to you, so you better listen to me! *points finger sternly*
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
roy ;
assuming that gangs, thuggery, and sexual irresponsibility are “black problems” is racist. And intolerance for non-academic forms of the language just makes you a snob. Intolerance for non-academic forms of language that you associate with certain racial or ethnic groups, though, is certainly suggestive of racism.
i did not suggest that these are black only problems , i said that a lot of black people assume that if you are intolerant of these things , that makes you racist.
This comment was written by brian.dont twist my words. as far as ebonics goes , i work in a field where communication is important, when someone intentionally misuses the language or refuses to speak like a professional , it makes the whole company look bad , so they are usually let go, white and black people have been let go for not following communication guidelines. since ive been with this company , 6 white and 4 black people were let go . 3 of the 4 black workers claimed discrimination , even when there was fair warning and opportunity to correct this problem. im not saying that discrimination or racism doesnt exist , i am however saying that the race card is often used when it really does not apply.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
i think there is a double standard in this country when it comes to who can say what. look at don imus and the reaction to what he said about a basketball team. is ‘ nappy headed ho ‘ really violating someones civil rights?? no , but it caused outrage across the country. even death threats against his family. where was the outrage when the leader of the new black panthers party said that the duke lacrosse players ‘ were guilty of white privledge? or when ray nagin talks about ‘ it will be a choclate city at the end of the day’ ? if the mayor of hanover ,vermont said ‘ this will be a vanilla city at the end of the day’ there would be outrage , protests and possibly violence. some things are offensive , but some people are looking to be offended or getting offended at everything that others say.
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
In case I don’t see you again before a mod gets here…
Bye bye brian.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
There are some problems with the argument made by the cartoon:
1. You never answer the question posed in panel 2.
2. You never substantially rebut the complaint in panel 5.
3. Panels 6, 7, and 8, are red herrings.
4. Panel 10 is probably a strawman. Even if it isn’t, it’s an ad hom.
5. Panel 12 appears to be making the argument that the protagonist’s complaint is trivial, but you defend trivial complaints made by feminists.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
its not about who can say nigger and who cannot , its about one group can say whatever they want without concequence and one group cannot say anything without consequence. look at it without the political correctness that americans are forced into and you may see a difference.
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
one sided censorship is as bad as racism
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 1:11 am
You realize that censorship is imposed by the government, right, Brian? Unless the police have knocked on your (or anyone else’s) door for casting aspersions on black people, unless hate speech is illegal here like it is in England and Canada (while you’re taking our freedoms here for granted), your argument is that mere social standards of politeness and conduct = censorship. It’s not censorship if people think that I would be a jerk for referring to the lady at the grocery story counter as a “disgusting whore” and would ostracize me for it if I did. Seriously, what planet are you living on?
“one sided censorship is as bad as racism”
Name one person that one-sided, socially-imposed “censorship” has ever killed. And if they’re equally bad in your eyes, why do you seem much less incensed by the former than the latter?
“look at don imus and the reaction to what he said about a basketball team. is ‘ nappy headed ho ‘ really violating someones civil rights?? no, but it caused outrage across the country. even death threats against his family.”
What I saw was a little bit of fake outrage from the media (Didn’t he hop from one giant media conglomerate to another with little hullabaloo and a lot of cash? A goldfish could get more outraged than that…), and a lot of “who cares”, with a generous helping of “Well, they do it too!” from “the country”. I think Imus is a right ass, but I wasn’t “outraged”, probably because I expect the worst out of people. And, yeah, there are crazy people who send death threats… surely, you’re not suggesting that these people represent a significant portion of any group except “crazy people who send death threats”. Hank Aaron got death threats for being a black man that challenged Babe Ruth’s record. Barry Bonds gets death threats for the same. J. Lo has recieved death threats for donning fur. The Dixie Chicks got death threats for slamming Bush. All death threats prove is that a few people of all races and political leanings are bat$#!% crazy/take things way too seriously. That, and entourages do have their purpose.
“where was the outrage when the leader of the new black panthers party said that the duke lacrosse players ‘ were guilty of white privledge? or when ray nagin talks about ‘ it will be a choclate city at the end of the day’ ?”
Funny, I’ve run into MANY people who were absolutely livid about the latter. Do you talk to other white people about these issues much? I think that you’d be delighted to know that your beliefs are extremely common and popular. Perhaps you’ll feel less put upon and censored as a result of this revelation. In addition to that, I’d never heard about the NBP’s comments until you told me, and it’s fitting, because everyone is well aware that they are an extremist hate group. (Huey Newton, founding member of the original BPP, has even said he wanted nothing to do with them) Come on, do you expect to see on the crawler on CNN, “the Grand Dragon (lulz) of the Ku Klux Klan offers these thoughts on the Duke Lacrosse scandal….”
“i am however saying that the race card is often used when it really does not apply.”
Who gets to decide when it applies and when it doesn’t? The dominant group. Unless you’ve seriously, personally looked into a lot of alleged discrimination/racial bias and harrassment cases, you have to admit that neither you or I have any real idea how often it “applies.” My personal fear is that if I get discriminated against, I will be accused of “playing the race card” and won’t be believed. Not because “other people are overusing it/crying wolf”, but because people would rather believe that I’m a liar than that there’s anything less than a fair playing field and a strict meritocracy. There’s lots of talk about the power of the “race card”, but none about the power of “liar/oversensitive misinterpreter of circumstances” card that often trumps it, not to mention that the fact is that some white people use the race card, as well. For instance, having a default assumption that AA is the reason for a failure to acquire a job or educational opportunity, information to the contrary be damned. That being said, if the employees in question were honestly using Ebonics while conversing with clients, that’s bad form and anomalous, to boot. Most Ebonics speakers, in my experience use Standard English at work, unless they’re in an informal setting with friends, like during lunch break. This is especially true in white collar jobs… in blue collar occupations, varying vernaculars are deemed more acceptable for general use. I’d like to know what the specific, stated reasons that they proffered were for filing discrimination charges… unless saying so would constitute a breach, or something. Then again, are you honestly listening to any of us, or just venting on autopilot, brian?
If the “double standards” and “social censorship” are issues that you feel strongly about, why don’t you get together with some like-minded people (of which there are a veritable legion) and actively hold the media institutions that you think are responsible accountable for this? Write some well-thought out letters about how you feel to the TV stations who you feel perpetuate this double standard. If a show features a person who says things about whites that you consider racist/uses slurs, make note of the sponsors, call them, ask them if that’s the kind of thing that they want to support, and if they’re fine with you relinquishing your patronage as a direct result of that continued support and actively urging others to do the same. You can do the same thing with coverage of racial issues that you consider unfairly “slanted.” If you truly believe that this is an injustice against you in particular and whites in general, there’s ways for you to fight it. You’ll most likely feel much less put upon, and much more empowered as a result. You’re a passionate hardhead, and if you channel that in a constructive way, you, even as an individual, can do big things and gain peace of mind.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 4:05 am
Oh, and brian, I think it’s kind of mean that you completely ignored my first post to you.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Daran:
If you believe that, there really is no hope for you. Why are you even reading here?
This comment was written by Thene.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am
i had no intent to hurt anyones feelings or cause a problem, and i apologize if i did, but there are people who think like me and people who think otherwise. i can only make my assesment based on my personal experiences , or at least how i percieve what i see .i dont consider myself racist(by true definition)because i dont hate anyone, even people who do things i do not agree with. i also realize that there are good and bad in all races and classes. i know that many may think that i am closed minded , but i feel that i am more intolerant than anything else. although it seems that noone here agrees with me , i am also entitled to my opinions and nobody has the right to tell me im wrong anymore than i would have the right to tell anyone here that they are wrong. sorry if i offended anyone. i will no longer post my comments here as it appears that they are not welcome.
This comment was written by brian.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
” am also entitled to my opinions and nobody has the right to tell me im wrong anymore than i would have the right to tell anyone here that they are wrong.”
Uh, that’s not true. You came in here telling us that we were wrong, and now you’re playing the “hey, babettes, it’s all just opinions” card? Tres transparent.
“sorry if i offended anyone. i will no longer post my comments here as it appears that they
are not welcomeare not uncritically accepted and given a ticker tape parade.”Fixed that for you.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
It’s confirmed, he was on autopilot… and I wasted a lot of time.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
For what it’s worth, I really got a lot out of reading your replies to Brian, and maybe some lurkers did too.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Yeah, I liked your replies too :)
(and I’m The Ultimate Lurker :)
This comment was written by limo wreck.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Thene (quoting me):
Hey, I may be stupid, but I can learn.
I’m not disputing the truth of points made in those panels, nor their wider importance. They just don’t seem to be relevant to the point of the cartoon.
It’s a bit like the stereotypical “Millions of children in Africa are starving. So eat your dinner” non sequitur.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
[...] a bit irritated, because I didn’t think that I did have this in mind. But I nevertheless Stayed calm and took the criticism seriously. To quote Amp: …do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism [...]
This comment was written by Privilege « DaRain Man.Report this comment to the moderators
March 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I think that all black people should be publically apologized to when a dum-ass cracker makes a remark that deserves an upside the head smack. Fuck that shit about moving on. Did slaves get to move on? Do black people get to say “oops my bad” when they say something that’s not so pc for white America? Hell no. They get thrown in jail or demoted or loose their jobs. So why are you giving these crackers a chance to get off with a slap on the wrist? That’s what’s wrong with this country. None of y’all know what it’s like to be black then when you trip up and say something fucking crazy, you think you all high and mighty cause you said “oops, my bad.” Get down on your knees when you fuck up and BEG that my black ass lets you off so easy.
This comment was written by Darius Simms.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Reported, “Darius”. *eye roll*
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I am a white high school teacher who was accused of racism for reprimanding a misbehaving Hispanic student. I was attempting to change undesired behavior, which had nothing to do with race. My wife is an immigrant from Mexico. Can anyone explain my racism against Hispanics? I became infuriated, and I will not apologize to anyone for merritless comments. I called the sdudent’s parents, and the student was reprimanded by the parent. I also sent the student to the office with a referral.
Your suggestions are way off! Many people invent racism because they are looking for excuses. It’s high time people stopped looking for excuses and started looking for solutions. To suggest an apology from people who are falsely accused is ludicrous!! The people making false accusations need to apologize.
This comment was written by Phillip.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Phillip:
1) Anecdotes like this aren’t very meaningful, because we’re only hearing one side of the story. If your student and his/her parents could be here, posting in this thread, would their account match yours?
2) Putting that aside, even if everything happened exactly as you say it did, one incident does not equal “many people.”
3) Because you have a Mexican wife doesn’t mean you can’t be racist. Nor does it mean you are. But bringing it up at all is irrelevant, at best.
4) I never suggested that people who are falsely accused need to apologize.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
If someone posted here with an anecdote about how they’d been racially harassed, would you respond by saying “we’re only hearing one side of the story”?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Probably not. I don’t pretend to be objective; all else being equal, I’m more likely to point out the logical flaws in comments intended to refute me, than I am in comments intended to agree with my point.
No doubt I’m the only one who behaves this way. :-p
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I appreciate you’re honest reply.
I tend to point out the logical flaws in any argument, whether I agree with the conclusion or not. That is, if I spot them. I think it’s inherently harder to spot logical flaws in arguments both whose premises and conclusions you agree with.
I’m sure you’re not.
I try to be fair. I try to operate under a strong presumption that people are honest about their experiences of being victimised, and to do so, whether or not those experiences support or detract from my political stances. I wouldn’t call this presumption objective. I just try to apply it fairly.
Incidently - and this will probably be surprising to many people here - the ethos behind that presumption comes from my background in rape support. It’s just the maxim “believe the survivor” applied to victimisation of all kinds, including being falsely accused.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
April 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
We do not, however, need to use Darius as a guide in order to find evidence for racial harassment of blacks. Meanwhile, I can’t even tell what Phillip meant to say.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2008 at 7:15 am
BananaDanna , thanks for the explanation in post 174 , I’ve noticed it only today.
This comment was written by Stefan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2008 at 7:37 am
I meant 166.
This comment was written by Stefan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2008 at 11:54 am
[...] Humiliation of Sexism I just noticed this post at Alas! a blog. While it’s focussed on racism rather than sexism, I think the [...]
This comment was written by The Humiliation of Sexism « Ta Aphrodisia.Report this comment to the moderators
April 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
You’re welcome, Stefan.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2008 at 5:51 am
[...] where I will be the one who was mistaken, I should apologize, fix my mistake as well as I can, and move on (via ABW [...]
This comment was written by Privilege « Girly Thoughts.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
[...] that i haven’t even read but judging by the company they’re probably also great) *also: How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People), amptoons @ alas a blog, 12/2/2005 - one of my favorite posts algorithmically similar posts:» [...]
This comment was written by derivative work » Blog Archive » cultural appropriation, property rhetoric, acknowledgment.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2008 at 6:44 am
What if people accuse you of being racist, and then refuse to explain WHY what you said was racist, just keep calling you a racist. Like I said “I don’t want x group to become close-minded and self absorbed, acting as if they’re the onlygroup that’s ever suffered discrimination, like Blacks are.”
Nobody has ever explained to me why that statement is racist, or not true. Apperantly I should know why it’s racist. All I can figure out is it’s racist because I mentioned Black people. I mentioned that while nobody questions all the criticisms Black people make of White people in a broad sense, nobody can even mention Black people without having claims of racism thrown at them. Then they are told, but it’s ok to discuss race? What, how can you discuss race when there’s always that one group of people you can never refer to without being called a racist?
This comment was written by Jackie.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Well, you did accuse millions of people — most of whom, odds are, you’ve never met — of being “close-minded and self absorbed” identifying them solely by skin color. If what you said wasn’t racist, then explain how it wasn’t, sans grade-school “Well, people I and many others consider racist can do it and not get called on it by other people!” finger-pointing.
M-W’s definition of racism:
“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”
You said that blacks — a racial group — were closed-minded and self-absorbed. The latter qualities are human traits, and evidently you believe that blackness is the primary determinant (or at least an important one, seeing as you deemed it notable enough to mention in tandem with these traits) … unless you believe that correlation is not causation in this instance, or that a**holes just eventually become black as a result of said attributes (that the traits are the primary determinant of race instead, lol).
” I mentioned that while nobody questions all the criticisms Black people make of White people in a broad sense, nobody can even mention Black people without having claims of racism thrown at them.”
Patently false. People question broad criticisms that black people make regarding whites all of the time, and black people can indeed be mentioned without claims of racism being thrown at them…. why misstate the entire state of discourse on race in America to provide excuses for yourself? You pretty much said “black people suck.” You were called on it… so either prove that we indeed suck, or admit that what you said was wrong. Fight, or get your flag out.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Here, let me try:
Jackie, I am probably one of the more conservative folks here, and even I have no problem seeing the racism in your statement. I’ll parse it for you:
I don’t want x group to become close-minded and self absorbed,
This part is a bit obnoxious–who are you to judge whether an entire group is close-minded or self abosorbed? Glass houses, stones, etc. That said, it’s not racist per se.
acting as if they’re the only group that’s ever suffered discrimination
This part is more problematic. You are linking “close minded and self absorbed” with “acting like they’re the only group that’s ever suffered discrimination.”
It’s the second part that is the bigger problem. What does that kind of “acting” look like? Does it–surprise!!–look exactly like “acting like they are a member of a group that suffered extraordinarily bad discrimination?” Because, you know, that second part is true for many people, which should be relevant here.
On to:
like Blacks are.
Now that you’ve made two general attacks on certain traits (see above) and have described those traits as negative, you are assigning these traits to blacks in general. In other words, you are saying that blacks are acting like they are the only group who has ever suffered discrimination, and that blacks are close-minded and self absorbed.
Wow.
Do you not see the problem with this? Do you not see how this is racist? If not, I can’t help you much, other than to advise you not to be to, um, “close-minded or self absorbed.”
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
[...] http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/ [...]
This comment was written by Some links regarding white privilege and racism… « Jnageotte’s Weblog.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I have always believed in treating all people respectfully no matter who they are. But unfortunately, we have become so paranoid about
This comment was written by robert berger.being offended and causing offense that things have really gotten out
of hand. You should never make blanket statements about groups
of people based on race, gender, religion, nationality, or political
affiliation, period, because people are individuals.
Most white people are not evil racists who are out to offend
blacks and other non-whites , and take away their cvil rights and turn
back the clock and return to the bad old days. And most men are
not evil sexists who want to be physically violent to women and
take away their rights to vote, have successful careers and their
right to choose an abortion. Some sanity and common sense, please.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Robert, can you point out to me where, in my post, I said or implied that “most white people [are] evil racists who are out to offend blacks and other non-whites , and take away their cvil rights and turn back the clock and return to the bad old days.”
And can you then point out where I said or implied that “most men [are] evil sexists who want to be physically violent to women and take away their rights to vote, have successful careers and their right to choose an abortion.”
You’d have much better standing to be calling for “common sense” if you gave any appearance of having read the post you’re allegedly responding to. As it is, you’re making up lies and implying that I or other here have said ridiculous statements. Maybe that sounds like “common sense” to you, but to me it seems like you’re being both rude and stupid.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I did not say thaty YOU personally made these blanket statements
This comment was written by robert berger.about white people and men; what I meant is that many blacks
have made statements like this and so have SOME radical feminists.
If an individual white person says or does smething reprehensible
to blacks or other non-whites, then by all means condemn that
person. But it’s wrong to make blanket statements about white
people or men. We must not succumb to the very dangerous notion
of collective guilt; this has led to demonizing Jews as “Christ killers”,
and ultimately let to Nazism and the holocaust.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Being told that something you did or said was racist is just soooo horrible. Much more so than what happened to two young 17 year old Black women I talked to this past week who were either tasered in the face by officers or hit with a stick, choked and kicked by officers.
I really really wish that the big feminist organizations gave a damn about things like this. Maybe if it were their kids.
Yes indeed. Being called a racist or told you did something racist trumps racism.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Jellyroll:
You people?
You’re kidding, right? That is quite a RACIST statement in itself. No race is “more qualified” than another to recognize & point out racism & bigotry, when it rears it’s ugly head. Case and point: I’m white, and I can clearly see that you’re a racist.
I’m sorry, but I’ll decline on your advice. I don’t partake in preferential treatment, based on the race of the person who is making false claims against me. I’m not going to walk on eggshells just because of somebody else’s paranoia. If “people of color” want to be treated as equals, they must be willing to face the same attitudes, criticism & scrutiny that applies to white people. Being an equal is not all about the “good stuff”; it’s also about a lack of special treatment. If anyone truly wishes to end racism, then they need to trash the idea of specialized, race-tailored, acceptable responses. If I wouldn’t even give someone of my own race this kind of consideration (in response to ludicrous “you’re a racist” allegations), then why would I handle the situation with kid gloves if the accuser is of another race? Yes, offering a different response, based on the race of the accuser, would indeed qualify as RACIST.
This comment was written by Plum.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Glaivester:
Eh…. kindly explain how dark hair & broad noses qualify as “masculine” features. In case you haven’t noticed, there’s this little thing called BRUNETTE WOMEN. African-American, Asian, Italian, Greek, Jewish & many other races of women have dark hair and/or large noses; are you (indirectly) implying that such women are unfeminine?
Why is the female ideal & “femininity” always presented as a blonde?
Very irritating… and racist.
This comment was written by Plum.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I’m a cartoonist. I’ve been dealing with cartoons my whole life. Do you think that makes me more qualified to talk about cartoons than you, all else being equal? Or do you think your opinions on cartooning are just as educated as mine?
Now, of course, there are some cartoonists with stupid, ignorant opinions about cartooning. And there are some non-cartoonists who are nonetheless experts on cartooning. But on average, I’d expect that the cartoonist to have a more educated opinion about cartooning than the non-cartoonist.
In a culture where whites are the majority, dominant culture, generally people of color deal more with racism than white people. That means that on average, people of color have more educated opinions about racism.
Why do you think it’s racist for me to point out that reality?
So if a person of color says white people should listen to people of color rather than dismissing concerns about racism, that’s racist. Got it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In a culture where whites are the majority, dominant culture, generally people of color deal more with racism than white people. That means that on average, people of color have more educated opinions about racism.
They have more experience with being on the receiving end. That’s not the same thing as having more experience period. As one example among many, a POC is unlikely to have been an intimate part of a conversation about racist beliefs; I’ve heard white people say things that chilled my blood, that they would not have said to black people. Being part of the in-group provides information which is inaccessible to the out-group - just as the converse is true.
Neither perspective is superior in terms of being educated about racism. Each has advantages, and each has better information about certain components of the larger conceptual cloud of “racism”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Radfem said…
Question: Why are so many African-Americans (once they become wealthy) so eager to distance themselves from their own people?
I am a lower middle-class white, living in a mixed race mini-hood… and if I ever struck it rich, I would stay right where I am because I can’t stand elitists. Now, if *I* feel this way, why on earth would any black person prefer the company of those snobs?
This comment was written by Plum.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
@ Ampersands: I’m sorry, but I’m not really seeing the similarity between a learned profession that one must attend college to educate themselves about, and racist viewpoints, comments, etc… which one can easily be exposed to, out on the streets or on the internet. My point was, since I am inside my own body, and I know my own thoughts & intentions more than anyone else… only *I* am qualified to determine whether or not my comments may or may not be racially motivated.
@ Robert: Spot-on. Excellent post.
This comment was written by Plum.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
You mean why do they leave poverty-stricken communities?
I think your reaction is slightly misplaced - I think the OP is not necessarily agreeing with that idea, hence the air quotes around masculine.
I’m going to have agree that I find something problematic about the original comment, though. Mainly the whole, smug “I know this is controversial” disclaimer, as if she’s being some sort of truth-trammeling muckraker. Definitely not a compliant echo chamber for the worst sorts of pop culture trash built on a smorgasbord of historical prejudices, no, never.
1. It’s not true that because you inhabit your own body, only you are qualified to speak on your own motivations. If that were true, then the CJS would halt to a standstill if all defendants could claim that they had no criminal intent and this could not be challenged. Other people can put two and two together, especially when there’s strong self-interest in denying or fudging true motivations.
2. … but even if we grant your shaky solipsistic premise, intent is not what’s most important. Let’s allow that so-and-so’s actions were not racially motivated. Okay… but if they achieve an effect that harmonizes remarkably with existing racial prejudices, it is still worthy of some mention, so that such happy accidents don’t happen again.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“Question: Why are so many African-Americans (once they become wealthy) so eager to distance themselves from their own people? ”
For the same reason that it happens with other races… are there really that many communities where people from widely varying SES levels gladly, harmoniously live alongside one another? It just so happens that for a plethora of reasons, there are statistically less wealthy AAs than other groups, so it means that the racial demographics of the neighborhoods that they gravitate towards in an attempt to be among members of their economic class are mostly going to be skewed towards non-blacks. And that’s not even always the case. If you look at any large city where there’s a large amount of AAs — Detroit, Atlanta, D.C., there’s neighborhoods that are full of wealthy black people.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
[...] - Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White Peopl… “If someone has just said “I think that sounds a bit racist,” don’t mistake it for them [...]
This comment was written by » Linkfest: 2008-07-11 >>Nostalgia For Infinity: Literature, Gaming, Punk Rock (and all that).Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2008 at 3:53 am
[...] to finish up this short discussion, I give you one of the things Kate linked to: How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People). It’s old but still (sadly) [...]
This comment was written by IBARW 3 - It’s possible for white folks to be decent about privilege.Report this comment to the moderators
August 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am
[...] Please note: Clearly I need to fix the link as there isn’t one. The central link about how not to be insane is to this article. [...]
This comment was written by IBARW 3 - The first flowchart!.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2008 at 9:23 am
[...] Important Post Jump to Comments No, not this one, this one: How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racisim. [...]
This comment was written by Important Post « Order of Santa Ignora.Report this comment to the moderators
August 11th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
[...] the meantime, some of you all might want to unpack that knapsack (& take a look at this too, as well as checking out the Privilege 101, Race Relations 101, & Privilege Checklists [...]
This comment was written by Moderated comments, activate! « Vegans of Color.Report this comment to the moderators
October 18th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Just here to simply say that I agree with this checklist. I’ve said a few stupid things in my life. I apologized, moved on, and learned. Let’s keep that inherent white privilege in mind. It exists whether we like it or not.
This comment was written by Lesley Stampleman.Report this comment to the moderators
October 20th, 2008 at 7:17 am
As a Black person I think this should be opened up as a guide for everyone. Ironically racism is not racist, it’s an equal opportunity employers, because anyone can be racist.
I’m very careful to charge anyone as being racist, unless they flat out admit to it. Often it’s due to a lack of socialization and curiosity of individuals different than themselves. Once a person has taken the time to honestly and sincerely consider the other persons point-of-view or “walk in their shoes” the accusation of racism tends to go away and tolerance, friendship and acceptance enters.
It’s not just Black & White. It’s not just Americans. Everyone should consider these suggestions and try to veer away from accusing people of racism without supporting examples, then if you do have examples don’t dismiss each other, work together to find a common ground.
But that’s just my thoughts, ideas and suggestions on the topic.
This comment was written by Tim Valentine.Report this comment to the moderators
November 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
<A black woman from Louisiana,,,Just sitting here blushing and givivng everyone a *group hug*. from my heart.
This comment was written by BeeLady.Report this comment to the moderators
November 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
[...] a blog, on How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism [...]
This comment was written by 101 101 « The Czech.Report this comment to the moderators
November 30th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Thanx for the post Ampersand. I am not handling the racism issue well. So, I can do with this.
This comment was written by julie.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
[...] to say this for a few days now, but I’ve finally decided to just point you toward Amp’s How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism. Replace “racism” with “anti-Semitism” and “white person” with [...]
This comment was written by Dear Non-Jewish Activists: « Modern Mitzvot.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
[...] to say this for a few days now, but I’ve finally decided to just point you toward Amp’s How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism. Replace “racism” with “anti-Semitism” and “white person” with [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Dear Non-Jewish Activists:.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
This is useful when you’re in a situation where dialogue is counterproductive, or would be changing the subject. Apologizing and moving on isn’t the only proper way to respond, it’s the way to respond when you’re affirmatively trying to discuss something other than race. Like in the middle of the marketing budget meeting or whatever. Commenters seem to be losing sight of this.
Moreover, apologizing isn’t an admission of guilt, and the more you discuss and explain (when circumstances don’t call for it), the more you sound like you’re looking for an out. “I’m sorry, but” always sounds insincere, like you’re really only sorry you got caught. If you don’t really believe that, for instance, blacks are criminals, say so, even if that’s not what you meant to imply; attempting to justify it only looks worse.
This comment was written by Hershele Ostropoler.Report this comment to the moderators
January 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am
[...] quoting Neal Stephenson), of course. The always-brilliant Jay Smooth took it on; so did Kevin and Amp; and Melissa McEwan often points out that it’s inappropriate and dehumanizing to use [...]
This comment was written by Nouning Considered Harmful* « Fineness & Accuracy.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
[...] How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism (A Guide for White People) - by Ampersand on Alas! A blog. [...]
This comment was written by Link Smorgasbord « Bloggity Blog Blog Blog….Report this comment to the moderators
February 19th, 2009 at 1:23 am
[...] And second, RS, I’d recommend you read this post I wrote a couple of years ago: How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » If racism is the worst accusation that can be made, how do we discuss minor racist slights?.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2009 at 8:04 am
[...] to deal logically with the idea that someone may be angry at you; it hits you in the gut and you strike back out of fear. I remember sitting in a Women’s Studies class once, listening to a black classmate’s [...]
This comment was written by shakespeare, part ii « you’re reading too much into it.Report this comment to the moderators
May 16th, 2009 at 1:34 am
[...] Handy-Dandy Guide for D00dly Commenters which struck both me and Ampersand as being similar to his How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism: A Guide for White People (Amp notes that he would use different wording were he writing the post [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Scattered comments on D00ds fucking up, savage islands, and imagining women’s liberation as a separate geographic space.Report this comment to the moderators
June 26th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Hi, I have a question; what if you are confronted with accusations of racism and homophobia, discriminating on the basis of family status, as a white person at work, a person in power, with accusations leveled by an employee and brought to the board of directors. What if you are immediately fired with no explanation beyond ‘you’re racist’ ?
What if, a few months later, the same board members who fired me, found themselve accused of racism, homophobia, discrimination on basis of family status? And then fired the woman making the accussations. Who then brought this to the OHRC. What if this ruins my life for two years….all because I’m trying to get a RAISE for an employee & the board approved it, then reneged. And the woman was thus yes treated unjustly. She promised me she would ruin me. She did. SO tell me - how does a white woman handle that? The organization itself was wrecked. The rumours were acted upon although unsubstantiated and there was no due process. Your suggestions are welcomed.
This comment was written by Catherine.Report this comment to the moderators
July 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
[...] But when this happens, and it will, the key is in how you respond to it… [...]
This comment was written by Arkansawyer » “They smelled white trash, and they sneered.”.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
[...] but here are two of my favorites: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (sadly, this is from 1988) and How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism by Ampersand. There’s lots more out [...]
This comment was written by Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » Against Racism - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
[...] http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/12/02/how-not-to-be-insane-when-accused-of-racism/ [...]
This comment was written by This Post-Racial America Thing Wont Go Away…. « CULTURE TROUBLE.Report this comment to the moderators
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
[...] Ampersand’s superb “How Not to Be Insane When Accused of Racism,” he quotes [...]
This comment was written by Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » Colorblindness, Race, and Children: The Elephant in the Living Room - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer.Report this comment to the moderators
October 13th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
On how to be “Not Racist”
There definitely is a strange conception in most white souls that being accused of racism is a painful experience and completely unfair. Like there was not the slightest possibility of you and me being racist, acting racist, talking racist. In short being a Racist!
Once again beautifully displayed was this white racism denial strategy in the reaction of Thomas Hornung, a politican of Die Grüne in Mannheim.
(The whole story on BlackNRW and Der Braune Mob.)
After him throwing racial slures at a Black women and treating her with the affiliated disrespect and humiliation that most racists apply when trying to not having to deal with the criticism aimed at them, he simply put it as if the real insult was directed against him, when accusing him of being racist. Not only did he until today not see any necessity of apologizing, no he and his fellow politicians - of whom nobody has positioned so far- decided to go through the whole of white denial strategies.
1. Not remembering the incident.
2. Remembering it but having a totally different memory than the actual victim.
3. Claiming to be hurt by accusations of being a racist, and thus positioning as victim, not as aggressor.
4. Having extra fancy proof that there is not even the slightest possibility of being racist because of homosexuality, “knowing“ Black people, living in a “multicultural” city, loving travels overseas, being really sad about Micheal Jackson´s death, and disagreeing with Madonna adopting a Black child (to name a few).
5. Get back to your hurt feelings and put even more emphasis on the victim stance, achieved by accusing your actual victim of being a liar.
6. Display a pseudo compromise and propose another meeting -private of course- to talk about the “misunderstanding”.
My fellow white person denial is not a solution!
It is like that: “We (white people, yes ALL of us!) are racist. The actual work is not escaping this reality, but confronting it. That is reflecting upon it. What is it like to be white? What do I do and how many times have I actually proven that I am racist?
Yes, accepting this reality requires a lot of work and something we are not used to: Self Reflection.
“An identity in power never has to develop consciousness of itself as responsible, it has no sense of its limits except as these are perceived in opposition to others.”*
And I won´t deny it, it is not easy sometimes. As I said it is hard work, looking at one`s self. But in the end it is the only way out. Believe me, this weird feeling of guilt associated with racist behaviour eventually stops. There is hope!
But in order to achieve that you would have to actually assume responsibility! It is not about denying racism but acknowledging it and becoming aware of your role in it.
And no we are not victims of our own disability to deal with the racist sentiments inside. They are homemade, remember colonialism, enslavement, genocide, holocaust? Yes, we did that. It is not going to make it any better if still in 2009 nobody wants to be responsible.
If I do not want to be called racist, I should not act racist.
Using racist language is a clear proof of being racist. And no, if you really did not mean it that way, you wouldn´t have used it. N-Words don´t just slip off one`s tongue. They come alongside a lack of awareness and a white need to re-create colonial scenarios.
Racism is indeed nothing to be proud of. Still if you feel offended by a Black person clearly confronting you with your racism, there must be a point when you start thinking about it. Is it really possible that millions of Black people run around and call white people racist for no reason? Now logically speaking, does that really make sense to you? Like naming racism was some strategy to ruin an honorable white persons` reputation? Think hard now, are you serious about that???
Or could it be that you and your mama really are racists and that is why you run around and insult, humiliate, offend and disrespect Black people?
I am talking about projection and denial here. And if you don´t know what I mean then you clearly have to educate yourself. Yes you are indeed responsible for your knowledge and you should, as I said it is your responsibility, to finally know these things.
No don´t rush into self pity! Stop denying the fact that you are racist. It is obvious. Please get yourself together my fellow white person! It is overdue!
Sincerely…
* Young, Lola and Pajaczkowska, Claire. 1992. „Racism, Representation, Psychoanalysis”, in : Donald, James. ‘Race’, Culture and Difference. London: Sage. P. 202.
This comment was written by julinkah.Report this comment to the moderators
December 4th, 2009 at 7:28 am
[...] How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People) It’s true – a lot of white people, hell, most white people turn ten different colors of pissed off and shoot steam out their ears if someone suggests they’ve said something racist. And if you make a point of talking about race and racism, sooner or later someone will accuse you of being racist, fairly or unfairly. [...]
This comment was written by for white people who have considered homicide when the rainbow (racism talk) is enuf « monica jackson.Report this comment to the moderators