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 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&#