There’s advantage in formal rules being knowable in advance, though most people don’t know the ins and outs of the law and thus this element is mitigated somewhat. But formal rules are based on opinion as well; an individual judge may not have as much opportunity to inject his own opinion, but whether that is better or worse than giving more weight to the opinion of the legislature or of tradition instead, is something that must be judged on a - appropriately enough - case by case basis.

If anyone’s ever involved in a racially themed party, by the way, accept while saying that you’re doing a video project on college life. Take down names and request interviews.

The only way I could see them doing this in a public place is if this “public place” was out of Hartford, and say, the party was tucked away in a privately rented room of a restaurant or bar in a predominantly white town like Farmington or Avon. And, even then, such a plan seems highly unlikely.

Those students may not have thought this party theme through to the point of analyzing it as something that is racist, but that just shows that it’s so deep in their heads as something that is ok for them to do that they don’t even think about it. I would bet my house that they wouldn’t have walked around in Hartford like that b/c they would know as well as I do that they’d get their asses kicked. And why, exactly, would they fear getting their asses kicked by a community largely comprised of blacks if there was absolutely no innuendo of race by wearing ‘do rags, gold chains, grills, and drinking 40s? Hm.

But even that website doesn’t answer the question “What the heck is an ‘intensive purpose’?”

However, if one phrases the apology in a way that deflects responsibility (e.g. “I’m sorry you were offended) as opposed to one that accepts responsibility (e.g. “I’m sorry I offended you”) then they’re apology isn’t really an apology and doesn’t deserve to be treated as such.

While I agree with you in theory, I disagree in practice. The fine art of the apology has been lost, along with the fine art of accepting responsibility for ones actions. I view “I’m sorry you were offended” right up there with “For all intensive purposes”. “I’m sorry” and “purposes” have stayed behind, but the original phrasing has long since gone away, and with it, the linguistic meaning. I’d be curious to know what someone thinks is an “intensive purpose”.

It wasn’t like “Hey, I’ve got this play and I have to put it on RIGHT NOW OR I’LL EXPLODE and I have a nice respectable black character and I need a black actor RIGHT NOW OR I’LL EXPLODE!” There were plenty of black actors. They just weren’t allowed to perform in front of whites, and besides, whites didn’t want to see blacks play characters that weren’t degrading to blacks.

I’ve been reading “Lies My Teacher Told Me” and it mentions that one of the justifications for slavery is that blacks LIKED slavery. That they actually enjoyed it. And when the Confederate troops encountered blacks who were fighting for their own liberation it shocked them, because they believed that blacks WANTED to be slaves. Blackface wasn’t neutral, it was part of the process by which whites were indoctrinated to believe that blacks were animalistic, over sexed, lazy, stupid, and a slew of other negative things. It would be nice if this were taught, but teaching that would be, uh, EMBARRASSING to white people.

The student representative is already going through the necessary steps of addressing this issue but I’m not willing to give out cookies until I see actions. The more troubling part are the Sailormans and Larry’s who feel that they are better able to say what does or does not constitute racism.

Say you are dating a women you have not known for very long (just pretend for a minute). You have known her long enough to be at a point in the relationship where you are playfully physical (and maybe even more than that…eh, just go with me). You and she are watching a movie, you get distracted and begin tickling her. She starts to giggle, you start play wrestling and suddenly, you are on top of her and her face kind of goes white, she suddenly changes her entire tune and says, “Get off!” And tries to push you off. You get off of her as requested and ask what is wrong and gently try to put your hand on her shoulder or something. She recoils and says kind of snippy, maybe even borderline nasty, “Don’t touch me!”

Now, at this point, you really and truly haven’t done anything wrong. You haven’t done anything out of bounds, but her reaction was pretty extreme and severe and not very nice considering the otherwise pleasant relationship you two have going on.

What is your reaction?

Do you listen to her and back away and say, “Did I hurt you? Are you Ok? What’s wrong?” (or something to that effect)

or do you say, “Geez, I didn’t do anything, what are you so upset about?” (or something along those lines)

Sailorman, I think you are right about us never coming to an agreement. I’d just like to point out that I suspect it is your very privileged state that allows you to feel like you have no burdens before anything begins. Although I personally benefit from white privilege, I also happen to be at a disadvantage in terms of gender privilege and this I suspect gives me an ability to empathize with the position a person of color is in when dealing with me.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but here is what I see you are saying:

“I personally don’t treat anyone any differently when I meet them based on silly things like race, class or gender. I don’t personally hold biases against people based on their ascribed statuses, and so if in a random act or interaction, I do or say something that someone in a subordinated position deems to be racist/sexist/offensive whatever, as long as I didn’t INTEND for my remarks/actions to be that way, they have no right to demand that I see things from their perspective. My intentions were not suspect, even if they assumed otherwise, and since the offended party is the one who jumped to a conclusion about my intention, I have no responsibility to apologize. Rather, the person who thought badly of me in the first place should apologize to ME for incorrectly assuming mal-intent.”

I strongly suspect you can comfortably feel this way because you are a person whose privileges abound. The problem (as I see it) with this perspective is that it assumes a clean slate. While there may be an individualized clean slate between you and the other individual, or even between you and an entire class of people from your end - there is no such thing as a clean slate for a person of color when it comes to dealing with white people. They have experienced racism from individual white people and white power structures many times throughout their lives. While things may not be as “bad” as they once were, you yourself stated that there is certainly a long way to go.

I think, part of the long journey is precisely the reaction you have to this whole situation. Because you assume a clean slate, you are defensive about being called on your actions or words (or in this case, the actions or words of others like you). And in your defensiveness, you indignantly proclaim that there was no malicious intent and so it is unfair and uncalled for that a person get upset about the action. Again, if the clean slate thing were TRUE, then I *might* see your point, although I’m still not entirely sure I would… But, there is no such thing as a clean slate for the person of color. Just because your personal end is clean, does not invalidate the collective history of people of color, or women, or any other oppressed group. It also, does not invalidate the personal experiences of individual people of color TODAY in dealing with people from the dominate group. Those experiences are painful, plentiful and seared into one’s mind. As FCH said, being suspect of white people is a survival skill for people of color. Just as being suspect of strange men is a survival skill for women (and if you disagree with that, tell me, what will you teach your daughters about how to maintain personal safety as they get older?).

If you can TRY to jump into the position of a person of color for a moment. And try to imagine a lifetime of unfair, racist stereotypes, assumptions and treatment, then look at the UCONN party or the Clemson party pictures. Really try to put yourself in that position. What is your gut reaction to those photos - not your academic reaction, not a logical reaction. A personal, emotional, gut reaction. Because even though racism has little or no emotional meaning to most white people, it is a deeply personal and emotional experience for people of color (at least as I imagine, since sexism is a deeply personal and emotional experience for me). Now, if you have been able to really place yourself in the shoes of a person of color with all the racist crap they have experienced in their lives and you see those photos and you find them offensive (I’ll even be nice and leave off the word racist), do you think it really matters much in the grand scheme of things whether or not the people in those photos MEANT to offend?

Because here’s how I see it - if they didn’t mean to offend, and they really cared about not offending people, then the logical response would be, “Damn, I’m really sorry, I never meant any harm. I never really thought about why that would be offensive. I’m sorry.”

OR if the person is not terribly interested in not offending people and doesn’t really care whether they do or don’t, the reaction would be, “I had no idea that is what it would mean to you, I didn’t MEAN it that way, and so you are being oversensitive. You can’t presume to know my intentions and call me racist. THat’s not fair. This is stupid. It’s no big deal. Get over it.” (or any other variation).

The difference between those two reactions is that the first tells the offended party that the person cares more about establishing a decent relationship than they do about getting called on for actions they didn’t mean to be harmful.

The second response tells the offended party that the person in question cares a great deal more about defending himself than he does about establishing a good relationship. Bottom line, I care a hell of a lot more about myself, and making certain I don’t have to feel about about what I did, than I do about your feelings.

And that, my friend, is why people of color would continue to be skeptical of white people. If your reaction is the 2nd, it’s a pretty clear demonstration that ultimately you don’t really care about equality or decency you care about defending yourself and not having to be uncomfortable. And it is perfectly reasonable for someone to be doubly hurt/angered by that, particularly when it is couched in language and rhetoric of, there is no way to extrapolate racism from my actions without intent. You are simply overreacting.

Also, people of color would have other reasons to be upset, even if there was absolutely no malicious intent. Seeing as how a good number of white people, as well as most people of color would take one look at those pictures and see racism, it’s pretty disturbing the people in those pictures had no idea it would be seen that way. That tells us that people are not getting an education that really tells the story of the social history of the US. See, if the future law students at the UCONN party really and truly meant no racist intent, then I find that far more disturbing than if they kinda did, but got caught and are now backpedaling (that would be a fairly typical response - people want to cover their asses). We are talking about intelligent, well educated people whose futures certainly include varying degrees of power. If they really and truly did not know that stereotyping “ghetto culture” and using it as an opportunity to ridicule it is not racist, then I think it’s a damn good example of how institutionalized racism plays out. You see, the education system doesn’t have much room for real discussions of racism or the racist history of this country. The media certainly have far too few censors or opportunities for critical discussions about what is portrayed in the media and who controlls it. And all of that filters down to a bunch of well educated adults not knowing something could possibly be offensive… and something that then reproduces itself.

And further the response of white people telling people of color what is or is not offensive is just one last turn of the knife already dug in the back. It is the ultimate dismissal, and can only be done because the offending party is in a power position. It is the ultimate demonstration of where people of color’s place in the hierarchy remains.

I didn’t explain that very well, my apologies, my brain is tired. I hope someone understood what I meant.

Ultimately Sailorman, I don’t find your response unusual or surprising, which is probably partly why so many people like pheeno are so exasperated by it. I don’t find your arguments condescending or mean - I actually have to say that the conversation thus far has been very civil. But, I also think that the reason you can comfortably talk of rational behavior and how it is not your job to appease someone who infers bad behavior on your part if there wasn’t any comes from the fact that you have not systematically been in positions of deference or subordination. Not in any ongoing, structurally supported way. (Granted, those are assumptions on my part. I will have no problem if you tell me otherwise). If my assumptions are incorrect than I might have to scratch my head a bit and wonder where your empathy chip got lost along the way, but ultimately, that’s where I see our perspectives diverging.

I, and others in this thread have empathy for the people of color who are outraged by this disgusting trend. It appears, that you do not. (Ok, that sounds a whole lot more self righteous and snarky than I mean it to be, please understand that).

The difficulty with this “best” justice system - the one that no decent human being, myself included, would disapprove of - is that we don’t know how to do that. We know what it would look like in the finished product - complete justice for all - but we don’t know how to make that product. We DO know how to have a justice system based on formal rules which - however unfair they may turn out to be in particular cases - are at least objectively knowable in advance, and justiciable without reference to opinions. (Did he sleep under the bridge, yes or no; yes = guilty.)

Attempts to reach the perfect system where we take everything into account run squarely into the fallibility of human reason and the laws of human nature and psychology. Look at affirmative action in college admissions - with nothing but good intentions, an effort to fix the racial balance so that it’s “right” (rather than having formal rules that specify what attainments are necessary to get into a particular school) has led us to the perverse situation of the state actively discriminating against a racial minority group in the name of non-discrimination.

I understand, also, that many people consider this “facially equal” stance to be “effectively privileged.” I think this is a perfectly valid view, though not one to which I subscribe. It’s a bit like the age-old debate between “fairness” and “justice” in the legal system; your view is more on the “fairness” end and mine is more on the “justice” end. My main regret is that some folks are unwilling to even acknowledge that there are two differing viewpoints on the issue.

I think many of us are well aware that there are differing viewpoints. It’s just that over time we’ve learned that “facially equal” is “effectively privileged”.

True story — about 28 years ago, right around the time I started college, I spent some time thinking about affirmative action and concluded that it was a good and necessary thing. Thinking about this to myself I thought that 25 years would just about solve the problems. Whenever I thought about affirmative actions, that was the background conversation — “We need to keep doing this for another X number of years.” As time passed and the end of 25 years approached, I started to realize that so many people were opposed to affirmative action that it was going to take more than those 25 years.

“Facially equal” says that whatever messed up system we’ve got today — just ignore it. As I got older and learned about “facially equal” (”The rich man and the poor man are both equally forbidden from sleeping under a bridge” was the example that taught me the point), I learned that “facially equal” maintains the dominant class in a position of dominance. The poor man, who has no choice but to sleep under a bridge, is imprisoned and labeled a criminal because he has no house to sleep in. And now that he’s a criminal, he’s even less likely to escape poverty or homelessness.

FurryCatHerder Writes:
January 31st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
…The thing, as Kate said, is that the relationship IS more important than being “right”.

I doubt we’ll reach agreement here–I understand your point, and I am fairly sure I understand what you’re getting at. But we differ in our underlying approach.

The easiest way to say it (which sounds a bit snarky, sorry–not intended) is that if the relationship is to be more important than being “right” IMO that only works if it’s for BOTH parties involved. And as you discuss below, you seem to be going into the described relationship feeling like you have a heavy burden before you even begin the conversation.

I don’t. What I aim for is to avoid expecting anyone else to defer to me because of my status. And I try to avoid allowing anyone else to demand deference from me in return. If they do demand it, I generally refuse to give it. (And yes, though I’m a white male, there are plenty of situations in my life in which I don’t happen to be the person with privilege in a given encounter).

In other words, I attempt to judge people by their conscious actions, and not their uncontrollable existence. I adopted this tactic a long time ago, largely because I think the process of modifying behavior based on status is at the root of a lot of our general problems.

So I believe that exceptions don’t really exist. And if i start telling myself it’s ok or mandatory to treat someone differently based on their skin color, well, i don’t want to go there at all. It’s a carryover of my “there are no exceptions” statement above.

So when I see someone suggest that there are situations where, for example, I should defer to someone because they are black, I say

“Wait a second. IF there are situations where whites defer to blacks, there have got to be some situations where blacks should defer to whites.”

And you know what? I don’t want to go there. I’m trying NOT to go there.

I understand, also, that many people consider this “facially equal” stance to be “effectively privileged.” I think this is a perfectly valid view, though not one to which I subscribe. It’s a bit like the age-old debate between “fairness” and “justice” in the legal system; your view is more on the “fairness” end and mine is more on the “justice” end. My main regret is that some folks are unwilling to even acknowledge that there are two differing viewpoints on the issue.

What I’d hope for, in a situation like what I’ve described, is a relationship in which a lot of racial baggage is not present.

Well sure, so would I. But there’s no way to make the baggage disappear once it’s there. So the question then becomes what to do with it, and how to avoid making it worse.

As a white woman there are barriers to having a trusting relationship with someone who’s black, and that’s based on the history of race relations in this country.

Yup.

AND, that history is something whites did, so the burden is on ME, not on her.

Well, see my comments above. I really doubt we’ll agree much on this.

I venture to say that should I try to think on it (I don’t) chances are that I–or most people–could find something that almost every group (including blacks) has done historically which is “bad” (don’t forget that the “historical burden” people are also usually of the “intent or reasons don’t matter, only actions do” camp.)

Now, is any of this “fair”? I dunno. What does “fair” mean? Is it fair that whites have a history of treating blacks so poorly that blacks distrust whites as a means of survival? Doesn’t sound fair to me.

Oh — you meant “Is it fair that I’m being distrusted?” Well, yes. It’s “fair”. It’s fair because distrusting white people really is a survival skill.

I don’t disagree with you about history, you know. Just about what to do with it.

It’s really about control. For many centuries, whites could do whatever the fuck they wanted, and blacks had to remain in control. We all know the problems that caused.

Now, that has changed for the better (still a ways to go but it’s much better). People who are angered can show their anger; people who are offended can show their offense. I think that’s healthy for society.

I am perfectly willing to encourage, enable, and avoid causing problems with someone else’s control over what THEY do or say. Communication is good.

I am not at all willing to grant anyone the ability to limit, stifle, or otherwise control what I do or say. Whether it’s “in the name of racism activism”, “for the good of the country”, “for the glory of god”, or anything else.

I think what Kate and Trillian wrote at 173 and 175 speak well to what you said.

But let’s say that Pheeno was a complete and total stranger and I just happened to get invited to this dinner, I’d still respond as I stated. Whether or not someone will cut me slack in the future depends, I think, in large part on how I handle situations like what I described. If shes “The trash can is over there”, well, the bottle goes in the trash and that’s the end of it. If she says “That’s really interesting, perhaps you could bring some of your beer next time. But I’m still offended by that 40 you’ve got tucked in that brown paper bag, so I’m going to ask you to throw it away in that trash can over there.”

Take, for example, the fact that I really do only brew what would be classified as a “malt liquor” here in Texas — a fermented malted barley beverage having an alcohol content greater than 4.5% by volume. I might mention this in a technical discussion about brewing such things (”I added an extra pound of malt to improve the flavor and that much extra malt sugar raises the alcohol content”), but I’m not going to run around advertising that I have a 2 liter bottle of malt liquor tucked under my arm.

The thing, as Kate said, is that the relationship IS more important than being “right”. What I’d hope for, in a situation like what I’ve described, is a relationship in which a lot of racial baggage is not present. As a white woman there are barriers to having a trusting relationship with someone who’s black, and that’s based on the history of race relations in this country. AND, that history is something whites did, so the burden is on ME, not on her.

Now, is any of this “fair”? I dunno. What does “fair” mean? Is it fair that whites have a history of treating blacks so poorly that blacks distrust whites as a means of survival? Doesn’t sound fair to me.

Oh — you meant “Is it fair that I’m being distrusted?” Well, yes. It’s “fair”. It’s fair because distrusting white people really is a survival skill.

Thus, if we assume that people act rationally and in their best interests, blacks must surely realize that any accusations of racism, real or imagined, will enrage white racists and result in a less favorable outcome. I think it is reasonably predictable that, therefore, blacks would tend to avoid accusations of racism, and especially false accusations.

Sailorman, the same token applies to this example you gave:

But because I see that as a pattern, I’m also unwilling to grant anyone God status. I don’t think that rape accusers occupy a magic world where nobody ever makes a false accusation.

, which aside from being oddly off-topic, wouldn’t stop bothering me. No inherent inability to falsely accuse, true, just a whole lot of mistreatment and grief as the only “incentive” for doing so. I agree with a lot of the rest of your post and apply similar logic when interpreting others’ statements, but I think that the context of certain situations weighs in favor of giving accusers the benefit of the doubt.

Though I tend not to have a lot of one-sided friendships. So as a result one thing I hope for from my friends is that they not assume the worst of me–they’re my friends, right? It’s a courtesy that I extend to them, and they to me.

I assume they’ll borrow my stuff and not steal it; I assume that if they offend me it was accidental. I tend to find out what really happened BEFORE I get hard up in their face–and if they or I start acting/assuming otherwise (in other words, not trusting each other) I end the friendship. Don’t you?

So yeah: It’d be different if it were me and a good friend. I’d be more apologetic. So would they. It might be a whole different hypothetical. But as it stands, does the general thing make sense? With a “they’re not friends” caveat, do you think it’s accurate?

My feelings about my desire to have a good relationship with this person MATTER MORE TO ME THAN BEING RIGHT.

I’ve been thinking about your excellent malt example. Let me try to respond:

Let’s say that Pheeno invites me over for dinner — BYOB and a potluck dish. I know nothing at all about malt liquor and race (can’t know everthing, right?), but I’ve been drinking Colt 45 ever since I found out that it’s just like a German barley wine I had once on a trip to Europe. I love the stuff — I even have a recipe I use to make it myself at home (in real life I really do only make malt liquors). Completely and totally innocent, right?

Just to be sure we’re reading off the same script: I am taking this to mean you had NO racism going into this and NO knowledge this would even potentially piss someone off. If that is not a correct reading, the rest of my response won’t make any sense.

So, I show up at Pheeno’s with my BYOB in hand and when I go to put it i the fridge she makes a face at me like “What the HELL is that?” Depending on how I read her look I might say any number of things, but at some point either she or another guest clues me in

OK, now here’s where it gets interesting.

— “Julie, it’s really offensive to bring malt liquor to this party.

Huh?

let’s step back a moment. I’m adding some things to the example here to flesh this out a bit. Let’s assume, probably accurately, that it wouldn’t be offensive to bring malt liquor if they knew you were a brewer of malt liquor who liked to share his/her stuff and would be bringing some. (let’s ignore the issue of whether it’d be offensive if you were a different race).

Don’t tell me you brought fried chicken for your dish?”

OK, facts so far, put in GENERAL language to better make my point:

-You did something factually polite, which can be interpreted as impolite.
-They interpret it as impolite (they’re wrong), and confront you.

If you view this as a “normal” encounter (e.g. not race relations) they have acted worse than you have, by assuming bad things about you (more on this later).

And in a “normal” encounter what would happen is this:

1) YOU would politely explain the misunderstanding (”No, sir, I didn’t steal your coat; your coat is right over there.”)
2) THEY apologize for the misunderstanding (”Oh dear, I’m so sorry to have accused you of taking my coat!”)
3) YOU say “oh never mind, it’s fine”

Now, this isn’t normal, it’s about race. But before we get into the special circumstances of race, can we agree on what happens generally? i want to make distinctions and similarities and I’ll stop here till you respond.

I say, strip them of their non-academic whatevers (frat membership, academic group membership) for a semester and give them 100 hours of community service in an underclass neighborhood.