(I’m probably too late to this post and thread to engage but…)

You fail to consider that interactions between the person called out (our Joe White Person) and the person calling him out on a racist statement or action are not just about those two people.

Changing Joe’s mind is not the only possible goal the person might have. I can think of a number of others, for example, standing up for oneself has benefits in and of itself; assuming they are not alone then other people who are not directly confronted may be convinced to re-think their own actions or the actions of other white people they interact with (without the same defensiveness as if they were personally confronted); and other people who also thought the statement or action racist may feel emboldened to stand up for themselves and confront racism in similar situations in the future.

If Joe White Person is already somewhat sympathetic to your position (such as when these kinds of things happen in groups that are dedicated to adressing inequality, poverty, sexism, etc., or when Joe White Person is a good friend that you have a certain amount of trust built up with) then direct confrontation may indeed yield the desired self-reflection by Joe.

If Joe White Person is not at all sympathetic to your position, then the likelihood of “changing his mind” is already low enough that maybe the other benefits of direct, forceful, confrontation outweigh the possibility that you are losing out on convincing him by using strong language. If instead, you embolden other people to confront such things strongly, and if Joe White Person frequently goes around saying racist shit, it’s more likely you’ll someday “convince” him to change if multiple people, over a course of time, call him out on it. By modelling that, you’re making it more likely, over time, that he will be convinced. And the possibility that you could have convinced him today, by being “nicer” approaches nil.

That said, I disagree with Brandon that he has a case for libel. (If he thinks he does have a case, maybe he doesn’t; he didn’t actually say that he does.)

Brandon’s certainly right that it’s not literally true that he has never seen a claim of racism he thought was racism. However, I think most readers would recognize that a sentence like “Brandon never met a case of racism that he actually thought was racism” is hyperbolic, not literal.

Rachel’s hyperbole is based in truth: Brandon disagrees with assessments of racism relatively frequently, and possibly more frequently than any other commenter here. And hyperbole is hardly an unexpected or unknown thing in blog debates.

That said, contrary to your statement, Brandon has the right to object to hyperbole, and to say he “expects” an apology and a retraction. Everyone always has that right, in internet debates. What he doesn’t have is the right to receive a retraction and apology.

You don’t have a case for libel.

And while you’re at it, tone down the demonstration of the massive entitlement complex, because you don’t have a “right” to demand a retraction either.

It’s not unfair, though. It’s true. When you’re in a position of privilege, it’s not hard to want to define the terms of engagement or refute the accusation entirely.

You keep arguing from specificity, and I don’t see how you got there.

In other words, I don’t see how you’re claiming an exception to “general” rules (you may disagree with the general rules, but I’m not getting that either.) I.e. generally speaking people like to define the terms of conversations; generally speaking people tend to prefer to refute accusations rather than accept them.

So unless you disagree with those general rules, I don’t get how people’s normal actions are based on “white privilege,” just because they are talking to a nonwhite.

Note that I am not denying that white privilege exists. I just think that in part of the conversation, there needs to be some way to distinguish between what is based on racism, and what isn’t. Defensiveness is universal, isn’t it?

I didn’t say people are equally defensive about everything, nor did I say white people are more defensive than people of color. I was saying that people with privilege, when told they’re using that privilege, tend to flat out deny it.

Sure. And I am saying that the manner of pointing out that privilege has a lot to do with whether or not they deny it. Which is why I was talking about the range of issues with the single word. If you know that people are not equally defensive about everything, why noty adjust your speech to minimize the changes of a defense, and maximize acceptance of your position?

If I tell a man he just said something sexist, or a white person he said something racist, the typical response is to deny it, to turn it around, to find some way to get out away from it and disown it. I can use other words, and I will get similar responses, because the root is the same, and no one likes to think of themselves as racist or sexist.

No, nobody does. Which is why, if you want to convince them, that the language matters.

Since the language doesn’t make a heck of a lot of difference, I feel it’s important to emphasize that racism is not just hoods and lynchings - or that sexism isn’t just demanding that women be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen - but rather systematic and pervasive social conditioning that influences how people interact with women or people of color. Actions that arise from that conditioning are racist or sexist.

Sure. However, this (as you undoubtedly know) is a fairly different definition than many people use.

So you’ve got two choices: you can start out with your definition, and THEN when they are on board with it, you can talk about how they are racist under that definition. They may feel–many people do–that your definition is too broad. But that’s a separate issue.

Alternatively, you can start out by calling them racist. They will then get offended (surprise!) and distant (surprise!). because you will have forced them into cognitive dissonance. THEY think that “racist” is “cross burning lynching person.” YOU just called them racist. Their dissonance gets resolved by 1) adopting a belief that they are akin to KKK, 2) adopting a belief that you’re a fool, or–very rarely–3) asking for clarification. But having seen this in action, #2 is the most common. (I don’t think you’re a fool, of course.)

This puts all the responsibility for JNWP’s behavior in my hands. Now it’s up to me to make him own his racist behavior once it’s brought to his attention.

Yup! That sucks, doesn’t it. But yes, it’s true. You have to be the “bigger” person here.

Why? Because in all likelihood, Joe doesn’t care much about what you think. Joe might care just a little bit, which is why Joe is listening to you in the first place.

But what are you asking? You’re not offering change on your end; you’re not offering a payoff to Joe. In fact, if anything, you’re asking Joe to make personal maneuvers which may have an instant disadvantage, for the benefit of society as a whole (or a segment of society.)

Note that I deliberately wrote the above paragraph in an extremely general way. I did that on purpose Because if you look at what you’re trying to do generally, and remove any self righteousness you feel about what you or Joe are thinking, and if you simply look at the question

“How do I get Joe to do _____?”

then the answer becomes more obvious.

I cannot take responsibility for other people’s wrongdoings. I cannot be held responsible for them accepting that they’ve done wrong.

Well then, leave Joe alone. You’re obviously trying to change things, or you wouldn’t be talking to Joe in the first place. And if you care enough to change things, you have an obligation at the least to avoid doing things that will make JNWP less open to similar communications in the future.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe coming on hard will convince Joe eventually. But generally speaking, I doubt it.

There’s two conflicting motives here:

JNWP doesn’t want to be seen as a racist, and defines racism as stuff that’s nastier than what he does. I want John to realize he’s a racist.

Do you want Joe to realize he’s a racist, or do you want Joe to change his behavior that you consider to be racist?
In other words: are you gunning to assign Joe an unpleasant label, or to change Joe? Because I am telling you that those are two very different things.

Odds are, when I tell him he’s being racist, no matter what language I use, he’ll go insane.
Why? Because as far as he believes, he’s not racist. That means the same thing as he’s not prejudiced, he doesn’t discriminate against people of color. God forbid, he might even think he’s “colorblind.”

Ya. And while I really DO understand where you’re coming from, and agree with what you’re saying here–you think Joe is really going to respond to this attitude? Do you think that

And this still comes back to white people defining the terms under which people of color can criticize racist behavior, which simply provides another lever for dismissing such criticism when it comes up, which ultimately means it’s just a way to avoid dealing with the existence of white privilege.

[shrug]
It’s really a universal truth:
You can say anything you want. But if you want people to actually listen to you and give a shit, you CAN’T say anything you want. The choice remains yours.

If we tell people of color how they can address their “Hey, you’re being racist” statements at us, that’s racist.

See above. You, I, POC… we can say anything we want. It just doesn’t have much effect.

If we tell people of color how they can address their “Hey, you’re being racist” statements at us, that’s racist.

Did you mean “can”, or “must”? ‘Cause I’m totally with you on the “must” thing. If you actually meant “can”, well, then I’ll just clam up.

Yeah, but we keep getting back to “white people get to dictate how people of color express their grievances,”

I’m not dictating anything. Nor do I think that anybody is trying to attack me or anyone else. I’m making an observation and a suggestion. If you think my observation is wrong, or my suggestion is unhelpful or unwelcome, that’s perfectly okay with me.

What concerns me in this discussion is that over time, it turned into a discussion of how people fail to have meaningful conversations about racism because people (presumably often people of color) are being too accusatory to start a conversation.

Suddenly, once again, the problem has morphed back into people of color being “too mean” to white people. The magic conversation refocus happened even in this thread!

I’m putting this at the top, because it is true. The problem begins and ends with the fact that a racist act was committed, not whether the racist act is identified in language acceptable to the person who committed the act.

I apologize if my posts facilitated this shift. I’m trying to do the opposite.

Sailorman:

Thanks–that’s not what I had guessed, so I’m glad I asked ;)
To bring up a topic from the end of your post: do you feel this way about everything that can be classified as racism?

Yes. It all comes from white privilege.

It’s not unfair, though. It’s true. When you’re in a position of privilege, it’s not hard to want to define the terms of engagement or refute the accusation entirely.

If a person of color says, “What the hell? That was racist” it’s not hard to ask “What did I do?” rather than argue over whether his definition of racist matches your definition. You’re not the aggrieved party, he is.

Okay, it is hard for some people, but they’re already disposed to react defensively, in my experience. It takes some effort to stop and listen rather than argue.

We are in only partial disagreement here.
I agree that pretty much everyone will respond to accusations (of any kind) with defensiveness. It’s almost a universal human trait, by no means limited to whites.

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that people are equally defensive about everything. It just makes no sense!

I didn’t say people are equally defensive about everything, nor did I say white people are more defensive than people of color. I was saying that people with privilege, when told they’re using that privilege, tend to flat out deny it. If I tell a man he just said something sexist, or a white person he said something racist, the typical response is to deny it, to turn it around, to find some way to get out away from it and disown it. I can use other words, and I will get similar responses, because the root is the same, and no one likes to think of themselves as racist or sexist.

Since the language doesn’t make a heck of a lot of difference, I feel it’s important to emphasize that racism is not just hoods and lynchings - or that sexism isn’t just demanding that women be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen - but rather systematic and pervasive social conditioning that influences how people interact with women or people of color. Actions that arise from that conditioning are racist or sexist.

Now, say you’re talking to Joe Normal White Person, who defines “racism” as the worst 10% of what you would call “racism.” If you use the word racist to describe what Joe is doing, Joe will tune you out. Would you still do so?

This puts all the responsibility for JNWP’s behavior in my hands. Now it’s up to me to make him own his racist behavior once it’s brought to his attention. I cannot take responsibility for other people’s wrongdoings. I cannot be held responsible for them accepting that they’ve done wrong.

There’s two conflicting motives here:

JNWP doesn’t want to be seen as a racist, and defines racism as stuff that’s nastier than what he does. I want John to realize he’s a racist. Odds are, when I tell him he’s being racist, no matter what language I use, he’ll go insane.

Why? Because as far as he believes, he’s not racist. That means the same thing as he’s not prejudiced, he doesn’t discriminate against people of color. God forbid, he might even think he’s “colorblind.”

And this still comes back to white people defining the terms under which people of color can criticize racist behavior, which simply provides another lever for dismissing such criticism when it comes up, which ultimately means it’s just a way to avoid dealing with the existence of white privilege.

Bjartmarr

Furthermore, they are unlikely to understand you without an explicit explanation that you mean something different than the dictionary definition. And even if you do take the opportunity to explain, doing so after leveling an accusation isn’t likely to find them in their most receptive state.

The dictionary definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Discrimination and prejudice both show up in those definitions. I don’t think what I’m talking about steps outside the dictionary definition.

Also, if you do something racist, you’ve earned the accusation. You are not wronged because you’ve been accused of racism. You have most likely been accused of racism because you said or did something that wronged a person of color. If you freak out because he calls you on being racist, you’re simply compounding the fact that you’ve wronged him by dismissing and probably silencing him.

The point of my post is twofold: (1) to offer an explanation of *why* it makes people crazy, and (2) to point out that crazy people are less likely to consider what you’re saying with an open mind.

Yeah, but we keep getting back to “white people get to dictate how people of color express their grievances,” and that’s not an acceptable premise, because the basic problem here - the root of racism - is that white people culturally have more power than people of color. If we tell people of color how they can address their “Hey, you’re being racist” statements at us, that’s racist. If you do or say something racist and get called on it, the person who calls you on it is not at fault for using language you don’t like when he says “Hey, that was racist,” nor is he necessarily trying to attack you.

~ cosigned

I once had a very heated discussion about racism on a another site. When I called people out on their white privilege and racist attitudes, I was called “hostile”, “snippy”, “sarcastic”, “mean”, etc.

Suddenly, once again, the problem has morphed back into people of color being “too mean” to white people. The magic conversation refocus happened even in this thread!

But this also narrows the scope of the challenged action.

Yeah, it does, and I can see how you might not want to do that. But it also gives that person a really good reason to quit doing it, which may lead to some reflection later. ‘Cause nice people realize that people who know that they’re hurting other people, and keep doing it for no good reason, are dicks. On the other hand, if they feel like you’ve made an unfair accusation, they’re more likely to react defensively than reflectively.

It’s not passive-aggressive to use language naturally, but it is passive-aggressive to expect that I should automatically know what language you will find acceptable when I call you on your hypothetical bigoted behavior.

I don’t expect you to know how anyone else defines racism. But it’s pretty good odds, if you’re outside a feminist forum like this one, that the person you’re talking to is using the dictionary definition and not the feminist definition. And you know that two definitions exist, while they are likely unaware that the feminist definition exists and that you are using it. So there ends up being two problems: first, that they don’t understand the word the way you want them to understand it, and second, the original problem that they don’t realize that what they did fits your definition of the word.

Furthermore, they are unlikely to understand you without an explicit explanation that you mean something different than the dictionary definition. And even if you do take the opportunity to explain, doing so after leveling an accusation isn’t likely to find them in their most receptive state.

Also, How Not to be Insane When Accused of Racism.

Read it, thanks. Accepting criticism calmly, whether deserved or not, is a great skill to have; unfortunately it’s rare. But the post also points out that the word “racist” makes white people crazy. The point of my post is twofold: (1) to offer an explanation of *why* it makes people crazy, and (2) to point out that crazy people are less likely to consider what you’re saying with an open mind.

Bjartmarr,

Well, I know that I respond a lot better when somebody says, “What you are doing hurts me” than I do when somebody says “You are being racist”. The latter is open to debate (though I take the point that it is often better not to), while the former is indisputable.

But this also narrows the scope of the challenged action. If you say “women suck” and I say “You know, it hurts me personally when you attack women like that,” it then becomes about my feelings, and not about the fact that you like to say nasty things about women.

Additionally, it seems kind of counterproductive (and even a little passive-aggressive) to use the term “racism” when you’re talking to somebody whom you know has a different definition of the word, without telling them that you are using your own definition and not the dictionary definition. You know that, unless they’ve been schooled to the feminist definition of the word, that they are going to take your accusation as something far more severe and deliberate than you mean. If your goal is to try to get them defensive, this is a great idea; however, if your goal is to engage in productive dialogue, then it seems counterproductive.

The last time I checked, I’m not telepathic. I also know that most people define bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice as things they don’t do…so when I say “you’re being racist” or “that’s racial discrimination” I’m already outside the territory defined as “racist” or “discrimination” by the person I’m challenging.

It’s completely unrealistic to expect me to ask “Do you think what you did was racist or just prejudiced?” before saying “Okay, what you did was racist or prejudiced.” It’s not passive-aggressive to use language naturally, but it is passive-aggressive to expect that I should automatically know what language you will find acceptable when I call you on your hypothetical bigoted behavior.

Most people in a position of privilege are deaf to any criticism of that privilege, so the question is getting enough of their attention to get them to acknowledge they did anything at all, and this has little to do with the perceived strength of the words used.

Also, How Not to be Insane When Accused of Racism.

Racism is harsh, it’s ugly, and it’s cruel. There’s no “softening the blows” for those of us who have to deal with it and a constant basis.

My experience when calling people out on these things is that it does not matter whether you tell them they’re being bigoted, or discriminatory, or prejudiced is that they react the same way - defensive denial, insults, complaints about “political correctness,” some patronizing comments about civil rights, or they’ll find some other way to dismiss the criticism.

Well, I know that I respond a lot better when somebody says, “What you are doing hurts me” than I do when somebody says “You are being racist”. The latter is open to debate (though I take the point that it is often better not to), while the former is indisputable.

Additionally, it seems kind of counterproductive (and even a little passive-aggressive) to use the term “racism” when you’re talking to somebody whom you know has a different definition of the word, without telling them that you are using your own definition and not the dictionary definition. You know that, unless they’ve been schooled to the feminist definition of the word, that they are going to take your accusation as something far more severe and deliberate than you mean. If your goal is to try to get them defensive, this is a great idea; however, if your goal is to engage in productive dialogue, then it seems counterproductive.

Lisa Harney Writes:
October 25th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Rephrase: “I do not believe that prejudice or discrimination adequately describes what happens when white privilege harms people of color.”

Thanks–that’s not what I had guessed, so I’m glad I asked ;)
To bring up a topic from the end of your post: do you feel this way about everything that can be classified as racism?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are racists acts and beliefs which are really racist, disgustingly racist, etc… and there are acts which are less so. (at least from my opinion.) I deliberately used two quite different examples: to me, those shouldn’t be defined by the same word.

I am NOT suggesting that the word “racism” be put out of use, but simply that more words are needed to define something which spans all the way from lynching to hair products.

That’s not what I said. To translate, “calling it prejudice or discrimination makes it sound like it’s not a specifically a racial issue.”

Hmm. i agree that those words make it more clear that it is “simply” (bad word, I know) the racial manifestation of a problem that exists across many other spectra. But isn’t this in fact true? Isn’t it OK if the language acknowledges that?

Because if you shift the terminology, people will still deny their racism. I’ve seen it with sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and racism. Because the only time I’ve seen anyone define “racism” as “white hoods, night riders, nooses, and burning crosses” is when they’re saying racist things and getting called on it.

Your experience is different from mine, which is not surprising. In my experience, the type and strength of denial varies significantly with what you are accusing someone of doing.

My experience when calling people out on these things is that it does not matter whether you tell them they’re being bigoted, or discriminatory, or prejudiced is that they react the same way - defensive denial, insults, complaints about “political correctness,” some patronizing comments about civil rights, or they’ll find some other way to dismiss the criticism.

We are in only partial disagreement here.
I agree that pretty much everyone will respond to accusations (of any kind) with defensiveness. It’s almost a universal human trait, by no means limited to whites.

However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that people are equally defensive about everything. It just makes no sense!

I don’t think white people should be setting the terms under which racism can be criticized (and I say this as a white person).

I’ve been to, read about, and heard about my fair share of therapy. One of the core issues is that you have to complain to (or try to change) your partner/friend/boss/coworker in a way that THEY will respond to. Which is most assuredly not the way that necessarily makes you feel good.

A classic therapy exchange might be
Q: “OK, John, so when you want Bob to open up to you, what do you do?”
A: “I yell at him for being too quiet.”
Q: “And does that work?”
A: “No, it just makes him clam up more.”
Q: “Is it more important to you to yell, or to have Bob open up?”
A: “To have him open up, I guess.”

and so on.

That last question is the kicker. I know for myself what types of conversation will make me pay attention, and what will make me roll my eyes and tune out. Let’s say you’re having a conversation with me about an issue and you know what the “tune out” lingo is. Would you use it?

Now, say you’re talking to Joe Normal White Person, who defines “racism” as the worst 10% of what you would call “racism.” If you use the word racist to describe what Joe is doing, Joe will tune you out. Would you still do so?

White folks purposely skew the convo to something other than their responsibility out of a sense of white guilt they cannot or will not even acknowledge. This is evidenced by the numerous times you can hear the phrase, “I never owned slaves!” Okay, nobody ever said you did. But we are saying that your actions and comments–right now–are not cool and are reminisicent of the same thoughts and actions that people who DID own slaves expressed. No, you are not a white sheet wearing, cross burning, Black male genitalia castrating individual. (I don’t believe) But the things you do and say are reminiscent of those same individual’s beliefs.

That would be my nice intellectual approach.

In real life, I would probably cuss them and beat them over the head with their own ignorance with words until they either punch me or run away crying. Sometimes, the latter option is more satisfying. But not very conducive to conversation, or teaching white folks about their racism or racist ways. So I save the intelligent approach for work colleagues or other folks I think might actually benefit. But I do believe that we DO have to talk about it. To just stop talking to white folks about it just allows them to continue on in their blissful ignorance. And then we get nowhere.

Sorry if this seems obtuse, but where do you mean by “here?”

Rephrase: “I do not believe that prejudice or discrimination adequately describes what happens when white privilege harms people of color.”

I agree that the term discrimination (as opposed to “racial discrimination”) is non specific. But how does using the term mean that racism–or racial discrimination, for that matter–doesn’t exist?

That’s not what I said. To translate, “calling it prejudice or discrimination makes it sound like it’s not a specifically a racial issue.”

Why? Why is it more important to say what you feel than it is to have an effect on the people to whom you are speaking? That isn’t a very successful strategy, I don’t think.

Because if you shift the terminology, people will still deny their racism. I’ve seen it with sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and racism. Because the only time I’ve seen anyone define “racism” as “white hoods, night riders, nooses, and burning crosses” is when they’re saying racist things and getting called on it.

My experience when calling people out on these things is that it does not matter whether you tell them they’re being bigoted, or discriminatory, or prejudiced is that they react the same way - defensive denial, insults, complaints about “political correctness,” some patronizing comments about civil rights, or they’ll find some other way to dismiss the criticism.

As a lesbian trans woman, I find that allowing the dominant groups (men, cisgendered, heterosexual) to define discourse about me results in said discourse not being in my favor. I don’t see how racism really should be any different. I don’t think white people should be setting the terms under which racism can be criticized (and I say this as a white person).

Lisa Harney Writes:
October 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I do not believe a different word is necessary. I do not believe that “discrimination” and “prejudice” adequately describes what happens here.

Sorry if this seems obtuse, but where do you mean by “here?”

I also believe that it doesn’t really matter what word you use to describe it, the people who have the privilege will deny it’s happening, and will resort to any convenient argument to avoid examining that privilege.

Why do you make that assumption?

I’m going to step outside of racism for a moment to talk generally. And in GENERAL, people are more willing to accept that they did something which was less offensive, and less willing to accept that they did something that was highly offensive. So I’ll have an easier time convincing someone that they said something unintelligible (not bad); harder that they said something rude, or blatantly rude, or a little offensive, or incredibly offensive, or so horrible that it brands them as an idiot to anyone who ever knows they said it.

Racism as some people use it these days encompasses the entire spectrum, from feeling curious about black hair maintenance to lynching. And when you use a word that broad, it leads to miscommunication: some folks feel more upset than you intend. Some folks feel wronged because they think you are accusing them of a high level of immorality. As a result, they respond worse than they would otherwise do.

You are free to not care about that. But miscommunication doesn’t lead to good outcomes. So I think it’s important to address.

Discrimination and prejudice are also non-specific. After all, you can experience either because of your sex, your orientation, your gender identity, your religion, your politics, and so on. Referring to racism by those labels removes the context - that racism exists at all.

I agree that the term discrimination (as opposed to “racial discrimination”) is non specific. But how does using the term mean that racism–or racial discrimination, for that matter–doesn’t exist?

I do not believe in coddling the sensibilities of those who choose to propagate racist (or any other bigoted) attitudes. I would rather name what I see and not compromise on this.

Why? Why is it more important to say what you feel than it is to have an effect on the people to whom you are speaking? That isn’t a very successful strategy, I don’t think.

For the record, I’ve corrected this particular misapprehension of yours twice, with a specific example.

For the record, Brandon, an example where you state that you were “pretty sure” racism occured, isn’t a ringing endorsement.

Also, when a White man says,

Anyway, I don’t think racism is completely dead. But I also don’t think it’s anywhere near as pervasive as you do. I think that there are a lot of people who are far too credulous when it comes to racism and far too eager to use allegations of racism as a political weapon, so I tend to be very skeptical when I hear people cry racism.

when speaking about instances of racism that are so blatantly racist (At least to me, anyway; but I’m just a Black woman, what would I know?) it makes me frustrated.

Rachel, I wouldn’t change a thing.