Joanna Schroeder wants us to face the truth about the type of prejudices we all carry inside of ourselves, and try to figure out how to combat them.
I know racism is alive and well in America, and yet I don’t believe that the majority of people in our society consciously want to be racists. I don’t even think John Derbyshire wants to be a racist, and yet he clearly is.
So how is racism still so pervasive? Clearly we are doing things unconsciously that propagate racism. But how do we address people on behaviors that they don’t even know they’re doing? It feels like an unsurmountable problem, a Catch-22: We want to stop racism, but we don’t believe we’re racists, so we don’t feel responsible for actually being the ones to stop it.
The first thing we need to think about is why racism still exists. And I just read a great description of how racism survives, even when most people outwardly condemn it. It’s from Lindy West over at Jezebel in her piece A Complete Guide to Hipster Racism:
“People benefit from racism—hell, I benefit from it every day—and things that benefit powerful people don’t just suddenly get “fixed” and disappear because Halle Berry won an Oscar or whatever. Modern racism lives in entrenched de facto inequalities, in coded language about “work ethic” and “states’ rights,” in silent negative spaces like absence and invisibility, and in Newt Gingrich’s hair. And in irony.”
We walk around believing that because slavery is illegal, and has been for some time, that racism is gone. I don’t know anyone in the Klan. No one I know would even hang a Confederate flag (though they might in the town where I grew up). Clearly our racism is manifested in some very subtle ways. Of course, racism comes out in incredibly obvious ways, too, but in this case, I really just want to look at how well-intentioned people are propagating racist attitudes.
♦◊♦
Now, we all have prejudices. I’ve written before about how I’m suspicious of people who love cats. I think cats are cute, but I don’t understand letting an animal shit in your house, even if it’s in a box of dirt (that you buy at the grocery store?). I barely let my family shit in my house, I’d prefer they all wait until they’re at school or at work. But I digress… Anyway, this is my own freaky hang-up. It’s a prejudice. I pre-judge cat-lovers as strange. It’s terrible, I’m a jerk for doing it. But I can’t help it. So I remind myself when I meet a cat-lover (Oliver Bateman I’m talking about you) that cats are awesome, and not everyone is as weird as me.
Here at The Good Men Project we’ve been trying to tackle the prejudices society holds against men. Society prejudges men by thinking they aren’t nurturing parents, that they aren’t trustworthy care-givers, that they’re violent, that they’re sex-crazed, that they are emotionally unavailable, that they aren’t emotionally affected by sexual or domestic abuse the way women are. Challenging notions about masculinity can feel like an uphill battle, because a lot of people feel that men shouldn’t receive the sort of sensitivity that every other segment of the population does. But the truth is, men are incredibly diverse and often suffer under people’s prejudices as well.
♦◊♦
When it comes to race, we all carry some prejudices. We’ve grown up in a racist society, we simply cannot help but absorb some of those messages. I have messed-up messages worming around in my head about about almost every race and nationality I can come up with, including white people. Especially Europeans, i.e. Dutch people are cheap, French are snobs, Belgians are ugly, Italians are over-sexed, Serbs are violent… (I’m Dutch and my husband is a Serb so we’re screwed).
The work of being a good person is to question oneself and the traditional ways of thinking that have created these fallacies in our minds. The trick is to watch the thought come into your mind, and to challenge it each and every time. I meet a French person, I think snob. And then I think, Shut up, sub-conscious, you’re being prejudiced. Give Jean-Pierre a chance. And boom! I’ve taken the first step toward exploding my internal prejudices.
This doesn’t mean that I’m forcing myself to think Jean-Pierre is perfect, but it means I’m going to do my best to see him as an individual, rather than a member of a group that my little diseased brain has a pre-conceived notion about. I remind myself that although Loony Toons taught me weird things about French accents (Pepe Le Pue?), it’s just an accent. It means nothing about a person. This little internal monologue works pretty well, though I’m sure I still screw up sometimes. Who doesn’t?
So I couldn’t help but laugh (and cry inside, a bit) when I read Lindy West’s list of ways in which Hipsters are being racist in their everyday language and actions. And I want to note for the record that I do not fully consider myself a Hipster, as I do not shop Vintage or listen to The Shins. But I will smugly admit to the fact that I own the exact pair of sunglasses the Klan-Hipster in the Jezebel graphic wears, and I ride a skateboard in public. Oh, and my husband has a neck-beard and wears dark-rimmed eyeglasses. As do I (the glasses, not the neck-beard).
♦◊♦
Now that we’re all clear, here are my favorites of West’s main points, synopsized. You’ll have to cruise over there to read the whole thing:
#1: “Tee-Hee, Aren’t I Adorable?” – Basically she asserts that when cutesy little white girls who grew up on the Upper West Side or in Grosse Pointe or Beverly Hills flash gang signs and talk about how “ghetto” something they like is, they’re being racists. Why? Let’s let West explain what’s actually being said when a blonde thing like me uses a hashtag like #thuglife:
“See, it’s hilarious, because we aren’t thugs—we are darling girls, and real thugs are black people who do crime!”
For the record, I’ve never used the hashtag #thuglife. First, I don’t get hashtags at all. Second, I agree with West. It’s obnoxious and presumptuous. I get it that us Hipsters think we’re making fun of ourselves when we make a joke like this, but there’s a sinister underbelly to the joke—the idea that we’re above thug life, that we’re above the ghetto. Mostly because we’re white. But also because the people in the ghetto are others and we are not like them in any way.
I also really dug West’s Point #3: “Ummm, I’m a Writer and I’m Trying to Write in Here!”… It has to do with the righteous indignation some white people have over not being “able” to use the N-word in their writing or language. This is something that has always perplexed me. I hear people say, “Black people can say the N-word, but I can’t? Why not?”
It seems obvious to me why you cannot use the N-word, but somehow this is a hard thing for me to answer. Despite trying probably a dozen times, I’ve never quite found the right words to explain it. But West nails it:
It’s all tied up with the deliberately obtuse people who conflate “freedom of speech” with “immunity from criticism.” You “can” say the n-word. Go ahead and say it if you want, Skrillex. And I will go ahead and give you the world’s most sidewaysiest eyeball forever. Because it hurts people. Why do you want to hurt people?
Nailed it. Because it hurts people. You have a lot of words at your disposal, friends. You don’t need that one.
And as far as your jokes where you say things like “I’m going full-on Heeb here,” or “I’m Negro Tan,” and then you laugh because it’s clear you’re actually not an anti-Semite or a racist, so it’s funny… Well it’s not funny. It’s actually racist! And by saying it, you actually sound like a racist!
And here is where West verbalizes something we all know (or should know) about what makes good comedy funny:
People in positions of power simply cannot make jokes at the expense of the powerless. That’s why, at a company party, you never have a roast where the CEO is roasting the janitor (“Isn’t it funny how Steve can barely feed his family? This guy knows what I’m talking about!” [points to other janitor]).
While I’m not sure “powerless” is the exact right word, I would say the message is true. White people are still in power in this country. You know that little thought experiment: “Name ten very wealthy black people off the top of your head who don’t work in sports or entertainment.” No, seriously, try it right now.
It doesn’t matter who you think you are inside, the world gleans its understanding of who you are by what you say and what you do. Your language defines you, and what’s worse, the language you use defines us as a culture. And I really don’t want our culture defined like that. I know I’m not the boss of all (or any) white people, but seriously, knock that shit off.
Let’s watch our words, friends. They matter. And let’s try to keep an eye on our thoughts while we’re at it, too. Oh, and tell me when I’m wrong and I’m screwing something up. As I said, I’m a product of this culture, too, and I hope you’ll all hold me responsible for doing better every day. Seems to me the best way we can heal all these wounds is by holding one another accountable for doing better.
Another note that is tangentially related: Don’t jokingly call me “bitch” or “whore” or “slut” either. I don’t dig that. That is some Hipster shit that needs to end right now.
Image of a Hipster cat in a hoodie courtesy of penguino.
Image of me in ironically oversized Hipster sunglasses with Hipster road rash from falling off my Hipster skateboard courtesy of myself.
About Joanna Schroeder
I’m probably gonna get ripped to shreds for saying this, but I think people have the right to racist. I think acting out on that racism can be immoral, but if you are targetting the way people think, I think you are overstepping your authority.
Sure, anyone has every right to be racist and even to say racist shit. But everyone else has the right to tell that person that they’re wrong, that they’re a bigot, and that they’re damaging society and hurting people.
I’d never legislate against free speech or against people’s thoughts.
But just because an individual has the *right* to be any way he/she wants, doesn’t mean that they’re not narcissistic, evil jerks who enjoy oppressing people.
And, the good news is, I have the right to tell them that!
“Sure, anyone has every right to be racist and even to say racist shit. But everyone else has the right to tell that person that they’re wrong, that they’re a bigot, and that they’re damaging society and hurting people.”
While I agree with you and will defend our freedom of speech to the death, I think that an important but overlooked issue is one of degree. Particularly that if for example someone prefers dating within their own race, they are not wrong, or a bigot, or damaging society and hurting people. I believe the same goes for any number of racial preferences, from what kind of action figure or doll a little kid wants to play with to what player on a team someone chooses to root for. I think too often this degree of racial preference gets lumped in with racial prejudice, characterized by not just a preference for one’s own race, but a negative view of other races. And then we start calling little Tommy racist because he wants a white G.I. Joe or Claire a racist because she only wants to date black men. To me that’s intolerance of other’s racial preferences, which because they aren’t harming anyone, makes that intolerance the real evil in the equation.
“When it comes to race, we all carry some prejudices. We’ve grown up in a racist society, we simply cannot help but absorb some of those messages”
I think you hit the nail on the head. Race is one of the ways we identify. When we see someone of the same race as us on one particular level we identify with them moreso than someone of a different race, and I don’t think that’s such a bad thing.
The question is, would you rather consolidate being brought up in a racist society and “accept” what judgement by race. or would you rather fight for something better?
I don’t think Racism can ever be minimized, for one thing we are all afflicted with the disease of being partial. It’s going to effect us one way or another, we can’t help it. I have a hard time being around people who have disabilities, especially mental ones. Eventually I was thrust into talking to people with cerebral palsy at my church as well as a woman who is legally blind in one eye.
I also found the chicks who threw gang signs and Ms. Deschanel using thuglife as kind of sad. I pity them because of their ignorance. Thuglife isn’t hip-hop portrays it as, it’s not funny at all. A lot of my family members have been to prison because of drugs, my uncle spent his kids entire lives in prison until his own death (that’s over 20 years). My dad’s uncle went to prison at 70 because he couldn’t stop thugging. I don’t think Andy Reid thought it was cute when he found out his sons were some of Philly’s big-time drug dealers. It was not cute when my cousin almost lost his leg when he got shot.
Recently my cousin (she is Blaxican) went to an HBCU (Historically Black College or University). She and her sister tried to convince my sister that they knew Black culture. My sister knew they didn’t know what was up, everybody in my family knew that. She recently transferred after one year, why? She admitted to my cousin that she wasn’t used to being around a lot of black people. Our feelings weren’t hurt, we laughed because we knew that was going to happen. Things like this is why I feel sad for these girls.
Yeah, you’re making such great points, Spidaman. Fact is, what’s cute about the thug life? What’s cute about prison, about the fear of someone pulling everything you have out from under you due to the fact that you can’t build a steady future with a Roth IRA and a college fund for your kids. Sure it happens that a highly successful member of a gang builds a different future fore his/her kids, but if you gave that person the choice of whether they’d want to be out of their neighborhood, raising their kids in a safe public school system, they’d drop that thug life in a second. Because that life is a result of oppression, the legacy of racism, and lack of opportunities.
Maybe I’m being obtuse right now, and I *know* I don’t know shit about being in a gang. I grew up in such a privileged life, even my damn grandmother went to graduate school for God’s sake. But I really think what you’re saying is true (from my admittedly detached position), and I’m so glad you said it.
I think it’s also admirable that you admitted to your discomfort around disabled people. I think that’s very common, and once you admit it, you can look it in the face. I feel the same way some times. You don’t know what to say and how to react, but if you say to yourself “Shit, I don’t know if what I”m doing is right, but I’m going to be as objective as possible” then you’re making progress with yourself.
Like I said, I have to do it all the time.
You seem like a very open minded person, Joanna and its always good to see people realize that the social constructs are created out of thin air and can easily be deconstructed, but it is not as for people to do as I would hope. You have it right, if people have the chance to do better they will. People steal to eat, because they don’t have the means to buy the food. People steal to sell their stolen goods for money, once again because they don’t have the means. The term to get out of the hood, is meaning they want to get away form the life of crime that for many is the only means for money. When you live in California and all you can land is a min wage jobs, your money goes to bills, so much for enjoying life and saving for a future. The somewhat recent competition for the few decent paying jobs (many times to squeeze higher profit margins) makes it that much worse for people to be optimistic about working a low paying job.
Here is an example. A kid steals a car worth $2000. He gets incarcerated and thousands in fines. But the thing is he only does about $300 in damage while stealing the car. His incarceration and state appointed attorney costs thousands, maybe even $10k+, plus the strike on his criminal record (think long and shortterm). Would it have been cheaper to provide better focus on jobs and education and better wages so people enjoy working, or figuring how to get more funding to the now private prison systems ad keep wages low?
To be honest, I think a lot can be fixed by providing better wages. And to those that say “well you cant force a company to pay what they cant afford, that is right, but if companies that make huge profits paid more to their workers, their workers would have more money, in turn helping those companies that cant afford to pay more. But we live in a extremely profit driven society, is good to be able to reinvest and think of new ideas, but excessiveness is excessiveness, and not good for cultures. This is especially true for instance of processed food companies and companies of old technologies, which want to starve other markets of money, otherwise they have to compete in a real free market, or practice supply-side economics over demand. Many people loved the days of slavery because they made even more profit, free labor. And I am sure many would love for it to still exists, albeit a very small sect. Forced labor still exists these days, but in the form of min wage, which is supplemented by government assistance. People have to deal with terrible working conditions, otherwise they can become homeless, even they already live in poverty or even jailed, yes some laws allow people with collections to be jailed. I dont want to go on any further, but I am not advocating socialism or any of the other symbolic words used these days to evoke political emotion, but just trying to put out there that if people had more to spend, they would result less to worry about the negatives in life, which si easy to see by people who make decent wages are for sure more law abiding citizens and care for where they live, stability. To prove, if people got paid more, I would bet that people would be more caring for their communities and the economy would be much more fluid and strengthened by strong purchasing power available. This could go on and on, many real life examples, but I want to keep it somewhat brief. Not many people have experience with the bigger picture and world as a whole, just like your point with racism, people dont realize it, then again they dont have experience with being discriminated upon or know people who have been discriminated. And with economic inequalities, it is hard for many to accept what is wrong and how things can be improved when they have, i guess a way to put it, grown up in a bubble. Good post!
You’re getting there, slowly, but you’re getting there.
Racism exists everywhere in the world, even in countries where there are no white people to blame.
Even blacks and feminists can be racist.
Oh yeah that remindds me of something else I wanted to say.
There is not a single group affiliation in existence that when you claim it suddely grants you immunity to being -ist.
If you think that since:
you’re a woman you can’t be seixst towards men, you’re wrong.
you’re black you can’t be racist towards whites, you’re wrong.
and so forth and so on.
Yeah, and that’s why I said that we all have prejudices. I admitted to having prejudices against white people and I’m white. But some prejudices are worse than others (though all should be examined) because when you’re part of a group that historically has the power, and you’re prejudiced against a group that historically has been oppressed, those prejudices can be exponentially more damaging if they’re not faced and dealt with.
Oh I agree that you recognize this. But unfortunately a lot of people don’t.
A lot of people use just what you said here as a reason to simply sidestep -isms.
But some prejudices are worse than others (though all should be examined) because when you’re part of a group that historically has the power, and you’re prejudiced against a group that historically has been oppressed, those prejudices can be exponentially more damaging if they’re not faced and dealt with.
This is the exact reasons people like to use when explaining why female against male sexism does not exist or its not as pressing of an issue to deal with as male against female or so on….all the while chirping that it doesn’t matter who has it worse. (My personal favorite example of this being feminists trying to explain why men simply cannot be oppressed over our gender.)
White people cannot be victims of racism. Sorry, they just can’t. Racism, as Joanna correctly states below, is the act of systematically oppressing people based upon race. White people can experience prejudice or stereotyping based on the colour of their skin, but it’s not the same (or anywhere near as severe) as racism because racism is active oppression.
They say it at this article on Social Justice League better than I do.
http://www.socialjusticeleague.net/2012/04/the-revolution-will-not-be-polite-the-issue-of-nice-versus-good/
“They [white people] do not understand that using a racist slur is bad in any sense other than it hurts someone’s feelings. [...]
So if you – the oppressed – hurt someone’s feelings, you’re just like the oppressor, right? Wrong. Oppression is not about hurt feelings. It is about the rights and opportunities that are not afforded to you because you belong to a certain group of people. When you use a racist slur you imply that non-whiteness is a bad thing, and thus publicly reinforce a system that denies POC the rights and opportunities of white people.”
Whereas, if you were to imply that whiteness is a bad, you cannot reinforce the systematic oppression of white people, because the systematic oppression of white people does not exist.
Right well, I think I know some Irish people who’d disagree with you there…but I kind of understand what you’re saying. It’s just that when you say “white people” it’s too broad a group to really portray what I think you’re trying to say.
As an Irish person, the worst racism I have encountered abroad was two wildly offensive pieces of theatre and being called a “mick” by a superior in my job. Prejudice and stereotyping certainly exists around being Irish (as it does around most nationalities) but there is no longer any kind of system in place that deprives us of opportunities and basic rights. In fact, in my travels I’ve found that the whole world seems to love us.
Well first, you didn’t specify whether you were talking about throughout history or just at the moment. I took your statement to mean that white people have never been victims of racism…which is why I mentioned the Irish, well and the Scottish. Basically the English screwed over everyone else on the British Isles at some point…and really not that long ago.
Second, and something I didn’t mention in my first comment, is the problem of using the term ‘white people’ anyway. Arabs could be considered white, for example, but they’ve definitely suffered from systematic oppression in some countries.
Why does Wales and The Welsh always get missed out? P^)
But seriously – It is a pattern of Racism and Negation that runs very deep. I’m Not Welsh or of Welsh Descent, but I know too many “y Gymraeg” who get fed up being missed – and just how “y Gymraeg” lost out long before the Irish and Scots did!
There were major Emigration Forcers in Ireland (Potatoe Famine) and Scotland (Highland Clearance – the Cheviot and the Stag) – and in Wales that did not occur, due to the natural resources of Coal, Iron, Copper and Slate – the indigenous people were kept and used to fuel the Industrial Revolution.
Don’t worry, I didn’t forget the Welsh. I figured saying “everyone else on the British Isles,” would include the Welsh…and the people on all the other little islands, because I’m not sure whether something like the Isle of Mann, or Orkney Isles, or whatever were ever considered separate and their own identity, historically. I imagine they were…thus…’everyone else.’
HeatherN, point noted, “white people” is an amorphous term, though I think most people don’t include Arabs in their mental conception of white people. I guess when I say “white people” I mean “people who benefit from white privilege,” which many middle-Eastern, Hispanic or Asian ethnic groups most certainly do not.
And even though I’m well aware of the long history of Irish oppression at the hands of the English, I have difficulty viewing it as racism. They didn’t invade and colonize us specifically because we were Irish and they hated the Irish, they colonized us because we were THERE. Right next door, still working on a clan system, with no real central government, no infrastructure and no organized method of defending ourselves. As a friend of mine once said, if British colonization was a videogame, Ireland would be the tutorial level.
An act of violent colonization, yes, but I just can’t think of it as an act of racism.
And the European colonialists didn’t invade and oppress the people of Africa because they were African…they did it because they were there. Racism (and ethnocentrism) was used as a justification for the systematic oppression of Africans both in Africa and back in the colonial countries. What you pointed out, having a clan system and without infrastructure…that’s exactly why colonizing Africa worked as effectively as it did. It’s not exactly the same, of course…but then the colonization and suppression of every region is slightly different to each other. And with the Irish, Scottish and Welsh the color of their skin wasn’t at issue. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t racism…the English viewed the people from those other places as barbaric and not-quite-human-enough.
As for your phrase, “people who benefit from white privilege,” well that’s highly contextual. The ethnic and national identities that benefit from white privilege in the U.S. will be different than the people who benefit from ethnic privilege in another country, like say Israel.
I agree that racial privilege exists, but what I took issue with is the idea that “white people have never experienced racism.” It’s too essentialist…saying that validates the idea that there actually is something as a ‘white’ identity and it suggests that identity is static. The reality is that who is considered ‘white’ (or perhaps a better term is racially superior) is actually quite fluid and it depends on what part of the world you’re talking about.
So if you – the oppressed – hurt someone’s feelings, you’re just like the oppressor, right? Wrong. Oppression is not about hurt feelings. It is about the rights and opportunities that are not afforded to you because you belong to a certain group of people. When you use a racist slur you imply that non-whiteness is a bad thing, and thus publicly reinforce a system that denies POC the rights and opportunities of white people.”
And besides who said its just about hurt feelings? A few days ago a white man was beaten by a group of black people and the cops are not even looking at a hate crime angle even though according to the only witness one of the attackers was heard shouting something about “this is justice for trayvon”. Or in general this attitude that its okay to insult white people because “its only hurting their feelings” or “its okay they’re white” or whatever reason.
No I’m not trying to say its “just like what white people have done to black people” (which seems to be the common accusation that people fall back on in this case). In fact I wouldn’t do that because it pretty much defines racism as “something whites have done to blacks” (similar to have sexism has been nicely redefined as “something that men do to women”).
Its odd that people would say in one breath that its not about who has it worse but in the next when something comes along they don’t agree with they start with accussing people of making certain equivalencies, declare them false, and then declare a win.
Whereas, if you were to imply that whiteness is a bad, you cannot reinforce the systematic oppression of white people, because the systematic oppression of white people does not exist.
Who said anything about systemic? I see the difference between the systemtic and the individual. Its just that a lot of people are such a rush to determine what is systemic and what is individual that they often times erase the individual (while at the same time going on about how the systemic is what’s being erased).
Now if you want to talk about individual -isms vs. systemic -isms I’m all game.
A white man being beaten as “justice for Trayvon” is a horrific thing to happen, but I do not view it as a switch in “oppressor vs. oppressed” roles. I view at as an oppressed group lashing out (in a violent and criminal way) against a system that will not take a white man into custody even after he has admitted to following and shooting a defenseless black teenager in cold blood. I do not think black people are incapable of doing racially-motivated violence to white people, in the example you cited specifically, I see it as a symptom of a society that is fundamentally racist against black people
I take your point about individual -isms vs. systemic -isms, but I don’t feel that the two are mutually exclusively. As a white person, I think it’s far more important to change our thinking with regards to the systemic racism black people experience every day rather than fight for my right to use the word “racist” with regards to my own experiences. The word “racist” carries a huge amount of clout, and I don’t think it’s useful or helpful when white people appropriate it to describe individual experiences where they were targeted because of the colour of their skin. Of course, people can and will use the word anyway they want, but I still believe a white person crying RACIST undermines the fact that white western society is still profoundly and overwhelmingly racist against black people. It always reads as an attempt to put us all on equal footing when it comes to oppression, in a “just like what white people have done to black people” kind of way.
A white man being beaten as “justice for Trayvon” is a horrific thing to happen, but I do not view it as a switch in “oppressor vs. oppressed” roles.
Good because I don’t recall anyone here myself included saying it was.
I view at as an oppressed group lashing out (in a violent and criminal way) against a system that will not take a white man into custody even after he has admitted to following and shooting a defenseless black teenager in cold blood. I do not think black people are incapable of doing racially-motivated violence to white people, in the example you cited specifically, I see it as a symptom of a society that is fundamentally racist against black people
Call it what you want but if this story is true it looks like he was attacked for the specific reason of being white. That’s all no more no less. The amount of “historical examination” can explain away the racism of it. Yes I agree that what Zimmerman did was terrible that doesn’t just magically poof away the fact that this other guy was attacked because of his race.
I take your point about individual -isms vs. systemic -isms, but I don’t feel that the two are mutually exclusively.
Possible but isn’t the argument that something cannot be racist because it is not systemic in effect creating the exclusivity that results in people declaring something is or is not racist by that measurement?
As a white person, I think it’s far more important to change our thinking with regards to the systemic racism black people experience every day rather than fight for my right to use the word “racist” with regards to my own experiences.
Who said anything about a fight? Personally I’d like to see it all done away with whether a given person would call it racist or not in the long run.
The word “racist” carries a huge amount of clout, and I don’t think it’s useful or helpful when white people appropriate it to describe individual experiences where they were targeted because of the colour of their skin.
But is it about one group appropriating it or another group trying to grant itself immunity from being on the receiving end of that clout?
It always reads as an attempt to put us all on equal footing when it comes to oppression, in a “just like what white people have done to black people” kind of way
Again that was nowhere near what my line of thought was. In fact I’d dare to say that the people who make that accusation are casting a strawperson in order to satisfy their own egos, agenda, or whatever etc…
Again I don’t think saying that this event was an act of racism does anything to diminish the fact that what happened to Trayvon was racism.
Danny,
You make some great points, but it’s not going to be worth it.
Look at this statement she makes:
” I do not think black people are incapable of doing racially-motivated violence to white people, in the example you cited specifically, I see it as a symptom of a society that is fundamentally racist against black people”
There is no way to read this statement that is not dehumanizing to black people. No matter what the argument boils down to the idea that black people are incapable of making individual choices.
This is very convenient for people who think the way she seems to, as it removes the major roadblock to all of her arguments: that the current status of the black community reflects, in large part, choices made by its members.
People who want to talk about systemic oppression and institutional racism cannot allow anyone to assume agency on the part of an “oppressed” person, because agency brings with it responsibility. If agency is allowed, then the current situation is not entirely the fault of white people, but rather a confluence of historical choices made by both the black and white communities. Obviously this creates cognitive dissonance if you don’t want to place any responsibility with the black community, so you rationalize away their humanity in the easiest fashion: you make pretend that they lack individual choice.
At best it’s incredibly white-centric, as you assume that the black community does not build and grow in its own right, but rather exists in a solely reactionary state to the white community.
At worst it’s paternalistic if not outright dehumanizing. You assume that the community is nothing more than the sum of oppression without any ability to make its own choices or win its own victories.
Arguing with someone who thinks this way isn’t worth your time. They are already dehumanizing an entire community and cannot see it: they’re not going to see reason elsewhere either.
Hi Mike L,
Firstly, I can read, so I would appreciate if you would not refer to me as “she” and speak over my head. I was under the impression that I was participating in a conversation. There’s absolutely no need to assume I am unreasonable human being until I have proven myself otherwise.
Secondly, if my phrasing could be seen as dehumanizing the black community, which was absolutely not my intention, I apologize. As a white person, I still have a lot of navigating and renegotiating to do when it comes to the way I think about race. I do not think “that the current status of the black community reflects, in large part, choices made by its members.” I don’t really know how you got that from anything I said. But nor do I think the current state of racial relations is a result of “a confluence of historical choices made by both the black and white communities.” I think it is a result of white communities dehumanizing black people by consistently denying their right to choice, agency and responsibility.
You seem to be telling me that I both think that “that the current status of the black community reflects, in large part, choices made by its members” and I “don’t want to place any responsibility with the black community” by pretending they “lack individual choice.” So I’m kind of confused by that, I don’t really see how I could be saying both.
I do believe that systemic oppression and institutional racism exist, but I don’t think that means I “cannot allow anyone to assume agency on the part of an “oppressed” person.”
Danny, you make some really good points. “Possible but isn’t the argument that something cannot be racist because it is not systemic in effect creating the exclusivity that results in people declaring something is or is not racist by that measurement?”
This is particularly good question and something I’m going to have to think about for a while.
“But is it about one group appropriating it or another group trying to grant itself immunity from being on the receiving end of that clout?”
Ultimately, I think when the term racist is used to describe racially-motivated attacks (verbal or physical) on white people, the intent is skewed towards the former rather than the latter. That’s my opinion.
Marianne Cassidy,
I didn’t address you because you and I are never going to agree. I’m not really sure it’s worth discussing anything with you as a result.
I’ve heard all your arguments before (I recognize them as a combination of those made by Ethnic/Gender/Area Studies professors), and they’re just flat out wrong.
The problem is that the vast majority are built on un-provable tautologies, so if you already accept the arguments, it’s too late for you.
At the end of the day our difference of opinion will always be some variation of the following:
I believe that the current status of minority communities reflects, in large part, the choices made by the members of those communities, and therefore the responsibility for the current situation rests with the members of the community. Sure, racism has an impact, but it’s small compared to the actual choices made by the individuals involved.
You will disagree, and claim that the larger part of the status is explained by “institutional racism” or some other theory, which I will reject because it lacks empirical backing (Ethnic Studies not being known for its statistical rigor).
There is no way past this because I will be unwilling to accept arguments that are not empirically based (I was trained as an economist), and you will be unwilling to acknowledge that theories which lack empirical backing should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
“So if you – the oppressed – hurt someone’s feelings, you’re just like the oppressor, right? Wrong. Oppression is not about hurt feelings.”
Huh? Of course its about hurt feelings! Its always about hurt feelings. I hate this bullshit. Feminism is about hurt feelings. Civil rights is about hurt feelings. Men’s rights is about hurt feelings. Islam is about hurt feelings. ITS ALL HURT FEELINGS. Insecurities, fears and hurt feelings.
This is the reason its hard to argue with people about these issues. You aren’t arguing with reasons. You are arguing with deep insecurities, fears and hurt feelings. Instead we blather on about economic opportunities, systematic oppression….blah, blah, blah. But the reality is and has always been that its all about feelings and mostly hurt ones. That is what motivates people.
Apart from Islam (which I know very little about, but as far as I know, it’s a religion and not an equality movement so kind of seems like the odd one out on that list) all the movements you cited are not based on hurt feelings. They are based on a particular group of people wanting what they perceive as the same rights and opportunities afforded to other demographics. Of course, hurt feelings come into play and people get very emotional and impassioned about causes they strongly believe in. But hurt feelings, in and of themselves, are not oppression. They are a symptom, not the disease.
“White people cannot be victims of racism. Sorry, they just can’t. Racism, as Joanna correctly states below, is the act of systematically oppressing people based upon race. White people can experience prejudice or stereotyping based on the colour of their skin, but it’s not the same (or anywhere near as severe) as racism because racism is active oppression.”
Of course, they can. It’s almost unbelievable that you think that they can’t be. To state that white people cannot be victims of racism is actually a racist statement. I’ll give you some examples to help you out.
What about the systematically oppressed, dispossessed and murdered white farmer minority in Zimbabwe? That’s racism against and oppression of the white minority by the black majority.
What about the Irish? Systematically oppressed for hundreds of years, their land and language stolen by the English. Only to be further discriminated against once they came America.
The white slave trade, starting in the 16th century that continued up to the 19th century?
Personally, I have experienced racism as a white person first hand when I lived in Asia. And my own government discriminates against me for federal jobs in favour of minorities and women.
I am Irish. I have a detailed knowledge of my own history, and yes, we were historically oppressed, but that was white men at the hands of white men and I don’t really see how it can be construed as racially motivated discrimination, since we’re all Caucasian. Also, the residue of that oppression has been all but erased. If anything, being Irish benefits me greatly when I go abroad. I have encountered a incidents of prejudice that made me uncomfortable, but no door has ever been closed to me because of my nationality.
I know nothing about the farmer minority in Zimbabwe (though I would hazard a guess that the acts of violence committed by black majority are motivated a long history of white colonization) or I’ve never heard of white slavery except in relation to sex-trafficking (and it was called white slavery specifically to distinguish it from black slavery, not because the victims were pre-dominantly white) but I will read into both in more detail.
I have no idea what your experiences in Asia were, so I can’t comment on them. I point-blank do not believe affirmative action is discrimination.
I am Irish. I have a detailed knowledge of my own history, and yes, we were historically oppressed, but that was white men at the hands of white men and I don’t really see how it can be construed as racially motivated discrimination, since we’re all Caucasian.
you hold to the victorianesque notions of phenotype as race.
but thats not how people saw themselves in the past.
the fact that the neighbouring group sortof looked like you didnt mean anything, didnt mean you had anything in common with them. they were from a different stock, who had a different way of thinking, who had broadly different mental characteristics. race, racial boundaries were what we call ethnicity now. and different ethnic groups who were neighbours perceived themselves as starkly different to each other as the racial phenotypers believe each phenotype to be ie. a completely different kind of human grouping with different mental characteristics, natures.
the irish were seen as a different stock, a different race to the english. they were seen as racially inferior, they were depicted as monkeys in cartoons. telling an average 16th century english or irish person that they were the same because they were ‘white’ would have gotten you the same look that you would give me, if i took brown eyes to be the defining feature of a racial identity and said that all brown eyed people are the same race.
Obviously “white” people can experience extreme forms of racism at the hands of other “white” people. I’d say the Nazi genocide campaigns against Poles and Russians would be a great example. (Unless all of a sudden Eastern Europeans are not white?) It would be odd to label Jewish people as white and also say that no white people have ever faced racism.
At the very least, I think you’d have to admit that some people we might label as “white” today haven’t always had white privilege relative to “other whites.”
Wellokaythen,
Obviously “white” people can experience extreme forms of racism at the hands of other “white” people.
I think you really need to go look up the definition of racism…
Anyways, anti-Semitism is not the same as racism. I’m Jewish, and I’ve lived with anti-Semitism all my life — they’re not the same. Moreover, not all Jews are White; just look at a picture of Drake or Sammy Davis Jr.
I agree that people today called White didn’t always have clear-cut White privilege, but that doesn’t change the reality that groups like the Irish, White Jews, and Italians weren’t oppressed because of their race but because of their nationality or ethnicity or religion. These are fundamentally different forms of oppression.
Calling the above things racism when they are in fact not is too often used to diminish real criticisms of racism by historically marginalized racial groups. And it really bothers me when random people who don’t know a thing about anti-Semitism, or even care about anti-Semitism, start using it to justify their own ideologies. It’s subversion and appropriation at its worst.
Anti-Semitism CAN be a form of a racism. If someone is the target of genocide based on ideas about their genes, or an idea that they are biologically inferior or unclean or because their existence is thought to “threaten the purity of the master race,” then I would call that racism. Nazi ideology did not just think of Jewish people as the wrong religion or wrong nationality or wrong ethnic group. The Nazis treated Jews as a kind of racial enemy. I’d call that racism. Of course being Jewish doesn’t imply being “white.” But, Jewish people have been treated as racially “Other” across history, so why don’t the equal opportunity forms reflect this in their categories?
You’re right, discrimination of the basis of nationality or ethnic ancestry or religion is not exactly the same as racism, but historically racism sure has had a role to play in those things. The distinction between a racial slur and an ethnic slur seems pretty vague in a lot of cases. In 1900 in New York City, you could see shops with a sign in the window that said “No Niggers. No dogs. No Irish.” Was that racism against African Americans but nationality discrimination against Irish Americans? I’d call putting other groups on the level of dogs as a good example of racism.
P.S. I’m guessing I’m one of those “random people” in this case? If so, I’d like to know how I go about becoming a non-random person. I’m also trying to figure out what my ideology is. Perhaps someone else can tell me what my ideological motivations are?
Anti-Semitism CAN be a form of a racism.
No, it isn’t.
Please stop saying this because it is incredibly offensive. It’s not only offensive to me, but offensive to Jews of Color too who have to face both racism and anti-Semitism. Please understand: anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism and racism is racism. They are distinctly different forms of oppression. I am really uncomfortable having to repeat myself about something which I not only have knowledge in, but having actually lived through.
The distinction between a racial slur and an ethnic slur seems pretty vague in a lot of cases.
Really? Because as I recall nobody’s keeping Italians out of the jury box. The Irish are not given harsher sentences for committing the same crimes as other Whites — but that does happen to Black people. White Jews are not denied housing, jobs, or loans because they have a “Jewish-sounding last name”. Nobody’s approaching any ethnic group of White people and telling them to go back to Europe. These things all happen to People of Color in America on a daily basis.
I’m not going to tell you what to believe, or who to be, because first you need stop acting like you know more about the lived experiences of other people than they do themselves. You can’t see if you refuse to look. You can’t hear if you refuse to listen. But watch me telling you right now: anti-Semitism is not the same as racism. As a Jew having suffered from extreme anti-Semitism all my life, from jack-boots in my face to vandalism of my synagogue, I know what I’m talking about.
I admit I still don’t understand. The Nazi view of Jewish people was not a form of racism? Even when the Nazis referred to Jews as a “racial enemy”? When they killed people just for having Jewish ancestors, even people who were patriotic German citizens? I have been under the assumption that when someone labels someone else an inferior race that is an example of racism. I feel comfortable saying that racially-defined genocide is an act of racism. Were the Nazis not actually racist even though they said they were? Again, I’m not saying ALL anti-Semitism is racism, but there is at least one example of a clear overlap. I am also not saying that Jews actually WERE a separate race, just that the Nazis viewed them that way. That seems like a textbook definition of racism to me.
I also don’t understand how I’m denying anyone’s experience by saying that Nazi ideology was racist. If the Nazis were not racist, then wow, I have clearly been operating under the wrong definition of racism.
I admit I still don’t understand. The Nazi view of Jewish people was not a form of racism?
Bingo! It’s anti-Semitism.
Again, I’m not saying ALL anti-Semitism is racism, but there is at least one example of a clear overlap. I am also not saying that Jews actually WERE a separate race, just that the Nazis viewed them that way. That seems like a textbook definition of racism to me.
No, there really isn’t. Because you’re looking at Jews as belonging all to one race — but they don’t. They really don’t. It’s textbook anti-Semitism, but not textbook racism.
I also don’t understand how I’m denying anyone’s experience by saying that Nazi ideology was racist. If the Nazis were not racist, then wow, I have clearly been operating under the wrong definition of racism.
When Jesse Owens beat Hitler’s “master-race” at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, that was a textbook case showing Nazi racism. When Joe Louis beat Max Schmeling and showed that Nazi racist ideology regarding Black people was bunk… that was a textbook case showing Nazi racism.
Nobody say’s Nazi’s weren’t racist. But saying they were racist against Jews is an insult to Jews, Jews of Color, and People of Color because you’re changing the very real experiences that happened to these groups to suit your own personal ideology. It’s minimizing, dismissive, and ignorant.
Seriously, how many times am I going to have to explain it to you? Stop looking for a way to be right when I, as a Jew, am telling you’re wrong about anti-Semitism. You’re continued efforts to prove that you are right when you are clearly wrong is a textbook example of privilege — when people privilege their ideas about certain groups’ experiences over the people in that group who actually have the experience.
I agree with you about systemic racism, but I don’t agree with the argument that it is impossible to be racist against white people or people in power or whatever. I get the sociological definition of racism that you are citing, however, sociologists are not the arbiters of what words mean in the English language. Racism means hostility or dislike of someone solely because of their race; that’s the commonly understood meaning so I think you are fighting an uphill battle.
So my mother, who is white and works at a place where, by what I’ve heard from her descriptions, ass many as 80% of the people there are black, and has been passed up for better jobs and certain opportunities just because she’s white–and has been TOLD this to her face, so she doesn’t have to guess– and has put up with stuff that would have gotten her fired years ago if she did herself, is not a victim of racism? Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Saying you can’t be racist against whites is a cop-out to allow people to harbor hatred, or at least dislike, against people. I’m not going to say something stupid like white people are oppressed or greatly discriminated against like some people do but saying they can’t be victims of racism is asinine. The dictionary agrees with me, I looked at 3 different definitions and none of them say anything remotely close to what you list as the definition. All this does is excuse hatred which helps out no one.
One other thing I forgot to mention, but felt needs mentioning here. I’m not trying to minimize the effects of “white racism.” It’s very real and can be very destructive. But it in no way means no one else can hate whites just due to their skin color either. I have no idea why people can’t figure this out. I suspect people can but won’t admit it because it doesn’t support their own beliefs.
Personally, I think part of the problem is the way that the term ‘racism’ can take on so many different meanings. There’s overarching institutional racism and individual racism. And then there’s something like heteronormativity, only with white people…white-normativity, or something. i.e. when the stereotypical ‘white’ way of living is considered the norm and deviating from that is considered deviant. Which, even the term ‘white’ is problematic, really. So yeah, I think part of the issue is that we’re discussing rather intricate and nuanced social and cultural norms with a limited language.
“because when you’re part of a group that historically has the power, and you’re prejudiced against a group that historically has been oppressed, those prejudices can be exponentially more damaging if they’re not faced and dealt with.”
The glaring problem I see with what you said is your use of the word “historically.” For instance, just because women were “historically” oppressed (a point which I contend but we’ll leave that for another day) does not in any way shape or form mean that they are currently oppressed. And if we are going to deal with reality, we ought to be paying attention to the present circumstances, not some oft paraded history.
I know right?
On one hand men can’t mention the draft in regards to male disposability but its okay for women to still talk about how their grandmothers where the first generation of women in their families to be able to vote.
Seemed to me that there were 2 different meanings of racism at play in the discussion Marianne was having with everyone.
1. Racism as any prejudice or discrimination or bigotry based on race. Micro-aggressions.
2. Racism as any prejudice or discrimination or bigotry based on one race’s inherent superiority over others backed by efforts to support that notion. Systemic racism.
I believe Whites in America can suffer #1, but not #2. Calling me a cracker may hurt my feelings, but it doesn’t contribute to my overall oppression in society because White people are not oppressed in society based on their Whiteness. (As opposed to their class, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion, etc.)
Notably, Irish people were never discriminated based on race, only on ethnicity, which is notably different. In this way, it compares more to anti-Semitism than racism. However, the farmers in Zimbabwe could be an argument for racism against Whites IF Zimbabwe had not be going through a period of post-colonialism whereby Whites originally oppressed the majority Black population. This doesn’t justify it, of course, but it does change what it is.
As for affirmative action. That is not racism. And that is also a red herring. Most colleges are majority White, and majority rich. I notice very few people who protest affirmative action concurrently protest legacies and the like. The point of affirmative action is to address current levels of systemic racism whereby even if a person as “Black-sounding name” they will be denied acceptance to an institution, a job, a home-loan, etc. Obviously affirmative action isn’t perfect though, primarily because it actually only benefits White women! Surprise, no? Very few affirmative action candidates are Black, or another racial minority. Most are White women, and this is a curious detail typically left out of such arguments.
Overall though, there’s a lot of problems in the entire discussion — on both sides. Seemingly few people actually brought any educated opinion on the topic. I noticed few people mention important aspects of racism that are 101-type stuff: White privilege, fallacious flip, empowerment does not imply disenfranchisement, having Black friends (or knowing Black people or any Person of Color) does not stop you from being racist, anti-racism should be focused on effect not intention, and other points.
I suggest the commenters in this thread study up on this topic, because it’s strange to see so many talking about an issue seemingly without any knowledge base. Like not even cursory background info or knowing the proper definitions of the words they use.
Seemed to me that there were 2 different meanings of racism at play in the discussion Marianne was having with everyone.
1. Racism as any prejudice or discrimination or bigotry based on race. Micro-aggressions.
2. Racism as any prejudice or discrimination or bigotry based on one race’s inherent superiority over others backed by efforts to support that notion. Systemic racism.
I believe Whites in America can suffer #1, but not #2. Calling me a cracker may hurt my feelings, but it doesn’t contribute to my overall oppression in society because White people are not oppressed in society based on their Whiteness. (As opposed to their class, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion, etc.)
Actually that is what I was trying to say to start with. The individual racism I spoke of would fit your definition one and the systemic racism I spoke of would fit your definition two. At no point did I try to say that someone calling you a name or the attack on that white guy in the name of justice for Trayvon was a systemic problem.
On the other hand most people would say that since your definition one doesn’t have a systemic element to it it cannot be racism (and funny thing is there is a tumblr called Microaggressions and unless that site has changed up its definitions microaggressions don’t count unless they are against a so called historically oppressed group meaning that you example of getting called a name wouldn’t even be considered a microaggression).
Overall though, there’s a lot of problems in the entire discussion — on both sides. Seemingly few people actually brought any educated opinion on the topic. I noticed few people mention important aspects of racism that are 101-type stuff: White privilege, fallacious flip, empowerment does not imply disenfranchisement, having Black friends (or knowing Black people or any Person of Color) does not stop you from being racist, anti-racism should be focused on effect not intention, and other points.
As far as white privilege and the “I’m not racist….I have black friends!” I not being mentioned I kinda just took it as an understanding that that the majority of folks here would be in agreement on them therefore no need to being them up.
As a college-level instructor who works with those colleagues I can tell you that passing a college 101 class on race, class, and gender is NOT necessarily a good basis for learning any particular “truth” about oppression. It would be great if that were the case, but indoctrination into a particular ideology is not quite the same thing as developing critical faculties based on objective truth. (Many of the people teaching about oppression will also say that there’s no such thing as objective truth, which is another big challenge to using “the truth” to fight racism.)
In response to an earlier comment about denying the experience of millions of people: Actually, it is entirely possible for millions of people to be wrong about their conclusions. Their feelings are perfectly valid of course, but that does not mean that their interpretations are correct just because they come to similar conclusions. The weight of numbers does not make a statement true. That’s the “appeal to numbers” fallacy. If we followed the fallacy of mass belief, then the earth is flat and slavery is perfectly justified and the stars are just pieces of light.
Wellokaythen,
I think a basic understanding of terms like White privilege, racism, oppression, hegemony, micro-aggression, fallacious flip, empowerment does not imply disenfranchisement, and the “I have Black friends” defense are important if one wants to be able to have an educated, nuanced, and productive discussion of racism. Otherwise, it inevitably devolves into either colorblindness (everything would be great if we just forget about race!) or more racism (PoC are making things up). You yourself have often stumbled over these issues — and it’s sad to see so many doing so when generations of anti-racists, activists, advocates, writers, thinkers, artists, and more have already explained them countless times over. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and yet people will still complain that they can’t see.
With regards to and to my comments about denying the lived experiences of millions of people… I’m not talking about slavery or the Flat Earth Society. I’m talking about millions of people saying, “what you’re doing is hurting us — what’s happening is oppressing us.”
It’s entirely plausible for massive numbers of people to be wrong about something. I know when I think of how entire nations and religions turned a blind-eye to the Holocaust and the genocide of my ancestors. But denying the painful experiences of other people — not theories or ideas, but things that have actually happened to them — is victim-blaming.
Again, these questions have already been addressed *so many* times over. I really urge you to continue learning about it — start with W.E.B. Du Bois and Frantz Fanon. Give Malcolm X or Tim wise a try. Look into Bayard Rustin. Listen to the Vine Deloria Jr. Seriously, there’s so much information out there about these issues and why we need to do something about them. All you need to do is look.
I appreciate your empathy for what looks like my “stumbling.” My perspective is that the path I am being asked to follow is full of holes, so I can see how my stepping carefully and calling attention to the quicksand looks like stumbling. (Perhaps what I see as refusing to drink the Kool-Aid may look like choking, or perhaps some sort of institutionalized beverage intolerance.)
As far as I can tell, I am quite familiar with terms such as “white privilege,” and I do think it accurately describes some particular phenomena. I disagree with its use in some cases, and I think it is subject to a wide range of valid interpretation. The “truth” about white privilege is not the same kind of truth as the truth about gravity.
Thanks for the brief bibliography. I have in fact read most of those authors. I may have come to different conclusions than the ones you have. Perhaps that is stumbling on my part as well?
As for “everything would be great if we could forget about race!”, I can see how that could be used to sweep things under the rug, but on the other hand, isn’t the point of fighting racism to create a society at some point where racism doesn’t exist, or at least where ‘racial’ differences don’t make any difference to contemporary people? That doesn’t mean no one would ever talk about the history of racism, but isn’t the goal to make a society where everyone CAN forget about race for a while? I know that’s often considered one characteristic of white privilege — the ability of white people to ignore racism in their daily lives. (Did I get that right?) Sounds great; why not extend that luxury to everyone?
Perhaps I’m naïve, but I keep thinking maybe we could at least try to practice that for once and see what happens. Or, at least create some relatively colorblind situation and use it as a model for other parts of society. At some point that has to happen.
My perspective is that the path I am being asked to follow is full of holes, so I can see how my stepping carefully and calling attention to the quicksand looks like stumbling.
You see holes because you refuse to acknowledge certain parts of reality that contradict your own beliefs, but which represent the realities of so many Americans throughout our history, and today.
I can tell because you said this:
Perhaps I’m naïve, but I keep thinking maybe we could at least try to practice that for once and see what happens. Or, at least create some relatively colorblind situation and use it as a model for other parts of society. At some point that has to happen.
And forgot about this:
http://www.timwise.org/2010/09/new-study-colorblindness-reduces-kids-ability-to-see-challenge-racism/
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-36-fall-2009/colorblindness-new-racism
http://www.theroot.com/views/colorblind-racism
Colorblindness hasn’t just been tried — it’s been adopted as a smokescreen for countless acts of racism in this country! It’s been used to justify continuing systemic racism in the courts, in schools, in politics — throughout the fabric of American life.
You want others to believe you know best how to deal with racism, but it’s the people suffering from racism who know best how to deal with it. And they’ve already said how: stop doing it! Stop being racist. Check your privilege. Listen to what People of Color have to say. Make real efforts to redress past inequality and produce equal opportunities.
Seriously, I feel like I’m repeating myself all over this thread.
Zek, this is an articulate and informative comment, thank you! Your distinction re: micro-aggressions and systemic racisms is very useful.
In agreement with Danny, I didn’t bring up white privilege or the “But I have black friends!” fallacy because I took for granted that everyone participating in this discussion are aware that these things exist.
Since everyone is racist (except me) wouldn’t the first act in combating racism be to admit that being a racist is natural? Of course peeing in your pants is natural, but I wouldn’t recommend doing that on a regular basis either.
Racism is the act of systematically oppressing people based upon race.
Prejudice is the biased thinking toward groups that we all have inside of us.
Prejudice, if challenged within ourselves and within our communities, doesn’t have to become racism.
And, no, I don’t think we’re all racists.
More accurately, racism is a set of arbitrary cultural ideas grouping people into “racial” categories. The whole idea that “races” exist is a racist concept. It is actually motivated by many reasons and has many effects. There are racist ideas that don’t seem racist because they seem so uplifting and politically astute but that are still racist. (See my comment below.)
Racism is not just overt negative treatment of one people to benefit other people. Racism can also take the shape of “positive stereotypes” used to counter negative ones, but those are still racist and still ultimately negative towards the people trying to be “rescued.” Racism is not just oppressing people based on race. Racism is also trying to uplift people or defend people based on racial categories.
I think one of the easiest and most common ways to derail a conversation is by redefining terms.
Racism is not an act, it is a belief. All isms are beliefs. You can act on racist beliefs but you cannot commit a racism.
Short post, but it was a good one. The definition of racism being used often changes to suit one’s argument in my experience. The overall usage has even changed in my lifetime. When I was a kid (not all that long ago either, I’m 27) racism was, roughly speaking, treating someone different because of their race. Now? The fastest way to be called racist is to treat everyone the same regardless of their racial heritage. When did it change? I have my suspicions it was politically motivated.
Joanna,
When you argue using “definitions” you know that your arguments are all tautologies, right?
I believe changing definitions in the middle of argument is technically “equivocation” and not a tautology, though I may be misremembering my logic class. Certainly definitions can be set up to create a tautology.
What’s great about circular reasoning is that it’s so unbreakable. No seams.
If one is racist, sexist, and/or homophobic, and doesn’t want to be but hasn’t yet been able to work through and eliminate one’s racist, sexist, and/or homophobic emotional reactions, should one admit them to one’s African-American, Hispanic, Asian, female, and LBGT friends?
For the record, I’ve never used the hashtag #thuglife. First, I don’t get hashtags at all. Second, I agree with West. It’s obnoxious and presumptuous. I get it that us Hipsters think we’re making fun of ourselves when we make a joke like this, but there’s a sinister underbelly to the joke—the idea that we’re above thug life, that we’re above the ghetto. Mostly because we’re white. But also because the people in the ghetto are others and we are not like them in any way.
In other words, “Well yeah those other peopledo it but since we aren’t those other people its funny/hip/cool when we do it.”
Yeah, Lindy West is so fricking funny and smart. I love her even when I don’t 100% agree.
I’ll make it more simple: It’s funny because there’s absolutely NO threat that I’m ever going to have to live in the ghetto or resort to being a “thug” to survive and feed my family.
Another major reason why racism is alive and well is because it is NOT just overt hatred wrapped up in negative stereotypes. Racism also carries insidious negative stereotypes disguised as “positive” stereotypes, and the pseudo-positive myths are the ones that are the hardest to break. A lot of them are just retreads of older, more blatantly nasty myths. Some of the most extreme forms of racism don’t look like racism because they seem like such “positive” ways of looking at people of color.
For example, I’ve noticed a pretty big unspoken assumption among my white liberal friends that people of color are just inherently more spiritual, more in tune with the natural forces of the universe, more mystical in their outlooks. The find African-American Christians perfectly charming and white suburban Christianity totally offensive. It’s “just different” when a black woman says the word “Jesus” than when a white guy says the word “Jesus.” As an agnostic I don’t think there should be any difference, but the well-trained white liberal part of me can’t let go of the idea that the two references are entirely different, based on the color of the speaker.
It is also much more acceptable for people of color to engage in auto-stereotyping, i.e., “if you’re not ___, you just can’t understand.” Most often this is about something positive, a distinct source of pride, a racial/ethnic mutant superpower that others simply don’t have access to. Many white people look on these special traits with envy. And I mean real envy, not just irony. Think about what it means to “have soul.” Be honest with yourself. Is this really something we think white people can really have and still be white people? If the answer is no, then bear in mind that is still a form of anti-black racism even though it looks like something positive on the surface. Saying some race/ethnic group has an inside track on spirituality is just another way of saying those people are superstitious and irrational. Sure, let’s say white people are soul-less workaholic robots who can’t dance and can’t dunk. Clearly an anti-white slur, right? Except it’s also a slur against nonwhite people, who are of course too busy dancing and enjoying life to get any work done or plan for the future at all, and explains why whites are the coaches and blacks are the players. Positive, negative, negative, positive, it’s all the same garbage.
Assuming people in Group X are “just naturally good at ___” is still a form of racism, and it’s one of the hardest forms to get rid of, because a lot of people are heavily invested in it, because it sounds so affirming and positive and such a great antidote to all that negative energy. But, it’s still the same racist garbage repackaged. Black people are good at dancing, and Jewish people are great with money, and Asians are good at math. These are praiseworthy things, so how could these statements ever be racist, right?
Racism disguised as empowerment is still a form of racism. Seriously fighting all forms of racism would require people letting go of the positive stereotypes as well. It’s easy to nail people for the overtly negative slurs, but harder to get them to let go of positive racial pride, even though the positives are often just negatives in disguise.
Great post. I can certainly identify with what you are saying, especially with regard to church/ spirituality.. Having attended both black and white churches, I can see the difference between each culture’s expectations on how spirituality is shown/ experienced.. Liberals and conservatives do look down on the other’s ‘spritual experience’. A shame, because the faith itself is a common denominator, and the glue that would bind the one to the other is often ignored.
I completely disagree with the #thuglife discussion. I think it is actually racist to assume that someone using #thuglife is racist.
Hipsters aren’t racist, they are classist. They mock the lower class when they do things like go slumming and discuss how ghetto they are. It just happens that in this country the lower class is made up a lot of non-whites, and so is associated with them.
That’s an incredibly great distinction, Kevin, and I’m so glad you made the it. And I agree about the classist element.
I do think there’s an intersectionality in the correlation you point out, that the lower classes happen to be less “white” … However, they could also be saying “white trash” or “trailer trash” or “redneck” and say the same classist thing, but they’re not. In Michigan we say 8 Mile because that’s poor white (and poor black, but generally 8 Mile refers to seriously trailer-park white trash). Saying “thug life” doesn’t conjure Eminem, it conjures 50 Cent.
But I’ve also stopped this “White Trash” bullshit because I don’t care if I’m white and that white people are the non-oppressed class, calling anyone “Trash” even when joking is disgusting.
Well I do remember back when “White trash” parties were popular.
Also I was thinking about the “n word” issue. And I have a second theory. A lot people enjoy pushing the envelope by using racial slurs, cause it shows how edgy you are. We’ve gotten to the point where non-blacks don’t want to say N***** because it is finally pretty strongly associated with racism. At this point, the way to push the envelope is then to comment on the fact that you can’t say N*****.
That or by saying that they hope to show how post-racial they are: “I’m so non-racist, that I can use racist language and still be fine”.
I do of course agree that people need to stop whining about N-word usage.
Yeah, I think you’re right that people think they’re so post-racial they can use it.
I know a white guy who says the N word (joking in that post-racial way) but then also punched a guy out for saying racist shit last week.
Let’s just not use it. That’s how I feel.
I love Kids – they are the most Prejudiced Group I have ever encountered, and yet also the one’s who are quickest to throw Prejudice Under the Bus!
Prejudice is not all bad. It’s good for survival. Kids use it all the time – and it even gets exploited to make millions – even billions of dollars for share holders.
Kids are prejudiced towards food. It’s good for survival. You don’t eat things unless you know they are safe. Kids learn that from adults. Eat healthy well balanced meals with your kids, and they will eat Broccoli!
Leave them sitting watching TV and seeing Actress Mom serving up that latest High Fat, High Salt, MSG laced factory produced fast food – and guess what the kids will see as safe and best to eat?
We all start out prejudiced – we are even prejudiced to strangers! We are Prejudiced against things we are not sure of and we are not sure are safe. Foods, People, Places …. Kids are the most Prejudiced Group on the planet!
Kids also learn fast! They learn that what they though was unsafe is safe. Take that first day of school, the kids so unhappy and wanting to go home. Then they find it’s a safe place and even fun… and they want to be there! Prejudice changes with learning and exposure.
But then you throw in what kids get exposed to. If they are in a WASP school you end up learning a whole load of prejudices – just as kids in a public school is a beat up neighbourhood learn different things.
Really – it all comes down to learning, and even unlearning the prejudices that we get immersed in from a very young age. Easier said than done too!
Great essay, Joanna!
This piece represents basically every single reason that I will never agree with with arguments made by academics that teach [Insert Supposed Oppressed Group Here] Studies.
We begin with a series of unsupported assumptions: racism is “entrenched,” and exists because it “benefits” groups that we’ll loosely define as “powerful people.”
The alternative, that racism is loosely held by a non-powerful segment of the population, and that it is held out of spite (as opposed to seeking gain), is not going to be considered. Because we’re not really concerned with evidence, just with looking for confirmation of our preconceived assumption.
Now that we’re got out unsupported assumptions, what should we do with them?
Well, the scientific method would require trying to find reasons why our assumptions might be wrong. This is called hypothesis testing, and it’s commonly used in medicine, physics, engineering, economics, psychology, etc.
But we’re not going to do that. Instead, we’re only interested in finding evidence that our assumptions are right. And, lo and behold, if we make further assumptions (about” coded language”), and look for correlation instead of causation (i.e. “de facto inequalities”), we can find something that looks like confirmation! This emphasis on confirmation (as opposed to searching for evidence contradiction) is commonly used by creationists, conspiracy theorists, and Rush Limbaugh.
Now that we’ve made our unsupported assumptions, and determined they are true by never checking if they’re false, what should we do next?
The best thing to do is probably to demand that everyone accept our unsupported, untested assumptions as The Truth, and correct them when they indicate we might be wrong. You’ll recognize this when suddenly the definitions of words like “racism” and “privilege” change into strange and unfamiliar forms which aren’t recognized by most of the population, but Definitively Prove that the speaker is “correct.”
This last strategy is particularly interesting, because it’s how narratives are created (watch Fox News any time you need to see an example).
We’ll then go ahead and begin applying our narrative to most imaginable situations. When people disagree, we can tell them that this is because they haven’t “critically examined” their own narratives. Meanwhile, our narrative should never be subjected to critical examination, shouldn’t it? After all, we’ve put so much work into it already…
Yes. You are my new hero. THIS is what I’ve been trying to say.
I would be more comfortable wrestling with “the problem of racism” if we could actually test it somehow. There ought to be some sort of test for racism, or some way to measure whether or not it really is getting worse or better or is unchanged. If the assumption is that racism exists and that trying to be non-racist is inherently racist, then that means that racism is indestructible. Okay, that could be true, theoretically, but that means that fighting racism is just foolish in that case.
One cannot say racism is indestructible and also say I need to try harder to destroy it.
I’m willing to believe that racism is still a major problem and I’m optimistic that we as a society can greatly reduce the power of racism. I’m waiting for a model for what that looks like, a model that we can therefore measure as we go along. But then of course quotas are racist as well, and the idea of progress is simply white self-congratulation.
Tell me what the goal is and tell me what the path is to reach it, without getting labeled as a racist for having that plan. That sounds impossible here.
If we looked around someday and discovered that racism doesn’t look like a big problem anymore, think about all the pundits and all the people recent humanities graduate degrees thrown out of work. Fewer human resources employees needed, fewer consciousness raisers, fewer self-awareness gurus, etc.
This would be true about any mission. Humans have long term dreams and live short term lives. No one likes to give up power, whether it is institutional or just in a non profit. At least it seems that way.
What would such a test look like? How do you make people take it?
I admit I don’t know what such a test would look like. Maybe a series of questions on a point system, so if you scored 0-5 points you are only mildly racist, 6-10 points you are solidly racist, or 11-15 you are a klan leader. Like one of those magazine quizzes about relationships or something.
I just think that if someone is accused of being racist and there is no possible way to ever prove one’s innocence, then there is no reliable truth in the statement. If anyone and everyone is guilty of the same thing, then the accusation is pretty meaningless. It becomes the equivalent of accusing someone of urinating. Yes, it’s gross, and I do it on a regular basis. Doesn’t just about everyone?
Accusing someone of being racist would only be meaningful if there was some kind of alternative to being racist. Or if there were some way to say one person was more racist than another person.
But, if trying to prove someone is not racist is just evidence of racism, then by definition everyone is always already racist. If I say yes, then I’m racist, and if I say no, then I am also racist.
Presumably you wouldn’t want to hire someone who’s (too) racist. So, somewhere on some level people are being vetted for racism. How are people doing that when everyone is racist?
As for the idea of not giving up power, just because I am critical of simple-minded views of racism doesn’t mean I am motivated by some desire to hold onto a privilege. Calling into question someone’s motives is not the same as presenting a good argument. (I’m not saying you’re doing this, just that if a “white” person has some questions about how racism is defined or fought that doesn’t mean he’s a white reactionary.)
Thanks for the article, Joanna. It’s appreciated that you parsed the difference between the personal (prejudice) and the systemic (racism).
Interesting piece. Has some good points. My whole issue when we talk about race and racism in America is that we usually never discuss institutionalized racism.
Why are Black and Latino over-represented in the prison system?
Why do we prosecute Blacks and White differently when it comes to drug charges?
Of course there is intersection of class but we have as a nation systematically entrenched racism so that white privilege can survive whether we actively participate or not.
The same shit goes for sexism, hetero-normative privilege and so forth. So I don’t give a damn what people feel or think as individuals because I can’t control that but the macro issues….
P.S. Kudos for identifying as hipster. By virtue of identifying as one your hipster card is revoked-lol.
First rule of being a hipster 1) You don’t identify as being a hipster.
I can comfortably say that I am colorblind but in todays society, there are some people who struggle with my being so. I have to tell ya, I get tired of being told that because I’m a middle aged white guy from an upper middle class suburb that I’m racist.
I work with a lot of inner city kids. I grew up in an area of Chicago which in now considered one of the most gang infested areas in the country (Little Village). I was the minority in my high school and I’m thankful for attending that school as the minority … it’s where I truly became color blind.
When the kids that I work with find out where I came from, they change their view of me. On the surface, they see an old white guy but when they get to know me, things change. Racism goes in every direction. Assumptions are made of all races but the most common seen is white against black. There is racism within races. There have been several situations where I’ve had to deal with African-American kids being prejudice because of light skin verses dark skin.
What’s sad is that we live in a society that wants racism to stop yet it does nothing but nurture it. As a white man if I comment on a white person’s behavior it’s accepted for face value but the same comment on a minority or gay or a particular faith, I may have to defend myself as not being racist.
My early years in life, I was privileged in having Dr Martin Luther King influencing the way I think. I have many of his quotes on various bulletin boards on the unit. Why? It’s not because he was black, it’s simply because what he stood for was not a particular race, it was for all.
Last thought ….. prejudices. Some are socially acceptable and others are not. When it comes to race, not at all acceptable but it appears that it’s okay to be prejudice against people of Christian faith. A lot of stereotyping in that arena but that appears to be okay?
Tom,
I understand you say you’re not racist, but…
Your comments contains a lot of questionable references which have historically been used as a smokescreen by racists. In fact, they’re such common tropes that anti-racists have actually listed them as stereotypes.
1. Colorblindess. Doesn’t work. It actually leads to equally horrific racism because it attempts to ignore clear racial disparity in everything from housing to education, and even the judicial system. It presupposes that by acting like you personally cannot see race, racism will magically go away. It will not.
2. You’re not a minority. I too went to a school which was primarily attended by People of Color, but that doesn’t make me a minority. My going to school with Latinos doesn’t impart wisdom upon me automatically. Your proximity to PoC does not confer upon you the title of, “Not a Racist”. Secret: lots people who are married to Black people and have Black friends are still racist.
3. You may comment on White people, because you are a White person. But a function of White Privilege (if you don’t know the term — you need to look it up!) is that White people act as if they know more about being a certain race/gender/class/sexual orientation more than people who are of that group. The proceed to assume they know as well, if not better than those people, followed by a lecture as to why said people from that group are wrong! I see this happen everyday, and it’s very depressing how easily White people fall into this trap of thinking we know more about racism (or other forms of oppression) more than the people who actually suffer from it.
4. You mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This one is pretty bad. Almost every covert act of racism tries to use MLK as a smokescreen, from Glenn Beck to Fox News. First of all, believing in a colorblind (see above) and whitewashed version of MLK does not impart knowledge of racism. Second of all, MLK is ONE figure (albeit a major one) in anti-racism. What do you know about Bayard Rustin or Audre Lorde? Sadly, MLK’s views are distorted to serve status-quo racism, where if only we couldn’t see race then everything would be a utopia! But such thinking is naive, especially in light of the problems with racism facing America today, from Trayvon Martin to Kenneth Chamberlain Sr, to even Obama.
5. Nobody’s oppressing Christianity. Trust me, nobody is. I’m Jewish, and as a religious outside I can tell you that NOBODY is oppressing Christians. People criticize Christians for bigotry, misusing their religion to justify classism, homophobia, etc., but nobody is oppressing them. And it’s incredibly disingenuous to compare criticizing the oppressive acts of many Christians to the oppression of other minority groups. They are not comparable, like at all. Case in point: even our political system allows Christians to inject their beliefs into our freedoms, despite the supposed separation of church and state.
So, while I’d like to believe you’re as enlightened as you say Tom, your comments is full of extremely obvious tells which do not support your claim.
Dear Zek,
I’d like to believe your take down of Tom’s comment, but it’s full of references to unsubstantiated theories used by Ethnic Studies professors to get out of doing empirical work.
Let’s examine them in turn.
“Colorblindness doesn’t work,” Actually economist Roland Fryer has convincingly demonstrated that colorblindness could very well work if certain conditions hold, and whether or not those conditions exist is an open question. He has further demonstrated that “racial awareness” can and does lead to bad policies.
“You’re not a minority” and “You may comment on White people because you are a White person,” – Wow, these two are doozies, and it’s kind of a shame, we don’t even need empirical evidence to put these to bed. This is a classic syllogism:
All humans can have subjective and distorted worldviews.
Members of minority groups are human.
Therefore, members of minority groups can have subjective and distorted world views.
See the problem with Ethnic Studies (and it’s related jokes-of-fields, Gender Studies, Critical Studies, Area Studies, etc.) is that it posits that white people do not have an objective viewpoint, this is fundamental to understanding “invisible privilege.”
However, the opposite is inherently true: being a member of a minority group ALSO does not grant you an objective viewpoint, and as such, you can be very, VERY wrong. The natural conclusion is that some of the time, a person who is not a member of “your group” will actually be closer to objectively correct when assessing your situation than you are. This will work regardless of which “group” you belong to. Sorry.
“You mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This one is pretty bad. Almost every covert act of racism tries to use MLK as a smokescreen” – I’m going to go ahead and point out that “almost every covert act of racism” also uses words to express ideas, and letters to make up those words. Yet you stopped short of saying “you used words, you must be a covert racist.” Nonetheless, both points share the same problem: they make a sweeping generalization, which is a recognized logical fallacy.
“Nobody’s oppressing Christianity. Trust me, nobody is. I’m Jewish” – I’ll actually give you that “nobody’s oppressing Christianity” but this is particularly interesting in light of your second and third points, mainly that people may only comment on groups they belong to, and that a part of privilege is lecturing someone who does not belong to your group about “their experience.” This would suggest that you would actually have to be Christian in order to comment on the prospect of the oppression of Christianity, according to your own logic.
Nice tries though.
Thank you Mike
Oh Mike… always following me across TGMP. Well, here we go again…
but it’s full of references to unsubstantiated theories used by Ethnic Studies professors to get out of doing empirical work.
Fallacy. Just because you think ethnic studies are icky doesn’t change the facts. But more importantly, the things I mentioned are actually from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. They’re common points in all of those disciplines when discussing this subject. However, for me anthropology is my main source as it’s the subject I got one of my Bachelor’s in.
Actually economist Roland Fryer has convincingly demonstrated that colorblindness could very well work if certain conditions hold, and whether or not those conditions exist is an open question. He has further demonstrated that “racial awareness” can and does lead to bad policies.
Great. But certain conditions do not hold in this country. Like I said, if we lived in an utopia, colorblindess would make sense. But we do not. Moreover, I’m sure Fryer is a great economist, but that doesn’t necessarily make him more qualified to speak about racism than, say, Harvard professor Mica Pollock, who makes the excellent point that colorblindness actually reinforces racism by refusing to critically examine the effects and continuing useage of racism in our lives.
Wow, these two are doozies, and it’s kind of a shame, we don’t even need empirical evidence to put these to bed. This is a classic syllogism:
All humans can have subjective and distorted worldviews.
Members of minority groups are human.
Therefore, members of minority groups can have subjective and distorted world views.
First of all, please don’t be dishonest. I wrote “White people act as if they know more about being a certain race/gender/class/sexual orientation more than people who are of that group. The proceed to assume they know as well, if not better than those people, followed by a lecture as to why said people from that group are wrong!” Now, you can deny this or ignore it, but if you’re going to discuss it, then do so accurately.
Secondly, are you suggesting that People of Color regularly lie about racism? Seriously? You’re going to victim-blame people suffering from oppression and say they’re making it up? Would you be so cavalier to male victims of rape or domestic violence? Do you really have no shame?
it posits that white people do not have an objective viewpoint, this is fundamental to understanding “invisible privilege.”
Actually, no. Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are fields dominated by, and created by White people (specifically White men). Their discourse is founded upon principles and conventions used by Whites. That said, too often the paradigm is setup in discussions of racism that People of Color (PoC) are unable to be objective about racism, and thus their comments are dismissed, marginalized, or outright ignored in favor of the supposed objectivity of White people who, despite not suffering from racism (both individual and structural), are seen to be imminently more qualified to discuss it. This is patently false, of course, but nonetheless it is a myth which persists. Also notably, objectivity is false actually. We can attempt objectivity, but never truly obtain it because we are human — as you noted in your own comments. PoC are fallible, but since so are Whites it doesn’t really change anything other than to serve as a ridiculous attempt to undermine legitimate criticism of racism.
This is obvious in your next comment:
However, the opposite is inherently true: being a member of a minority group ALSO does not grant you an objective viewpoint, and as such, you can be very, VERY wrong. The natural conclusion is that some of the time, a person who is not a member of “your group” will actually be closer to objectively correct when assessing your situation than you are. This will work regardless of which “group” you belong to. Sorry.
Sorry? Don’t apologize to me. I’m White. I won’t suffer from anybody’s bigotry or ignorance based on my race. You should apologize to PoC, who you’ve (for the second time) suggested are lying about racism. And again you’ve proven my point for me: it’s common for Whites to think they know more about the racism People of Color face more than PoC do themselves. Sadly, they do not, as evidenced by the continuance of racism in America.
I’m going to go ahead and point out that “almost every covert act of racism” also uses words to express ideas, and letters to make up those words. Yet you stopped short of saying “you used words, you must be a covert racist.” Nonetheless, both points share the same problem: they make a sweeping generalization, which is a recognized logical fallacy.
This next part above demonstrates your lack of education on the subject. (Something I mentioned in a different comment further upthread.) People from Glenn Beck to the Tea Party will attempt to co-opt distorted and watered-down versions of MLK as a smokescreen to their own racism. Typically this done through using MLK to justify colorblindess, even though MLK was never for that. More importantly, there’s more to racism (and anti-racism) than MLK. Yet people are content to sit back, quote some MLK, and think they’re not racist. It’s quite bizarre.
this is particularly interesting in light of your second and third points, mainly that people may only comment on groups they belong to, and that a part of privilege is lecturing someone who does not belong to your group about “their experience.”
I never said that. Please point to me where I did. I’ll wait… (Hint: I actually didn’t. Stop dishonestly distorting my comments.)
Meanwhile, it’s a well-known fact that the oppressed/minority always knows more about the oppressor/majority than vice versa. As a Jew, I know more about Christians and Christianity BECAUSE I’m pressured to conform, to fit in, and am regularly immersed in a Christian-centric world. Same goes for PoC. But for majority groups/oppressors this is not the case. This can easily be seen in such situations of American history as the “White flight” — which had nothing to do with crime, since crime has been steadily decreasing historically — yet Blacks were literally bused into suburbs in order to work for Whites, raise their kids, clean their houses, take care of their pets, etc.
Now, I’m sure you felt your comment was a masterful “debunking” of racism, but frankly you failed on so many levels I had to face-palm at least a dozen times here. You’ve attacked my comments before in other threads. Each time you’ve shown yourself to be more committed to disproving the bigotry people have experienced than actually learning about it. This is seen in how you bring no knowledge to the table, don’t actively seek a discussion or conversation, argue in bad faith, dismiss, marginalize, and otherwise ignore people’s lived experiences, as well as sometimes accuse of lying while you yourself are being dishonest! It’s tragic, but there it is nonetheless.
And this is quite common. People, by and large, don’t comment on the internet to learn, grow, or educate others. People come for validation — to validate their opinions and beliefs, to validate their prejudices and discriminatory practices — to validate their bigotry. But I’m not doing to do that for you Mike. You can fist-pump your preconceived brilliance and eloquence all you want. It won’t change the lived experiences of MILLIONS of people, the reality and facts borne by generations of Americans, that you seemingly refuse to acknowledge.
I know you’ll do the same to my comments, but for I’ll leave off one last piece for you, one nugget of my naive hope in others. Though I may regret this as if I had strewn pearls before swine, let me just state something you should hear.
This isn’t about you Mike. It’s never been about you. These issues are not about your uninformed opinions. They’re not about your beliefs. They never will be.
They have ALWAYS been about, and always will be about, other people, what’s happening to them, and most importantly… how we can help.
Those are my two cents of charity for you, sir. Spend them how you will.
I didn’t think he was saying that white people claim to understand racism better than people of color, and I don’t think he was saying that white people understand the experience of people of color better than those people do themselves.
I thought he was saying that people may intuit or perceive racism sometimes when it’s not really racism at work. Just because one perceives discrimination based on race does not necessarily mean that racial discrimination has taken place. In any given circumstance, a person of color COULD be mistaken in thinking that another person is motivated by racism. The feeling of being a victim of racism is a fact. That feeling does exist. But, an interpretation of events can be inaccurate, no matter how strongly a person feels about it. An inaccurate interpretation is not a lie. It’s an honest mistake.
Zek,
You read my entire post incorrectly, possibly on purpose given the seemingly personal nature of your prose. Wellokaythen read it correctly. If you have some time, please go ahead and look at what wellokaythen said above.
Mike,
No, I read your post right; I even read it right intentionally! (How about that?) I just disagreed with you, passionately, purposefully… Because you’re wrong. So wrong it’s like the Gordian knot of wrongness. But you’ll survive, I’m sure — if you ever can learn to accept it =)
Zek,
You really didn’t read it correctly, not at all.
For example, I never said that anyone was lying about racism. According to you I make this claim multiple times.
I’m sure racism is real, and always has been.
My point, as Wellokaythen correctly stated, is that we’re all human, regardless of skin color, and that no one, again regardless of skin color, has a monopoly on the objective truth. We can all be wrong in our observations.
So while racism exists, that doesn’t mean every time someone observes themselves to be a victim of racism, that they actually were victimized on that particular occasion. Racism still exists, but the interpretation of an event can be incorrect.
I know I’m right about this, and I know from personal experience. I say this with 100% certainty because I truly know.
You can disagree, but that won’t make you correct.
Mike,
Beginning with your comments on the Bachelor post, you’ve been consistently misinformed, ignorant, or outright dismissive in discussions about racism at TGMP. You bring no knowledge base on the subject, no expertise or understanding. You bring your own opinion, and the certainty that only you are right against MILLIONS of people’s lived experiences, facts, and evidence.
“When facts are reported, they deny the value of evidence; when the evidence is produced, they declare it inconclusive.”
~ Augustine, in The City of God
It’d be laughable, if not for White privilege.
You state that we can all be wrong in our observations, but never apply that to yourself it seems. You’d rather argue endlessly, whether it’s here about hipster racism, or in Nick’s post about Trayvon Martin that — again millions — of other people are wrong, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because… “I know I’m right about this, and I know from personal experience. I say this with 100% certainty because I truly know.”
You obviously didn’t read my comment at all Mike. It’s not about you! It’s never been about you and what you think. It’s about what’s really happening to other people out there in the real world.
But instead of accepting what so many see everyday, you’d rather live inside Plato’s Cave and say the shadows on the wall are truth, and all the rest of us are wrong. You speak of tautologies, and fail to see your own.
It’d be hilarious — if there weren’t so many like you in America.
So it goes.
Zek,
I’ve repeatedly said here and elsewhere that my observations might be wrong. I believe in critiquing myself extensively. If you had actually read my comments in any of the threads I’ve commented in, you’d know this. There’s literally a post responding to TK under Nick’s article where I straight up say, word for word, that my perception is likely incorrect as well.
I’ve always maintained that all perception is likely biased, and that reality is somewhere in the middle. This is the point I’ve been making over and over again.
For your part, you accuse me of calling people liars and of denying human experiences when I’ve done no such thing.
You also continue to try and label me as “ignorant” and “misinformed” simply because I do not buy into your worldview. I’ve actually read up on this topic extensively. I’ve already told you that I thought Roland Fryer made good points, and I’m also a fan of Shelby Steele’s.
You were dismissive of Fryer, I doubt very much you even bothered to look up who he was or what he had to say. You dismiss those arguments you disagree with, and then call the people espousing them “misinformed.” This is no way to develop a knowledge base.
Believe it or not, I really do understand your arguments, I really have read up on them. I still disagree.
Clearly people are not colorblind, because “white” people have split personalities when it comes to their own body colors. All sorts of people lie in the sun to get tanned, dye their hair various colors, wear colored contact lens, get tattoos, cover up their gray hairs, even spray on tans if they’re in a hurry. You see white supremacists in prison who have covered their faces and bodies with so many tattoos that they seem to trying to cover every patch of skin with dark ink. Supposedly white is superior but pale is unhealthy and brown is superior and dark is more meaningful. Huh?
You do realize there’s more to race than skin-color, right? Tanning does not equal changing your race. You’re talking about standards of beauty, which still favor White over Black. Just look at any magazine.
Good point about tanning not being the same as changing race. And yet….
This is going to sound like a stupid question, but please bear with me, because I think it points to something important. You mentioned that changing skin color is not the same as changing one’s race. This leads to the question, “Can you change your race, and if so, how do you do that?”
I can’t seem to get anyone to tell me what defines any particular race. No one wants to admit that he/she defines races based on physical characteristics. Skin color seems to be the most common reference, but if it’s not definitive then what exactly are you looking for when you put people into racial categories?
Presumably if the beauty/fashion magazines disproportionately show white people, then there must be some visual clues you’re using to look at a model and say she’s white. So, if it’s not skin color, then….
Well, I can give you an anthropological/scientific definition of race, or I can give you a cultural one.
Race in America is based primarily on observable traits such as hair texture, skin color, nose shape, lip size, bodily attributes, sexual organ size, head shape, etc. It’s also based on ancestry — what race your parent, grandparents, ancestors, etc., were said to belong to.
When looking at magazines, you seem predominantly people who self-identify as White, have features associated with “Whiteness”, and generally defined culturally as White people. They also are White according to anthropological definitions of race. Besides skin color you see straight hair, small noses, lighter hair colors, European body shapes, emphasis on small and boyish over big and curvy. Those are a few points.
With regards to whether anyone can change their race? I think the only person to do so successfully was Michael Jackson. Black boy to White woman in just a few short decades. (Or is that joke “too soon”?)
“I think the only person to do so successfully was Michael Jackson. Black boy to White woman in just a few short decades. (Or is that joke “too soon”?)”
And the reason you felt the need to include gender into that insult? What, because being a feminine man is a bad thing? What the hell.
No because the change itself is supposedly so drastic.
Trying to make a joke out of changing from man to woman is not always trying to say that such a change is a downgrade.
HeatherN,
I did not say that at all. I apologize if you were offended. I was simply pointing out, somewhat sarcastically, the somewhat obvious physical resemblance Michael Jackson had towards the end of his life to an older White woman. It wasn’t an insult so much as an insincere answer to wellokaythen’s question regarding people changing their race.
This is going off topic…but see I don’t buy that it wasn’t meant as a dig, at least partly. Otherwise why comment on his gender expression at all, considering it had nothing to do with the rest of the comment? And because he wasn’t a woman, he was still a man. Why call a feminine man a woman? Even at the end Michael Jackson was still a man…he never identified as a woman. Isn’t that just playing into the old traditional stereotypes about what being a man means? Our society holds such importance on being able to ‘pass’ as the gender you identify with, that simply the act of purposefully misidentifying someone’s gender has an element of an insult to it.
This site is about redefining the definition of masculinity and manhood. Making a joke out of someone’s non-traditional gender expression and appearance seems to be contrary to that, at least to me.
@Danny – I didn’t interpret it as saying changing from man to woman was a downgrade, so much as interpret it as saying improperly expressing one’s gender is a bad thing. (The reverse would be when people say that Rachel Maddow looks like Justin Bieber).
Okay, thanks, now we’re getting somewhere.
Absolutely right, race has traditionally been defined by various physical characteristics or perceived physical characteristics (or even myths about physical characteristics). These characteristics have been arbitrarily lumped together to invent racial categories. They don’t actually correspond to any real biologically distinct categories. Races are not actually subspecies. These categories are just made up boxes to put people into based on some specific traits that people thought were important. When you look at how complicated human genetics are AND how similar everyone really is, you see how ludicrous it really is to put people into racial categories, as if human diversity could be made so simple.
We could just as easily and validly group people together based on completely different characteristics – all tall people with flat feet and pointy elbows count as a race. They are of course superior to the others because they are better at farming, pottery, and astronomy, because every stereotype has a kernel of truth. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, the men of that race have short penises. This is really as plausible as any other invented racial categories.
Even before European contact with Australia, there were Australian aborigines with very dark skin and straight, naturally blonde hair. What race are they supposed to be again? Does the skin color trump the hair color, or does hair color trump the skin color?
I’m confused by the point of your comment. Are you asking a question, or just talking about the arbitrary definition of race?
You are correct, anthropologically speaking, race only exists as a broad categorization of humanity based on genetic ancestry. In forensic anthropology it can be determined based on morphological traits such as face shape, nose bridge, hair texture, etc., but such phenotypic traits are not absolute and frequently change drastically over time. Thus, race as we know it is a cultural construct, and definitely not a subspecies.
Notably, Australian Aborigines historically do have a high frequency of blond, wavy/curly/kinky hair, though the trait is still recessive. And it’s not straight. That’s only found among mixed-race Australian Aborigines. For both groups the hair is only blond through childhood; it darkens significantly with age.
But I’m still confused. These are basic points most everyone should already know. There is no overarching trait which trumps all others in determining a person’s race. Scientifically, it’s based on ancestry. So where are you going with this?
I’m saying that it’s not really “scientifically” based on ancestry at all, unless one is going to rest on pseudo-scientific categories from the nineteenth century, largely put together to explain European superiority over everyone else. (Actually, more accurately created to explain why “Anglo-Saxons” are the superior beings in the modern world.) These are the same theoreticians who gave us such wonderful words as “Caucasian,” “Negro,” and “Asiatics.” Just because people use myths about genetics doesn’t mean they are therefore being scientific or even academic.
If the physiological “science” behind race is reliable, then people ought to have no trouble setting up diversity hiring policies based on measurements of an applicant’s facial features.
Putting people into racial categories based on cultural assumptions is not really science, even if it’s done in the name of anthropology. For one thing, it often makes no real scientific sense to put any individual in only one racial category. Everyone on earth is of mixed ancestry. No one is even “half” one thing and “half” another. Go back far enough and everyone on Earth is of African ancestry. If you say I’m going back too far, then tell me how far back we’re supposed to go to create these categories: First appearance of blue eyes? Beginnings of agriculture? 1492? When do we make the arbitrary cut off?
I guess that’s where I’m going with all this. “Race” is such a bogus, made-up category based on fake science that we may as well just re-invent the categories. Here’s a more “scientific” proposal: humans descended from African roots, so everyone racially is African. Like everyone else, 99% of my ancestors are African. I’m a U.S. citizen. So, by my definition I am an “African American.” How can one prove that I am not?
Oy vey… okay let me just give you a pretty basic definition of race and the scientific consensus on it. Because you’re like, all over the place here. Check the AAA’s (American Anthropological Association) statement on race. Keep in mind, my bachelor’s is in anthropology, so that’s probably why I like their’s best.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
As for your somewhat out-of-left-field comment regarding diversity hiring practices — those fail because of continuing institutional racism and the sad fact that affirmative action benefits White women instead of racial minorities.
“Check the AAA’s (American Anthropological Association) statement on race. Keep in mind, my bachelor’s is in anthropology, so that’s probably why I like their’s best.
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm”
Thanks for the definition. It’s a great one. I may be biased towards it because it seems to agree with my own view of ‘race’ – these are categories without any real biological, genetic, or scientific basis, but are subjective, contingent, and historical inventions that are also fluid and variable within and across cultures. These are cultural categories passed used in the maintenance of privilege and creation of social distinctions. Also a great point in there about how racial categories and the use of “race” as a term is itself an invention of racism.
In response to Mike L.:
“See the problem with Ethnic Studies (and it’s related jokes-of-fields, Gender Studies, Critical Studies, Area Studies, etc.) is that it posits that white people do not have an objective viewpoint, this is fundamental to understanding “invisible privilege.”
Absolutely right, except I teach a little bit in an Area Study, so you cannot be correct about Area Studies being a joke-of-field. I mean, of course those other fields are and, and all those other geographical area studies are, but mine is not…. ; – )
At least, it is possible to teach in an Area Study and still believe in some degree of objective reality. Then again, it was a bit of an uphill battle because other faculty consider me to be “white” and not from that part of the world, so therefore somewhat suspect.
Wellokaythen,
I’m sorry for targeting your field, I promise it’s nothing personal.
I studied economics, and now I’m in law school studying the economic analysis of law. Economics trains you to use the scientific method relentlessly, and follow the data rather than your own personal beliefs.
This makes it hard for me to accept the arguments put forward by other schools of thought because I always want to “see the data” and a lot of times other fields don’t bother with data at all.
Economists do work on class/gender/race all the time, and it’s usually promptly ignored by the other fields. Members of the other fields then call people who make arguments based on economic analysis some combination of “insensitive” or “ignorant” as seems to have happened here. After a while it’s embittering, and it causes me to expand my range of attack.
It is probably too broad a swipe, and definitely undeserved in many quarters.
No sweat, I was actually just joking about being offended. I admit to being loose with evidence sometimes. I try to let people know when I’m guessing or just tossing some hypothesis onto the table.
I have a problem with the unencumbered use of the terms, ‘hipster’ and ‘white people’. It’s not a healthy starting point for a conversation about stereotypes and prejudice to take the acceptability of these labels for granted. Both are offensive.
You do know that most of you sound crazy?…all of these prejudices you are carrying around…not to pick on you, but black people are more spiritual? Really? Three examples of race/ethnic craziness in my life…
Item 1) A guy doesn’t like black people. Wouldn’t hang out with them. Goes to basic training and helps a guy (who is black) go AWOL. My question; “Why would you do that? Especially for a black guy.” Answer; “Well, he’s not really like other black people. He’s a good guy”. My response; “What?”.
Item 2) A guy doesn’t like black people. Wouldn’t hang out with them. Goes through a difficult and painful divorce. Isn’t interested in dating anyone. Wants to be single for awhile. All of a sudden starts dating someone. “She’s the most wonderful person”. My response; “By the way she’s black.” Answer; “Yeah, but she’s the most wonderful person.”
Item 3) A kid sees some guys fighting. He says, “That’s why I don’t like Mexicans”. I say, “Maybe they just don’t like each other”. He says, “No, they do that all of the time”. Kid gets older and starts dating. Turns out everyone he dates are Latinas. Everyone except his current girlfriend. He finally gets it right and starts dating someone who is not Hispanic. The current girlfriend is…wait for it…Ethiopian.
So I know crazy when it comes to prejudice. I hoped for better from educated progressive types. It MUST be genetic.
Zek, I respect your opinion and have to say that I’ve enjoyed much of what you’ve written at the TGMP. I’m glad you responded as you did in that it’s what I’ve experienced in life. I know who I am and what I’ve stood for many years.
I’m not sure what you expect a white non-racist to look like, say or do. I have nothing to prove. Your comment could be discouraging for many who are not racist but will question themselves now simply because you may have over analyzed something someone said.
I don’t expect you to understand what it was like to listen to MLK and the excitement we felt when we heard him. Perhaps the so called “hipsters” may utilize his quotes as a way to convey a superficial view but I don’t.
Although I’m white, I have experienced racism in my life through my family members. Being married to a women of Mexican heritage, we as a family have experienced racism. My son, although half Mexican, he looks light skinned black with a “fro,” throughout high school there were times he’s experienced racism. So although I’m white, my family who is dear to me has. Being a manager at a local establishment it’s funny how the same cops that used to stop him are now buddies with him.
Racial issues are daily situations where I work. Our population is a cross section of just about every race color and creed. Dispelling racial stereotypes is part of my life at work.
I struggle writing this simply because I wouldn’t want you or anyone else seeing it as my attempt to justify or prove my position.
Please answer me this. What is it that you see a true non-racist to look like, say or do. I guess in your view I’ve been a poser for many many years.
Tom,
I respect and thank you for your appreciation of what I’ve written. I do apologize if at any point you felt personally attacked. Let’s try to have a sincere discussion then. I’m going to respond to both your comments in this section.
I don’t expect anti-racists to look like anything. I’ve seen them in Birkenstock’s as much as in Nike’s. I don’t think you’re a poseur or a fake. I take you at your word, no more, no less.
Although I’m white, I have experienced racism in my life through my family members. Being married to a women of Mexican heritage, we as a family have experienced racism. My son, although half Mexican, he looks light skinned black with a “fro,” throughout high school there were times he’s experienced racism. So although I’m white, my family who is dear to me has. Being a manager at a local establishment it’s funny how the same cops that used to stop him are now buddies with him.
I’m in a long-term relationship with a Black woman, but being friends with/in relationships with/or even knowing People of Color doesn’t make you, or I, or anyone immune to racism. In fact, it’s INCREDIBLY frequent that people use People of Color they personally know to justify their own racism. It’s common called the “but I have Black friends” defense, and is usually used following a racist act or word. I don’t believe that’s your intention in this case, but nonetheless there it is. More importantly, despite having us having significant others who face racism is not the same as us facing racism ourselves. It’s close, and it hurts, but it’s disingenuous to say we know what it’s like when we don’t.
Racial issues are daily situations where I work. Our population is a cross section of just about every race color and creed. Dispelling racial stereotypes is part of my life at work. I struggle writing this simply because I wouldn’t want you or anyone else seeing it as my attempt to justify or prove my position.
I struggle within myself too, because I sincerely believe people do not want to be racist, do not accept racism, and in fact are disgusted by it. Yet racism exists, and thus I am at a loss. I work at an advocacy firm as a writer, and daily I’m tasked with helping poor people (of all backgrounds) receive equal protection and opportunity under the law. Yet disparities exist, and too often I see firsthand that even well-educated judges will exhibit obvious racial prejudice.
“Colorblindness” is no more then a term I use which relates to my relationships with people. I see people for who they are, not their color. “Colorblindness” doesn’t void my seeing the disparity which relate societal issues. In fact it in my case it makes it more clear because I can see that the only factor is color.
Fair enough. Your freedom to use whatever personal terminology you like notwithstanding, does it make you uncomfortable to use a term that the vast majority of others use to justify and hide racism? Moreover, if you already understand that, then again why?
You tend to over think some things. … But you shouldn’t paint us all with the same broad brush.
Y’know what, you’re right and I apologize. That is unfair of me. It honestly seemed to me that you were attempting say you knew what it’s like to be a racial minority. Thank you for explaining that that wasn’t your position! I have a much better understanding of your comments now.
MLK is the most visible and historic in modern times … why not quote him? Living through the riots in Chicago and seeing MLK first hand, he is a natural point of reference for many in our age b racket. It’s not a smoke screen when his quotes are used so as to educate kids. MLK was not a perfect person but his movement was a great one.
See, now here we’ll disagree. To properly make my argument would be a little too long, so let me just point you to some resources that have informed my opinion in this regard. See: the ACLU’s article, “MLK and the Myth of Reverse Racism”, as well as Marcus Epstein’s “Myths of Martin Luther King”. They outline why I feel this way pretty well.
Using your own thought process, as a non-Christian, how can you claim to know what Christians are feeling or experiencing? I could say that you should look at yourself and how you view things but ya know what, I like what you say in here and don’t want you to stop.
It’s my opinion that the subaltern in any situation knows more about the majority, the privileged, the oppressor than vice versa. And this is not unique. Most social scientists agree on this point. As a Jew, I was forced to learn about Christianity because I would not have survived if I did not. According to most work done by PoC this holds true for race as well. I think specifically of Frantz Fanon and Du Bois, but I’m sure there are others I could think of at a later point.
All I can say is I am who I am. I don’t live to prove to anyone who I am. When you live 58 years of life and experience what I’ve experienced, then perhaps you will see things in a different light.
This is probably the crux our different opinions. The youth, by their very nature, cannot know what it is to be old, but the old mustn’t forget what it was to be young.
You’re right, I have not lived your life, and certainly I could never imagine doing so. Just your age alone tells me enough about what you went through. That said though, we aren’t in the Civil Rights era anymore. Times are changing, and the stresses are painful in such a way as to cause backlash. Like the kind we see in Tea Party signs, Trayvon Martin, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., Arian Abdul, the North Carolina court decision for Marcus Robinson, Arizona SB 1070, and more.
I guess we come from different places in our approach to racism. You draw upon a rich history, as do I, but you are also OF that history; whereas I can only be, as an anti-racist, of this period now. I can only challenge racism as it exists now — not in the past, not retroactively or with hindsight. The past informs me and teaches me, but I have learned the hard way alongside many others who’ve had it way worse that the bigotry which exists today is fundamentally different than what existed even 10 or 20 years ago.
Anyways, thanks for your comments. I really do appreciate them, and I think I’ve reevaluated my opinion of what you wrote based upon your further explanations. I thank you for that, because you didn’t have to. (Though I’m glad you did. I like being proven wrong now and again.)
Cheers
“1. Colorblindess. Doesn’t work. It actually lead …… magically go away. It will not.”
“Colorblindness” is no more then a term I use which relates to my relationships with people. I see people for who they are, not their color. “Colorblindness” doesn’t void my seeing the disparity which relate societal issues. In fact it in my case it makes it more clear because I can see that the only factor is color.
“2. You’re not a minority. I too went to a school which was primarily attended by People …. Black friends are still racist.”
You tend to over think some things. I was the minority in a sense that I was white in a predominantly black school. No more no less. I never stated that I know what it’s like to BE a minority. And being that I went to a predominantly black school didn’t automatically make me wise. My wisdom comes through life experiences and relationships that I’ve developed through the years. I’m sure lots of people who are married to minorities are racists just as minorities can be racist within their own race. But you shouldn’t paint us all with the same broad brush.
“3. You may comment on White people, because you are a White person. But a function of White Privilege (if you don’t know the term — you need to look it up!) …………. White people fall into this trap of thinking we know more about racism (or other forms of oppression) more than the people who actually suffer from it.”
You’re right, there is no way I can actually “know” what it is to be a person of color but that’s not to say I don’t understand. As I mentioned in my other reply, although I’m white, my family in particular wife and son have experienced racism which equates to me indirectly experiencing it. I don’t claim to know more or better then but I do know what I have seen as a white man who works with minorities, who is married to a minority, is experiencing.
“4. You mention Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This one is pretty bad. Almost every covert act of racism tries to use MLK as a smokescreen, …………..But such thinking is naive, especially in light of the problems with racism facing America today, from Trayvon Martin to Kenneth Chamberlain Sr, to even Obama.”
MLK is the most visible and historic in modern times … why not quote him? Living through the riots in Chicago and seeing MLK first hand, he is a natural point of reference for many in our age b racket. It’s not a smoke screen when his quotes are used so as to educate kids. MLK was not a perfect person but his movement was a great one.
“5. Nobody’s oppressing Christianity. Trust me, nobody is. I’m Jewish, and as a religious outside I can tell you that NOBODY is oppressing Christians. People criticize Christians for bigotry, misusing their religion to justify classism, homophobia, etc., ……………They are not comparable, like at all. Case in point: even our political system allows Christians to inject their beliefs into our freedoms, despite the supposed separation of church and state.”
Using your own thought process, as a non-Christian, how can you claim to know what Christians are feeling or experiencing? I could say that you should look at yourself and how you view things but ya know what, I like what you say in here and don’t want you to stop.
“So, while I’d like to believe you’re as enlightened as you say Tom, your comments is full of extremely obvious tells which do not support your claim.”
All I can say is I am who I am. I don’t live to prove to anyone who I am. When you live 58 years of life and experience what I’ve experienced, then perhaps you will see things in a different light.
Marianne:
Ultimately, I think when the term racist is used to describe racially-motivated attacks (verbal or physical) on white people, the intent is skewed towards the former rather than the latter. That’s my opinion.
Oh you’re more than welcome to your opinion. We’ll just have to disagree on it. I think that the thought that its appropriation is a fear that some group is going to lose their victim status. A fear that they are going to lose some exclusive birth right or something.
I don’t really have any black friends at all. So, if I say _that_ instead of saying I have black friends, does that mean that I’m not racist? If saying one thing is racist, then saying the opposite ought to be non-racist. Does it work like that?