Newly minted AG Eric Holder, in a speech that must have had his boss banging his head against a wall in the White House residence, declared:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” He went on to say, “Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”
Oh, don’t “we?”
I was always under the impression that talk was cheap. Having a black president and a black attorney general, I would have thought, counts a good deal more than talking. To quote another cliche: Actions speak louder than words.
I would concede the notion that there is a certain, shall we say, tentativeness when it comes to discussing deeper issues of prejudice. However, I am moved to ask:
Whose fault is that?
I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs? The word “ņìggárdlÿ,” the utterance of which in a private staff meeting resulted in a mayoral aide in Washington, D.C. being forced to resign? What about off-hand jokes by radio personalities that wind up getting them fired from their gig no matter how much they endeavor to apologize for it? How about rioters in LA who express their dissatisfaction with what they see as racism by smashing into local electronics stores and stealing televisions and air conditioners? How about everyone from the ubiquitous Al Sharpton–as big a racist as there ever was–to the National Association of Black Journalists (were there an Association of White Journalists, such an entity would be declared racist by its very existence) declaring that the only possible interpretation of a NY Post cartoon was one that had racist overtones?
The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order. Under the current atmosphere, who would WANT to discuss racism? Well…Barack Obama did, back when he gave that superb speech about Rev. Wright. I don’t recall whites rioting over it. I don’t recall whites going on TV in droves and screaming for censure. My recollection is that it was a major turning point for white voters to assess Eric Holder’s future boss and deciding that they liked what they saw.
If you touch a hot stove, get burned, and say, “Whoa, I’m not touching that stove again,” is that an act of cowardice? Or is that just a reasoned response to an atmosphere created by many members of the very audience that Holder would presumably claim as his constituency? And by the way, not for nothing, but when did an attorney general become an “average American?”
PAD
• 
Jerry wrote, “JH was the only one who got in the car or touched the GPS during the time period in between his last trip with us and his seeing the Afrikaans being programmed into it as the default language. Seems that JH went into his own car to look at something on his GPS. Turns out that JH didn’t know how to work his own GPS.”
and later: “He dragged our reputations through the mud, he acted like a coward afterward and he cost us paychecks because of his over reactionary stupidity and cowardice.”
Jerry,
To my way of thinking, since this guy publicly excoriated you and your fellow officers, the fact that he, himself reprogrammed the GPS through his own incompetence should also be made public. If not here, then certainly in your local newspaper. It’s understandable that he’d file the initial report, as he thought someone was messing with his GPS, but once the facts of the matter were made clear to him, he should have owned up to his mistake. He shouldn’t be allowed to damage your reputations unscathed.
On a related note, like Bill Mulligan said, it is a great story. Mind if I include the basic facts of the situation– guy accidentally reprograms his own GPS; blames VIP protection team; refuses to acknowledge his mistake when the truth comes out– in a short story or novel?
PAD & Glenn,
No more preview option? Why not?
Still not sure how I feel about the new format. But I notice the archives only go back to July 2004. Does that mean posts prior to that date are lost?
Rick
Been a few days since I looked in on this thread. Interesting to see that because I willing to begin a thread about racism, and discuss racism, which is exactly what the AG says we should be doing, I’m being accused of being a racist and some people are announcing they’re going to try to punish me economically…which is exactly what I said serves as a disincentive to starting open discussions about race. I think the initials Q.E.D. were invented just for this.
I appreciate the efforts of the many to try and talk reasonably to the few who are accusing me of that which I didn’t say. This thread is, I think, exemplifies more than anything the notion that some people react to, not what I actually said, but what they believe I said.
I’m not sure if my personally clarifying things means anything. I’m not sure if it even matters: When I respond to distortions or misstatements of my positions by saying, “No, I didn’t say that, I said this,” then people jump on that and declare I’m “backpedaling.” Nevertheless, I’ll give it a shot:
I didn’t say racism no longer exists in this country. That would be stupid. I said it was foolish to characterize this country as a nation of cowards when the nation was perfectly willing to elect a man to the highest office in the land based upon the measure of his character rather than the pigmentation of his skin.
I said that racism flows both ways and that both sides should be taking the measure of their reactions to the topic. I later acknowledged that Holder said as much later in the speech, although it would have been nice if he had specifically said that the actions of certain self-proclaimed spokesmen for blacks served as a disincentive for whites to want to touch the topic with a ten meter cattle prod. That does not equate with asking him to apologize for anyone.
I do not object to people referring to themselves as African-Americans as a basic of racial pride. I simply said the term wasn’t great because it wasn’t consistently accurate…an assertion that many blacks agree with. And I lamented that in a society where there is insufficient unity, it’s a bit of a shame that people of many races and all nationalities feel the need to become hyphenates rather than embracing the notion that we are all one race–humans–and in this country, at least, all one nationality–Americans. Which I suppose is a long-winded way of saying, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Now: React to that if you are so inclined. Boycott that. Condemn me for the words I said rather than the words that you said I said.
Oh, and not for nothing, but:
Using names that combine different heritages could be one way to go. Like Ororo Monroe.
Or Miguel O’Hara.
PAD
Peter J Poole Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:40 am
“Why disappointed?”
I think that oftentimes anecdotal claims, while being the primary method by which many people relate their experience to the wider dialogue, oftentimes lacks nuance that would come from a broader knowledge of history of issues and a body of research on the topic.
For instance, one of my best friends, a diehard libertarian, tells me about two of his co-workers (of around 12) who consistently complain of being broke, while simultaneously calling off sick. He cites this as poor people being lazy and one of the reasons why government intervention simply makes people, on the whole, lazy and dependent. Which may, in some instances be true. I could probably find just as many if not more stories of people working 60-80 hours a week, attempting to raise a family, and trying to go to school, etc. Also true. So the argument is rendered meaningless to me. They’re just interesting stories that in the long run can sometimes do a disservice to the wider discussion of an issue.
Better to observe trends and attempt to see how both stories fit into the larger framework of an issue. I feel a lot of the anecdotes presented on both sides of this argument were simply inflammatory/fed underinformed opinions and distracted from any dialogue that could have started or got people really thinking. How many thoughtful posts and good points were dismissed over semantics or because someone was hyperbolic in this thread alone? I realize however, that most other people have lives and don’t take kindly to potential cognitive dissonance. Which I never realize more than when I hang around the ‘nets. Or this planet…
Hope that clarifies…
Feel free, Rick.
If people use anecdotes to try to “prove’ a larger point, to describe how all things are for everyone, you’re correct, they have little use. What we have, in the minds of some people though, is the idea that X is never Y, or that A is always B, or some other overreaching claim that is easily disposed of with an anecdote. Having established that, we can move on.
What’s sad is that such anecdotes are even necessary. how anyone can believe that humans, with all their myriad backgrounds, beliefs and experiences, can be placed into easy to describe little boxes is beyond me.
(And when they do it’s almost invariably in a way that puts them in a better position than others–no coincidence that.)
My family is rather unique, as, I would guess, most families are. Racially we are far more diverse than most people seem to assume, based on the flimsy evidence of my last name. This is a source of amusement to me, mostly because it beats being annoyed by it, I suppose. Having a biracial child and siblings from the middle east might give me some insights on racial issues not as easily available to people from racially homogeneous families (whatever the race)but it would not occur to me to claim my opinions should be considered more valid than anyone else on these matters. I think my opinions should be accepted or rejected on the basis of how well thought out and argued they are.
This isn’t through any great sense of nobility or honor on my part; I just can’t think of any reason why someone would willingly cede a superiority of validity to the opinions of another based on circumstances of birth.
Been a few days since I looked in on this thread. Interesting to see that because I willing to begin a thread about racism, and discuss racism, which is exactly what the AG says we should be doing, I’m being accused of being a racist and some people are announcing they’re going to try to punish me economically…which is exactly what I said serves as a disincentive to starting open discussions about race. I think the initials Q.E.D. were invented just for this.
I’m not threatening you with anything, but I think any comments about not buying your work or whatever were not in response to your “willingly beginning a thread on racism” but because of things you said about racism that they didn’t agree with and found offensive.
It’s a touchy subject, that’s the whole reason it takes courage to bring it up. Saying it’s a disincentive to talk about race that you can’t be sure that everyone will be pleased with what you say doesn’t really contradict the idea that “we” as a nation have been cowardly about having the discussions. Of course white people in particular would find it easier to discuss race if any time they did they were assured they weren’t racist or got admired just for saying they were going to talk about it. And there’s plenty of places they can get that.
Dene: “I’m not threatening you with anything, but I think any comments about not buying your work or whatever were not in response to your “willingly beginning a thread on racism” but because of things you said about racism that they didn’t agree with and found offensive.”
Dene, what’s comical about that is that most of the people who are flaming and running or talking about what I jerk Peter and anyone else here are on their own blogs right now (follow some of the trackbacks) basically only read PAD’s thread opener. Why is that comical? Because, if you actually read it, there’s nothing in there that could be reasonably deemed offensive.
He didn’t say the he felt so-and-so, believed so-and-so or agreed with such-and-such POV. He only said that just bringing certain topics up in the attempt to discuss them can get you burnt. That’s all. And for that there are people swinging by to declare him a racist and tapping away at their keyboards and calling anyone who posts here on the subject racists on their own blogs.
If anyone ever needed proof that, in this day and age, you can be flamed for just talking about the idea of something; just look here.
Well said, Jerry. And for what it’s worth (which is, y’know, not much) I’m sorry about you getting beat up as a kid.
PAD
Ah, it was only a few years and I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world. It gave me a firsthand look at something that most people didn’t get to see that clearly and actually made me a better person by the end of it.
I got to see and feel what irrational, unreasoning, unfounded and, ultimately, meaningless hatred is and what it can do to the hater and the hated. Seeing that in the way I did made me want to never be like that myself. I would likely have ended up an okay guy without that, but it certainly helped bring something into a very sharp focus and understanding at a fairly young age.
He only said that just bringing certain topics up in the attempt to discuss them can get you burnt. That’s all.
Maybe that sentiment is exactly what they’re sick of and genuinely disagree with as a reason not to talk about racism? Because the feelings of white people when they try to talk about race isn’t actually a new thing being added to the conversation. It’s often the subject that many feel derails the conversation most of the time.
I don’t think you can just assume it’s those other people hearing what they expect to hear and not getting it right. Just because one person doesn’t have a problem with what was said doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t have an honest problem with what really was said.
Carlos Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:32 am
“Hope that clarifies…”
Certainly does, so thanks for replying. I’d say there was room for the anecdotal and the objective, especially when dealing with emotive issues. An anecdote might not be convincing, or even relevant, but it does give added context to where the recounter is coming from…
I was always told, listen to what people say, look at what they do, but figure why they do stuff and you’re really getting to the heart of the matter.
Actions speak louder than words, but whispered motives can be downright deafening 🙂
Spurious thought for the day; “people who give offense and people who take offense”… Sometimes our language is more subtle than one thinks, particularly with verbs.
Cheers.
I’ve always said that if anyone ever invents an engine that runs on offense, we could tell the whole middle east to go twist.
Dene: “Maybe that sentiment is exactly what they’re sick of and genuinely disagree with as a reason not to talk about racism? Because the feelings of white people when they try to talk about race isn’t actually a new thing being added to the conversation. It’s often the subject that many feel derails the conversation most of the time.
I don’t think you can just assume it’s those other people hearing what they expect to hear and not getting it right. Just because one person doesn’t have a problem with what was said doesn’t mean someone else couldn’t have an honest problem with what really was said.”
But that’s not what the people who are complaining about this post, here or elsewhere, are saying, Dene. They’re calling him an idiot, a jerk, sketchy or a racist because he’s upset that he can’t say the N-word and get away with it like blacks can. He’s messed up because he wants a white only group of journalists like the National Association of Black Journalists. He’s clueless because he can’t figure out why people were upset with Imus.
Oh, and I love that last one by the way. PAD may well have been thinking of Imus specifically, but he could have also just been talking about the incidents where any number of radio guys have been zapped and discussed in the national media after saying something that was deemed racist whether it was or wasn’t. He didn’t say Imus up top, but he’s being discussed on several blogs right now as a racist or an idiot because he said in this thread’s header that Imus should have been left alone or that what he said couldn’t have been offensive.
No one that I’ve seen here or elsewhere is saying that he’s a cretinous jerk or worse and citing the reasons that you’ve now presented. They’re doing what flame posters in this thread have done and the posters on other blogs have done. They’ve read what he said and they’ve seen what they wanted to see in what he said even if they had to create entire other paragraphs in their minds to do it.
And beyond that, you’re mistaken about one thing here. It’s not just about the color of one’s skin with these topics. It’s just the topic.
During the last few national flaps with race I saw several talking head groups get put together to discuss them on the cable shows. I actually saw prominent black men on these shows say that they hated the double standard with then-word and that we should be past the point where we have to have black only groups in every occupation under the sun. Guess what happened to them over half of the time? They got talked over, talked down to and sometimes flamed in real time by the other panelists for presenting such a POV. Well, that or they got treated condescendingly, patted on their head and told that those things were on their to do list for down the road.
It’s interesting.
Holder tries to get people to talk about race, but in his speech he uses a language that’s perceived as too aggressive, too antagonizing. Moreover, it is also perceived by some as an attack against whites, although that was not the intention. And some also feel that Holder was a little too one-sided, not taking into account things like Al-Sharpton.
So PAD starts a discussion about race, speaking of issues that trouble him about race relations. But his language appears to some (myself included) as aggressive and antagonizing. Some view it as an attack against people of color, although this was not the intention (presumably). Moreover, some feel that PAD is too one-sided, not taking into account crtain aspects of the experiences of people of color.
So people start responding to PAD, and their language is aggressive and antagonizing. And they seem to attack whites, and they only see their own point of view.
And other people respond to them, and they are also getting more aggressive, more confrontational, and one-sided too.
And so on…
Is it possible that the difficulty of talking about race is not only the result of people who are deliberatly being cynical and manipulative? Is it possible that regular people, who react in a very human manner, are also contributing to the difficulties?
I had a thought the other day.
There has been a lot of talk about ‘reverse racism’ in this thread. It doesn’t exist. There is just racism. If a white person doesn’t like black people, they are racist. If a black person doesn’t like white people, they are racist. There is nothing reverse about it.
Well maybe if they were intolerant of their own race… I guess.
Jess Willey Says: If a white person doesn’t like black people, they are racist. If a black person doesn’t like white people, they are racist
That’s not true. If a white person doesn’t like black people, that’s racist. If a black person doesn’t like white people, that’s bigotry and is discriminatory, and it’s obviously not positive, but it’s not racist.
To be racist, to have racism you need power, and white people have institutional power in the United States and most other Western nations.
Then the KKK are not racist. They have vvery little power.
Micha said:
Then the KKK are not racist. They have vvery little power.
Anymore.
Racism is when someone categorises solely (almost said ‘purely’, but that’s maybe a bad word to stick next to ‘race’) by race. The minute anyones says “All (colour) people are/do xyz” they’re being racist.
The only valid usage is “All (colour) people are (colour)”, as in “all brown people are brown, all black people are black, all white people are..umm, kind of pinkish actually..” So even that’s not too valid a use.
“Roses are red, violets are blue”
“No, stupid, they’re violet!”
Alternatively (veiled sexism ahead!)
“Rose’s are red, Violet’s are blue, what colour are yours?”
Cheers.
That’s not true. If a white person doesn’t like black people, that’s racist. If a black person doesn’t like white people, that’s bigotry and is discriminatory, and it’s obviously not positive, but it’s not racist.
And yet the results are exactly the same: Intolerance. Hatred. Economic sanctions. Hostility.
So what’s your point?
PAD
“To be racist, to have racism you need power”
I have always hated that concept. Oh, I could pull out as tired a chestnut as “if you are racist to someone, you are making them inferior to you and that GIVES you power over them” or the old reliable “We’re all part of ONE race – the Human Race”, but the point of fact is that it’s just a stupid statement. It’s as double-standardy as most of the stuff Peter mentioned in his OP. If this group does it it’s okay, but if this group does it it’s evil.
Racism has nothing to do with power. It’s the mindset that your group is better than that group over there, or that that group is inferior to yours in some way.
To suggest power is needed attempts to explain, justify or even condone the racist acts of people “not in power”.
If group a maintains their inherent superiority to group b solely because they are Group A, that’s racist. Which groups they are is immaterial.
No societal group or demographic is inherently better than any other.
Okay, vampires, but that’s it.
And Transformers.
DW spewed:
“That’s not true. If a white person doesn’t like black people, that’s racist. If a black person doesn’t like white people, that’s bigotry and is discriminatory, and it’s obviously not positive, but it’s not racist.”
BZZZTZTZTZTTT!!!
Wrong answer, but thanks for playing.
Or are you saying Black people are weak and inferior and need special treatment because of their inferiority?
“Or are you saying Black people are weak and inferior and need special treatment because of their inferiority?”
Yes! Yes he is! SIC ‘IM!
I’m reminded of Eddie Murphy’s bit about going to the South LOOKING for racism. “Yeah those are my bags! What, a black man can’t have luggage?!”
Sooo… when was the last time you talked to a black person about race? (Or, for that matter, a Latin or Asian or First Nations person?)
No, I don’t mean with a blog post, I mean one-on-one.
I’m pretty sure DW was attempting to discuss the Sociological definition of racism when describing the prejudice + power dynamic. I’m a card carrying Sociologist type, but I’m also lazy so I’ll let wikipedia do the leg work on this one:
“Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism David Wellman (1993) has defined racism as “culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities,” (Wellman 1993: x). Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “…a highly organized system of ‘race’-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/’race’ supremacy. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry,” (Cazenave and Maddern 1999: 42). Sociologist and former American Sociological Association president Joe Feagin argues that the United States can be characterized as a “total racist society” because racism is used to organize every social institution (Feagin 2000, p. 16).”
I hate simply using theories in arguments for the same reason I hate using anecdotes (though I’m more likely to use the former than the latter): They help to get a worldview across, but lack nuance most of the time. But, I wouldn’t say DW is wrong, and I wouldn’t say that believing that racism is power + prejudice equates with need for special treatment. I’m also not quite sure what “special treatment” is. As most of the social programs designed to help black people/minorities (and those used at higher rates by minorities) are there to ameliorate the intergenerational harm done by slavery and the subsequent quasi-citizenship that wasn’t completely legally dismantled until the 1950s… and honestly, still exists in a lot of places here on a societal level today off the books.
–Carlos (who will eventually post in other threads here!)
…I wouldn’t say that believing that racism is power + prejudice equates with need for special treatment…
I meant to say “equates with believing black people are inferior and in need of”
-C
Carlos Says (via Wikipedia):
March 4th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry,”
Yep, there’s always going to be “us” and “them”, and “us” is always going to crap mightily on “them”, I tend to think that’s part of human nature. An unpleasant part, but still a part.
The US – from my UK perspective – does spend a lot of time contemplating the black/white dynamic, on account of the history your nation has. In the UK, the us/them line is probably (still) a lot more about class and wealth and privilege than colour. Though we were pretty nasty to the Irish for a while…
Overall though, I think man’s inhumanity to man (feminists, forgive me!) may very often go for the easy visual excuse for segregation but it’s certainly not limited to that.
Cheers
“Though we were pretty nasty to the Irish for a while…”
And the Scottish, and the Welsh, and the Pikeys, and the French, Indians and the other wogs, and…well you know. I’d say when it comes to acting superior, the Brits leave us in the dust. But you created British Bacon, for which you have the right to speak down to anyone and everyone, AFAIC.
Every country has a group or groups they look down on, whether it be a neighboring country, a group within its borders or some other completely random grouping.
Tribal war in Africa, religious war in other countries, the very famous “light skinned black vs. dark skinned black” thing that goes on in the US…We’re all desperate to be better than someone else.
We all need Kigmies.
I’m an Englishman living in Scotland, so I’m sooooo not going there!
Not sure if pikeys count as a race…
” actually it originates from the Pike family, who
were Romanies in various parts of S England from 17th C onwards ” (Ex wikipedia, so add salt to taste!)
Then again, ‘gypsy’ is supposedly a corruption of Egyptian, so I guess it’s all water from the same poisonous well.
That whole British Empire thing – never mind mentioning the references to Africa as “the white man’s burden” – is probably not our finest contribution to tolerance.
(Devil’s Apricot does kick in though, and points out that under Pax Romana and Pax Brittanica there were far fewer wars and racial/religious bloodshed/rebellions than at other times in history. Same argument that Afghanistan and the Balkans “behaved themselves” when the Russians were happy to shoot anyone who got out of line… Which leads to arguing that Iraq was better off under Saddam because he never racked up the body count per year we’ve managed to… Feh! We’re a bloody wierd species when you get down to it!)
Cheers
Just read some Peggy Mcintosh, please.
Generalizations = an automatic fail.
It’s never smart to base a point on any “they”. You can’t claim to wave any kind of flag of truly wanting a knowledge gaining dialogue or peace without having done a bit of legwork on your own first…
The racial ignorance 101 I see here is just, wow. That is what I hear so much, my ears bleed from white people who don’t routinely stroll outside of the their usual cultural experiences. It’s fun! Try it.
…And I don’t mean by using a local black person as your personal dictionary.
Google and do some research, please. Start with Peggy Mcintosh.
Then come back and a really make a go without blaming your fear of “them”, if you’re so inclined.
‘Peter David – So what’s your point?’
It’s fairly obvious to me. It puts people of colour at a major disadvantage in a society which privileges white people.
So, like everyone else here, I say, go read Peggy Mcintosh.
“white people who don’t routinely stroll outside of the their usual cultural experiences.”
Are you sure this problem is unique to whites?
“You can’t claim to wave any kind of flag of truly wanting a knowledge gaining dialogue or peace without having done a bit of legwork on your own first…”
It seems to me that being dismissive of the other side, as well as labeling and lumping together, is not very conductive to dialogue either. That too it not unique to blacks or whites
I find that academic buzzwords are not as helpful as the people who use them think. They tend to entrench people.
OK, that’s the “white privilege” argument. There is some validity to it.
Does being a white heterosexual male give me some unfair advantages? Yes, in some areas, in some contexts.
But it’s not something I chose to be, so how much guilt am I supposed to feel for it? The world isn’t fair, and I doubt that it ever will be. Or is it that once I admit to it, I should then feel guilty about continuing to take advantage of it? Or that I don’t do enough to level the playing field?
Let’s chase this rabbit.
What should white people be doing, individually or collectively, to stamp out whatever racism is left in the world?
What should non-white people be doing?
Cheers.
Sooo… when was the last time you talked to a black person about race? (Or, for that matter, a Latin or Asian or First Nations person?) No, I don’t mean with a blog post, I mean one-on-one.
Personally? Couple months ago. Black friend of mine that I bowl with. Talked about what he had to deal with both in growing up and in the fact that he married a white woman.
PAD
Quick google of Peggy McIntosh. Women’s studies. I’ll ask my mom about her.
Short Essay online. Some interesting insights stuck in bad theoretical framework. As far as theoretical constructs go The White privilege construct doesn’t seem to be that useful; does more harm than good. Blunt instrument. Constructs like that tend to obfuscate the things they try to illuminate. You end up living in a theoretical world whose relations to the actual issues grows more and more distant, and the ability to discuss or do anything about these issues becomes more and more difficult.
I wonder if your friend gets more šhìŧ from Blacks or Whites over his decision to love someone of a different race. Of course, according to some here, any Black person who hates him for that would not be a racist for doing so. Mind boggling.
Wow, Peggy Mcintosh has quite the fan club out there. normally I’m suspicious when 3 or 4 posters nearly in a row recommend the same academic source, sockpuppetry being as pervasive as it is, but Ms. Mcintosh is fairly well known. I’ve read her anyway. She makes her points reasonably, more so than some of her acolytes, anyway. Not sure I agree with all of her list on white privilege–eating food with your mouth open is not something anyone of any race is likely to get away with (in fairness, her point is that a Black open mouth eater would have people thinking “that’s what Black people do” while a White person doing the same will just be thought of as being a pig. I don’t agree. I think they’ll both gross people out for the same reason.)
Where I think a lot of folks fail is that they assume the solution is to take away any so-called privileges form Whites. Not so–most of those are things that all people should have. You don’t solve inequities by bringing the privileged down, you bring the unprivileged up. Though that’s harder to do and less fun for the mendacious.
I appreciate the assumption that I haven’t read her writings about lives of white privilege. I presume the notion is that if I had, then I would be perfectly willing to accept that racism isn’t racism if it’s…what? Justified?
If there is ever going to be true equality, then both sides have to own their negatives as well as their positives. You can’t effectively have a dialogue if one side says, “You hate me and that’s wrong; I hate you but that’s warranted.” You can’t approach anything said by someone who’s white by effectively saying: You don’t get to say anything about race because you’re white and thus not entitled because you’ve had it easy and can’t understand.
Okay, you CAN say that, I suppose. But don’t you see that having one’s opinions dismissed out of hand is counterproductive to encouraging the exact sort of discourse that the AG was claiming we should have? If a white says, “This is how I feel about race relations,” and the response is, “What the hëll do you know about it? You’re white,” then genuine discourse is a non-starter.
Sure, blacks have reasons to hate whites. They’re even valid reasons. And those who hate blacks (or Jews for that matter) have their “reasons.” The problem is that even though the former reasons are justified and the latter reasons suck, the result is still the same.
I tried to start an honest discourse about race relations and the main result is “Peter David is a racist” (and the natural, “Oh my God, let’s boycott him!”) is now making its way through the internet. Do you seriously think that another white comics pro, upon seeing that, is going to feel inclined to try and broach the subject? I doubt it. What more proof of a chilling effect on the entire concept of genuine dialogue–and the validity of my original point–do you require?
I find myself thinking about the famed SNL word association sketch from the mid 1970s, in which Richard Pryor starts taking a word association test being administered by Chevy Chase. And what starts out innocently rapidly escalates into heated name calling. It was a wonderful commentary on both the absurdity of racial epithets and how there is simmering hostility between white and black that merely needs the slightest scratching to bubble over.
You couldn’t do that sketch now. No way. It doesn’t get out of the writers’ room, and if somehow it does, it gets shut down by Standards and Practices. How do you present the climax of the sketch? “N-Word!” “DEAD honky!” Doesn’t work.
Perhaps we’ll never truly have an end to racial antipathy until first we recapture our ability to laugh at the absurdity of hating someone based on the color of their skin.
PAD
Now we’re hitting the point! I hate Peter David for his racism, and I’m boycotting his site!
In fact, Peter, I boycott your site three or four times a day to see if there’s anything else that I want to boycott it about! And I check all your posts because I want to see what you’re insulting me about now! And you keep ignoring me – so I hate you!
And I used to like your writing, but now that I hate you, I’m not buying it, either! And I purchase everything you write because I want to go over it with a fine tooth comb to see what you’ve written so that I can hate it more!!! Whaddaya think of THOSE apples?!?
Of course, in the meantime, I get to enjoy your writing still, and your commentary, and your tolerance and humor, and… oh, God, now I hate MYSELF. Hey, does that make me a bigot?
Eric L. Sofer
The Bad Clown
x<]:o){
There was this terrific piece that I think was called “The Bigot” that Bill Cosby did years and years ago. It was a half hour thing that ran on PBS, in which Cosby sits there and, as the titular character, does a long (but very controlled) rant in which he laces into whites, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, foreigners…everybody. Every race, every class, everything you can imagine. Just nothing but hatred. And I always remember the ending:
“I’m a what? A bigot? Yeah, that’s right. I’m proud of it. I’m a bigot. There ain’t but two of us left. (Pause) And I ain’t too crazy about the other one.”
PAD
I think I remember that bit. he had some kind of makeup effect on–it might have been something as simple as white and black lines on his face to symbolize that he was all races. They showed it in school I think–so this would have been quite a while ago–and it pretty much stunned the class into silence, both from hearing the kind of hate that we had been taught (well, some of us had been taught) was something no decent person would think AND the fact that it was coming from lovable jello Pudding Pop loving Bill Cosby.
Such a routine now would invite sniffs of disdain from those who would suggest that he was missing the point and enabling the oppressive blah blah blah.
Do you seriously think that another white comics pro, upon seeing that, is going to feel inclined to try and broach the subject? I doubt it. What more proof of a chilling effect on the entire concept of genuine dialogue–and the validity of my original point–do you require?
Bingo. They’d have to be stupid. There aren’t too many people who would seem to be less likely to be justifiably called a bigot than you but here we are. I asked before–what are the benefits to people to risk this for dialogue? I was going to say “to white people” but upon reflection, the people who are going after you would have no problem attacking other blacks as Uncle Toms or worse. They are demanding a purity of thought that brooks no dissent. Race is just the club with which to ensure that nobody strays too far from that which is deemed allowable.
That is what I hear so much, my ears bleed from white people who don’t routinely stroll outside of the their usual cultural experiences. It’s fun! Try it.
Well, my ‘cultural experiences’ growing up as a lower class white kid in the Midwest included being subjected to racism over a spam of several years, mostly by blacks.
But, nobody wants to hear about whites who have had to deal with racism. After all, it’s not as bad as what blacks or Hispanics have had to deal with, so my experiences don’t matter, right?
Peter J Poole Says:
March 5th, 2009 at 6:32 am
<>
I think education would be a good start. White males benefiting from White/Male privilege, and dismissing it as a useless theory (when it is rooted in history and plenty of academic study) or saying “life is unfair, oh well” is a horrible problem. What’s worse is when people believe that black people on the whole are lazier than whites (as a large percentage of whites do), yet by some studies only __% of whites believe they harbor racist sentiments. Negative associations with minorities
Having constructive discussions on the topic (hey, it only took 200 posts to get to this point!) Where people are asking what can be done and brainstorming on answers instead of attributing it to Human Nature and shrugging it off is a nice step.
I would hope outrage would follow education. People that know about the ugliness of the post Katrina killings at Algiers Point, or the struggles of minorities in this country could voice their dissent (maybe even write about it in their blogs 🙂 ) and relate it to the larger discussion of what is Wrong Here. White Privilege isn’t likely to disappear any time soon, but not attempting to change a system from you benefit is in many ways tantamount to supporting it.
<
A lot. Al Sharpton/the like and those who choose to follow him shouldn’t be protesting cartoons in the media, so much as the lack of qualified diversity on the boards at media outlets and on executive boards everywhere. Heck, why not protest the lack of diversity in media itself, white people could protest as well! Maybe that could help educate everyone on the importance of seeing positive portrayals of minorities in visual media along the way.
The “we should be doing something!” post-Obama personal responsibility attitude should be cultivated. Minority groups should be volunteering their own time in community spaces. Education applies here too, one would think. Bill Cosby stirred up a debate a few years back that was quashed by apologist African-Americans and praised by far too many people who didn’t truly understand his point.
This isn’t a comprehensive list, just idle thoughts that could start a larger discussion.
Grrr, getting used to this:
Peter J Poole asked:
What should white people be doing, individually or collectively, to stamp out whatever racism is left in the
world?
–And–
What should non-white people be doing?
Last time, I swear! I forgot the stats I was looking for.
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/07/perceptions_of_racial_traits.html
Pulled from: Matt Yglesias blog, pointing to another:
Blog post on “2004 NES which shows that about half of white people think African-Americans are lazier than whites, almost 40 percent say that African-Americans are less intelligent than whites, and again about 40 percent of whites say that African-Americans are less trustworthy.”
Granted, 4 years old, but that many bigots couldn’t have had a heart attack when President Obama was sworn in, right? 🙂
Blog post on “2004 NES which shows that about half of white people think African-Americans are lazier than whites, almost 40 percent say that African-Americans are less intelligent than whites, and again about 40 percent of whites say that African-Americans are less trustworthy.”
On the other hand, my guess is that a hundred years ago, the percentage would have been much higher. Probably even fifty years ago. And now here we are, and more than half of white people DON’T think these things.
And perhaps more progress would be made if people weren’t flying off the handle over political cartoons or use of the word “ņìggárdlÿ” and thus diluting the impact when matters of real consequence need to be discussed, is all I’m saying.
Unfortunately, on the one hand we’ve got the AG saying, “We need to talk about this,” but when someone white says, “Okay, let’s talk about it; this is how I feel,” the response is, “You’re an entitled white man; we don’t care how you feel.”
Thus endeth the discussion.
PAD
Unfortunately, on the one hand we’ve got the AG saying, “We need to talk about this,” but when someone white says, “Okay, let’s talk about it; this is how I feel,” the response is, “You’re an entitled white man; we don’t care how you feel.”
Thus endeth the discussion.
-Peter David
Wow, did you miss the point.
You’re not a victim. You asked a question that made you look bad. You wanted to know why you can’t say the “n-word”. My question is why would you want to? I’ve never written an essay about why I can’t all handicapped people the “r-word” when they typically use it is friendly way with each other…
Do you see how douchey that sounds??
If you begin the discussion on the wrong foot, which you did, you’ve already hindered the discussion.
Good intent isn’t enough. When people call you on something you said as hurtful, own up.
Ask questions.
That tells me you really do want a dialogue. But going on the brazen defensive without even trying to understand what people are saying…
Really, I was a fan, but I’ve lost so much respect for you, especially in your responses as have many of my friends, of all races.
It’s also worth pointing out that while about half of both black and white people believed that blacks and whites are equal in terms of being hardworking, intelligent, and trustworthy, both groups have significant members who fall sadly short of being enlightened about prejudice.
It’s true that way too many whites think blacks are lazier, less intelligent or less trustworthy than white people. But, sadly we also see that 19% of blacks agree with them about black people being lazier! Another 23% think blacks are harder working than whites which should also be upsetting. 15% of blacks think blacks are less intelligent and 15% think they are more intelligent.
Most curiously, on the question of trustworthiness, blacks and whites are at about the same level of non-prejudice: 60% of Whites and 58% of blacks think the groups are equally trustworthy. Almost all of the remaining 40% of whites think they are most trustworthy, which is no surprise. bigots are usually bigoted toward their own advantage, but why would 28% of blacks think that blacks are less trustworthy? (14% of blacks think they are more trustworthy than whites).
While the poll shows that we have a distressingly long way to go I think PAD is correct that it probably also shows improvement and we can be glad that the races are not terribly far apart in their stated levels of bigotry. Now we just have to get working on the stragglers in both groups. (And it would help if we didn’t make excuses for them. Reasons, shmeasons, time to grow up.)
They sent me one of those polls once. I was too lazy to respond.
PAD
“Not sure I agree with all of her list on white privilege–eating food with your mouth open is not something anyone of any race is likely to get away with (in fairness, her point is that a Black open mouth eater would have people thinking “that’s what Black people do” while a White person doing the same will just be thought of as being a pig. I don’t agree.”
“17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.”
This is a good example about what’s right and what’s wrong with this white privilage approach.
There are two important insights here:
1) Some whites will view the behavior of a person of color as represantative of the behavior of the race as a whole.
2) More importantly, some blacks feel as if their actions are being judged by whites as representative of blacks as a whole.
The 2nd insight is very important. It tells us something about how blacks feel living in a mostly white country. It doesn’t matter if in a given situation there are no whites who are actually guilty of viewing his or her actions as representative, he or she still has the understandable fear that they do. We can say that this fear should be shrugged off, but this is easier said than done. History has made this fear deeply ingrained. So, having learned of this feeling gnawing on the psychy of some black people, we should recognize it, respect it, empathaize with them. Hopefully over time this fear will disappear for future generations of blacks, but it might not.
The first insight is also important. In a way, it’s human to generalize. We all casaually do it, blacks as well as whites. I think any person who ate with his mouth open in a room where most of the people were not of his group might be viewed as representative — not only blacks. We all generalize in order to refer to groups of people — whites, blacks, liberals, conservatives etc. Recognizing our tendancy to do this and trying to rein this tendancy to the necessary minimum is certainly a positive thing that people in general should do.
So what’s the problem? We got an important insight about how blacks feel, and we had a bad habit which exists in our society pointed to us. All is good.
But putting all this in the framework of “white privilage” changes the whole story. It is no longer about understanding the point of blacks or about correcting individual behavior. Now its about whites being racist by virtue of being white. The racism is embedded in them. Because they are white, they are inevitably the cause of that fear gnawing at the psychy of blacks, the cause of their oppression.
Moreover, now, in this system of white privilage, it is not only that the differnt and unique perspective of blacks is recognized, a perspective that may be different than the one of whites. That would be too obvious, since it is obvious that different people with different experiences have different perspectives. After all, we talk to others to get their different perspective. But with the construct of white privilage, whites are not people with a different perspective, they are flawed, blind, incapable of seeing and understanding. And just as a blind person’s opinion on color doesn’t matter, so the opinion of whites on race does not.
In this system whites have two options:
a) Do what Peggy Mcintosh does and confess the sin of white privilage, and thus be cleansed from it. And then you can go on denouncing the sin in others.
b) Being blind to his inherent racism a white person might resent being labeled racist regardless of his own individual beliefs, behavior or experiences. Moreover he or she might resent being stamped with the universal label of privilaged considering different white people have different experiences, each one with his or her own issues and problem, and might therefore not feel very privilaged. This resentment might then seep into discussion about race on blogs and internet forums.
Meanwhile, blacks, who were already burdened with the understandable fear that their individual behavior is viewed by some blacks as representing their race, now have, thanks to the construct of white privilage, a double reason for resentment. It’s not only that whites might view them that way, but being white, they are the cause of this fear. By being white, they embody the system of oppression that causes blacks to fear that they are being judged. This resentment also seeps into discussions about race.
So, everybody wins.