sarahmichigan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sarahmichigan) wrote2007-08-07 11:51 am
sarahmichigan) wrote2007-08-07 11:51 am
Entry tags:
Blogging Against Racism Week
I've seen it noted in a few places that this is "Blogging Against Racism Week."
Of course, I think Racism is Bad. And I can come up with a fistful of personal anecdotes as well as statistics to counter anyone who says that racism is a thing of the past and isn't a problem today.
But there are so many issues where I just don't know what to think. Here are some issues I'm conflicted or confused about:
-Racism and humor. What's the difference between a joke about racism and a racist joke? Who's allowed to make jokes that are racially charged? Should white people lose their jobs over making racist jokes?
-Racism and "The N Word". For the most part, only white people who are rednecks (yes, I know this is a racially charged word as well- I come from redneck stock and think I'm allowed to use it) or blatantly racist use this term with any regularity these days. Should Blacks stop using it as well? Should there be MORE use of it to diffuse the charge of the word, kind of like diffusing other epithets like "bitch" or "slut" or "dyke"?
-How to talk about race. How do we start a dialogue about racism and race without ending up in accusations, shutting people down, and making people feel like they can't talk about it at all?
Maybe some of the blog posts I'll read this week will shed some light on one or more of those issues. I'm not sure if I'll post more about the topic or not; it seems like there are plenty Guilty White Liberals posting about race already.
Of course, I think Racism is Bad. And I can come up with a fistful of personal anecdotes as well as statistics to counter anyone who says that racism is a thing of the past and isn't a problem today.
But there are so many issues where I just don't know what to think. Here are some issues I'm conflicted or confused about:
-Racism and humor. What's the difference between a joke about racism and a racist joke? Who's allowed to make jokes that are racially charged? Should white people lose their jobs over making racist jokes?
-Racism and "The N Word". For the most part, only white people who are rednecks (yes, I know this is a racially charged word as well- I come from redneck stock and think I'm allowed to use it) or blatantly racist use this term with any regularity these days. Should Blacks stop using it as well? Should there be MORE use of it to diffuse the charge of the word, kind of like diffusing other epithets like "bitch" or "slut" or "dyke"?
-How to talk about race. How do we start a dialogue about racism and race without ending up in accusations, shutting people down, and making people feel like they can't talk about it at all?
Maybe some of the blog posts I'll read this week will shed some light on one or more of those issues. I'm not sure if I'll post more about the topic or not; it seems like there are plenty Guilty White Liberals posting about race already.
Re: Tiresome
Stepping back, shouldn't it be someone's right to hire whomever they want? Shouldn't they be allowed to think, feel and say whatever they want? The problem with the racism debate is that presumes to tell people how they should think and that is just as wrong as being a bigoted idiot.
If we are going to talk about, we need to let go of the idea that there is a single way to to view the issue, otherwise it is simply a lecture rather than a conversation.
Re: Tiresome
maybe, maybe not, but thinking/feeling is different than doing. I think that racist employers are probably shooting their own feet by not hiring diversely, but we do have workplace discrimination laws in place for a reason.
I'm really uncomfortable with just about everything you've ever said about racism (and much about feminism) on my LJ and hope that nobody thinks that I agree with you just because you're on my friends list.
Re: Tiresome
I think in the case of racism, we succeeded in creating a lot of the changes that were needed but then we went overboard and can't seem to find our way back to the equilibrium because the conversation itself has become so skewed that actual debate isn't possible.
I think racist employers could very well be shooting themselves in the foot and that the capital markets are all the enforcement we need on that issue. The problem is, the capital markets are just as vicious when we force an employer to take employees he doesn't want and will not use.
How does it show good things about a person if the the only reason they have accomplished anything is their race? Instead of allowing for free competition, we have created separate and unequal access to opportunity and want to pretend that this is something other than racist. It isn't. Assigning privileges to someone based solely on the color of their skin is racist, regardless of what race the beneficiary is. It makes no difference if this runs contrary to historical trends, it is still the same unfair set up with one person benefiting at the detriment of another.
People have a inalienable right to be stupid, ignorant and self-defeating. Forcing them to do otherwise violate their civil rights just as much as they would violate other people's.
I think the best think we can do at this point is remove the race bias as best we can and allow free competition. That way, there is no argument that the best person succeeded and did so because of their ability.
Re: Tiresome
Student A is black and came from a high school with textbooks from 1970. He got a 3.2 GPA and is competing for a scholarship (federal funds, mind you) with Student B. Being white, Student B grew up in a school district with a much higher level of tax funding, enjoyed new classrooms, small class sizes, new books, etc. Student B had a GPA of 3.3
Who do you think worked harder for that GPA? There are a lot of generalizations here, but seriously - do you think that tax funding has nothing to do with scholastic performance? What we're talking about with this scholarship is making up at a federal level for what the student did NOT receive at a local level.
Let's just be blunt about it. IN GENERAL, the black kid is going to grow up in a more crowded, less well-funded school because his parents don't have high paying jobs. His parents live in a less-well-to-do school district because - many generations ago - their ancestors were slaves and had no money. It takes a lot of time to build up family wealth. White kids IN GENERAL start from an advantage and don't STATISTICALLY need the grant/scholarship money as much.
Individual exceptions? Sure. But federal policy has nothing to do with individual cases and everything to do with trends. Reversing negative ones. Promoting positive ones. Making the country better, not for you individually, but for you generally.
That's what EO programs mean to me. And I don't think we're anywhere NEAR being ready to drop them because "everything's just fine now".
Re: Tiresome
As far as GPA goes, it isn't really relevant anymore. I used to work in admissions in 2 different universities and I had more than a few applications come in with 3.9 GPAs that were filled out at sub-literate level. Clearly, this kid will get in and just as clearly, will get destroyed by the standards of the school. As such, I don't think GPA are a means of comparison.
As far as the rest of it goes, its the same problem I had mentioned before. Skewing the field to favor one group does a disservice to all the people who wind up playing.
It occurs to me that if I keep writing on this, I am simply going to get myself in more trouble.
So...
We disagree. I don't believe anything is made fair by making it unequal in someone's favor. I think doing so robs people of the ability to accomplish and the dignity of competing as an equal.
Re: Tiresome
I don't agree with the position that there isn't a problem in need of fixing or that situations in the workplace and education aren't still skewed against most racial minorities, though.
Re: Tiresome
I didn't say there isn't a problem. I think that problems that currently exist are better dealt with on a case by case basis rather than trying to legislate a belief system. Real problems still exist but I don't think the currently policies address it appropriately nor do I think that they really can address it appropriately.
Re: Tiresome
It just seems less terrible (even if only marginally) than any of the alternatives.
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
I can't believe anyone would come on my journal and say that it should be an employer's right to discriminate in hiring based on race (I realize there's an intellectual dissonance there with my ideas about affirmative action, but I've never been 100 percent comfortable with that being a solution, either).
Re: Tiresome
We do agree that not hiring someone based on the color of their skin is foolish. Shouldn't people have the right to be foolish with their own property?
I think the victory of civil rights was sweeping away the laws that made these distinctions. I think the failure was placing in new laws that kept the distinctions as the primary differentiating factor.
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
If someone wants to dig ditches with soup spoons, that's up to him. Deliberately crippling yourself by refusing better tools is short sighted and the markets will respond appropriately. What do we tell people when they are making choices based on their own experience and they are the ones who bear the consequences?
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Racism is alive and well in our country. And, ignoring it, or saying that one is colorblind, or should have a choice of who they should hire ignoring racial status. If a business owner swears up and down that he or she is not racist, yet only hires upper class white men, what do you think is happening there? To me, it would seem that 1) he is perpetuating the "colorblind" myth, or 2) not advertising to any minorities. (or, 3) he is racist).
Racism is not what happens to individuals. Racism is present in the institutions of our societies. So, while very few individuals are outwardly racist, everyone has absorbed the racist messages we are given. Its our job to fight them when we can.
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome
While there are certainly some vocal forces who are trying to force people to change their thoughts, the bulk of what I've seen from anti-racist rhetoric is in getting people to monitor how they speak and act. In my opinion, feel free to think that blacks make better runners, whites were made by God to dominate the globe, or that latinos are lazy and deserve poverty... but be willing to take responsibility for saying any of those things out loud, or acting as if they're true.
Going back to the Don Imus flap, I disagreed with the forces that pressured Imus's company into firing him, but on the same measure, he said things he simply shouldn't have said, and shame on him for having said them.
not disagreeing, just adding...
Re: not disagreeing, just adding...
Re: Tiresome
Re: Tiresome