sarahmichigan | Blogging Against Racism Week

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Also, what about "reverse racism", which is really just racism... but we're not allowed to acknowledge it.

I don't like the term "reverse racism" because it implies there's a proper direction for racism. :)

But, yeah, I know what you're getting at. I think it falls into my third category (i.e. 'How can we talk about racism without accusations or shutting people down?')

I find the whole issue of racism tiresome simply because I have heard it for so long. I don't think we are actually making any progress by making the subject taboo. The only thing that changes is that people stop talking about it around people who might alter their opinion / report them.

I personally believe that when we focus too closely on the words, they lose all meaning as is illustrated by your third point.

I sometimes go a little too far in my belief that most questions have black & white answers (hah!). But on this one, it seems easy. Don't do it at work. You might have the funniest racially-charged joke on the planet, and if you told it, everyone within earshot would be convinced you were the wittiest guy alive. Don't tell it at work. Seriously. Why is it necessary?

Other than that, do what you want to. Unless you're a public govt offical(sorry, anything you say in public counts as being "at work" - you get plenty of other perks to make up for it), what you say on your own time is your own business.

But what about comedians who address racism through humor (i.e. Lenny Bruce, Chris Rock, Carlos Mencia, etc.)?

This is what I mean about the difference between a joke about race and a racist joke.

I think it's easy for white people to get sick of a discussion about race since we rarely experience it, to the point that it shocks us if/when we do.

I have, within my lifetime, heard a boss talk about not wanting to hire black people and have had a friend cursed out and called the "N" word by a boss upon her departure, so I hardly think that racism should just be swept under the rug and not discussed.

I have experienced it over and over from both ends. The problem is that it doesn't apply to the situations it should and is used as a club where it is inappropriate.

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.

I think a joke about race says, "Let's examine at this issue through humor."

A racist joke, however, says, "Let's degrade them by ridiculing them."

Stepping back, shouldn't it be someone's right to hire whomever they want?
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.

oops, that last comment wasn't directed at you, k. the comment was for a different thread.

There is a valid argument to be had that, in the United States, only whites are "racist," but that argument depends highly on how "racism" is defined. Using the simple dictionary definition, that racism is making negative assumptions about people based solely on the color of their skin, yes, of course blacks (and latinos and other minorities) can be racist. But in conversations on racism, there's frequently a more powerful definition at play: Racism is (in that view) using social power and traditional attitudes to make sure that certain privileges stay with people of a particular skin color. From that perspective, it's much less clear that blacks can be racist (although, to rebut myself, it's not impossible, depending on what "certain privileges" we're talking about -- certain members of the various "oppressed" classes have learned over the last decades how to leverage SWAMP* Guilt to get special treatment).

* Straight White Anglo Male Protestant, my own acronym.

This gets back to my point about how to have a discussion about race/racism without shutting people down or pointing fingers, but I am really tempted to unfriend you right now.

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).

S'ok. I affirm that the opinions expressed above are mine and mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the management.

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.

Just to clarify, most minorities who make that argument say it's possible for a racial minority to be "prejudiced" but not "racist" because "racist" implies that the person so named has the power and/or privilege in that context.

The problem with the racism debate is that presumes to tell people how they should think

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.

People have the freedom to think and say what they want, but not the freedom to say and think them without any social repercussion, IMO.

To what extent does Mencia (as a blatant example) make jokes aimed at bringing discussions of race to the forefront, and to what extent does he make such jokes because he also happens to be a bigot*, but since he's a Latino bigot, he can get away with it?

I don't know the answer (and I reckon that's something like what you're asking, too).

* I'm not saying he is, by the way.

Ah yes, that is the problem because having a separate point of view makes me part of the bad guys. It took me awhile to realize that drawing distinctions based on color, sexual orientation etc. is wrong regardless of who makes that distinction (the company or the government). We can't solve the problem by switching victims.

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.

An excellent example of a joke about race (well, ethnicity, but the same basic conversation): Years ago, there was a Polish sports figure (I believe he was in football) who had a TV commercial for some product or other. In it, he said, "Sometimes people ask me what I think of Polish jokes. I'll tell you, I love Polish jokes! They're my favorite. Here's one, for instance..." and proceeds to tell a joke in Polish. It was a classic meta-joke, because on one level it showed him turning the prejudice on its ear, and on another it played off the "clueless Polack" stereotype (i.e., he was too dumb to know what a "Polish joke" was).

I can see how you could argue that affirmative action creates white "vitims". However, I fail to see how "Equal Opportunity" laws make victims.

You are not advocating allowing people to think whatever they want. You are advocating letting people act however they want. And conflating the two is deceptive and disturbing. At least be honest about your intentions, please.

My gripe is with affirmative action rather than Equal opportunity. There is a huge difference in telling someone they are not allowed to discriminate (not taking a better qualified candidate because of their race) and being forced to take an inferior candidate because of their race.

Agreed. It seems to me that many people (of all races) who try to vilify PC and insist "I can say what I want" don't really want to take responsibility for having said what they wanted. Yes, there are cases where PC has gone overboard and suppressed valid debate, but I don't believe that was the original intent, and there most certainly isn't anything wrong with suggesting that people think and reflect on the possible effect of their words before they open their mouths.

In my comment about my boss not wanting to hire black people, I wasn't talking about affirmative action, but rather blatantly violating the EEO law. I think he was foolish and short-sighted in his reasoning. He thought black sales agents wouldn't do well in his markets, but he was discounting black people as a part of his market, which never made sense to me.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

Blogging Against Racism Week

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Tiresome

Re: Tiresome

no subject

Re: Tiresome

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Tiresome

Re: Tiresome

only whites are "racist," but that argument depends highly on how "racism" is defined

Re: Tiresome

not disagreeing, just adding...

no subject

Re: Tiresome

no subject

Re: Tiresome

Re: Tiresome

Re: Tiresome

Re: not disagreeing, just adding...

Re: Tiresome