Blogging Against Racism Week

[sarahmichigan]

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.

Comments

Re: Tiresome

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

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).

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Tiresome

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

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

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Tiresome

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm so his choice had a reason rather than just being knee-jerk racism? That's where the conversation gets harder because we are removing his right to run his business to what he sees as his best advantage. Do I agree with him? No, but I do see his logic and while it is discriminatory, I am not as sure that it is racist since he was considering the effect of race rather than dismissing them out of hand as unqualified due to their race.

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

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to say is that he didn't think black sales agents would do well selling in his market, BUT he was also making the assumption that blacks were not part of his target market, which I think *is* racist. There are plenty of affluent African American communities in Michigan, but he never thought to send the black agents there. And his assumptions were racist because he had never hired a black agent, so how the hell would he know they wouldn't do well selling to whites?

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

Ok. So he was being short-sighted, happens to a lot of businesses, which is why they go under. I think that is an appropriate consequence for bad management.

Re: Tiresome

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

My original point for bringing it up wasn't about EEO or Affirmative Action but just to say that racism is alive and well today. Some folks want to believe it's an artifact of the past, but it isn't.

Re: Tiresome

[stacycat69.livejournal.com]

Okay, Affirmative Action does not say "Hire a black person over a white person, always." Affirmative action basicaly states that your pool of applicants should have a diverse group. Nowhere in any affirmative action law that has stood up before the supreme court (i.e., quotas are illegal) does it state to hire an unqualified person because of their race.

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

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I love Stacy. :)

Re: Tiresome

[stacycat69.livejournal.com]

Awww, thanks!