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

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Naah, that's not really true. You're just pursuing a line of argument that some people find highly objectionable. That's not the same thing as a subject being taboo.

Mind you, you do have a point, in that many people share your views, and are just more shy about saying so.

I personally think that your views are more hopelessly misguided than anything else. They seem predicated on a view of the world that utterly underestimates the trillions of dollars of damage done to black families in America by racism, and underestimates the current toll in human suffering exacted by racism each day.

It's a human failing, really; problems that don't pinch us personally, tend not to be real to us.

If I shared your view of the scope of the problem, I might share your view as to what constitutes an appropriate response. An icepack is an appropriate remedy for a bruise, but not multiple broken ribs and a pierced lung.

To me, with respect to this topic, America is coughing up blood and wheezing in the eyes of the world daily, but keeps muttering about band-aids and Tylenol. To react to this situation with horror, to wince as one dodges blood-flecked sputum, is normal. It does not constitute making a subject 'taboo'.

Just my viewpoint.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

A taboo is a subject that carries penalty simply for being questioned. I think it fits in this case.

I don't think you can change people by simply stating this is the way it will be and hoping. I think while the laws has some impact, it isn't the best way to address the situation simply because it does nothing to alleviate the problem. If a person is given a job, it is assumed they are competent. If someone is given a job for a reason that might be something other other than competence, they will be held to a higher standard of performance than someone who qualified on their own merit. This goes for minorities as well as nepotism. In trying to create equality, they simply created a new problem.

I don't think the answer is a reallocation of privilege. I think the answer is everyone faces the same standard and preforms according to their ability.

There is a longer conversation here but I am not really interested in pursuing it simply because I don't think it will accomplish anything.

Re: Tiresome

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

I do agree with some of what you are saying. Particularly, I don't think that legislation could ever be enough on its own.

But,
"I think the answer is everyone faces the same standard and [performs] according to their ability."

Given that studies have repeatedly shown that America still viciously discriminates against darker-skinned peoples; and given that people show no propensity to change that discrimination in the absence of strong social forces, including-but-not-limited-to-legislation, how do you recommend that change be brought about?

I was serious when I said that AA and similar measures were sucky but superior to the alternatives. If you don't like them, what do you propose?

I should note that, given my view of the problem, I don't accept "Leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out" as a viable solution practically or an acceptable one ethically.

I suspect that we are also working with different understandings of AA and its results. I've heard a common mythology that AA leads to priviliged, underskilled minority workers holding posts that they don't deserve, over ousted, capable white people- victims of 'reverse racism'. I've never seen this substantiated by fact.

All the fact I've seen on the matter suggests that "reverse racism" is like peeing into a hurricane. It may exist, but focussing on it constitutes a grave error given the context, and even trying to do it is dangerous in the attempt.

Re: Tiresome

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

Our experiences differ.

Re: Tiresome

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Clearly.

I would note also, though, that I am suspicious of personal experience. It's important, but it needs to be checked and validated against objective fact wherever possible.

I wouldn't want to assume, but I am curious as to what research supports the positions you have voiced thus far; and I remain curious as to what solutions you propose to the problem of American Racism, if indeed you have any solutions...

adrian