White trick-or-treaters in blackface: C/D?

It's really, really dangerous to start thinking "racism" is solely limited to people who actively hate certain other races and take active steps to be mean to them; this describes like a really tiny portion of the history of racism, which is almost always more about having particular expectations of people or ideas about them and their status based on race. Whether those ideas are "conscious" or "ignorant" is a pretty vague spectrum based on how much people have sat down and thought about the nuances of their belief systems -- i.e., something really, really hard to judge without mind-meld technology.

i have never had a racial slur directed to me, though i'm sure that in various confrontations some people may have regarded my actions as having to do with being white. i have been with friends who have been racially slurred in my presence and it is indeed an incredibly awkward, hurtful and, yes, sometimes somewhat funny situation. the right idiot making the right bizarre racist comment can sound so absurd that you have to laugh at it. is that okay?

i don't think that sensitivity is always necessary to promote the alleviation of racism. i'm not asking for permission to tell racist jokes, i'm saying that it seems like there's a way to talk intelligently and with humor about race that shouldn't offend people.

as long as they speak english on the job *groans*

He always knew how to drop science.

TS: ethan in "righteous outer of racists" mode vs. ethan in "THAT'S NOT FUNNY" mode

in other words, it's often a bad term precisely because it's connected to slavery and segregationist, and this let's everyone off the hook.

No, my sense is that people are hyper-aware of the possibility of getting accused of racism, and of its consequences, and so they'd like to restrict the word to some clear-cut realm of pure hate, in order to be clear they can never accidentally stumble over into it. This is why so many white people run around complaining that black people "overuse" accusations of racism. And interestingly enough they might sometimes be right, but what's bizarre about this is how it's white people who enforce that supposed "hyper-sensitivity" -- if black people are too quick to shout racism, you'd think you'd more often see frank racial discussions in which people actually stood up and said they didn't think the accusation was unwarranted. I mean, this is a side-issue, but it's odd to me that people will claim blacks "over-accuse" of racism, but not, like, grow some figurative balls about it: I'm seriously still amazed that when that guy in D.C. used the word "niggardly" and everyone got angry, his supervisors and colleagues actually hemmed and hawed and tried to be sensitive and placate -- instead of just saying "sorry, it's a word, it means something else, look it up."

So I suppose my question is this: how is it that like 80% of this country's population can live in weird irrational fear of being called racist by some little subset of 10% of the remainder? How can people claim that the term is overused and "played" as a "card" and devalued -- and yet fear it so much that they wind up on eggshells over it? In other words: what real power does an accusation of racism have over a white person -- apart from the power other white people will give it, by abandoning the accused? Do you see where I'm headed with this?

Up your ass?

because i dont think it's pragmatically expedient to do so! "racism" has all sorts of connotations and contexts that people use to distance themselves from it.

this is exactly my argument:

No, my sense is that people are hyper-aware of the possibility of getting accused of racism, and of its consequences, and so they'd like to restrict the word to some clear-cut realm of pure hate, in order to be clear they can never accidentally stumble over into it.

except im arguing that the "clear-cut" meaning of the term has already been (largely) sorted out. if you avoid shouting racism at someone they are more willing to look at those beliefs or actions which are in fact probably racist but dont fall under the "pure hate" portion of that definition.

me at halloween

im arguing that the "clear-cut" meaning of the term has already been (largely) sorted out

Sorry, Ryan, but I'm arguing that this is total bullshit. For instance: segregation was racist, yes? But just think how ridiculous and ahistorical is it to imagine that segregation was perpetuated strictly by "clear-cut" hood-wearing card-carrying racists! No, segregation in practice was held in place by any number of everyday, normal people: store owners and lunch-counter operators and employers and bus drivers. In the South, chances are the bulk of these folks liked black people -- they employed them, were friends with them, brought them into their homes. They didn't have a "problem" with them. But when it came down to it, they'd still tell these people to use the back entrance or give up their seats, and when it came down to it, they wouldn't give them jobs beyond sweeping up and ironing the clothes. That is what racism is -- the murderers and cross-burners are just an extreme expression of it. The word "racist" shouldn't refer strictly to cross-burners any more than the words "liberal" or "conservative" should refer strictly to the extreme left and right wings.

Just for instance, look at anti-Semitism in late-30s Germany. If we were to say a German of that era was an anti-Semite, we wouldn't exactly be accusing him of masterminding the death camps, or even standing outside cheering -- all we'd be saying is that this person had swallowed some percentage of the rote, everyday, caricatured anti-Semitism that was all over the time and place. And if that were true, how in the world would "but I disapproved when I found out about Auschwitz" matter? What bearing would that possibly have on the workaday stereotypes or conspiracy theories or other bullshit this person might have casually believed about Jews?

No: Nazis and Klansmen and virulent racists are red herrings in this conversation; they're just the organized extremes, the far-out bizarro expression of attitudes (of everyday racism, or anti-Semitism, or whatever else) that are all around in everything else. Surely this makes sense?

to say that an accusation of racism only has power over a white person because other white people give it power is ridiculous

My question: how so? Being called a racist doesn't do anything more to a person than being called an asshole does -- it's an insult that hurts your feelings, but it doesn't hold any particular power over you except insofar as you and other people believe it. I say white people give it power for a reason: a white principal isn't going to fire or suspend a teacher because someone called the teacher an asshole, but he's a lot more likely to get scared and take action if the accusation is racism. (To be completely fair, a lot of that also has to do with there being whole systems of black organizations that can follow up on an accusation like that -- with bad publicity or boycotts or whatever -- but the same is true of any number of interest groups that people don't feel quite as beholden to!)

But just think how ridiculous and ahistorical is it to imagine that segregation was perpetuated strictly by "clear-cut" hood-wearing card-carrying racists!

it IS ridiculous but that's probably what most people believe! it certainly wasn't people like THEM who did it, it was crazy racists. just like the nazis were inhuman monsters not at all like you and me, etc.

(i mean we could change out "racist" for "facist" and have this same discussion)

whether the words are appropriate or not i just dont feel they are useful. my position is purely about which rhetoric is most practical.

And at some point you have to start dealing with that the same way you deal with people calling you an asshole -- you think hard about whether you're actually wrong, and if you don't think you are, then you stand by whatever you did and shrug it off.

i mean, people just dont do this! ever! i wish for the sake of clarity and semantics we could talk about this or that being racist but people just freak out when that word comes up. it just shuts down discussions because it's a blanket, objective-seeming, all encompassing term that obliderates any careful distinctions you want to make. (trick-or-treaters and klansmen in the same category!) this is often politically useful, i admit, and often it's not. it comes down to whether you think it's useful at this or that moment to observe difference or cover it over with a generalized term.

Anyway yeah: I've been called a racist. And yeah, I've had people claim that things I've said or believed were racist, or anti-Semitic, or misogynist, or whatever else. There have been times when the person's had a point, and I've had to go back and rethink whatever I said or did. And there have been times when the accusation's just bullshit ridiculous, in which case -- no matter how much it sucks to know people believe stuff about you that Just Isn't True -- well, what are you gonna do? You explain yourself as well as you can, and from there on it's just a difference of opinion and interpretation.

(The last time I was accused of racism was when this dude who looked like Fabolous was blocking a stairway, and after passing by I made some joke like "what's up with Fabolous back there getting up in everyone's way," and the girl I was with -- who was white, and probably still thinks I'm Indian -- kinda started arguing that there was something racist about that comment. The conversation that followed sucked ass, yes, especially since I'm not used to winding up on the "lighten up, it was a joke" side of an argument. But in the end I know damn well that I made the joke because the dude looked, dressed, and did his hair enough like Fabolous for it to be funny, and I remain convinced that if the girl with me had known more about Fabolous she would have found it funny, too.)

*ducks*