So you think that there is no such thing as objectivity, and then are unhappy that you or your colleagues are seen as unobjective?
From what you say, it seems that you are happy to simply manipulate the question on any subject until you get the answer you wanted all along - and then claim it is one of the “multiple truthful interpretations” possible.
To my mind, this isn’t science at all, since there is no mechanism by which preconcieved notions could ever be tested or challenged.
I don’t know you from Adam and I’m in no position to evaluate anything you say, other than what you write on this Board.
However, to my mind, based simply on what I’ve read here, “critical race theory” when combined with a “postmodernist, postpositivist” perspective (prehaps they are one and the same), is no more “scientific” than Creationism, albeit that what supporters of the former propose is less absurd (and may even contain elements of truth) . Both, it appears to me, proceed from the assumption that what they wish to prove is true and that those who dispute the great matter under investigation are at best unenlightened.
Hence the notion of being “in denial” - which I presume proceeds from much the same source. The very way the question is framed does not allow for honest debate, since it is presumed by the question that the proposition is true and that those who dispute it ought to know it, were it not for their willful blindness or “denial”.
See, this sentence is exactly what I’m talking about:
Once again, not buying into the program = being part of the problem. If you don’t agree with “the significance of racism in the world”, presumably you are yourself part of the “racist stew” - albeit at the opposite end of the spectrum from lynchers and Jim Crow.
With this mindset, there is no possible room for any real debate over “the significance of racism in the world”, since to doubt that significance makes you at best deluded - “in denial”.
Now in my opinion, racism simply isn’t of great significance in “the world” as a whole. Its significance varies from region to region. Certainly it is of greater significance in some parts of the US than here in Canada. To my mind, any number of factors are indeed of greater significance - class, gender, religion, nationalism, all play a greater role than race in the world as a whole (though local results may differ of course).
I may be wrong in that - I can be persuaded, by cogent evidence. But not by the sort of argument that proceeds from the presumption that race is somehow all-important, or worse, that states that if one doesn’t believe in it axiomatically one is some sort of dupe.
To my mind, simply presuming that race and racism is of such pivotal importance is not progressive, for the simple reason that it may not in fact be true (and yes, I have the no doubt regressive habit of believing that there is a difference between something that is true and something that is not). How can proceeding on the basis of an untruth be progressive?
My last overt racist encounter happened shortly after 9/11. I was feeling sympathetic towards anyone who resembles Middle Eastern people, so when the Sihk guy at the gas station asked for a ride home, I obliged.
Halfway into the ride, he asked me if I was black. Yes, I said, feeling sweaty all of a sudden. He then launched into a scary tirade about how all black people were “niggers”, always doing drugs, having sex, and getting AIDS.
And apparently giving gas station attendents rides home.
Honestly, when I lived in South Florida, I was more afraid of being mistaken for Mexican than I was of experiencing anti-black racism. Miami residents are mostly Cuban, and many Cubans are racist against Mexicans. Once, one of my Cuban co-workers said I looked like a “little Mexican” whenever I wore my field clothes, and I felt myself blush, because I knew how he and his buddies felt about Mexicans. And then I felt guilty for being ashamed of my “mistaken” identity, for not wanting to look Mexican.
The last time I found myself in a situation where I wondered if my race had negatively influenced someone’s opinion of me was when a bunch of coworkers (graduate students and post-docs) and I took a visiting professor out into the Everglades. We were all out slogging through the marsh and I got to talking to her about my research project and the questions I was addressing. She seemed interested and asked me some questions–I initially thought she was impressed with my project. But then she asked me if I was considering going to graduate school. I was speechless, because not only had I already been to graduate school, but I was a post-doc. The project I had just detailed to her involved advanced concepts in community and landscape ecology, as well as massive amounts of funding (I had told her my primary mode of transportation to field sites was helicopter, which I used every single day). I felt a little disappointed in myself, thinking perhaps I didn’t come across as…smart as I could have. But upon reviewing our interaction, I think the problem was that I didn’t “cut” the image of a Ph.D. She saw me as a technician, not a colleague.
Of course, it could also be that she was fooled by my youthful look. But why assume I’d never been to graduate school? No one else in the group was an undergraduate, and if I’m talking shop with you, wouldn’t that indicate that I’m not a newbie?
I’ve given talks and poster presentations at professional meetings and have had similar gaffs happen. But I try not to think about it in terms of race, but in terms of age–even though both are quite likely to be at work.
I have no idea how you come to your conclusions. I make no claims of being objective; I make it clear that my identity and my experiences are invariably part of what I bring to a research question. If you follow social science at all, this is well in the tradition of the Frankfurt School. By explaining my methodological approach and my epistemological position I can assure the validity of my observations. You can see exactly what my subjects say in an interview because I record and transcribe them. I then use theory to help explain my observations.
There are very few, if any, positivist social scientists in this day and age. If you know of social science studies from the past 75 years that assert an absolute singular truth based on observed data, I’d be interested in reading about it.
This is a patently ridiculous statement. How does Creationism deal with discrepant data? A social science study that simply reports data that supports theory which already exists isn’t doing much to advance the field of study. We don’t discard data that doesn’t fit existing theory; in fact, that’s often the most exciting aspect of conducting research. I don’t know much about about Creationism but I’m fairly sure that discrepant data isn’t dealt with. In a recent study I conducted, I found that cross-racial relationships in a certain organizational context were primarily based on common experiences - whether the pairs attended the same college, were from the same part of the country - race mattered but it was not the most important bond the pairs shared. So I build on the existing theory by discussing this, not rejecting it and rabbiting what other scholars have said.
I’ve never stated, nor does Critical Race Theory state that racism is all-important or worse. It simply states that it is pervasive and endemic. Other forms of oppression exist as well. Constructs like Marxism elevate class as the dominant struggle in human society; Critical Race Theory differs by stating that race, class, gender, sexual orientation, to name a few, interact and alternately blunt or sharpen oppressive circumstances.
Furthermore, what constitutes cogent evidence to you? It’s an important question. Because I’m certain if I presented data from any source, it’s possible to overemphasize or underemphasize the role of racism in the results. Mortality rates, socioeconomic data, educational attainment, you name it - I’ve heard explanations that make race a prominent determinant in those findings, or absolutely nonexistent.
So you’re saying, in the context of U.S. society (because Critical Race Theory as articulated by Bell, Delgado, et al. is a response to American constitutional law) that there are social interactions in which race, class, gender, sexual orientation, to name a few are absent? It doesn’t mean that the interaction was unpleasant or overwhelmed by race. I would wager that if you and I met on the street and interacted, you would have an opinion on many of the aforementioned aspects of identity, and vice versa. Some might be mistaken, and some might be spot on.
Maybe this story falls under how whites don’t think about racism as often as blacks, but you do realize that pretty much everybody, regardless of race, has had this happen to them, right? It happens enough that I’ve seen variations of this in hack comedy routines. Hell, I’ve done it to people myself, and felt really stupid when the person explains that they don’t work there.
I would never think to take it as an insult, no less “racial microagressive” behavior. What’s so bad about working holding down a job in a supermarket? Sounds to me like you’re the one being microagressive.
The disconnect here is that on the one hand you are claiming that you (and your colleagues) are being discriminated against because (White) people question your objectivity; on the other, you are outright stating you don’t believe that objectivity even exists.
Has it not occurred to you that those questioning your objectivity, and that of fellow-scholars who believe as you do, may have very good grounds for doing so - namely your theoretical perspective, and not the colour of your skin?
Exactly so - you don’t claim to be objective; you outright say you aren’t. It is part of your theoretical approach not to be objective.
That’s all very well, but then you go on to claim that this very lack of objectivity, when noticed by others, is some proof of their racism, rather than simply being an accurate description.
That’s not so fine.
I’m just going by what you say here:
The theory apparently starts with the conclusions - that “racism is endemic in American society”. That is the “cornerstone”, which, I submit, combined with the discarding of objectivity as a virtue to be stiven for, has a distorting effect on the analysis - for example, perceiving an old lady seeking service as a “racist” encounter.
To a man carrying a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man viewing everything through the “cornerstone” of “endemic racism”, the risk is that everything will look racist - particularly where he’s comming from a theoretical perspective that rejects objectivity.
I have no idea if race can be an “entirely absent” factor in any social interaction. I suspect that no-one can entirely escape thinking of it (any more than someone can entirely escape thinking of pink elephants once told not to). But if it is a very minor factor, overridden by others, of what importance is it?
My concern is that, by over-emphasis of one factor, the meaning and significance of an encounter will be distorted - for example, being criticized as “unobjective” will appear “racist” rather than a statement of fact about one’s methodology, an old woman seekin help in a grocery store will appear “racist” when she may be nothing of the sort, etc.
But to pick out a specific incident, and say absolutely that it was due to racism, is not accurate either.
IIRC, in the incident as told by Hippy Hollow, even he made the statement that he wasn’t sure if the lady was racist, had bad eyesight (and needed help reading labels), or was just plain batty.
First, you’re presuming that someone knows my work and epistemological perspective. That might be the case today, as I’ve been in the field for a while, but it certainly isn’t the case when a novice researcher approaches an adviser with an idea for a thesis project, which fits the scenario I’ve described.
The point is, this is a question that is rarely (in my experience and in the research literature I’ve surveyed) asked of White scholars. I would have no issue if everyone researching race was challenged to explain the epistemological foundations of their work, and make clear how their formative experiences inform their approach to a research question. The point is that such issues tend to be directed to people of color researching race and not to White scholars conducting the same type of work - the assumption is that a White person brings no agenda. I’ve had colleagues outright told that they should pursue research not directly affecting their racial or ethnic group because they won’t be taken seriously. The same applies to many women, or queer studies scholars. However, one aspect of privilege in the academy for White men is that their identity is often assumed to have no effect on their “objectivity,” which goes back to early social scientists reporting back from exotic locales, analyzing behaviors from a Western, Christian perspective.
If you honestly believe that markers of identity have no effect on the observation of social phenomena, I can’t say much more to convince you otherwise. Scientific method as we know it in the natural sciences doesn’t apply in qualitative social science research. There are no control groups, experiments are not randomized, etc.
That’s not exactly correct. I have a responsibility to accurately present and analyze data. I can’t just throw discrepant data aside and say, “Well, this really didn’t happen.” It’s my job to apply theory, or even build new theory, to explain phenomena that eludes theoretical description. But you know something about the way I approach research. I’m not claiming to present the only valid interpretation of a phenomenon. I also have a responsibility to present the limitations of my work. In some work I’ve done, a limitation is that as a person of color, I sometimes am advantaged in establishing rapport with study participants, and sometimes disadvantaged. White men, I would posit, are more comfortable discussing racism with another White man than they are with a Latina woman, for instance. The same applies for a number of different aspects of identity - age, ability status, physical appearance… the list goes on.
If you are taking away simply that the woman in question is racist and nothing else, you’re missing the point. I made it clear that there were a number of explanations for how our interaction transpired. All I’m saying is that I strongly suspect my racial identity had a role in how she interacted with me. This comes from the commanding and somewhat condescending way she spoke to me, the fact that she didn’t feel the need to apologize, to name two “pings” on my radar screen. When this usually happens to me, people typically apologize and/or correct themselves. This woman seemed to think that I was copping an attitude.
I’m 35. I can assure you, I have been in numerous social interactions where I’ve been treated rudely, mistaken for someone I’m not, and so forth. I submit you will have to defer to my experience as a person of color that I notice differences between garden variety rudeness and the way that particular woman interacted with me. It’s entirely possible that I could be completely wrong (I seriously doubt it), but I could also be correct to some degree. Perhaps my racial identity was the 17th most significant factor in her interaction with me, perhaps it was first.
I think there is also an assumption that I’m somehow above the fray, that I never act in a way motivated in part by racism, xenophobia, and prejudice. Which isn’t true, of course.
Again, you’re obsessing on the issue of racism and not acknowledging the myriad other aspects of identity that interact with it. This woman and I have certain beliefs and attitudes about race influenced by our lived experiences. Perhaps they were prominent in the interaction, perhaps not. I’ve already noted the complexity of determining “was this a racial microaggression or not?” One can choose to ignore it completely, seek it out in every interaction, or go somewhere in-between.
I presume that a scholar approached by a grad student with a specific theisis topic can make a pretty educated guess about their theoretical prespective - particularly if it happens to be a very popular one in the field.
Again, I’m suggesting to you that the phenominon you described could easily be explained, not be racism, but by simple inter-scholarly infighting between people with different approaches.
This I have a hard time believing to be true. Particularly as the whole notion of “cultural relativism” was developed in the first place by mainly White scholars questioning their own objectivity in approaching anthropological studies.
Are you telling me that a Black scholar would not think to question the objectivity of a White scholar studying race? That a White scholar would not question his or her own objectivity?
I simply find this hard to believe, as I would imagine that for anyone studying such matters one’s own cultural background would be a significant factor.
I honestly believe nothing of the sort. I don’t have an all-or-nothing position; I believe that objectivity is a virtue to be strived for, and that part of that striving is to understand one’s own identity.
It seems to me that many people these days throw out the baby with the bathwater on objectivity - since being attitude-free is impossible, therefore objectivity is impossible and should not be the goal. I disagree.
This is all very well, but isn’t really responsive to the point I was making.
See, this is my point. You have a theory that racism is “endemic” to society. Yet when asked to come up with actual examples of this endemic racism and how it applies to you, you picked two - that White colleagues overall seemed to question your (and your Black colleagues’) objectivity; and this story about an old lady mistaking you for a grocery store employee.
Yet, on analysis, neither is a particularly strong example of racism by anyone’s standards, even, as you make clear here, your own.
These are your examples, you chose them; I can only assume they are what sprang to mind. Yet what this observer (with all of my biases, etc.) takes from it is that, at least for Black people of a certain level of education, racism isn’t really a big deal at all - they are so ambiguous and trifling.
Well, it isn’t me who brought up the topic of racism - that’s the topic of this thread. The issue is whether some White folk are “in denial” about racism. The obvious countercharge is that some Black folk believe racism is more prevelent and influental that in really is.
I believe that both are probably true to an extent, but the two examples you relate strike me as proof more for the latter thesis than the former.
Malthus, I can certainly provide more examples of more vitriolic experiences of racism. The question I responded to was “what was the last time you experienced racism?” To which my response was relating the more mundane variety.
Getting harassed by the police (threatened with arrest, being made to assume the position when doing absolutely nothing)? Check. Being forced into low-track courses (“I see you took ROTC at your old school. How about basketball?”) Check. Name-calling? Check. Being followed in a store by overzealous security officers convinced that I was about to steal something? Check. Being bullied and threatened due to my race? Check. Being strongly encouraged not to rent an apartment, although the phone conversation beforehand indicated that the apartment was ready for move in? Check. Being asked to provide the “Black perspective” in a college course when I’m the only African-American person in a class? Check.
I would imagine many White people would look at this list and say, “Well, that’s real racism.” (At least to some of these; I have no doubt that there are those who are going to find another explanation.) My point is that if the threshold for racism is the aforementioned list of events, we’ve got a profound gap in understanding. It’s easy to distance oneself from an extreme action, but some of the things I mentioned are the more mundane microaggressive events I’ve dealt with. They add up over time and create a level of stress that I suspect not all White people are familiar with, which was the point of introducing them to begin with. If I had been mistaken for a shop worker just once in my life, or a handful of times, I’d think nothing of it. (Especially as a teenager who worked in a department store - normal stuff.) But it’s happened quite a bit, so much so that I am able to differentiate between what I think is an honest mistake and what I think is something else.
Last point re: postpositivism. You do realize that this is “mainstream” social science, yes? This isn’t radical or lefty stuff; it’s how qualitative research is generally conducted.
This seems to be implying that your subjective point of view is better or more valid than some other one, and earlier you said -
You can’t have it both ways. Either there is no valid point of view, in which case your position as a person of color doesn’t make what you say valid, or there is, and your assumption that there is no definite truth is wrong.
Are there “multiple truthful ways” to interpret the rest of the incidents you describe? If not, fine, we’ve established that there is such a thing as objectivity. If there is, then presumably it is equally valid to reject your point of view, even if you are a person of color.
I am a good (or bad) liberal on most issues. But when it comes to race, I simply can’t stretch my brain into the weird contortions required of those who encourage us to bravely shoulder the burden of white guilt, anymore.
So what is the locus of blame? Who is responsible? Is it the drivers, or those who rob and murder them?
According to the “Racism,” it’s the drivers. Too many of them would rather be live racists, than die in an unbiased and nondiscriminatory way.
“White Flight” is another example. If whites leave their old neighborhoods, and drugs, crime, poverty and corruption become endemic, who’s at fault? Whites, of course. For “fleeing” and “abandoning” the cities.
If they return, however, that doesn’t redeem them. In that case, they’re guilty of “gentrifying” black neighborhoods - they’re forcing poor black people from their homes.
It’s a ideology that proceeds from the principle that whites are victimizers, and blacks are always victims. Anything that doesn’t fit that narrative is rejected.
So, Are White People In Denial? Well, according to the premises of the question, one must either agree with the premises of the question, or else be “in denial.” Therefore, whites ARE in denial - at least, according to the premises of the question.
Not at all. Nobody has denied that there are situations where false accusations of racism are made. And nobody has denied that there are situations when genuine racism has occurred. The middle ground where people are disagreeing is in situations where racism might be an explanation for what happened. Some people are too quick to see racism when other explanations are more likely and some people are too quick to see other explanations when racism is the most likely explanation.
Speaking as a white man, I have to say there’s still definitely a lot of gratuitous racism and other prejudice that many people don’t seem to notice, as it slips under the radar. I’ll use a couple of passages from the memoirs of John Densmore and Ray Manzarek. IN the former, John says in spite of his small stature he could play as strong as Buddy Miles, “a 200 pound black drummer”. Why was his color important? Some of the possible extrapolations of that are truly distasteful, though to be fair I’m sure the author didn’t consciously mean any of it. Still, the passage has come to appall me more and more as the years pass. Then, in Manzarek’s memoir, he mentions how he and his wife were living in an area of West Hollywood, “later to go totally gay, but at that time cool”. Obviously even prominent members of the counterculture had a LONG way to go.
Coming down to the present day, if you’re a Democrat and don’t want to nominate Obama, because you think he’s unelectable, is that being racist? When you consider that four to eight more years of Republican high court judicual appointments could have devestating effects on labor and civil rights, at least as Democrats tend to perceive them?
Yes, the solution to not getting robbed is to not stop for any black males, regardless of what their wearing, regardless of their age. Ridiculous!
It’s not the whites per se, but the “Structural Racism” that made it possible for them to make the move to the burbs while keeping blacks out. The whites wind up with considerable wealth to transfer to their kids along with better educational opportunites, yada yada yada.
This is a class issue as these folks are pushing poor whites out in addition to poor blacks.
You act as if slavery and jim crow never existed and white people never benefited from this. How can you not fathom that these two things don’t have far and wide reaching consequences for both groups, especially with a voting rights act that was only passed what, 42 years ago?
My grandparets are as WASP as it gets. Racism was in their culture. No doubt, that they enjoyed the better end of the divide at that point, however… They were the ones complaining about having diversity shoved down their throats. They were the ones complaining about that black man that did nothing at work and couldn’t be fired becuase of quotas. It’s easy to stand back today and see that their bias had created their complaints in the first place.
This is the sort of thing that only generations can heal. I personly think that we are only a few generations away from racial equality. I aslo think that racism has reversed roles and that affirmative action as it stands today is racist in the opposite direction. When it beomes a bad thing to be a racial warlord (Al), race becomes a non-issue.
Cultural descrimination will always exist. Cultures that close themselves off for the purpose of preserving their culture are gong to have bias in both directions.
Socioeconomic bias is exactly what we are talking about here. The above problems being connected with poverty is what the argument should be. Why were all the black people living in the low income places that got flooded? Does black = poverty? No. Black + low income culture sure does look like poverty.
If there was some verifiable study done that showed that black people get paid less for the same job (like women do) all hell would break loose.
I can ceartainly say that I have never differentiated hiring a person based on race. I gaurantee that I have based on if they thought is was cool to look and speak like they just got out of prison.
No, it implies that I was actually there, and can compare it to a number of incidents I’ve had being mistaken for a shop clerk. This interaction was different than most, which I’ve described in depth upthread. The point about being 35 and a person of color was an effort to demonstrate that I’ve experienced enough of these types of interactions to be able to detect a difference. I make no claim that my perception is 100 percent correct, as I’ve said multiple times. If you had been there perhaps you would have observed the same things I observed, perhaps not.
I’m tiring of discussing this example, but I’ll say this in closing: mistaking someone for a clerk happens all the time. But is the typical reaction, once it is made clear that one is mistaken, to continue as if this wasn’t the case? My experience has been that people apologize or acknowledge the error. If you read my recount, the woman responded to me in a way that suggested to me that she thought I was lying and actually worked there (I told her I didn’t work at the store, but she asked me the question again anyway).
Yes, anynumberofotherexplanationsexistforwhathappened, but you know what? It fit the pattern of the type of interactions I have had when I’m in a place among few people of color, except for the folks who work in service jobs.
Of course. She could be a habitually rude person. She could be hard of hearing and/or senile. No way of knowing without observing and interviewing, and even then one’s social location may make one more aware or less aware of subtleties in the interaction. If you were evaluating the situation, I’d expect you to examine and analyze for as many alternate explanations of the phenomenon. You can reject my point of view, certainly, but to not consider the role of age, gender, race, and SES in the interaction would be rather bizarre.
Notice that I have not stated that I know definitively for a fact that this woman acted purely or majoratively out of racist intent. I’m only suggesting that I might be more attuned to detecting what might be prejudicial or stereotypical attitudes, just as a woman is probably more likely to notice sexism than a man, or a gay person is more likely to notice homophobia, or a person with a disability is more likely to notice ableism. These things don’t often announce themselves with a label.