Can a person's race be included in a statement without the statement being "racist"?

[DSYoungEsq]

I haven’t read the posts so far. I simply reply to say that, in my opinion, since “race” is itself a racist idea, if you identify a person by “race”, you are being inherently racist, by proper definition of the word. That is to say, a “racist” is someone who identifies characteristics of people through some method of classification based upon observed phenotypical attributes. Hence, if you identify a person as “black” (as we use the term in America), you aren’t just saying they have dark skin, but rather that they are part of some grouping of humans with common characteristics that include more than just dark skin and usually curly hair.

This is why I dislike identifying or talking about people using these terms. Whenever I talk about them, I always use “white” or “black” in quotes to show that I’m using the term others would use, but that I’m not in agreement that the term has valid application, or even valid meaning.

And I think that the most recent past-President of the United States, Barack Obama, exemplifies this. He isn’t the descendant of American slaves, but rather the son of a Kenyan economist who was temporarily in the US. It’s correct to refer to him as having African-American heritage, but to call him “black” and thus lump him in with all those in this country who are the descendants of our former slaves is a bit silly; he shares very little with those people. But because of his skin color and hair (among other things), he gets labeled as no different, and potentially treated no differently.

So I’m not sure how you could NOT be “racist” if you accept that “race” has any validity at all.

[ThelmaLou]

@DSYoungEsq

I haven’t read the posts so far. I simply reply to say that, in my opinion, since “race” is itself a racist idea, if you identify a person by “race”, you are being inherently racist, by proper definition of the word. That is to say, a “racist” is someone who identifies characteristics of people through some method of classification based upon observed phenotypical attributes. …

I’m just taking about common, colloquial, descriptive parlance, not some methods of classification based on phenotypical attributes. :rolleyes: In common, colloquial, descriptive parlance “racist” remarks are considered bad. I’m trying to locate the line in the sand.

[marshmallow]

@DSYoungEsq

Whenever I talk about them, I always use “white” or “black” in quotes to show that I’m using the term others would use, but that I’m not in agreement that the term has valid application, or even valid meaning.

This gave me the humorous image of you trying to identify someone using air quotes which leads to even more confusion. Oh, John? He’s the “black” guy over there.

[octopus]

@constanze

I’d start with using the word “race” at all, because it is non-scientific. The correct word is “Ethnicity”.

I’d also say that any Statement referring to the ethnic Group of a Person outside scientific context is suspect.

If I were to describe my coworker to a stranger, and I say “Coworker Alice is the blond one, and Coworker bob is the black-skinned one, and coworker Charles is the bald one”, that would be a quick way to identify them, provided there is only one blond/ black-skinned/ bald Person in the Office. (It still could be offensive to some People, so to be used careful - blond is a neutral term for hair colour, but bald is seen as negative. Saying “Alice is the fat one and Betty is the skinny one” if two are blondes is negative. It might be possible to say “Alice is the tall one, and Betty the shorter one”.)

If I were to talk about how my coworker Bob is lazy/ temperamental/ good-looking because he belongs to ethnic Group X, and that is a clichee about Group X, that is racist. Bob is … not because he belongs to Group X, but because he is that way.

Well how else to discuss it? On the one side, you have science, which says race doesn’t exist.
On the other side you have People using clichees, either deliberetly, or unconsciously because they learned them.

Science tells us that People want quick categories, because it makes life easier (and human Brains want shortcuts to save energy). Science also tells us that quick categories can often be wrong, and that many clichees are part of rumor-spreading and never had a grain of truth to them.
So saying that “Kids from Group X are stupider than Group Y, because they do worse on IQ tests” is racist, if Group X and Y are different ethnicities. It’s Sexist if Group X are Boys and Group Y are Girls.
And it’s wrong, because it makes People look in the wrong place (Group Y is smarter, there must be a smart gene in their Group! Let’s advance Group Y!), instead of looking for a solution (what is the real cause that Group X doesn’t do as well, and what methods to improve them have worked elsewhere?)

If we look not at races, but sexes, we see that Girls can be as good as Boys in math with the right methods (Finland) and only half as good as Boys with the wrong methods (Turkey) and social attitudes.

So obviously it’s not a brain Problem, just as calling one ethnic Group ___ is not a genetic Problem. Yet that’s what racists do: look at superficial traits, and look for the cause as inborn part of Group X instead of the real causes.

I think you are overthinking things. And what’s up with random capitalization?

@DSYoungEsq

I haven’t read the posts so far. I simply reply to say that, in my opinion, since “race” is itself a racist idea, if you identify a person by “race”, you are being inherently racist, by proper definition of the word. That is to say, a “racist” is someone who identifies characteristics of people through some method of classification based upon observed phenotypical attributes. Hence, if you identify a person as “black” (as we use the term in America), you aren’t just saying they have dark skin, but rather that they are part of some grouping of humans with common characteristics that include more than just dark skin and usually curly hair.

This is why I dislike identifying or talking about people using these terms. Whenever I talk about them, I always use “white” or “black” in quotes to show that I’m using the term others would use, but that I’m not in agreement that the term has valid application, or even valid meaning.

And I think that the most recent past-President of the United States, Barack Obama, exemplifies this. He isn’t the descendant of American slaves, but rather the son of a Kenyan economist who was temporarily in the US. It’s correct to refer to him as having African-American heritage, but to call him “black” and thus lump him in with all those in this country who are the descendants of our former slaves is a bit silly; he shares very little with those people. But because of his skin color and hair (among other things), he gets labeled as no different, and potentially treated no differently.

So I’m not sure how you could NOT be “racist” if you accept that “race” has any validity at all.

That’s a very novel interpretation. I don’t know if it agrees with any dictionary though.

To the OP. Some traits have different distributions in different sets of people. Speech appears to be one of them.

[DSYoungEsq]

@octopus

That’s a very novel interpretation. I don’t know if it agrees with any dictionary though.

From The Oxford Living Dictionaries: racism: “1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

This is the starting point. First, someone identifies that there are “races” of human beings (groupings of humans based upon specific characteristics, such as “black” skin). This is, of course, a human construct, in the sense that people identified as “black” as opposed to “white” or “yellow” or “red” aren’t all biologically different (or, for that matter, always phenotypically different!) from each other. Second, that someone, or some other someone, uses these supposed classifications to compare these different categories of people, usually for the purpose of establishing that one group is superior to the rest. That viewpoint becomes the basis for discriminatory actions by members of the “superior” grouping against members of the “inferior” groupings. This discrimination becomes the focus of a society which wishes to prevent it; in that case, the discriminatory beliefs become the “racism”. But the starting point, as evidenced by the word racism (a belief system based upon the concept of race) is not the discrimination, but rather the identification.

Which is my point. “Black” in the sense of a “race” is an arbitrary grouping of humans, based upon shared phenotypical characteristics, much as “yellow” in the sense of a “race” of humans is. If you believe that humans can be properly divided up this way, you are a racist, because you are utilizing a belief system based upon the concept of “race.”

[Miller]

This is an excellent example of why dictionaries are a terrible place to go to understand nuanced concepts.

[DSYoungEsq]

@marshmallow

This gave me the humorous image of you trying to identify someone using air quotes which leads to even more confusion. Oh, John? He’s the “black” guy over there.

No, unless it’s a joking description.

In seriousness, if I was referring to a student in one of my classes to identify to someone else who I was talking about, and the student happened to fall into the group of people usually identified as “black” by most Americans (especially those who live around here!), I might refer to him/her as the person with the really dark skin. But I might also refer to him/her as the one wearing the glasses, or the one over there twirling the pen. Just because having very dark colored skin is an easy referent doesn’t mean I have to utilize it as a descriptor, and even if I do so use it, I don’t have to shorten that description to call the person “black”. But, then, I don’t usually refer to students as “the blonde”, or “the redhead” either; I’ll say, “the one with the blonde hair”.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Miller

This is an excellent example of why dictionaries are a terrible place to go to understand nuanced concepts.

It is, however, an excellent example of why a dictionary is a great place to go to learn the, you know, accepted meaning of a word.

The fact that you want to imbue it with all sorts of weird add-ons doesn’t change what is.

[octopus]

@DSYoungEsq

From The Oxford Living Dictionaries: racism: “1.1 The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.”

This is the starting point. First, someone identifies that there are “races” of human beings (groupings of humans based upon specific characteristics, such as “black” skin). This is, of course, a human construct, in the sense that people identified as “black” as opposed to “white” or “yellow” or “red” aren’t all biologically different (or, for that matter, always phenotypically different!) from each other. Second, that someone, or some other someone, uses these supposed classifications to compare these different categories of people, usually for the purpose of establishing that one group is superior to the rest. That viewpoint becomes the basis for discriminatory actions by members of the “superior” grouping against members of the “inferior” groupings. This discrimination becomes the focus of a society which wishes to prevent it; in that case, the discriminatory beliefs become the “racism”. But the starting point, as evidenced by the word racism (a belief system based upon the concept of race) is not the discrimination, but rather the identification.

Which is my point. “Black” in the sense of a “race” is an arbitrary grouping of humans, based upon shared phenotypical characteristics, much as “yellow” in the sense of a “race” of humans is. If you believe that humans can be properly divided up this way, you are a racist, because you are utilizing a belief system based upon the concept of “race.”

You can easily say tall people are people that are tall and black people are people that are black without being heightist or racist. Observing and grouping into sets, even messy imperfect sets, is natural human behavior.

But let’s assume your interpretation is correct 99.99998% of humans would be racist.

[ThelmaLou]

@DSYoungEsq

…Which is my point. “Black” in the sense of a “race” is an arbitrary grouping of humans, based upon shared phenotypical characteristics, much as “yellow” in the sense of a “race” of humans is. If you believe that humans can be properly divided up this way, you are a racist, because you are utilizing a belief system based upon the concept of “race.”

If I mention that someone is black or Asian purely as part of an informative description, not attributing any particular characteristics to them, is that a racist statement?

For example, this headline appeared in the New York Times today-- is it “racist”? Is the word “black” necessary? Relevant? Appropriate?

“Young Black Democrats, Eager to Lead From the Left, Eye Runs in 2018”

[Miller]

@DSYoungEsq

It is, however, an excellent example of why a dictionary is a great place to go to learn the, you know, accepted meaning of a word.

Except that’s not what you did. To determine the meaning of the word “racist,” you looked up the word “racism,” and derived a definition from that. But if you look up the definition of the word “racist,” it turns out its not, “Anyone who refers to race as a concept.”

[Shodan]

Part of the issue is that people with an axe to grind, like Cochrane and NBC, want race-as-a-descriptor to signal “racist”. It’s an attempt at one-upmanship, to put the other side on the defensive.

Do all black men talk alike? No, but enough of them do to be distinctive. Do they all have dark skin? Do they all have kinky hair? No, but let’s not kid ourselves.

When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras. Unless you want to accuse people of being racist because other things besides zebras are striped.

Regards,
Shodan

[Martini_Enfield]

@DSYoungEsq

No, unless it’s a joking description.

In seriousness, if I was referring to a student in one of my classes to identify to someone else who I was talking about, and the student happened to fall into the group of people usually identified as “black” by most Americans (especially those who live around here!), I might refer to him/her as the person with the really dark skin. But I might also refer to him/her as the one wearing the glasses, or the one over there twirling the pen. Just because having very dark colored skin is an easy referent doesn’t mean I have to utilize it as a descriptor, and even if I do so use it, I don’t have to shorten that description to call the person “black”. But, then, I don’t usually refer to students as “the blonde”, or “the redhead” either; I’ll say, “the one with the blonde hair”.

It’s interesting because I absolutely would identify someone by their ethnicity or other physical marker if it was the easiest way to identify that person. “You’re looking for Richard? He’s the Asian guy by the table there” or “You’ll need to see Rachael, she’s the redheaded woman with the clipboard”, for example.

Similarly, if I’m in ethnically diverse company, I’ve got no problem with someone saying “You’re looking for Martini? He’s the white guy over there making coffee”.

It’s not racist, IMHO, to make a factual, neutral observation (Bob is the only black guy in the room, Sally is Asian and has blonde hair, etc) as long as it’s not being done with any ill-intent or to disparage the person.

This linguistic dancing about saying “You want to talk to the woman with black hair by the statue” (which could refer to any one of a number of people) instead of saying “You want to talk to the Hispanic woman by the statue” (of which there is only one) is one of the things that regularly gets labelled as an example of “Being Too Politically Correct” and I’m inclined to agree to an extent.

[ThelmaLou]

@ThelmaLou

If I mention that someone is black or Asian purely as part of an informative description, not attributing any particular characteristics to them, is that a racist statement?

For example, this headline appeared in the New York Times today-- is it “racist”? Is the word “black” necessary? Relevant? Appropriate?

“Young Black Democrats, Eager to Lead From the Left, Eye Runs in 2018”

Can I get a comment on this headline?

@Martini_Enfield

It’s interesting because I absolutely would identify someone by their ethnicity or other physical marker if it was the easiest way to identify that person. “You’re looking for Richard? He’s the Asian guy by the table there” or “You’ll need to see Rachael, she’s the redheaded woman with the clipboard”, for example.

Similarly, if I’m in ethnically diverse company, I’ve got no problem with someone saying “You’re looking for Martini? He’s the white guy over there making coffee”.

It’s not racist, IMHO, to make a factual, neutral observation (Bob is the only black guy in the room, Sally is Asian and has blonde hair, etc) as long as it’s not being done with any ill-intent or to disparage the person.

This linguistic dancing about saying “You want to talk to the woman with black hair by the statue” (which could refer to any one of a number of people) instead of saying “You want to talk to the Hispanic woman by the statue” (of which there is only one) is one of the things that regularly gets labelled as an example of “Being Too Politically Correct” and I’m inclined to agree to an extent.

I completely agree with you.

[constanze]

@octopus

And what’s up with random capitalization?

My browser hates me. (IE). When I type directly into the box, it capitalizes some words, I don’t know why. (It also redlines most things. Maybe some autocorrection Thing?)

I don’t want to open Editor, type and then copy/ paste back.

[constanze]

@ThelmaLou

If I mention that someone is black or Asian purely as part of an informative description, not attributing any particular characteristics to them, is that a racist statement?

Again, what context? Are you pointing out somebody across the room? Two guys, both in red Shirts, one White-skinned, one black-skinned, so you say “John is the black-skinned guy”.

But given that racism is such a hot-Topic button esp. in the US, it’s much easier to use another descriptor to avoid that People think you are racist.

So instead say “John is the guy on the left/ his desk is at the window/ he’s the one with glasses”.

Think about how you would feel if a coworker says “Thelma is the blonde woman*/ the fat woman/ the short/dwarfish woman” or “Thelma is the one with glasses/ with the desk at the window”.

Some words are deragotory, so we try to avoid them out of respect and politeness.

But if you talk with your friends about your Boss, why does it matter that he’s black? People will make assumptions, and those can be wrong. Saying that he studied at Harvard can also lead to assumptions (he bought his way in because his Family is rich, but he is dumb), coupled with being black to other assumptions (he came in on Affirmative Action, but he is dumb), and they might be quite wrong (he came in on a scholarship, so he’s rather smart; his parents are middle-class and he is normal smart)

Again, how would you feel if your Boss describes you to his friends as “Thelma, one of my employees is blond**, and she acts really strange around me, I think she’s dumb and scared I will find out”, when you are skittish because he’s so tall and muscular. It would be wrong assumption, and hurtful.

• Since blonde women are still joked about as dumb, this is another difficult term.

** Using blond as example, regardless of your real haircolour

For example, this headline appeared in the New York Times today-- is it “racist”? Is the word “black” necessary? Relevant? Appropriate?

“Young Black Democrats, Eager to Lead From the Left, Eye Runs in 2018”

Since it’s capitalized, is Young Black Democrats an organized Group, like Freedom Caucus or Pizza Connection?

Older Groups have names that are not correct today (the NAACP has negro in it, but today that’s not okay).

And given that black People are underrepresented in certain Areas, in this case it’s relevant, just as a woman reaching a higher Position or being elected president is unusual and thus important.
A handicapped or Asian or other minority politican or high-ranking CEO would also be News.

[constanze]

@Martini_Enfield

It’s not racist, IMHO, to make a factual, neutral observation (Bob is the only black guy in the room, Sally is Asian and has blonde hair, etc) as long as it’s not being done with any ill-intent or to disparage the person.

But that’s why it can tip over so quickly. The examples Thelma gave above about her Boss were negative stereotypes, and not important to pointing out the Situation.

And yes, I, too, think that things get overblown*, you can choose to avoid These loaded Terms to protect yourself from wrong accusations, or you can try to make a stand against the hysteria. Depends on how strong you feel.

So if you want to avoid Trouble, you choose other descriptors whenever possible.

• see also: a politican resigning over the uproar because he used correctly the word “niggardly” but other heard the N-word and got up in arms. The correct meaning of the word no longer mattered, People were offended

[Martini_Enfield]

What’s with the random capitalising of words?

[constanze]

@Martini_Enfield

What’s with the random capitalising of words?

IE gives secret Illuminati message? I don’t know why my IE does it.

[E-DUB]

What if the phrase had been: “He spoke in a manner stereotypically associated with African-Americans.”?