There wouldn’t be 100+ responses saying he didn’t really mean to steal.
Which means that a racist is seen as worse than a thief.
This is preposterous. If I say “Here’s a social interaction I might have handled badly. What do you think?” and I get 300 responses, do you think that means people consider me worse than a thief? No one is calling the OP a terrible person. No one thinks he is worse than a thief. No one even thinks he’s a racist. They are just saying he could re-think things a bit and that his co-worker had a point. Most of the 300 replies are people arguing among themselves.
No, it just means that there’s widespread agreement on how people feel about thievery.
Not by everybody.
Not, for instance, either by actual racists; or by those who assume that the accusation was likely to be false.
And not by much of anyone, if what you mean by “tagged as a racist” is ‘somebody said they said something racist’. The people who get opprobium are the people who persistently keep saying racist things after being asked to cut it out, and/or who commit some genuinely terrible action(s).
Note that those in this thread who agree that what the OP said was racist are not calling the OP a horrible, horrible person; or trying to shame them; or for that matter saying that the OP is a racist.
Hi, @edwin_klockars! Thanks for coming back to clarify; and glad that you got your question answered.
And yes, threads of this sort do tend to go on. (She says, contributing to the phenomenon by doing so.)
Members of the dominant group in America need to take all that effort they put into worrying about being perceived as a racist and instead put it into not doing things that negatively affect members of minority groups. That’s how you go about being anti-racists.
We all must continuously monitor and fight the racist attitudes or actions within us or coming from us. Trying instead to argue why you aren’t a racist person will not help you. In fact, it will push in the other direction. Only racists sit comfortably with themselves in terms of race, either because (1) they admit to being racists and this have ni need to be anti-racists, or (2) they shield themselves with the satisfaction of “I’m not a racist though,” and this will fail to adequately monitor themselves, and indeed try to continue to justify their actions rather than modify them.
It’s called a metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
He could have gotten 300 responses by saying “Star Wars sucks.” That doesn’t mean not liking Star Wars is worse than being a racist.
You’re joking? If it were just a zoom call between OP and his turban wearing colleague, how weird would it be to ask him since he’s the India Expert? It wouldn’t happen that way. It would be more like “wow, Bob, what do you think is causing this? Do you have any idea?”
Don’t use the word “niggardly” in any context.
In November 2011, a Broward County drug counsellor was fired and another suspended for an incident in which the word “niggardly” was used. A substance-abuse client filed a complaint saying a counsellor called him “niggardly dumb” in a June meeting with two workers at a county rehab center. In an investigative report, the county’s professional standards office found the workers, who are both white, engaged in “unprofessional, unethical and discriminatory” behavior
Some years back I looked at the first 50 Google hits for the word “niggardly.” Setting aside the discussions of the word, the overwhelming majority of uses were from obvious racists having a “Ha ha I’m not touching you!” moment of pretend wittiness. There was exactly one use of the word in its appropriate context–and that author put a parenthetical not explaining the word’s etymology.
“Niggardly dumb” is not a correct use of the word, and it’s not what the complainant says happened, and the investigators found that in any case the workers were being assholes.
I think this is a great example–not of someone being fired over an unfounded accusation, but of how white people aren’t getting away with the same ha-ha-I’m-not-touching-you shit they’re used to getting away with.
I’m not going through a security check captcha to see what that article says.
I will say that the phrase “niggardly dumb” doesn’t look to me like any way that someone would innocently use the word “niggardly”; and also that a counsellor calling a client “dumb” is in itself “unprofessional, unethical” behavior.
Odd, I didn’t have any trouble accessing the article directly from the Wikipedia link.
- Mayo, Michael (November 11, 2011). “Is using this N-word (niggardly) a firing offense?”. sun-sentinel.com . Archived from the original on February 3, 2013. Retrieved November 11, 2011.
And you took that article as evidence that someone was punished for INNOCENTLY using “niggardly”?
I want you to audit my tax return.
The fired employee was from South Africa, although he had lived in the U.S. for 13 years. We can either believe a) someone born outside the U.S. didn’t have the cultural sensitivity to understand the impact of that word; or b) someone born outside the U.S. was so well versed in the cultural nuances that he could use a slur-that’s-not-a-slur; or c) the word used was in fact not “niggardly” and the client at whom the remark was directed misheard an actual racial slur.
I suppose I could have offered David Howard as an example, but then someone would have pointed out that Howard technically wasn’t fired, but resigned, and he took a different job with the D.C. government, so it doesn’t fit Larry Borgia’s request for an example of someone who lost their job with no example of racist behavior.
But this part of the discussion is a hijack from the OP. Innocent mistake or not, he needs to understand that his original assumption was unfounded and stereotypical, and he offended his coworker.
Yeah, this is such a nuanced, subtle, and complex incomprehensible shibboleth such that it’s beyond belief that a South African—a culture very familiar with (1) anti-black racism, (2) the English language, and (3) not entirely isolated from knowledge American culture and history—to pick up such wordplay in ONLY THIRTEEN YEARS.
Then again, some percentage of people are geniuses, after all. Maybe this was one of them.
Or we can believe that someone who emigrated from a place where white people had recently lost the ability to abuse Black people with impunity, was looking for an opportunity to do so in more friendly climes in a country where the pendulum is swinging the other way thanks to disingenuous trolls who are feigning naïveté.
No weirder than if it were a group
I think that certainty is unwarranted. Without knowing exactly what was said, how it was said, who was there and what knowledge any or all parties had it ends up pretty much impossible to come to any firm conclusion at all.
Not that it stops people of course, humans being humans.
Wrong in fact and wrong in definition offered. You’re doing great.
I guess I don’t see why you would admit you are a racist if, in fact, you are not a racist.
This attitude seems perilously close to a Brian of Nazareth/Kafka trap.
i.e. If you admit you are a racist then obviously you are a racist but denying you are a racist also means you are a racist.
Unless I’m missing something in your comments above you seem to be saying that protesting you aren’t a racist is suggestive that you are.
Am I right in my interpretation there?