Race is relevant in this thread, though, so it would be assumed you brought up that example because you thought it had to do with race.
I think it’s just a good point to make with any of these anecdotes. Just because someone doesn’t appear to have been offended doesn’t mean they weren’t. A lot of times the person in question doesn’t make a big deal out of it in the moment, and then is willing to forget about it if it never comes up again. But they’ll still later talk about it.
Good point. Considering how many variants of “celebrate diversity” there are and how those are perceived across the political spectrum, the claim seems more than a tad disingenuous.
Why would that make it not racist?
The problem, to repeat, is that the OP is assuming that anyone of Indian ancestry must know about customs in India. This is a problem whether or not the person he thinks is of Indian ancestry actually is so.
What are you supposing the co-worker would have reacted to if the OP hadn’t said anything?
True. Getting them out in the open where we can look at them is a really good idea. Pretending that because everybody’s got some they should be ignored is a really bad idea.
Good point.
Also a good point.
The OP’s been pretty quiet for a while. I don’t know whether they’ve figured out what they did that was wrong, or whether they just don’t want to engage any longer.
Agreeing with that. Liberals may have taken that sort of position once, long before the term “woke” came into use in this sort of sense, but most seem to have in the interval listened to others who explained to them the problems with it.
Let’s assume this is correct. So it is racist under that definition. And that definition is currently in use (and has been for decades). So why would an older definition of the word matter?
Do you go around telling people that “nice” means stupid? That’s what it used to mean. Do you say that “cool” only means “not quite cold” because that’s all it used to mean?
Understanding of racial issues has evolved. That happens as we listen more and more to people of color. Heck, even the “don’t see color” thing is something that hasn’t been considered “woke” since the 1990s.
We’re not going to go back to what the “pale face tribe” thinks is racist. So what’s the point of bringing up those old definitions?
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
I would question the motives and impartiality of people who make such an assumption. I brought up the example of a person who may well have experience of a culture that I do not. Race was not a factor in my example, it is telling that people assumed it was.
And in plenty of cases the absence of obvious offence means that a person was not offended, yes?
Even if that person wasn’t offended, that doesn’t mean that a different person, in different circumstances, may not have quite reasonably been offended.
Sure, just like if I take the sugar, butter, flour and eggs out of a cake and instead substitute avocado, coriander, lime juice, spring onion and chilli, that cake can quite reasonably be called guacamole.
If things were substantially difference, then yes, outcomes could be substantially different. That’s sort of the central idea of “different”.
I have no idea how that is relevant to the example I gave.
The example you gave was substantially different from the one in the OP, and therefore is irrelevant to it.
I disagree. There are differences and similarities. Exploring those seem relevant to the points under discussion.
Confining the back and forth to only discussing exact analogies of the OP’s example takes us nowhere interesting.
You knew that this person routinely went to Brazil; and did so to spend time with family who live there.
The OP appears to have no idea whether the person he asked has ever been to India.
And he told that person that he was the resident Indian expert in the company, based entirely on the idea that the person had Indian heritage. I don’t get the impression that you told the person you knew that they must be an expert on Brazil because their parents came from there.
Plus which, being able to find one person who’s not offended doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable for somebody else to be. There are women who are not in the least offended by being told they’re properly subservient to men. That doesn’t mean it’s not an offensive thing to say.
[quote=“thorny_locust, post:124, topic:953703”]
I didn’t intend to make a radical statement; how did that happen? I guess I should spend more words…
People voluntarily wear all kids of things that can imply things to the world about themselves—a crucifix, a MAGA hat, Ferragamo shoes, etc. If I were in Houston sports bar right now, I would not wear an Atlanta Braves jersey. I’d have the right to do so but I might choose to blend in, either out of sensitivity to their loss or an unwillingness to risk a beating.
I certainly understand that the person in the OP’s question may have been born here and is as American as I am. The turban emphasizes a difference from the mainstream. The turban isn’t wrong or inappropriate or anything, of course, but people see it and it reminds them of a difference.
I remember a young Muslim girl who wore Middle-Eastern dress primarily. She was born here in the US but I forget where her parents came from…Pakistan, maybe. The day after 9/11 she switched to jeans and a shirt that had an American flag on it. She had every right to continue to dress the same as before, but she apparently didn’t want to emphasize her background just then, and that was also her right.
Mrs. L v1.0 was Indian, by the way. She never wore saris or churidars to work—always women’s business suits, either skirt/jacket or slacks/jacket. On evenings and weekends, though… She wasn’t American (permanent resident, by her choice).
That sounds wise. I can’t stop being a white male that never had to think about a lot of these things before, but I can ask why I think what I think and revise.
She may have been afraid of being physically and/or verbally attacked. There were attacks, including physical attacks, after 9/11 on people who were perceived as being Muslim. (Some of them were actually Sikhs.)
Indeed.
I’ve certainly done some revision; and expect that there’s more I ought to do that I don’t know about yet.
Or maybe you don’t have time to ask every single person. Or maybe you don’t feel like wasting time asking people who don’t know the answer.
There are some situations where you it’s a good idea roll the dice, and start with what seems like the most likely possibility. If you gathered 100 Indian-looking people, and 100 Caucasian people together, which group would have the most number of people who are familiar with Indian customs? Sure, it could be the Caucasians, but that would be VERY, VERY unlikely.
What the OP did was both sensible and logical. It staggers me that so many people are utterly unfamiliar with the concept of making the best choice possible based on limited information.
Want to save time, not waste time asking somebody who doesn’t know the answer, and in addition not tick people off?
Ask the group in general, all at once, ‘Does anyone know anything about the customs of this particular part of India that might be relevant to this problem?’
(Do not stare pointedly while you’re asking at the person wearing the turban.)
It staggers me that you don’t think this is the best choice possible based on limited information.
What the hell am I doing gathering 100 Indian-looking people, and how am I gathering them?
I’m being facetious, but only a bit: the point is that if you create ludicrous examples that don’t relate to real life, you can of course achieve the result you want.
In real life we’re not gathering 100 Indian-looking people. We’re dealing with one Indian-looking personand a lot of non-Indian-looking people. And if you want to talk about the odds of achieving a certain result, what are the odds that treating that one Indian-looking person like a “resident Indian expert” will piss them off?
It was absolutely not sensible at all. It was very, very unwise, an action taken with a high risk of offending a colleague with no real upside. The best choice was obviously, beyond any sane question, to have not asked the guy such a dumbass question.
I know it’s the same reply others have already made, but why not just throw to the room? “Does anyone have any insight into what is bringing people from India to this site or ideas on how to alert them they are in the wrong place?”.
Let your experts self-identify and volunteer their expertise.
But I had no idea how much time he had spent there nor to what degree he knew anything about the subject I raised. I never claimed it was a perfect fit for the op. As I said, differences and similarities.
Sure, and just because someone is offended doesn’t automatically mean they were reasonable to feel that way or that others should or will do the same.
Others seemed to suggest that the person I spoke to was actually offended and that was simply not the case.
Most of the people I have encountered from India who wear turbans are Sikhs. There was an anti-Sikh pogrom in India as recently as 1984, so it might not be surprising that an individual from that culture could object to being asked to represent the whole of the subcontinent.