I don’t think anyone has suggested that–certainly not I. I’ve suggested that you shouldn’t be confident the person wasn’t offended, because people often don’t express their irritation, especially in cases like the one you’ve described. You’ve repeatedly misunderstood that point.
I don’t think I have misunderstood.
For someone that I don’t know I would be less certain of their level of offence.
For someone that I do know (as in this case), I am very certain that they weren’t offended. I don’t know on what basis anyone who wasn’t there, and who doesn’t know this person, could possibly know better than I do.
The point you seem to be missing is that making racist assumptions, as in the OP, are rarely worth the chance of NOT offending someone. So, occasionally, someone truly isn’t offended, as opposed to pretending not to be. Doesn’t make it a good practice in general.
The second quote belies the first.
If I were ethnic Indian and no one asked me for any insight that I might have to deal with a problem they were having in India, I might be offended. (Although, this particular question at hand about confusion in the marketplace is a pretty silly one to be taking a cultural tack on, but hey, you never know, and will sometimes be surprised. Don’t go around thinking that you know everything, you’ll learn more that way.)
I disagree with such a blanket and presumptive approach.
Only if you yourself have misunderstood what I initially said and/and responses I received
That’s why the suggestion to present the problem to the whole group and allow the “Indian” to volunteer, if e so wishes, is the best one.
That seems like such an obvious win. If the “Indian” feels he has insight, he can volunteer. If the Irish American guy who lived, for a decade in his youth, in the part of India you are getting hits from feels he has insight, he can volunteer–even though you had no idea he lived in India. If someone who happens to know the name of the company the website is confused with, and has thoughts about how to disambiguate feels she has insights, she’s not shut out of the discussion.
No one is singled out, no one is excluded, and it takes slightly less time than asking one person.
Yep, its the best one. I agree there. But … I still don’t think what he did was racist.
Again, quibbling over the definition of “racist” really misses the point in matters like this.
But, yes, it was racist. It was making assumptions about a person based on his race–worse, based on assumptions about his race. That’s racism. And the guy he did it to thought it was racist and said so. That’s more important than what you think the definition of “racist” is.
I make assumptions about people based on their apparent race. And their apparent gender, and their apparent age. People like you push the definition of racism back into a corner where right-thinking people can say, well, you know, I don’t care anymore. you go do you.
Sounds like you would be offended by the response, and would need to get over yourself.
Whether the co-worker is technically correct in his charge or not is immaterial. Your intent behind your words to him is also irrelevant. The bottom line is he took offense to your question, therefore, you’ve already been branded a racist.
No, it’s about whether he should make assumptions based on a person’s appearance.
Here is what I want to know about your position. In your perfect world are people prohibited from making assumptions that are based on their prior experiences? (that is basic learning). Or are they just not allowed to talk about it? I’m not clear on that aspect.
I disagree that any of those are irrelevant. I think those are by far the most relevant factors and at the core of every single social interaction we have.
To ignore their relevancy is counterproductive and ultimately poisonous to society.
Offence is in the eye of the beholder and should not automatically be assumed to be valid or important nor inherently worthy of using that offence to label others with pretty strong pejoratives.
There was more than just appearance in the OP was there not?
In choosing how to act, a person ought to put some thought into how other people might feel/react if those assumptions turn out to be wrong. Especially when those assumptions are based on such coarse indicators as wearing certain religious headgear (no expertise in Indian culture necessary) and having a stereotypically “very Indian name” (no expertise in Indian culture necessary here either).
If that’s considered a rude response, I wonder what sort of response your coworkers might have considered to be adequately polite.
When you are interacting with an individual, you treat that individual as an individual, not merely as a manifestation of your assumptions.
Remember the totality of the circumstances here. This is an American company and he is dealing with an American colleague. In America, you treat everyone as an American, not as “forever foreign.”
And in this case, he didn’t just have assumptions. He used those assumptions to declare a colleague “our resident expert on India.” That constitutes a fuckton more than just “learning from experience.”