I read something about Simone Manuel commenting on being referred to as a black swimmer, saying that she hoped one day she’d just be called a swimmer. On one hand, I understand what she means. On the other hand, she is a black woman swimmer, and it seems to be a legitimate description, much as calling someone “That dancer with the long red hair” or “the tattooed football player with the mohawk.”
Do you think we’ll ever see a day when reference to one’s race or ethnicity is just another adjective and not viewed as judgemental or derogatory? Or will humans be saddled with stereotypical prejudices forever?
Context is everything. If you are going to watch a swim meet and someone says “Make sure you watch the black girl, she’s amazing, she’s going to the Olympics someday”, that’s a useful descriptor, and I don’t think it’s at all racist. IBut when a redhead wins a medal, the headlines don’t read “Ginger Swimmer takes Gold” because it’s irrelevant. The two situations aren’t even a little bit comparable.
If “black swimmer” becomes as neutral an adjective as “ginger swimmer”, you’re going to see it less, not more, because the times when you have to point out someone’s neutral physical characteristics are pretty much limited to when you need to pick them out of a crowd.
If you’re the first, or rare, it’s remarkable enough to be remarked upon. Sooner or later someone is going to be the first black gold medalist swimmer, then the first black female gold medalist swimmer, then the first black female lesbian gold medalist swimmer, etc.
But, no one says “that black professional basketball player.” It’s not remarkable.
Try being the only white guy on an all black work crew. Your not going to be known as “John, the short guy” it will be “John the white guy” because hey, its most descriptive.
There was a time in the US when someone might be called a Jewish athlete or a Polish Athlete. No one would do that anymore, so I think we’ve mades some significant strides on the “ethnic” side of things.
No one talks about the black sprinter or the black basketball player (anymore), either.
When there are several black swimmers, no one will refer to any of them as black swimmers in the sense the OP is talking about.
I think Simone Manuel’s situation is a bit unusual. Sure, she wants to be seen as “just a swimmer”, but the fact remains that she’s the first black American woman to medal in a swimming event, which is a sport that’s by and large, overwhelmingly white.
So by that very fact, her race comes into the picture. She’s not the first American woman to win a swimming gold medal, and also not the first American to win a swimming gold medal. She is however, the first American black woman to win a gold medal.
Nobody’s running around making any noise about Michelle Carter’s race after winning the shot put gold medal; the media buzz centers around her being the first American *woman *to win gold in the shot put. Had there been a long run of white American women winning it, then yeah, they’d be making a big deal out of it.
I think otherwise, people will generally default to the smallest set of descriptors that describes someone most uniquely. In some cases, that’s as easy as skin color, and other times, you have to get more descriptive. I mean, I could describe my wife as the “very tall brunette” and have that be unique in most cases, but in other cases, you have to get more descriptive- curly/straight hair, blue/brown/green eyes, other physical attributes (if they’re salient), etc… I’d be harder to describe- big, tall white guy with blue eyes, brown hair and a “radio” voice. That would get you most of the way there, but that might still describe several men in a crowd.
Using “black” as a descriptor isn’t racist unless it’s meant to be, and even then, I think someone would resort to a less neutral term.
Lacking additional context, I don’t think she’s saying that people are racist for using that descriptor. I think it’s probably exhausting to carry the weight of so much racist history on your back when all you want to do is swim.
Our country has a weird, borderline absurdist history of racism regarding swimming pools and access to swimming instruction. It’s something we need to figure out how to get past, and we’re working on that. It’s worth commenting on milestones. But not everyone is going to appreciate being such a milestone.
In the case of Simone Manuel, see bump’s post. The point wasn’t that people who refer to her as a black swimmer were being in any way derogatory; it’s that she hoped one day there’d be nothing remarkable or noteworthy about her being a black swimmer.
I don’t doubt your personal sincerity about that, and you might have a definition, or ‘know when it when you see it’ designation of a ‘racist’ that’s exactly the same as mine.
But looking more broadly the statement is somewhat circular. Without agreement who is a racist, it doesn’t mean much. And people who do think there is a broad agreement are simply writing off widespread differing opinion as morally inferior and not worthy of debate. There are sharply differing views what constitutes racism.
In common sense terms I think several of the posts are reasonable. We don’t say black NBA player because the NBA is ~3/4 black (less than it used to be actually because of the influx of foreign player a lower % of whom are of African descent than American players). It’s not directly a measure of racial progress, just a largely useless descriptor. I’m of the pre-PC ‘old fashioned politeness’ approach though and wouldn’t refer to somebody’s race unless it was making things much easier (the old story about polite husband who sent his wife to pick up his friend at the airport, whom she’d never met, and after finding each other finally the wife says ‘I have to say it would have been easier if he’d mentioned you were black’ and the friend says ‘it also would have easier if he’d mentioned you were pregnant’).
The other thing is that modern sensibilities also offer the possibility of the person wanting to be known as the black swimmer rather than seeking a race neutral/color blind reaction (though not in this case). At the extreme I’ve seen (white) people accused of subtle racism because of their insistence they are blind to race (‘that’s just a way of perpetuating the color hierarchy’, etc).
I used to teach high school in Georgia. There were times when a teacher would mention a kid’s name and be immediately questioned “the black one or the white one?” It was the easiest way to determine which John Smith or Jessica Jones the teacher was referencing. No racism was attached to the query. I’m sure there have been schools with two kids named something like Terry Lastname who would have raised the question “boy or girl?” Would that be sexist?
That’s why the term racist no longer has any meaning, significance or power. The universe is racist, and I’m proud to be a racist member of it. Racist, racist, racist. Everything is racist. No meaning whatsoever.
It’s not accurate, the term only exists as a result of racism. It doesn’t matter if it’s meant to be derogatory or not it is a sign of ignorance in the person who uses it. Maybe you’ve heard this one before, if not you should think about it:
What do you a call a black guy flying an airplane?
Are you claiming that, in a hypothetical world that was completely devoid of racism, no one would ever use the word “black” to describe a person?
Why do you claim this? You’re just asserting it; do you have any argument or evidence to back it up? I, for one, don’t believe it. “Black” can be a useful, value-free desrciptor, as in california jobcase’s example.
Or, if you’re saying that the word is “not accurate” because “black” people aren’t really colored black—well, redheads don’t really have hair that’s the color red. White wine isn’t really the color white. Words can have different meanings depending on the context. Big whoop.