You know the answer to this, because you know what is in your heart / mind (in my opinion, the answer is no, btw). Set your moral compass by what you know is true for you, and not necessarily what you read here.
Is that not potentially size-ist?!
That’s just dumb.
My guess is that what happened is that someone saw the picture, was working under a frantic deadline, and not being totally familiar with Oprah or Whoopi, got them confused, as Whoopi’s in a very Oprah-esque pose in the photo. Or possibly had a tip-of-the-tongue situation where they couldn’t remember her name, and thought “Oprah! That’s who that is!”, and sent the tweet.
It’s obviously not as common as say… getting Keira Knightley mixed up with Natalie Portman, or Clive Owen and Gerard Butler, but somewhat understandable if someone wasn’t familiar, or wasn’t paying attention.
Getting someone confused isn’t racist; not publishing them at all, or actually saying something racist is. And what they said was highly complimentary, even if they had the wrong person.
It’s racist against The Mandarin. He hates being confused with Professor X just because Patrick Stewart is more squinty eyed.
Although their may be a racial component to it, confusing two actors who look or sound similar is a common problem. I’m morally convinced that the only reason Ryan Reynolds keeps getting work is because people confuse him for Ryan Gosling, and only realize their mistake several days into filming.
Stranger
I don’t think you have to assume this at all.
We all use economy of thinking. Imagine you had a bunch of reasonably similar tools. Most are painted pink, but two are painted green. The two green tools (A and B) have subtle (but clear) differences between them. Can you honestly tell me that you would not tend to use the green-ness of the objects as a quick “first pass” way to recognise them?
And if say you were very familiar with A because you used it all the time and it was always close at hand, but B was less commonly used and tended to be more to one side of your workbench, can you honestly say there wouldn’t be a real chance that you would grab B thinking (based on its green-ness) that it was A, without taking the time to check it more closely?
Does this make you green-tool-ist?
There’s no doubt this person on twitter f’ed up bigtime and was unintentionally massively disrespectful. But I don’t think that it has to be based on “racism” as such. It can be based on careless recognition using first pass cues. It’s not racist to be cognisant of the fact that someone has dark skin. It’s only racist when you make other wild assumptions because they have dark skin.
It is racism. The mistake is in thinking that “racism” requires a finding of time kind of affirmative evil intent. There is a lot of racism inherent the human mind. It’s true that people of one race find it difficult to identify individuals visually of another race. That’s a scientific fact. It’s true that fucking little babies prefer people of their own skin color. That’s a scientific fact.
What it means is that “racism” isn’t just a personality flaw of some people who choose to be racist. It means that in order to combat the harmful effects of racism, we have to be vigilant as individuals and as a society to minimize its effects.
It means that no one can just sit back self-satisfied and say “Well, I’m not a racist, so I’m not obligated to do anything about it.”
Being anti-racist is not a matter of simply not being an self-admitted racist. It’s about being constantly vigilant on the matter.
I’d argue that there is a difference between a conscious decision to focus on race and having your brain wired to recognize differences in your own race more quickly. You can do something about conscious decisions; you can even do something about racial thinking that is born of bad habits or the way you were raised or other less conscious acts. However, changing the way your brain is wired is not so easily accomplished, and it makes no sense to lump difficulties in facial recognition together with actions really stemming from affirmative intent. Calling them by the same term, “racism,” serves what purpose?
Random House:
[ol][li]a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.[/li][li]a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.[/li][li]hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.[/li][/ol]
Nope. “Prejudice” or related terms, sure, you could make a case.
Identifying someone foremost by their most distinguishing features is not racism. If there were two guys you knew in passing who always wore red baseball caps, you might mistakenly refer to one when you meant the other, not because you’re bigoted against people who wear red baseball caps but just because your brain got the wrong name out of the pile when it went looking for “that guy who wears a red baseball cap.”
Then I think you are reducing the word to something meaningless for the purpose of this discussion when I think you know that most people in this thread would not choose the word “racism” for what you describe.
Now, if you think there is something pernicious about the type of mistake made in the OP then you’ll have to also find a way to explain why the same does not apply to my mistake about Jude Law and Paul Bettany (or Rachel Weisz and Kate Beckinsale for that matter).
And if there is nothing pernicious or malicious about it…then what exactly is the problem? Perhaps because a headline of “man makes mistake” is unlikely to generate enough outrage.
It looks to me like a person was put on camera who is ignorant enough of an actors work to make such an elementary error. That’s the story. The race element of it is irrelevant.
Actually, it’s the insisting on narrow definitions of “racism” that require a person to basically admit to it that make it a meaningless concept.
It very well might apply, if you are of a different race than Jude Law and Paul Bettany and the reason you confused them is that because of the social circumstances surrounding race you are less practiced in telling apart people of Jude Law and Paul Bettany’s race.
Awareness about race and racism—especially the silent, inherent ways it creeps into our thinking, attitudes, decisions, perceptions, etc.—goes a long way.
The next thing is to figure out whether and what needs to be done about it.
A white interviewer confusing Samuel L. Jackson and Lawrence Fishburne in the context of a celebrity interviewer might itself not be harmful to Jackson or Fishburne. The question rather is what pernicious or malicious trends in society might it be sitting at the top of?
Perhaps false witness identifications? Perhaps false convictions? Perhaps lost job opportunities? Perhaps some of our most pervasive and intractable social problems?
See, this is the complete opposite of trivializing the concept of racism. It’s not this one guy’s mistake in isolation that’s the issue. If Jackson mocking and mildly berating this guy makes him and people like him more aware of the underlying issue in his day-to-day life, then that in itself might be something quite valuable.
People need to get over the idea of proving themselves and their actions as being not racist and turn to the real issue of dealing with racism.
And that’s a two way street though; there does seem to be a certain touchiness/chip on the black community’s shoulder about a lot of things lately, and maybe there needs to be a calming down on that side of things as well; not everything IS about race that involves black people.
And yes, they were oppressed for a very long time. But that doesn’t make it ok for Samuel L. Jackson to be a dick just because someone confused him with another black actor. Who else are they going to confuse him with- a white actor? I think there’s a huge deal of assumption and chip-on-shoulder action going on there, and about the OP’s subject as well. Very much a “someone confused two black people, ergo it must be racist”, and then there essentially being an intimidating move for people to abase themselves and grovel, or else be tarred with the dreaded “racist” brush.
Why would someone getting Oprah and Whoopi confused be any different than Mark Wahlberg and Matt Damon being confused for each other? They don’t look very much more alike to me than Oprah and Whoopi do, but it’s apparently a common confusion.
But because one set is black, there seems to be an assumption that it’s racist. Which I suppose, by the very broadest definition, it might be; nobody is going to confuse Oprah with Adele, because you know, one’s black and one’s white, but it’s a little more probable when both are black. If that’s racist, then the term is effectively meaningless IMO.
For one thing, because unlike everybody else mentioned in the thread, Oprah Winfrey’s sole or principal significance is not as an actor.
I think the term “racism” implies something negative and prejudicial, that is the way it is mostly used, that’s why the accusation of “racism” is such a weighty accusation to throw about. It is word with powerful connotations.
So it isn’t an issue to mix people up as long as I’m of the same race? what about same cultural background? same skin tone? same country? continent? at what point does it start being pernicious?
But setting it up in that way means that there is now no way for the accused to plead innocence, “your racism is silent and inherent to the point where you don’t even realise it yourself” it’s on the brink of thoughtcrime.
It may not be any trend at all, it may simply be someone who is inept at recognising faces. I really hope you can accept that someone can mix up two black actors and there be no ill-intent or malicious racism at work there. If you can’t, frankly we are all screwed.
That escalated quickly, but I don’t see the connection.
I see it as shoehorning in an accusation of racism where it doesn’t necessarily apply. I don’t think it is relevant that they are black, Just like I don’t think it is relevant that Rachel Weisz and Kate Bekinsale are white. Sometimes a prominent physical feature is simply that and nothing more.
I’m sorry but it is a very serious charge to level at someone. Clearing your name against accusations of racism and dealing with real and damaging racism are both “real issues”.
That’s splitting hairs so finely as to be nearly obscene.
Oprah’s a media/talk show personality and sometime actress. Whoopi is an actress and sometime media/talk show personality. There’s precious little between them in terms of what they do on TV.
Saying Oprah’s not an actress is like saying Dwayne Johnson isn’t a wrestler.
I thought afterward, I should have just left out the qualifications: Oprah’s significance is not as an actor. Whoopi’s is. If you don’t grasp this, you don’t really know who they are.
I know precisely who each of them are and as I revealed in the Oscar thread, I heard from another room what I thought was Oprah discussing her dress, which she said was modeled on Bette Davis’s dress in All About Eve. I rushed out to look at it and automatically looked at the dress first, not realizing until I really took a moment to look at her face that it was, surprisingly, Whoopi. Very Oprahesque styling there, but I digress. So what? Which is really my response to this whole non-issue. Not saying in any way that the sentiment "all____________s look alike is a non-issue, but I really don’t think the sort of thing the OP is addressing is on the same level.
It is negative and prejudicial. If you’re serious about combatting racism, what you must accept that it something negative and prejudicial that is to a great extent inherent in the human character. To be anti-racist, you must recognize the racism in yourself and be vigilant about countering its ill effects.
It’s always pernicious. Now, there are some people who are just bad at telling other people apart. It’s not really worth it to work hard to figure out which ones they are so they can be let off the hook. Nothing good comes of letting people off the hook. Make everyone as aware and vigilant about it as possible. Make sure that if they are in a situation in which their error might be perceived as racism that they are hyper-aware and take care not to make a mistake.
And if sometimes Samuel L. Jackson is slightly sarcastic to an interviewer who made a mistake, it’s not a bad thing if that interviewer goes home feeling bad and makes sure that the next time he doesn’t make that kind of mistake.
There is no innocence. It’s not a crime. It’s not something that needs to be accused and proven against every single person. Racism and other forms of tribalism are inherent to a part of the human makeup and they are very difficult to dislodge.
Making people prove every case of racism in social settings is of no benefit to anyone. Just assume that some part of you is racist and then work to counter the ill effects of that racism. Different people will have to work more or less hard to do so.
There’s no benefit it granting people a “I’m not a racist” card.
No, we aren’t all screwed. Because it’s not important to give people the benefit of the doubt in these cases. It’s not important to let anyone off the hook. We should see ourselves as on the hook all the time and behave accordingly. If you manage to keep your nose clean most of the time, most people will forgive the occasional error.
All that stuff is heavily influenced by the inherent racism and tribalism of the human character. Don’t let people off the hook for the small stuff and they stay vigilant for the small stuff and the serious stuff. Don’t give anyone the comfort of thinking “Well, I’m not a racist, so I don’t have to worry about this stuff.” Everyone should worry. Everyone should have to work hard to police their own attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.
People lose out on opportunities, on education, on jobs, on relationships, on social advantages, on the chance to live meaningful lives, on the chance to fulfill their potential because of racism. In some societies, it’s because racism is still accepted as a norm.
In American society, where we agree that racism is a bad thing, the biggest problem is that the majority now wants to believe that racism no longer exists or is a problem mostly for white people. They, like you, want to say that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every suspicion of racism. That’s bullshit, and that effectively makes it impossible to make any more progress in eliminating the worst effects of racism in society.
Accept you are racist. Don’t try to prove you aren’t. Now figure out what you’re going to do about it. When you get to that point, then you will be helping make things better. If you don’t get to that point, all you are doing is helping maintain the status quo.
Your approach is a recipe for two things:
1/ rejection of the entire idea that reduction of racism is important because such a high proportion of “racism” by your definition is not harmful or only trivially so. This is what leads to backlashes against anti-racism, and anti-racist activism becoming a mockery of itself.
2/ Racial groups being driven apart by the kid gloves they must use on one another. Similar to the way one may hesitate to interact with someone of a very different culture or religion for fear you may embarrass them by offering them the wrong food or do something offensive to their culture. You can’t relax and treat people of another race as you would anyone else if the slightest slip will see you called racist.
Ah, yes the Cartman “I’m going home” approach to race relations. This is what we hear from white folks all the time these days—tone policing with a dollop of concern trolling. And what it amounts to is that when it comes to race, what’s really important is making sure that white folks don’t feel bad about themselves.
Because white folks feeling bad about being called racist is comparable to all the bad things that minorities actually suffer because of racism.
It might actually a better thing if they start feeling bad about themselves. And when they do, they might be motivated to do something about it more effective than take their balls and go home.
Putting the hurt feelings of the people who largely benefit from societal racism at the same level of importance as the actual results of societal oppression is not going to move society closer to resolving the issue.