You’re overthinking.
There is actually a couple studies that show everyone is subconsciously racist to some degree. Cops tested actually did better than citizens but even black folks actually picked out other blacks as the one having a weapon (when shown flash images of various people holding something and they had to pull a trigger if they thought it was a weapon. Regardless of the ethnicity of the subject, they all picked out the black person more often as being a threat.
Not that it means much, but it shows possibility that perhaps no matter how hard we think we are non biased, our environment may have an effect on our subconscious behaviors.
As I said above, there are two ways to use the term “racist” - as an emotional impulse, and as a set of beliefs (usually driven by those impulses).
The first is human nature, as you describe above. The second is a choice on how to act on or control those impulses, something with do with all of our impulses.
I may have racist impulses like everyone else. I choose to use my rational self to reject those impulses and not act on them or believe racist thoughts or arguments.
If nobody could do that, everyone would be a racist and nobody could stop being a racist.
So let’s agree that racism is an impulse, but an irrational one that we have a responsibility to conquer, and talk about how we do that.
Agree. My thoughts exactly – why are liberals so compelled to champion and defend criminals, terrorists, etc…
When you go about tone-policing and working hard to preserve the feelings of white folks—who, still to this day get tremendous advantages from a racist system—you’re not helping. You’re just not.
It’s long past time for coddling white folks’ feelings and helping them get through their cognitive dissonance.
These are deeply unserious statements. Fighting racism is not about identifying who the racists are and whether or not you can listen to them.
This Obama example you keep bringing up is actually evidence for exactly this. Just because Obama is black, just because he is a (slightly leftish) moderate, just because he is a Democrat, none of that means that he will always do and say exactly the right thing when it comes to race.
Everyone at some point or another is likely to do or say something that might be questionable from a fighting racism point of view, including Obama, including Bill Clinton (remember the Sistah Souljah moment?). And politicians even more so, because left-leaning politicians often feel obligated for their own reasons to pander to the right.
Obama is not an untouchable in terms of race. So my views on what racism is, how it fits into society, and how to deal with it are not going to be rocked by this Obama example.
Again, you are confusing two questions. Fighting racism is not about identifying who is a racist or avoiding being a racist or being called a racist. So long as that remains an important consideration to you, you will not be helping in fighting racism.
No, what is the problem? And is it worse than the effects of racism in our society?
I have said this before—you as a speaker don’t have the sole input on what words mean when you say them.
You can look in the dictionary and see that at one point “gay” meant “carefree,” “fantastic” meant “removed from reality,” “terrible” meant “inspiring terror,” “awful” meant “inspiring awe,” “nice” meant “stupid,” “meat” meant “any kind of solid food.” And “nigger” meant nothing more than “black person.”
Do you use any of these words this way? Would you use them and if they are understood differently from “what you consider” them to mean, what do you think will or should happen?
The problem with seeing “thug” as the equivalent of “nigger”, is that as of yet the old usage of the term to refer to any sort of criminal has not yet passed out of use and indeed is just as widespread if not more so then its racist equivalent which was not the case when “nigger” became generally unacceptable as a racist term. A better analogy perhaps would be terms such as “banker” or “Wall Street” used in the pejerotive sense, which often was an anti-Semitic euphemism but is nonetheless is still perfectly appropriate if clearly used in a nonracist manner.
I don’t think anyone has called it the “equivalent” of “nigger.”
This is not actually a “problem,” not in the sense I think you mean it. This is just how changes in language happen. It’s an example of a well-known, widely observed, constantly occurring phenomenon.
Not every word that goes through this kind of process is the equivalent of “nigger.” No word in American society might be the “equivalent” (although possibly “cunt” or “fag” get pretty close). But nothing has to be its “equivalent” for people to take notice and to start to think about its usage and to start to listen to people who are being labeled with it or affected by it.
BigT did:
[QUOTE=BigT]
Thug has become a code word for “nigger,” so it’s time to move on
[/QUOTE]
Which word is it you don’t understand?
It depends on what you mean by “equivalent.” “Nigger” is just about the most detestable word you can use in our society and will get you immediate negative notoriety from all of polite society. From that perspective, the whole point of a “code word” is that it’s not “equivalent.” That doesn’t make a code word okay. Things don’t have to be the “equivalent” of “nigger” in order to be questionable.
I’m not doing that though.
I’m not.
So it doesn’t matter who the racists are when fighting racism? Hmmm.
See, the problem there is that you define your views on “exactly the right thing” as the correct one.
Perhaps you’re just wrong.
Otherwise, you’re in the position of claiming that a black president knowingly used a racial slur against black rioters.
I see where this is going. You claim the right to define what is racist and what is not. When others disagree, or by their actions show that they would disagree (by using a word you think is racist, they are saying they disagree that it is) - you simply dismiss that as “well, even good people can be racist sometimes.”
Well, even good people can be wrong sometimes.
Please explain then. What is it? Just saying to everyone, “don’t be racist?”
Seriously?
This means I can pick any word and declare it offensive to me and you can’t use it. It’s almost like my “chair” example. It’s absolutely absurd.
And it turned someone who had zero racist intent into a designated racist, which is unfair. More importantly, it probably made him and anyone who read this story very wary about having meetings with black people or using even innocent language with them. And THAT is not good for ending racism, or for improving race relations.
Didn’t say that. But I do have some input. I’m the one using the words, so my input counts.
Yes.
I probably wouldn’t use those particular examples in a different way, which is why you picked them. But are you saying no words have more than one meaning? No nuance? No context? Or that their meaning can’t continue to change?
A new twist on the issue:
Rap lyrics have been mentioned here. What about when those lyrics are broadcast over car speakers to the rest of us, or spoken out loud within earshot of bystanders? Is that not something a person who finds them offensive could object to?
Even if they aren’t directed at me, I can still be offended. Just as using the word “thug” to refer to others may offend a black person because he sees it as a racial slur and therefore offensive to all blacks, not just the target (which is a legitimate argument), could I not object to, say mysoginist lyrics because they degrade all women? Or even just to obscene words I find offensive in general?
You can absolutely object and speak up in such a case. Anyone can object to anything, of course, but I think you mean “do you think it could or would be appropriate to object and speak up” in this example, and I think the answer is a clear “yes”.
Glad you think so.
Let me extend my question to fit the thread better - do you think the person broadcasting those lyrics has a duty to stop and apologize, just as someone who used a racial slur would? Or pilloried in the media for it?
It would depend on the lyrics and content, in my view. There’s plenty of misogyny and homophobia in music, but not confined to one genre, and not all of any genre.
Well, see, that’s my point - some people here have insisted that I can’t claim the same right to consider the words, and their context, when deciding whether I should use a word. They say that if someone thinks its racist of offensive, that’s the end of the discussion and I am obligated to go along.
(And to put a finer point on it, I’m talking about lyrics that most people would find offensive without much question. I won’t repeat them here, but we all know what they are because we’ve all heard them broadcast into the street or spoken out loud.)
Certainly true, and this would apply to them too. I brought up rap because of the racial association and because others have mentioned it, and because it’s probably the worst violator.
I don’t think this is what anyone is saying. I think they (we) are saying that there is evidence that this word is often used in a racial-slur-like manner, and in light of that, we suggest you don’t use it in certain contexts.
It’s similar, in my view, to telling someone displaying the Confederate flag publicly “hey, even if you don’t see it this way, to lots of people this is a symbol of oppression and slavery (for some good reasons too, considering it’s revival in opposition to Civil Rights in the 20th century) and it’s very rude to display this flag publicly where some of these folks might see it”.
Lance I promise, if I come to learn that certain words are in some sense triggering for you, making you feel threatened or or making it difficult for you to continue the conversation for other reasons having to do with your mental well-being, then absolutely, I will stop using that word around you.
How could I do otherwise without being a jerk?
I’d say they’ve been a little more insistent than that.
Are you saying it’s possible to ever display the confederate flag in a way that it’s not a racist symbol, other than a historical context like in a museum?
I appreciate that.
But the problem is that you don’t always know when I’m around. I may be reading your statements elsewhere. If you are speaking in the media, I could hear them. So to live up to that, you’d have to stop saying that word all the time except maybe in private conversations.
And, of course, you’re assuming that I’m not a jerk, or crazy, or whatever. What if I tell you the word “chair” is a trigger word that I want you never to use? Or “the”? Or “Frylock?” Would you be a jerk for not complying?
And, of course, I’m just one person. You would need to go check with *every person who might hear or read what you say *and ask them for a list of the words they want you to stop using. That’s going to be a great deal of work.
Per motives? People might display any symbol for any reason – someone (a very ignorant person) can display the swastika out of some misguided sense of Teutonic pride.
I’m not particularly interested in motives, mostly because it’s impossible to know for sure the motives of others. So I just look at behavior.