In addition, again, “racist” is not a description of a degree of heinousness. It’s merely distinguishes a generalization based on RACE. Like it or not, heinous or not, “racist” is an inescapable, objectively factual, literal and accurate way to describe a statement wherein one individual claims to know the mind of an entire RACE of people on the subject of steak preferences. It’s a lexicographical fact.
Here’s what one of my college professors said, and which I generally agree with. There’s a difference between a generalization and prejudice and racism. A generalization is just connecting something to race, whether accurately or not. “Black people like their steaks well done.” Prejudice is connecting something negative to race. “White people can’t jump.” “Black people are too ignorant to appreciate a good medium-rare steak.” And racism is using prejudice to exert power over people. In your example, harassing a black fraternity.
America doesn’t have a proud history of black-white race relations, and I think one effect of that is there’s this idea that there’s no such thing as an innocent generalization. We’re very suspicious of race-based generalizations, and question our own motives for making them.
And frankly, until some of the wounds of American History heal, that confusion probably won’t end for a while. If walking on eggshells for a few generations helps make things better, seems like a small price to pay.
Still, I think the OP’s friend overreacted.
Well said, Joools.
lissener. You’ve said, rather tactlessly, to “pay attention.” Re-read the OP. Birdmonster never said, “all black people.” What was actually said was, “Black people like their steaks cooked well-done.” That ‘all’ might have been inferred, and what set off her hypersensitive companion, but it was neither explicitedly stated nor implied. We already begin this argument based on assumptions not in evidence, statements never actually said.
I vehementedly disagree with your opinion that any given sweeping pronoucement re: a group’s predicted behavioral responses or preferences based on skin color must be racist by nature. If that’s true, then everybody’s racist, and everybody’s not.
While it may seem to be a commentary on an enture race, it wasn’t. It was a commentary on the eating habits of a nonspecific number of a specific ethnic group Birdmonster served. It is well documented that if you refer to blacks in America, you mean African-Americans – not West Indians, Zulu, or New Zealanders. As a habitual African-American I can attest that what was said was true. We sho’ like 'em steaks cooked all the way through.
Man, this is silly.
I’ll tell you one thing that’s confusing and amusing me. My father and a family friend both like their roast beef and steaks very well done. I was in my 20’s before I understood that the roast beef at a deli which was red in the middle was about the same thing as the roast beef which which showed up for dinner on Sunday, grey in the middle and surrounded by gravy and Yorkshire pudding. My father is from Lancashire, England, about as white a place as you can get. Our family friend is a self proclaimed “Hunky” whose family came from Eastern Europe a couple of generations ago to work in the mills.
I’m a first generation immigrant from England. I get exposed to stereotyping fairly regularly (I have never heard anyone in my family say, “Pip! Pip!”, although my grandmother would say “Cheerio!” sometimes). It’s nowhere near the level of stereotyping and prejudice black people experience in this country, but I’ve seen it. Hell, one thing the gentleman in my life does which rankles sometimes is make remarks about how abysmal British cooking is. No, I don’t know how he likes his steaks; he has eaten Mum’s roast beef, and he likes her apple pies, which she considers British food, not American. As some folks around here know, I’ve actively fought racism and continue to do so. One thing I’ve learned is to sort out what’s intended to be bigotted and cruel and what’s not.
I’m not sure how “Black people usually like their steaks well-done” qualifies as racist. It doesn’t rule out black people who don’t, nor does it mean my father, who does like his steak well-done is black. This isn’t a stereotype I’ve come across in my part of the US. Would it be prejudiced to say “British people like bawdier comedy than Americans”? It’s true in my experience – just look at the American and British versions of Coupling or compare Benny Hill to any American comedy – but is it prejudiced?
CJ
bolding mine
Nope. It ain’t lexicographical by my standards. “Racism” conveys either an exaltation or a denigration based on race. An observation that contains no value assessment cannot be racist. Neither my Merriam-Webster nor my American Heritage provide any definition of “racism” that does not include the words “superiority” or “prejuduce.”
It is not simply any observation or comparison based on race (unless you hold to the extreme position that all observations based on race are intrinsically exalting or denigrating–and you have made no persuasive argument that an observation regarding the eating of steak carries that trait).
Interesting. See, I’m pretty sure that my shopping example does not qualify as male chauvinism, inasmuch as chauvinism does require a belief in the superiority of one’s own group. I believe that my example qualifies as sexist, though, since it links behavior to gender in a way that’s not universally true. (Again, if the shopping statement contains words like “usually” or “many,” it’s no longer sexist IMO).
I’m not sure I agree with these definitions. If prejudice involves connecting something negative to race, that means that when my friend’s mom said, “One thing I like about black people is that they’re all such good singers!” her statement was not prejudiced. I believe it was: she was making a judgement about black people that she had not met.
Furthermore, it implies that a fellow I briefly worked with was not being racist when he pointed to a poorly-joined pipe beneath a sink and said, “Man, that’s a nigger job if I ever seen one!” He wasn’t exerting power over anyone through this statement; nevertheless, I think most folks would agree that his statement was racist.
By my definition, both statements qualify as racist. I disagree with Askia that racism necessarily implies extreme behavior: I believe that folks can express racism in small, trivial ways.
Daniel
Exactly.
My take is the same as the pizza delivery tipping thread. I say conformation bias and sample size are in play.
It’s just a general observation that customers in that area, in that group and demographic seemed to fit the model. I don’t believe anymore there is much that will hold up based on “black people do this” or “White people like this” the sample size is way too small and if you break it down far enough then the statement would no longer be perceived as racist by anybody.
“When I worked at xyz restaurant I noticed that most of the black customers ordered steak well done”
“Black people prefer steaks well done”
The first is true and the second is not.
Which, of course, demonstrates a certain number of (not insurmountable) issues with logic and probability, but does not indicate an underlying racist viewpoint and is certainly not explicitly racist in expression.
It seems like people are pretty bent on sticking to their guns here. I know I am. Tomndebb’s point is well said and I concur (re: inherent racial superiority in a racist statement). The wikipedia article ain’t bad either and seems in line with this notion.
Plain and simple: it isn’t always racist to make a generalization based on race. It isn’t sexist to make a generalization based of gender. Granted, these generalizations will likely not hold completely true. The steak one certainly doesn’t and certainly never could either. I knew this when I said it. But it’s largely true and completely innocuous, and because I believe that racist statements are inherently offensive, a statement as benign as this just isn’t racism. No one is upset except those who want to be upset by it. There is no hinting that I consider my race or any other superior just because I’d noticed a corrolation between skin color & how well one chooses to eat their red meat. More over, I think an important fact is that this generalization is lesser known than most, so the fact that I actually found it interesting & that less people know about it make it less stereotypical. All these facts, I believe, in unison make this just a largely true generalization, not an ignorant, racist statement. I forget now who brought it up, but the “I know it when I see it” SCOTUS quote I think is apt.
Point is: racism is synomous with bigotry to me. My statement was neither.
Birdmonster suppose I’m a bartender and 98% of customers are Irish and I say matter of factly,“Man those Irish can hold their booze.” Have I crossed the line? Let’s assume for the moment, that we’re both aware of the negative view concering the Irish and drinking. Do you call me on it or not?
Holmes: A few things on that. One, holding your booze is not necessarily a negative thing in my mind. Sure it means that you probably drink copiously, but it also implies that you can maintain civility while doing so. So it’s certainly not the same thing as saying “Man, those Irish are serious drunks,” which is something I certainly would call you on. Again, it’s very contextual. Being a drunk, to me, means that you can’t function properly, beat your kids, and basically live for the sauce. Eating well-done steak just means you like your meat without blood.
Because your statement was “can hold their liquor” as opposed to “they are drunks,” I honestly wouldn’t get too irate about it. I’d still consider it worse than mine. Whereas if you said “the Irish are drunks,” I certainly call you on it.
Now you’re insulting all Drunks, not all drunks beat their kids. 
I’m still unconvinced. Every now and then, we get folks coming onto the boards calling for a Whites-only homeland, and saying that they’re not racist because they think Blacks ought to be allowed to have a homeland of their own. Is there an inherent exaltation or denigration based on race contained therein? Is it a racist idea?
I’ll also note that while superiority definitely contains a value assessment, I’m not sure that prejudice does: it may refer to a non-values-based judgment. If I see a white family sit at my table at a restaurant and so I bring out the jumbo-sized jar of Hellman’s, that reflects prejudice (I judged them to be mayo eaters before I had a chance to find out), but not a values assessment (assuming that I don’t think mayo eaters are superior or inferior).
Daniel
I have never encountered a racial separatist who did not feel (not very far below the surface of their rhetoric) that the reason they want separation is to preserve the “purity” of their exalted race while avoiding contamination from the inferior groups. (This goes for every separatist I have encountered, not just SF, Aryan Brotherhood, or other white groups.) Beyond that, they tend to wish to enforce their odd views of race on others, demonstrating a clear prejudice.
I suppose I was sloppy by noting prejudice without framing it as “discrimination or prejudice” and I think that we could have a merry donnybrook chasing down connotations of “discrimination” and “prejudice,” but I see no reason to employ the word racism without the notion of hostility or harm. When we go to the Merriam-Webster definition for “prejudice,” we find
They only have a single sub-definition (out of five) that does not imply harm or hostility, so I would say that their use of the word in their definition of “racism” is unlikely to be based on that single sub-definition that is not technically adverse.
The American Heritage definition of “prejudice” is similarly weighted toward adverse opion, not simply a decison based on too little evidence:
I think that using the word “racism” to denote non-adverse actions or choices dilutes the word to the point that it no longer connotes the evil we should recognize in it. (Alternatively, some people might decide that any observation based on race is evil, but that suffers from the same problem in that people who make quite neutral observations then find themselves being attacked unjustly, which does nothing to promote the fight against racism.) (See the OP for a pretty clear example.)
I think the statement was not racist. It was a generalisation and like all generalisations can fail in a specific instance. However, the intent behind the generalisation can be racist (or sexist or whatever), if it is meant in a derogatory way.
The “One thing I like about black people is that they’re all such good singers!” statment is not, in itself, prejudice, but it may have been meant it a prejudicial way. (The only talent black people have is their singing. I am Welsh, that is a generalisation applied to us as well.)
Not all generalisations are bad or racist or sexist. If you want examples of bad generalisations see Updike in this thread.
It refers to English Jelly, which is called Jello in US. I get the impression it is considered baby food in France, so the idea of adults eating it in England is a source of comedy to them.
I think it has to do with your behavior OUTSIDE of the given statement.
If you say, “White people can’t jump”, and then decide to never pick a white person to play on your basketball team, you are racist. However, if you say “White people cant jump” and then choose white people to play on your team and give them a chance to either prove or disprove your statement, then you are not a racist.
The fact is that people will always find a way to “group” themselves. Even if we could all be blind to color there are millions of other ways to identify with people that are most like you. As part of a group you are open to generalizations…IMO it is how those generalizations are acted upon in real life that make someone a racist or not.
Racism is the belief in the intrinsic superiority of one’s race, and hence the inherent inferiority of other races.
Unless one’s steak preferences imbue a status of superiority, then, no.