I thought that he was stretching the definition of racism when I heard him on Fresh Air, but I guess the point is that he believes it to be racist. I guess that being treated differently all your life makes you sensitive to things like that, so I’ll not argue with him. Teri Gross sure bought it. 
“But it’s harder to mate if you’re black – you know, since the other guy goes first.”
“Please tell me you’re talking about chess.”
Your exoticism was, I think, a symptom of systemic Japanese racism. And, as you note, pretty harmless on the individual level – I’m assuming you didn’t live in Japan at the time and so didn’t feel "othered. " And pretty blameless on the part of those Japanese tourists – you WERE exotic, to them!
But there’s a reason that this showed up all over Twitter the other day, and I don’t think it’s that black people are over-sensitive: https://twitter.com/emulatelife/status/853262459565506560
I disagree that it’s not racist, but do so because I’m interested in talking about systemic racism here, not necessarily personal racism. We do live in a society with a lot of racial segregation. (I’m not excluding myself here: while I live on a street with a lot of black and Latino families, nearly all of my co-workers are white, and my social circle tends to be monochromatic).
We’ve got a school with mostly white kids, kids who’ve apparently not gone to preschool with many black kids. They’re engaging in a behavior that targets a black kid in a way that makes her uncomfortable. Yes, maybe they’re also targeting a disabled kid in the same way (Can I use your wheelchair? Are you retarded? Why can’t you walk?), innocently and making the disabled kid super uncomfortable; that doesn’t indicate the behavior is fine.
Saying the behavior is racist doesn’t mean that we should yell at these kids and call them assholes. It just means they’re doing something inappropriate that’s based on race, and in so doing they’re reinforcing some social dynamics about race that we don’t much care for.
The solution is simply to educate these kids in a twofold way: first, teach them some basic respect for other peoples’ bodies; and second, have some open and honest conversations with them about race. Let their white parents answer their frank and innocent questions about race, even the racist ones. Don’t make the black kid be the object lesson for their learning.
Or bright red hair? Or – as with my boyhood friend Matt – an aggressively hairsprayed flat-top? (We used to rub it all the time, without invite.)
A key difference is the specific experience of African-Americans in the US. We haven’t had a strong history of legal and extralegal discrimination against redheads or guys with flat-tops.
We can say that staring at a redhead or grabbing her hair is a symptom of the relative rarity of that hair color. Therefore a symptom of unfamiliarity! Totally innocent, case closed!
I don’t think we can say that about messing with black kids’ natural hair. Sure, the action may be rooted in the same unfamiliarity as with the redhead, but there are deep and troubling reasons for that unfamiliarity.
And this exotic treatment is likelier to follow the black kid throughout her whole life with negative affects than it is the redhead.
So yeah, one action is a symptom of systemic racism and one isn’t – even if the actions look very similar. I get that this is a controversial position (especially among my fellow white Americans), but it’s surely not nonsensical – or is it?
We don’t know that they are “targeting” a Black kid. All we know is that they are touching a kid with lots of hair.
The kid herself identified the big hair as the issue, not her Blackness - she wanted to not wear it “out”, so that the unwanted touching would stop.
We simply do not know whether other kids who are not Black but who have lots of hair get their hair touched as well. Without that information, we can’t tie this to racism, “institutional” or not.
If it isn’t tied to race, it’s a question of manners alone.
There’s a problem with how we address certain issues right now that seems to roughly be: “if it can be attributed to an -ism, then it must be an example of one, because these things are institutional, and so you can always draw a line from the -ism to the event.”
On the one hand, that’s completely true, and I wouldn’t argue against it.
On the other hand, there are times when specific actions are much better understood when you look at other motivations and causes.
“Othering” can happen whenever someone is outside of the norm, and it happens within groups that might even seem homogeneous from the outside. Viewing every experience of othering through the lens of racism or sexism or _-ism limits the number of ways we can address and understand very subtle and universal human behaviors.
You misunderstand. We do know they’re targeting a black kid, because they’re targeting a kid, and she’s black.
Yes, you’re right that they’re not saying, “Ooh, there’s a black kid, let’s target her!” Fortunately nobody is claiming that.
The question is whether they’re targeting her because of her blackness. That’s where it gets tricky. They’re targeting her because of her hair, and she’s got hair that looks like it does because she’s black, and they’re not familiar with this hair type because they’re not around black people very much. And they’re not around black people very much because of systemic racism.
It’d be innocent, except that it’s making her so uncomfortable that she’s resorting to defensive measures.
[Moderating]
Although this started from something a comedian talked about, it’s not really about art. Moving to Great Debates.
I think it is jumping to conclusions. The main one being that her hair is touched because she is Black and that this makes it “exotic”. There is no evidence, other that supposition, that this is the reason.
The hair could be touched simply because it is long.
If two kids have long hair, and both have their hair touched - one being Black and one White - is that “racist”? They are being treated the same, regardless of race.
You use the word “simply,” but that’s not the simple explanation. We know this girl has hair unlike that of anyone else at the school. We know she’s one of the few black kids at the school. We know that kids like to get their hands on unfamiliar things. Positing that there are other kids at the school with hairstyles more familiar to these white kids who are getting their hair touched so much that they have to change hairstyles as a defense is multiplying entities beyond necessity.
That reasoning seems perfectly circular.
If that’s the case, any negative interaction where the kid on the receiving end is Black becomes “racist” by virtue of the fact that the kid on the receiving end is Black.
If that is true, racism will never be addressed - because it is an absolutely normal part of childhood to have some negative interactions with other kids.
We have no idea whether they are “targeting” her because her hair is different, or because they are unfamiliar with her hair type. Indeed, we don’t know if every kid with long hair gets their hair touched. Nothing in the interview said that she was unique in having her hair touched. That is simply being assumed.
Sure. Similarly, failing to recognize how innocent behaviors can reinforce racist patterns in society also limits the ways we can address these problems.
I’m not saying we should only see this through the lens of systemic racism. I’m absolutely saying we need to recognize the role that normal childrens’ curiosity plays in this event.
What I’m saying is that both lenses are necessary for fully understanding the event AND addressing it with kids in a way that preserves both children’s curiosity and individual autonomy.
One man’s conclusion-jumping is another’s reasonable inference from the facts. The difference often turns less on what’s known about the facts of an individual case, and more on contextual knowledge.
Malthus, before this thread, were you familiar with the phenomenon of white people touching black people’s hair (with or without asking permission)?
I’m pointing out you are assuming facts not in evidence. We don’t know that they are touching her hair because it is racially ‘exotic’. What we do know, is that it is big.
Not even remotely correct.
Two circumstances:
- Alfred, a black kid, at recess comes up to me and says, “Mr. Dorkness, Liana (a white kid) just told me I wasn’t her friend any more because I was playing with John (a white kid)!” Absent some more information (and THERE IS ALWAYS MORE INFORMATION JESUS CHRIST KIDS STOP THE DRAMA ahem), nothing racist here.
- Jermaine, a black kid, at recess comes up to me and says, “Mr. Dorkness, Rachel keeps making fun of my name and telling me it’s weird!” There’s some racist undertones going on.
In order not to see the difference, you have to blind yourself to the history of race in our country. I see no benefit to doing that.
Good grief. Why is it big when it’s out and not when it’s not?
It’s starting to feel like you’re jumping through some real hoops to avoid the plain meaning of his story.
Yes.
Richard Parker, before this thread, were you familiar with the phenomenon of young children pulling hair, braids and pigtails (without asking permission)?
Are you contending that “contextual knowledge” is sufficient for you to state, reasonably and unequivocally, without knowing anything more about these people, that this is the result of one - and not the other?
(hijack) i think this summarizes alot of parenting! (end hijack, as you were)
mc
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.