Kamau Bell and Racist Five Year Olds

Great Debates
161

Um no. “A million times” no, in fact.

My “status” is not at all under discussion here. And I do not give a flying fudge about what my “status” is.

What is under discussion here is a minor point of your defining words to meaninglessness and the more major point of how we achieve some goals for our society that I think we both agree on.

Let’s get the trite academic and intellectual matter out of the way: extending the meaning of calling someone “a racist” to include anyone who you perceive has somehow benefited from, or at least not suffered from, structural features of society that have racist impacts, stretches the word beyond any utility at all. It simply is not what the word means.

But really that is trite. The more important point is that what I care about is accomplishing some goals, and I think that we disagree little on those goals:

We both, I think (and correct me if I am mistaken), accept that those structural features exist and that they have racist impacts, and want to see their existence widely accepted, understood, and addressed as best as is possible. We both, again I think, understand that such societal structural racism can occur whether or not the members of those institutions have explicit or implicit racist beliefs, and that the lack of those beliefs in no way decreases the fact that the structure has ongoing racist impacts. We both accept that each of us as individuals likely harbor racist beliefs implicitly that we are not consciously aware of but which impact our behaviors resulting in racist actions, and that combating that requires being open to the uncomfortable fact that they are there and being on the look out for how that impacts our behaviors. We both also accept that explicit racist actions, beliefs, and expressions still exist in our society and must be fought against.

The difference is that you somehow believe that saying “We are all racists!” and lumping those who might potentially be open to becoming aware of their implicit biases and to how societal structures have relatively benefited them and open to participating in ways to address that in the same bag as the alt-Right is somehow helpful, and that I see that as a very counterproductive activity that maybe makes you feel better but makes the goal of changing behaviors and policies more difficult.

No offense but you come off very much like a Fundamentalist: “We are all sinners, guilty by virtue of our humanity!” (Except that even the Fundamentalist offers the possibility of salvation … your schtick is that there is none.)

My take is not to focus on and convincing all of our individual guilt or even our collective guilt but to focus on our responsibility to work towards greater justice, knowing that we may not get all the way there. IMHO the latter accomplishes more and is a bit less self-centered. No your guilt, my guilt, is not the point at all. It’s not about me and not about you. It’s about making a positive change in our world.

You are of course free to disagree.

162

There’s a fundamental contradiction in insisting that racism is always a heinous insult upon one’s character, and then insisting that any other definition makes people too defensive.

163

To bring this back to W. Kamau Bell …

He talked a bit about his two daughters at that event I went to the other night as well. His wife is White and his elder is the one with the big hair whose experience in Kindergarten is the story of this thread. His younger child is 2 1/2, Juno, and, he says, look very White. Cute story for any parent of a 2 year old about how they are like monsters “grrrr” yeah yeah … and story number one from an airport with his kids was that child running ahead of him (“grrrrr”) and other adults looking to see where the parent was and looking past him, not putting it together that he a Black man could be the father of this White looking kid. He did not call those people racists in his schtick. But yes mental shortcut made: White looking child means White looking parent, White more commonly with White. Was that racism?

Story number two from an airport with that kids - at an airport toy store in Orlando and this child, who he makes a big deal out of looks White, taking down a bunch of stiffed Mickey Mouses and plays with them and the person working the toy store telling her harshly “no” and taking them away, which freaked him out because it is a toy store in an airport and of course kids play with the toys there, and his (exaggerated huffy body language in play) picks up his daughter and walks away saying “I guess they don’t serve Black people here.”

Pretty good if what he was doing was making fun of himself but I’m not sure that’s what he was doing. It did not come off that way to my ear hearing it. It came off as the fun he can have messin’ with folk because Juno looks so White.

The last example is this I came across looking for somewhere else he told the 2 1/2 year old story.

The event as he describes is that a person working in a local Bay Area cafe saw him, a Black man with a kids book out coming up to the table on the sidewalk full of White new Moms and a pregnant White woman (his wife), showing the book to a woman at the table, and assumed he was selling something and told him to “Git.” (Or “Scram” or “Go” … he’s not sure, but it was directed at him.)

Implicit racist beliefs a factor? The place generally sells breakfast foods but was this pizza? I’m pretty sure yes. A White man coming up showing a new kids’ book to a sitting table of young Moms and a Mom-to-be might have meshed better with the image of a husband/partner joining the table of Moms and Mom-to-be and not have been assumed to be trying to sell the book. Yeah same sort of subconscious mental shortcut taken as in the airport in which he not seen as the father. Her explicit thought was “no solicitors directly approaching our customers at our tables” and the categorizing him as selling something rather than as a husband joining a group and showing his wife what he bought was very likely informed by the fact that it did not match with her implicit image of what the husband in that case more often looks like.

Agree that some implicit beliefs contributed to coming to that conclusion and there was a racist impact of it.

There is certainly something for us to all potentially learn from that, about how our implicit beliefs can lead to actions that are racist. They are hard to be aware of and harder to control by the very nature that they are implicit. Pointing them out and having an awkward conversation about that? He’s under no obligation to do so but sure, it could be a useful awkward conversation to have.

Labelling that publicly as "TEXT BOOK racism. It is so old school it has a wing in the racism museum, right between the sit-ins at lunch counters and a southern redneck telling a black man on a business trip, ‘You ain’t from around here, are ya, boy?’”, yes putting that subconscious mental shortcut that caused harm in the same exact place as the old school “You ain’t from around here, are ya, boy”, and making it known via your celebrity status social media blog, using that platform to make sure that your followers know that you and your wife will never frequent that racist cafe again?

Is that the sort of awkward conversation that helps?

Is it even a conversation at all? In my head a conversation is not the same as one person stating something is pizza the end.
As far as “absolution” goes the absolution being offered is to the explicit belief racists because if everyone is racist like they are then 'sokay, they are just the norm. All good.

164

I’m only quoting the first paragraph of this post, but my response is aimed at the entire thing. I think the post is well written and conveys your ideas accurately, it is also an illustration of the exact point I attempted to make previously in this thread. This type of characterization acts as a dilutive to the word as commonly understood. I don’t think it’s useful to think of racism this way at all. It makes the term meaningless.

165

Are you making a prescriptive or descriptive argument?

If you’re saying that one should not define racism this way because then the term is less effective at fighting unfair treatment, then I think you’re demonstrably wrong, since success against structural racism usually requires recognizing the racism part. Integrating schools is effective education policy. Advocating for equitable funding across districts has largely been a failure. Both approaches are basically tackling bad schools for (predominantly) black kids, but the one that focuses on the real problem–racism and racial segregation–fixes the problem. The other has, more often than not, just led to reemergence of the problem a little further down the line. I think the same is basically true in lots of other areas, from drug courts to ban the box.

If you’re saying that this just isn’t what racism means as a descriptive matter, then I think you’re still wrong, but I think the debate is far less interesting.

166

I’m assuming that I am the “you” this is addressed to.

The distinction between the defining the word “racism” and what defines “a racist” is actually not so subtle and my objection to was to how the latter was being misused, tritely as a descriptive matter, and more so as the presciptive one.

“Racism” is a broader umbrella and exists as a structural feature within the systems of our society.

Identifying that structural features of systems have racist impacts (and doing something effective about it) even when none in charge or participating in the system want those impacts, that our subconscious mental shortcuts can result in behaviors that have racist impacts despite our conscious intentions, is the issue.

Kindergarteners touching a classmates hair and noting how it is different from theirs can have a racist impact. LHOD explained that early on. Labelling those five year olds as racists for being curious, for not yet appreciating personal space boundaries, for asking about what they are curious about? Not what is going on there.

Consider the cafe example and Bell’s response to that.

Let us also for the sake of the discussion make some hypothetical assumptions.

The worker has no explicit racist beliefs. Dang for all we know she could have a Black Lives Matter bumper sticker on her Prius, it’s the Bay area after all. In her head she saw what she interpreted as someone coming up and soliciting people sitting at one of their outdoor tables (very different than someone across from the doorway begging for change). Her conscious thought was definitely not “pizza”; she knows she was thinking “quiche.”

AND that conscious thought was reached by virtue of some implicit biases that she is unaware of by which a White man joining the table the same way may have been more likely assumed to be a member of that party. (Note that in this case it could go the same way with White man in a hoodie walking up to a table of all Black women with strollers and/or pregnant, showing them something and not sitting down. Shortcut could just be “like with like more often.” But assume a more likely mental shortcut with the Black man. Assume some subconscious implicit bias that reads Black male as “threat.” It’s a common subconscious bias among middle class Whites despite what they may want themselves to be thinking.)

Bell for his part is taking a mental shortcut from someone assuming he is selling something and telling a person who they think is bothering paying customers being served to “You ain’t from around here, are you, boy?”

I think it would be a good thing for us all to be aware that we are all prone to taking those mental shortcuts. It’s part of our wiring, we use heuristics and thus can jump to conclusions. Sometimes that wiring works for us; sometimes … not.

Yeah the fact that we all to some degree do these things despite our conscious beliefs is tough and uncomfortable to accept, no matter ow much of the research we read.

But is telling someone who knows that they just made a quiche that you know it’s an offensive pizza, end of story, useful? Nope, not too useful. Does treating that woman as having been the exact same as the “… boy” person and no longer frequenting a cafe because a worker there very likely has some implicit beliefs that they are not consciously aware of help get others to consider how they may also have implicit beliefs that influence them to behave in ways that they do not realize? I don’t think so.

167

I was referring to Bone’s comment in the immediately preceding post that “I don’t think it’s useful to think of racism this way at all.” I disagree. I think it’s extremely helpful to understand that racism operates in many ways without conscious bigotry.

It is a different question whether it’s useful to label as racists those people who act on implicit biases or who further structural racism without conscious bigotry. I don’t think a categorical answer either way makes much sense. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn’t.

168

I hadn’t thought about the distinction between prescriptive or descriptive, but it’s a bit of both. I agree that success against structural racism requires recognizing the racism part - but it also would be better served to accurately describe the targets. If someone says that typical lined binder paper being primarily white in color is due to structural racism, I don’t think that’s helpful (I acknowledge that no one is saying that). If we both agree that structural racism is terrible and all effort should be made to eliminate it or reduce it to the maximum extent possible, that’s great as an overall goal. We could get many supporters and like minded people I would hope. But then if among our group someone proposes something along the lines of everything and anything being a a part of the problem we are calling structural racism, like white binder paper, I think we’d lose part of our cohorts. That’s what I mean by being less effective, by being dilutive.

Maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. Maybe the wide net is actually more effective at bringing people into the cause, but I don’t think so. School integration, I’m with you. 5 year old hair touching, not so much.

I think to the extent that racism is extant, the more direct it is the more persuasive the arguments against it. When I think of racism and structural racism, 5 year old hair touching is not even on the list. Too many leaps are required to consider that a real thing, IMO. And when Bell makes those leaps, I evaluate the process and compare it to my own, and it makes me question Bell’s judgment. Maybe all of his other examples are right on point - I’ve heard him tell the restaurant story on an NPR podcast actually - but knowing that he makes these types of leaps makes me scrutinze the storytelling all the much more. That makes the rest of his message less effective, for me at least.

169

I don’t see in argument in there for why one is structural racism and the other isn’t. Instead, I see you arguing that it makes sense to focus on the aspects of structural racism that have the biggest impact.

Of course, I agree. Where I disagree, if at all, is the idea that discussing a fairly minor examples of structural racism somehow takes away from focus on the bigger issues. No one is proposing that we build a movement around kid-hair-touching. It’s just being discussed along with ten thousands other things. I don’t think it has any impact at all–or if it does, a positive one–on whether people are focused on issues like residential segregation or eliminating cash bail.

170

Defining touching someone’s hair without permission as rude when it is a white/Asian/Hispanic girl but “systemic racism” when it happens to a black girl emphasizes the Otherness of the black girl. Which I thought we wanted to avoid.

Regards,
Shodan

171

I don’t think it’s that clear cut – but in any case, as adults we’re trying to discuss it objectively and factually, while understanding that we might handle this differently with children themselves (as Bell did). I think it’s possible that more black kids (and more black people in general) experience people wanting to touch their hair and doing so without permission, and if this is so, then it’s possible that systemic racism has something to do with it. I don’t know this for a fact, and it would be incredibly hard to determine factually, but I think it’s reasonable to discuss.

But as has also been said before, hair-touching is not the problem in America. It may just be one of the lesser important symptoms (among many, many others) of the main problem/problems, but such lesser symptoms can still be discussed.

172

Sure we can discuss it, but it still reinforces, in the minds of the participants, that black people are the Other. Touching Jimmy or Heather without permission is rude. Touching Keisha triggers a discussion of the flaws of the whole society. I don’t see how you do that without the idea that there is something about Keisha that’s different.

Regards,
Shodan

173

You can do it by explicitly saying that such othering is wrong, and it’s wrong that society to some extent treats some people differently and unfairly based on unimportant and superficial categories.

For example: “if black people experience unwanted hair touching more often than white people, this might be related to systemic racism because of XYZ, and it’s wrong”.

174

Treating unwanted touching of black people differently from unwanted touching of anyone else is othering in and of itself. Discussions of systemic racism don’t add anything - except to emphasize that touching a black person is worse than touching a white one. Because black people are different.

Regards,
Shodan

175

But that’s not what I’m suggesting – I’m suggesting the possibility that any additional unwanted hair touching of black people (beyond what non-black people experience) might be related to systemic racism, not all such touching.

No different than discussion of the possibility that black people might be more likely to be targeted by racial slurs than white people. Would you similarly criticize such a discussion as somehow othering black people?

176

It’s not that black people are different, it’s that racial dynamics surrounding black people are different from racial dynamics surrounding white people, and different from racial dynamics surrounding Asian people, and so on.

It’s not othering to recognize these different dynamics; indeed, failing to recognize them is as effective as failing to recognize flu symptoms out of a hope that if you just think positively the flu won’t affect you.

177

Children touching hair is racism? I wonder what the outrage over real racism is. Black students at Harvard to hold their own commencement - The Boston Globe

178

Perhaps more so it is a simple illustration of how a behavior not motivated out of even any implicit (subconscious) racist beliefs can still have racist impacts.

One group is going to have hair that stands out more and attracts those touches more, the big haired Black girls in that Kindergarten room. The system is not designed to make them feel self-conscious, upset, or ashamed of their hair; the other kids are not thinking or implying that the big natural hair is bad or inferior in anyway - they just notice it is … different … comment on it as five year olds will do, and want to experience it by touching it as five year olds do. No racist intent of the children or of the system. But the result is specific to the group of young Black girls who become as a result potentially self-conscious of, upset about, ashamed of their hair in its natural state (and to some extent one can argue, of the beauty of their own unadulterated features), and try to change themselves to avoid standing out and being touched.

Is this the big item in the race issues bucket list? No of course not and as Bell’s story illustrates positive messaging consistently given without having to hit her over the head with it can offset the result above. But while I do not get the impression that Bell realizes it, it does serve as a good illustration of how racist impacts can occur without any racists, just out of simple ignorance or even innocence coupled with curiosity.

And yes structural racism, racist outcomes that occur even when all those of the system are committed to treating all equally because of the structure of the system, is a major issue.

179

I mean if you want to play dumb and pretend you don’t notice that black people have a unique grade of hair that is noticeably distinctive from that of other races and that has historically been mocked and shamed because of this difference, then by all means do so.

Just be aware that this feigned ignorance in order to make a point leaves you looking anything but smart. You’re essentially pretending that racism has nothing to do with physical appearance.

180

Certainly not in your post :). Bone, if you’re looking for the sort of thing that dilutes the word “racism,” applying it to events like this is a real candidate.