That’s not only an extremely loaded question, it’s manipulative and ambiguous. Please try again.
Wow. Thank you for putting into such eloquent form what I’ve been thinking as I read this thread. It’s very difficult, even in the relative anonymity of this forum, to confess that I find such abhorrent instincts bubbling up now and then. They shame and disgust me; I manage never to let them affect any word or deed, but SHIT! – they’re there, the product of growing up white in a pretty much all white suburb in the '50s and '60s. Treating racism as a black-or-white (heh) issue – you’re an evil racist or you haven’t a bigoted bone in your body – just makes it harder to come to terms with the ambiguous reality that I believe is the case for many people. It seems to me also that understanding the roots of an individual’s racism offers a better basis to try to eradicate or at least cope with it than simply decrying its existence. (Bows to L’il Puck)
WordNet says nothing about racism being a conscious belief, so I find it amusing that you supply this definition as if it represents the 11th Commandment, but then go on and insert that unimplied qualifier to it. Why even bother citing that definition if the meat of your argument is not supported by it at all?
I’ve never seen it put so apty, Hippy Hollow, and that is such a fine description. I’m white, and raised with open minded people, but, still, they had some , not exactly racist, but rather, cliche stereotypes. I never got that at all, even as a child. Perhaps it’s the time brought up, or, as you allude to, an innately healthy social immune system, not overtly compromised by a hate virus.
Late in the game here on the topic, just viewed the videos, (via dialup, holy moly, so had a plenty of time to digest them frame by slow ass frame) and, have to say that the discourse here is so much more meaningful than anywhere else.
Those were painful videos to watch. I’m a Seinfeld fan, and love Kramer. What I really noticed was that both in the original Meltdown video, and in the Letterman apology, Michael Richards was very disassociated from the audience, and not at all “on”. For an actor, that’s a bad sign. He was tense in both videos, to my view, odd in an actor who was once adept at a rather ebullient style/character.
It’s no excuse for that horrible outburst, but he appears to have some real personal problems. He seemed to want to address that in the Letterman apology.
It’s been good food for thought here with the discussion on this thread.
Just as I find your implied 11’th Commandment that racism must be a non-conscious phenomenon amusing. :smack: “unimplied qualifier” indeed! How droll. Would you please cite the dictionary entries where ANY belief is explicitly specified as being a non-conscious belief? Or a conscious belief, for that matter? And then you can tell us all about non-conscious beliefs. That’d be pretty amusing, too.
As for the “meat” of my argument, monstro challenged me to indicate what I mean by the word “racist” and what behaviors I believe prove racism, so I cited the dictionary definition then expanded upon it to further refine my position. You got a problem with that? Make it clearer.
Why did you even bother pontificating so?
He was not the only performer that night. Likely they were there to see someone else, which is why they came in during his act. I forget if it’s been mentioned in this thread, but that’s actually what set Richards off: the fact that they created what he perceived as a disruption.
Seinfeld’s remarks may be totally self-serving, but I’m pretty sure none of them is ever going to need to do anything for money again. Seinfeld, at least, is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
I don’t think I do either, but the discussion has broadened considerably beyond Richards’ tirade and similarly extensive and vehemently demeaning rants, and the post you responded to with the above is clearly among the evolved discussion rather than Richards. How can you not know that? I suggest you re-read the entire thread from the beginning, only this time, do it more carefully, please. No one is defending Richards, and how you have kept from realizing that by now is beyond me. That’s a dead issue at this point, so you may want to stop kicking the carcass. Just a thought.
Oh, yes. The use of the words “nigger” and “faggot” are so, so “uncommon”. Why, it’d be like getting struck by lightning 50 different times, you hear those words so rarely. So when you do hear them, there’s no contemplation, no analysis of past behavior, no thought needed to believe whatever you want about the speaker. I mean, if you think one, single piece of evidence isn’t sufficient to convict someone of racism, then you must be a racist yourself! To hell with reason! What’s reason ever done for you? Saying, or hell, even just thinking the word “nigger” once proves you hold the actual belief that people of African ancestry are undeniably and implicitly inferior! Which is the nature of what the word “racist” actually means.
(And do I really need to say, yet again, that this isn’t in regards to Richards?)
What a perfect, conclusive analogy! It fits the current discussion like OJ’s glove!
Health care practitioners should follow your advice and never do any actual tests to see if the child actually has a peanut allergy. They should just take the one, single event as determinative. I mean, occasions when a symptom has not been a consequence of what the doctor assumed caused it are so “uncommon” that they’re just not worth considering very seriously.
Again, the discussion has moved beyond Richards, and I don’t think anyone’s defending him. But to answer your question anyway, I’d need to know more about his history of using racial epithets, his beliefs along those lines (those he’s stated aloud, of course), and his relevant comments to friends and family and colleagues. And of course we might ask him if he’s a racist. Sure, he might well lie if he’s a racist and doesn’t want people to know that, but there are racists who are proud of their racism, too (insane, deluded dickheads that they are).
Well, to be fair, discussion of the genesis of beliefs is extremely valuable in helping people understand that racism can be institutionalized. Learning how and why racism is created is a way to educate a person and then assist in developing a strategy to combat the racism.
For example, and in general, Racism against blacks in America is heavily rooted in the “ideology of Racial Inferiority” which was created and fostered throughout the history of colonization and the founding of the U.S. Many times, people say “the past is the past, let it go”, but when we do this, we fail to see and understand why racism can have long-term implications even after the overt actions are no longer occurring.
For example, a long history of overt racism in the U.S resulted in job discrimination and housing discrimination. A failure to understand this, also results in a failure to understand that since most public education is linked into property taxes, the long-term effects of those overt practices can still be felt long after they have been abolished. Since education is widely viewed as a means by which people can advance their lives, a history of overt racism, which effects the local tax base where many minorities live, which then effects the educational opportunities, which then effects the opportunities available to young people, which then leads to disproportionate numbers of people involved in crime and relative deprivation, which then leads to continued problems; helps someone understand how the genesis of racism leads to current social problems.
On the other hand, understanding the genesis of racism such as blacks against whites, which has become very prolific in recent years, may help us solve the issue. If the plan to combat racism in the U.S. does not address the root feelings of oppression and anger over a long history of maltreatment and does nothing to address those feelings, it will not be successful. One of the primary reasons why some scholars assert race relations are worsening in the U.S. is because each side refuses to address the genesis of the racism.
Whites increasingly refuse to recognize that the actions of their fathers/mothers have created an unequal playing field and become angry when asked to sacrifice to level this playing field. This increases racism. Blacks increasingly refuse to acknowledge that increased racism amongst blacks, against whites, is resulting in a greater divide and choose to make statements such as “Racism can only be perpetrated by those in power, such as white people in America”.
If we do not address the genesis of racism, we are doomed to see it worsen.
Mr. Richards, in his explanation, alluded to this. He said something to the effect of: I have to look at myself and figure out why this happened, why I said those things and acted that way. If he is sincere about this statement, then he is making the first step to acknowledging his prejudice and if he pursues this, then he will be a better person for it.
In U.S. society, we all must do this.
Along those lines, if they’re going to try to be consistent, why wouldn’t people who feel as ywtf do – such that they judge solely based on one or a few observations – drop their belief that a known racist white man’s still a racist after they’ve seen him say nice things to and about black people and open doors for them and other such visible behavior? Aren’t they being more reductively behaviorist than B. F. Skinner ever dreamed of being?
I mean, just how few observed behaviors do you folks believe are adequate to establish with reasonable probability that someone’s a racist or not a racist?
FTR, racism is the “ideology of racial inferiority”. Saying it’s merely “rooted” in it seems at least somewhat inaccurate.
Carry on. And thank you for your fine post!
No, pool. It’s because I assumed that you possessed something in the way of both reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Since you’ve established so, umm, eloquently, that you don’t, let me help help you out.
I made the reference to the Dialo cops as a way of questioning or counter-balancing the claim stated by some of the Dopers in this thread that thinking the word “nigger” doesn’t automatically make someone a racist. Some here have opined that Richards’s use of that epithet in the heat of the moment may indicate nothing more than his desire to aim for whatever he felt would hurt his hecklers (if they were, indeed, hecklers) the most.
While I’ve stated that it might (sometimes) be possible for this to be the case, I don’t think we should treat this lightly since the person who can give/deny me a job, rent/or not rent me an apartment, and who thinks the word “nigger” whenever blacks are encountered can hurt me in more substantial ways than just bruising my feelings. Extrapolating from that, I wondered if the Dialo cops had ever thought “nigger” when thinking about blacks.
Do you see my point now, or do you need me to restate it via interpretative dance?
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
If we accept that both white-on-black and black-on-white bigotry and hatred are neither acceptable or excusable then of what use is discussing the genesis of either?
Mom used to say “two wrongs don’t make a right” and once that was established we were never allowed to use the genesis or relative value of one wrong or the other as a qualifier.
Would I be correct in assuming you’re qualifying the values of the wrongs by bringing up their genesis?[\QUOTE]
::Sigh::
Clearly, I was wrong in saying, in that same post, this:
I honestly don’t know how to make this any clearer to you two. Actually, I’m going to disregard **pool ** altogether since this is not the first time (not just in this thread) you’ve tried to twist my words. You’ll recall that you did the same thing to me in the “Share your controversial beliefs” thread. After I wrapped your ass in pretty, shiny paper and handed it to you on a silver platter, you offered something resembling a defensive explanation for your actions, and I relented and (silently) withdrew my initial assessment of you. Now, however, since we’ve accumulated a little more history with each other, I’ll restate my initial diagnosis of your malady: intellectual ennui.
Levdrakon, I can’t be arsed at the moment to run a check of your previous posts in order to form an opinion as to what kind of person you generally are on this board, so I won’t dismiss you as I’ve done WRT pool.
Your mother is correct: two wrongs don’t make a right. I learned it from my own mother, too, so no argument there. But where did you get from the post that you quoted that I was claiming that they, indeed, do?
And where, pray tell, did you get the idea that, simply because I’m offering *one * possible explanation for black-on-white racism, I’m qualifying the value of the wrong of this kind of racism differently (no, not just “differently,” because you clearly meant “more leniently”) than I’m qualifying the value of the wrong of white-on-black racism? * Especially given that (IMHO) I *clearly and unambiguously ** said, at the beginning of the same paragraph, “neither form of bigotry or hatred…<snip>…is acceptable or excusable”?
IOW, was yours an honest question? I mean, was it really and truly not clear that I wasn’t making a one-is-good-and-the-other-is-okay distinction?
So, to answer your question: You would most certainly **not ** be correct in your assumption.
And if you (or pool, or anyone else who is confused) think that my *merely pointing out * the different genesi of white/black and black/white racism is tantamount to denigrating the former and justifying the latter, try going back to post #288, where **Hippy Hollow ** so intelligenty said much of what I’ve said here.
Thanks, by the way, Hippy Hollow, for your cool and intelligent posts on this subject! 
EddyTeddyFreddy, nothing to add here except to say that it was both courageous and cool of you to share this. I know that had to be difficult, so thank you. It is now I who bow to you. 
Well done, Lissa, very well done. Thanks. Oh, how I wish we **ALL ** could get this through out heads.
Ambushed, about this whole thing with you and you with the face:
I don’t know **you with the face ** (though I **totally ** dig her posts), so I won’t pretend that I can speak for her. My take, though, is that her earlier use of the word “apologia” wasn’t an indication that she felt that *everyone * with a view contrasting her own was apologizing for Richards. Rather, it seemed to me to be an indication of her unease with the way that the he-only-said-that-because-he-wanted-to-hurt-the-guy claims came across to her, i.e., “What do you mean he’s racist?!”. And, yes, likewise to me and to several other posters in this thread.
IOW, I think that what **you with the face ** wants people to acknowledge, as do I, is that, yes, the fact that he even *thought * that word, much less used it in the context that he did, even if he was just trying to hurt the guy’s feelings, indicates that there’s *something * racial going on in his head/heart/whatever.
For instance, no one who knows me–and I do mean NO ONE–would ever say that I’m racist in the conventional sense of the word, but there have certainly been times in my life when, reacting to an actual (or even, perceived) slight from someone (either other blacks or non-blacks), I’ve thought to myself “nigger,” “cracker,” what-have-you, usually followed by “muthafucka!” or “bitch!” or preceded by the word “bitch-ass”.* Now, I’ve always understood that I’ve had those thoughts **in reaction ** to something that the other person has done to piss me off (as opposed to the *mere fact * that the person was black, white, etc.), but I’ve also understood that my merely *thinking * those words in that particular way indicates that there’s something racially uncool going on with me (despite whatever it’s genesis might be), and that I need to be vigilant (actually, I always am) in terms of dealing with it and making sure that it doesn’t negatively affect how I treat people.
And that, I think, is what **you with the face ** was trying to get at, but she can correct me if I’m wrong.
*This doesn’t happen with every instance of a slight, by the way. I’ve noticed that whether or not it happens tends to be heavily influenced by how I’m feeling at that given moment. This, however, does **not ** justify it happening when it does.
Li’l Pluck, my friend, we may not be in 100% agreement, but I’m profoundly impressed with your clear, critical thinking and your mastery of language. Your posts are a treat to read and I’m going to be on the lookout for them in the future.
You mentioned far upthread that you’d hoped to be able to respond to my long post in reply to yours above. I’d really enjoy that, so I hope it can happen. But I’ve got to go for now.
Please keep posting!
Well, I don;t totally agree or disagree with you here.
Depending upon your perspective, racism is not the same as the ideology of racial inferiority. For example, in the U.S. many blacks are racist. However, this is not as heavily rooted in an ideology of racial inferiority. Rather, it is more rooted in social identity. However, in regards to the racism propagated against blacks in America, it is heavily rooted in the creation and promulgation of the ideology of racial inferiority which basically allows inidividuals to create a dualistic view of humanity. In other words, human, but sub-human. Many of the racist beliefs towards blacks in America stem from the ideology of racial inferiority that permeated U.S. culture and asserted blacks were sub-human. You don’t normally see this same belief amongst the majority of black racists, although there are some who started their own ideology of superiority.
A lot of Americans simply do not realize how much they have been exposed to the ideology of racial inferiority as it pertains to blacks. There were so many aspects of U.S. culture that embraced this ideology: Advertising, religion, government, science, education, that it does not seem appropriate to compare all modern exhibitions of racism to this notion.
However, I have to admit that if you accept one of the standard definitions of racism, as asserted by many Sociologists- Racism: The belief that one individual is inherently superior to another based upon physical traits that are transmitted genetically- then you are correct.
Wow, man… I mean, I do declare, that is very, very kind of you to say. Thank you so much! :o
And no worries–I haven’t forgotten about your earlier post. Things have been busier than I’m happy with (for this time of year), but I certainly hope to get to it within the next day or so.
jackelope- good point on the Letterman audience.
lisacurl- the audience was tittering way before the Afro-American comment.
John Corrado- severeal great observations earlier.
My question is this: No hypotheticals: I am great friends with a white person who has adopted a two year old black girl who he would literally die for, and has two or three black friends who he would do the same for. Yet, due to crime in his area that is mainly perpatrated by blacks, and due to personal problems he has had with some blacks, he really doesn’t like blacks in general. Is he a racist?