Did you even read what you quoted? Let me bold it for you. As long as the assumptions remain assumptions. Once they are acted on, things change. I have made this point over and over and over. Not only do refuse to acknowledge it, apparently, you are unable to even recognize it.
DtC, did you read the OP where he stated this:
And did you read this?
To recap: The OP never accused or even implied that his (please note the “his”, by the way) dad was being malicious, only stupid. And secondly, the dad even admitted to his mistake. So I don’t know what you’re point is.
True or false: It is stupid to start talking about basketball to someone just because they’re black. I say true.
True or false: If someone admits to making this mistake, it means that they probably made this mistake. I say true.
What is there to debate?
The part where he accused his dad of racism, for starters. The fact that he is now backing off of that ridiculous assertion, as well as the one where the whole world is racist, suggests that the debate was effective.
Really, the former thing is just a debate of definitions, and the latter is a belief I still hold, with the reasonable caveat that you can exclude people not exposed to other races and tiny infants.
Why shouldn’t he try to interact with him like he interacts with all of the OP’s friends? I think that is the point of the whole rant. The dad was reacting to the kid being black instead of just treating like he would anyone else, and it made for an embarrasing situation. It’s not anymore complex than that. No, it’s not akin to being tied to a truck and dragged 50 miles down a dirt road. But it’s still a valid gripe.
It’s erroneous but I object to saying it’s “overboard”. When you say “overboard”, you’re suggesting there has to be some minimum amount of offensiveness involved before it counts as racism and I disagree that it works like that. I also don’t think you’re in the position to say “it’s not that bad” when you’re not the one who has to deal with the stereotyping in the first place.
What if basketball wasn’t the stereotype that the dad reached for when trying to relate to the kid? What if the father kept talking about weed because he assumed that “black kids are into stuff like that”? And why does it matter that the dad wasn’t intentionally being a jerk? I mean, he wouldn’t be justified in being wary of the OP’s friend because “black kids listen to gangsta rape and rob liquor stores” would he? But why not? He’s just acting out stereotypes, right? What makes it okay to make racial stereotypes in one particular kind of way and not another? To me, all three of these are bone-headed ways of interacting with another person, and it doesn’t matter to me that basketball isn’t as “bad” as robbing a store.
Don’t assume I play/like basketball just because I’m black. And don’t assume that I will rob your motherfucking ass just because I’m black. It’s real simple. And I don’t have to worry about whether which one of these assumptions is racist or not. Both of them are wrong. Period.
Judging every situation on exactly what we know about it at the moment seems quite reasonable to me. You think it’s better to react based on stereotypical assumptions (over simplification, uncritical thinking, prejudice)? I don’t get it. Can you give some examples? How is stereotyping “absolutely necessary” to human beings?
Zoe, I believe Oy! may be refering to the fact that we draw on past experiences in order to think about the situations we are currently facing today. We classify things in order to better understand the world around us. Fire is most likely hot, ice is most likely cold, people from Nebraska most likely speak English. If we didn’t do that, we would be akin to newborn babies wandering around without a clue of what’s going on. Though that is my take on it, I’m sure Oy! will clear it up for you.
You surely aren’t suggesting that we interact with everyone in the same manner? One should talk about jogging with someone who has no legs as if they had legs? Simply because that’s what one talks with other’s about? I guess everyone should have a script to go by (like a telemarketer), since it’s completely insensitive to try to connect with someone and find something they may enjoy to converse about.
Also, I suppose context played a large role in monstro’s experience, however I don’t see how that question could be seen as racist. Perhaps that question is asked of everyone?
I also believe Askia’s definition is bang-on. Could you explain why it isn’t please?
I’m saying we should try to do so. Meaning, we shouldn’t give into stereotypes when deciding how to interact with individuals. We should strive to limit the amount of assumptions we make about a person until we know more about them. We shouldn’t assume that every black person likes basketball, just like shouldn’t assume every white person likes country music, says “Oh my God!” a lot, and owns a yaht. Because it’s stupid.
Again I have to wonder why it matters to so many people whether a particular assumption meets the textbook criteria for racism. Whether it is or isn’t, it doesn’t change how problematic it is. You realize that, right? If I say that the black-person-likes-basketball assumption isn’t racist (as I have done), that doesn’t make it any less bothersome and annoying. If I say it is racist, that doesn’t mean we should get Jesse Jackson on the phone, either.
And no, not everyone was asked by their major advisor if they were an athlete before getting academic advice. My academic advisor didn’t ask me that question and quite coincidentally, he never showed any other racist/prejudiced tendencies, either. monstro can’t say the same thing about hers. The guy had some racist ideas in his head and sometimes he voiced them. Trust us on this one, please.
The thing that furt posted is actually not even a definition, so what is “bang-on” about it? Dictionary.com defines bigotry as intolerance or hate. Please tell me how it’s more correct to call the OP’s dad a bigot, but not a racist. That makes no sense to me at all.
Which I was endorsing. And the OP’s situation does not remotely approach any dictionary definitions for racism.
Yes it does. It is counterproductive in the same way that it would be counterproductive to call every person who accidentally takes a pen home from work a thief. When you redefine a term to make it broad, you necessarily lose it as narrower descriptor; unless you replace it with a new term, there is now a void; and once you have no useful terminology, addressing any problem is much harder. When you start calling “red” that which is in fact only pink, you make it harder to identify and deal with that which really is red.
“Racism” is one notch below “Pedophilia” on the accusation meter. Throwing it around to describe that which is more accurately called ignorant or even stupid is irresponsible.
I teach in a school whose population skews heavily towards white, male, southern and poorly-educated. My course touches on issues of race and culture.
The sentiment I’ve gotten from my students again and again and again is that they do not want to address issues of race because the topic is a minefield. Students fear – with much justification – that an awkward phrase, a failed attempt at humor, even mere ignorance will lead to them being seen as racist. Classroom discussions that could otherwise be enlightening and productive are stifled because they are deemed too dangerous. I once had a student say that it “isn’t safe” to discuss the pros and cons of Affirmative Action in a college classroom, because it’s too easy to something that would get one called a racist … and mind you, this was a white kid *in favor *of AA.
That chilling effect, and the ignorace that remains because of the conversations that are not held, is exactly the result of broad-brush accusations like that which the OP made (and has thankfully backed off from).
Brandon, there is a difference between characteristics and stereotypes. “Hot” is not a stereotype of fire. “Cold” is not a stereotype of ice.
And although not everyone in Nebraska speaks English, the vast majority do.
With stereotypes, there is insufficient information to access the accuracy of assumptions.
As to the former, you called your dad a racist. Wiggle around all you want, you’ll not find a definition of “racist” that makes that anything less than a horrible accusation. Unless, as has been noted by various posters, you define it into meaninglessness. As to the latter, you are entitled to your own beliefs, you are just not entitled to your own facts. Once you state belief as fact, and emphatically, I might add, you need to be able to back it up if you expect to be taken seriously.
I’m not understanding why people are still beating Silver Pageant over the head, and quite self-righteously I might add. The guy already admitted he used the wrong word. Can we all agree that, if his description of events, is accurate, his father needed to be corrected?
My own boss is kind of like the OP’s father. He’s a swell, non-racist guy who just cannot seem to talk to me like he talks to other people. Is his behavior deserving of a pit thread? No. But am I tired of being treated like Ask the Black Woman all the time? Sure. It may be human nature to treat minorities in a weird way, but as you with the face said, we should try not to. It seems that in the effort to lambaste Silver Pageant, people are defending the father’s behavior. It really shouldn’t be defended.
A young college student knocks nervously on their advisor’s door. The professor impatiently asks what the student wants, as many grey-haired professors do. This is the first one-on-one this student has had with a major professor, and she wants to make a good impression.
“I’m a freshman, and I just want to find out if I’m on track with all of my classes.”
The professor looks up from his cluttered desk, sizes up the student in one sweeping glance, and then turns back to his work.
“Are you an athlete?” he asks.
“Uh…” The student is speechless and a bit embarrassed, since she’s as opposite of an athlete that you can possibly get without being physically disabled.
“No, sir. But I am interested in ecology.”
There is no more context than that. If you deny that the question is racially loaded and you require citation before you will believe that it is, then I’m bowing out of the conversation right now.
But you think “bigotry” and “prejudice” are a closer match, which makes absolutely sense to me at all since the former denotes intolerance and the latter denotes making judgments about a person. The OP’s dad demonstrated neither of these. So the only reason why I would think anyone would endorse those terms as opposed to the one used in the OP is because they are inordinately wedded to the notion that it’s only kinda sorta bad to be a prejudiced bigot but it’s really really bad to be racist. That’s a whole bunch of mansy pansy hooey to me. The semantic lines between these terms are so thin that being called one versus another should not cause anyone’s panties to bunch. But it does all the time and it’s silly.
It’s not nice to call someone racist when they are not being racist. But people should be smart enough to respond to a wrong appropriately without trying to first determine if it counts as racism. It doesn’t matter if the OP’s dad was being racist. He was wrong. He made a fool out of himself and he could have potentially offended the OP’s friend. That’s why it’s a legitimate gripe. Not because he meets or doesn’t meet the criteria of a racist. Because he was being stupid.
Only in your head. Get over it. It’s just a word. If you behave in a racist way, you should be called on it. If you believe in racist things, you should be called on it. Our personal feelings have nothing to do with the correct application of the English language.
Got it. If a black person calls a white person a racist, it’s just a word. If a white person calls a black person “that name that shall only pass the lips of the privileged,” all hell breaks loose.
Why? By whom? Under what circumstances?
Where do we find what the correct application is? What is your source?
Did a black person call you a racist? Or did they state the harmless generalization that everyone is at least a little racist?
There’s no honor in nailing yourself to a cross because you have emotional hangups about a word that has a perfectly nonderogatory, nonperjorative meaning. “Nigger” ain’t nothing but a slur. I can’t even believe you would make this silly comparison.
The dictionary, my friend. You might have heard of it. It’s an authority you refer to when deciding what a word means and how it should be applied. Here’s my working definition of racism.
Please note that these definitions requires no action on the part of the subject in order to hold true, as you insisted rather mightily. Please also note that “prejudice based on race” (as some have conceded has been described by the OP) does not preclude one from being racist, and in fact, is part and parcel of being racist.
Again, I don’t think the OP’s dad was being racist. But I believe you and others are straining gnats in berating the OP for using the “r” word. To insist that it’s okay to say the guy was being prejudiced but it’s horrific to say he was being racist strikes me as profoundly absurd.
I am sorry, I really truly can’t see anything racist in that at all. 
And, in fact- unless you could read that “grey-haired professor’s” mind, you can’t either. :dubious:
I make unwarranted assumptions all the time! But I’m adult enough to own up to them instead of rationalizing them away or being an apologist for rude behavior. If you were to start a pit thread because someone assumed you were a bimbo, I’d join you in your rant against the idiot who would think such a thing about you. BECAUSE IT’S STUPID. I don’t know why so many people feel like they have to make excuses for something that is just plain wrong. NOT BAD AND HEINOUS. Just wrong.
And you know what? It’s extra frustrating when people say “pick your battles, girl!” when I’m not picking any battles. Dumb is dumb, and people should feel free to say as much without feeling like it takes away from the Greater Fight Against Racist Oppression. People start pit threads for all sorts of offenses, big and small, and no one suggests that complaining because people don’t wash their hands after taking a leak, for example, detracts from the War on Terror, the genocide in Darfar, or cancer research. So can we please do away with the idea that complaining about annoying racial assumptions makes it harder to recognize “real racism”? Because that’s even more stupid than assuming someone is a bimbo because they’re blonde.
In what incredibly fucked up universe is that?
Not only is “racism” nowhere near “pedophilia,” racism has degrees. Racism is not only or always genocidal attitudes and actions, and reserving the word “racism” for just the most egregious acts of race based prejudice means that the other acts get ignored. Failing to call less destructive acts of racism “racism” leads people to believe (wrongly) that when no one is getting lynched, everything’s is fine.
Depends on what you mean by “less destructive acts of racism.” There are waaaay too many people who are too quick to cry racism because they conflate the extreme behaviors of racism (stuff that leads to racial discrimination, bigotry, hate crimes, xenophobia and ethnic cleansing genocides) with ethnocentristic behaviors and racial biases everyone does, and everyone’s guilty of.
In this thread? No. In my life? Hell yeah.
If complaining about something is being nailed to a cross, you would have so many nails sticking out of you you’d look like a porcupine.
If I used it to refer to a black person on this message board, it would get me banned.
Oh boy, Dueling dictionaries.
The belief that one ‘racial group’ is inferior to another and the practices of the dominant group to maintain the inferior position of the dominated group. Often defined as a combination of power, prejudice and discrimination.
www.bl.uk/services/learning/curriculum/voices/refglos.html
The doctrine that race is the basic determinant of human abilities and that, therefore, the various racial groups constitute a hierarchy in which one group is properly regarded as superior to others. Racism has also been defined using the following formula: Power+Prejudice=Racism. Racism has also been defined as a “system of advantage based on race.”
www.unk.edu/offices/aaeo/index.php
An attitude, action or institutional structure, which subordinates a person or group because of their color. Racism involves having the power to carry out systematic discriminatory practices.
www.gecdf.com/diversity/glossary.html
personal (attitudes/beliefs/behaviors), institutional (policies, laws, regulations) and social/cultural (beliefs, customs) that subordinates others based on physical characteristics involves use of power plus privilege
www.accta.net/2003whitedef.html
is power plus racial prejudice, a system that leads to the oppression of or discrimination against, specific racial or ethnic groups.
Please note that these definitions require action. Enjoy!
By the way, are you going on record as stating that 'racist" has a perfectly nonderogatory and nonpejorative meaning, and that ‘nigger’ is just a slur?