“My next door neighbors are African-American, and they just love their fried chicken and watermelon.”
Is that statement racist?
Assuming this is a race-based assumption (why else mention race?), then yes. If this hypothetical idiot just wants to relay the preferences their neighbor told them about, there’d be no need to mention race – they’d say something like “oh yeah, my neighbor Phil also loves fried chicken and watermelon!”.
…sure. I got nothing. You win!
I understand your point, but what about these statements:
“My Mexican neighbors make the best tamales”.
“My Polish neighbors make the best pierogi”.
Is that racist as well?
No. Those are very different than the hypothetical I evaluated.
Agreed, with the parts I bolded. But what if in fact my neighbors are African-American, and they do love fried chicken and watermelon? Then it is not racist, it’s a statement of fact. The point being, one can say something that on the surface smacks of racism, but that in fact is not racist. As for including that they are African-American in my example, this is also not racist, as it’s a fact. These are the kinds of things I see overlooked, and they should not be.
Something about the phrasing “they just love their” makes it cringey to me, in a way that “they make the best” doesn’t. The former brings up condescending stereotypes straight out of 1950s Looney Tunes shorts, whereas the latter suggests skill and respect that’s not part of the stereotype.
So imagine someone said, “My black neighbor makes the best fried chicken.” I wouldn’t cringe at that nearly as hard.
Recognizing that there are different cultural groups with different food traditions is one thing. Smirking at a cultural group because it’s funny when they fall into stereotypes is another.
You don’t say every fact in every situation. Otherwise you’d be like, "My neighbors are African American, and one of them is named Dave, and the other is named Crista, and he’s 48, and his birthday is June 20, and he weighs 148 pounds, and he went to college at Morehead where he earned his degree in microbiology, and…
…
…
…
[20 years later]
…and he liked fried chicken, back while he was still my neighbor."
You’ve got to choose the facts you want to emphasize. In the statement you made, you chose only three facts (they’re black, they love fried chicken, they love watermelon), and those three facts just happen to correspond exactly to a well-known racial stereotype. Your choice to include those three facts and no others is what makes it suspicious.
Reagan’s daughter writes about the recording:
Davis insists that her dad was not really racist, that his words were an “aberration.” I find her memories of her dad compelling, and a reminder that it’s often more helpful to talk about racist actions and racist statements than to talk about racists. I have no doubt that her dad was a complicated dude.
At the same time, it’s no surprise that a man would present a better, kinder version of himself to his own children than he does to other men. It’s no surprise that a person might show their worst selves amongst others who they know agree with their worst selves.
I see no reason to believe there was anything unusual about this conversation, except that it was with a paranoid nutcase who happened to be recording.
In real world communication, people don’t just randomly mention someone’s race. Unless they have a reason to, like racism.
One reason I chose only those three facts was to keep my example as simple as possible, and only include just enough to make my point. And certainly they were chosen because of the stereotype. And I agree 100% that others might find it suspicious. But that doesn’t mean it is in fact racist, and I maintain that it is not. I will also say that after posting it, I thought it would have been better to say
“My next door neighbors are African-American and they love fried chicken and watermelon.”
If that seems less suspicious, then it just goes to show that one should be very careful of assuming racism in a statement for reasons that don’t actually apply. Emphasizing that my neighbors really love fried chicken and watermelon instead of just regular old loving it does not turn a non-racist statement into a racist one.
Okay. But if I had said, “My next door neighbors love fried chicken”, I wouldn’t have been able to make my point, now would I? 
This is the fallacy of division. Your conclusion is unsound.
If your assessment is based on race, it’s racist. Pretty straightforward.
In real world communication, people mention someone’s race all the time to distinguish between individuals and identifying who someone is. It’s one of the easy markers for recognition. Example from work (very common exchange); Question: Which Rob? Answer: The black guy usually wears University shirts.
Have you considered spitting on the ground whenever his name is mentioned with approval in casual conversation?
It may strike some as rude (or even provocative), but it can be a balm for the soul, especially in these times. Take it from a man who knows.
I think it may have to do with the use of the word “they”. It suggests extending the claim beyond just his neighbors. I think the statement, “My neighbors are black they make the best darn fried chicken” would also be cringeworthy to me, less so than the statement “My neighbor black neighbor, Dave, really likes fried chicken.”
I’m not particularly well-versed in probability, logic, or statistics, but ISTM that constructing a Venn diagram of the sets of “individuals who believe that melanin-deficient persons are inherently superior to melanin-abundant persons” (set A) and “individuals who prefer that political, social, and economic power should devolve onto melanin-deficient persons” (set B) would result in something far more stark than a BIG set A circle with a little set B circle inside.
That’s not a “random” mention of race, though, is it?
But it is not racist to make a negative judgment by saying the same thing about an entire race? That the race commits crimes at a higher rate than other races? That’s not racist, we agree?
But if I am suspicious of Dave, a black man, and think he might be a criminal, that’s certainly not fair, I agree, but I think it does a disservice to the word, and here’s why:
In every other aspect of society when we can find a group of people who share similar characteristics, we are permitted to take action based upon that. Several examples: 1) We prohibit ex felons from owning guns, no matter how non-violent, how long ago, or if they have demonstrated reform, 2) Some employers will not hire people with bad credit because of the idea that they have made poor life decisions, even if the person is in medical debt, or just has a bad knack for finances and your job is not a financial one.
I could go on and on about how society takes a group, uses a tendency from that group, and applies it generally. But we have learned that we certainly and absolutely should not and will not do such a thing based upon race because it re-opens old wounds and keeps disadvantaged people, well, disadvantaged.
So when a person does it and not out of malevolence, I don’t think it is fair to use the modern linguistic bomb of calling that “racist” because it is such a common part of society and done without any bad motive. In my mind a racist would be of the opinion that he does not care that Dave is really a good guy and does not fit the criminal profile: he does not want to associate with Dave because he is black.
I think that word should be reserved for ill-intent and not simple cluelessness because people with no ill-intent will (and do) keep bitching that they must follow continually changing rules to keep that word from being applied to them.
People go out of their way NOT to do that for fear of being called the “R” word. Most of my adult life I have heard people dance around race in a description (they say the tall guy, the short guy, the young guy, the guy who wears University shirts). It’s mostly because of the fear that ANY distinction because of race is racist; and frankly these types of discussions lend to that. Ill-intent should be the dividing line.
We usually can’t know someone’s intent with any certainty, so I judge a given scenario by the specific circumstances and context. For mundane little things – say, a taxi driver turning away a black customer – I’ll call it “racist” if it falls into that bucket of mundane little things that happen to overwhelmingly harm people of certain races. It doesn’t matter if a taxi-driver has been reading crime statistics and thinks he has a higher chance of being robbed by a black customer than other customers… it’s still racist to turn away a customer because of their race. Doesn’t matter the exact motivation – it’s a racist action.