Should African-Americans focus on minor racial insults?

Great Debates
61

I have mentioned three already:
[ul][li]The BSU of whatever New Jersey university was described in the OP. []The NAACP, as regards the Confederate Flag []Jesse Jackson’s organizations. Jackson is the worst. Also, here’s a letter and related posts complaining about similar practices by someone at Brown University.[/ul] In addition, there has been a controversy over college newspaper advertisements purchased by David Horowitz arguing against slavery reparations. African-American organizations over-reacted to the ad on some of those campuses. I do not have the cites handy at this moment.[/li]
Kimstu, I think you really do know that Jesse Jackson, e.g., seeks out and exaggerates insults and problems, because it serves him. So does Al Sharpton.

Remember the case of Freddy’s clothing store? In that case, the “insult” was that a non-Black person owned a store in Harlem. (Worse than non-Black – Jewish!) Sharpton’s focus on the “insult” led to the loss of eight lives.

62

december: *Kimstu, I think you really do know that Jesse Jackson, e.g., seeks out and exaggerates insults and problems, because it serves him. So does Al Sharpton. *

Hmmm, a new debating strategy: “I don’t have to provide any evidence to convince you because I think deep down you already agree with me.” Sorry, won’t wash. I may not think highly of grandstanding PR tactics, but that doesn’t imply that I agree that they are a problem peculiar to black people. What do you say to my above examples of what are widely regarded as “overreactions” by Jewish, Native American, and Asian-American groups to “minor racial insults”?

63

Ah yes. It’s obvious that when you sum up the above, you get ALL BLACK PEOPLE.

(It doesn’t even matter that the BSU you’re talking about does many things in NJ, like community out-reach and fostering social networks within the university. It doesn’t matter that I’ve already shown the NAACP has more on its plate than the Confederate flag issue (which–IMHO–is a valid concern in itself). And it doesn’t matter that this person at Brown is just as much an expert on this matter as you, december, and thus does not qualify as a cite. It doesn’t matter because you don’t care about having a reasonable debate, just as always.)

64

Oops. you with the face is my sister, who is visiting me right now. I didn’t know she’d been logged on to the site. Now I will kill her. :o

65

[ul][]Nobody attempted to make hay out of that BC cartoon. No Jewish organization demanded a $25,000 fine or that the “offending” newspaper be shut down. There was a bit of discussion here at SDMB and a few other net sites. []Asian T-shirts. These were objected to for their own sake, not as a way to gain power generally. Compare this with the BSU who didn’t care so much about masquerades. They were using the complaint as a lever to gain power. Team names honoring Native Americans – yes, this is similar to the race-hustlers. Some groups are using this “provocation” as a way to gain power. And, just look at how badly American Indians are doing. This is not an effective strategy for helping Indians. It’s an effective strategy for building up certain groups and for selling newspapers.[/ul]

66

december: Nobody attempted to make hay out of that BC cartoon. No Jewish organization demanded a $25,000 fine or that the “offending” newspaper be shut down.

I

[quote]
(http://www.jdl.org/news/news.html):

*Asian T-shirts. These were objected to for their own sake, not as a way to gain power generally. Compare this with the BSU who didn’t care so much about masquerades. They were using the complaint as a lever to gain power. *

Says who? What on earth is your evidence that the unknown members of the BSU at an unidentified university didn’t really “care” about the incident that they were complaining about? What is your evidence that the Organization of Chinese Americans didn’t think that complaining about negative stereotypes was related to “gaining power”? You seem to be arguing not from any actual knowledge of how they felt, but simply from a prior belief that black organizations are just “race hustlers” while Asian ones are not.

Team names honoring Native Americans – yes, this is similar to the race-hustlers. Some groups are using this “provocation” as a way to gain power. And, just look at how badly American Indians are doing. This is not an effective strategy for helping Indians. It’s an effective strategy for building up certain groups and for selling newspapers.

Once again, you seem to be claiming some mystical power to discern what some protesting group’s “real” motivation is. So when Jews or Asians raise a fuss about minor racial slurs, they’re not overreacting, they’re just objecting to stereotyping “for its own sake”? But when African-Americans or Native Americans do it, they’re only “race hustling” and “trying to make hay out of it” and “trying to gain power”?

Sorry, december, but your complaints are sounding to me more and more like the all-too-common crypto-bigot praise of the “good minorities” (highly assimilated, high average socioeconomic status, etc.) at the expense of the “bad minorities.” If what you’re trying to say is something different, I think you need to do a better job of explaining and defending your position.

67

To throw another two cents into the fray:

Is anyone claiming that there has never been racism in this country and that racist insults were not a comfort and support to that racism? I’ve heard many people claim that there is no racism today, but as a white person privy to conversations of a wide variety of people, I can assure you that racism, and in particular, racism against blacks remains. Pure old fashioned racism with all the old stereotypes.

What any one person does is up to them. After reading a lot of December’s posts, I find it very hard to believe that he/she was ever a dues paying member of the NAACP. And I’ll exercise my right to refuse to believe it until I see documentary evidence.

But what any organized group of people do is determined by their membership through their bylaws and elected leaders. Minority groups within the membership have the voice protected in making those decisions, but if they want to start another group to emphasize another cause, they have great freedom to do so. Nonetheless, the elected leaders and executive councils of organizations like the NAACP put in a lot of volunteer hours doing what they think is best to advance the cause.

I belong to my state Democratic Party. The number of things that they do and emphasize that I do not approve of and at the expense of the things I do approve of, is large. But I respect that of the 1500 or so state central committee members that I am only one voice and the general thrust of one person one vote is met, my concerns about areas where I have specialized knowledge and interests may be hurt by overall policies. If and when I change my mind, I can get active and start emailing the whole state central committee and work to change their minds. I find that my county central committee, because it is much smaller, is far more receptive to “my way” of thinking. They have gained some trust over my loudmouthed tendencies over the years and recognize that while they might not always agree, that I have my eye on a big picture they more or less agree with. In short, I have been a leader with that group and invested heavily of my time.

The same is going to be true with groups focusing on racism. An outside critic like Bill O’Reilly (I do love picking on bullies) can whine all he wants about Jesse Jackson and the NAACP and the Urban League, but he is only stoking the feelings of his cable narrowcast viewers. He has zero credibility with black leaders because he has never done anything for black people except to use individuals as punching bags for viewer points. I have stopped watching O’Reilly, but I am aware that he has given Al Sharpton a platform on numerous occasions, so I retract to the extent that either of them have become respectable on these issues. But the difference between a blowhard and even someone like Sharpton (whom I am very cautious about) is that a blowhard is making money anyway they can at everyone’s expense, whereas someone like Sharpton has at least taken great risk, albeit recklessly, to fight various injustices.

68

These are the news items that the NAACP itself deems worthy to release to the press, and include on their website. I would give more weight to this argument (much more) if we were talking only about items that hit the national news. I did voluntarily offer up the idea that the press releases might not indicate all of their work:

So, I would appreciate a little less sarcasm, I am actually trying to discuss this in a civil fashion.

I will gladly take a look at these other organizations to see what they are up to. My workday is now over, so I can spend some time.

I think that I’m gonna be hard pressed to find a cite for this one… Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your post, but it appears that you believe that black people, generally, place issues like education and crime above racism, brutality and the Conf. flag. That would at least tell me that the people have their priorities right, even if the press doesn’t advertise it. I don’t have the slightest idea what is actually in people’s hearts and minds, I only hear what comes through the press from these organizations, of which the NAACP is the most well known.

I’m am also willing to believe that some of these organizations’ efforts do not exactly match up with the needs/desires of their membership. From your point of view, do these organizations focus on the right issues, or could they be using their considerable resources more effectively?

69

Yes, I believe that black people have common sense and of course place more value on making their kids smart than fighting over a damn flag. I don’t have to provide a cite because 1) the author of this thread hasn’t produced back-up evidence for his claims, so the onus is still on him, 2) I’ve already produced evidence that a major black organization (the NAACP) does have education and crime on its platform, and 3) my assertion is based on my personal experiences as a black person, which while notable, are not exactly “citable”.

My mother is a social activist. Growing up, I attended a large number of rallies and marches, most of them focused on poor people’s rights. I have NEVER been to a Confederate Flag rally, even though I am vehemently opposed to it being flown. Based on december’s assertion, it should be the other way around. Yes, I’m just a sample size of one, but my experience challenges what december is saying.

I’ve been trying to discuss civily all day, but it’s hard when the OP presents his opinions as fact and glosses over the evidence that has been presented here. My sarcasm is the result of impatience and for it, I’m completely unapologetic.

70

One of my goals in posting on this board is to expand the minds of well-meaning people like you, DPWhite. People of good will don’t all ssee the world the same. And, people who resist being politically correct may still seek the same goals as you do, DP.

Personal note – When I lived in Berkeley, we were told that everyone in Walnut Creek was a conservative. Guess we were misled.

71

Late addition -Cheesteak the major difference between making statements about Bush/Cheany/Ashcroft/Republicans and ‘blacks’ was explained in my prior post.

Bush, Cheany, Ashcroft are all specific individuals. We can examine their specific actions, look at their words and hold them accountable for same. Republicans (or Democrats or NAACP) all are specific groups, with specific mission statements, party platforms etc. While we cannot completely extrapolate that each individual belonging to those groups hold each and every single platform etc as their own, we can certainly assume that they are ‘generally in favor of most’ of the ideals of the organization, or they wouldn’t belong to the group.

and we can compare and contrast this to the group classification of “black”. A group of people who’s sole membership status involves not what they think or do, but their ancestry. They don’t hold meetings, they don’t have membership cards (or am I wrong on that BigGirl? :wink: ) , they haven’t collectively come together as a cohesive unit and agreed on a mission, goals etc.

and the OP acts as if they have. He’s attempting to hold all ‘blacks’ accountable for the actions of one little tiny group in one college. It’s possible that not even all the members of that group agreed on this action, let alone anyone outside that group.

Now, in an attempt to clean up the OP, some have suggested the NAACP as potentially a group to which most blacks, if they don’t actively belong, probably don’t strongly disagree with. That’s a whole lot different than say, holding Ashcroft responsible for his direction w/the Justice Department, or the Republicans responsible for thier party platform.

72

To those of you who seem to think that the people who disagree with the OP are “just bashing” december and not actually debating, I say that your only point is defending him and not any of the points in his OP. (Except Cheesesteak, who is wrong, but is at least trying to debate and not just defend)
For those who are insisting that no one is debating the points of the OP, here is the OP with my (and others) opposing view points. Let’s see if we can take this thread away from the cult of december– both for and against-- and talk about the merits or lack of merit in the actual OP, shall we?

Who says this was a “rather mild racial insult”? Who said this group was "specifically look[ing] for racial incidents to focus on? Maybe this debate should have started from here: Who dictates how offended blacks should get.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**
Reasons to do so:[ol][li]These racial insults may not be minor to those suffering from them. E.g., here’s a NJ SC case where a single racial insult had a profound impact on a person. []Focusing on minor racial insults is a way to discourage major acts of racism. []There is often a payoff. E.g., in the case on the other thread, the BSU may succeed in getting an African-American Greek council established. In other cases, pressure from an incident of racism has resulted in organizations agreeing to hire or promote more Black employees. []The focus on insults may encourage more effort by Blacks.[/ol][/li][/quote]
**Reasons why this list is only tangentially related to the OP’s hypothosis[ol][li]If these insults are not minor to the ones suffering them, then they are not minor. Those not suffering the insult have a whole lot of nerve telling those being insulted that “it’s only minor.” There is always a payoff when you speak out when insulted. The payoff is that you will not be suffering in silence. That you, the insulted party, do not conform to other people’s ideas of how you should react when you are being insulted. And that you let it be known you are insulted and that you will not stand being insulted in this manner, ever![]This focus on insults keeps some focus on the freakin insults blacks have to suffer day in and day out every stinking day of their lives. To december these insults seem trivial, but to many blacks (or, in decemberspeak just “blacks”-- in that hivemind that all American blacks seem to share) these “trivial insults” are the basis for the very real, very large discrepancies in how blacks are treated where it really counts. [The justice system, education and banking-- my own personal list of what is really important.[/ol][/li]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
**
OTOH arguments against include [ol][li]It’s “race-hustling,” and it reduces the moral stature of the civil rights movement according to civil-rights supporter David Horowitz. []It may not be he most effective way to achieve advancement. []It encourages Blacks to emulate race hustlers, like Jesse Jackson, rather than people of real scientific, cultural or business achievement, like David Blackwell. []It promotes a backlash of negative feeling. (E.g., Governor Davis of California has endorsed slavery reparations. This position may hurt him with non-Black voters.) [/ol]My own feeling is that this approach was useful for a long time, but its usefulness is waning. However, the media, certain politicians, and certain organizations are well-served by race-hustling, so I suspect the practice will continue, even though it may be doing more harm than good for African-Americans in general. **[/li][/QUOTE]
OTOH, I don’t agree with a single one of your points OTOH [ol][li]Please define “race-hustling”. From what I’m reading here “race-hustling” boils down to black politicians and high visibility activists addressing points that december thinks “trivial”. We all know how I feel about december’s priorities.Like the insulted are supposed to care how the insulting feel about being called on it. Like the insulted should take there lumps and suffer in silence because other people feel their greivances are trivial. Please spare me.[/ol][/li]
The OP, in my opinion, is a patronizing piece of “shut up already” mentality. It supposes a false dichotomy between the ability to suffer indignities in silence and solving "serious’ problems. I contend that not only are these things not mutually exclusive, but we cannot solve the bigger problems by ignoring the supposedly smaller problems. The “trivial” problems are in fact part of the larger problem.

73

There is another thread going right now which includes Christians who feel insulted/mocked by Darwin fish. See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2098948#post2098948 . Interesting to read many posters poo-pooing the perception of insult in that regard.

Admittedly I may have argued both sides as to what qualifies as an insult or its severity, whether from the point of view of the perpetrator or the recipient. In any case, I would agree with December that for an important organization to allocate resources highlighting an isolated perceived/debatable slight will produce little profit . In fact, from my point of view, if I may be allowed, the media attention will only exacerbate the perception of insult.

Recently, I’ve been contemplating the idea that December is actually a radical black conservative.

74

Not a bad guess. My thinking has been influenced by Dr. Thomas Sowell, with whom I have a certain amount in common:

– Love of Yosemite National Park
– Mathematical, ecoonomics based political analysis
– Connection with the University of Chicago
– Belief in free-enterprise

75

And I think an organization that allocates resources in highlighting the casual disdain and everyday hatred directed at black Americans is using it’s resources wisely. Again I would like to point out that these “isolated perceived/debatable slights” are not isolated at all. They are part and parcel of the casual racism prevalent in the United States.

It is these “debatable slights” that give rise to justification for the unfair treatment of blacks by our justice system. It is the repetion of the myth that blacks are genetically stupid that gives rise to the inequalites in education. It is the jocular acceptance that blacks are untrustworthy that leads to redlining and predatory lending.

And most importantly, it is quiet acceptance of all this bullshit that makes fixing these problems damn near impossible. It’s the big lie that everyone believes. How are black organizations supposed to fight the big battles when the underlying reason for the big problem goes on unchecked and unremarked upon?

76

To be clear, I have never personally heard a An African-American person make an exaggerate response to a minor or non-existant slight. However, I do maintain that some organizations continue to do so. Furthermore, I think it’s strategically reasonable for them to so, as long as it works. (but that strategy also nas some disadvantages.)

BTW, I think Kimstu is correct that other groups also attempt to use victimology to gain power. It’s just natural to use whatever means are effective at a given time. There’s a lot more sympathy for African-Americans so the strategy works better for them. E.g., suppose a fraternity member dressed up as Richard Nixon and held Nixon to ridicule. If I complained that he was mocking men over age 50, and demanded that the fraternity be fined $25,000, nobody would take me seriously.

I think Biggirl would agree with me Al Sharpton was not really offended because a clothing store in Harlem was owned by a non-Black named Fred Harari. Nor was Harai even the one who decided not to renew a certain African-American’s lease. That decisionwas made by a Black church. There was a http://www.jewishpost.com/jpn201d.htmlvicious campaign going on that was really about money according to the New York Times:

Of course, this action ended in a tragic fire that killed eight people. I doubt that it helped the Harlem community. But, it did serve Al Sharpton personally. He became more famous than ever, and is now a semi-serious Presidential candidate.

I noted earlier that in the Tiger Woods maskerade episode, the BSU did no demand that white students not dress in blackface. They made unrelated demands, presumably as a recompense for the insult. The strategy of playing up an insult and then demanding something in return will be used by some organizations as long as it works. In Jesse Jackson’'s case, the “unrelated demand” was often paying money to an organization controlled by Jackson himself.

77

And, just for repeated emphasis, how is the BSU supposed to be allocating it’s funds and energies? As has been pointed out this is exactly BSU’s function. Here it is again, just in case everyone forgot:

It’s one of the damned stated purposes of the BSU to highlight and address these “trivial” slights. Maybe it’s not highlighting these things enough, if so many people can claim that these slights are “perceived/debatable” when the freakin’ black students themselves are telling you that they are not slight.

Now, you can go on to say that these black students are being oversensitive. Or that they have misenterpreted the actions of the white man in blackface and he did not mean to be insulting. But you cannot say that the insult was “debateable” or “slight”. It was real and big enough to the BSU.

78

To be clear, I have never personally heard a An African-American person make an exaggerate response to a minor or non-existant slight. However, I do maintain that some organizations continue to do so. Furthermore, I think it’s strategically reasonable for them to so, as long as it works.

BTW, I think Kimstu is correct that other groups also attempt to use victimology to gain power. It’s just natural to use whatever means are effective at a given time. There’s a lot more sympathy for African-Americans so the strategy works better for them. E.g., suppose a fraternity member dressed up as Richard Nixon and held Nixon to ridicule. If I complained that he was mocking men over age 50, and demanded that the fraternity be fined $25,000, nobody would take me seriously.

I think Biggirl would agree with me Al Sharpton was not really offended because a clothing store in Harlem was owned by a non-Black named Fred Harari. Nor was Harai even the one who decided not to renew a certain African-American’s lease. That decisionwas made by a Black church. There was a http://www.jewishpost.com/jpn201d.htmlvicious campaign going on that was really about money according to the New York Times:

Of course, this action ended in a tragic fire that killed eight people. I doubt that it helped the Harlem community. But, it did serve Al Sharpton personally. He became more famous than ever, and is now a semi-serious Presidential candidate.

I noted earlier that in the Tiger Woods maskerade episode, the BSU did no demand that white students not dress in blackface. They made unrelated demands, presumably as a recompense for the insult. The strategy of playing up an insult and then demanding something in return will be used by some organizations as long as it works. In Jesse Jackson’'s case, the “unrelated demand” was often paying money to an organization controlled by Jackson himself.

79

December, if you want to claim that Al Sharpton is playing the race card to further his political career, then go ahead and say that.

If you want to accuse Jessie Jackson of using political pressure to meet his goals-- be my guest.

However, your started out saying that blacks or black organizations or black politicians (make up you mind, buddy. Who are you talking about?) are misallocating funds and energies by focussing on minor racial incidents. I say they are not.

So, let’s go back and define our terms, hmmm?

Blacks – a large, non-cohesive minority who share one thing in common-- either they or someone in their family have relatively darker skin than those who are defined as “white”.

Black organizations-- A group that comes together, usually under some charter or bylaws, to accomplish a goal. What that goal is depends entirely on which organization you are speaking of.

Black politician-- A politician who fits the definition of “black” given above. Of course a black politician is, above all, a politician.

Black activist-- An activist who fits the definition of “black” given above.

Focus- Point of concentration.

Minor- Inferior in importance.

Now to the question: Should blacks focus on minor racial insults?
Answer: Show me where blacks are focussing on minor racial insults.

Implied question: Are black politicians (Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson) using the race card to further their goals?
My answer: Yeup.

Implied question: Are black organizations wasting resources and energies by focusing on slight racial insults.
My answer: Define slight. And no.

80

Hmmm…December, as a person who identifies with the conservative movement in America, surely you would approve of the call of some of my co-religionists that every public gathering ask God’s blessing on the event, concluding, as our Lord and Savior taught us to ask, with the phrase “through Jesus Christ our Lord”?

No. Good heavens, why not? :eek:

In short, what someone considers an important issue and what a minor issue varies with who they are and what they’ve gone through.

I have not and probably will never feel with the intensity that gobear does what the effects of decades of homophobia have done to scar him and his fellow gays – if lissener is still lurking, he could probably give a scathing account of that. But I have enough empathy that I can get a handle on it.

Not myself being black, I cannot fathom the sort of feeling that a black person must feel in having to regularly defend himself or herself from an accusation of one sort or another based effectively on his or her being black. But this sort of situation makes it clear that there is still a strong point to groups speaking out on what it means to be black in an America that is still in many ways not comfortable with black people.

In short, if you think the issues are “slight” it’s because they’re not goring your ox. And Pastor Heidegger had something important to say to people with ungored oxen.