In response to this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203568
by Joe K you chose to interject a very nasty accusation against the OP. I didn’t want to further sully the thread so I would continue the discussion here. Joe recently learned of his Jewish heritage and had some thoughts about the meaning of this discovery. Your response was:
This is one of the more appalling charges of racism I have seen on the board. TVAA you either need to explain exactly why you find the OP racist or retract your statement. Racism is a serious accusation to level, and shouldn’t be thrown around on a whim.
You may not agree that it is reasonable to link a prior interest in Judaism with Jewish heritage. I have my doubts there is well. You chose however, to slur the character of the poster without good cause.
How is Joe K’s statement linked to a philosophy of racial superiority or a denigration of Judaism. Calling someone a racist should not be used as a glib aside. It is a serious charge that should be reserved for real transgressions. At this point I thought you had reread your previous posts and come to your senses
Of course that was just in reference to a spelling error. I suppose I was hoping for too much there.
I have found you to be an intelligent and insightful poster in the past and hope for a similarly intelligent response here.
Well, I think Joe was saying that, before he knew he was Jewish, he had a special interest in Judaism, and he thinks the special interest in Judaism can be explained by the fact that he’s ethnically Jewish.
TVAA was saying that the idea that, because you’re of a certain heritage, you have certain interests, is racist.
Yeah, if you want to get really pedantic about it, but come on! There’s a difference between having a fuzzy grasp of cause and effect and burning a cross on somebody’s lawn. Casually calling someone a racist over something so trivial is fucked up.
On one hand, I’m not offended by TVAA’s accusation towards me, as I know better about myself. For all I know, he’s just some guy debating for the sake of debating without the least interest in my situation. In fact, fruitbat’s endorsement of his past character is a new one on me—I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him around before.
But, this is a rather nasty thing that has been tossed in my general direction; something greatly worthy of offense. As well, I’m debating the presence of such “racism”, as the people that I referred to happen to be my own kind. If racism can exist in such an enviroment, I am not aware of it, and will someone please advise me of such if I am mistaken?
I may have been a bit fuzzy with my grasp of cause-and-effect—in fact, I know I was. I addressed this in the original thread, stressing that I have no racial intentions (toward anyone, for that matter). Nor was I saying that all of a sudden I was superior.
Quite honestly, I’d like to know what the hell you meant, TVAA. It’s bad enough to lower the tone of the board, especially in these times. But, when you post to such a thread in which I ask for personal advice (however roundabout-ly) with not much more than “Well, that’s one of the more refreshing forms of racism I’ve seen lately” and “Why should this matter to you in the first place” (as well as a snarky comment about my religious feelings in general), I’m given little evidence that you posted for a reason other than to take a shit in the middle of it all.
Right, but he wasn’t saying, “I found out I was Jewish, and now I’m interested in my Jewish heritage.” He said “I’ve always been interested in Judaism. Then i found out I was Jewish, and that explains why I always have been interested in the subject.”
Admittedly, “racist” is probably too strong a word, but it is a kind of unusual assertion.
It does seem a bit racist, becuase the statement implied that his prior interest must have been genetic since he had no knowledge of his heritage. Although rather then being racist in the worst sense of that word, it was probably no more than a statement made out of ignorance of what genetics is all about. But then isn’t that really what racism boils down to-- ignorance about genetics used to inform an opinion about someone’s character?
That would be true if TVAA said it was a strange way of thinking. He didn’t, he wandered in called him a racist (twice) and wandered out. If the OP’s statement can be called a form of racism it is certainly the most mild and inoffensive racism I have ever encountered.
I have an issue with TVAA on two counts. The first, a casual attitude towards calling someone a racist, that I have dealt with. The second is garden variety thread pissing. Note that aside from his racism comments he gets on Joe’s case for being interested in his heritage. An interest shared by tens of millions of people in the US alone. Why come into any thread just to tell people how stupid they are?
I would like to think this was just a bad day for TVAA, but there was no call to piss all over that thread.
In '32 those bastards took my grandpappy’s land to build their fancy dam. Drownded my hogs and chickens they did. Never asked me if I wanted their newfangled 'lectricity.
If [Joe K] was seriously suggesting that, because of [his] (unknown) genetic heritage, [he was] unconsciously attracted to a specific culture then that is its own special kind of racism.
I can’t find a way to disagree with that. He didn’t accuse anyone of being the sort to “burn a cross on somebody’s lawn” (as Miller put it), and the “accusation” wasn’t delivered as a term of hate (e.g. “You, rascist, scum!”), but as an observation that if we were to accept Joe K’s statement, then where do we draw the line when others (real cross-burnin’ rascists, say) appeal to the same type of “logic”.
C K Dexter Haven clearly misread TVAA’s post, this set the tone for what followed, a simple direct question (“are you accusing whoever of cross-burnin’ rascism?”) would have sufficed.
Christ. I really cannot even imagine how anybody could consider that racism. It’s a mistake, at worst.
How did this start that practically any statement about race, even ones completely devoid of any negative connotation towards any race, has to be considered racism be default?
Whatever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt?
If an apparently white person had an inordinate interest in R&B and basketball, then found out that his great-grandmother was a slave, and I came up to him and said, “That explains the R&B and basketball thing!”, would I not be immediately lambasted for at least being ignorant, if not racist?
There are degrees of racism. They range from believing old wives’ tales and misconceptions about races other than one’s own (or even about one’s own) to burning crosses on lawns and calling for segregation. Trying to limit the meaning only to the extreme end of the range doesn’t do anything but keep people unaware of how much the little misconceptions harm relations between people with physical and cultural differences.
If I say that all asian people are good at math/martial arts that is a prejudice statement. Even though I would like to be known as someone who is good at math/martial arts (and would consider it a compliment if someone said I was) that doesn’t make the blanket statement any less racist.
While I certainly don’t think Joe K was being in any way malicious, making the statement (paraphrase): ‘my genetic/racial heritage predisposed me to likeing something’ is fundamentally no different than saying ‘all jews (blacks, et cetera) like these things’.
[Steve Martin appreciation hijack]
OK. I was just searching the web for the dialogue from that scene in "The Jerk. I forgot how damn quotable that movie can be. Gotta share my two favorites:
Love that movie. However, this has very little to do with the price of tea in China (although I do like Snapple and people do tell me I look Asian sometimes - maybe I should check my family tree!), so, anyway . . .
[/Steve Martin appreciation hijack]
At the very worst, the idea is racialist, not racist. Racism contains ideas of superiority, hatred, and conflict. Racialism is simply the idea that different “races” have different interests and a natural attachment to the cultures and history of their “own people.” Plenty of the most famous civil rights leaders in history were racialists. Racialism may rest on the exact same faulty ground as racism, and can likewise be harmful and misleading, but I don’t think the two should be so easily conflated. Unfortunately, I’m probably about 2 decades too late in the face of popular usage.
