Study: You may be more racist than you think

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I said that white people shouldn't have been offended by "snowflake" or "barbie" but maybe more charged terms like "whitie" or "cracker" because snowflake and barbie aren't as charged. People white people haven't been oppressed (and I think I meant oppressed by people using that language against them).

So I guess it's not a straight up question of whether or not they've been oppressed.

The moral of that point was that there's not a history of racial abuse to go from for white people, so terms aren't as charged as they are for minorities, be it black, hispanic, asian, purple, etc.

I'm not in the business of telling anyone what they can be offended by. The whites who are offended by such references have every right to be offended. This isn't an instance of "karma is a bitch" or "get over it."

The discussion was about whether such comments constitute "racism." The point is that "offense" does not imply "racism" and "racism" does not require "offense." That also applies to some instances where minorities claim racism. It applies in this discussion because of the power dynamic that makes racism a structure that changes in form but does not go away.

This is why I don't call people and individual-level experiences "racist." That individual-level application leads to "racism" being used too loosely.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I'm not in the business of telling anyone what they can be offended by. The whites who are offended by such references have every right to be offended. This isn't an instance of "karma is a bitch" or "get over it."

The discussion was about whether such comments constitute "racism." The point is that "offense" does not imply "racism" and "racism" does not require "offense." That also applies to some instances where minorities claim racism. It applies in this discussion because of the power dynamic that makes racism a structure that changes in form but does not go away.

I get what you're saying (or pick up what you're puttin' down, or smell what you're steppin' in).

Love and I are on different sides of the same coin, really. She's saying she's offended by people referring to the color of her skin, even in less charged terms like "frosted flake" or whatever, and I'm saying a white person has no right to be offended by someone using non-charged words to describe them if they're going to turn around and use non-charged words to describe another group. Or, simply, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I guess it all boils down to the connotation of the word, positive v. non-vulgar but still negative v. negative and vulgar v. downright bigoted. Not to mention the context of the word. "I don't like black people" is certainly different than "that black lady ran out in front of a car!"

And I suppose that was kindof shown in the study - where the person said "you can't trust black people" to some, or "you can't trust n-words" to others, then willingness to work with them.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I get what you're saying (or pick up what you're puttin' down, or smell what you're steppin' in).

Yuck?

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Love and I are on different sides of the same coin, really. She's saying she's offended by people referring to the color of her skin, even in less charged terms like "frosted flake" or whatever, and I'm saying a white person has no right to be offended by someone using non-charged words to describe them if they're going to turn around and use non-charged words to describe another group. Or, simply, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I'm not sure where this is coming from. Are you saying that whites, in general, dish it or is this a hypothetical?

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I guess it all boils down to the connotation of the word, positive v. non-vulgar but still negative v. negative and vulgar v. downright bigoted. Not to mention the context of the word. "I don't like black people" is certainly different than "that black lady ran out in front of a car!"

There isn't a difference between those statements if they both objectify based on group membership. That would be based on the outcome of the statements and not the (difficult to prove) intent.

As for the bigotry stuff, racism doesn't require bigotry but prejudice does to some extent. So insisting that racism be defined as "Archie Bunkerisms" really does a disservice to an understanding of the construct. It's like believing that stars only exist at night because we can't see them during the day.