In my mind there is no equivalency here, but the reader does raise a good point: there is, and never will be, a white equivalent to the N-word, but "racist" - when unsubstantiated - comes close.Chris is good dude, and a smart writer. But I think, even in its hedged, qualified form, this is quite wrong. I think we'd all agree that if my spouse gets mad and calls me a sexist, and I fire back by calling her a bitch, I've gone somewhere else. I think we'd agree that if a gay person, without proof, calls me a homophobe, and I fire back by calling him a fag, I've ventured into another league. We are not "close" in terms of the level of our offense. The question then becomes, why is it different for "racist"?
My only answer is that it's because we, again, equate racist with "immoral." Michael Jackson once called Tommy Moottola, a racist. From what I know, it was unsubstantiated. The only way I can close the space between that, and Mottola, say, calling Jackson a nigger, is to think of racist as the equivalent of rapist, or child-molestor.
Again, I think this makes sense, if you believe racism to be the province of societal pariahs, not people who hawk their wares on MSNBC. But if you believe that we live with it every day, that the worst part of racism is how it hides in the hearts of otherwise decent people, than this is rather puzzling. If you've had friends who've looked you in the eye, and said something racist, you may feel differently.
This is say nothing of history, obviously. I think when we have black people driving slaves and perpetrating terrorism, when we have the Nation Of Islam hunting Jeff Sessions, all while yelling "Get the racist!" we will be close. When whole blocks start relocating because they suspect a racist has moved into the neighborhood we will be close.
I am sorry guys. Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
To my mind, the most important thing missing in the equivalency made is the power relationship. An African-American calling me a "racist" carries plenty of insult, even deep insult, but it carries no threat, no history -- no whip, frankly. The n word has the whip in it.
Well-put. Similar to the protests you hear occasionally, that "cracker" or similar is an equivalent - but there's no ugly history to add weight to the insult. I've had this argument with my parents a million times. The history informs so much, and some people just refuse to see it.
When white people say that "racist" is as bad a word as any other, I think what they are really saying is, "This is the worst thing I can imagine someone calling me." But what is also being said is, "I decline to imagine that there could be worse injuries than my own." Such failures of imagination are one of the saving comforts of privilege.
Exactly. I've interacted with many young people via conversations on video games. There are many that I call the "4Chan demographic." These people tend to be young (12-16), and it is often that you will see "fag" and the n-word on there. In fact, the word for a new member that doesn't quite now what is going on is a Newfag. Old members are called Oldfags and b-tards.
They view the n-word as some kind of slander that, while insulting, is similar to calling someone a motherf-er. They don't understand the true weight and historical strife behind this slur, nor do they understand the horrors, menace, and harassment that some homosexuals have faced while the slur, "fag", is shouted.
As I have tried to explain to some that claim they don't see a big deal of using the n-word as a slur, I tell them, "talk to any black that is around 50 years old and ask them about segregation and the years after it." Surprisingly, some have done just this. It really opened their eyes.
I think this problem with not fully understanding the horrors of racism and oppression that existed in the USA is similar to how the Japanese like to blanch WWII. They will make sure to show offense of nuclear weapons, but they skirt around, without actual refusal, the atrocities of their own and their aggressive alignment with the Axis powers.
Yes, most Americans will freely admit to the horrible treatment of blacks with segregation and slavery, but it is something that, while rudimentarily acknowledged, is not something that is readily expressed or talked about frankly. It is often glossed over and sugar-coated, as if we, as a society, can try to scrub the bloodstains out of the wood grain; still acknowledge the that this is where it happened, but to sanitize its appearance.
As someone who has seen a loved one express profoundly racist remarks (my beloved grandmother telling me that Michelle Obama was a n****r and that the Obamas would destroy white people, because they hate white people), such things are fundamentally heartbreaking. She is a good person; loving and caring, but there does reside a dark place in her heart, as do most people. I have also seen the indiscriminate hate, with swastikas and racist epithets scrawled into my college's library study desks (where I so often read the printed Atlantic Monthly).
I do not equate "racist" with immoral. Words mean things, and racist does not mean immoral. However, racism is a moral blight and a moral dysfunction.
"Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
Is this a lyric from somewhere? I swear I saw it as somebody's Facebook status earlier today. Seemed like a weird coincidence.
It's from the third Godfather movie, actually. As for the post - yea, I read that, and I was pretty pissed off. False equivalence all the way. How can one equate a wrongful arrest and getting yelled at? On of these two things is not as bad as the other. Guess which one.
Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
Seconded. I figured Veronica Mars was quoting someone, good to know who.
Thanks for writing this, I read that and started an e-mail...and just got tired head behind it all. The many branches of debate regarding this issue has just about hit redline for me, so thanks for saying(much better) what I was going to say. I need a drink...
I also just read the piece, thought WTF??, then thought "I bet TNC has something to say about this," came over here, and sure enough... I also second you on the drink. It has been a *long* three days. I even had a raging fight this morning with my SO on this one, got into it with friends on Facebook, etc. I wish I could make myself a nice cold margarita but I only have $8 Trader Joe's wine in the fridge. ;(
$8 for wine at Trader Joe's??? Here's some knowledge, Maya: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/18/090518fa_fact_goodyear
yeah, the problem is, I can't stand California chardonnays. Am a big fan of New Zealand sauvignon blanc, figured I would try one cheaper than the excellent $14 Kim Crawford, nor the sub-par $4 Barefoot sauv I normally get at TJ's, so went for the $8 wine. Should have stuck with the $4 Barefoot.
Same here Keith. I thought about the email to Chris, but the chasm I would have had to cross to ty and explain to him how ridiculous his post was..... I got depressed.
Thanks for doing it, TNC, and no apologies necessary.
I've been called a racist and hated it with a fury, but I have never felt my claim to human dignity was being challenged and I haven't thought there was physical danger implied somewhere behind the word since I got out of middle school (a place were scrawny nerdy me expected mayhem almost every minute).
The word "nigger," aimed from white to black as a serious insult, seems to me to carry a serious attempt to dehumanize and a implied threat of violence.
I don't think there's anything close to parity between the two insults.
This is what I e-mailed to Chris. Man, I'm fumed over this.
The notion that the word "racist" is now sometimes on par with the word "n-----" (sent from a work computer) is ridiculous.
Just leaves one breathless, and ought to constitute another teachable
moment. What you're necessarily saying is, don't risk making the
accusation, because in the case that it's untrue, it's an unpardonable sin and an example of bigotry toward a whole group of people -- toward a whole race.
I have unorthodox views on accusations of racism, myself, but you just dropped a whopper, Chris. Don't say "racist" unless everyone will instantly agree because, if you're viewed as incorrect, it's like a deep slur against a whole people that deliberately recalls centuries in chains and hanging from trees. That kind of yearning for equivalence is why a man like Gates, no professional race-baiter,
snaps. So many fail to understand, and fail so confidently, that they remain as monuments to the existence not of racism itself, but of noblesse oblige. We will bless you as equal and worthy of respect -- but you cannot question one of us unless we'd agree with you, in that instance. It's shorthand for annoucing to the world that you'll keep your own shop clean, that if any minorities shout "racism" it's often a violent sin and a transgression beyond what they're entitled to say, because they can't venture to say it unless they're sure it will be "substantiated."
Be real. Accusations of racism should never stand if they're unsubstatiated. This is obvious. But the people who make those accusations, even if they're wrong, should not be equated with those who use racial slurs. Pure noblesse oblige. Pure partitioning of discourse drawn largely along racial lines.
TNC: I saw that post and instantly thought of you. I wrote Chris right away and quoted you at length from your previous post "the limits of our dialogue on race." Ya know how the mail is over there at Andrew's place. i can only hope that Chris gets it...
"I am sorry guys. Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
What is there to be sorry about? What Chris posted struck me as being really off and pissed me off too.
I could understand not wanting to get in a emotional "hissy-fit" everytime something like this happens. True. On the other hand, I believe in "calling a spade, a spade." You gotta tell your truth.
"calling a spade, a spade."
You do realize that that is a saying based on a racial slur. The 'spades' it refers to are not the pips on a card.
I don't think that's right. The word "spade" as a racial slur is very recent, last 100 years or so. But Plutarch, from the first century CE or AD, wrote that the Macedonians had not the wit to call a spade by any other name save a spade. (of course he wrote in Latin, and I understand there might be something wrong with the translation. It may have originally have referred to a bowl) But it was originally used to insult someone by saying they were not sophisticated enough to know more than one word for something like a shovel. In more democratic and/or populist movements and countries calling a spade a spade is a badge of honor as being simple and straight forward ie Harry Truman.
Ironically, if the word "spade" in this context did refer to the pips on a card it would have added racial overtones since, IIRC, the racial slur "spade" is based on the color of the pips.
I still would not use the phrase because of the racial context and how many people read Plutarch? I mean, if a DC Councilman can take flack for using the word niggardly someone who used the word "spade" better have a shovel or a deck of cards in their hand.
Thanks for the info. There are many sources that confirm what you said about this, but I will still never use it. I have heard it as "Call a N-word a N-word" many times and I assumed that 'spade a spade' was the safe for work version. I should have known that this was a recent construction as it is usually a complaint against PC when worded that way.
For some reason I can't reply to your reply, so I'll reply to me and say I agree. I would never use it either. Way too much baggage. Just like I would never use "In a coon's age" for the exact same reason. Ironically a phrase like "Happy Go Lucky" was used originally as a literary short hand to refer to ambitious, slacker blacks, yet no one knows that and people use the phrase all the time to refer to all kinds of people with no racial baggage that I am aware of. I prefer that outcome, but these things are rarely up to me.
History is a funny thing and never dull.
Oh I couldn't reply to the replies so it's going here. I had only heard and seen that phrase strictly used in the "Plutarchian" sense. That being said: thank you for the teachable moment. Definitely duly noted.
Racist is a very strong insult. The civil rights movement did a very good job of making this be so. Everytime anyone does anything even remotely racist you hear about it for weeks on end, their reputation is completely trashed, and everyone and their mother comes out of the woodwork to denouce them and declare that they are a monster and anyone who does not denounce them is as well.
This was a very smart thing to do. It has the effect of making most people keep their recism very close to the vest and makes society as a whole either not racist or act like it is not racist and say all the right not racist things. I strongly believe that this is the main driver behind the improved opinions on race amongst the younger generations, as these effects make it much harder to pass racist view on to ones children. TNC always acts like it is odd to think of racists as horrible slavvering beasts but creating that impression was intentional, the better to make people not want to self identify as a racist and thus reduce racist behaviors and attitudes.
That said, once you make racist a very charged insult (which I agree it is) then you have a responsibility to use it with care. Given all of the negative consequences of being thought of as a racist it is not suprising that people react very strongly to being called one. You can say 'History' all you want, but it does not change the fact that the societal consequences of being labeled a racist are far more dire than the consequences of being labeled a nigger, if you will pardon the use of the term. If you wanted to pick the one thing you could say to the average white person that was most calculated to piss them right the fuck off, you could not do better than racists.
What are the consequences of being thought of as a racist? Loss of a job on a police force? Being stripped of your high-profile position as a commentator/social critic? Is it just that white people don't like it?
I think you may be overstating its scarlett letter status; in the real world, what POC view as racist is usually not rubberstamped by white folks. I can't think of too many high-profile examples of people being called racist and having that disqualify them from their Senate seats.
This is strange logic you apply here because you are assuming that only whites are called racist and it sticks. Rev. Wright ring a bell or Rev. Al Sharpton? Judge Sonia Sotomayor has spent several weeks being called a reverse racist - what about her reputation? President Obama has been called racist, so your argument makes little sense.
Anyone can be called and smeared by the word racist - the word nigger is devastating when it hurled in a racial context. It's a word the wounds not only the mind and the heart, but the spirit of the person that suffered that term. I'm sorry, but calling someone racist does not have that same effect or stigma!
'Reverse racist' is one of the silliest constructions out there. If a person is racist then they are racist. Regardless of which race they are prejudiced against.
There are many racists in prominent public positions of power and not only did being called a racist not harm them actually being a racist did not harm them.
I've heard a few equivalents to the N. word for white people and I occasionally use them myself to refer to myself. (I've even used a few on this site in reply to TNC's posts.)
However, for most pigment-impaired people, there will never be any word close to the N-word to refer to white people. If the only word that comes close is "racist" then it shows someone needs to get out more.
this vehoe is signing off.
You cannot insult me with a racial insult because I feel no loyalty to my race. There will never be any word close to the N-word to refer to white people because this is far from an obscure view among whites.
That part caught my eye -- and yeah, he's wrong about that purported equivalency -- but what I don't get is how he so readily signs on to his readers concern that Harvard professors really need to start behaving better!
Excsuse me, what? Who cares - you don't pay his salary. You do, however, pay cops' salaries. Why is this so difficult? I don't think people should verbally harass cops, but I do think public servants should be professional enough to ignore said harassment when it inevitably happens.
I've seen this sentiment all over the web this week -- "He's a Harvard professor, he should learn his manners!" -- but not, until now, from someone who should know so much better.
"but it does not change the fact that the societal consequences of being labeled a racist are far more dire than the consequences of being labeled a nigger"
oh really? how so?
Presumably there are many, many victims of racial slurs who are employed, respected, etc. What prominent (or not) black person hasn't been so assaulted? Does someone hear the slur and think, "He's right - Barack Obama IS a ___________. I won't vote for him after all."
Consider the same scenario when someone is (credibly and publicly) called a racist.
I'm not trying to understate the impact of the slurs on the recipient. But that's a different conversation. And at the same time, there are few examples of the Racist label sticking, absent some racist behavior to go along with it.
We're just talking about two completely different things.
This seems like essentially what I took from it.
Using the N word is a slur meant to affect how a person feels about themselves; calling someone a racist is a slur meant to affect how OTHERS feel about a person.
Obviously, not the same -- beyond that polar difference, a racism charge is often correct (and thus a fact rather than a slur).
But I know the last thing I ever want to be labeled is a racist. I can't think of many (any?) more damaging words to be called, as a white male (again: not saying they're equivalent. Just saying it's still a very shitty label).
Well, once one is labelled a racist, there is nothing one can do, no change in behavior or apology that one can make, that will ever lift the stain or the shame. One is doomed.
On the other hand, if one is called a n*****, one need only get a skin change operation.
Oh, wait.
Ya know, I think there is something here of why I don't get this "calling someone a racist spells doom" thing going on.
Probably because racism is about mental attitudes and igorance, so the theory here that I'm operating from, is that one can educate onself, go through some emotional work to get through that, whatever, etc. To be called a racial epithet like that, its pretty damning, because you can never, not be who you are racially...it's can be ultimate dismissal.
Not so much with racism.
Oh yes, the doom of being called a racist is HUGE!
Poor old Jeff Sessions got called a racist and was denied being a judge, he had to settle for being a U.S. Senator.
And poor old Pat Buchanan has been labeled a racist and he is punished with a six figure plus salary as a mainstream media pundit.
Boo-hoo!
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough that I was being sarcastic, SB. And the sarcasm wasn't aimed at you, just at people that would equate the terms "racist" and "n*****".
Reminded me of one of the classic Churchillisms:
Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”
re: sarcasm, Marcos and SB
oh no, it's cool. I just saw a "nugget of seriousness" amidst the sarcasm in there, which I wanted to flesh out a bit more on my end, with my thinking. I get teh dryness.
Should a black cop arrest a white man if the white man shouts racial epithets at him?
For my part, I think such an arrest would be an abuse of power as well.
Now, there is an interesting question about the power of a tenured professor...
Yeah, “racist” is a hot word, much more inflammatory than calling someone a liar or a thief.
I think that it's because, at the cost of much precious blood, the civil rights movement finally established that racism is wrong, and that therefore, if racism were to exist or occur, a remedy would be in order. So now the perps must deny that it even exists.
Didn't someone recently say that “There are no racists. Ever. Anywhere.”
I'm not sure if this last(?!) foray into these matters has advanced the good fight any but the image of "the Nation Of Islam hunting Jeff Sessions" returned the smile to my face that was turned upside down by the bad news about the remaking of the Warriors. Did you tap into some brain-scan of the senator's haunted REM state? Speaking of which movie tip for the weekend Until the End of the World rent it it's worth the price of admission, peace all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Until_the_End_of_the_World
JD,
Yes and no. What you say has truth, but so does the notion that King never sought to use racism in that sense. Look at him, look at Do The Right Thing. Sal is a racist. Sal says the n-word. Sal is depicted as a complex and kind man. Was Spike Lee not on board with Civil Rights when he did that joint? Look at The Wire, and Prez's character, someone with some racism in his heart. That show certainly promotes a lot of Civil Rights orthodoxy for being a fairly challenging piece of work -- but the show's view of its characters isn't what you'd suggest.
I see how you'd justify what you're saying -- that racism was made an unpardonable personal failing -- but as often, it's been made the pervasive parasite on the whole community from which it draws blood. That's increasingly the interpretation endorsed by Civil Rights leaders, to the extent that they ever rejected it. It's close to my own view. So your response doesn't quite wash to me.
The point about equating "racist" with immorality interests me.
On the one hand, I think you're right - it is very hard, even with the best of will, not to have some racist tendencies. Anyone who thinks otherwise (as I once did) should take the Harvard Implicit Association Test.
On the other hand, if racism isn't immoral, what is wrong with racial profiling?
For myself, I just try to live with the fact that I'm an imperfect person in my heart, and be satisfied with a reasonable level of success in fighting my baser tendencies.
BTW, We did have black people driving slaves a couple of hundred years back. That's how the white traders on the West African coast acquired them, for the most part. See also the Lord's Resistance Army.
Your confusing "wrong" with "immoral." I bet there are people on this board who have relatives, maybe even friends, who are racist. I doubt that they think of them as immoral.
Your point on African slave traders is true, but is out of context. I think you know what I meant, no?
Want a second opinion on that? My poor ignorant hillbilly relatives are racist, and I absolutely see that as a moral failing on their part.
It's also an intellectual failing, but since they have not been exposed to critical thinking skills, that is forgivable. However, if you say you follow the teachings of Jesus yet use racial slurs--you're a prideful hypocrite. That's immoral--by your own yardstick.
To your point, though: We have to address racial inequity in this country somehow, and the term 'racist' has become useless in that conversation to the extent that far too many people believe it's like 'rapist' or 'child molester'. 'Racist' isn't serving us anymore.
Hate to be, but I think Cornel West had some interesting thoughts on how to use language more fruitfully in 'Race Matters'.
Yeah, I don't know. I think of rapists as immoral. I have no friends and very few relatives who I think of as immoral. I have quite a few who you could afix the term "sexist" and "homophobe" too though. I don't really see them as immoral, because of it.
Moreover, I think, like a lot of people, I've had my share of interactions with people who I thought were racists, because of things they said. I didn't doubt their "fundamental goodness" though. I didn't doubt that they would, for instance, leap in front a car to save a child.
Pat Buchanan may be the world's greatest father and husband. But I think he's a racist.
"I have no friends and very few relatives who I think of as immoral."
This is interesting - I think to some extent in this discussion of "racists as scum", you might be overlooking the ways in which people can and do condemn the racists in our lives while simultaneously keeping them in our lives. I know racists aren't mythical trolls who live under bridges - my grandfather was a racist. But I didn't cover that up and say, "Well, he's really a good guy." I thought less of him for it. I loved him, but hey, that's blood, right? He was still kind of a bad man in my eyes. (Not just for the racism, but that's another kettle of fish.)
You see for me there is no "but"--there's an "and." It may sound awkward to say it that way, but I don't see "racist" and "good guy" as opposites. It's worth reading up on actual racists. There's a lot of evidence that Robert E. Lee was a "good guy." But he also kidnapped free blacks and Pennsylvannia and had them sold into slavery. He also authorized the massacre of any black soldier caught in uniform.
Alexander Stephens, the intellectual architect of the Confederacy, claimed that he was setting up a government explicitly founded on the notion that the black man's natural place was in service to the white man. Then he supported the death of 600,000 people to support that belief. What is racist, if perpetrating a war in the name of apartheid?
But guess what? Just a couple days a go I was reading an oral history taken from one of Stephens his slaves. She swears he was one of the most noble and honorable men to ever walk the earth. And she was his slave.
Lee Atwater made the Southern Strategy famous. He was, at the very least, an employer of racism. It's worth watching the documentary on him, that came out a few years ago. One of his staunchest defender, as a man, was this old R&B singer whom he was good friends with.
What I'm trying to push you guys to see, is that blacks don't have the luxury of writing off white people as social scum because they think they are racist. Indeed, we often end up making friends with them.
This is about a deeper understanding, not simply of racists, but people. We have to stop talking about each other like we're robots.
TNC,
My father's father was a man of tremendous, astonishing generosity AND racism on the don't-let-granddaughter-hand-black-man-a-glass-of water level. Thank you for creating a space where his reality and my love and horror about it have room to breathe and think.
TNC - thanks for this latest response. I think we're getting somewhere. My mom always says I see things as too (pardon the expression) black and white, and it was something I was really trying to work on. The last few years seem to have hardened me again though.
I had a friend who had the opportunity to visit Guantanamo on a press trip last year. She was allowed surprisingly free run (Did you know that the Harry Potter books are the most popular titles in the Gitmo library?) and came back with all these wonderful human interest type stories about the Gitmo lunch lady who serves up the cafeterian food, the Gitmo guards and their unexpectedly friendly relations with the Cuban soldiers on the other side of the fence, etc. And I loved reading about them, but there was a part of me that kept going, Would I happily read a story about the Birkenau lunch lady?
That's explicitly NOT to equate Gitmo and the camps, by the way, but to point out that, where major atrocities are concerned, total ostracization and/or imprisonment has been the accepted response. The Birkenau lunch ladies went to prison, you know? And most folks would say rightfully so. And I guess on a personal scale that's been my approach too - if I feel like you're actively making the world a worse place by holding/spreading hateful views, my instinct is to cut you out. A bunch of my roommates when I went to grad school in the UK were openly racist, and I really struggled to learn to relate to them and enjoy their company - I had no other options for friends, not to mention I lived with them, and it was probably the first time in my life (discounting family members) that I was forced to spend time with people whose views made me so angry.
All that to say, I don't have a lot of practice at this. And I'm not sure how far this kind of acceptance of people's complications should go, even when I get better at it. I mean, at what point do someone's horrific actions outweigh any good they might have ever done in their lives? Do you see any limit? (I'm guessing not, since you gave some pretty heavy examples.) Anyway, it's clear I need to push my limits out a little further, for a start. Thanks.
I'm not sure I understand your distinction between "wrong" and "immoral." Speaking for myself, I *do* see my own racism as a moral failing. It's one I'm working on, which is a major reason why I read your blog.
If your point is that racism is a some level a simple cognitive failure, equivalent to having bad night vision, or being tonedeaf, or being bad at math, I disagree. All of these conditions cause people to make mistakes, but racism causes us to devalue our fellow human beings. To me that puts it in a separate moral class.
On the African slave traders thing, if I understand you I think you're 1/3 right, and 2/3 wrong. You're right that in *our* society blacks have historically been a victim class and whites an oppressor class and we have to deal with this. But you're wrong if you're suggesting that slavery and racism are particular failures of American or European-derived culture. You're also wrong if you're suggesting that because my great grandfather (metaphorically) wronged your great grandfather, I have a moral duty to let you wrong me.
It's meant to be taken as it's written, that the history of the employment of "nigger" is very different than the employment of the word "racist." I make no claim beyond what I wrote.
I was also shocked by Chris's post and glad you aired it out. Coates, thanks for keeping on it despite your exhaustion. The writing these past few days has been powerful, and important.
My conclusion after listening to all this talk is that one thing that would really help us bridge the empathy gap in these discussions of race is some type of new vocabulary. The word racist is so loaded, it lumps a lot of ignorant or unsophisticated but otherwise well-intentioned white folks in with truly hateful racists like Strom Thurmond or Simon Legree. And I think the lack of language for describing what are truly important differences helps lead us further away from understanding. The way we sometimes get bogged down in the semantics of this word allows the important issues to get sidetracked. I'm not sure what the fix would be, wish I was.
But I am proud that our President is such an adult, is not afraid to admit mistakes, and is such a class act. I'm just really proud I voted for the guy. And I hope he follows through and gets Gates and the cop in the same room because I think once they talk one on one in a calmer place that they will both realize they both likely overreacted and turned what was a misunderstanding - started by neither of them, but by a woman who mistook Gates for a burglar - into a big national pissing contest. And I hope if they realize that they will follow our presidents example and go on TV and say they were both wrong and apologize to each other. That would be huge, and important, and I really hope they do it. It will have made all this really worth it IMO and maybe open up further dialog down the road.
Funny, I was talking to someone about this last night. And in fact I brought up a point like it in a comment on one of your other posts.
-- No, there's no equivalence, absolutely not. That's categorically the wrong to think about it.
BUT, for me and for people like me, 'racist' is about the worst thing I can be called. I could probably ignore slurs aimed at my Judaism more easily; I can certainly shrug off being called a misogynist or a homophobe (though, before any steps in to correct me, I wouldn't shrug them off automatically). But 'racist'? It's pretty much the worst accusation I can think of, and it's one I would find very, very difficult to ignore.
It's a hard point to make, because as Nick points out, it seems to put the onus on racism's victims -- not to make the accusation unless they're sure it's true -- and can, at least potentially, allow bigots to wield their own self-pity. I don't endorse either of those.
And, TNC, I see what you mean about racism being an all-pervasive fact, with roots too deep in history to easily disentangle. But the fact is that we *do* "equate 'racist' with immoral", so until you can get a whole lot of people to agree with you and change their usage, the word is going to remain an accusation, and a profound one.
Perhaps one day to say of someone that they're "a racist" will be as descriptive and complex as saying of someone that they're "an American". But until then, well...if Gates did accuse Crowley of racism, then surely he didn't mean, "You, sir, are engaging in a complex cultural power-play based on race, of the sort I confront every day, sometimes from my closest friends". He meant it as utter condemnation, a profound expression of his pain, anger, and disgust, and surely Crowley took it that way.
"BUT, for me and for people like me, 'racist' is about the worst thing I can be called. I could probably ignore slurs aimed at my Judaism more easily; I can certainly shrug off being called a misogynist or a homophobe (though, before any steps in to correct me, I wouldn't shrug them off automatically). But 'racist'? It's pretty much the worst accusation I can think of, and it's one I would find very, very difficult to ignore."
This above is absolutely fascinating to me and somewhat mystifying. Perhaps this is just the limits of my understanding, coming from my own Latina perspective, who knows. I suppose as a "brown" person, I don't understand because I relate a lot to what TNC has tried to say about (what I think) are different gradations and variations of racism. It's not all violence and blatant name calling, it can just be plain ignorance and denial of one's existence. There can be a feeling of just totally being ignored, that your mere existence is not worth mentioning or acknowledging, let alone hating. That "invisibility" treatment. I don't think of a "racist" as someone who is the worst person in the world, I've encountered, and a lot of people of color who i know have encountered, a number of well-meaning people who say things, do things, that are racist from time to time. It's not such a straight, extreme binary between these are the "good non-racist" people and the "horrible, awful, no- good racists" People are complicated. This is not a black/white thing (no pun intended).
Silentbeep, I see your point. I think for my part I would reserve "racist" for the most virulent form, and use a less powerful word -- say, ignorant or oblivious or even prejudicial -- to describe the kinds of things you're talking about. Or better yet, I would try not to use a single word at all, but give a fuller account of what went wrong. There are gradations of behaviour, gradations of condemnation, and gradations of language to describe them. Me? I use -- and take -- "racist" to describe the worst of the worst.
I should make clear, again, that I don't think Gates is to blame for what happened. The cop is. I think most of us here agree on that, to the point where we can start looking at subtler dynamics.
There is not, and never will be, an equivalent to 'cuntsucking pigfucker', but "employer of crude language"--when unsubstantiated--comes close.
I think it doesn't really matter what Gates did unless he was making threats. No one has alleged he was. I work in customer service. If some crazy customer flips out and insults my mother. I don't get to say "she can't talk to me that way" and disconnect her electricity. Similarly, when you're a cop, sometimes people will start yelling at abuses at you for no real reason. You don't get to arrest them for this. If we start putting all the assholes in prison, who will pay for the prisons?
So basically, no matter what role race played or what Gates said, the cop was the onyl one with a legal duty here and he failed to uphold it. You can argue about Gates' social duties, but manners aren't really the important issue here.
Funny to hear you mention the customer service angle. The one time I've been called a racist was by a customer at my shitty high school job - I couldn't understand what he was saying, kept asking him to repeat his order, and he got fed up, shouted it out in front of maybe 30 other waiting customers who hadn't heard another word of what passed between us. Everyone stopped talking and turned to look at me, I burst into tears and ran out of the building, and my manager gave the guy his money back, asked him to leave, and told him he was never welcome back again.
I've never thought about that as an abuse of power by my manager, but then again, denying someone deep-fried baked goods is a little different than arresting them or cutting off their power.
I'm way late to the game here, but what the hell, I'll chime in. If you do anything that a cop doesn't like, then you'll get arrested -- probably for "disturbing the peace." I know this because it's happened to me... a couple of times. And I'm blond, blue-eyed, etc, etc... If you in any way "sass" a cop, and he's not into it, then bingo -- arrested!
I'm not saying the cop isn't racist (it's possible, and so far we can't really tell, as far as I can tell). I'm not saying that Gates wasn't right (he probably was). And none of this has anything to do with what Coates was talking about. But so many people talking about this on the web seemed shocked -- absolutely shocked! -- that cops can basically arrest you for whatever. And my response to that is: jeez, guys... Duh.
Ah, here we go again.
Sorry but you are pulling yourself back in.
This is human beings we are talking about. You're a writer, try moving out of your own damn head for a minute and think of it as a human confrontation.
So we have two totally different sorts of people with different backgrounds and expectations. Who's side you wanna take seem entirely dependent on what ax you want to grind.
No, its not "the same as" because the entire history is completely different. Nonetheless they are fighting words big time. It doesn't matter who you are or what your background is. If you start hurling nasty accusations at somebody you are going about it all wrong. This is particularly true if you jump to a nasty and negative conclusion of any sort based on somebody else's skin color.
This is the worst sort of comment, because it's just lazy ranting. You don't quote word one from the original post, short of a joke made at the end. If you think that nigger and racist are close, make the argument.
Quote what you disagree with, and make the argument. Otherwise, we have an Open Thread. Make use of it. Or make use of the thousands of other blogs discussing this on the internet.
Do this again, and I will delete. Anal? Yup. This is one small corner of the web. You wanna rant? There are plenty of other places.
You are new commenting here. These are the rules. They will be enforced.
Huh?
Honestly I can't understand where you got any of that from. I didn't say they were "close". The experiences and histories are way to different.
I have made several more substantial arguments here in the last twenty four hours or so including complimenting your reasonably even handed take. That was an admittedly fast, sloppy, and irritable post but you seem to read more into it that was there.
Sorry for not being clear.
I don't have a substantial disagreement with most of your point. But I think you are over-thinking it. There is way to much big picture analysis and not enough simple consideration human conflict.
One guy is having a bad day and got locked out of his house. When the cop shows up he jumps to the worst conclusion about their varying roles, motives, and attitudes in this situation right away and says so loudly. Despite all the claims to the contrary I have not yet seen any evidence that Officer Crowley jumped to the most extreme conclusion any more than cops are expected to.
This moment doesn't sound like it has anything to do with larger social points to me. And that may have been Professor Gates' error as well. When cops show up on a call they assume something is going on and follow certain procedures that make them look like suspicious pricks. I've been on the wrong end of that myself a few times.
From Crowly's perspective he's just trying to his job and Gates is giving him all kinds of attitude. Whatever the larger social view of the word racism is then and there it meant that he was getting a hard time from this guy who seems to be looking for a fight and now he's having a bad day too. But he is required to follow through and see some ID so that's what he does. And then he heads out the door.
That's when the whole interaction changes and where everyone ready way to much of their own stuff into the whole thing. Whatever larger issues are at play this is out of the home and now in front of a crowd. In any language or color its a power struggle, a pissing match in front of an audience. The specific content and meaning of the language is not so important as the nature of the conflict. One guy apparently is angry and rationally or not feels violated. He wants to show the guy that he's not somebody you mess with so he's speaking his mind loudly and forcefully. The other guy is more likely than not pretty damn grouchy at this point. He's trying to figure out how to make the most professional and effective decision while maintaining his dignity and projection of authority. Not to mention keep the old temper in check. And every one's staring, shocked and waiting to see who makes the move.
In this sort of moment if you are the guy who's supposed to be the authority figure there is all kinds of conflicting pressure. The most rational and proper thing to do considering that the old man is not a real threat is probably to walk away. But its just not that easy because it is a power struggle and you are surrendering the field in front of an audience and letting the other guy win. If your jobs involves projecting authority that cuts way against the grain.
I was never a cop. I spent a lot of years working with very troubled kids and other sorts of people who got confrontational by various extremes.
It's a lot easier to say how it should be than it is to get it right in reality every time.
"Who's side you wanna take seem entirely dependent on what ax you want to grind."
AhYup's is the most on-point statement about coverage of this entire affair-
A man was witnessed breaking into his own home, the cops were called, the homeowner is already frustrated at having to break into his own house and gets even more pissed off when police ask him for ID and make him jump through legal hoops. Even if one thinks his rants about societal racism were over the top, him being in a less than calm mood is reasonable.
The officer feels like he was just doing his job and some dude is yelling at him. Instead of accounting for the homeowner being frustrated and walking away, the cop decides to be a a-hole and arrest the homeowner. No matter how wrong Gates in assuming the grand white conspiracy was cracking down on him for being black, the officer's inability to act professionally in his duties and recognize the whole thing was a mixup and just walk away was inappropriate and dumb.
Bottom line, two adults interacted in a situation already filled with tension, and neither acted as maturely as they could have. The officer is ultimately at fault because he's paid to handle himself better in those situations. If the scene had taken place in a classroom, with Prof Gates being the one with the power and responsibility to deal with a student (the cop taking classes) who spouted off, then HLG should be the one held to the higher standard. (I say this as a teacher)
All the comments from everyone else are all prescripted by our own filters. The folks who want to see racism at every turn will find it. The ones who want to observe "angry black man" at every utterance by a black man will hear it. And the ones who believe elitist college professors snub their noses at blue-collar workers will view it through that prism.
I sympathize with TNC's complaint quoting Michael Corleone, but I LIKE that TNC has had multiple posts on the subject, and from different angles. If the episode is gonna be talked about repeatedely, it should AT LEAST be discussed with some depth and nuance. TNC's blog + his comments section accomplishes that.
Ta-Nehisi - sometimes you get on my nerves - just random shit - but I respect - HUGE - the fact that you protect your space and you don't play. And I'm impressed that you have the energy for this shit...
There are so many other blogs where the comments are a fucking zoo. You truly have respect for your readers in setting some rules for the discourse here. As someone who I know can peridiocally be a pain in the ass - thank you, man !
This had me laughing. At least you keep your sense of humor.
“Nigger” in the cross-racial context is an unfounded slur, an insult; “racist” is an actual category of wrongdoing.
The use of 'racist' that I am talking about is when it is used as a disingenuous slur, an insult and a conversation stopper. I am not talking about when it is used to complain about some specific action.
Alright, stupid question which I probably know the answer to but will ask anyway.
The "reader" that was linked to said that he had a "conservative disposition." This puzzles me because where is the conservative outrage in this whole issue?
I mean, conservatives (at least in the US) are supposed to be strongly supportive of property rights - especially the ability to do what one wants on one's own property (at least within the law), privacy rights, and the taking of their property by the state.
In this case, you have a clear example of a state actor (the police officer), overstaying in someone's home after the probable cause was over, and inducing him to come out so he can arrest him on a trumped up charge of disorderly conduct. You can't really get much more of a property and privacy violation by the state against someone in their own home than this.
Wasn't it just a few years ago that right-wingers were up in arms about policemen and federal agents coming onto people's property to arrest them?
This reminds me a bit of what Mathew Yglesias has to say about what the conservatives are really concerned about (in his opinion of course)
Quote:
"The conservative movement, which never ever ever dedicates any time or energy to the problem of racial discrimination suffered by non-whites, thinks it’s very important to draw attention to the social crisis of white people burdened by accusations of racism."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/bias-racism-being-a-jerk-and-abuse-of-power.php
With all this, I think that the cop probably would have done the same thing to a white man. A year or so ago, a student made a smartass remark to a handful of Boston cops standing on a corner. They effectively mugged him, threw him on the ground and cuffed him, while telling his friends to leave or they'd be in trouble, too. The kid had some undiagnosed heart problem and died. That's just the way cops are.
http://www.wlos.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/wlos_vid_630.shtml
Here's a nice little story about a police officer in an unmarked car trailing a woman who honked at him for cutting him off. "I'm gonna show her how stupid she is for acting like that once she sees who I am." and another (paraphrased) "I got her tags, I can run her and pay her a visit later."
The speech at the end from the head of police tells us to put those statements into context. Curious! They seem so contrasted against the woman's 911 call.
The fact that we're seeing these stories hopefully means things are getting better, right?
Yeah, obviously "racist" and the n-word are not remotely close. No one will own the racist term, of course. No matter how vile a person's thoughts or language, no one will admit to being "a racist," ever. Not them. But the n-word is "other" in a completely different way. It's not something to own or disown, it's simply not human at all. A n-- is something other than "us."
One piece of this that has not been discussed as much is the power-tripping of cops in general (MJR in TPM had a good piece). I'm a white woman and I'm afraid of police because of my experience with them. The young ones, in particular, are very difficult to deal with -- I assume because they are anxious to prove themselves. Plus, they work in a culture where hierarchy means everything and we live in a culture where it means very little. They don't want to be questioned or challenged in any way. What they say goes, period. But that's not how it works in the rest of our culture. It's funny, though, that it's the liberals defending the right to resist a "police state" and the wingers defending the right of police to... arrest people in their homes.
The problem is that most White folks think racism is
bed sheets, crosses and the confederate flag.
it's not that simple, and folks don't want to understand why it's not that simple.
this continued push that ' GATES MUST'VE DONE SOMETHING' is the sticking points for me as a Black person.
been there. done that.
Black folk told about racial profiling for forever and a day, and the comments from the general White public was:
' it has to be part of your imagination. you MUST have done something.'
outside of being BLACK, no, that's about it.
lo and behold, they begin to keep actual STATISTICS, and, guess what, it bears out what law abiding Black folks have been saying for forever and a day.
Dr. Gates was a Black man, in his own damn house, and had shown not one, but TWO pieces of ID. that SHOULD have been the end of this. and, yes, being a Black person, who has seen EVERY SINGLE BLACK MALE IN HER FAMILY RACIALLY PROFILED.
I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I don't live in the hood. I don't know Pookey and Ray Ray. The only Black men in my life are well-educated professional ones, and to a one, they ALL have stories.
Officer Friendly may be YOUR friend...
but, I wouldn't trust him any further than I can spit.
he hasn't EARNED any trust nor respect.
Ever seen A Dry White Season, rikyrah? It's about a white family in apartheid South Africa whose (black, duh) gardener's son turns up dead after a dust-up with the police. (I think it's day 1 of the Soweto Uprising, but can't recall for sure.) Anyhow, that's the mantra - "But he must have done something..." They can't fathom things any other way. And it's as much an assumption about the goodness of the police as it is about the likelihood of wrongdoing by a young black kid.
Where I grew up, we were always told, If you're ever in trouble, run to a policeman. That kind of starting point can be hard to awaken from without any personal experience to force the issue.
(NONE of that is intended to defend the "he must have done something" crowd this time around, though - even Crowley's own version makes it pretty clear Gates broke no laws.)
Yeah I think this captures so much of it.
I think a great illustration of this is the move Hurricane. Not the story itself but rather how they changed the story for the movie. I had read the book just before the movie came out so it was very fresh for me.
You probably all know the story, Ruben Carter is the #1 middleweight contender, he is out driving in Patterson, NJ one night, someone who vaguely fits his description with the same color car robs a liquor store across town and shoots two guys, one dies and one survives. Carter is arrested and convicted, after years in jail eventually cleared. If you really want the jest of the story and don't have time to read a book just listen to the Dylan song he covers the bases in great detail:-)
What I find interesting is the subtle change they made in the movie. In the real story there was no outright segregated south style racism, more subtle institutional stuff and frankly lazy police work. The cops figure he is an uppity nigger so who cares, maybe he isn't guilty of this but he must be guilty of something else and they can close the case. The jury is a bunch of suburban white people who've likely never met a black person before and assume a scary black boxer must be guilty and that cops would never lie.
In the movie they changed it a little, they made the main cop a blatant racist who had been trying to do in Ruben Carter since he was a kid. Makes it more black and white and easier for mainstream America, there is a clear bad guy, he is the villain, get rid of him and the problem goes away. The rest of us are off the hook.
"The problem is that most White folks think racism is
bed sheets, crosses and the confederate flag."
I disagree that "most White folks" think that's the definition of racism. Way too many, sure. But most? I don't like generalizations of any group.
The problem is that most White folks think racism is
bed sheets, crosses and the confederate flag.
Exactly.
I'm a sociologist, so I approach these things from that perspective. One of the things I consistently try to get across to my students is that "race" is a social system, one that is fundamentally a system of inequality. It's possible to reinforce and reproduce that system without being a bigot. The trick is to figure out where in that system an individual sits, and how their actions, etc. reproduce (or interrupt) the reproduction of that system.
And, because it's a broad social system that has been (and continues to be) a fundamental organizing system in American society, it's pretty much impossible to exist outside of it. It's impossible to fully escape the meaning systems accompanying the broader organizing structures. It's impossible not to internalize some of those meanings.
It helps, sometimes, to step away and depersonalize it. It makes the "racist" label a little less personally devastating (it seems). At least I hope so.
The same things go for other social systems like gender and sexuality. The epithets TNC mentioned are all part of these broader phenomena, and my trick is getting folks to see how they operate (and hopefully to provide points of critical intervention).
Well, I don't want to argue with most of what you're saying, because I don't think Gates did anything wrong (unwise, arguably, but well within his rights in every respect) and I'm not going to rule out racism as a factor (especially regarding the initial call). My only quibble is that you're assuming Officer Friendly is our friend when really, he isn't.
When it comes to police misconduct, black people will feel it first and worst for the same reason they feel the first and worst of every other example of authority grinding people down--racism. But the divide that has grown between police officers and civilians transcends race, and personally I think it's the crux of the issue. Even white guys in suits can be victims of the police, and unless you are or have a good lawyer, asserting yourself to a police officer is a pretty reliable way to get charged with a crime that they will then do their damnedest to get you to plead guilty too.
I have no doubt that it's much worse over on your side of the racial divide. But it's pretty bad over here too. What happened to Gates could have, mostly*, happened to any of us.
* (I don't think anyone would call the cops on a white dude in a suit trying to get into a unknown house. But once the cops were there...)
I think that the social cost of being called a racist is being underestimated, sort of in line with what JD was talking about in his post.
Let's say that I, a white male, walk up to a black male and, for no reason, call him a nigger. Without much argument I will be labeled a racist. The "n-word" is widely understood in modern society as a derogatory word when used in that context, and I would rightly be shunned by all sides for having said it. Being labeled as a racist carries the weight and shame of harboring an ignorant prejudice.
Now, let's say that a black male walks up to me, a white male, and, for no reason, calls me a racist. Does society label him as a nigger? No, and for good reason(as previously mentioned, seen as derogatory...etc.). However, I will most likely have to spend time making the case that I am not a racist. Will he be shunned for having leveled the accusation at me if proven false? The reaction on here suggests that he would most likely be given the benefit of the doubt.
I understand what TNC is talking about when he discusses the racism buried in all of us, and attempts to redefine what the label "racist" means. However, I think his definition is not in line with how most of modern-day American society views it when used to describe someone. Honestly, I have no idea what sort of word to use for the more nuanced view of race relations that TNC is describing. Much has been done over the past decades to de-legitimize the use of racial slurs, while simultaneously increasing the stigma attached with being called a racist. It's really the product of the civil rights movement itself. Would we want it any differently?
David, surely "social cost" depends on the society. I don't think you'd get the same response, say, in prison. Or in quite a few diners, playgrounds, police stations.... More to the point, this business of comparing the two words is absolutely pointless -- it's a total red herring. There's no coherent comparison to be made, let alone an accounting of their damage. To suggest otherwise is precisely where Chris went wrong, and something I myself am trying to avoid. Because I think there is a discussion to be had about the singular force of the accusation of racism. But I'm afraid we're not going to get there this way.
I think you need to quote the people you think are giving the word short shrift and argue with them. They deserve that. "Short shrift here" is really vague, and could apply to anyone. Tell us what you disagree with, and who's saying it.
I think the initial reactions from Maya, Nick, and silentbeep were what I was reacting to with this post. I'm thinking I perhaps should have replied to one of their posts, this is my first time posting here so I'm not sure of the etiquette yet =)
I read Chris's piece and thought the reader's quoted post matched a feeling that I had felt before, and then to all of a sudden see it denounced with such forceful language threw me off balance. Is there a way to link down to a reply?
Nah, you're fine. Just wanted to be clear where it was directed.
" However, I think his definition is not in line with how most of modern-day American society views it when used to describe someone. Honestly, I have no idea what sort of word to use for the more nuanced view of race relations that TNC is describing. "
This is interesting because what TNC has said about the "nuanced" view makes perfect sense to me, and I'm perfectly comfortable using racism to describe a whole host of variations of racism and experiences. Why that is I don't know, maybe because I'm brown? Maybe because I'm just me? Maybe because i've been subjected to a form of "soft" racism and know many people who have in my family? I don't know. I am of the belief, that none of the "variations" are acceptable, so why "water" down a description of how horrible it is to experience and feel devalued for who you are, just so others can be more comfortable?
I don't really excuse people their own ignorance. It's up to them to educate themselves out of false notions. This is an entirely different subject, but I'll trot out this anecdote to try and make my point: I was in the Museum of Tolerance once, and a Nazi flag was brought out. The woman there marveled in fron of many of us, how amazing it was that U.S. soldiers signed their names with Spanish last names. The concept that Hispanics fought in WWII was completely alien to her. This is in the middle of Los Angeles and this woman showed a complete and total ignorance of the people and history of more than half of the city around her. Was she racist? I think her thinking was a definite product of racism, an ideology that allows this kind of ignorance and cluelessness, and somehow I'm just suppose to be o.k. with that.
Hmmm...forgive me the rantiness that has come out, i think. I'm still trying to think this through as well...
I think I can understand how being on the receiving end of varying forms of racism would give you a much more flexible or "dynamic" view of what the word itself means in today's world. The way in which our vocabulary and the meanings we attach to certain words based on our upbringing/culture interests the hell out of me. My parents raised me to really look on racism as one of the ugliest forms of our broken human nature. Additionally, I've served in the military where the consequences for even having an unfounded equal opportunity(militaryspeak for "racism") complaint against you can be career-ending. This and other experiences have led me to view the charge of racism as a fairly serious/weighty matter. I understand the dark history and oppressive connotations that the "n-word" carries with it, but from my own personal experiences I've mainly only seen it used either in comedy/music, or or in a situation where the person using it with racist intent is shunned very quickly. Reading through these responses has made it very obvious that even amongst people with common cause there is a wide gap in how we perceive the cost/vulgarity of certain words.
Man, I need a beer.
Not just ignorance. I should clarify that. Willful ignorance. Teachable moments are important. As I learned here!
The only reason people are so resentful of being called racist (more often, just being implied that something they did was racist) is because they don't want to be associated with people who call other people niggers today out of pure hatred, people who called folks niggers to put folks in their place yesterday, and people who called their slaves niggers before that. Calling non-racists racist is just inaccurate. It's not even really an insult. It's only insulting because of the horrors associated with racism that are being attached to you which is why using the word that best encapsulates racism is far worse.
I don't really buy that calling someone a child molester or whatever is a problem, either (although I agree that elevating all racism to that level is an issue that stifles debate). What changes is when you suggest that someone's actions are racist in public - the pain comes from the embarrassment. I'm not able to understand the pain of being called the N-word, but I'm pretty sure it's just as painful in private as it is in public.
Funny, because in the UK, where background checks are becoming nearly mandatory for any public-facing job, I have teen-age students who react to the imposition of homework by calling me a "fucking paedo". That's not an easy one to brush off, because the threat to my job is inherent, and intended.
I've been alternately mystified and disappointed throughout this series of conversations about why some white people are so deeply offended by being called racist. Equating it with that word I cannot bring myself to say because of my particular experience is just beyond belief. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I have come to the conclusion that maybe growing up working class Irish Catholic in Boston makes me less emotional about being called a racist. From a very young age, I was often just assumed to be racist unless I proved otherwise. Given where I grew up, there were reasons for that kind of assumption. I wish we could get past this idea that being called racist is the worst thing in the world. It makes it impossible to go any further, because the whole conversation becomes about defending oneself against the "accusation" instead of spending the energy on figuring out what actions and perceptions were at work to get to that accusation.
To be fair, I don't think any of us who've been struggling to explain what's hurtful about it are the same as the people (person? only the blogger TNC quotes above has gone there, I think?) equating being called a racist to dropping an n-bomb. You're conflating two different discussions here.
I was talking about TNC's original post referring to the blogger who equated being called n----- with being called racist. At the end of my post, I was also talking about the several fellow white people I've read on this blog over the past few days who have equated being called a racist with being called the worst of the worst. I'm also referring to the outrage that happened earlier in the week from a lot of white people on this blog who strenuously objected to a joke about 35-40% of white people possibly being racist.
My basic point is that I think a person can do or say racist things without being doomed as a racist asshole for life. I think a person can act in a racist way and still be basically a good person if they have an open mind to change, or encounter things during life that make them change their mind. I am related to people who have gone through this transformation. Racist beliefs can be changed, but we have to acknowledge they are there. Noone will admit to racist thoughts or actions, yet obviously racism exists, right? So someone out there must be helping it along.
I suppose you can count me in both those groups, although I wouldn't describe my posts as outraged, or all that strenuous even. Look, what you said above about the racism charge making it impossible to go any further, I feel the same way about being written off as defensive or embarrassing (on the other thread). It shuts things down. I'm making an honest attempt to have a conversation about why I'm reacting the way I do - if you're mystified by that, let's talk about it. But saying you're embarrassed or disappointed by me doesn't really make me want to keep on with the sharing, you know?
It's taken me a while to articulate why the 35-40% thing has bothered me -- not "offended" me, but stuck in my head and turned over and over. I think it's this: If the number is to be that high, these days anyway, then it has to be much higher than that.
If "racist" is to be a clearly defined category, such that you can count (facetiously) the 40 percent who are and the 60 percent who aren't -- come on, if you can point at a guy and say "he's a racist" then you're saying "he's so far out of the norm I can identify him as especially wrong." But you can't have a "far out of the norm" that high.
It makes more sense to me to say that almost everyone is racist to some degree. Racism is an evil, the eighth deadly sin if you will -- and nearly everyone is tempted to indulge in it from time to time. I know I am, I catch myself thinking some things and I'm horrified at myself and banish the thought, and honestly, it's not all that different of an experience from other temptations to thinking patterns and activities that I regard as objectively wrong. It is a vice that the individual must struggle with. (I think my Catholicism is showing.) Not everyone is aware it is a vice, sad to say. But that doesn't make it unusual among vices, either.
If you want to say that the average white person is 35-40 percent racist, I'd buy that (whatever it means). I would expect, too, that whites, blacks, Latinos, etc., and probably other cultural subdivisions (religion, class, nationality) manifest their racism in different and characteristic ways, even as individuals within those groups struggle with it or display it in varying degrees.
"I'm also referring to the outrage that happened earlier in the week from a lot of white people on this blog who strenuously objected to a joke about 35-40% of white people possibly being racist."
Please. No one was outraged. More importantly and once again, TNC didn't say that 35%-40% of white people were racist. That's not what was said, so let's not pretend it was. He claimed that 35%-40%(conservatively) of white people 'really, really disliked' black people. People were surprised because that statement is not close to being true. But let's not change it to act like people were outraged. Completely disingenuous.
I guess I'm trying to express what Eva has been saying, but in a less articulate way. I don't think it is cool at all for people to act like they're embarrassed or disappointed that someone took issue with the 35-40%. And there was an awful lot of that going on.
Based on that post before, I now know that if I meet a random black person at a bar, or at work, they are going to assume there is a 40% chance that I already really dislike them because they are black. If TNC and I were to meet, for example, and he were to not know who I was, he would assume that there is a very good chance that I think less of him because he's black. Even if that doesn't affect the way that someone treats me, that is a harsh truth to deal with. So let's allow people to try to work through it, instead of saying we're embarrassed by it.
(Replying to Jennifer D because I don't seem to be able to reply to Stacy's reply.)
"Based on that post before, I now know that if I meet a random black person at a bar, or at work, they are going to assume there is a 40% chance that I already really dislike them because they are black. If TNC and I were to meet, for example, and he were to not know who I was, he would assume that there is a very good chance that I think less of him because he's black."
On the one hand (at the risk of embarrassing Jennifer D. further :-)), I have to join the set of people who were surprised at the 35-40% number and thought it high. But that's because the "really, really" in front of "dislike black people" brought to my mind a kind of dislike of black people that I personally very, very rarely see. Namely, an unambivalent dislike. One that involves a sweeping dislike for nearly everyone black. Not someone more complicated, but still clearly prejudiced, guy like Sal in Do The Right Thing.
On the other hand, it seems to me perfectly normal that, if TNC and I were to meet and he weren't to know who I was, he'd assume that there'd be a very good chance I'd think less of him because he was black. I mean, for example, any time that I, as someone of Greek ancestry, meet a Turk, I'm conscious of the possibility that he or she might think less of me for being Greek, or expect me to think less of him or her for being Turkish. And usually we get along just fine. White/black relations in the US are historically just as fraught as Greek/Turkish relations in the eastern Mediterranean; why on earth wouldn't a black person just meeting me be on guard for the possibility that I'm one of the many, many white people who think less of black people for being black? (At the same time, both the Greek/Turkish relationship and the black/white relationship in the US involves a whole lot of mutual cultural influence, the kind of thing Spike Lee portrays so well in his movies.)
Thanks for saying this, Jennifer. I'm mystified too.
I work in an office where becoming "anti-racist" is part of our continuing education. Basically we have both institutional and personal racism pointed out to us on a regular basis. And every white person in the office, I think, despite being actively anti-racist, wouldn't object to someone calling them a racist. I wouldn't. We just assume we are. I know what's in my head, or more accurately, in my heart, and what comes out when I least expect it. I know that being white allows me to take advantage of privileges.
Yeah, I can be racist. I'll own it, and, with help, I'll deal with it.
TNC:
I haven't been reading you for very long so maybe you've covered this before but what is your personal definition of a racist?
To me there is a big difference between someone who is a genuine racist i.e. someone who believes that black people are genetically inferior to white people, and someone who is "racially insensitive". I think that a lot of people who are guilty of the latter are often unfairly tagged as the former.
Precision in language is important and I can tell from your writing that you also believe this to be true. It just seems to me that the term racist is thrown around far too much and is employed to shut down discussions, not advance them.
Beyond the equivalency discussion (I don't think its even close from a purely offensiveness p.o.v.), it is reasonable to say that being labeled a 'racist cop' (The same two words instantly pop into my head when I hear the name Mark Furman) would be a career-ender for a Police Officer in a college town like Cambridge, and it seems like the kind of thing that someone with Gates' power and prestige could easily do if he brought his full influence and credibility to bear on it--I mean the POTUS made a point of denouncing the guy on national tv. That's juice.
In my mind, the power to make someone infamous is much greater than the power to offend.
Is there a distinction in this between being "called" a racist versus being "labeled" one? I would say that some people have called him a racist, Obama said he acted stupidly, and others have said it wasn't racism but about power, property, rights, etc.
BTW, I wouldn't really equate Cambridge with your typical college town. It's too big, there are too many different colleges, and too many other things there. I would think there's plenty of evidence that cops who are called racist often don't experience significant reprecussions. It's possible that Cambridge might be different, but I think it's really more of an internal police department dynamic that determines protection. If enough people marched on town hall demanding his resignation that the mayor got onto the police's ass... maybe.
Then again I haven't lived there in about 7 years, so maybe the place has really changed...
One of the things that seems to happen, in these kinds of discussions, is that as soon as anyone says "racist," the wagons circle to the extent that any criticism of the cop at all is interpreted as agreement that he's a "racist cop." As if the only possible choices are "Crowley handled the situation perfectly and Gates was entirely in the wrong" or "Crowley is another Mark Fuhrman who should be drummed out of the police force."
As far as our different understandings of the word racist, on one level it's all a semantic disagreement in which the word has multiple meanings and connotations and no one's actually fully right or wrong. But, whether we use the word "racist" or some other word, it's important to have some words we can use to discuss the level of prejudice that ordinary people have, that probably all of us have to some degree, and to be able to talk about such things without raising the issue being a conversation ender. It should also be possible sometimes to raise the issue and conclude that no, the racial explanation doesn't apply in this particular case, without every instance of raising the question where maybe it didn't apply being counted as a "race card." (For instance, remember when people brought up the Bradley effect as a possible explanation for why Hillary Clinton did better in New Hampshire than it seemed she would? And others argued that no, the Bradley effect wasn't what was operating here. So far, so good, and I started out suspecting Bradley effect and then concluded no, probably not. But it bothered me that then another set of people got deeply offended that anyone had even suggested the Bradley effect as a possible explanation, and saw it as a "race card.")
"What I'm trying to push you guys to see, is that blacks don't have the luxury of writing off white people as social scum because they think they are racist. Indeed, we often end up making friends with them.
This is about a deeper understanding, not simply of racists, but people. We have to stop talking about each other like we're robots."
Right. And in an increasingly multi-cultural, multi-racial society, no one else has much of a luxury either (even if they think they do). Perhaps as the country tends to change and become even more global racially and culturally, more people will get that.
Okay, please forgive me: I know I've posted about this a half dozen times already (every time I think I'm in, they push me back out...), but I think we're getting at something important here, something which often gets in the way of discussions about race.
Some years ago I had a falling out with a black friend of mine because he described something I had said as racist. To me, that meant that our friendship was over: if he was right, I couldn't imagine why he wanted to be friends with me, and if he was wrong, I didn't want to hang out with someone who thought I was capable of such a thing.
His argument was, "Of course, you're racist, everybody's racist. That's part of what it means to be American, and quite possibly to be human". To him it was like saying, "You're greedy”: everybody's greedy, some more so than others, it's not the greatest thing in the world, but it's something we can work with.
My feeling was, if he'd called me "insensitive", or "misguided", or even "stupid", or "callous"...I would have dealt with it. But "racist"? To me, it was like saying, "You're a child rapist”. It just doesn't make sense to say, "Come on, everybody's a child rapist, more or less..."
It took us a while to get over this, and get to the point where we each understood where the other was coming from. I'm not sure how much of this was an individual difference in the way we talked about things, or something that falls out more neatly on racial lines. And to this day, I wouldn't bother to argue that I was right, or that he was right: we were coming at the conversation from very different perspectives.
But I think this is more than just an anecdote about something that happened to me: I think it's a quite profound disconnect that gets in the way of a lot of discussions about race. It makes white people more defensive than they always need to be, and I think it makes black people feel, sometimes, that it's impossible for them to be honest.
I'm not quite sure that there's anything to do about it -- obviously, we can't legislate how people use language -- but it's something that I often find myself fighting to bear in mind.
I think there are some good things in this post to chew on, ditto for silentbeep's follow on.
Thanks for that. I think that anecdote really helps to illustrate the two (more or less) sides of the discussion we've been having over the last few days. As you say, "we were coming at the conversation from very different perspectives."
I guess part of what I've been trying to do (clumsily, I'm sure - as silentbeep says below, most of us are not used to discussing this stuff so openly) is explain the perspective I'm coming from, without necessarily defending it or condemning it. It's been frustrating to be written off as simply defensive, or have other white posters say they're embarrassed by me or disappointed by me. I'm only trying to participate in the conversation, from the only angle I can see it from, you know?
OK, I'm like a terrier with a pork chop, here, but let me make one more point. It seems like there are two sides here arguing for more nuance in the conversation, but in two different ways.
TNC, if I'm not mistaken, is saying something like, "Let's not be too Manichean about this: racism is a complex phenomenon, and the word covers a wide range of behavior. Not all racists are Klansmen."
I'm saying something like, "Let's not be too Manichean about this. Racism is a complex phenomenon, and not all racists are Klansmen, -- but "racist" is a pretty stark word. It's not a word that let's us distinguish between, say, the two guys who dragged a black men behind their pick-up in Texas, and the people who made 'Mississippi Burning'. The first is an atrocity, the second merely a disgrace. I think that's a valuable distinction to be able to make, so let's try to use a more varied vocabulary."
So, yeah, we're arguing semantics. But semantic disagreements are quite real, and need to be voiced, if not settled.
" It makes white people more defensive than they always need to be, and I think it makes black people feel, sometimes, that it's impossible for them to be honest."
Yeah i can relate to that too. The "fear of being honest." I mean, when that whole Sotomayor "wise Latina" thing was happening I was thinking "oh god, she should never have been that honest out in public like that."
I had a professor once in college discuss very openly what it was like to be a Latina in a largely professional white world and there were some hard truths there. She did not mince words, in front of a largely white class. I had this feeling of "oh gosh! don't say that in front of everybody" or mainly not in front of all these white people. I just cringed thinking abou the upset and defensiveness that would ensue in the dicsussion after her speech ...
Yes, but at the risk of being needlessly contentious, let me stress that I have a hard time giving up my own position, too. I don't think there's any right or wrong about it -- which means, I still find an accusation of racism to be harsher than almost anything else. I still find it similar to being called a "child rapist". I'm still tempted to see it as a deal-breaker, a conversation- or friendship-ender.
I just try to remind myself that the true story may be a little more complex than that.
"I still find it similar to being called a "child rapist". I'm still tempted to see it as a deal-breaker, a conversation- or friendship-ender."
I'm all for semantic discussion, but let me respond to something slightly different. Yes, you see "racist" as a terrible accusation. Yes, some people use it that way. Of course, that may not be what the other person meant, and that should be part of the equation (though not all of it). I think you were getting at that with your complex comment.
I just want to emphasize that it's your choice to see it as a deal-breaker. Of course you have that choice. I can choose not to associate with people who try to convert me or say I'm going to hell for not believing the way they do. I could also choose to not associate with anyone who asks me if I've been "saved" because I think that implies that they think I'm going to hell. And I don't mean that snarkily... I mean that we all choose what we put up with, what we enjoy, what we're comfortable with, and where the intersection of those things mean we can be friends and where we can't.
If I find the question about being saved offensive, it doesn't mean they had that animosity in mind. In general, I tend to try to understand the intention and then decide if I want to seek friendship, avoid friendship, or just let things go. And that choice -- my reaction -- is up to me, not them.
On "I'm still tempted to see it as a deal-breaker, a conversation- or friendship-ender."
Mixed feelings, here. I don't see an accusation of racism as a conversation- or friendship-ender; I'm more in the camp that sees "racism" as something pervasive, so that the possibility that sometimes I'm racist shouldn't be a worse thing for me to consider than the possibility that sometimes I'm not being honest (also pretty pervasive).
In some situations, I feel that really strongly. For instance, during the campaign, I found that some people were reacting to any least suggestion that race figured in the election campaign as utterly unpalatable (and all Obama's fault, as if any black man could possibly have been the first black man likely to win the Presidency without people discussing and debating how racism figured in the election), and I realized that I really, really didn't, but what was my parallel, the really unpalatable thing, was suggesting someone's a less than loyal American unless you have darn good proof (the whole thing Palin did toward the end).
At the same time, suggestions that I'm racist are, of all the faults that I in principle think are pervasive and should be considered by everyone, pretty much the one I feel is the worst possible one to be guilty of. It's not something that's easy to take in stride. It's not friendship-ending, but it's likely to be one of the more painful moments in the friendship, and it could be romantic-relationship-ending (harder to take such things in the context of romance).
So, I don't see it as a deal-breaker, but I do see it as something that's really hard to talk through.
Ironically, there may be something to this...after all when white supremacists want to stigmatize and marginalize black people guilty of asserting themselves in the sphere of "polite" public discourse, they don't call them "nigger" anymore. They accuse them of being "reverse" racists.
Misplaced comma - should have come after "themselves"
Since this is obviously a charged subject, and since I am coming from the place that sees only a wisp of equivalence for a bunch of reasons that seem obvious to me, I just want to clarify that this comment was sardonic. One never knows how stuff is interpreted - and I don't know the sardonic emoticon, or maybe I should have used it.
I've been going through a process recently, spurred largely by this blog and the comments, of thinking about racism. Or perhaps, about "racism."
First of all, I agree with pretty much everything TNC has said about this. I didn't come in thinking of "racist" as troll-under-the-bridge, but it's pretty clear to me now that that's a significant contributor to all this.
But I want to come at it from a slightly different angle. A few weeks ago, I would probably have argued that the technical definition of a racist was someone who believed that an entire race of people was objectively different -- usually inferior, but not always. A belief that in their genes was some coding for "dumb" or "athletic" or "good at math" or "lazy." I would not have been sure if one had to consciously believe this or whether it could be subconscious. But it would have been about race, regardless of the person, and regardless of any and all evidence that this is total bullcrap. (Which it is. By every objective standard. But you all know that.)
To clarify, I would certainly not have thought that only such people ever display racism... Many people who "have black friends" can be prejudiced against the majority of black people. But somehow, if they saw that these characteristics were not in-built, then it was something more like stereotyping -- not to diminish the impact of what they did in any way, but basically to create this little, neatly subdivided set of causes.
And partly this is self-serving, or self-absolving, or whatever. Because I think we all know that we stereotype, that we have an impression of what someone must be like because of the way they dress, or walk, or talk, or even what music they listen to. If I respond the same way to all people in a business suit, whatever their race, is that racist? If I respond the same way to everyone to wears baggy jeans and their baseball cap sideways, whatever their race, is that racism?
As I said, I've been thinking and evolving about this. Obviously, stereotypes can essentially be effective racism, and extremely damaging and pernicious and unfounded. But on the other hand, anyone with an ounce of self-awareness has to acknowledge that they have stereotypes. Some aren't nearly as damaging, some are really, really bad. But it's a continuum, and everyone who's honest has to see that they are on that continuum somewhere.
So, maybe we build a little wall. Stereotypes are bad, but they're based on experience, right? We all know there are exceptions to these stereotypes, right? That must be fundamentally different than deciding that everyone of a given race is by definition [insert whatever attribute you want here] -- right?
I'd also note that using that definition of racism, the "I have black friends" actually is evidence that you are not racist. Sure, you think most black people are lazy, unintelligent thugs -- but not all of them, so it's not racist.
I think at some level this is part of the reaction to the percentages that got thrown around. Not everyone, but I'm guessing that it's not just me, has had this narrow definition of a racist. (I think I might even have been taught it in one of those awareness classes in middle school.) The problem is that this is all coming from the intention/motivation side, rather than the effect side. From the standpoint of effects, it is almost certainly going to produce discrimination based on race.
So the person who is called a racist is pretty much going to be seeing it from the intention side, and will argue that of course they are not racist. You have to look at it from the other side, to see it.
I think it's also this definition that means that people who discriminate in hiring don't think of it as racist. They truly think that if a black person came to a job interview and looked and acted like a "white person," they would hire them. But of course, it's far more complicated than that.
Okay, this was really long, and I must I'm nervous about posting this in case it's somehow racist or stereotyped or offensive to someone, or even if it's taken the wrong way. But like I said, my thoughts are evolving, and I wanted to put this out there.
(Hopefully not everyone has moved on to another post by now...)
TNC,
This thread may be one of the best I've ever seen between people of different color talking to each other.
Amazing. Maybe soon we will be able to do this face to face instead of online. I don't think we can yet...still to much emotion would come to the surface.
I wanted to comment some more, but reading this made way too much stuff cascade through my addled brain. (you probably didn't notice in an earlier thread, but I took my own advice on having a cocktail...)
Bravo my man. And also to all of you commenters. Keep it up. This is how we all become brothers.
Now. Back to drinking. Where's my bud IrishPirate when I need him?
The IrishPirate has left the room.......or at least the discussion.
I think just about everything that reasonably could be said about "GatesGate" has been said.
It's Friday and there is rain on my Chicago radar. I need it to pass so I can go pick up some movies that were mentioned on this site today.
"Chinatown" for one.
believe it or not, I'm watching "Butch Cassidy" with Newman and Redford.
I'm ashamed... I still like to listen to the music in this movie.
Wish I could be as cool as these two cats.
At least, Hollywood cool.
I agree on all the words. But it's good stuff for the people who need to say them. They haven't before.
In the end as I ponder this situation and drink from my own personal table at the diner of discontent my heart turns to The Leningrad Cowboys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYNSiziFJjg
It seems like we can be a nation of PPO(Perpetually Pissed Off) people or we can laugh.
I choose to laugh.
word.
From none other than Warren Harding:
“In every moment of peril, in every hour of discouragement, whenever the clouds gather, there is the image of Lincoln to rivet our hopes and to renew our faith”
The sun will come up tomorrow. Lincoln persevered. We will too.
Call me a cynic, but I doubt that's "from" Warren Harding...
From Wikipedia - " Judson T. Welliver wrote for President Warren G. Harding...and is considered the first official presidential speechwriter."
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judson_Welliver_Society
Not that its equivalent, but have you considered that calling a cop a racist may be especially offensive? It's tantamount to questioning his self-worth, which is tied to his sense of fairness, if he's a good cop.
Hmmm...
I'm white. I've worked, now as a supervisor, in a multi-racial environment (both clients/customers and staff) for 15 years or so. I've occasionally been accused of racism, but I try to take that as a criticism, to be seriously considered, rather than an insult. I've also once been called a "white son of a bitch" -- that was an insult.
To answer Mr. Coates' question or to posit upon his statement:
Was Gates acting racist manner towards the police officer? Hell no. Aggressive? Perhaps. But who wouldn't be miffed after providing adequate documentation of their identity for "breaking into" their own home? After providing ID and complying, the officer should have enough common sense to realize that this matter is over and reached to a proper conclusion. Instead, the officer stepped over the line by refusing to accept TWO forms of ID as legitimate. How many more forms of ID did Mr. Gates need? 40?
When I first heard about this on NPR and listened that the officer stepped (uninvited) into Mr. Gates' home and still refused to accept his two IDs as legitimate, my immediate thought was the Dave Chappelle bit he did on his Killing Them Softly tour: "Apparently, Johnson, this n***r broke into this house and hung up pictures of his family everywhere. Well, let's sprinkle some crack on him and get out here..." (watch here (warning: language!))
Is the cop racist? I don't know. But he sure is letting prejudices get in his way. Which some need to see is somewhat understandable. I often think people place unrealistic expectations on police officers. After being mugged by a black male, being thrown to the ground, having a gun pointed pointed in my face and the hammer clicked, then being punched repeatedly in the head (I would have been punched in the face if I had not sufficiently blocked his punches (thank god(s) for boxing lesson with my dad, eh?)) after giving up my wallet (and all of the $15 my poor ass had), I would be lying if I said this did not a profound impact on me. However, I do not automatically suspect all blacks as being muggers, but I will admit that I do hold a much higher weariness when being followed by a black male. Although, I do also hold an equal weariness if being followed for more than five blocks by anyone at all. Nonetheless, I do hold that burden within me, and I often chide myself for it. (and, please, to any that my respond to this post: don't posit the "balck friends" malarkey. I have black friends, several of my best friends in middle and elementary school were black, so it;s not a matter of "broadening my horizons")
Obama said the officer acted, "stupidly", which I entirely agree. However, acting "stupidly" does mean that the man was a racist, and those calling out Obama and demanding an apology really need to need to take heed and think a bit further and bit broader on this matter. Not to mention open a dictionary and understand the fundamental difference between what Obama is saying and what they are alleging Obama is saying. If this were a white man that provided two forms of ID, would this outcome have been the same? I don't know, but my knee-jerk reaction is to say, "no."
My point is, that cop may not be truly racist, but more a victim of his environment. Fact is, a higher amount of crime is committed by blacks than whites. The reason for that is multi-fold, primarily due to poverty due to oppression and segregation. I don't think many people realize how short of an amount of time 41 years truly is, which is when segregation was widely struck down. Does that excuse the officer's actions? No. But I don't think it proper to completely vilify him either. Being an officer is a mentally straining job that inflicts numerous mental scars. With the higher predisposition of black suspects, it is understandable as to how this officer's psyche very well has been and could be warped. This is not to excuse such actions, but merely to rationalize them. This cop probably was, and in many ways still is, a good man, but the world has burdened and skewed him. I can only hope that 30 or more years from now, there will be enough time and sufficient progress that societal impacts will not fuel racist tendencies and racist outlooks. I don't think this officer was a born a true racist or absolute bigot, but I think his environment slowly, over time, warped his view to that of a racist.
Sorry, I thought the a href atgs would work. Obviously, they did not. The Dave Chappelle bit can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQKOBiHyNU&feature=player_embedded
Again, WARNING! LANGUAGE!
I think when anyone heard this story, you "knew" it was a black guy not in the sciences, but rather in Afro issues. Why? Someone who didn't make their career discussing these things would have let it blow over. But someone like Mr. Gates saw how fruitful a big ordeal could be for his career and made sure it would get blown out of proportion.
Yes, because it had nothing to do with the officer coming into Gates' home without permission (a big no-no), nor refusing to believe the two forms of ID that were presented were valid, then asking Mr. Gates to "step outside." This officer stepped well over the line twice. The first time was going inside the house without permission. The second was refusing to accept two forms of ID. The officer created the hostile atmosphere with his own attitude. It is perfectly understandable how and why Mr. Gates got so angry. I would have felt the exact same way.
Bulgakov,
Please find another blog. All responses to this post will be deleted. Please don't encourage troll-ism guys.
When I read and listen to you Americans debating the Gates-incident I get reminded of the time when I used to be regularly found guilty without trial and that can get at your nerves to a point where you want to explode - therefore I wonder why there is so little debate of that a white police officer interacting with a black person has NO way of proving that he is NOT a racist
here's my own harrassment-experience:
being German other Europeans from the Fifties on regularly accused me of being a fascist - the accusation was used out of every context i.e. I could "reveal" myself from ordering the presumably wrong food on the menue
No amount of tactfulness, knowledge and proclamations of "yes, we did it" could make me safe from those accusations or supply me with arguments to defend myself
Those who accused me had grown up with their parents telling about horrible experiences with Nazis and so it was understandable that for them German equalled monster and so in a way it was probably kind of them to tolerate my company
I don't see how those words even come close. The n-word does not derive its power from the fear of listeners judging the recipient as a n*****. The racist tag does to some degree. I'm guessing that in a one-on-one situation where someone is called a racist, many people would be okay with the label, absent social consequence.
I kind of wish that Mr Obama had kept his thoughs to himself. I think he is absolutely right, as a black man, I've been racially profiled, a long time ago, I even had a cop point a gun at me for the crime of 'jogging' through the almost all white, very racist neighborhood I had the misfortune to find myself living in. So given that, and given my life experiences and the experience of friends and family, I am positive that this was partly about race. But I have to make the following point. If this was anyone other than Mr Gates (Mr regular working class or professional black male who wasn't world famous) would we even be talking about it?
As soon as Obama opened his mouth and made that 2n'd comment (which I totally agree with) I knew shit was going to hit the fan. This will be used to attack him, he will have to back down a bit from it and at the end of the day, we might even get some sort of reconciliation between Mr Gates and Officer Crowley. That still doesn't change the fact that there is ample proof that Crowley acted at least partially based on race, he had no right to arrest Mr Gates.
If Gates and Crowley and Obama get together for a beer and sing Kumbaya, does it change the fact that many blacks still do get profiled by police (I mean, I live in the greater Boston area, study after study have shown this fact, the most recent being the Northeastern Racial profiling in Traffic Stops study and the Harvard incident/study from 2004-2005)? No, all it does is paper a thin veneer over the issue and essentially reduce a larger societal issue to a supposed 'misunderstanding' between two decent people, and not the abuse of power and racism that is the actual issue.
Now I fear that most whites will leave this thinking 'see, its not so bad, all people have to do is talk about it'. The fact of the matter was that Officer Crowley's mistake was pulling this shit with a black person who actually had some means of fighting back.
I don't think being called a racist is the same, or equivalent, to be called the n-word. But it's got a maddening quality to it anyway, mostly because it IS so vague and subject to so many different interpretations. The minute it's said, you end up in an Alice In Wonderland world where it becomes very hard to figure out what to do. I would say it's a bit like being called an Enemy of the People or a Traitor to the Revolution. Or perhaps even a witch, if you want to be historical. It means whatever the accuser wants it to mean.
My personal example is based on a conversation among white people, with no black people present. We were discussing a black job applicant who had weak educational credentials but good job experience. I thought the job experience made up for the education, and that we should consider this person further. I like to see people develop and grow on the job, even if they did have the opportunity to pick up the most elite credentials in their late teens. Lots of smart people don't.
The other white person in the conversation, a credentials snob if ever there was one, thought the educational credentials were a disqualification. I'm quite sure she would have been willing to hire a black candidate with a Harvard diploma and a high GPA, so I don't think she was an outright racist, but she really didn't like the idea of hiring people who work their way up through the ranks. This is just a form of snobbery as far as I'm concerned, and I don't agree with it.
But somehow, in the course of this conversation, I became the racist. I don't know how it happened -- like I said, it's an Alice in Wonderland accusation in many cases. And I don't think I was being racist in that instance, whatever my deeper biases might be. I was defending the black job candidate, I think I was in the right, and I would do it again.
But, because of the accusation, the whole conversation shut down and I couldn't make my case. This particular black candidate washed out of the hiring process (Alice in Wonderland again), and all possibility for a productive working relationship with my colleague was destroyed.
Long-term, the main effect that conversation had on me was to make me wary of credentials snobs. That sort of thing is probably a worse obstacle for many minority job candidates than any subconscious psychological bias on the part of white people. (It affects white people from modest backgrounds too.) Ability to afford the Ivy League is one of those structural things that depend on what happened in a person's family for the past few generations, and people whose families didn't have the chance to get rich are less likely to list Harvard on their resumes. But they should still have opportunities to show their talents and advance.
As for the cop, I don't know what he was thinking when the accusation came his way. But I mention my story as one example of how the concept has a lot of tentacles to it. It can send people off the rails in unpredictable ways, and it's really not something to throw around as part of an ordinary argument.
MDGiles
"It's been explained.You simply refuse to accept the explanation. Perhaps we're looking at the issue through the prism of different life experiences."
Yes, that's my point and why I find this so exasperating.
You say over and over that the officer would have acted differently had this been a white person. But that does not suit my experience with police of any color or sex as a white person. My guess is the only thing that would have made the officers actions particularly different would have been if Gates had been female.
What was different here was how Professor Gates felt and reacted. Yes one straw to many and so on but its still all about what's going on in his head and his race consciousness and experience and the assumptions that he made about why the cop was there. Nobody has been able to provide a shred of evidence that Crowly assumed anything other than that he had a call about a burglary.
"And how about a couple of A-hole points to the lady who sees two black guys entering a home and immediately reports a burglary in progress? "
The same here. You make a whole lot of assumptions based on facts that are not in evidence here at all. Why are you so sure that being black had anything to do with the call? Is there some evidence or is this just your race conciseness again?
The description I read was that she reported men putting their shoulder to the back door. If I saw any person doing that next door and I didn't recognize them I'd call the cops.
Oops, I just posted that on the wrong board. To many windows open at once.
I wish you had some sort of edit feature. Do delete.
I do want to make a similar point to my wrong board post to Baiskeli and others. I would really like to hear Ta-Nehisi's take on this as I think it is the crux of the matter.
"If this was anyone other than Mr Gates (Mr regular working class or professional black male who wasn't world famous) would we even be talking about it?"
Yes that is the point and the same one I ask though I completely disagree with your assessment of the facts. So lets also ask, how would we be talking about it if this was a black cop and an upper class white guy or a rural white supremacist? A female cop and a large man of any sex? Any cop and a mullet headed trailer park dweller? Would we be talking about it at all or would a different set of assumptions be made?
Our reactions and analysis here are heavy on two hundred years of racial history and all of the assumptions and experience that we as individuals carry around but little to do with the facts of this encounter.
Baiskeli and others talk about the experience of profiling and so on. Yes I understand that and yes I sympathize. That's at least in part because I have had similar experiences with police. No it is not "the same as" because when I cut my hair and bought a Volvo they stopped pulling me over and saying they'd bring the dogs unless I consented to a search. I understand the point that being black isn't something you can change to stop that kind of harassment and that driving a nice car is likely to make you suspect.So yes, Professor Gates and an apparent majority of other African American men are carrying this experience and these assumptions around with them.
And that is the point and why a whole lot of us who generally are on the other side of this argument just are not seeing it this time.
If we start from the facts in evidence for this particular case no evidence has been presented in any take that the cop acted any differently here than he acted on any routine call. I hear a lot of claims to the contrary. Aside from a lack of evidence in this specific case my skepticism is because these claims do not coincide with my experience as a white male who has been questioned by police of various races and sexes multiple times. I invariably have believed that they were hostile and suspicious until I proved otherwise regardless of my appearance at the time. Last month I was walking out of my office building late in the evening and a squad car come rushing up. The cop jumped out with his hand on his gun and asked me where I just was. I had been all over the building fixing network connections and my assumptions was that I had accidently set off an alarm and now had to prove who I was and what I was doing. I have not been questioned at my home recently but it did happen when I was breaking in drunk late at night at the age of 17. In both situations the police acted in a similarly suspicious seeming manner until they were convinced.
So when I hear these facts it appears to me that the race consciousness and racial assumptions were entirely on the part of Professor Gates. Yes it is true that Gates may have good reason for that but that's still in his head not the cops. We can expect a lot of out them but psychic is just a bit much. They can't be expected to know what somebody is thinking and feeling based on their race, sex, and so on at every given moment. They are not empaths, social workers, or shrinks. They investigate crimes and are responsible for enforcing laws.
As I see it then this is the point where we go through the looking glass and people who insist that this is a police induced racial incident need find the facts in this specific incident that prove it or own their racial expectations and assumptions.
From there the whole thing just turns into a mano mano pissing match in front of a crowd. I think the cop should have handled it differently but then having held his stress jobs with a lot of confrontation I can't second guess that easily.
I don't see how this connects to any larger or systemic issue whatsoever or how the meaning or the word "racism" matters in the slightest to the facts in this incident.
The way back machine can't go back far enough to find this law that was made more than 100 years before the United States came into existence.
According to a Massachusetts expert on this law, it is the "stupidest" law on the books.
Can't help but bolster the notion that while enforcing the stupidest law in the nation the cops behaved stupidly.
It is axiomatic isn't it?
I'm bored. This is boring.
I'm going to stir the pot.
"Black officer at Gates home during arrest said scholar acted strange, supports arrest"
Read it here: http://tinyurl.com/nruv7f
Also, while I'm pot-stirring I have a very valid question. Is it racist to point out that black on white crime is FAR higher than white on black crime?
On your first point:
"cop circles wagons and supports other cop" wow blow me over with a feather:-)
On your 2nd point, not necessarily racist, the stat is just demographics, there are a lot more white people than black people, therefore white people are the victims of crime in far larger numbers.
What might very well be racist is the reason you bring it up and your attempt to troll and thread jack with something you pulled from Steve Sailor or some other racist web site.
TNC,
Dude. Bruhman. These past few days you have been on point like a mf. They need to carve out a Pulitzer category for blog commentary and give it to you post haste. Seriously. You bring a level of emotional honesty that is sorely lacking in traditional media. Much respect.
@Stacy
Hi Stacy,
You are right. I used the wrong word. I think "defensiveness" would have been a better word.
I just disagree. It is impossible to know what the percentage is, but at the time I was really, yes, "mystified" by the amount of responses that statement generated. It just goes back to this whole idea that racism exists, but very few people will admit to it, or even acknowledge that they have friends who have racist thoughts, or occasionally do or say something racist. Where are all the racists living?
I seem to know a lot more racists, and/or people with occasional racist thoughts or actions, than some of the people on this blog. And I live in San Francisco.
Again, if he had said that 35-40% of white have racist thoughts, it is a completely different topic. Why in the world are words all of a sudden not important on this blog?
Jennifer,
I made the same observation you did, and was told it was a "strawman argument." Thank you for articulating what I--in my anger--could not.
@ Eva and Stacy
Ladies, I just don't understand why it is so awful for me to be disappointed or embarrassed. I have not called out anyone personally, or taken down anyone's post point by point and tried to make them feel bad. I think I am pretty polite here in general.
Sometimes things I see in society or here on this blog surprise, embarrass or disappoint me. This is just my perspective, based on my history and experience. I thought that's what we were doing here.
I actually wish you would, though. Then you'd have to engage more clearly with what we're trying to say. Instead, you make quote-free generalizations about "other white posters" and our alleged outrage/defensiveness/etc. I've replied to you several times now to say I was trying to explain my gut response to TNC's comment, not justify it - how is that defensive? Why isn't it okay for me to explain my perspective?
You don't represent me. It's clear from this ongoing conversation that despite our shared pigmentation we come from pretty different experiences and perspectives on this stuff. Saying you're embarrassed on my behalf is patronizing, full stop.
Polite, yes, certainly. But I wish you would give other posters' (mine, Stacy's, Ilya's on the other thread) arguments/efforts to engage fair due. As I said above, writing me off as an embarrassment feels to me like shutting down the conversation, not continuing it.
Check that. I don't wish you would try to make people feel bad! I wish you would go point by point, though.
Drop this, please. We talked about for a thread that went 180 replies. And then again for another thread that went over 100.
People who came to read a thread about a totally different subject don't deserve to get roped into this. If it really bothers you this much, then exchange e-mails and you guys can debate, with each other, the racism quotient, or the "don't like black people" quotient, inherent in white America. Or start a blog to settle the question.
But no more here. Let it go.
Why drop it? This isn't relevant to the thread? Really?
If you've never backed off your number, I don't see how it is NOT relevant. I think it's completely important to the things you write about, and this post is no different.
Again, you're talking about a racism quotient, which is not what you were talking about in your original post. You were talking about the amount of white people that dislike black people. I think that might be one of the most relevant things we could possibly talk about. No offense, but I thought that post of yours was much, much too off the cuff.
Maybe you'd be better off taking down someone's post 'point by point,' as opposed to what you've been doing.
Stacy,
One thread was about the number of whites who don't like blacks. This thread is about two words, nigger and racist, that may be considered offensive. I understand that the subjects are tangentially related. But there are many, many things that I haven't backed off of, that many people on this board don't agree with. That doesn't mean they should drag it into every thread that's tangentially related.
I have frequently re-appraised what I've written. I have done it once on this. I'm not doing it again. You think the post was "much too much off the cuff." Fair enough. I re-appraised it the post. I provided a daily open thread to revisit the post. I have answered every e-mail I've gotten about the post. Even with that in mind, by your lights, we should still be talking about it.
There must be an end-point, somewhere. I would submit that after two weeks, and scores of posts, we've reached it. You are a long time reader, for whom I have great regard. In the spirit of that regard, I ask you to agree to disagree, and let it go.
Ta-Nehisi
P.S. I sent you an e-mail to the address you've used to register. I'm only saying this publicly because I'm not sure you check it.
Fair enough. Not another peep out of me about it.
I read the original blog post, and have to call out this section, from the e-mail:
"Personally, as someone with a conservative disposition I believe that Harvard professors should be able to maintain composure and behave professionally even if their feelings are hurt."
Having actually met a number of Harvard professors, I find this amusing. Sure, it would be great if everyone--Harvard professors, third grade teachers, pretzel cart guys, fashion models--met this standard for decorum at all times. But Harvard professors don't, and the rest of the world doesn't either.
How about "I believe that police officers should be able to maintain composure and behave professionally even if their feelings are hurt." Is this not comprehensible to one of a conservative disposition?
Ta-Nehisi
There is a stronger social prohibition against using the N-word, as there should be (We are even reduced to the idiotic convention of calling it the N-word instead of using the word to refer to the word.), but insults are felt subjectively rather than objectively. Subjectively the only insult you can hurl at me that will anger me is 'racist'. Other insults either amuse me or make me hold the person hurling them in contempt. 'Racist' however angers me, though I try to not let it show. So the closest I will ever come to feeling the way you feel when you are called the N-word is when I am called 'Racist'.
The two words are not equivalent in their histories or in the social damage that they have wrought. They are not equivalent in the ills that they have been used to perpetuate. What they have in common is that they are both the worst insult you can throw at some individuals. One is for you, and the other is for me. Another thing that they have in common is that they are the end of discussion when directed at some people.
TNC rather got to this with sexist vs bitch. There's a derogatory term for women that doesn't have a male equivalent. (Bastard doesn't cut it.) And there are derogatory terms for all the other races--blacks, Jews, varieties of Latinos and Asians, etc--that have a weight of history and discrimination behind them and don't have a white equivalent. (There were terms for Italians and probably Irish and other races later co-opted into "white.") The fact that racist seems to be the best anyone can do for a hurtful term to direct at a white person speaks to the lack of terms with any real sting, not to any equivalency.
To clarify. I do not think the two terms are equivalent. I flatly stated that they are not equivalent more than once in a short post.
The two insults are different in kind, but similar in degree to the individual (but not to society).
Another difference that they have is that the N-word insults every African American who hears it, not just the person it is directed at. If you call me a racist you are insulting me and me alone. It is possible to call one white person in a room full of whites a racist without saying anything about the rest of them, but you cannot call one African American in a room full of African Americans N----r without including every one in the room, and their extended families to boot, in the insulted class.
Ya know I've been thinking about this, about using different words or qualifiers for the words "racist" (something I think Dave and Faivel alluded to earlier) and although I don't really agree with the need for an entirely differen word, there have been so,e alternatives thrown out here too. I'm sorry i can't be more specific but this thread has gotten really long, but I know someone further up mentionend "institutional racism" and "personal racism." Also there is such a thing as white privelege, and let me try to explain what that means, at least from my own personal experience. White privelage could be used as a term to denote the "luxury" of being insensitive, clueless, prejudicial and willfully ignorant.
On a different thread I alluded to a a story where I had a rather contentous discussion with some white friends, and how me and the other "brown" person in the discusssion, were really distrustful of the police. The white friends are really great people. However, they really could not wrap their brain around why we were so suspect of the police, and our experiences of knowing about, and witnessing police brutilaity in our communities (as well as a history of that going back to Zoot Suit riiots in L.A., the clashes between police and activist during the Chicano movement period, etc. etc.) I found them to be rather dismissive and also disbelieving. Not dismissive in a mean way, they are still friends, just like "really? no, something must've happened for those guys to be treated like that...no I think you are over reacting a bit...." etc.
To me these white friends were protected from really questioniing and seeing the contentious relationship between brown people and the police, they had the privilege of not having to have bodily, deep knowing concsciousness of a history of abuse, and an insulation from the contemporary knowldege that this stuff still happens. Of course they know, but there is a difference between hearing something on the news, and between carrying the weight of history with you. So, they benefited from a racist ideology that penetrates some sections of society, an ideology that no only enompasses discrimination, violence, but also an erasure of history.
Therfore, the result was, I think, an unconscious dismissal of our real fears. This to me is a form of white privilage, made possible by the racism in our culture.
privilege. sorry!
"Therefore, the result was, I think, an unconscious dismissal of our real fears. This to me is a form of white privilage, made possible by the racism in our culture."
I think this is a good point but more reasons than you intend.
I suspect that what they don't understand is the degree of fear and assumption of motives that you may project. For them the rules inherent in the police pattern of behavior is more likely to be understood, explainable, and predictable. You can't "trust" them because they are always looking for the angle. But you can be aware of that and know where you stand.
However Africans Americans historically have been in a less than equal position. People who wanted to maintain that status quo could not do so without unpredictable and tyrannical behavior. A good not specifically racial example of this is what you see if you pay attention to what is going on in Iran. The controlling group lays out a clear set of rules that is followed by the opposition. Then once it becomes clear that the opposition is going to win they redefine everything and act out with irrational brutality. This serves to accomplish multiple purposes. The opposition is more cowed and unsure of themselves. And if the opposition responds by breaking the rules then they use that to justify harsher punishment to the ignorant people who may benefit by this and no want to think to hard about it. This is true of any situation at all where somebody wants to maintain absolute unequal power. That person or group can never allow the rules to be clear and predictable or somebody will be able to find a way to follow them right into the seat of power.
Personally I think that the role of racism in this country has been misunderstood. It was neither the cause nor the end but the means by which tyrannical inequality was explained, rationalized, and justified in the same manner that Stalin's Russia used socialism and order or the Islamic Republic or Iran uses the Sharia. It becomes a thing of power in and of itself but it can be nebulous and difficult to explain because its purpose was power and required unpredictability.
So today when most people in this country do not believe that anybody is racially superior or inferior and you try to explain this to people they see irrational double standards and the see some visible and vocal opportunists using it as a means to personal advancement themselves. What Ta-Neshi is talking about here I think is that the word has some vaguely sensed power but its exact definition tends to be slippery all around. When you hear people who get very upset about it complain the bottom line really is that they are asking for a clear and equitable definition. Yes they want that because getting one will take a way the sense of power that they fear. Some cynics who like to wield it for their personal enrichment I suspect are consciously or unconsciously aware of this and simply want to keep it for themselves like Gollumn and his precious. But I think for the most part it is simply being used to describe the trauma of a people being subject to tyrannical and arbitrary power. And that trauma has a long half life. Both the children of the people who used that power over others it and those who were abused by it continue to react to it.
When you say that your friends are ignorant of how that experience feels and benefit from it you are right. But most likely your friends are innocent and don't understand the other side of this either. When you react they do not react to racist cues they neither know what it means to inflict arbitrary and unpredictable tyrannical power nor what it means to experience it being inflicted upon you. And you don't know what it means not to have that be a part of your experience either. Could it be that you both judge each other too harshly for your mutual ignorance of each others state of mind?
"Could it be that you both judge each other too harshly for your mutual ignorance of each others state of mind?"
This is an interesting question. Essentially I think the answer for me is - no.
Mind you, they are still my friends, and the "judge harshly" thing could only go so far when you are in friendships with people who you do care about, whom happen to hold views that are ignorant. it's not that big a deal to me in the first place.
I think the reason I say no, is because
the processo of various forms of assimilation, of "blending in" and or just plain getting along in a society that centers around a dominant cultural assumption (being white)requires one to be "bilingual" and requires a sort of defference to that dominant culture.
And I must say this: I can only talk about my perpective here as a Latina/Chicana/Mexican-American/ Whatever etc. see? I don't even know what to call myself... It just so happens I can relate to what TNC is saying for a variety of reasons, not in an exact precise way because I am not black, but in a "ball park" way I think, because I am a person of color. I think that's why....Maybe
I don't mean literally bilingual, but in the larger sense of that, learning to recognize the cultural cues of white people, the talking, the assumptions, the beliefs....Example? Well how latinos view family tends to be a little different than white people, I've noticed. Not all. But familialism is a huge thing in most Latin cultures. Not so much in mainstream American culture in comparison. Just noticing that difference, helps one navigate in a myriad of ways in a culture where you are the minority.
I guess that is why I don't excuse ignorance and cluelessness. I'd just appreciate an attempt at "bilingual culturalism" back, especially when the power deferential is so large. Someone noted on entirely different post that he sees latinos as this large silent group out there that no one talks about. Exactly. I want recognition like anyone else, especially with my white friends who just happen not to see their white privelege.
And you know, for me personally, when people really don't get it and say "you know what? it doesn't matter, I don't have to understand exactly why you are upset" that goes a long way with me.
For example, TNC was talking about woman and catcalling in an entirely different post. he said that he never witnesses it around him,and of course has not experienced it himself. however, he gives defference to women who say they get catcalled on the streets. He gives defference to people who experiences something he never will.
I just would like a little deference back from people in a culture that historically, has been set up to make them comfortable and deffered to.
Thanks, TNC, will do. I didn't mean to stir all that up. Apparently I am being condescending. This is not the first time I have been accused of that, so I am going to watch it in the future. I've been on this subject way too long and I really do need to stop posting about it ... I wish I knew more about the Civil War!
That there isn't an equivalent term for white Americans is due to the historical and contemporary realities of American culture. Is this really so hard to understand? If it had been white people living in slavery under blacks for hundreds of years, perhaps the term would've been "caucass" or who knows what. And maybe white people nowadays would feel okay using that word amongst themselves, but they'd find it incredibly offensive coming from the group that, 150 years ago, used to own them. But here's the thing: It wasn't that way, and therefore there simply isn't an equivalent term. Similarly, there isn't a heterosexual equivalent of "faggot," because heterosexuality has been considered normal whereas homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries. The point is, the more screwed over the group, the more likely it is that 1) they are called names and 2) that those names pack more of a wallop precisely because of their social standing.
I personally like the word "bigot" better than "racist."