The Atlantic - Latest Comments in ...And Then I Read This

Re: ...And Then I Read This

thewayoftheid — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:50:50 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

LarryGeater — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:53:00 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Eszed — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:37:42 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

silentbeep — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:07:34 -0000

Not just ignorance. I should clarify that. Willful ignorance. Teachable moments are important. As I learned here!

Re: ...And Then I Read This

silentbeep — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:05:42 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Stacy — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:51:46 -0000

Fair enough. Not another peep out of me about it.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:30:54 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Lynn Gazis-Sax — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:12:17 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Lynn Gazis-Sax — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:59:46 -0000

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.")

Re: ...And Then I Read This

cham — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:13:11 -0000

I personally like the word "bigot" better than "racist."

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Stacy — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:05:50 -0000

Maybe you'd be better off taking down someone's post 'point by point,' as opposed to what you've been doing.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Stacy — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:03:57 -0000

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?

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Stacy — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:47:01 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Adolphus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:41:46 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

silentbeep — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:56:16 -0000

"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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

brucds — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:52:05 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

LarryGeater — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:40:54 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

AhYup — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:30:16 -0000

"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?

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Adolphus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:03:58 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

LarryGeater — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:47:09 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

tinisoli — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:32:28 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

silentbeep — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:31:27 -0000

privilege. sorry!

Re: ...And Then I Read This

Jennifer D. — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:25:37 -0000

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!

Re: ...And Then I Read This

silentbeep — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:54:09 -0000

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.

Re: ...And Then I Read This

LarryGeater — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:22:14 -0000

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.