Racism and privilege

[One Brow]

But is it naive as is being portrayed. It is the goal. The difficulty has yet to be debated.

Ideals can't be categorized as naive or not; only the notion of achieving them can be so categorized. I've been discussing one of the primary difficulties in thinking this ideal could ever be a goal for 14 pages now.

So what would you see as the goal on the problem of racism? Political correctness?

Can you give a definition for "Political correctness" that 1) is held by some major institution that support racial equality/diversity/etc., and 2) is not basically a call for basic politeness and manners?

I don't know that there will ever be a goal or an end stage, and I'm not sure I would know what it looked like. I could list dozens of small things that could be signs/symptoms (a character played by an actor like Will Smith being romantically involved with a white woman, for example), but they would not be goals in and of themselves.

Many of the steps that have been taken to correct that do not correct it. All they do is shift who suffers from it as a result and in no way alleviate the problem at all. All I see is shuffling it around.

When the basic struggle involves both human nature and the entire cultural surrounding us, change is bound to be slow.

 

[One Brow]

So from the state we are in right now in America, assuming we are on our way to the idealized goal that stoked articulated, what is the "next step"? ... Political correctness has become a caricature and is no longer viewed as a serious issue as a result, imo. I think a major issue right now is the activists do not know where to focus their efforts. It seems to be a shotgun approach that is really stagnating. There used to be more precise points of focus: segregation, employment, schooling, etc. But largely those are diminishing as focal points, as they should if we are truly engaged in getting rid of this issue, but it makes it so that now it seems the message gets muddled easily. Yes there is still work to be done in those arenas, but the gap has narrowed enough that it has taken the edge off at least, and softened the rallying cry.

So what is the next step? What does the next phase of the battle for civil rights look like? Where do we need to focus our efforts? It seems to me that spazz is advocating a "it starts with each of us individually" stance, which is valid, but that jimmy and OB want more sweeping large-scale change, equally valid, and that starting with the individual isn't good enough. So where does it need to go, what is the intermediate goal if it is pointless to focus on the ideal goal?

I don't disagree the the ultimate focus is on the individual, and I don't think the entire solution will be found (just) in the right government or social program. Ultimately, we need to change the cultural associations we all make regarding skin color. That would require a vastly different culture.

Was there ever a time "Political correctness" was not a caricature, a time the phrase was used seriously by many/most people working for civil rights?

It is much easier to fight government segregation, and open cultural segregation. The current problem is the hidden stuff. Earlier in this thread I linked to one anecdote from a black woman who presented the same work history, but with a different name and race, on Monster, and found her employability jumped dramatically. How do you target this sort of thing effectively? I'm not sure, but but just setting a positive example and hoping it goes away hasn't worked.

When orchestras started screening off applicants from the reviewers, they started hiring a lot more women, even though the reviewers were never trying to deny women access. We all act with biases when we are not playing attention.

 

[Stoked]

How about this; white people just shouldn't wear blackface under any circumstance or use the "n" word because we/they get a lot of other nicer and more important advantages. Is this really that difficult of a concept?

Silly to base the use of the word on that but ok fine. If we are going to do that then how about removing cracker, *******, *****, uncle tom, tar baby and any other offensive word or phrase. To me that goes further towards removing racism then pointing to one group and saying you cannot do that anymore but we can.

I know you didn't say all that Numb. Just expanding the case.

Edited: the filtered words are derogitory phrases for hispanics and asians.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Silly to base the use of the word on that but ok fine. If we are going to do that then how about removing cracker, *******, *****, uncle tom, tar baby and any other offensive word or phrase. To me that goes further towards removing racism then pointing to one group and saying you cannot do that anymore but we can.

You completely missed the point.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I guess I'm the stupid one for not understanding the struggles of the white man not being able to use slurs.

 

[Stoked]

Ideals can't be categorized as naive or not; only the notion of achieving them can be so categorized. I've been discussing one of the primary difficulties in thinking this ideal could ever be a goal for 14 pages now.



Can you give a definition for "Political correctness" that 1) is held by some major institution that support racial equality/diversity/etc., and 2) is not basically a call for basic politeness and manners?

I don't know that there will ever be a goal or an end stage, and I'm not sure I would know what it looked like. I could list dozens of small things that could be signs/symptoms (a character played by an actor like Will Smith being romantically involved with a white woman, for example), but they would not be goals in and of themselves.



When the basic struggle involves both human nature and the entire cultural surrounding us, change is bound to be slow.

I like that you automatically associate political correctness with politeness and manners. Let's look at a major PC phrase. African Americans. Not only is it technically and legally incorrect, as they are Americans and have no real association or allegiance to Africa (generally speaking), but it is a uneccessary phrase. Why can I not call him/her just a man/woman or an American?

Shifting who suffers as a result of race is not progress at all. Slow or otherwise. It is just changing the victims.

 

[Stoked]

You completely missed the point.

No I did not. I just see it as a silly one. The basis for me not using that word should not be because of white privilage. It should be because it is a crap, racist, offense word. No other basis for not using it is needed. Or any of the other words I listed.

 

[VINYLONE]

We had one of our facilities fire someone for using the "n" word recently, apparently in a rather benign context, as much as it could be, yet we have people of color using it on their break and even on the work floor and it tends to get overlooked, as it is "their" word.

I think the question that begs to be asked is as a white person why would you want to use the "n" word?

 

[UGLI baby]

Are there seriously white people that get offended by being called a cracker? lol

Being white is pretty ****in rad tbh.

 

[Stoked]

I guess I'm the stupid one for not understanding the struggles of the white man not being able to use slurs.

Coming up with reasons other than it is racist, regardles of who says it, is pointless to me. All I am saying is that "white privilage" is not why I should not say that word.

 

[Stoked]

Are there seriously white people that get offended by being called a cracker? lol

Being white is pretty ****in rad tbh.

No one said that.

All I am saying is that when it is used to describe a person, along with any other racist word of your choice, it is used for racist reasons.

 

[VINYLONE]

Why can I not call him/her just a man/woman or an American?

You can. Though in this country, we have such a preoccupation with skin color that we define individuals by their race, especially when trying to convey a story and even when race has no bearing. Also, I don't think I've ever called a black person, African American. I've always just used "black."

 

[Stoked]

I think the question that begs to be asked is as a white person why would you want to use the "n" word?

That's a decent question.

 

[UGLI baby]

Coming up with reasons other than it is racist, regardles of who says it, is pointless to me. All I am saying is that "white privilage" is not why I should not say that word.

I vote for the "don't say it cuz, like, duh." Option.

 

[Stoked]

I vote for the "don't say it cuz, like, duh." Option.

Exactly what I am saying. But people want to pretend otherwise.

 

[bordelais7]

How about this; white people just shouldn't wear blackface under any circumstance or use the "n" word because we/they get a lot of other nicer and more important advantages. Is this really that difficult of a concept?

How about this: Blacks shouldn't be able to get a lot of other nicer and more important advantages because they get to use the "n" word.

Deal complete. Everyone wins. Good job.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think the question that begs to be asked is as a white person why would you want to use the "n" word?

This begs the question, why the assumption that anyone "wants" to use it? I just stated that one person got fired for using a word that another person can use with impunity. I never said anyone wants to use it, just the facts of the case.


And if you and others boiled all that down to the use of the "n" word I think that might say something about the attitudes that keep racism alive and well. It was used as an example of the "caricature" of political correctness, but you and others got hung up on some assumption that it means that anyone was arguing that it should be allowed to be used by all.

 

[One Brow]

Silly to base the use of the word on that but ok fine. If we are going to do that then how about removing cracker, *******, *****, uncle tom, tar baby and any other offensive word or phrase. To me that goes further towards removing racism then pointing to one group and saying you cannot do that anymore but we can.

I know you didn't say all that Numb. Just expanding the case.

Edited: the filtered words are derogitory phrases for hispanics and asians.

Words have histories, and carry the weight of those histories; culture does not start anew every x years, for any x. Out of the ones on your list I could see, only tar baby has a history of being used by an oppressor on the oppressed.

 

[One Brow]

I like that you automatically associate political correctness with politeness and manners. Let's look at a major PC phrase. African Americans. Not only is it technically and legally incorrect, as they are Americans and have no real association or allegiance to Africa (generally speaking), but it is a uneccessary phrase. Why can I not call him/her just a man/woman or an American?

Shifting who suffers as a result of race is not progress at all. Slow or otherwise. It is just changing the victims.

Very few black US citizens will complain if you refer to them as an American, in my experience. So, who is it saying you can't just refer to them as Americans?

Of course, when they refers to the specific experiences, attitudes, images, portrayals, descriptions, etc. of our culture that are associated from having darker skin, African American is one of the terms used to emphasize that the person is American but is often not treated as if they are American, but rather American minus.

When you take away someone's privileges, they always see it as being made to suffer, in comparison to what they had before.

 

[One Brow]

Coming up with reasons other than it is racist, regardles of who says it, is pointless to me.

You may not like to include the effects of punching down versus punching sideways, but they are real.