Topic: Racism
A Racial Catch 22 White people are so scared of offending black people, they don't say anything at all...by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
One of the things that fans of MMA and boxing have no doubt noticed is that when there is a white guy fighting a black guy and both are wearing the same colored shorts, announcers will go to absurd lengths to ignore the obvious - "Houston Alexander is the one in the...er...trunks with the half-inch hem."
I've always had a good laugh over that, bemusedly shaking my head at their unwillingness to say that Houston is the insanely muscular black man.
Houston Alexander, via Wikipedia
Truly, though, it's a tough situation for them. They don't know what to say. African-American isn't a good catch-all, because the sports are international. The second you get used to calling black atheletes African-American, Cheik Congo - the lanky black Frenchman who beat up Mirko Cro-Cop - steps on the stage and throws marbles in your mouth - "African-Am...er Frenchman?"
But if they say "black," some might find it offensive. They run up against the wall, where African-American is way too specific, and the alternatives are way too controvercial. So, instead, they just pretend not to notice.
This isn't confined to the world of combat sports, either. A recent study (PDF) published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology indicates that for many white people, "strategic colorblindness" is the way they've learned to cope with the minefield that is modern race relations.
Researchers took 101 white undergrads and paired them with either white or black partners - not knowing that the partners were in on the ruse - and charged them with the task of guessing which of 30 photographs of various faces their parners were holding up. It was a game of 20 questions, essentially, with the participants trying to guess the picture by asking as few yes-or-no questions as possible.
In such a situation, the best questions are obvious - Is it a man? A woman? Young? Old? White? Black? But when paired with a black partner, the white students were far less likely to ask the last question than when they were with the white partner.
That's not to say they weren't willing to talk about race with the black participants. When the black partner was the first to mention race, the white partners mentioned it 95% of the time. But when the black parnter never mentioned race, the white participants only mentioned it 10% of the time.
Researchers concluded that "whites are strategically avoiding the topic of race because they're worried that they'll look bad if they admit they notice it in other people."
There is definitely some truth to that assessment. A friend of mine had two friends named Clayton - one was white and one was black - and he went through all kinds of rhetorical gymnastics when trying to tell you which one he was talking about without mentioning their most obvious difference. Even when he was only talking to me, he didn't really know what was the correct approach.
White people simply don't know how to talk to or about black people - especially strangers. Like the MMA announcers, they never really know what is proper and what is not.
The problem with the colorblind approach is when you put it in context. Why would you not mention it? It's like someone with a huge birthmark - you don't mention it, you don't look at it, you try not to think about it. You don't want to make the other person upset or uncomfortable. But the problem is that the huge birthmark is a flaw - an imperfection.
Being black is not.
But when you treat it like it is and walk on egg-shells, dancing clumsily around the situation, you give the impression that you think it is a flaw of some kind. And black people notice.
The researchers took the video of the study and showed it to a group of black people, who took the whites' avoidance of the obvious to be a sign of racial prejudice. Even with the sound removed, viewers of the project considered the body-language of the whites who didn't mention race to be less friendly than those that did.
But it wasn't bigotry they were seeing - it was extreme discomfort. White people are so terrified of appearing racist, that they just freeze up. And let's be honest here - part of the blame for that can be placed at the feet of black people - or more specifically, race-baiters.
There are always stories in the news about people who have over-reacted to innocuous situations - like David Howard, the aide to Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams, who was asked to resign for using the word niggardly, which has absolutely no relation - other than a homophonic one - to the racial slur "nigger."
Or look to the story out of Dallas, where Judge Thomas Jones demanded an apology from Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield for having the audacity to refer to the central collections office as "a black hole" because of all the lost paperwork.
There are hundreds of such stories over the years. Some are honest mistakes, like many of the numerous niggardly stories. Some are far more cynical, like the "black hole" controversy, the stock in trade of professional race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
But the cumulative effect of all this leaves many white people frustrated, confused, and so terrified of being labelled a racist that they become socially impotent around black people.
This is not good for racial harmony.
The overwrought, hyperbolic nature of racial-identity politics has really harmed racial relations in America, leaving everyday blacks and whites scratching their heads, with no real understanding of each other.
White people have lost the ability to discern when a mention of race is appropriate and when it is not, when it really seems quite obvious that as a description of a person's physical attributes it is fine, but as a description of their character, it is not.
What is the solution? Quite simply, lighten up. If you are a black person that looks for racism in every aspect of your life, you're going to find it, even if it's not really there. You'll confuse genuine interest and overtures of friendship as something more insidious.
And give white people a break. Understand that they are coming from a very fragile place, trying to reach out but fearful of the consequence. You may not be a race baiter, but they are out there, and they are informing your interactions with white people, even if it's not from your end..
If you are a white person and see yourself described above, just relax a little. You probably don't consider yourself a racist, and try to judge people not by "the color of their skin but by the content of their character," but that doesn't mean you can't notice the color of their skin.
Try to realize that everyone is an individual, and no two people are exactly alike. Statistics are good in the aggregate, but mean nothing when confronted with an individual - so don't assume anything about anybody, good or bad, simply by seeing the color of their skin.
If you want to drive out the more subtle racism you fear in yourself, look more toward those small things, like when a person says, "I met the nicest black person yesterday." Think about what that means. It implies a belief that most black people aren't nice.
But don't sacrifice true dialogue on the altar of political correctness. Stop acting like an abused spouse, spending all day just trying to avoid conflict. Speak openly and honestly, and you'll find more often than not, people are receptive.
And most importantly, remember that black people already know they are black, and in most cases, your notice of that fact is not going to be taken badly.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 28 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Your wizardry at LOGIC is about as limited as your knowledge of the rules of grammar.
To say that "I met the nicest black person yesterday" does not AT ALL imply that most black people are NOT nice. In this case, "black" is a DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVE describing the kind of PERSON you met, not a reference to OTHER PEOPLE at all! That's YOUR interpretation because you know as much about English grammar rules as you do about... well.. black people.
If you wanted to say what YOU imply was said by the statement, you would say: "Of all the black people I know, this is the ONLY ONE who is nice." Then "black" becomes a DECLARATIVE ADJECTIVE not a DESCRIPTIVE ONE.
I guess you should have listened in that ENGLISH class they made you take. Too bad you was DAYDREAMIN' 'bout that big 'ol TRUCK you was gonna buy someday!
Dude, I'm not talking about English grammar - I am talking about contextual implications. The fact that the person had to add that the nice person they met was black indicates that it was out of the ordinary.
By the way ~ where's the "Catch 22"? In the book, Yossarian didn't want to fly because he thought he would get killed. But, because he believed that he would get killed (and probably would), he wasn't crazy. And, if he wasn't crazy, he had to fly. That's the "Catch 22" ~ "the best there is", said the flight officer.
Where's the "Catch 22" in your article? You ought to try reading the stuff that you're quoting, not just use it like you know what it means.
Yeah, I read Heller's book. The catch 22 is the idea that white people are so afraid of being labelled a racist, they are keeping silent, which is making them appear racist.
My sister wouldn't even LOOK at someone like you, let alone TALK to you. You've got the intellect of a 9v battery. Even your explanation of what you MEANT by trying to imply that other blacks weren't nice is so backwoods you ought to take a jug'a moonshine to the outhouse with ya so that it will keep that blissful smile on your face.
Look, my man. This is a professional and respectable place. There is no room for your kind of vitriolic attacks. You are bringing the level of discourse around here down.
I'm a punk, so I am more than willing to have a flame war with you, but this is not the place for it. Feel free to come to my blog and we can duke it out properly:
http://blog.myspace.com/freedomphiles
But I refuse to engage your peurile antics here. It would be bad enough if you were a reader, but you're a writer here. You should know better.
Ignore Master C. Your article was great. I liked it a lot. In fact I wrote a long response in support of your assessment, but when I sent it it failed to go through. Doh!! wasted a lot of time.
One thing I'd like to point out, because many people are confused: the terms racism and racial prejudice are often used interchangably. They are different terms. Racial prejudice is normal and everyone has it. Anyone who claims not to is a big fat liar, at least to themselves. Racism is an extreme form of racial prejudice that not everyone has.
I don't know. You might be a "hayseed." But I've seen Master C call someone a hayseed on 3 different occasions on this forum. I'll leave it up to the "intellectuals" Like M. C. to decide which anonymous internet blog personas are hayseeds. He is not wrong even when he is wrong.
I've read many of your articles and they are all quite good. Unfortunately, most of your articles are "preaching to the choir" since I suspect most readers and writers here are libertarians or at least lean that way and are already in agreement with your views or at least sympathetic to them.
Furthermore, I read articles from other camps, too. They usually have a good point to make. It would be nice if more people from other camps would submit articles and comments here to challenge some of the views that go unchallenged and check facts so this site still promotes libertarianism (by acknowledging that it exists and adding it to a political chart), but keeps itself in check from the "groupthink" of a bunch of libertarians nodding their heads in agreement all the time which might not be that good for the libertarian cause.
This article reminded me of the flashback on The Simpsons in which a young Homer Simpson back in the 1960's/1970's refers to a young Carl Carlson as being a "negro," and the young Carl replies that he prefers to be called "black." It illustrated the silliness of the many labels we use for each other.
As an American "mutt" of mixed European descent, I have no problems with being referred to as the "white guy" when in a group of individuals of mixed ethnicity. If I were in a group of just white men, I would likely be referred to as the "bald guy" as I am quite bald. If I were in a group of bald, white basketball players, I would likely be referred to as the "short guy" as I am under 6 ft in height.
Now, is being called referred to as the "bald guy" or the "short guy" particularly offensive? It would be only if I were somehow defensive about being bald or short (which I am not, having reached the acceptance stage on both long ago). Being referred to by those terms is completely logical as they are based on the most distinguishing physical characteristics I would exhibit in each given situation.
That being said, I do not believe that anyone should take personal offense when they are categorized by their ethnicity (minus racial slurs, of course) when such a categorization would immediately differentiate them from the other individuals in a particular setting. The only reasons why I would see for someone being offended in such a situation would be if that person in question was actually defensive over their ethnicity (ashamed? embarassed?) or he/she was unfairly projecting previously encountered racist attitudes onto the current speaker (which is pre-judging of another kind and equally wrong).
Due to human nature, there will always be bad apples in every ethnic group, but in a perfect world everyone would be judged solely by their character and not by the many superficial, physical traits (not just ethnicity) we unfortunately emphasis in our modern culture.
I know I am posting to something over a year old ,so I hope it will still get seen:
Isn't about time that people are judged by what they do, not what they look like. I fully understand that the racial injustices that have occurred in our past. But that is the past.
It wouldn't be a long trip back, in my own family tree, to find bigotry. But again that was not me.
Being a white male, I do understand your article. I to have to double think on what I say.
Like I mentioned earlier, it would be nice if we all could get beyond this. Judge on peoples actions not race, A thug is a thug, black, white, orange or yellow. A nice person is a nice person, just the same.
In the same vane, if you don't want to be treated like a thug , don't act like one.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
