MetaChat - The ladder of oppression.

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

26 April 2006

The ladder of oppression. So I've been trying to block this out of memory, but I just have to share. I've been taking a psych class at the community college, hoping to boost my grad school applications once I get to that point. →[More:]

Last night we're talking about prejudice, and white privelege, and the subject of hate crimes comes up. And the teacher's like, "You know, like these groups studying hate crimes. You know what a hate crime is? That's when someone's attacked just for being a minority. No white people ever get attacked just for being white."

And I raise my hand and say, "I know what you're talking about, but if I walk through a black neighborhood and get mugged because I 'look rich' simply because I'm white..."

And she interrupts me and is like, "But that's not because you're white..."

And I'm like, "But can't you argue that there's racism inherent in how we talk about crime? Black-on-white crime is just considered 'normal' but white-on-black crime is considered so out-there that we decide we have to come up with a new name for it?"

And she's like, "But here's the difference!" And she pauses and strokes her chin like she's about to say something sage. And after a bit she nods and says, "As a white person, you could choose NEVER to go through a black neighborhood. Black people can't choose never to go through white neighborhoods."

And I get very confused trying to figure out what that has to do with anything, and then realize that she just TOTALLY changed the subject because she has no response because I BLINDED HER WITH SCIENCE.

And she's basically been talking about racism and prejudice like it's only black/white/asian/hispanic, so some girl in the class asks about Jews, and teacher's all, "Oh, they don't have it that bad."

And I'm like, OK, I'm not gonna Godwin out here and MENTION THE HOLOCAUST....

But then? She proceeds to write, on the board, a HIERARCHY OF OPPRESSION. There was much suspense on whether Arabs had it worse than blacks just now.

I believe it was, though I failed to capture it in my notes: Whites --> Jews --> Asians --> Hispanics --> Blacks --> Arabs.

And prejudice against Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans doesn't exist.

This woman is in charge of grading me???

post by: occhiblu at: 01:47 | 76 comments

Don't ever openly disagree with people who have some control over your situation (grades, whatever). They're always right, even when they're completely in the wrong. Just shrug and move on.

posted by AlexReynolds 26 April | 02:11

That's a terrible situation to be in. Obviously she's full of shit. But you have to figure that's why she's teaching at community college (got a degree from one, no snark).

When I was at (real) college, I had a creative writing professor who started teaching us about how copyright expires every 28 years. You know, it used to do that, and you had to renew, but the US had changed the law eight years earlier to author's life plus 50 years (consonant with the Berne Convention), bing bang boom. What he learned in school was obsolete.

I made the mistake of arguing the point with him in class. We never got along after that.

As for the racism angle, there is a legitimate theory of racism in political analysis terms, most often Hegelian dialectical (the super-smart guy from whom smart guys Marx and Engels cribbed). That's where the hierarchy of oppression comes in. That's a very narrow use of the term, though, and generally only applicable in academia. Rac+ism, you know, a political philosophy. (There actually used to be a group called the Racist Forum. Back in the day it wasn't a Bad Word.)

But most people out here in the Big Blue Room use the term more broadly and yes, muddy it up as a fancy word for prejudice or bigotry. That's unfair to the word, and the academics, but it's reality.

posted by stilicho 26 April | 02:25

I kinda get where your prof. was trying to go with the whole "a white guy can avoid black neighborhoods" - it's just a poor extension of the "Invisible Knapsack" argument.

The Ladder of Discrimination is a new one to me, though.

posted by muddgirl 26 April | 02:58

The heirarchy of oppression thing is just stupid. But she was right not to accept your bullshit about the poor oppressed white person in a black neighborhood.

posted by kmellis 26 April | 03:12

I made the mistake of arguing the point with him in class. We never got along after that.

I had a prof (who many people deemed scary) who I argued a point with in class, and he was so impressed that he gave me a position in his lab, and mentioned it to his new classes every year. It was one of these occasions that brought me to the attention of and impressed a certain attractive young lady who started dating me, which lasted for more than a year.

So some people can deal with being argued with.

posted by grouse 26 April | 05:44

'Who is the greatest Italian painter?
'
'Leonardo da Vinci, Miss Brodie.' 'That is incorrect. The answer is Giotto, he is my favorite.'

r.i.p. Muriel Spark.

posted by seanyboy 26 April | 06:22

A legitimate college professor should not be teaching hierarchies of oppression. No one should. They're crap. And did she even give you a source for hers, or is this just her perception of how bad each minority has it? These dumb hierarchies just serve to cause more division. Case in point: as one of those minorities, I caught myself thinking, "No way do we have it better than them." Like it's a competition or something. Then I remembered that it's all a bunch of B.S.

posted by amro 26 April | 08:09

Extend the ladder.

Arabs oppress Black Sudanese, Pakistanis, and women.

posted by sarah connor 26 April | 08:12

The Irish certainly had their share (and, to some extent, still do in England.)

Simply Google "Irish Cartoon" and you'll find many examples.

"No Irish Need Apply"

Hmm. I would've thought your prof would have argued that black-on-white hate is retaliation. I suppose much of it is. I can't pretend to know what it is like to be black in America and to live with a past that includes slavery.

posted by shane 26 April | 08:14

And prejudice against Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans doesn't exist.

hahah! suck it wops & paddies!!

posted by Wedge 26 April | 08:15

mrs geezer --> dodgygeezer --> dodgygeezer's cat --> mice --> cheese

posted by dodgygeezer 26 April | 08:27

But she was right not to accept your bullshit about the poor oppressed white person in a black neighborhood

I've lived in what's euphemistically called 'changing neighborhoods,' and known plenty of people who were among the last whites in poor non-white areas and lived with all the attendant racial tension. Dismissal of those experiences by self-appointed scholars of identity politics fuels the racial and class resentments that the far right has made political hay with over the last 30 years. Just saying.

Also, the ladder of oppression is more like a web. I've known members of oppressed groups who are virulently bigoted against those in other oppressed groups, and I've seen venomous misogyny and homophobia across the racial and ethnic board.

hahah! suck it wops & paddies!!

Great. Now I have to double suck it.

/wop and paddy.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 08:33

Gah. I just sat through a Political Theory lecture on the Racial Contract and I want to go put my heaad through a wall. I hate feeling bad for being white. It's not about race; it's about class and the only way out is to create a true metitocracy which the rich don't want to do for fear of being unseated and the poor don't want to do because they'd lose their excuse for inferiority.

[/end rant]

posted by YouCanCallMeAl 26 April | 08:51

(ignore the typos...i'm peeved.)

posted by YouCanCallMeAl 26 April | 08:52

I can say pretty conclusively that the notion of "gentrification" in West Philadelphia has been associated, rightly or wrongly, with the University of Pennsylvania "helping whites" move into the area and drive up rents. This area of the city has historically been an African-American urban "suburb" due to "white flight" in the 1950s and 60s, with crime increasing over that time from city services declining as the city's population and tax base shrunk further.

West Philly was where a mostly white police force dropped fire bombs on a residential block where the pro-African MOVE political group resided, killing five children and making a number of citizens in the surrounding block homeless. Many residents who've lived here for decades could be seen to rightfully harbor some level of (race-based) resentment towards what they see as a more affluent, white "trust fund kid and professor" crowd coming into the neighborhood and pushing long-time residents out.

I don't know if all this leads to "poor oppressed white people in black neighborhoods", which is a bit of hyperbole, but as someone who has lived in West Philly for a few years, who has talked about this issue at length with a black coworker who grew up as a kid in West Philly and knows the area intimately, I can honestly say that I know I am not entirely welcome here. As far as racial tension goes, we're all reaping the fruits of a post-suburban America.

posted by AlexReynolds 26 April | 08:57

I agree YCCA, this professor offered a gross oversimplification of a very complex topic. Plus, it especially irks me when it's white professors and so-called thinkers nodding their heads at it. I can only assume that they'll volunteer themselves for racial payback if they feel that sincerely.

Alex, I think a lot of urban racial and class tension can be traced back to the 1970's when the right established a policy of 'benign neglect,' and the left failed to come up with anything to counter it and resentment stewed and there was more white flight (much of my dad's family among it). And one of the ironies of gentrification is that the 'trust fund & professor' crowd probably holds fairly left-wing political views for the most part, which are resented by other residents of both races.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 09:02

And one of the ironies of gentrification is that the 'trust fund & professor' crowd probably holds fairly left-wing political views for the most part, which are resented by other residents of both races.

It might result from the thinking that harboring those views has cost that crowd nothing over the years, whereas working class minorities have traditionally been slapped around when they try to, say, vote, or unionize, or demand adequately-funded police and fire services, etc.

posted by AlexReynolds 26 April | 09:09

working class whites often articulate similar (if also oversimplified) resentments: that they are the one's who actually have to deal with the consequences of white liberal decisions, not the white liberals themselves. Witness the busing debacle in Boston back in the 70's, that's a perfect example of good intentions gone very wrong and the resultant fallout.

(and for what it's worth, this middle-class whiteboy did a little unionizing back in his retail days. he wasn't greeted with party hats and a cake either)

posted by jonmc 26 April | 09:14

Oh seanyboy. I played Sandy in our college production of Brodie. My favorite role EVER.

Back on topic, I'm not a big fan of hate crime legislation. It seems to be applied rather arbitrarily and I can't seem to get my head around why rape isn't classified as a hate crime against women.

posted by jrossi4r 26 April | 09:19

I'm in favor of HCL as long as 'hate crime,' is strictly defined. For instance, two guys of different races get in a bar fight; maybe a few epithets get hurled. hate crime? or just another bar brawl?

posted by jonmc 26 April | 09:21

Around my way it goes:

Me > Filipinos > Finns > Short Mexican Dudes > Junkies > Octaroons > Mestizos > Sudanese > Gulfies > Lace Curtain Irish > Flawlessly Beautiful Mixed Black and Korean Girls > Red Diaper Baby Jews who are also Mets fans > Pacific Islanders > Peanut Farmers > Central American Massage Therapists > White People. It's fucking tough to remember who I'm better than, I have to carry a card. Well except for the Italians, we're all better than them.

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 09:24

*bites knuckle angrily*

posted by jonmc 26 April | 09:26

Me>hobbits>luck dragons>ewoks>doozers>mogwai>star belly sneetches>regular sneetches>gungins

posted by jrossi4r 26 April | 09:29

Nowhere to go but up jon lad, nowhere but up...

Fucking hate gungins, always talking loud in the movie theatre..

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 09:30

I resent that glib stereotyping!

*greases hair, talks with hands, mangles english language, organizes crime*

posted by jonmc 26 April | 09:33

I think you've answered your own question, jrossi4r. Men can rape men, and that would be a weird hate crime. I'd say most rapes are hate crimes, but sometimes the hate is not necessarily directed at a group. The term is applied arbitrarily because it is notoriously difficult to discover the motive; sometimes even the perpetrator doesn't know why they committed the act.

The temptation is to see that the victim is foo and the prepetrator is blah, therefore the crime is one of blah against foo. This kind of simplification leads to nonsense like that produced by Occhiblu's teacher. But then, there clearly are crimes directed against people simply because they belong to groups.

Do we dispense with the notion of a hate crime because they are too hard to identify? That would seem to exclude an important difference in degree of enormity.

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 09:34

Me>hobbits>luck dragons>ewoks>doozers>mogwai>star belly sneetches>regular sneetches>gungins

I *heart* jrossi4r!

posted by amro 26 April | 09:37

*greases hair, talks with hands, mangles english language, organizes crime*

Isn't that hard to do while drinking too much, working on a building site, hating the English, being lazy, and getting simple things wrong?

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 09:37

not if you try hard.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 09:41

See, when the Irish get to America, they can do anything.

(Except send money home, of course).

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 09:46

See, when the Irish get to America, they can do anything.

(Except send money home, of course).

And not live in woodside or fucking montauck, sweet Molly Malone it's wall to wall donks out there.

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 09:50

All pass the fookin' jacobs biscuits bridgit and is thare anywhare a gent could have a wager on the ponies around haere?

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 09:55

The Man -> Everyone else -> Me.

posted by Capn 26 April | 09:57

Capn made me sad. Divine Wino made me want a Guinness. And a Powers.

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 10:02

and a shillelagh.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 10:08

Nicely ambiguous, Jonmc.

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 10:16

Do we dispense with the notion of a hate crime because they are too hard to identify?
That's the big question, GeckoDundee. I really don't have an answer. The problem, I think, is that there's the danger of becoming the thought police and that scares me a bit. I just think the system we have in place is imperfect and warrants some serious discussion.

And amro, you know I love you too.

posted by jrossi4r 26 April | 10:17

I drank a baby powers and I threw up on the dart!

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 10:17

Hamster Dance --> All your base are belong to us --> Mahir --> Star Wars Kid

You didn't know that Mahir hates the Star Wars kid? He keeps sending him notes saying "I KEEEEL YOU!" It's sad what fleeting net celebrity can do to a man.

posted by dodgygeezer 26 April | 10:19

It's not about race; it's about class and the only way out is to create a true metitocracy which the rich don't want to do for fear of being unseated and the poor don't want to do because they'd lose their excuse for inferiority.

College is usually nothing but recruitment for bureaucracy too, keeping the elite class elite, preserving the status quo.

Sure, anyone can go to college, but it's a lot easier if you don't have to work full-time too.

And the degree rarely has anything to do with the field you end up working in. All that matters is that you have the degree.

posted by shane 26 April | 10:28

There are so many threads here my head is spinning (or it could be the Powers, or the thump from the shillelagh). What's a *baby* Powers? I know the DART though. (Used to be steam trains in my day).

It isn't really thought crimes though, jrossi4r. I mean, not simple thought crimes. We're talking about a thought put into action. There are crimes that distinguish according to mens or intent (e.g. murder v manslaughter), so why not with hate crimes? It is indeed the difficult question all the same.

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 10:29

What's a *baby* Powers?

Baby Powers is a gangster, with that Irish crew outta Canarsie. Or a porn star.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 10:32

I worked a lot with Bill Wassmuth when he was alive. He was the driving force behind the malicious harassment legislation and passed the very first such law in Idaho.

James Aho's book This Thing of Darkness: A Sociology of the Enemy contains a very good account of the genesis of malicious harassment laws. Dave Neiwert (Orcinus) has a lot to say about it as well.

The term "hate crime" and the accompanying debate were cooked up by the opponents of these laws. It's mostly a straw man argument.

The short answer is that malicious harassement laws don't create a new class of criminal acts, they simply increase the penalty for well-recognized crimes like assault, harassment, intimidation, vandalism, etc. where bias is a motive.

The reason the laws are needed is that these crimes attack entire communities, not just individuals. The attacks are terrorism, in that they seek to frighten and intimidate whole groups of people.

I've done a lot of field investigation into malicious harassment attacks and people are really devastated by them. Even when everything goes as it should and the perpetrators are caught and punished. Just ask a Jewish friend what happens to a synagogue's members when there is an attack on one of them. The level of fear following an attack is a terrible thing to see.

The worst part of it is that the people who innocently stumble into the debate without knowing the facts and only knowing the rhetoric don't understand that every person targeted by these crimes listens to the debate and thinks "These people don't care that I'm exposed to this fear and won't lift a finger if me or my family is harmed."

That's really a problem.

So put yourself in somebody else's shoes for a moment and think about what it's like for a cross to be burned in your yard and nobody cares or does anything about it. You call 911 and they don't even send somebody to check it out. What do you do? How do you feel?

posted by warbaby 26 April | 10:34

what's lace curtain irish?

posted by small_ruminant 26 April | 10:34

The short answer is that malicious harassement laws don't create a new class of criminal acts, they simply increase the penalty for well-recognized crimes like assault, harassment, intimidation, vandalism, etc. where bias is a motive

I don't neccessarily disagree, but motive is the most difficult part of a crime to prove (see my hypothetical bar fight scenario above, and it's not that far fetched that someone might want to conflate a brawl into a hate crime. whenever there's an incident even remotely tinged with racial bias, there's a whole sqadron of demagogues who crawl out of the woodwork here in New York, so they must have something to gain if only political clout).

I don't think anyone is dismissing the terror inflicted by the likes of crossburners and swastika painters and I don't think that discussing the possible implications of such laws is to send a message that one dosen't care. I just think we should cleraly define our terms. which you did.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 10:42

I also think that warbaby makes an interesting point that hate crimes are as much about the effect they have as they are about intent behind them. Even if I only hated this particular person against whom I committed the crime, if that has the effect of terrorising a whole community, then perhaps I should be dealt with accordingly. Maybe I should reconsider what I said about rape being a hate crime in that light.

As usual, things get interesting just as I have to crash.

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 10:49

what's lace curtain irish?

*shows small_ruminant into the front room*

posted by GeckoDundee 26 April | 10:50

Exactly. For the last ten years or so, I get calls to investigate these incident because the cops won't. And establishing motive is difficult in some of the cases. But most of the time the motive is plain as day.

Currently, we have Minutemen dressed in combat fatigues descending on Hispanic businesses and demanding that everyone present show proof of citizenship or legal immigrant status. The cops are (as usual) collaborating with these terrorists. I'm about to put together a hot line and flying squad to deal with the situation. It's a pain in the ass.

Since the Minutemen make a big deal out the fact that they have concealed weapons permits (it's a requirement for membership) and go around armed all the time, the situation is a little fraught.

I, myself, have never carried a gun.

Read up on the Deacons For Defense. It puts the whole 60's Civil Rights history in a new perspective.

posted by warbaby 26 April | 10:51

That's what I get for having a so-long-it-needed-to-be-approved post going up after I went to sleep...

To clarify, obviously I believe racism exists, and I think that white privelege is a huge issue. Since we had been talking about white privelege in class, though, I thought the discussion was sufficiently open to discuss whether white privelege plays a part in how we categorize crime; hence my question. Which she totally evaded. (I mean, seriously. She avoided eye contact for a good ten minutes after that.)

I don't believe that "poor white oppressed people" are getting overwhelmingly targeted for crime, I'm just interested in how we're thinking about crime, and whether the terms we're putting it on are in some part based on racist assumptions.

And the hierarchy of oppression.... dude. That was the thing the other night -- I agree in principle with much of what this teacher says, but she turns it such heavy-handed absurdities based on nothing but her superficial personal opinion that I can't help but roll my eyes. "Jews don't have it that bad"? "Italians don't face discrimination"? I'm happy to say that the discrimination some of these groups is *currently* facing may be less than what blacks still face in the US, but c'mon now. You can't pretend it wasn't ever a problem. (Which she was, because she was bringing up immigration laws in the 1940s as evidence of discrimination against Asians.)

And yes, she just invented the ladder of oppression on the spot. She was trying to get us to guess which group was going to be the next one down. "So, Asians have it better than... who? C'mon? Who? HISPANICS! RIGHT!" It was surreal.

I'm a flag-waving protest-attending letter-to-the-editor-writing liberal, and sitting in this class? I started to understand what the right wing's bitching about in terms of how college students are getting indoctrinated.

posted by occhiblu 26 April | 10:54

I'm a flag-waving protest-attending letter-to-the-editor-writing liberal, and sitting in this class? I started to understand what the right wing's bitching about in terms of how college students are getting indoctrinated.

Good for you. I've been saying this on MeFi for years: until we sit down and figure out what turns people rightward (often against their own interests) in this country, we'll never turn them leftward, and I don't mean glib simplistic answers either.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 11:00

Damn straight. Studying the history is a good first step in that direction.

posted by warbaby 26 April | 11:04

Exactly. Winning our legal fights is only half the battle. To change hearts and minds we have to take the radical step of seeing our political enemies as (*gasp*) human.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 11:06

Which means up close and personal, eyeball-to-eyeball.

posted by warbaby 26 April | 11:07

Heh. Actually I'm going the other way -- just starting to see my supposed allies (college teachers) as idiots.

The thing is, I have a degree from the Ivies, supposedly the "hotbed" of this sort of victimhood-embracing ethos. And this sort of shit would *never* have gone on there, from either the professors or the students. This teacher is just not very bright, and she's wrapping her not-brightness in progressive jargon, so we're supposed to think she's forward-thinking, or something. Instead, she makes the progessive ideas sound completely absurd, because she's explaining them so badly.

posted by occhiblu 26 April | 11:10

Which, like I said, I realize may be exactly how they sound to people on the Right.

posted by occhiblu 26 April | 11:12

A Baby Powers is a little bottle of Powers (what a sweet and evil drink that is), like a half pint.

Lace Curtain Irish is what my grandma who worked in a watch factory and sat on the stoop listening to the radio called the people who "put on airs and graces" and didn't make spaghetti with egg noodles and ketchup. Fancy Pantses and strivers.

Race is so weird, it's really just class war, but with uniforms you can't take off.

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 11:14

Heh. Actually I'm going the other way -- just starting to see my supposed allies (college teachers) as idiots.

That happens to me a lot. Sometimes my fellow lefties make me cringe with embarassment. That's often the first step in alienating people.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 11:19

Woo hoo! One step below DW. Finally Flips are getting the respect we deserve.

On a different note, my ex doesn't believe that Filipino people are Asian. Technically we are, like how Lutherans are Christians. But I half agree with that sentiment because we have more in common with Pacific Islanders than the mainland Asians and the Japanese. But we're not totally Pacific Islanders either because of the stupid U.S. colonization. (I have very complex neuroses are a result of that.) So most of the time, I think of my self as an American first, then an American of Filipino descent, and THEN an Asian.

posted by TrishaLynn 26 April | 11:31

This morning, I was listening to last week's On The Media, and they had on the authors of "Help Mom there are Liberals Under My Bed" and "Why Mommy Is A Democrat".

They were both the same horrible cringe-inducing idiot, but using a different set of code words.

posted by Capn 26 April | 11:32

my ex doesn't believe that Filipino people are Asian.

what are they then, tanned Norwegians?

posted by jonmc 26 April | 11:34

Filipinos are Hispanic Pacific Islanders, aren't they?

posted by sarah connor 26 April | 11:45

Lace Curtain Irish is what my grandma who worked in a watch factory and sat on the stoop listening to the radio called the people who "put on airs and graces" and didn't make spaghetti with egg noodles and ketchup.

Irish lace is very artistic and beautiful and was brought over by nuns familiar with Venetian lace as a business idea to help the poor Irish. Of course the Irish making the lace couldn't afford to buy it. The rich Irish who could (and who were often possibly English landlords or protestants) were referred to as "lace curtain Irish."

Some people also believe that, when an Irish immigrant first arrived in the U.S. and, presumably, lived in a hovel, s/he was "shanty Irish," but as soon as s/he could afford curtains and began to move up the social scale the poor Irish derisively called him/her "lace curtain Irish."

Eventually "lace curtain Irish" came to refer to any Irish who have money and are accused of putting on airs.

London derrieres?

posted by shane 26 April | 11:49

I certainly hope that I didn't come off as denying the existence of hate crimes or downplaying their effect on communities. It was not my intent. I just have concerns about the grey areas and feel that the issue warrants discussion. And we're discussing it, which pleases me.

posted by jrossi4r 26 April | 11:50

Actually, I'd wonder if "lace curtain Irish" was ever used much to describe Protestants. It was probably much more common between Catholics living in different financial circumstances. Harsher words might have been used to describe Protestants, LOL, and the opposite as well, of course.

posted by shane 26 April | 11:54

interesting. Thanks, d_w & shane.

Somehow most the Irish immigrants I've run into in San Fran are reasonably well off aggressive supporters of the IRA.

Of course, the second and third generation Irish are much more aggressively pro-IRA. I'm guessing it's because they haven't personally had to live in the day-to-day nastiness of a war zone.

posted by small_ruminant 26 April | 12:00

Race is so weird, it's really just class war, but with uniforms you can't take off.

I'll buy DW a drink for that one.

posted by warbaby 26 April | 13:06

The Wino is indeed wise.

posted by jrossi4r 26 April | 13:37

The wino is hungover (on accident, I had one whiskey last night, but it was Old Overholt rye whiskey, man I knew there was a reason it tasted like Wild Turkey brewed in a miner's rubber boot, I have no idea why I keep buying it other than it makes me feel like the continental op) now I have a sleeper hangover that snuck up on me after a particularly violent sneeze.

I was reading about prison gangs last night and the Aryan Brotherhood and it just seemed like race was the last thing anyone was worried about, it's just that in prison there isn't any way to tell your guys from their guys except by skin color, so you have all this racialized stuff, but really it's just the easiest way to tell friend from foe, it's practical racism, not 19th century white man's burden racism.

posted by Divine_Wino 26 April | 13:46

I dunno, Wino. Schillinger would disagree. (And you DO NOT want to disagree with Vern Schillinger. He killed his own son for Pete's sake! He'll tattoo your ass!!)

posted by jrossi4r 26 April | 14:27

OH MY GOD!!!!!!

What the hell kind of professor....excuse me...supposed professional is this?!

Your teacher should be ARRESTED for a hate crime.

I know Hispanic people who have been beaten up because they were perceived to be White...

Are you fukkin kidding me??!!!

posted by Joe Famous 26 April | 14:30

I've known a lot of people who've claimed to have been discriminated against or harassed when they've lived in or visited some of the overwhelmingly majority (or exclusively!) Hispanic towns in northern New Mexico. One friend, a woman who's a native central Texan with the first name, um, "Dixie", once complained to me that she was frequently harassed when she lived in Santa Fe. She was a poor student—I think she lived somewhere relatively inexpensively in the barrio.

The thing is, I'm anglo and I don't speak Spanish (she does!) and I can't recall ever being harrassed by Hispanics in any of these places, which I've visited often and occasionally resided. My ex-wife and I lived right off the road which runs between Glorieta and Pecos and we shopped at a little grocery store nearby where everyone spoke Spanish, all the time.

I don't exactly intend to "blame the victim", but I really believe that a lot of times white people are harassed it's in no small way because they were giving off "OMG! All these non-white people, these OTHERS, make me nervous!" vibes.

But even if that's not the case, I just can't get all worked up about the ways that white people are supposedly sometimes discriminated against. I've heard far, far, FAR too many white racists whine about this and use it as evidence for their worldview.

I used to worry about being fair and that I had to cluck my tongue at racism against whites. But screw that. I stopped taking this seriously a while back because there are more important injustices in the world for me to spend my energies on.

posted by kmellis 26 April | 14:59

Yes, but that's not in any way what I was arguing. I was taking issue with what gets called a "hate crime," and what assumptions play into assigning that label.

I also just refuse to believe that "no one" has ever gotten beaten up for being white, ever, anywhere, in the history of the US. This teacher continually makes blanket statements like that about almost every topic that comes up, and it's driving me nuts.

posted by occhiblu 26 April | 15:11

Hey, white boy, what you doin' uptown....

Trust me, it happens, territorial pissing knows no racial boundaries.

posted by jonmc 26 April | 15:13

I'm kind of late to the party on this one, and I have nothing to offer on the topic of race in the USA. I just wanted to respond to this:

until we sit down and figure out what turns people rightward ... we'll never turn them leftward

I believe you are quite correct jonmc, and I wonder why this sentiment is so rarely heard from lefties and liberals. How on earth do people expect to change someone's political orientation by telling them: "You're wrong and evil! You should be more like me!"? Apparently all too often the most politically active are also the most intellectually lazy. I guess it's easier to hold strong views if you ignore the complexities of the issues involved.

Also, Filipinos are definitely Asians in my opinion.

posted by nomis 26 April | 17:20

There's race and there's culture. Race is a chimera. Culture is the real thing. Race isn't a biological concept -- it's genetic nonsense. That thing called race is really a cross-cultural label applied from the outside.

Racism has become an equally muzzy term. Ideological racism is the belief that civil rights and liberties should be apportioned according to one's genetic heritage, with all the goodies going to the people doing the apportioning.

If you semanticly substitute white supremacy for racism (a simple search and replace operation), a lot of the rhetoric becomes a lot clearer as either sense or nonsense. Nowadays, there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus on what racism means -- hence all the sideways discussions, trainwrecks and derails.

But white supremacy -- now there's a concept that's pretty darn apparent what it's about.

posted by warbaby 26 April | 19:09

toe bone --> foot bone --> ankle bone --> leg bone --> knee bone --> thigh bone --> hip bone --> back bone --> shoulder bone --> neck bone --> head bone --> the praises of the Lord

posted by Hugh Janus 26 April | 20:45

← This thread is drunk at the office... || Lipstick Thespian, it's your birthday! →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN