MetaChat - Hypothetical Situation:

Well, sure jon. You've just spent time establishing the guy's somewhat "like" you, and then he says something taboo. It's a shock to try to reconcile his like-ness and his transgression of norms.

posted by orthogonality 11 October | 09:26

Yes it does.

I was friendly with a guy I knew through going to gigs, we'd see each other at the Borderline or the 12-Bar club two or three times a year, chat between bands, flirt mildly. Nice guy. We swapped email addresses.

The one day after Hurricane Katrina he emailed me the most evilly racist comment I've ever heard or read. I knew at that moment that the next time I saw him I wouldn't be able to have a laugh and joke with him as if it had never happened. I haven't seen him since, as I've not really been out a lot ot gigs in the last year or so, but I will be cool with him when I do see him next.

posted by essexjan 11 October | 09:38

This is a Code 9 situation: stay away from evil / screwed up people. I've had a lot of contact with white supremacists, fascists, homophobes, anti-enviros, etc. I am always civil to them, but I'm planning to take them down.

Moral of story: socializing with the opposition can cause problems when the conflict moves into the open; they aren't your friends.

Moral II: It always pays to be polite, even when you are planning to put somebody in jail, the morgue or the hospital.

posted by warbaby 11 October | 10:00

warbaby: for the sake of the hypothethical, imagine that the person isn't a 'professional' bigot (it's not their reason for existing), more of a casual, unthinking one. And assume that you don't know the guy's opinions before sitting down with them.

(also, I'm always wary of dividing the world into us and them, even when I feel I'm right and the other side is wrong, it seems simplistic to me).

posted by jonmc 11 October | 10:32

You're going to laugh at me, but a racist comment would offend me most. Casual racism has become so generally unacceptable that I think it takes a larger asshole to make a racist statement, and that's pretty much a "Bye, we're no longer talking" situation, regardless of whether I liked the person or not (and yes, it would be more upsetting coming from someone I had liked).

Homophobia's a reasonably sharp line, though there are gray areas. Misogynist comments happen with such frequency that it's not an automatic out-of-conversation if I like someone, unless the comment is hugely egregious. And weirdly, it would possibly bother me less from someone I liked and was having a conversation with -- maybe because I could react against it? -- than it would from a complete asshole or someone I was neutral toward.

I don't mean to disregard your disclaimer; I just mean to say that it does change, for me, depending on the "genre" of offensive comment.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 10:39

A racist one would probably bother me the most, too. And it would also depend on the degree in all of the cases. And I'd probably take the age of the speaker into account, since it's often difficult to teach an old dog new tricks as they say.

I find this all interesting since I believe that how we deal with racism, misogyny, homophobia and other prejudices is something that has to be multifaceted. laws and education are extremely important, yes, but I don't think we'll make much progress until we do some serious research into the minds of racists, sexists, etc and how their beliefs develop. And I think simple shunning dosen't do much to change people (egeregious cases like the Klan, Fred Phelps excepted).

posted by jonmc 11 October | 10:47

Oddly, I remember a news story about a Klansman who had worked at black-owned company, and when interviewed the owner said "If you didn't know he was a Klansman, he was an extremely likable man." I guess I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance of how otherwise good people can hold abhorrent beliefs*.

*I still maintain that nobody on the planet is entirely innocent of some form of bigotry, but again, whole other discussion, and it dosen't make it right either

posted by jonmc 11 October | 10:51

I've been in pretty much this situation. Worked with a guy I thought was really cool (he was a dead ringer for Kiefer Sutherland). We got along great, and made a great team. Then he dropped a totally vile racist joke on me. I wish I could say it came as a shock, but it didn't - I'd already noticed the small Aryan Nations tattoo on the back of his hand.

I called him on it. Told him in no uncertain terms that I was deeply offended and he should never spew that kind of crap in my presence again.

His reaction surprised me. He was honestly ashamed. He admitted that he was wrong, and that he mostly didn't think that way any more, but sometimes still slipped into old habits. He grew up in a place where you joined a gang to protect your own ass, and Aryan Nations was the one he wound up with. A decision he was still trying to come to terms with years later. So I'm glad we spoke about it, and that I had a chance to reinforce his developing conscience, and that I had a chance to learn that he wasn't a monster. I think of him as a recovering racist. I haven't seen him in 15 years, but I think of him from time to time, and hope he never found reason to fall off the wagon.

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 11 October | 11:09

Interesting story, IRFH.

Re: jon's question - my first reaction would be to say "what do you mean by that?" and then if they clarified their predjudices further I'd say I didn't agree with them and offer to either talk about it further or change the subject. I wouldn't necessarily write them off -- there's a lot of context with predjudices that you can't dismiss out of hand (age being one, as jon says) and that can not necessarily mitigate them, but make them more understandable.

This of course doesn't apply when the predjudices are nuts ie. "yay the klan" etc.

I've adopted that approach in the past, usually with success, notable exception being the infamous Christmas Eve dinner with the in-laws, their friends and my sister in-laws homophobic, sexist, fundie ex (thank gods) boyfriend.

posted by gaspode 11 October | 11:28

I suppose one benefit of being shy is that I rarely get into such situations. I'm not sure how I would act. But I have been thinking about this urge I -- and many others -- have: to sort people into "good" or "bad" categories.

I just got done reading "The Shakespeare Wars," by Ron Rosenbaum, and in it there's a perceptive chapter about "Merchant of Venice." For centuries, people have argued about whether this is a good play or an evil play -- whether it should be performed or scrapped. People who love the play, even many Jews, try to justify or explain away the play's antisemitism, but that's pretty hard to do if you read it closely.

The problem boils down to this: many people love Shakespeare almost to the point of deifying him (bardolatry). These same people hate racism. How can they deal with their idol writing a racist play?

This is a big social problem (which I suffer from as much as the next guy): the refusal to accept that good people do bad things. It's the desire to look at racism and other forms of prejudice in a simple way -- as if only bad-to-the-core people ever uttered a racist sentence.

I think this kills our chances of stamping out racism. We're not really looking it in the eye, seeing it as a human failing. Instead, we demonize it, and so racist people become demons. Fair enough, but how do you fight a demon?

I have come to see "Merchant of Venice" as a play with both deeply ugly and deeply beautiful things in it. And it saddens me when directors cut the ugly out of it. I think we need full-out ugly productions of the play. We need to confront the ugliness, and -- even more important -- we need to confront the ugliness and the beauty as roommates in the same apartment.

Yes, if I met a friendly racist in a bar, I would flee -- or I would chastise him and then flee. But I can't delude myself that this would be anything other than a selfish act. A form of burying my head in the sand -- not wanting to look life's ugliness square in the face.

Though I'd like to think otherwise, the chances that running away -- or even rebuking -- the bar guy would change him, make him think twice before saying something racist ... well, if I was a betting man, I wouldn't place money on it. In fact, I'd probably just make the situation worse. I'd make an already bitter person more bitter.

I don't know how to combat racism, and I don't think anyone else does, either. This is a horrible thought. It makes me really want to endow my usual responses (reasoning, insulting, fleeing) with power. It makes me want to pretend that they work. But I don't think they do.

Maybe racism is just part of our makeup, but I'm not ready to declare that. But I don't think we'll get close to understanding it -- or eradicating it -- until we stop seeing it as a simple thing. Until we see it as something complicated and human and bound up with all the other good and bad things that make us all complicated and human.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 11:41

(grumblebee, you might like this post I recently saw about racism in historical lit, and how teachers deal with it.)

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 11:57

*marks grumblebee's comment as fave*

posted by gaspode 11 October | 11:59

I actually had a weird moment similar to this recently. I was crossing the street to the deli to get cigarettes, and this luggy guy in his mid-50's asked me where the nearest PATH train was. I told him Christopher Street (for the out-of-towners: major gay cruising street in the heavily gay West Village). He made a limp wrist and said with a lisp, "but that's the gay train!" I'm not sure whether he thought I was gay and was trying to goad me (it's happened before) or thought I was a fellow homophobe and was looking for solidarity, or simply making a lame attempt at humor. I merely cocked an eyebrow, and said "that's where the station is, mister," and went into the bodega. Weird encounter all around.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 12:10

Thanks so much for that link, occhiblu.

Increasingly, I find myself taken aside by graduate students of color telling me how disappointed they are to find their comments about race being dismissed as "tangential" in discussions of literature and theory. ...professors have a tendency to get defensive. "They didn't mean that back then" or "Let's focus on the main argument first" or "Huh, anyone else have a thought?"

Again, I think of "Merchant". It the play's racism is ignored, then the play is belittled. On the other hand, if they only aspect of the play that's discussed is its racism, then the play is belittled in another way. Racism is such a huge subject that it's hard not to let it dwarf everything else -- or else to pretend it's not a subject at all.

To stand up for these -- largely indefensible -- profs for just a sec, there are times when they may want to discuss a classic without opening the pandora's box of racism. Once that box is open, it will be very hard to get anyone to attend to the poetry, plot, characters, themes or other aspects of the work.

On the other hand, by ignoring the racism, these profs alienate many of their students and ignore a major facet of the work itself. It's vital that our culture learns to integrate racism into the lager picture of humanity -- without condoning racism. We need to look at ourselves, see that racist part, and say, "that is a terrible, terrible part, but it IS part of us."

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 12:15

I think it's important that she's specifically talking about grad school, so it's unlikely the students were wholly unfamiliar with these works before reading them for any of these particular classes, too.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 12:17

That is a weird encounter, johnmc, and it's a familiar one. I never quite get what's going on when someone causally injects a controversial topic into conversation, as if it's a simple fact that everyone agrees about. I'll be talking to someone, and they'll say, "I wouldn't want to go to that part of town; that's where all those democrats hang out." They'll say this without knowing anything about my political leanings, and seemingly without trying to provoke. What's going on?

It's hard for me to understand, because I'm always second-guessing myself before I speak. "Oh, I better not say that, because someone might be offended" or, when I'm feeling brave, "I'm going to go ahead and blurt it out, even though someone might get offended." I guess that some people just naturally feel that everyone thinks the same way they do. This must be a gut response, because surely if they reflected for even a second, they would know this isn't true.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 12:21

yes, occhiblu, but it's in grad school that people really want to delve into the nitty-gritty of the subject. I used to encounter this conflict all the time, but because I went to such liberal schools, I saw the opposite syndrome.

I'm not racist, so I don't need someone to point out to me that "Gulliver's Travels" is a racist story. So from a purely selfish point-of-view, such discussions are a waste of my time. I'd be in these classes, dying to get into complex discussions about language or whatever, and the whole class would be taken over with discussions of racial or gender politics. By the end of class, I'd be fuming.

But I would never say anything, because I knew that "it's not all about me." And I still don't think it's all about me. But I do feel that many important aspects of the works we were studying got totally neglected. And class became largely about putting works on trial and deciding whether or not they were offensive. So often, I wanted to say, "Can we all agree that they are offensive and move on?"

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 12:27

I had a situation like this a few years ago. I went to Vegas, in fact, with a long-time friend and another friend of hers. While driving back from the Grand Canyon, the two of them started talking back and forth about how Bridgeport used to be such a nice city until "those people" moved in and ruined it. They went on and on about it, through the long, beautiful desert drive, getting more and more extreme in their language/judgments. Finally, I couldn't take it anymore. While I'm hardly guilt-free of what I'd consider prejudicial comments, especially spoken in anger (a bad habit I'd like to break) and/or jokes (I feel anyone's fair game in a joke), I finally had to ask them to stop. I've lived in Bridgeport quite a bit myself, mind you, and there are a lot of reasons for its struggles, but in no way did "those people" (in this case, referring to blacks and latinos) "ruin" the city (can we talk about government corruption? loss of industrial businesses? white flight? unequal tax burdens and state funding distributions?, to name a few).

Well, you never heard a car so quiet after that. I just knew, when my friend dropped me off back home, I wouldn't be hearing from her again, and I haven't. I haven't called her either. I do miss her, though; she was one of the few friends I had who I felt comfortable talking about anything with. Maybe she felt judged, maybe she didn't like the image I reflected back to her, as someone with at least some racist views (ironic, since she dated black men... against her mother's wishes, she was always quick to point out), I don't know. We both turned forty this year, though, nine days apart, and I would've liked to wish her a happy birthday. I do wonder how she's doing; if she called me, I'd certainly be glad to hear from her. I think I'd be a hypocrite to dismiss her entirely because of some comments. They were ugly comments, true, but people grow (she fell into the easy trap of blaming "the other" for one's problems, I think). And she was a friend to me in many ways, which complicates the hypothetical, I realize. Someone saying such things who I'd just met in a bar or cafe, no matter how superficially charming, I'd probably do my nod and smile to and back away slowly.

posted by Pips 11 October | 12:29

I remember the friend pips mentioned. She also once said that gays "gave us AIDS." It's especially irritating, because in many ways she was very likable and I've seen her be congenial and friendly with black people, latin people, and gay people. I've had other friends who had similar disconnects (and I can't tell you how many times I've heard variations on "There's black people and then there's niggers." It's frustrating to watch this kind of cognitive dissonance in action.

(also, sorry about your doohickie, honey)

posted by jonmc 11 October | 12:45

One question worth asking: why do people tend to get more offended by racism/sexism than other offensive stances?

Almost everyone I know -- myself included -- has ugly (VERY ugly) sides to themselves. So-and-so never visits his sick father in the nursing home; so-and-so stole her best friend's boyfriend; so-and-so steals from the library. Yet racism and sexism are in a special class.

I know this is partly because, when you say "nigger," you're not just insulting a single person, you're insulting a huge subset of humanity. But I don't think this is the only reason why racism seems more offensive to many people than many other failings.

I can't say anything certain about anyone but me, so I'll continue by making some confessions: in my mind, even a racist person should know better than to make a racist comment. He should know that racism, in addition to being truly bad, is considered bad taste. So when I'm around a racist person, I feel I'm around the same sort of person who would belch at an opera or wear two different plaids.

In other words, by deciding that the racist is beneath contempt, I'm able to indulge in a sort of sanctioned snobbery. (Please note that I'm not in any way saying that that racism is a good thing. It's a terrible thing. But If I'm being totally honest, I have to admit that my motives in fighting it aren't 100% pure. And I don't think they need to be 100% pure. But I do think it's worthwhile to be honest about one's motives.)

I've rarely been in any social group that didn't have some sanctioned form of prejudice. When I was in college, it was frowned upon to belittle African Americans, homosexuals or Jews, but it was somehow okay to make fun of "hillbillies" or "yokels."

And in most intellectual circles, it's common to hear people making fun of the "stupid" and "uneducated", as if one's level of intelligence -- or one's chance to get a good education -- was 100% a matter of choice.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 12:47

And in most intellectual circles, it's common to hear people making fun of the "stupid" and "uneducated", as if one's level of intelligence -- or one's chance to get a good education -- was 100% a matter of choice.

and as if intelligence was somehow synonymous with moral fiber, which I can tell you from experience, it isn't.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 12:50

"There's black people and then there's niggers."

Yes, that's horrible.

On the other hand... (God, am I really going to defend this?) Many of the inner-city black people I meet are scary. And I don't mean that they're big and scary looking. I mean that they make threatening gestures -- and sometimes actual threats -- at me when I walk down the street. The harass my wife when she walks to the gym, etc. I desperately desperately desperately don't want to be racist, but I can't ignore the fact that I'm white and these people are black. At best, I can not mention that fact to anyone. I can silence myself.

Many people feel -- with some justification -- that when they meet other people of X race/group, something bad tends to happen. And there's NO sanctioned way to talk about this. If I want to admit to feeling unsafe as the one white guy in a black neighborhood, I have to bend-over-backwards with disclaimers about how I'm not talking about ALL black people, etc. Which makes me not want to bring it up in the first place. Which makes me suppress my feelings.

Which rarely leads to anything good.

I find that one of the best ways for me to banish racist thoughts from my own head is to UNDERSTAND. If I can understand why someone acts the way they do -- even if I don't agree with the act -- it makes me see them as human and then I can't hate them.

But so often -- on metafilter and other places -- when I've asked questions about why such-and-such a group does this, that or the other, I'm jumped on as being racist, even if I include all the disclaimers. Which makes me want to stop asking questions. Which leads to less understanding.

I guess what we need -- and I wish I was more up to the task -- is people who will go ahead and ask the questions anyway, for the sake of greater understanding, know that a certain number of people will accuse them or racism and taking that risk anyway. I'm rarely brave enough.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 12:57

I don't think it's a question of making racist comments just being bad taste. I think it's the sign of a mind that lumps people into broad categories rather than seeing human complexity, that gets off on having power, and that dismisses rather than investigates. In some ways, yes, it is a sign of stupidity, and I'm less inclined to apologize for not wanting to be around stupid people these days.

(Though I don't equate "stupid" and "uneducated.")

On preview: We're currently dealing with this explicitly in one of my courses. The refrain I keep hearing over and over, from both ethnic minority students and white students, is: If you approach the problem with compassion, curiosity, and openness, few discussions are off-limits. The second that defensiveness, confrontation, or generalizations enter the picture, the conversation can't really go anywhere and everyone's likely to shut down.

But we've had a remarkable amount of openness surrounding these issues from all students, including a lot of white students explicitly dealing with how uncomfortable talking about race can be. It's been really cool.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 13:01

On the other hand... (God, am I really going to defend this?) Many of the inner-city black people I meet are scary. And I don't mean that they're big and scary looking. I mean that they make threatening gestures -- and sometimes actual threats -- at me when I walk down the street. The harass my wife when she walks to the gym, etc. I desperately desperately desperately don't want to be racist, but I can't ignore the fact that I'm white and these people are black. At best, I can not mention that fact to anyone. I can silence myself.

Well, it's racism of a sort to see black people as anything other than human. And being human means that a certain percentage of them are going to act like assholes much of the time, just like any other group.

If you approach the problem with compassion, curiosity, and openness, few discussions are off-limits.

Agreed 100%. If we're ever going to make any headway on these issues we can't muffle our farts, so to speak. Everyone needs to lay their cards on the table*, and that includes owning up to our own prejudices (and everyone has them).

*welcome to the jonmc cliche festival

posted by jonmc 11 October | 13:04

Yes, one of the other things that keeps coming up is that as a white person, you're a hell of a lot more likely to foster a connection with an ethnic-minority person if you own up to, and recognize, your own racism. Pretending you have no racist inclinations at all is pretty much to set yourself up as untrustworthy.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 13:07

well, occhi, I'd extend that to prejudice of all kinds, and I'd say that everybody of every race, gender, and orientation has them in one form or another.

And also, pejudice is rarely a free-floating virus. It comes from a lot of places and coalesces around incidents in peoples lives.

I will also say that I am a little tired of the quasi-superstitious way many people have of dealing with racism, sexism and homophobia. It's kind of like fundies and how they approach evil. It's not a magic force that you can appease by repeating the right incantations, it's learned behavior.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 13:10

Well, yes, we've just specifically been talking about race for the past few weeks in this course, so that's been the focus of discussion and reading. Gender's next, then age and sexual orientation and all sorts of fun. Woot!

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 13:22

Well, it's racism of a sort to see black people as anything other than human.

This is the crux of the issue. All sorts of ills come from me not seeing you as a human. I think there are two major human urges that come into play when one human encounters another: seeing the other has human and seeing the other as an object. These are basic tendencies, and my guess is they've evolved to counterbalance each other.

To a certain extent, we must "look out for #1," or we won't survive, so if I saw you -- all the time -- as another human being, just like me, I wouldn't be able to muster the selfishness I need just to get by. On the other hand, we're social animals and too much selfishness kills society.

I think we all deal with these opposing forces every day. Anyone in a relationship deals with them, certainly: me-time vs. us-time. They have a sort of yin-yang relationship, and when they get out of balance, all hell breaks loose.

It's so hard to look at these two drives as integrated -- as part of a single human being. If you watch most TV shows, there are selfless characters and selfish characters. But it's rare to see HUMAN characters -- real, complex mixes of the selfish and the selfless.

Well, it's racism of a sort to see black people as anything other than human. And being human means that a certain percentage of them are going to act like assholes much of the time, just like any other group.

I agree with this, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that Fred is tormented by black people every day, as he's walking from his bus stop to his apartment. This is incredibly stressful for Fred. How can he talk about it.

He can say, "I'm tormented by people" and leave out the black part, but that means he must deny a major part of his visceral experience. There is no way that Fred can say what he feels without earning a very negative label. Which will likely make him feel more angry and repressed and do nothing to stop racism.

I don't think it's a question of making racist comments just being bad taste. I think it's the sign of a mind that lumps people into broad categories rather than seeing human complexity

I agree. But in most groups it's okay to "lump people together in broad categories" -- as-long-as it's certain broad categories and certain people. For instance, in my circles, it's fine to lump Republicans or Bush supporters in categories. It's an everyday occurrence.

I know political persuasion isn't the same as race. The former is at least somewhat a choice, whereas one is born being black, white or whatever. But that doesn't change the fact that I can hang out with smart, well-meaning, educated, liberal people and get away with saying things like, "Republicans such stupid assholes!" No one says, "Really? ALL of them?" In fact, if I start bringing up stories of smart, kind Republicans, things won't go well for me.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 13:36

On the other hand, Republicans have hardly been kept out of social, political, or economic power simply for being Republican.

Blacks have. Women have. Gay people have. Asian-Americans have. Etc, etc. I think the instinctive recoil against offensive comments about oppressed groups is that such comments actively work to keep large groups of people out of power.

"Poor people suck" is going to sound more offensive than "rich people suck" because whining about the rich doesn't change the fact that they have power. On the other hand, we have a government and an electorate that seems determined to keep *stripping* power from already disadvantaged people; those groups are in serious risk of losing rights.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 13:54

I had an assistant back in my Fortune 500 days, a born-again kid. We didn't talk about religion much. The big deal came when he insisted that it was in-your-face offensive for someone who was gay (or just supportive) to have anything in their cubicle announcing this fact. He said multiple times that just, you know, seeing a pink triangle made him visualize the person having same-sex sex.

Fortunately, I wasn't alone. I just made him not say this around me. But one day he ended up being piled on by about five people in our department for it. I almost felt sorry for him, swiveling in his chair to answer people one by one ...

Hilarious cognitive dissonance angle: he had no problem telling people that you could reach our team by dialing "dogfuck" without the vowels. (x3432)

Addressing the racism=not-seeing-as-human thing, I believe that's too strong for many actual instances I've encountered. Racism is just generally stupid at the level of stereotypes and gross generalizations.

posted by stilicho 11 October | 13:58

On the other hand, Republicans have hardly been kept out of social, political, or economic power simply for being Republican.

Agreed. But don't you think that once we sanction any of these thoughts -- these lump-people-together thoughts -- it's a slippery slope?

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 14:02

Blacks have. Women have. Gay people have. Asian-Americans have. Etc, etc. I think the instinctive recoil against offensive comments about oppressed groups is that such comments actively work to keep large groups of people out of power.

Well, we're edginging into prejudice vs. racism here. Racism=prejudice + power, right?* Legal remedies can do a lot to eliminate prejudices from keeping people powerless, but that's only half the battle. We're still left with a society full of people who hate, distrust, fear, or at the very least, hold untrue beliefs about eachother. And the holder of the prejudices is suffering in many ways, too or at least missing out. So part of fighting prejudice means treating it as a disease like alcoholism.

*this also begs the question of how the stereotypical poor white southern 'redneck,' racist, relatively powerless himself, is often scapegoated for the systemic prejudices of society at large

posted by jonmc 11 October | 14:10

But don't you think that once we sanction any of these thoughts -- these lump-people-together thoughts -- it's a slippery slope?

Yes and no. It's lazy intellectually to make broad statements about large groups of people as if they all thought or acted the same. On the other hand, it's normal in human cognitive development to do this. You learn to categorize, you learn to make assumptions so that you can think/act more quickly, and you learn to make exceptions. You hopefully learn that if you have to keep making exceptions, your category is probably flawed. It's when you stop learning that, stop questioning yourself about the categories you've developed, that it becomes a problem, I think.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 14:13

Addressing the racism=not-seeing-as-human thing, I believe that's too strong for many actual instances I've encountered. Racism is just generally stupid at the level of stereotypes and gross generalizations.

I'm late to this and not at all clear-headed, so I shouldn't really jump in here. But hey, I'm going to.

My parents are racist. They're not the white-hooded, Confederate-flag-waving kind. They're the bred-in-the-midwest, see-a-person's-skin-color-and-think-you-know-them kind. I hate their views -- which are never all that blatant, but creep out instead in subtle ways. When driving through a neighborhood populated by people of color, they lock the car doors. If they're telling a story about something they saw a guy doing on the sidewalk, you can bet that the story will go something like "There was this black man on the sidewalk" if the star of the story was black. They would not feel compelled to mention race if the guy was white.

It's not a less damaging form of racism than any other, but it's much more subtle and difficult to combat. They will never change. Skin color is always the first thing they'll notice about a person who is not white. And that cosmetic fact will translate, in their minds, into a whole host of assumptions.

I'm not really sure what my point is here. Maybe it's this: Racism isn't simply a philosophy or a predisposition towards certain unsavory acts -- discrimination, violence, whatever. It's also a way of seeing the world, and that's what makes it both dangerous and difficult to eradicate. And I don't know how to solve that, and it makes me sad.

posted by mudpuppie 11 October | 14:30

One of the tough things, I think, about deciding that it's less bad to lump people together if they're powerful people (republicans, rich people, etc.) is that you might be wrong.

For instance, people have often hated the Jews because they felt that the Jews were too powerful. They were wrong, but they didn't know they were wrong.

People didn't burn witches because they thought the witches were powerless. And though in many overt ways -- salaries, etc. -- women have had less power than men, I think many men are sexist because they fear women having too much power over them.

occhiblu, I agree with you that as a practical matter, one must use categories but that one should continually question these categories. But I think that's really hard to do, especially if you're leading a busy, stressful life. And I don't think we have many mechanisms in place to help people do this.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 14:31

I think many men are sexist because they fear women having too much power over them.

I remember a conversation with a female friend where I said that many men don't like women (for whatever reason) but like looking at them and having sex with them, and that only intensifies it somehow, since they resent the power of women's sexual attractiveness.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 14:37

And updating my vox blog, I come across this, which outlines several beautiful examples of the type of racism that mudpuppie was discussing.

And FWIW my extended family are exactly the same as pup's. It was kind of embarrassing taking mr. g to meet them for the first time, as their idea of getting to know you is bonding over how the Maori don't do any work.

posted by gaspode 11 October | 14:50

Key quote from the above-linked blog:

Contrary to popular stereotype, racists are not necessarily ogres. The ones to which I refer today are not gun-wielding, cross-burning hate-filled Klansmen. In the course of everyday conversation, they are indistinguishable from anybody else. I bet some don't even consider themselves to be particularly prejudiced.

posted by gaspode 11 October | 14:52

One of the tough things, I think, about deciding that it's less bad to lump people together if they're powerful people (republicans, rich people, etc.) is that you might be wrong.

Yes, but that fear of losing power is exactly what underlies all forms of discrimination. It's been trotted out over and over again against women -- there was a 19th-century quote going around, I think, along the lines of "Men are so in awe of women's power already that women don't need the vote, because they already have such power over voting men." It's used against any group that's threatening the status quo, and it's crap.

Yes, if you're completely politically and historically ignorant about who's in power and who's generally been in power, then you blame the wrong people for your unhappiness. But what that means is being politically and historically ignorant is wrong, not that making categorical statements is so dangerous it should be eradicated.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 14:54

From 'pode's link:

She was conceived at the March On Washington, so she holds Martin Luther King, Jr., Day as dear her own birthday...

Eww.

posted by mudpuppie 11 October | 14:57

Yes, if you're completely politically and historically ignorant about who's in power and who's generally been in power

Well, here's where it gets sticky and complicated. The rich and powerful (in America, at least) have been for the most part White Heterosexual Males. Some people make the leap that this means that most White Hetero Males are rich and powerful, which is untrue and again causes understandable resentment.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 14:59

I look down on everybody else equally.

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 11 October | 15:00

pup! Don't just pick out the icky bits!

posted by gaspode 11 October | 15:00

Heh, no 'pode, I read the whole thing.

That quote got me for two reasons -- one, I don't want to think about people having sex at the March on Washington. Two, celebrating the day you were conceived is icky.

But the essay was good.

Derail! Derail!

posted by mudpuppie 11 October | 15:06

"celebrating the day you were conceived is icky."

Inconceivable!

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 11 October | 15:08

Two, celebrating the day you were conceived is icky.

Well, I was born in December and always assumed Dad got all drunk and randy on St Paddy's Day and 9 months later I was the result. So I'd be celebrating anyway. Two in one shot I guess.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 15:09

It's not particularly tricky -- it's reasonable to assume that anyone trying to tell you that any non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-heterosexual ethnic/cultural/racial/gendered group has "too much power" in any Western society is full of shit, or at least sorely lacking actual facts based in reality.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 15:09

That's not what I was saying, occhi. I'm saying that the implication that because the power weilders in american society have mostly been white straight males that most white straight males are rich and powerful causes resentment, since it is demostrably untrue.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 15:13

I don't know, occhiblu... I personally think Oprah has too much power.

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 11 October | 15:15

occhiblu, I agree with you on an intellectual level, but I'm skeptical that most people can allow themselves to generalize about one group without getting in the lazy habit of generalizing ... er ... in general. Which can easily lead to racism.

I think I send my friends a confusing message when I say, "Those fucking rich people! They hate poor people!"

I DO agree that (a) the un-examined life is not worth living, but (b) one can't examine life all the time (hence the need for categories). But I think finding the right balance between these two activities -- for those who even care to do so -- is really hard work.

Most people just go with their gut, and their gut is going to lure them swiftly towards some sort of gastly prejudice or other. If it's one that is sanctioned by most of their friends, they'll probably sink deeply into it without even noticing.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 15:15

It's not particularly tricky -- it's reasonable to assume that anyone trying to tell you that any non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-heterosexual ethnic/cultural/racial/gendered group has "too much power" in any Western society is full of shit, or at least sorely lacking actual facts based in reality.

Fair enough. But how do you easily glide from this conclusion to being able to fairly judge an individual? Because I'm white, I am going to be dumped into the "has power" group. And I'd agree that there's a certain fairness and justice to this, as-long-as I self-identify with the "white team." Mu team has been bad, so we deserve some punishment.

Trouble is, I don't self-identify with that team.

Yes, because I AM white -- in theory -- I've been given some advantages that I wouldn't have had if I wasn't white. In theory. But you won't know whether or not I've really been given these advantages -- or whether I have other disadvantages that outweigh them -- without getting to know me personally.

And the deeper I'm placed in a group, the harder it is for anyone to get to know me personally.

This is the same problem that minorities have. If I place them in a group, I won't see their individual humanity. And, yes, certain people have been historically placed in groups -- or worse groups -- much more than others. But what does that mean to an individual person, right here and now.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 15:22

Hee. Is Oprah Winfrey a group now?

But I think finding the right balance between these two activities -- for those who even care to do so -- is really hard work.... Most people just go with their gut,

I agree on both counts. But I don't know how to fix that. Most people don't think very hard, in general, about anything, and it causes all sorts of problems in all sorts of areas. Which is why I think institutional change is as important as personal growth -- we simply can't assume that everyone's always going to act in ways that take into account the complexity of what being human is and that work to help everyone achieve their goals with as few obstructions as possible. So the question becomes, do we wait for random people in cafes to call people on their racism, for example, or do we work to create institutions that work, free of prejudice, to ensure that everyone gets a *real* equal chance?

I think both avenues are important, and I think that one without the other gets you nowhere.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 15:22

Oprah is at least a cult, and possibly a nation. I heard she's threatening to test a nuclear device off the Gulf of Dr. Phil.

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 11 October | 15:25

I'm not making any statements about whether white straight males all, without exception, have power. There are of course issues of disability, socio-economic status, education, etc etc that will complicate that; they do, however, have more power than a woman with all the same other attributes, or a black man with all the same other attributes, etc, whether they "self-identify" as white or not (in my experience, most white people don't; we don't particularly have to see our own race).

So no, being a straight white man doesn't automatically mean you'll weild huge amounts of power. But it does mean that you enjoy male privelege, and straight privelege, and white privelege. Which is fine; there's not thing you can do about it, that's how society goes. But you need to be aware of the ways in which you do hold power, and how you use it.

On preview: Heh. So much for my first sentence. I guess that's my statement on that, then.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 15:28

I don't know how to fix that.

Me neither. But I fear that as a society, we'll never find out -- that we're robbing ourselves of learning more about the problem, because we don't talk about it beyond (sometimes in a sophisticated way) saying "prejudice is bad."

I'd say your class is a step in the right direction, as-long-as it delves deeper than just trying to discover more and more instances of "taken for granted" prejudice.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 15:28

Also, this:

But how do you easily glide from this conclusion to being able to fairly judge an individual?

You stay aware of the sociopolitical forces at work on the individual you're dealing with, and whether they've affected that individual. You stay open to the idea that his experience may be different from your own, and you don't immediately assume different=bad. You stay aware of your own internalized racism, and try not to impose it on others.

On preview: The class is specifically about how to counsel non-white-straight-male therapy clients, so mostly it's just about exploring how society as a whole and counseling in particular can be unhelpful or even dangerous to non-dominant groups. And much of that is due to unexamined prejudice on the part of the therapist, so yeah, it's a big focus.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 15:33

they do, however, have more power than a woman with all the same other attributes

I understand what you mean, but my problem is that it's an abstraction. A person only has the power that he has. In other words, you can say that a black guy with a college degree will earn less than a white guy with the same degree -- and that's true in many many cases (and horrible). But it doesn't change the fact that Fred (white) and Bill (black) both have college degrees and Fred happens to earn less than Bill. Fred and Bill both earn what they earn.

I know I'm being picky, but I would rewrite your sentence as follows:

"they do, however, tend to have more power than a woman with all the same other attributes"

Now, it's vital that we work to address this inequality, but it's also vital -- I would argue equally vital -- that we remember the "tend to".

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 15:35

But it's not "tend to" when we're talking about groups of people. "They do, as a group, have more power than women with the same other attributes" is fine, if you want it that way. Just as women are, as a group, shorter than men. No, that statement doesn't tell you whether one particular woman will be shorter or taller than any one particular man, and it *is* important to remember that, but I also think it's important not to water down the fact that certain groups have historically held power, and other groups have historically been denied power, and that holding power in this society is not based solely on individual merit. That there are conditions in place that systematically privelege certain groups and disadvantage others, and individual achievement is not based solely on individual merit. Pussyfooting around with exceptions and "but this particular so-and-so is worse off than this other minority" statements about individuals tend to obscure the point that achievement in this society is not based solely on individual merit.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 15:44

good point, I think ultimately what we want is to bee seen as an individual. I want to be seen a jonmc, not as just another straight white guy. We're all more than the sum of our parts. I remember a passage in Studs Terkel's Race where a black firefighter says "Being black is to be always second guessing yourself: does this white guy not like me because I'm black or because I'm an asshole?"

(and we're not trying to contradict any of your points, occhi, just expand on them with our own)

posted by jonmc 11 October | 15:45

and, to notice the fact that to a laid-off lower-income white guy the term 'white male privilige' might engender a 'what damn white male privilidge' resentful response, and see that response as understandable, is emphatically not to discount racism.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 15:47

I know you're not contradicting. And yes, that quote more or less makes some of the point I'm trying to get at -- white people (just sticking to race here for the sake of simplicity) have the privelege of being able to assume that the way they are treated or what they achieve is due to individual personality or individual drive. That's a huge part of white privelege.

For me, talking about people as groups, and examining the way they're disadvantaged as groups, chips away at that myth of meritocracy and gives us a platform for examining not how individuals fail for individual reasons, but how systems fail large groups of people.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 15:50

That's fine, as long as we all remember that neither the 'individual' or 'member of a group' view gives the whole picture.

(and kudos to everybody for a civil, intelligent discussion of a difficult topic)

posted by jonmc 11 October | 15:55

But it's not "tend to" when we're talking about groups of people.

The problem is that it's then very easy to start talking about group A wronging group B. The white group has wronged the black group. I agree. This needs to be addressed. The white group needs to address this. Depending on your feelings, the white group needs to apologize, be punished, make amends, give up some power, etc.

But what about me? Do I need to be punished, make amends, give up power...? What group am I in? I'm white? But I don't consider myself a part of the white "group." I know that it's easier not to consider yourself part of a group when your group is the group in power, but I also don't consider myself part of the Jewish group -- even though I'm Jewish.

I'm just me.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 16:01

but I also don't consider myself part of the Jewish group -- even though I'm Jewish.

But everyone knows the Jews are powerful. They control the synagogues. ;>

posted by jonmc 11 October | 16:02

For me, talking about people as groups, and examining the way they're disadvantaged as groups, chips away at that myth of meritocracy and gives us a platform for examining not how individuals fail for individual reasons, but how systems fail large groups of people.

Agreed.

I also think everyone here deserves a pat on the back for discussing such a contentious subject in such an adult way.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 16:03

Yes, but being able to say "I'm just me, I don't have race" is part of white privelege. Part of what I think *I* personally need to do is recognize that for myself, and through that process of coming to terms with what it means to be "white," use the knowledge to make sure I'm not unthinkingly taking advantage of white privilege, because doing so does hurt minority groups.

(Does that make any sense? I've been talking about this so much lately that it's getting head-spinning.)

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 16:04

They control the synagogues.

They do? I guess I should have gone.

Do you have to believe in God?

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 16:04

"achievement in this society is not based solely on individual merit"

I would take this further, and say that "achievement in any society is rarely based on individual merit."

posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson 11 October | 16:05

Peggy McIntosh's essay on white privilege, for anyone who's interested.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 16:09

Yes, but being able to say "I'm just me, I don't have race" is part of white privilege.

I followed you up until this point (which I'm probably taking WAY to literally). Since white people aren't daily reminded of their race, it is more likely that a white person won't consider himself part of the white team than a black person won't consider himself part of the black team. But white privilege? Privilege implies choice, doesn't it? Like I could consider myself part of the white team or not consider myself a part of it.

It's not a choice. I'm simply not part of the team. I don't feel any kinship with others on the team, so I'm not part of it. I'm willing to say that maybe the reason I feel this way is because I haven't suffered (much) race hatred. But the point is that it's the way I feel -- it's not a privilege.

Actually, I doubt my feelings have much to do with race. I'm just a loner. Always have been. I've never really felt a part of any particular team, other than my specific small group of friends at any given time.

When I went to school, I was horribly abused for years and years for being a "geek", but I never felt part of the geek team. I don't particularly identify with other geeks -- unless they happen to be my friends.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 16:10

But what about me? Do I need to be punished, make amends, give up power...? What group am I in? I'm white? But I don't consider myself a part of the white "group."

This is exactly the argument a lot of people make against slavery reparations. I didn't perpeuate the problem and you didn't directly suffer it. So why is it my responsibility?

Issue of reparations aside, don't we all have individual responsibilities as members of our "group," whether we identify with that group or not?

posted by mudpuppie 11 October | 16:15

Issue of reparations aside, don't we all have individual responsibilities as members of our "group," whether we identify with that group or not?

I would say that we all have responsibility to those people (and animals) we affect. It's my responsibility not to litter, because you and me both share the same environment, and if I litter, you suffer.

We all have a responsibility to minimize the total amount of suffering in the world.

I accept my responsibility to help end mistreatment of black people, because black people are fellow humans. I do not accept responsibility to end mistreatment of black people because I'm white and "my people" have abused black people. Those people who have abused black people -- they're not my people.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 16:23

It cuts both ways: those (white) people who helped end slavery. They're also not my people. They're great people, but they're no more "mine" than the slave traders.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 16:25

Privilege implies choice, doesn't it? Like I could consider myself part of the white team or not consider myself a part of it.

It's not as simple as that, because you receive the privilege whether you want it or not, whether you choose it or not. It is granted by others based on your race, and you may not even know it's being granted.

Here's a =list of examples of racial privilege" I found a local link to this that said in the introduction, "White privilege is like an invisible, weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks." Well said; and it works without your having to ask for it, or even notice it's there.

posted by Miko 11 October | 16:36

There are some great comments here.

I think that at the very base, people are prejudiced (or racist) because, like Fox Mulder in X-Files, they want to believe.

They want to believe they really are better than someone else, they want to believe that what they've heard about other countries and kinds of people are true. They want to believe that the sources of their bad information are trustworthy. They suppose that if they can't have this refuge, life is a black hole.

Life is hard. A lot of people want to have faith in something. They want to think there is an order. Prejudice is a form of order which is easy to learn about. An ordered universe of better- and worse- people is comforting when things are tough. And for a lot of people, things are tough all the time, both financially and in personal relationships.

A lot of people would rather be comforted than do the right things, such as acknowledge that all people have reasons for doing the things they do, and they are all human, suffer, and have feelings.

Re. grumblebee:

Yes, because I AM white -- in theory -- I've been given some advantages that I wouldn't have had if I wasn't white. In theory. But you won't know whether or not I've really been given these advantages -- or whether I have other disadvantages that outweigh them -- without getting to know me personally.

The system of haves and have-nots is harmful to everyone. To the extent that people believe the system, they won't be able to connect with actual, complex human beings.

There is a good book called Female Masculinity which I think deals with the problem of haves and have-nots well, if you're willing to use femininity v. masculinity as an example. About masculinity, the author mentions that people aren't just feminine or masculine, but at the same time they are some sort of class, some sort of race, have some kind of sexuality, and have some kind of gender. (I think that's around page 3.) A person can be a winner or a loser in any combination of these categories, and thinking that only one exists (gender for sexists, race for racists, class for classists, etc.) throws out all the other facts.

On preview:
You can be privileged without making much choice. I know for sure I get breaks all the time because I'm Asian. I get credit cards with high limits, teachers talk to me because they assume I'll learn, cops go easy on me. I can do pretty much nothing and get all these things.

Or I can make the choice to make the cop ticket me for the actual amount I'm speeding; I can stop the job interview and say, "Look, you're going to hire me because you think I'm not going to ask too many questions or make waves because I'm Asian, but I don't want your prejudice or your paycheck;" I can tell the teacher that they should stop favoring me just because it's easy and try to see the kid in the next seat for the intelligent person they are and not just Mexican. Opportunities like these slide by me all the time. I'll say for myself... in many ways I'm very privileged. It's like people coming by and giving you money all the time, but it's so normal you don't even notice it, or it would be really disruptive to your life to shout down every person who hands you a dollar.

posted by halonine 11 October | 16:39

But white privilege? Privilege implies choice, doesn't it? Like I could consider myself part of the white team or not consider myself a part of it.

Did you read the essay? I feel like she talks about this a bit.

The privilege is that black people, for the most part, are going to be constantly reminded by the people and institutions around them that they are black. An African-American might be followed around a store when he goes shopping, he might see a women grasp her purse tighter when he passes, in newspapers and on tv and in classrooms he sees that he looks different from most Americans, he may hear his colleauge talking about affirmative action and wonder if they think he got his job due to unfair advantages. He is, for the most part, constantly reminded of his race.

A white person in a majority-white society simply doesn't face these same reminders. It's the fish-in-water thing -- you're so constantly surrounded by whiteness-as-normal that you forget it's a thing. It becomes invisible.

*Not* having to think about race, worry about race, worry about fitting into a racial group, is an advantage to being white. It's a whole host of things you don't have to think about, which means you have more free time to think about whatever you want to -- plays, religion, whatever. But if a large part of my day is taken up trying to navigate the racism that is directed at me, then I don't have the luxury of as much free time as you do. Plus, dealing with racism and worrying about racism is a hugely stressful experience, and soemthing that studies are beginning to show directly affects the health and lifespans of minorities. So you're privileged in relation.

Simply by being a member of the majority group in a biased society, you are benefiting from discrimination. That's what she's calling privilege. And in my mind, that active upholding of a racist society by benefitting from it -- even if you don't actively want to do so -- is what white people need to work to address.

It's not just about reperations. It's about how all our actions, right now, are contributing to maintaining an unjust status quo, and how we choose to address that fact.

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 16:43

(Also, Peggy McIntosh is the one who first used the phrase "invisible knapsack." The article is really worth reading.)

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 16:45

(Also also, given the demographic here, the congratulations seem a little... I don't know. Weird.)

posted by occhiblu 11 October | 16:49

Here's the point I've been groping to make; the point that keeps slipping through my fingers:

While we're making sure that men and women have equal pay and that black people are represented in Congress, the real enemy will be snickering at us from behind a tree, glad that we're wasting our time on band-aid approaches, rather than trying to catch him.

Before I get to "the real enemy," let me make it clear that I STRONGLY feel we need to keep applying (and strengthening) the band-aids, which I don't really see as a waste of time. We need to deal with sexism and racism. We need to do this in really practical ways, like making sure salaries are equitable. And we need to understand history, so we can see how and why certain groups have lost power.

In my (rare) optimistic moods, I feel that if I go to sleep for 200 years (1000 years?), I'll wake up and find that no one cares about skin-color or gender or sexuality any more. We have a LOOOOONG way to go before that day, but certainly -- in my short lifetime -- I've seen improvements.

So anyway, when I wake up to this utopia, I'll be happy at first, but then I'll visit a schoolyard and get slapped in the face with the depressing fact that kids are still ganging up on each other. Jenny is picked on, not because she's female or black, but because she wore a green shirt to school that day. Maybe in this future world, there are no more nations -- just large corporations -- and people from Sony need to be really careful when walking home at night, because they often get assaulted by Apple employees.

The war on prejudice reminds me a lot of the War on Drugs or the way the RIAA sues grandmothers. More band-aids. When will the RIAA deal with the reality that people will always pirate music? When will the government deal with the fact that people will always do drugs? When will the anti-prejudice people deal with the fact that people will always be cruel to one another?

I'm not suggesting that we should try to wipe out human cruelty. That's not possible (without wiping out humans). I'm suggesting that we LOOK at cruelty, honestly and directly, and see what we can learn about it. Maybe there's a way to control it or re-channel it.

For whatever reason, I think we're scared to look cruelty in the eye. We don't want to admit it's a part of us and the people we love. We don't want to admit that we can't wipe it out. So we refuse to study it.

As a kid, I was given extraordinarily mixed messages. Be kind to people, but kill the other football team!* Try to understand people -- except for Republicans. Don't kill -- except for animals.

We can -- and should -- keep swatting the bees of prejudice that we see around us, but until we deal with the hive, there will always be more.

*in a way, I think sports is an attempt to channel cruelty, but it's such a half-assed effort. In my school-years, it was really okay to act very aggressively towards the other team but not towards other people in day-to-day life. The reasons for this were never made clear. WHEN is cruelty okay? Never? Sometimes? In games only?

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 17:01

occhiblu and others: good points about white privilege. I think you're right on all counts. It's hard for me to connect with "privilege" emotionally, because I spent my formative years being pigeonholed -- often every hour of the day. I feel the opposite of privileged. But I guess if I was me -- with all my problems -- AND black, things would be even worse.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 17:22

the author mentions that people aren't just feminine or masculine, but at the same time they are some sort of class, some sort of race, have some kind of sexuality, and have some kind of gender.

Then after that they're themselves, too. I hear what others are saying, but I still think we need to cling to our common humanity as individuals.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 17:45

and even though we've drifted off, I'll answer my own query with a yes, it would bug me more in that I'd feel a disappointed that a good person could believe a bad thing. Barring egregious "I hate niggers/faggots/bitches" types, I do like to think I'd still try to engage them somehow, since I believe people can change and that's where change starts.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 17:48

I agree jonmc? I'm curious (if you feel like sharing). Do you feel like you're part of any particular group? Americans? Such-and-such music lovers? Graduates of blah blah blah university?

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 17:52

Oh, yeah ... the question! *blushes*

Here's what I'd LIKE to do: say, without sounding judgmental (just surprised), "Really? Are you being serous? You really think that about homosexuals?"

Now, I know that -- particularly in a bar -- many people won't want to get into a deep, rational conversation, but making the BIG assumption that this is a rare exception...

I'm ask him to explain why he feels that way. If he hates gays because he's been hurt in life (and he erroneously thinks it's the fault of gay people), I would start by sympathizing with him -- showing him I was sorry for whatever happened to him.

Then I would tell him personal, positive, experiences I'd had with gay people. This would be REALLY hard, but I'd try not to attack this as a lecture. I would try not to even think of myself as a teacher. I would try to think of us as two people who might have something to learn from each other.

I also feel that people can change. It's hard, because they rarely do. But the fact that it happens even 01% of the time makes it worth trying -- because the payoff is so great. But I'm almost positive that attacking, judging, lecturing and teaching won't work.

What MAY work is assuming that underneath the racism, I'm talking to a person, capable of compassion and connection.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 17:59

I agree jonmc? I'm curious (if you feel like sharing). Do you feel like you're part of any particular group? Americans? Such-and-such music lovers? Graduates of blah blah blah university?

Sure. Americans. New Yorkers. Music Lovers. Record Collectors. Bloggers. Netheads. Mets fans. Nudist skateboarders*. But I've never liked making people outsiude those groups feel excluded. If anything, I'll go overboard in the opposite direction trying to bbring them in.

I was by myself, there were sketchy-ish looking guys around,

I'm not picking on you occhi, and I understand that the skittishness comes from being a vulnerable female in an urban enviornment, but what does a 'sketchy-ish' guy look like. To many people, I'd be sketchy-ish because of the way I dress and my haircut. And sadly, that's a prejudice, too. But an understandable one. It's more complicated than we all want to admit.

Now, I know that -- particularly in a bar -- many people won't want to get into a deep, rational conversation,

you'd be amazed.

Here's what I'd LIKE to do: say, without sounding judgmental (just surprised), "Really? Are you being serous? You really think that about homosexuals?"

I'd usually say, "ah, c'mon, man, you know better than that," as if he'd told me that the moon landing was fake or something.

*just making sure you're paying attention

posted by jonmc 11 October | 18:07

I'd usually say, "ah, c'mon, man, you know better than that," as if he'd told me that the moon landing was fake or something.

I really like that strategy. Judgmental without having a huge cow about it. It GENTLY prods the other guy to think about what he just said.

posted by grumblebee 11 October | 18:12

I really like that strategy. Judgmental without having a huge cow about it. It GENTLY prods the other guy to think about what he just said.

Yeah, I find that simply saying "YOU'RE A RACIST!" just makes people defensive and gets them to dig in deeper.

Malcolm X said that the best thing non-racist whites could do was to fight prejudice in their own communities. and that's my way of doing it.

posted by jonmc 11 October | 18:15

jonmc:

Then after that they're themselves, too. I hear what others are saying, but I still think we need to cling to our common humanity as individuals.

You're right. That is what this is really about. Sorry I didn't say it more clearly... I was rushing out the door :)

posted by halonine 11 October | 22:25

but what does a 'sketchy-ish' guy look like

I live a block from the projects. (And, admittedly, a block from a bunch of chi-chi shopping and restaurants.) "Sketchy-ish guys" are any guys who are not paired off with girlfriends who are on the block in between the projects and the restaurants. The closer they are to the liquor store on the corner by the projects, where the police end up at least once a month, the sketchier they are.

Truthfully, I think it was a group of professional gay men, but on that block I simply don't make eye contact with men who aren't in heterosexual pairs (and therefore less likely to pick a fight/flirt with a woman).

posted by occhiblu 12 October | 00:19

I meant to add "after dark" to that last paragraph. The neighbors are usually very nice during the day.

posted by occhiblu 12 October | 00:22

On the off-chance anyone's still reading:

I was thinking about my answer to the original question, and the subsequent discussion about white privilege, and I actually wonder if that plays into how I would react to various comments.

As a white person, I don't lose as much by confronting a racist as a minority might; I don't have to put my own body/spirit/heritage on the line or up to be judged when declaring something unacceptable, or worry that I'll be judge hypersensitive, or worry that that label will negatively affect my life. As a straight person, same thing for confronting homophobia. Making that confrontation (whether it's friendly or not) is a way to combat white/straight privilege a bit, to make sure I'm not just waving racism and homophobia aside as "someone else's problem."

As a woman, though, I have more to lose by confronting sexism or misogyny. There's a greater chance I'll be personally attacked or dismissed for doing so. So my approach to dealing with it becomes different.

And though I'm (obviously) willing to speak up and fight in a lot of situations, there's still a very real sense of putting something on the line every time I do. That feeling doesn't exist when I'm confronting racism or homophobia.

So, knowing that, I try to speak up when I can so that other people don't always have to. There's an inescapable bit of paternalism to that, I realize, but I think it's also a way to use the privilege I do have to throw some weight behind what I consider morally right (in that a white racist is more likely to listen to my opinion than that of a black person, for instance) and to try to take some of the burden off other people so they're not the only ones fighting.

posted by occhiblu 12 October | 11:38

I realize, but I think it's also a way to use the privilege I do have to throw some weight behind what I consider morally right (in that a white racist is more likely to listen to my opinion than that of a black person, for instance) and to try to take some of the burden off other people so they're not the only ones fighting.

That's more or less what I (and I think grumblebee) were getting at. Only we used less words. ;)

I also think that one privilige in my 'hypothetical,' is that as a fellow white guy we have the luxury of maybe getting inside the hypothetical bigots head a bit and maybe using a non-accusatory (often more effective) method of bringing them around. But maybe I'm just a cockeyed aburdist. Of course, if you'll allow me a moment of hubris, one of my few gifts in this life is that I could walk into a Promise Keepers meeting with an interracial gay couple in tow, wearing a GG Allin t-shirt and still have everyone eating out of my hand within minutes. I promise to use this power for good and not evil.

posted by jonmc 13 October | 09:28

That's more or less what I (and I think grumblebee) were getting at.

Yeah, I know, but I was more looking at how the various -isms interact, and how my experience with one shapes and potentially changes my reactions to the others, as opposed to just thinking about a monolithic response. That there's an intellectual response and an emotional response, that there are various levels of risk involved depending on who's responding to what, and how that knowledge also plays in, and whether that's conscious or not. I also wanted to get more at grumblebee's question about how and whether white people should be expected to repair past wrongs, and to throw out some firsthand information about why it's not only morally right but actually easier for members of dominant groups to respond to offensive comments.

posted by occhiblu 13 October | 12:12

11 October 2006