Perhaps you should mention how it affected you to your husband. Not that anything needs to be said in a mean manner, but you also don't want your child to grow up hearing those types of terms. I think that some people don't even realize that that IS a deragatory term.

I don't write as well as I'd like..basically what I'm trying to say is that if it bothered you enough to write about it here, it bothered you enough that it should be resolved.

I suspect that he didn't even realize that it's a derogatory term. Like, I said "gypped" and "paddy wagon" for years without knowing that those terms might be offensive. I would just let it go. It reminds me of my grandmother using the term "colored." There wasn't any hatred behind it, it's just what she knew and it was a little late for her to change.

Recently, when someone said something anti-Semitic to me without realizing it, I found a lot of comfort in Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Recently I heard a really interesting story on, I think it was, This American Life about a high school in Florida called Nathan Bedford Forrest High School (he was a founder of the KKK). A history teacher in the school somehow developed a class assignment where the kids had to research and propose a new name for the school based on someone who would make a better hero. It became much bigger than the school, and the entire community got involved. Ultimately the school students voted on a name change, and the majority in the school wanted the name to stay the same. The majority of kids in the school were nonwhite.

What interested me about this was that the kids completely understood the issue. But they were arguing that it should be kept in perspective. From their point of view, they spend their lives surrounded by institutional bias and see the wrong heroes lauded everywhere. What was more important to them than the name was opportunity. They pointed out at the all the energy going into the argument didn't do a think to change the underfunded school budget, the dangerous neighborhoods, the lack of prospects many of them faced.

Though I think the school should have changed its name more quietly long ago, the students' point of view was food for thought. It was about their sense of proportion - why spend so much time agonizing about "just a name" when the material conditions of their lives were what mattered.

Of course the name and the honoring effect of the name are intertwined with the material conditions. But if they could change only one of the two, they were clear on which it would be.

So he used a lousy expression - maybe knowingly, maybe unknowingly. Definitely tell your husband how you felt. But also maybe think about proportion. Maybe there's something you can do that would more materially change the conditions of people's lives, so that kids in the future won't grow up hearing that. I'm not sure what that is, but maybe there's a way to channel the energy in a way that will make a difference - a bigger difference than objecting to one person's use of a slur.

I don't mean to minimize it - it's always tough when people around you think they can talk that way around you. I just wanted to share that perspective from the radio show. It was good to be reminded that sometimes well-meaning talk can cover up a lack of meaningful action, and make me think more about action than talk.

Hm

I mean there's an abstract problem here too right, just that the word itself an inappropriate, anti-Semitic term? I would just be like "I'm not sure that's an appropriate term it's a bit anti-Semitic right?" Obviously he knows you're jewish tho so I guess you can't be all detached about it.

That's an interesting story Miko.

There's something uniquely youthful about their approach to the issue, where the public-morality reflex hasn't kicked in and they just sit back and mull the point. Also, I'm used to reading so much apocalyptic GRAH! over semiotics and minute actions as markers of evil in a larger macrocosm among the mefite crowd that I find it refreshing that you'd be understanding their view.

I've linked to this so many times that it's absurd, but here's Jay Smooth advising how to tell someone that the thing they just said sounded racist. He points out that it's valuable to focus on the thing they said rather than getting into an argument about what they feel or think, and breaks down some reasons why.

And of course there's a point at which sensitivity over words interferes with greater action, but this doesn't seem to me like one of those cases. Unlike the example of the school, this isn't something that takes a lot of time or mobilization of organized forces or budgeting to accomplish.

Indeed, even though changing the school's name would take all those things, it seems worth it. Sure, resources are finite and it's important to make material changes. It's also important to make symbolic changes, to confirm that the celebrated racism of the past is no longer a proud part of our collective history.

That's an awesome video, Elsa.

Yeah, I found it really helpful --- not only as a guideline for diplomatically (and therefore almost certainly more productively) engaging people who have made racist-sounding or otherwise intolerant remarks, but also as a springboard for thinking more critically about my own speech. Even if I didn't mean something to be [racist/sexist/heteronormative/whatever], that doesn't mean that it wasn't, y'know? That's the thing about privilege: if you live inside it, you need to work to keep it visible to yourself.

Should I have spoken up?

You did what you thought was right in the moment. There's no need to beat yourself for something you can't change, especially if your intent was to be compassionate.

But if you're paying attention to your lingering reactions and finding it's still bothering you, then maybe that's a signal that it's worth speaking up next time. (I'd probably try something like, "I know you don't mean it to be offensive, but I don't really like to hear 'jew' used that way," which presumes goodwill, which sounds like a valid presumption, from what you've said.) On the other hand, if it's bothering you because intellectually you feel you should have made a stand but emotionally you're ok with what happened, then maybe that's a signal that you don't need to pressure yourself to speak up.

There have been a few interesting studies coming out lately that show that speaking up against racist statements has better health and psychological outcomes for minority men (as opposed to not speaking up) but that those same benefits don't always accrue to women speak up. I do wonder if there's an ingrained niceness that women have to fight against to speak up that negates the satisfaction of speaking up sometimes, and I'd imagine that equation gets more skewed the more you like the person who said the racist thing. So, there's a fair amount of stuff to balance out, and I think it's a really individual decision on what you prioritize and what's going to be best for your own equilibrium.

I understand that this is a very tricky issue. My mode is, if someone says something that I object to in my house, I discuss it immediately. If I am in their home, I often let it go, and then feel bad about it later.

There should be a way to deal with it off my own turf, but I haven't found it yet, and it hurts me.

Indeed, even though changing the school's name would take all those things, it seems worth it. Sure, resources are finite and it's important to make material changes. It's also important to make symbolic changes, to confirm that the celebrated racism of the past is no longer a proud part of our collective history.

I totally don't disagree, and perhaps a vote of the students shouldn't have been the deciding mechanism, since as Firas says they don't have as much life experience. It was just interesting to hear how powerfully they redirected the energy of this argument to the more concrete level - something that we don't always do as successfully.

And that's not to say that the statement they made by their vote is going to change anything materially, either. It just located the crux of the actual problem in a concrete and pragmatic plane that I appreciated.

This is one of those things where I would try to channel Miss Manners. I suggest that the appropriate response for you and your relationship with these in-laws would be:

"I hope you don't say that around me again." With a soft smile.

It was just interesting to hear how powerfully they redirected the energy of this argument to the more concrete level - something that we don't always do as successfully.

Well, that's kind of just how teenage brains work, in a developmental way -- focusing more on the concrete and less on the abstract, and not always understanding the effects of one's actions on others.

Thanks, everyone. I really appreciate all the thoughtful responses and I found something valuable in each one. I love Metachat. Thank you all very much.

My husband has a little retail store. He tells me that people say this all of the time and he swears that they are so dumb that they don't know what they're saying. The same with being "gypped". Some dumb people have no idea that these are racist terms -- they have heard them all of their lives and don't have a clue. That's my opinion, anyway.

Kangaroo, I probably would have liked to say something at the time. I'm really awful at speaking up and formulating something in the moment, so I would have probably let it slide as well. I would hope they would never want to offend you. I doubt they meant harm. They're probably just clueless.

I think you did the polite thing by not speaking up, and it was what you thought was best. However, if he ever says it to you again, especially with your child around, I'd say something.

Well, that's kind of just how teenage brains work, in a developmental way -- focusing more on the concrete and less on the abstract

I tend to agree that it reflects the way teenage brains work, but I don't think of teens as focusing more on the concrete - I think they're experiencing the jarring shift between the concrete thinking of childhood and the increasing ability to think abstractly that adolescence brings. As they move along through adolescence you can generally see them moving toward more abstracted levels of thinking. I think as they leave the world of the immediate and concrete and begin to perceive larger patterns, complexities, and multiple levels in issues they become irritated with what they see as hypocrisy, the gaps between observable reality and what they are taught in families and institutions as a stated values system.

To me, it's this process that gives rise to the phenomenon of adolescent social critique. But because they are only beginning to assemble enough perspective and life experience to really grasp the complex interactions between ideas and actions, their solutions aren't always practicable and don't always take into account the power of tradition, habit, or ideology in resisting change.

In this instance I think they contributed something valuable to the debate, something a little different than the idealistic kind of absolutism that teens tend toward. Also, some people definitely get arrested at this stage!

By the way, for anyone who's interested, I found a video version of the show. It wasn't TAL, but it was on right after TAL so I thought it was related. In fact it's part of a new series called State of the Reunion.

But back to the topic, I really do hate this kind of experience and am chagrined at how common it is. LT and I were sitting up last night processing a weekend visit from one of my oldest friends, who brought along his quasi-boyfriend. The boyfriend seems to have a bizarre racist streak. It is hard to pin down, but he seems somewhat obsessed with mentioning people's race and ethnicity when it isn't relevant to anything. We went to a flea market and he found a Chinese Checkers set that was labelled "Chink Checkers." In telling us about this, he said that the dealer said "You could never get away with making this now!" and laughed. To which I said "And why on earth would you want to?" We had a few disorganized exchanges after that ("What else were they going to call 'em back then?" "How about 'Chinese people.'" "Humph...I still think of 'em that way sometimes myself")

So I'm trying to figure out whether I'm going to be able to handle spending more time around them. Apart from that one incident, there were few direct moments where something clearly racist was said. More often it's telling random jokes or stories that include racial detail or stereotype without explicitly saying something objectionable. I did my best not to react all weekend, because he's touchy, but I am not going to be able to give it a pass as much in future. He's a very sheltered person from an affluent, homogenous community and, I think, tends to think most of our views are reflexively "PC." It's not headed in a good direction.

Yikes.

I'd be inclined to say plainly though as mildly as possible that it has not been my experience that Jewish people are any more prone to haggling than anyone else and/or that I find it insulting for anyone to say so. Or I'd make my spouse deal with it.

Not saying either of those options are good ones. This is a difficult situation. You have my sympathies for sure.

His parents are very old and they are nice to me and loving to my son
I don't think there's a point to be made here
I don't need to hear an apology from him

I would let it go. I married into a nearly identical family. I am not Jewish but I was regularly offended by their racist ways and hated that our children witnessed that behavior. I would complain to my husband in private. After my kids reached elementary school age and my in-laws grew older and even more outspoken, I realized that their cranky, batshit behavior was seen as just that by my children. Even though I'd never said anything to them or to my husband in front of them about their grandparents, they knew from the values in our home that their grandparents were pretty wacky and they weren't to be 1- taken seriously and 2-emulated. So, my advice is the same as Paul McCartney's. Let it be.