Worst Racist of the Year award goes to a New Jerseyan. A police chief no less.
I saw your response (but it is still not clear to me). Can we agree that words and physical action are NOT the same thing*?
*- let's assume the words are NOT an imminent call to violent action,
Tom_Reingold said:
RealityForAll said:
I understand your POV. However, I would ask that rethink, or reconsider your metaphor (namely, "stepping on people's toes"). IMHO, it appears that you are NOT making a distinction between words (POV on racism - merely words) and physical violence (namely, "stepping on people's toes" ). Please correct me if my understanding is incomplete or wrong.
Well it happened literally with my father once. His mother stepped on his toes by accident, and she got mad at him. She wasn't right, was she? So hypothetically speaking, if you were to step on someone's toes, and if, hypothetically, you didn't know it hurts people -- which I'm sure you do know -- would you continue to step, or would you make a better effort to avoid stepping? The answer is obvious, I hope.
Right. No one can accuse drummerboy of violence or even of instigating it. He could still do better.
drummerboy said:
exactly what assertion is hurtful? That things have gotten better?
And are you equating making that assertion with using the n-word?
We're so far down the rabbit-hole at this point....
ETA: it's a rule? since when? what's the rule?
Tom_Reingold said:
I'm saying that making your assertion is hurtful to many people, and you're entitled to feel it's true, but the act of saying it out loud is hurtful. You're still not getting that point.
See Ta-Nehisi Coates's recent comment about why white people shouldn't use the N-word. It's analogous. Basically, it's just a rude thing to do, and it's rude not to accept it as a rule. Grow up and grow some politeness hairs or whatever.
The rule is don’t be a dick.
I knew that was coming as I wrote it, but I wasn't sure if someone would actually react. I'm not surprised it's from you.
Tom_Reingold said:
And you called a black man a boy.
drummerboy said: this is surreal. All I'm saying is that race relations have gotten better in my lifetime. I can't think of a less controversial statement to make.
What is surreal to me is that you think the fact that race relations have gotten better for you means that they're better for everyone else. You feel better about race relations, so we should all feel better. The inability to place yourself anywhere but directly in the center is a drawback and your unwillingness to see this particular issue through a lens other than your own is an unfortunate by-product of privilege. American racism and white supremacy creates a society where you automatically assume primacy. This doesn't mean that personally you adhere to this idea but it does mean that you have to work extra hard to step outside of the hierarchy you've been trained to accept as the default.
If your own worldview is the only one you consider, then you're never going to see nuance or shadings and you'll never, ever grasp context. You can't because your station in life isn't affected by that nuance or that context and so you don't know the whole story. If you can't see context than you'll have difficulty understanding why a picture of Barack Obama doesn't mean real racial progress to many Black and brown folks. There's the bright ideal of 'The First Black President!' and then there's the reality of the first non white president in a racist country. You are connected to the emotional back clapping created by the former and Black people react to and live under the more substantial effect of the latter. You can afford to celebrate the symbolic notion of Breaking a Racial Barrier and ride that artificial high for as long as you'd like- we can celebrate for a very brief moment, but then we have to look for actual improvement because we know that the barrier Shouldn't Have Been There In The First Place (google "Malcolm X knife" it's :28 seconds).
Essentially by waving Obama as a symbol of progress you're asking to celebrate America being less racist in 2008. If his tenure had produced sweeping changes to the lives led by Black and brown Americans and if white America had in turn accepted and held on to those changes, then America being 'less racist' might be worth celebrating if only to motivate continued upward growth. (And here comes the context). It didn't happen that way though did it? In the end the real American mechanism thwarted him at every turn and he succumbed. African American death by cop porn reached new heights during his tenure. Vast municipal conspiracies directed against Black, brown and poor Americans were exposed during his tenure. Wild disparities in the judicial and penal systems were revealed during his tenure. Racists and white supremacists re established their voices and galvanized, reasserted their influence locally and then went after political power on a national scale. All of that continues to this day- unabated.
And then, as soon as it could, the forward thinking, inclusive America that lives comfortably in your imagination corrected course, moved back to the default and elected a racist buffoon whose raison d'etre was to disqualify Obama and then erase all evidence that he'd ever held the office. So, in the end your picture of Obama didn't tell the whole story- only the part that interested you.
'Less racist' will never be good enough. Not as bad as it used to be is not good enough. I'm not ever going to be happy with 'things are better than they were' coupled with 'things still kinda suck' as you put it. I've lived long enough to know that this society is not at all receptive to change unless the demand for it is loud, ongoing and relentless.
Your standards are not my standards. You may be somewhat content but I have greater expectations and less patience and like many I don't plan on settling for less. Part of that not settling is making a point to challenge perspectives that inaccurately depict the workings of the world I live in. Racist cops are not a surprising anomaly. I wish they were.
what I'm saying is that I think it's the height of arrogance for a white person to try and lecture black people about the experience of racism. These discussions shouldn't be a competition about who's "right." An acknowledgement of the truth of someone else's experience would go a long way.
drummerboy said:
I knew that was coming as I wrote it, but I wasn't sure if someone would actually react. I'm not surprised it's from you.
I guess you can characterize me one way or another, but how about conceding a point or two? Don't even concede what I say. Concede what flimbro has said.
Tom_Reingold said:
And you called a black man a boy.
Seriously? You've never heard the phrase "big boy" or "big girl"? Sure, it's condescending, and I usually use it along with "panties", but it isn't racist. If you're going to purposely misinterpret statements then don't be surprised when the dialog ends.
As far as the other argument, I'll use an example that relates directly to me. When my mother was younger women couldn't get birth control unless they were married. After I was born my mother wanted her tubes tied, she had to get written permission FROM HER HUSBAND to do so. If a married couple bought a house the wife's income was not considered when approving the mortgage because it was assumed she would get pregnant and stop working. Women did not have the legal right to be police officers in New Jersey until 1972. I could go on.
Is there sexism today? Yes. Women still earn less than men. Women are still routinely discouraged from male dominated fields. Women routinely have to put up with harassment in order to keep their jobs. But that doesn't mean that there haven't been any advances. It is possible to say "We've come far, but we still have further to go."
And knowing what you know about the social dynamic between men and women what would your response be if you were engaged in a dialogue with a man who expressed genuine surprise at the fact that Weinstein, Louie CK, Bill Cosby, Trump, HW Bush, Roy Moore etc were able to get away with assaulting women and young girls for decades?
Would you also be shocked that someone didn't stop these men, expose their actions and make sure they were punished? Would you take part in a dialogue that focused on 'how could this happen in this day and age' and not on the actual assaults and why they were permitted to continue? Or would your life experience, grasp of history and understanding of the power dynamic inherent in a patriarchal society make it necessary for you to explain to the man how the world really works?
And what if that man's response to your explanation of the how and why these men were allowed to continue their behavior was to show you a picture of a female Fortune 500 CEO or Hilary Clinton and then say, "Hey, at least you guys got the vote- that's a positive right? I mean we are making progress". Would that response be appropriate?
I'm not trying to equate our experiences, they are not close to being similar. But I would like to hear how you would respond.
And for what it's worth I was not insulted by drummerboy's use of 'big boy'. I appreciate Tom's concern but I'm far enough along in this life to not be affected by offhanded comments designed to marginalize. I know that drummerboy intended the usage to suggest that I was someone capable of self defense. But, I also think it's important to point out that by his own admission drummerboy used the phrase understanding how it might be construed by some- and then used it anyway. That admission and choice says a great deal about drummerboy and validates Tom's observation.
Spontaneous, filmbro,
Are you surprised that some elected officials in Alabama have said that even if the accusation against Roy Moore about sex with a 14 year old are true it's no big deal?
Maybe DB is naive about the level of racism among senior Police Officials in NJ but the discussion in another thread about the Democratic Presidential Primary and what would have occurred if Bernie Sanders had been the nominee in my opinion is based on a totally naive view of the continued existence of Anti-Semitism in the US
spontaneous said:
As far as the other argument, I'll use an example that relates directly to me. When my mother was younger women couldn't get birth control unless they were married. After I was born my mother wanted her tubes tied, she had to get written permission FROM HER HUSBAND to do so. If a married couple bought a house the wife's income was not considered when approving the mortgage because it was assumed she would get pregnant and stop working. Women did not have the legal right to be police officers in New Jersey until 1972. I could go on.
Is there sexism today? Yes. Women still earn less than men. Women are still routinely discouraged from male dominated fields. Women routinely have to put up with harassment in order to keep their jobs. But that doesn't mean that there haven't been any advances. It is possible to say "We've come far, but we still have further to go."
but what would you think of a man who insists on lecturing women on the how much better the state of sexism in the U.S. today?
It was dumb of me to bring up the "big boy" thing. I was annoyed and a little out of my mind when I wrote that.
Well it happened literally with my father once. His mother stepped on his toes by accident, and she got mad at him. She wasn't right, was she? So hypothetically speaking, if you were to step on someone's toes, and if, hypothetically, you didn't know it hurts people -- which I'm sure you do know -- would you continue to step, or would you make a better effort to avoid stepping? The answer is obvious, I hope.