What, to you, are racist actions?

[bibiche]

I think you're missing my point.

 

No, I don't think so. 

 

Look, while I find it hard to believe that anyone, particularly someone in the South, is not aware of the inherent racism in calling someone a monkey or an ape, I will take you at your word.  But the fact that you didn't say "This person was upset about it and I was surprised because I was unaware that calling a PoC a monkey was racist" but rather "one of his campaign workers (black) was making a stink about how someone yelled at her son to get out of a tree and called him a monkey. IIRC she sued that person"  is telling.  

 

Try to look at your remarks objectively.  Why the negativity regarding this woman and her response? Why the animosity?

Edited November 16, 2016 by bibiche

[hornblower]

We all carry biases and we're all ignorant about many things. It's a wake up call for all of us to learn, to burst out of those bubbles of privilege and consider what attitudes our actions and words signal. 

I think saying "I really didn't know" can be taken in two ways.

 

One is "holy cow what weird insular bubble was I living in that I didn't realize this & why wasn't this explained by community leaders and journalists and teachers or my friends?"  or it can be taken as "settle down, stop being so sensisitve, plenty of people use this innocently".  

 

I'm ok with the first - we all hopefully are learning new things every day & learning to be better people every day. 

I'm not ok at all with the second.... 
 

[idnib]

Re: people from the subcontinent being called black.

 

There are many dialects in this region, but generally speaking people on the subcontinent see black Africans rarely, and so use the word for "black" to refer to other people from the subcontinent as darker than the person speaking. It's generally considered a negative thing to be darker, and people usually mean it in a pejorative way, for example by saying a new baby is pretty, but dark. Or looking for a marriage partner, a person is dark and their children will be dark. Among the women, there is a market for skin lighteners, both artificial and natural. 

 

Part of the confusion I think comes from people using the local word for "black" to refer to others in the same region, but then those maltreated people also claiming it as their own, and then entering other parts of the world in which "black" often means "of African descent" or "with African features."

[goldberry]

This will be my last post on the subject of apes.

 

If it is always racist and must be off the table when applied to black people, then it should be off the table period.  It is discrimination to accept it for some people and not others.  (I would be in favor of taking it off the table period.)

 

Kt put it perfectly:  It is always offensive, it is not always racist.  When applied to a black person, it is racist.

 

I do happen to think it should be off the table altogether.  I think it is just another form of name-calling and lowers the level of discourse to something I don't choose to participate in.  It is not always racist however, as has been repeatedly explained. 

 

Example: Calling police pigs versus calling your cousin at thanksgiving a pig when he takes the last piece of pie.  No one should really be calling people pigs.  But yes, one is worse than the other because of the context.

[Scarlett]

No, I don't think so. 

 

Look, while I find it hard to believe that anyone, particularly someone in the South, is not aware of the inherent racism in calling someone a monkey or an ape, I will take you at your word.  But the fact that you didn't say "This person was upset about it and I was surprised because I was unaware that calling a PoC a monkey was racist" but rather "one of his campaign workers (black) was making a stink about how someone yelled at her son to get out of a tree and called him a monkey. IIRC she sued that person"  is telling.  

 

Try to look at your remarks objectively.  Why the negativity regarding this woman and her response? Why the animosity?

 

 

Well, born and raised in the south and I didn't know until I was well into my 30s that it was offensive to call a black child climbing on anything a monkey.  Because my mom called us little monkeys all of the time.  It is a little disconcerting to worry that some innocent thing you have heard and said your entire life can offend an entire group of people.  Like the time my 5 year old called the black boy in his piano class brown.  The mother was so offended we had to have a meeting about it.....I still can't understand why she was offended but I know she was.  I mean she wasn't kidding around she was OFFENDED.

[SKL]

Re: people from the subcontinent being called black.

 

There are many dialects in this region, but generally speaking people on the subcontinent see black Africans rarely, and so use the word for "black" to refer to other people from the subcontinent as darker than the person speaking. It's generally considered a negative thing to be darker, and people usually mean it in a pejorative way, for example by saying a new baby is pretty, but dark. Or looking for a marriage partner, a person is dark and their children will be dark. Among the women, there is a market for skin lighteners, both artificial and natural. 

 

Part of the confusion I think comes from people using the local word for "black" to refer to others in the same region, but then those maltreated people also claiming it as their own, and then entering other parts of the world in which "black" often means "of African descent" or "with African features."

 

My dark-skinned Indian friend has never called anyone from the subcontinent "black," but she did say that when she was a kid, her father told her to stop playing outdoor sports so she wouldn't "look like a Negress."  It wasn't a matter of being unaware of African blacks.  Of course my friends don't speak for everyone on the subcontinent.  It's good to know that for some people, "I'm black" could mean "I'm of South Asian descent."

 

Now I'm beginning to wonder if the same is true of any dark-skinned Latinos.  I know many Hispanic people self-identify as "black," but I always assumed those individuals had African heritage.

 

[Sneezyone]

There's a name for it: colorism. It's an ugly byproduct of racism and exists the world over. The closer you are to white, the better/more desireable you are, hence the "Unfair and Lovely" campaign.

 

Dark is beautiful campaign in India battles skin tone prejudices, recalls ...

#unfairandlovely captures imaginations worldwide - USA Today

The Unfair And Lovely Campaign Is Embracing Darker Skin Tones - Self

The Difference Between Racism and Colorism | TIME

 

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Sneezyone

[Rosie_0801]

Wikipedia:  "Wog is a slang word in the idiom of Australian English and British English, usually employed as an ethnic or racial slur and considered derogatory and offensive.

In British English, wog is an offensive racial slur usually applied to Middle Eastern and South Asian peoples. In Australian English, wog is a term used as a racial slur for people from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean region in general, and the Mediterranean region of the Middle East."

 

 

Wiki has a whole list of ethnic slurs, for anyone who wants to make sure they're not inadvertently being offensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

 

Who "wog" refers to depends a bit on where in history you are, just as "nonwhite" does.

It seems you're no longer a wog once you've switched to a standard Australian accent.

[Scarlett]

Sadly, my MIL carries this internalized racism. It breaks my heart. 

 

She used to powder dh before he went to kindergarten, so he'd look 'less dark'. And then the kindergarten teacher used to mock him for pretending to be light and not 'our little brown monkey'. 

 

She was thrilled when dh got together with me, because I am the palest of the pale. She approves of our children, because they are much lighter than dh.

 

It's tragic.

 

 

That just breaks my heart.  I can't even imagine.  :sad: 

[Jenny in Florida]

We are only talking about racism, specifically, right?

 

Because if we want to expand this discussion to bigotry, in general, there are numerous examples of things said on these boards that would make for excellent illustrations.

[goldberry]

Regarding the whole black/brown thing, grandparents on my dad's side (old small-town Texan) used to call my half sister (who is Native American) "our little n****r girl."  I didn't think about it much until this conversation, that they were lumping any non-white skin altogether.

 

(Yes, my mother hated them and we did not see them much.  They also tried repeatedly to get me to violate my religious beliefs.  Not nice people.  Surprised my dad turned out as well as he did.)

[Jenny in Florida]

 It's a word used about Italian and Greek immigrants in AU; latterly reclaimed by those of that heritage. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wog_Boy

 

Obviously it's yet another of those AU specific terms which is either weird or plain wrong to those outside AU.

 

I don't think it's true that it's AU specific; it may just be less used in the US now that certain populations are more fully integrated. I was born and raised in southern California and have lived in the midwest, northeast and southeast US over the last few decades. I recognize it as a derogatory term for Italians.

 

For what it's worth, I am also familiar with "black" as applied to Indian folks. Not something that comes up here a lot, but I know it's done.

[SKL]

Re colorism, my friend from India keeps insisting that I should just acknowledge that everyone in the world prefers light skin.  This is in connection with whether my kids get darker in the sun etc.  She herself has 3 siblings with relatively light skin, and people would comment on the difference right in front of her as a kid.  Her mother in law had a few choice comments too.  It is so ingrained that she can't even consider the possibility that dark skin can be beautiful.

[Jenny in Florida]

Regarding the whole black/brown thing, grandparents on my dad's side (old small-town Texan) used to call my half sister (who is Native American) "our little n****r girl."  I didn't think about it much until this conversation, that they were lumping any non-white skin altogether.

 

It's funny: Growing up in the southern California suburbs, I knew very few black kids. I came from a liberal family and was taught all of the right messages, but I just didn't have a lot of personal, one-on-one contact until I was in college. So, I knew prejudice was wrong, but I sort of understood why people with distinctly darker skin were considered "other."

 

However, growing up where I did, I knew lots of kids whose famiies had come from Mexico, whether a few generations back or more recently. All of our street names were derived from Spanish. When I went to my friend's house for lunch, her mom served our tuna in the form of burritos on home-made tortillas. It never occured to me that the kids and families I knew would be considered "different" in any measurable way.

 

(Don't get me wrong: I knew there was prejudice and had heard terms like "wetback," but I didn't think such things were current or widespread.)

 

Then I was in college and getting ready to go out for the evening with a friend I had met on campus. She was telling me about her new boyfriend, who was black, and laughing about the fact that, because her last boyfriend had been Mexican-American, her father had made a "joke" of asking her what was wrong with white guys.

 

I was both offended and confused, because until that very moment, it had never crossed my mind that anyone would consider someone of Mexican heritage "non-white."

 

I was a pretty sheltered kid, I realize.

[goldberry]

Re colorism, my friend from India keeps insisting that I should just acknowledge that everyone in the world prefers light skin. 

 

As someone with fish-belly-white skin and lots of icky blue veins prominently displayed, I can confidently say that I would love a nice caramel brown. (said jokingly, I know there are deeper issues...)

[Tanaqui]

Re colorism, my friend from India keeps insisting that I should just acknowledge that everyone in the world prefers light skin.

 

Colorism can also be an effect of classism.

 

In societies where most people work outside, having paler skin than the norm can indicate that you have the luxury of staying inside all the day instead of laboring. Conversely, in societies where most people work in offices or stores, a tan shows that you have the luxury of traveling to sunny places and lounging on the beach instead of working. (But not a farmer's tan, which indicates you earn your living with manual labor.)

 

[Guest]

Well, born and raised in the south and I didn't know until I was well into my 30s that it was offensive to call a black child climbing on anything a monkey. Because my mom called us little monkeys all of the time. It is a little disconcerting to worry that some innocent thing you have heard and said your entire life can offend an entire group of people. Like the time my 5 year old called the black boy in his piano class brown. The mother was so offended we had to have a meeting about it.....I still can't understand why she was offended but I know she was. I mean she wasn't kidding around she was OFFENDED.

I can imagine myself having done this, too. My mother did also call us monkeys when we had too much energy in the house. it wouldn't have been a distinction in my mind that, "oh, but I can't call *that* little boy a wild monkey for climbing on the refrigerator because his skin is brown and it's therefore racist." It wouldn't occur to me that it's more inappropriate because the kid has brown skin.

[Scarlett]

I don't think dark or light skin is prettier than the other...but I am fascinated by extremes.   

[ktgrok]

I can imagine myself having done this, too. My mother did also call us monkeys when we had too much energy in the house. it wouldn't have been a distinction in my mind that, "oh, but I can't call *that* little boy a wild monkey for climbing on the refrigerator because his skin is brown and it's therefore racist." It wouldn't occur to me that it's more inappropriate because the kid has brown skin.

 

and that's a reason that the idea of being "color blind" doesn't work. It can mean saying and doing things that are offensive without meaning to. 

[Scarlett]

I can imagine myself having done this, too. My mother did also call us monkeys when we had too much energy in the house. it wouldn't have been a distinction in my mind that, "oh, but I can't call *that* little boy a wild monkey for climbing on the refrigerator because his skin is brown and it's therefore racist." It wouldn't occur to me that it's more inappropriate because the kid has brown skin.

 

 

Adulting is hard.

[Scarlett]

and that's a reason that the idea of being "color blind" doesn't work. It can mean saying and doing things that are offensive without meaning to. 

 

 

I wonder how long it takes to not be offensive anymore.  

[Guest]

and that's a reason that the idea of being "color blind" doesn't work. It can mean saying and doing things that are offensive without meaning to.

Well, I have never been a promoter of "colorblind." But there's something that's bothering me about this, too. Not sure if I can articulate it well; I'm tired and not feeling super-articulate, but here's my try:

 

I don't see a big benefit in being hyper race-aware, either, as in, keeping it foremost in one's mind that this person is black (or Asian or Indian or whatever - or even with other things like orientation, social class, disability, etc.) How can I engender a good relationship with someone if I am continuously having to pay attention to "Oh, but she's black, so what eggshells must I continuously walk on to avoid a blunder?" This seems to me like it's creating barriers between people who are different where they didn't need to be any.

[debinindy]

I wonder how long it takes to not be offensive anymore.  

 

Sadly, it seems that sometimes folks are just offended regardless...

Edited November 17, 2016 by debinindy

[ktgrok]

Well, I have never been a promoter of "colorblind." But there's something that's bothering me about this, too. Not sure if I can articulate it well; I'm tired and not feeling super-articulate, but here's my try:

 

I don't see a big benefit in being hyper race-aware, either, as in, keeping it foremost in one's mind that this person is black (or Asian or Indian or whatever - or even with other things like orientation, social class, disability, etc.) How can I engender a good relationship with someone if I am continuously having to pay attention to "Oh, but she's black, so what eggshells must I continuously walk on to avoid a blunder?" This seems to me like it's creating barriers between people who are different where they didn't need to be any.

 

I don't think not referring to them or their children as monkeys is walking on eggshells. I think that's probably one of the rare examples of something you could say accidentally. 

[ebunny]

Well, I have never been a promoter of "colorblind." But there's something that's bothering me about this, too. Not sure if I can articulate it well; I'm tired and not feeling super-articulate, but here's my try:

 

I don't see a big benefit in being hyper race-aware, either, as in, keeping it foremost in one's mind that this person is black (or Asian or Indian or whatever - or even with other things like orientation, social class, disability, etc.) How can I engender a good relationship with someone if I am continuously having to pay attention to "Oh, but she's black, so what eggshells must I continuously walk on to avoid a blunder?" This seems to me like it's creating barriers between people who are different where they didn't need to be any.

 

 

Sadly, it seems that sometimes folks are just offended regardless...

 

 

I wonder how long it takes to not be offensive anymore.  

 

 

The tone of this thread has taken a very odd turn. I feel we're heading dangerously close to "Every word that I say might be misunderstood or I'll be called Politically Incorrect, so let me not bother at all"

 

Let me reassure the above posters, that as a PoC I don't/didn't really live my everyday life looking for ways to be offended. Nor does any other PoC I know. There are PoC who do take offense at what may seem like trivialities , but the same goes for non-PoC people too!. I mean, taking offense is not a PoC monopoly. :D

 

I do expect that I will be stereotyped; and I usually am -for eg: "How do you speak unaccented English?" or "I thought all Indians have arranged marriages".

I, and many others I know, try to inform or educate rather than judge. 

 

ETA: I would also suggest to posters worried about offending any PoC, to start a conversation by noticing and building on similarities or likes and dislikes; rather than commenting on differences. Just as you would for any person regardless of their race/ethnicity or skin color.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Ebunny

[Tanaqui]

I can imagine myself having done this, too. My mother did also call us monkeys when we had too much energy in the house. it wouldn't have been a distinction in my mind that, "oh, but I can't call *that* little boy a wild monkey for climbing on the refrigerator because his skin is brown and it's therefore racist." It wouldn't occur to me that it's more inappropriate because the kid has brown skin.

 

So now you know better and you won't do it.

 

If you're not generally a bigot, I think most people would give you the benefit of the doubt if you DID do it, and either ignore it or explain reasonably that it's not acceptable.

 

If people "overreact" to what is "obviously a mistake" then one of two things is usually going on. The first is that it's not "obviously a mistake" and the person claiming it is is being disingenuous. The second is that the overreacter has been burned so many times by "haha just kidding" that they simply aren't willing to play along anymore.

 

Either way, the correct response is "I'm so sorry, I didn't understand that, I won't do it again."

[ebunny]

FWIW, I really admire the person who is mindful of her/his speech and actions irrespective of who s/he is speaking to, because that is how people, in general, should interact, you know? That should be the ideal to work towards...being mindful of my culture, your culture and our culture, iykwim.

 

I get that it is difficult to be mindful, I've had my a** handed to me many times when I thought I was being mindful :o ; but the unacceptable(to me) alternative is---ignorance, insularity and homogenity.

[Pam in CT]

re "colorblindness," avoiding blunders, PC and "walking on eggshells"

Well, I have never been a promoter of "colorblind." But there's something that's bothering me about this, too. Not sure if I can articulate it well; I'm tired and not feeling super-articulate, but here's my try:

I don't see a big benefit in being hyper race-aware, either, as in, keeping it foremost in one's mind that this person is black (or Asian or Indian or whatever - or even with other things like orientation, social class, disability, etc.) How can I engender a good relationship with someone if I am continuously having to pay attention to "Oh, but she's black, so what eggshells must I continuously walk on to avoid a blunder?" This seems to me like it's creating barriers between people who are different where they didn't need to be any.

 

 

((Danielle)), don't worry unduly about inadvertent blunders.  Making mistakes is an inherent part of trying, trying anything at all..including engendering relationships across differences.  Some of us grew up aware of Wog language or Watermelon (or Global Finance) coding and others did not -- what matters is not what we already know at the starting line; what matters is how we respond when we are confronted with new information that may challenge us as we move through the journey.

 

When we know better, we can do better.  

 

If we accept that power today is asymmetrically concentrated and that historical context matters, it is easy to see how the Colorblind Doctrine sustains and ratifies injustice.  It is easy to see how insistence that Every Incident is a One-Off, or that evaluation should always be on Intent rather than Impact, has the effect of denying the patterns that characterize the problem.  It is easy to see how the redirection of threads like this one around to defensive constructs like But White People are _______ Too! or But, but... That's Not What I Intended!  or  How Dare You Imply I'm a Racist  is a distraction from the OP at best and....

 

...given the pattern of such re-directions on so many prior threads, can be viewed as disingenuous or intentional derailments.

 

 

 

I know that's not what you're doing.  I know you're trying to engender good relationships.  I know you're trying to avoid blunders.  Here's the thing: if we try, we'll make blunders.  We just will.  Well... so?  I mean sure it's a little uncomfortable, but really it's no bigger of a deal than making accidental mistakes in any other realm, learning a new sport or language, trying new recipes, planting new plants, learning a new skill.  The only difference is this tendency to retrench into defensiveness... which... once we know and name and accept it within ourselves, is, itself, manageable.  

 

A little Zen mindfulness goes a long way: oh, I notice a defensive squawk arising in my gorge!  Oh, I notice words of outrage forming behind my lips! Oh, I notice that my response to hearing this person's testimony is about to begin with the opening words "yeah, but..."!   :lol: 

 

... and when I notice that phenomenon -- AND I DO, ALL THE DANG TIME -- I am faced with a choice: which is more important, to dig in and insist on being Right today, or to reflect a bit and consider on how I can do a little bit Better tomorrow?

 

 

 

[bibiche]

So wonderfully put, Pam. Thank you. :)

[bolt.]

I sometimes wonder if it's related to racism when, in a religious context we see the idea of "morally good" linked to the metaphor of "purity" and further linked to the more concrete metaphor of "cleanliness" and at the end of that train if though we often find the colour "white" used symbolically.

 

As a Christian, I know that there are one or two prominent Bible verses that make use that set of symbolic language with respect to human hearts, and maybe a dozen more that apply it to one's metaphorical "clothes".

 

So I know, "it's Biblical."

 

But it also gets an awful lot of attention, given that it's only one of many hundreds of metaphors in the Bible. In addition to getting a lot of use in general, this set of symbols gets an extridinary amount of use in children's contexts -- where children are the least able to deal well with symbol and metaphor in communication. It bugs me in that context, because I don't think kids get it in general, but I think that dark skinned children might wonder (in childish ways) "If Jesus makes my heart turn white, how does my 'need' for a 'white heart' relate to my black skin, and what was wrong with having a black person's heart?"

 

Is there another way to talk about one's happy transition from sinner to saved human (in Christianity) as an act of blessing, restoration, wonder and miracle -- without saying "washed white" 95% of the time we reach for a metaphor or object lesson? It's not like we have a lack of source material for dozens of other metaphors.

 

Do you think the disproportionate prevalence of the preference for the "white is good" metaphor in (current North American evangelical) Christianity is an unconscious expression of systemic racism? Does its use tell us who tends to have power within that grouping, and where we find ourselves in history?

 

Is it as popular among other expressions of Christianity? Is it a symbol set that is in use in other religions?

 

What does it feel like to people who are non-white to encounter "white=good" as a religious metaphor? What would it feel like to watch an object lesson where, "Sin bleaches away all the wonderful rich dark colours of your heart, until you are pale and weak like (this object here), but when Jesua saves you: Look! He restores you to everything you were made to be! (The rich dark colours reappear.) In God, you are made into your best self." (What if sometimes in the metaphor 'white' is the bad symbol, and 'dark' meant good things.)

 

Is it racist to continue reaching for the handiest metaphor (it's Biblical!) in spite of the possibility that some people really don't want or need to be told that "white" is the main and most important result of a religious experience with Jesus?

 

Or is that not racist, and it doesn't actually hit non-white people that way?

[bibiche]

Sounds racist to me. I grew up in religion, but with liberation theology, so I have never heard these things.  I like to hope they are not prevalent, but I know I am probably wrong.

[debinindy]

I sometimes wonder if it's related to racism when, in a religious context we see the idea of "morally good" linked to the metaphor of "purity" and further linked to the more concrete metaphor of "cleanliness" and at the end of that train if though we often find the colour "white" used symbolically.

 

As a Christian, I know that there are one or two prominent Bible verses that make use that set of symbolic language with respect to human hearts, and maybe a dozen more that apply it to one's metaphorical "clothes".

 

So I know, "it's Biblical."

 

But it also gets an awful lot of attention, given that it's only one of many hundreds of metaphors in the Bible. In addition to getting a lot of use in general, this set of symbols gets an extridinary amount of use in children's contexts -- where children are the least able to deal well with symbol and metaphor in communication. It bugs me in that context, because I don't think kids get it in general, but I think that dark skinned children might wonder (in childish ways) "If Jesus makes my heart turn white, how does my 'need' for a 'white heart' relate to my black skin, and what was wrong with having a black person's heart?"

 

Is there another way to talk about one's happy transition from sinner to saved human (in Christianity) as an act of blessing, restoration, wonder and miracle -- without saying "washed white" 95% of the time we reach for a metaphor or object lesson? It's not like we have a lack of source material for dozens of other metaphors.

 

Do you think the disproportionate prevalence of the preference for the "white is good" metaphor in (current North American evangelical) Christianity is an unconscious expression of systemic racism? Does its use tell us who tends to have power within that grouping, and where we find ourselves in history?

 

Is it as popular among other expressions of Christianity? Is it a symbol set that is in use in other religions?

 

What does it feel like to people who are non-white to encounter "white=good" as a religious metaphor? What would it feel like to watch an object lesson where, "Sin bleaches away all the wonderful rich dark colours of your heart, until you are pale and weak like (this object here), but when Jesua saves you: Look! He restores you to everything you were made to be! (The rich dark colours reappear.) In God, you are made into your best self." (What if sometimes in the metaphor 'white' is the bad symbol, and 'dark' meant good things.)

 

Is it racist to continue reaching for the handiest metaphor (it's Biblical!) in spite of the possibility that some people really don't want or need to be told that "white" is the main and most important result of a religious experience with Jesus?

 

Or is that not racist, and it doesn't actually hit non-white people that way?

 

Humm  Interesting

 

The most important "Christian" color to me, though, is

 

RED

[bibiche]

Humm  Interesting

 

The most important "Christian" color to me, though, is

 

RED

I don't get it. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I sometimes wonder if it's related to racism when, in a religious context we see the idea of "morally good" linked to the metaphor of "purity" and further linked to the more concrete metaphor of "cleanliness" and at the end of that train if though we often find the colour "white" used symbolically.

 

In our liturgy we sing every week 'Create in me a CLEAN heart, oh God, and renew a right spirit within me.'  Not a white heart.  So that is our primary metaphor.  (IIRC it's from Psalm 51, which David penned after he repented of adultery and murder.)

 

It's funny, there are two other verses that come to mind that do use white, and they are conflicting images.  One is from Isaiah 18 and can be rephrased as 'though your sins look red, they shall look white' IOW be neutralized.  The other is from Revelation, which shows the saved from every land in heaven, with robes that were 'washed in the blood of the Lamb' to be made white.  That has always struck me funny--what stains more than blood?  And why would blood make something white?  Still, it refers back to the Passover, the Paschal Lamb, whose blood on the door frame saved some from the angel of death.  If anything, red is the stronger of the symbolic colors, BUT technically it can mean either dirty or rescued.  Red is also the liturgical color associated with Pentecost and with Reformation Day, which are important festivals.  But anyway, those metaphors are not in the liturgy, so the idea of white being good is not reinforced.

 

We do have one hymn that we sing occasionally that has a verse that ends 'and make us white today', and I have always sung 'and make us CLEAN today' instead, for exactly the reason in the referenced post.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

...given the pattern of such re-directions on so many prior threads, can be viewed as disingenuous or intentional derailments.

 

 

This is a good post, but the fact is that what derails these threads generally is the controversial assertion that racism must be redefined in such a way as to slander all of certain groups as racist, ironically including many who are working proactively to end racism in society; and the accompanying assertion that prejudiced mocking is just fine as long as it only impinges on those groups; rather than the reaction to this.  

[SarahW]

I sometimes wonder if it's related to racism when, in a religious context we see the idea of "morally good" linked to the metaphor of "purity" and further linked to the more concrete metaphor of "cleanliness" and at the end of that train if though we often find the colour "white" used symbolically.

 

As a Christian, I know that there are one or two prominent Bible verses that make use that set of symbolic language with respect to human hearts, and maybe a dozen more that apply it to one's metaphorical "clothes".

 

So I know, "it's Biblical."

 

But it also gets an awful lot of attention, given that it's only one of many hundreds of metaphors in the Bible. In addition to getting a lot of use in general, this set of symbols gets an extridinary amount of use in children's contexts -- where children are the least able to deal well with symbol and metaphor in communication. It bugs me in that context, because I don't think kids get it in general, but I think that dark skinned children might wonder (in childish ways) "If Jesus makes my heart turn white, how does my 'need' for a 'white heart' relate to my black skin, and what was wrong with having a black person's heart?"

 

Is there another way to talk about one's happy transition from sinner to saved human (in Christianity) as an act of blessing, restoration, wonder and miracle -- without saying "washed white" 95% of the time we reach for a metaphor or object lesson? It's not like we have a lack of source material for dozens of other metaphors.

 

Do you think the disproportionate prevalence of the preference for the "white is good" metaphor in (current North American evangelical) Christianity is an unconscious expression of systemic racism? Does its use tell us who tends to have power within that grouping, and where we find ourselves in history?

 

Is it as popular among other expressions of Christianity? Is it a symbol set that is in use in other religions?

 

What does it feel like to people who are non-white to encounter "white=good" as a religious metaphor? What would it feel like to watch an object lesson where, "Sin bleaches away all the wonderful rich dark colours of your heart, until you are pale and weak like (this object here), but when Jesua saves you: Look! He restores you to everything you were made to be! (The rich dark colours reappear.) In God, you are made into your best self." (What if sometimes in the metaphor 'white' is the bad symbol, and 'dark' meant good things.)

 

Is it racist to continue reaching for the handiest metaphor (it's Biblical!) in spite of the possibility that some people really don't want or need to be told that "white" is the main and most important result of a religious experience with Jesus?

 

Or is that not racist, and it doesn't actually hit non-white people that way?

 

None of the "white" things you mention are actually in the Bible. I wouldn't even characterize them as "biblical."

 

I know what you are referring to. That sort of language reminds me of 1950's white revival preachers. Might not have intended for their metaphor to refer to race, but didn't really think it all the way through either.

 

Historically, in Christianity, white is tied to redemption and resurrection. White baptismal robes and white vestments for Easter. That mainly comes from the verse in Revelation about the saints in heaven wearing white robes. Traditional Christian churches in Africa and India don't have any problem with this. In fact, they wear white more often. White is a great color if you live in a tropical climate.

[SKL]

I sometimes wonder if it's related to racism when, in a religious context we see the idea of "morally good" linked to the metaphor of "purity" and further linked to the more concrete metaphor of "cleanliness" and at the end of that train if though we often find the colour "white" used symbolically.

 

As a Christian, I know that there are one or two prominent Bible verses that make use that set of symbolic language with respect to human hearts, and maybe a dozen more that apply it to one's metaphorical "clothes".

 

So I know, "it's Biblical."

 

But it also gets an awful lot of attention, given that it's only one of many hundreds of metaphors in the Bible. In addition to getting a lot of use in general, this set of symbols gets an extridinary amount of use in children's contexts -- where children are the least able to deal well with symbol and metaphor in communication. It bugs me in that context, because I don't think kids get it in general, but I think that dark skinned children might wonder (in childish ways) "If Jesus makes my heart turn white, how does my 'need' for a 'white heart' relate to my black skin, and what was wrong with having a black person's heart?"

 

Is there another way to talk about one's happy transition from sinner to saved human (in Christianity) as an act of blessing, restoration, wonder and miracle -- without saying "washed white" 95% of the time we reach for a metaphor or object lesson? It's not like we have a lack of source material for dozens of other metaphors.

 

Do you think the disproportionate prevalence of the preference for the "white is good" metaphor in (current North American evangelical) Christianity is an unconscious expression of systemic racism? Does its use tell us who tends to have power within that grouping, and where we find ourselves in history?

 

Is it as popular among other expressions of Christianity? Is it a symbol set that is in use in other religions?

 

What does it feel like to people who are non-white to encounter "white=good" as a religious metaphor? What would it feel like to watch an object lesson where, "Sin bleaches away all the wonderful rich dark colours of your heart, until you are pale and weak like (this object here), but when Jesua saves you: Look! He restores you to everything you were made to be! (The rich dark colours reappear.) In God, you are made into your best self." (What if sometimes in the metaphor 'white' is the bad symbol, and 'dark' meant good things.)

 

Is it racist to continue reaching for the handiest metaphor (it's Biblical!) in spite of the possibility that some people really don't want or need to be told that "white" is the main and most important result of a religious experience with Jesus?

 

Or is that not racist, and it doesn't actually hit non-white people that way?

 

I'm not sure whether the original untranslated meaning was "white," which would be interesting to know.  If so, I don't think the original meaning would have suggested whiter skin = good, because the skin of the people in that time/place was not "white."  Certainly nobody's heart is "white" regardless of skin color.

 

In the language used in the church my kids attend (which is a fairly conservative Lutheran church), I don't hear "white" used in that way.  Maybe they have revised it so the teachings don't imply that white = good.  I could definitely see that happening in past generations, especially where slavery and Jim Crow were accepted.

 

PS my kids are not "white" and they have never said anything about religious teachings making them feel "less than."  The only time they've equated value to skin color was after their first MLK lesson in KG.

Edited November 17, 2016 by SKL

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Historically, in Christianity, white is tied to redemption and resurrection. White baptismal robes and white vestments for Easter. That mainly comes from the verse in Revelation about the saints in heaven wearing white robes. Traditional Christian churches in Africa and India don't have any problem with this. In fact, they wear white more often. White is a great color if you live in a tropical climate.

This is true.  Also, 'white' in the Bible is more the color that we would call 'natural'.  Think of the white of natural wool, not bleached wool, or natural cotton (which was not as white as it has been bred to be today, more beigey), or natural linen.  In that context white means unblemished, and returned to its natural state and appearance.  

[SKL]

Also I think there were some negative verses in the Bible about white relating to leprosy, IIRC.

[SKL]

But along the lines of "white" being equated with "good," there is an old video of Muhammad Ali talking about how he questioned this as a kid.  He is very entertaining and on point.  :)  It's one of the reasons he converted to Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtxfTEyJZg4

Edited November 17, 2016 by SKL

[SarahW]

Back to topic - 

 

I have a dear old aunt who is a classic rust belt WWC union leader Democrat. She is socially liberal. She voted for Obama. She's Catholic. She's always sniping about how the Catholic bishops don't care enough about the poor and oppressed and so on. She's a nice person.

 

She's also racist. It floors me every time, because otherwise she doesn't seem like the type of person who is a racist. But she is.

 

For example, she did a stint as a school crossing guard, and mentioned to me "all the half and half kids" she was seeing. Half and half? "You know, half black and half white." I was like, ohhh??? and ummm??? and soooo??? And she went on to explain that she just "felt so sorry for the kids." Sorry for them? "Yes, I'm just so sorry for them." I guess she thought that the kids would get bullied, okay, but then should the parents just not had any kids? No, she plainly just felt uncomfortable with it, and didn't know how to respond.

 

She eventually moved out of that town and intentionally because of "white flight" reasons. Too many blacks from the "wrong" side of town were moving in. There were demographic shifts, sure, but seriously, that town was one of the last urban Irish/Polish residential towns left in the Midwest, it was bound to happen eventually. And even so, so what? She said the real problem was that the blacks "bring their guns and their gangs, and soon this town will be as ruined as their town." I was just amused, because seriously, she had no idea that white boys, especially the Irish/Polish type of boys in that town, probably had lots of gangs and guns of their own. Plus, for goodness sakes, probably not every black is moving in from gang-land. And even if they are, it's probably young families moving for the good schools, the working infrastructure, and to keep their kids out of gangs. Are you really going to fault them for that?

 

The police shootings really brought it out. In her mind, all black boys probably carry guns and disrespect authority, it's "in their culture" after all. So shooting Tamir Rice was totally justified. 

 

But if you were to ask her if she was a racist, she would say No, absolutely not. I believe that she wouldn't directly hurt anyone because of their race. But by her actions she perpetuates racism. I think many baby boomers are actually very similar.

[SarahW]

But along the lines of "white" being equated with "good," there is an old video of Muhammad Ali talking about how he questioned this as a kid.  He is very entertaining and on point.  :)  It's one of the reasons he converted to Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtxfTEyJZg4

 

 

I'm not intending to deny Ali the validity of his own experience.

 

But - 

 

I know and am friends with PoC who come from traditional churches in Africa and India, Founded by the Apostles, tyvm. And this sort of thing drives them crazy. They HATE how everyone in America assumes that they are Christian because of missionaries. They HATE how Americans disbelieve their own religious history with "But...you're not white???" As one friend vented one day "My ancestors were worshipping God when everyone was still worshipping idols, and you white people were worshipping trees! Why do people always have to question whether I'm really a Christian! And what's with all the idiots saying Christianity is white man religion, anyways!"

 

I know America has its own unique set of pathologies and problems. But exporting them to PoC in the rest of world usually just make those PoC really annoyed. 

[SKL]

I'm not intending to deny Ali the validity of his own experience.

 

But - 

 

I know and am friends with PoC who come from traditional churches in Africa and India, Founded by the Apostles, tyvm. And this sort of thing drives them crazy. They HATE how everyone in America assumes that they are Christian because of missionaries. They HATE how Americans disbelieve their own religious history with "But...you're not white???" As one friend vented one day "My ancestors were worshipping God when everyone was still worshipping idols, and you white people were worshipping trees! Why do people always have to question whether I'm really a Christian! And what's with all the idiots saying Christianity is white man religion, anyways!"

 

I know America has its own unique set of pathologies and problems. But exporting them to PoC in the rest of world usually just make those PoC really annoyed. 

 

I don't agree with everything he said, and clearly he was still just learning himself.  But his words about his experiences are powerful.  Also, they help explain some other things that happened around that time.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by SKL

[Pam in CT]

re definitions and slander

This is a good post, but the fact is that what derails these threads generally is the controversial assertion that racism must be redefined in such a way as to slander all of certain groups as racist, ironically including many who are working proactively to end racism in society; and the accompanying assertion that prejudiced mocking is just fine as long as it only impinges on those groups; rather than the reaction to this.  

 

I'm not sure I'm following what you mean by controversial redefinition... and I definitely am not following what you mean by slander.

 

I did read the various dictionary offerings above.  And I understood from them two basic orientations to understanding what racism is: one framed in individual terms, with an emphasis on malice and intent; the other framed in systemic terms, with an emphasis on power and effect.  They are not mutually exclusive., and both working frameworks have existed for a very long time. James Baldwin and WEB Du Bois (among many others) both worked often from a systemic perspective.  It's not new.  

 

 

I certainly understand that some folks who subscribe to the narrow-lens / individual malice & intent orientation are uncomfortable with the other, wider-lens definition, with its inclusion of issues of power and history and pattern.  But discomfort in the face of an idea, even one with is new to us (though in this case not new), even an idea we disagree with, even one we strenuously disagree with, isn't slander.  

 

What do you mean by that?  How does incorporating power and history and pattern into the analysis of racism slander anyone (even a person who personally leans toward the narrow-lens orientation)?

 

 

[Tanaqui]

This is a good post, but the fact is that what derails these threads generally is the controversial assertion that racism must be redefined in such a way as to slander all of certain groups as racist,

 

You've already been told why this is false and that you're misusing the term "racism". You're still equivocating. Worse, since I know you have the information to know better by now, you're actually lying. Stop that.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

 But discomfort in the face of an idea, even one with is new to us (though in this case not new), even an idea we disagree with, even one we strenuously disagree with, isn't slander.  

 

The slander is in accusing nonracist people of being racist.

[Carol in Cal.]

You've already been told why this is false and that you're misusing the term "racism". You're still equivocating. Worse, since I know you have the information to know better by now, you're actually lying. Stop that.

Baloney.

Disagreeing with your redefinition, one that is by an estimate upthread only 15 years old, and which is not generally accepted is neither equivocating nor lying.  You have no right to throw such incendiary and insulting language around.  Making controversial assertions is making controversial assertions.  It is not proving anything, despite repeating them over and over.  And using this as the basis for making personal attacks is unacceptable.

 

Moreover, it's horrendous strategy for accomplishing the goals that you and I both share, which makes it extremely counterproductive.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[hornblower]

Baloney.

Disagreeing with your redefinition, one that is by an estimate upthread only 15 years old, and which is not generally accepted is neither equivocating nor lying.  

Not generally accepted by whom??? 

 

 

The concept of racism being prejudice + power is much older than 15 years. It was already in textbooks in the 70's. 

 

Here's a book copyrighted in 1978 https://books.google.ca/books?id=yoFHSXoofoQC&lpg=PA43&pg=PA52&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

White Awareness by Judy Katz. 

[Pam in CT]

re accusation and slander:

The slander is in accusing nonracist people of being racist.

 

 

Carol, I really am trying to understand what you're getting at.  I have long admired the work you've described in feeding the hungry and directing resources to marginalized populations in your prior posts.  Directly because of you I and several acquaintances in my little corner of the world have donated moderately-used appliances to service providers rather than have them just hauled away during replacement.  I do not question your individual intent.

 

I do not yet understand how racial analysis that includes the ideas of power and pattern amounts to an accusation, or slander, of anyone in particular, let alone you personally.

 

It may not be how you yourself tend to approach the issue.  That might be a mere matter of disposition -- some of us tend naturally to think Close, in terms of trees; and others to think at a Distance, in terms of the forest.

 

But I'm not seeing how analysis of racism in systemic terms, that include analysis of power and history and their effects, turns into accusation or slander.  By its own definitional terms, it's looking at systems-- how race-based effects can be generated and perpetuated regardless of the individual motivations of people acting within the logic of the system.  By its own terms, it's not necessarily personal.

 

What about that kind of analysis turns it into *personal* slander in your mind?

[Carol in Cal.]

re accusation and slander:

 

 

Carol, I really am trying to understand what you're getting at.  I have long admired the work you've described in feeding the hungry and directing resources to marginalized populations in your prior posts.  Directly because of you I and several acquaintances in my little corner of the world have donated moderately-used appliances to service providers rather than have them just hauled away during replacement.  I do not question your individual intent.

 

I do not yet understand how racial analysis that includes the ideas of power and pattern amounts to an accusation, or slander, of anyone in particular, let alone you personally.

 

It may not be how you yourself tend to approach the issue.  That might be a mere matter of disposition -- some of us tend naturally to think Close, in terms of trees; and others to think at a Distance, in terms of the forest.

 

But I'm not seeing how analysis of racism in systemic terms, that include analysis of power and history and their effects, turns into accusation or slander.  By its own definitional terms, it's looking at systems-- how race-based effects can be generated and perpetuated regardless of the individual motivations of people acting within the logic of the system.  By its own terms, it's not necessarily personal.

 

What about that kind of analysis turns it into *personal* slander in your mind?

When it gets personal and accusations/insults are thrown around, or when the assertion is made that anyone who doesn't accept this is racist.  And it always seems to end up there.

For example, upthread:

"I notice that you bring up 'reverse racism'  every time we discuss racism, which leads me to believe that you do not, in fact, wish to be educated/ change your views about racism. I infer that this is because you don't have a problem with racism, which would indicate to me that you are yourself a racist."

 

That can ONLY harm the efforts to turn this around.  I know that when people are riled up it is harder to stay calm in discussion, but throwing around accusations like that, that are not true, only gets other people's backs up.  Actually, even if the accusation were true, which sometimes, unfortunately, it is, this is an ineffective way of dealing with it.  It's like rolling a bowling ball through a ping pong match--inappropriate, and destructive, and counterproductive.

 

BTW, I'm so excited that you're donating appliances!  That is so great, I am SURE it's doing a lot of good!  How generous of you!

 

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Carol in Cal.