s/o How do you use the word "racist"?

[Momto6inIN]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this since reading @Quill’s monuments thread and the disagreement about whether or not @Arctic Mama knows several racists or not. It seems to me that the issue comes down to whether we use “racist” as an adjective or a noun.

I admit that I sometimes have racist thoughts, ideas, and attitudes. I don’t like that about myself, and I pray that Jesus will help change my heart in those areas, but I can readily admit that they exist. I think they do to some extent in just about everybody. I can also admit that I have said and done racist things in the past, mostly from ignorance but possibly from intent in my younger years because of my upbringing and environment, although now that I know better I try to do better. So I understand using the word “racist” as an adjective applied to thoughts, ideas, attitudes, words, and actions. I also think I understand it as applied to an entire system of justice. I think if I used this definition of “racist” I would say that I know many, many people who have racist tendencies (maybe all the people I know, to some extent).

But it is very hard for me to use the word “racist” as a noun. As in, “Insert person’s name is a racist.” Or even applied to myself, “I am a racist.” To me that implies some level of intentional malice towards people of other races. And, as most “I am …” statements do, it also implies that that quality imbues everything and anything that you do and are as a person. I don’t think either of those is true of me or most of the people I know. If I used this definition of “racist” I would say that I don’t know many racists at all. But the woman in the park who called the cops on the man who asked her to leash her dog didn’t think she was a racist either, so maybe I’m just fooling myself?

I think in the other thread someone (can’t remember who) said something along the lines of “a racist is just someone who does racist things”. I think someone (can’t remember who again) even said that “racist” isn’t necessarily a pejorative term, it’s just a description of fact. But it certainly feels pejorative, and I don’t think I can name an instance where it hasn’t been clearly meant as a severe condemnation of a person when I’ve seen it used in the media or on social media or in real life.

I have no problem with the word “racist” used as a descriptive adjective. And obviously we need a word to describe this despicable type of thought, word, or deed so we can call it out, both in ourselves and in others. But since we admit that just about everyone does or thinks racist things sometimes, does that mean just about everyone is a racist (used as a noun)? That I have a lot more trouble accepting. Does that label apply equally to the progressive who recognizes their own inadequacies in this area and tries to rectify them as it does to the skinhead? As a white person, that makes me feel very helpless and discouraged to be lumped together like that. Maybe that’s ok, as a small way to feel the same way that PoC feel all being lumped together and not being recognized as an individual. But I’d like it if we didn’t think about people in those terms at all. Are we applying the term as if there is not a spectrum involved and there are no “levels”, so to speak, of racist thought? And if so, does the term (as a noun) cease to have any real meaning?

I’m kind of scared to post this. I’m probably not ready for the backlash. I don’t want to ask you to take it easy on me because that’s not the kind of discussions we need to be having about race. I really do want honesty from all of you, and I want to learn and to do better than I was taught. Just wanting you to know my fears in the probable case that I don’t respond correctly or quickly. I will also be leaving the house here shortly for the day and won’t be back til late afternoon, so I won’t be checking the boards for a while. I might even not respond at all, it depends where the thread goes, but please know that I will read and think deeply about each response.

And please, please, please let’s keep this civil and unpolitical.

[bibiche]

I think it is good and brave of you and important to address this.

I also think it’s pretty normal for a white person to have a knee-jerk uncomfortable reaction when confronted with labels such as racist or white supremacist. The important thing is to lean in and learn more, which you seem willing to do, rather than shut down all thought or discussion.

I don’t really know what you mean by “Jesus will help change my heart” but if that is something passive that you wait for, you might want to speed up the process by taking an active role and working to educate yourself.

I’d suggests for starters reading a little about white fragility (your feelings are so common that there is an area of research devoted to them!). Robin DiAngelo has a number of articles and books on this subject. And once you get a handle you can continue on with substantive anti racism books. I think Stacia compiled a big list, maybe it’s pinned somewhere?

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Can we all stop ever reading articles by the Daily Mail? Please? They're not convincing, except to the sort of person who reads the Fail, and that's not the sort of person literally any of us wants to be.

[TravelingChris]

First of all, I think race is a stupid term.  There is no scientific basic for it.  We always put human race on the census form.

That aside, I think racist attitudes and actions are any that anyone takes against anyone based on their race, especially ones that are negative but not exclusively. So if one makes s scholarship that is solely for white people with no other conditions, that would be racist. OTOH, if you make a scholarship for economically disadvantaged Appalachians of some area that is all white or almost all white, that would not be racist.

I completely reject the idea that only whites can be racist.  I don't even know what the term for this would be but I remember how shocked I was when in a movie in Chicago where I think dh and I were the only whites, we heard black women loudly remarking how ugly Grace Jones was because she was too black.

..

[Pam in CT]

re noun v adjective

35 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I’ve been thinking a lot about this since reading @Quill’s monuments thread and the disagreement about whether or not @Arctic Mama knows several racists or not. It seems to me that the issue comes down to whether we use “racist” as an adjective or a noun.

I admit that I sometimes have racist thoughts, ideas, and attitudes. I don’t like that about myself, and I pray that Jesus will help change my heart in those areas, but I can readily admit that they exist. I think they do to some extent in just about everybody. I can also admit that I have said and done racist things in the past, mostly from ignorance but possibly from intent in my younger years because of my upbringing and environment, although now that I know better I try to do better. So I understand using the word “racist” as an adjective applied to thoughts, ideas, attitudes, words, and actions. I also think I understand it as applied to an entire system of justice. I think if I used this definition of “racist” I would say that I know many, many people who have racist tendencies (maybe all the people I know, to some extent).

But it is very hard for me to use the word “racist” as a noun. As in, “Insert person’s name is a racist.” Or even applied to myself, “I am a racist.” To me that implies some level of intentional malice towards people of other races. And, as most “I am …” statements do, it also implies that that quality imbues everything and anything that you do and are as a person. I don’t think either of those is true of me or most of the people I know. If I used this definition of “racist” I would say that I don’t know many racists at all. But the woman in the park who called the cops on the man who asked her to leash her dog didn’t think she was a racist either, so maybe I’m just fooling myself?

I think in the other thread someone (can’t remember who) said something along the lines of “a racist is just someone who does racist things”. I think someone (can’t remember who again) even said that “racist” isn’t necessarily a pejorative term, it’s just a description of fact. But it certainly feels pejorative, and I don’t think I can name an instance where it hasn’t been clearly meant as a severe condemnation of a person when I’ve seen it used in the media or on social media or in real life.

I have no problem with the word “racist” used as a descriptive adjective. And obviously we need a word to describe this despicable type of thought, word, or deed so we can call it out, both in ourselves and in others. But since we admit that just about everyone does or thinks racist things sometimes, does that mean just about everyone is a racist (used as a noun)? That I have a lot more trouble accepting. Does that label apply equally to the progressive who recognizes their own inadequacies in this area and tries to rectify them as it does to the skinhead? As a white person, that makes me feel very helpless and discouraged to be lumped together like that. Maybe that’s ok, as a small way to feel the same way that PoC feel all being lumped together and not being recognized as an individual. But I’d like it if we didn’t think about people in those terms at all. Are we applying the term as if there is not a spectrum involved and there are no “levels”, so to speak, of racist thought? And if so, does the term (as a noun) cease to have any real meaning?

I’m kind of scared to post this. I’m probably not ready for the backlash. I don’t want to ask you to take it easy on me because that’s not the kind of discussions we need to be having about race. I really do want honesty from all of you, and I want to learn and to do better than I was taught. Just wanting you to know my fears in the probable case that I don’t respond correctly or quickly. I will also be leaving the house here shortly for the day and won’t be back til late afternoon, so I won’t be checking the boards for a while. I might even not respond at all, it depends where the thread goes, but please know that I will read and think deeply about each response.

And please, please, please let’s keep this civil and unpolitical.

I think you have, in the bolded, drilled down to the place where the volatility resides.

The construct "_____ is A RACIST" suggests both that that identity is eternal (as opposed to, oops, I messed up, I'll seek to do better going forward); and also that that identity is complete (as opposed to what you've described about yourself, a complicated work-in-progress like all the rest of us, who has strengths and weaknesses and tries over time to build the strengths and work on the weaknesses).

As you've described, "racist" as an adjective connotes particular specific instances, episodes, behaviors.  It speaks to WHAT WE DO, not WHO WE ARE.  That is, I think, where the volatility is (and where the defensiveness arises, and the source from where HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST outrage pours, outrage that can be wielded as a weapon that sustains the very thing the outrage putatively is offended by.)

 

I have found personally that the route out of the defensive reflex is to chant like a mantra, when I know better, I can do better. It allows for redemption and doing-better, the next time. Fortunately for us all, we get a lot of Next Times.  "Racist" thoughts/behavior/reflexes, the adjective, allows for such redemption.  "Racist" as an identity, less so.

 

How about "racism" as a noun?  What does that noun mean to you?  That's the language around whichI think dialogue can be constructive.  Certainly where the public policy lies.

 

[hippiemamato3]

5 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

First of all, I think race is a stupid term.  There is no scientific basic for it.  We always put human race on the census form.

That aside, I think racist attitudes and actions are any that anyone takes against anyone based on their race, especially ones that are negative but not exclusively. So if one makes s scholarship that is solely for white people with no other conditions, that would be racist. OTOH, if you make a scholarship for economically disadvantaged Appalachians of some area that is all white or almost all white, that would not be racist.

I completely reject the idea that only whites can be racist.  I don't even know what the term for this would be but I remember how shocked I was when in a movie in Chicago where I think dh and I were the only whites, we heard black women loudly remarking how ugly Grace Jones was because she was too black.

..

That's incredibly sad. 

[Carrie12345]

Not everyone is going to agree about the precise meaning of the term in all specific contexts. That’s just a fact.

Generally, I use “racist” as an adjective, applied to particular ideas.  When I call a person A Racist, it’s typically because they have racist ideas that they’re content to continue holding, rather than figuring out where they come from and how they can remedy them.

[Big Buckin' Longhorn]

38 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

First of all, I think race is a stupid term.  There is no scientific basic for it.  We always put human race on the census form.

That aside, I think racist attitudes and actions are any that anyone takes against anyone based on their race, especially ones that are negative but not exclusively. So if one makes s scholarship that is solely for white people with no other conditions, that would be racist. OTOH, if you make a scholarship for economically disadvantaged Appalachians of some area that is all white or almost all white, that would not be racist.

I completely reject the idea that only whites can be racist.  I don't even know what the term for this would be but I remember how shocked I was when in a movie in Chicago where I think dh and I were the only whites, we heard black women loudly remarking how ugly Grace Jones was because she was too black.

..

That is Colorism. It is a very different problem born of internalized racism. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

Who is reporting it has zero to do with content of the article.

 

When you're looking at a valid newsource, sure. The Daily Mail is not one. You might as well believe the National Enquirer.

Quote

And this isn’t an article really aiming to convince anyone of anything

 

If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. The Daily Mail did not suddenly decide to go to unbiased, factual reporting. When they don't outright make things up, they slant. This article IS trying to convince you of something - it's trying to convince you that racism isn't true and that any attempts to acknowledge that it is really are harmful.

And it looks like you were eager to believe it! Can you find another source, something reputable, that confirms this?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

Edited June 25, 2020 by Tanaqui

[Tanaqui]

And then if you go to the comments it shows exactly the sort of people who read this.

I used to point out that The Daily Mail is the newspaper Vernon Dursley reads. With all that JKR's said and done lately, I think I'll point out that even JKR doesn't think that's a good thing.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Tanaqui

[Ausmumof3]

I don’t know.  I think people have said on the board before that racism requires systemic oppression not just personal prejudice.  I do think many people are more attracted to or more willing to give relate to people who look more like them.  If we want to have a society with many different looking people together from different backgrounds we have to actively try to overcome that.

[Tanaqui]

Quote

I think people have said on the board before that racism requires systemic oppression not just personal prejudice.

 

One reason I try to avoid the unmarked term "racism" altogether, preferring to restrict myself to "racial bigotry" or "structural racism", with a brief explanation as to why if necessary. The only thing more boring than arguing over whether or not I should be nicer on any given day is arguing over what the word racism really means. I'm so over it.

[Guest]

I’m not reading the interim posts yet so my reply will be unadulterated, straight from my heart. 

I think some things about your upbringing and mine are similar. I grew up in a very homogeneously white area. The first seven years of my education, I attended extremely conservative ACE Christian schools. My parents would say they are not racist and it’s true I didn’t hear overtly racist things coming from my parents or extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins). But they did still participate without comment in some things that were overtly racist. The school I attended most probably barred PoC from acceptance. The existence of the school in the first place was probably partially to avoid racial mixing and also to avoid evolution as a school teaching. I am not factually certain of this, but it would not be surprising at all. 

For a long time into adulthood, there were a lot of thoughts in my head that I now recognize as racist, but at the time I thought were “just normal.” (Don’t misunderstand; I’m not saying I have successfully eradicated every bias and nothing I ever think, do, or say is ever racist! I acknowledge I am a work in progress, as we all are.) I am still around many people - friends, family members, etc., - who think those sentiments are “just normal.” They also may use terms with no comprehension as to how offensive it is. Ex., a friend who negotiated a great bargain saying they “Jew*d” someone down. I call these out now. Hopefully, if I do it right, they will really put themselves in the other shoes and say, “Well, yeah; that actually is quite a rude statement.” 

My feeling about racist used as an adjective vs. as a noun is pretty much if the shoe fits, wear it. Most things we label someone as doesn’t encompass everything they do at all times, but the more they fit with the thing, the more comfortable we will be saying they are a __________(whatever label). So, let’s just take something neutral. My daughter is a Francophile. She loves France, the French language, the history of France, the foods of France, etc. This doesn’t mean she is always loving everything about France at all times. It’s just that, usually, she is given to thinking fondly of French things. Also, she could possibly come to feel differently and be less of a Francophile until she really couldn’t be described that way anymore. Maybe she will start to think Italy is much better. 

This is the same way I feel about someone being labeled as racist. For one thing, it doesn’t mean one can’t change and always has to be that way. For two, it’s not just the most extreme iteration of racism (getting racist tattoos, being a white supremacist) that does damage; therefore, it is not just the extreme iteration that gets to be called “racist.” 

I think the danger of, let’s say, reserving the noun for only the skinhead flag-waver, is that it makes “lower-level” racism seem not that bad, and things that are not that bad don’t get our collective attention for remedy. To put it in a Christian context that may resonate with you, sometimes people will reject the gospel because why? Because they think, “I’m a good person; I’m not a ‘sinner’” They get hung up on being called a “sinner.” So they reject the faith entirely because they don’t want to see themselves as defective or needing remedy. I think people do this with racism, too. They reject being called a “racist” for their soft racism and so they reject putting themselves in the shoes of another, which could lead to correction of their racist notions. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Quill
Fix typo

[LucyStoner]

I'm not really going to get into the argument over the more academic definition of racism (a system of racial oppression that requires power) vs. the "plain" definition of racism (bias or prejudice based on race).  Largely, because I think that everything that can be said on the topic has been said and I don't have the energy to repeat it.  Merriam Webster's is finally updating their definition so I don't really think that the academic definition is uncommon or unfamiliar to most people.  Racism can and IS definitely used as a shorthand for systemic or institutionalized racism.  

I will say that I think the gap in this language may be causing a lot of miscommunication and that miscommunication doesn't serve the end of justice well.  I've increasingly become concerned about college educated professional people using language as a weapon against working class people.  I see this happening a lot where a white "ally" will talk over or down to a working class person of color or another white ally who doesn't have the same vocabulary.  This really bothers me and I've been obsessively reading about it for awhile now.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

20 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Interestingly, I agree almost 100%, @LucyStoner. The language issues are frusteating and confusing and the terms do matter, but not using the right buzz words or talking past one another instead of trying to actually listen and understand becomes a form of gatekeeping.  

My point in linking the article above and what I found so interesting was that the various POC found the group experiment encouraging and liberating, and the white children were having anxiety and fear and didn’t even know how to talk about themselves or their history.  That response is not one that fosters understanding or a sustainable system where everyone is able to participate and interact in an organic, healthy way. 
 

Fear of just saying the wrong thing has pretty much paralyzed many people, or is used to separate who is most ‘right’ or ‘able’ to discuss the topic.  And that’s creating many more barriers than it’s solving when there are actual issues that need actual attention.  That’s where language matters, but not in the way that often comes across in these discussions.

The other thing for me is that words aren't going to solve racism, actions are.  When it becomes more about language and who uses the right and the wrong words, the actual substantive actions that need to be happening aren't happening.  

I have noticed a pattern on my social media lately where a mom will post in a largely progressive space asking how to talk to her kids about racism.  She gets a bunch of book recommendations and advice.  She comes back a bit later with a story that she talked to her little kids about it and now they are saying or doing things newly that the mom finds disturbing- like playacting racial violence with their fisher price little people.  And now she wants to know how to get them to stop because violence is bad.  Well, if you talk to very young children about traumatic things and you do so in a way that doesn't help them process or at a level they developmentally can't even grasp, they are going to process in on their own and mom and dad may well find that alarming.   A white mother was concerned that her *very young* biracial children (one with passing privilege, one without) needed to be instructed differently and that it would be cultural appropriation for one kid but fine for the other kid to share part of their dad and grandparent's Afro-Puerto Rican culture.  It's profoundly disturbing to me that we would create racial barriers between a FATHER and HIS DAUGHTER.  Like hello, that's pretty racist.  I don't think that children need to be insulated from reality but it seems like some parents are tackling these conversations is ways that could well do some degree of harm.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Matryoshka]

I really encourage anyone who's interested in thinking on this subject to read (or listen to) How to  Be an Antiracist by Ibram Kendi.  The entire book is pretty much on this topic - definitions, why they matter, how can we talk about these subjects in a productive way without getting defensive and shutting discussion down.  Because it really has to be talked about.

He also has an interesting thesis on what comes first - racist ideas (held by people), or racist policies (structural racism).   He argues that most often, the policies come first, then racist ideas are used to support why they are needed.  The policies are usually really about power, economic and otherwise.  The racist ideas are necessary because the mass of the population that is not benefiting from these policies will not support a them just because the policy-makers want to exploit other people for power or wealth.

Since he separates these two ideas, racist policies and ideas, he does also argue that people of all races can hold racist ideas, and admits to having held them himself.  Here is how he defines a 'racist idea': "A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way.   Racist ideas argue that the inferiorites and superiorities of racial groups explain inequities in society. An antiracist idea, on the other hand, is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences - that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.  Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities."

About things like affirmative action, which has been called 'discrimination' by some, he points out that discrimination can be racist or antiracist depending on whether you are using it to support inequity or equity - in the former case it is racist, in the latter it is antiracist.

He also agrees that there is no such thing as race, in a real, biological sense.  But also that if we try to pretend that because of this there can be no racism, is again to avoid reality - because whether or not it is a real thing, people act as though it were, which makes something we have to deal with.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Matryoshka

[katilac]

 

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

 My point in linking the article above and what I found so interesting was that the various POC found the group experiment encouraging and liberating, and the white children were having anxiety and fear and didn’t even know how to talk about themselves or their history.  That response is not one that fosters understanding or a sustainable system where everyone is able to participate and interact in an organic, healthy way. 
 

Fear of just saying the wrong thing has pretty much paralyzed many people, or is used to separate who is most ‘right’ or ‘able’ to discuss the topic.  And that’s creating many more barriers than it’s solving when there are actual issues that need actual attention.  That’s where language matters, but not in the way that often comes across in these discussions.

White people having some anxiety about race issues is not automatically a bad thing. 

It's not surprising that white children would struggle with talking about themselves in the context of being white, because when do you have to think about being white? You don't. You just are. 

The 'fear' talked about in the article was directly related to saying the wrong thing on camera, because they were participating in a television show. The white student was worried about his future, he wasn't worried about hurting or offending a person of color by saying the wrong thing. 

When asked to discuss race, a student named Henry broke down because he was terrified of saying something which could offend someone, admitting: '[Before I talk about race] I think about how it's going to affect me in the future. If I say something bad, early in life, it could come back later in life.'

Now, I think it's generally a terrible idea to put children on TV and I actually think it's a legitimate fear, but let's be clear that the fear he expressed was for himself and his future. 

[rebcoola]

So I usually use racist as an adjective that was racist.  If I use it as a noun it is because the person has shown that those are their conscious beliefs.  

My DH's aunt that I met one time at a family reunion is a racist.  She was blatantly using racist language like c@@n and said many hateful things.  She referred to me as that c@@n lover DH married. 

 

Edited June 25, 2020 by rebcoola

[Carrie12345]

35 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

You do realize most people, including myself, are hesitant to really get into any closely held beliefs or cultural discussions online, in work settings, etc for the exact same reasons he expressed, right?  That’s not an unusual sentiment, and not being able to talk about race for fear of talking about it wrong and getting blackballed, doxxed, or having in dredged up in a job interview down the road is a MAJOR issue.  I can’t tell you how much I won’t discuss here and elsewhere for just this reason.  And I’ve instructed my kids in the same way - step in if someone is wrong, or doing something cruel or wrong, but be VERY careful what you express in print or on any sort of record.  Just assume it all will come back to you someday. And that nobody cares about your intentions or context.

Anyway, I think it was interesting that the groups had such different responses to segregated discussion.  I don’t think that’s showing that the dialogue and teaching around this is particularly effective if it’s giving people generalized guilt and anxiety.

I have a hard time understanding that issue.

Don’t get me wrong - I AM nervous about saying stupid things... all the time... in all situations that exist in the world, lol. My mouth and brain are not alway in sync. I just can’t think of anything my mouth might say that could ever be framed as something worthy of blackballing, doxxing, or costing me a position.

In the given context, maybe I might use a less preferred term or argument.  I’m *always* afraid I might say Hispanic or Latinx when someone might prefer the other.  But there’s nothing inside of me that I’m afraid of getting out.

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Interestingly, I agree almost 100%, @LucyStoner. The language issues are frusteating and confusing and the terms do matter, but not using the right buzz words or talking past one another instead of trying to actually listen and understand becomes a form of gatekeeping.  

My point in linking the article above and what I found so interesting was that the various POC found the group experiment encouraging and liberating, and the white children were having anxiety and fear and didn’t even know how to talk about themselves or their history.  That response is not one that fosters understanding or a sustainable system where everyone is able to participate and interact in an organic, healthy way. 
 

Fear of just saying the wrong thing has pretty much paralyzed many people, or is used to separate who is most ‘right’ or ‘able’ to discuss the topic.  And that’s creating many more barriers than it’s solving when there are actual issues that need actual attention.  That’s where language matters, but not in the way that often comes across in these discussions.

This was done in Britain.  If we took a random selection pf 11 year olds from many neighborhoods in my city. lots of children would feel uncomfortable.  After all- what is white culture?>  What is black culture>?  I mean, some neighborhoods in my city have what many people perceive as the predominant black culture-- low income, many single parent homes, gang violence, loud music, etc.  Some neighborhoods have many black married people with moderate to higher incomes, who are educated, believe in their children doing well in school in order to succeed,etc.  Some white neighborhoods are also kind of rough-- especially near my city but not in it because many of these people don't want city rules,  These neighborhoods have a higher percentage of criminals, low education and don't value education, etc.  Then there are neighborhoods like mine which used to be call Pill Hill because so many doctors lived here-- Many still do and then there are those like my dh- PhD.  We value education, believe in our children doing well in school, etc.  Do you really think that the black kid who is very interested in engineering and whose parents are well educated really has all that much in common with a black kid who just wants to play basketball and skips school a lot and bullies kids who do well in school? 

I don\t know what white culture is---is it going to Opera's because I have seen black, Asian, etc opera singers and attendees?  Is it NASCAR-- because if it is, we aren't a part of that?  I mean really- what is it??  My dh, about 30 years ago, had to attend one of the many, many diversity training classes he has had to go to as an Air Force Officer (then) and now as a contractor for federal govt.  That class was enlightening to everyone since they had to answer various questions about their likes and activities.  Turned out that no one was typical--- everyone was unique and stereotypes were bogus.  One of the black men in the group was a country fan, for example.  It was that sort of thing and it is what real life is.  We aren't stereotypes and start treating people as individuals.

[MercyA]

nm, off-topic 

Edited June 25, 2020 by MercyA

[Carol in Cal.]

2 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

I'm not really going to get into the argument over the more academic definition of racism (a system of racial oppression that requires power) vs. the "plain" definition of racism (bias or prejudice based on race).  Largely, because I think that everything that can be said on the topic has been said and I don't have the energy to repeat it.  Merriam Webster's is finally updating their definition so I don't really think that the academic definition is uncommon or unfamiliar to most people.  Racism can and IS definitely used as a shorthand for systemic or institutionalized racism.  

I will say that I think the gap in this language may be causing a lot of miscommunication and that miscommunication doesn't serve the end of justice well.  I've increasingly become concerned about college educated professional people using language as a weapon against working class people.  I see this happening a lot where a white "ally" will talk over or down to a working class person of color or another white ally who doesn't have the same vocabulary.  This really bothers me and I've been obsessively reading about it for awhile now.  

This is why I usually don’t use the term racism at all.  No one has a definitive working definition of it, and the contempt with which people express that you have used the wrong definition tends to completely shut down conversation, beside which it’s laughably common to have conflicting contempts of that nature in the same conversation.  The word has become completely useless.

Plus if it did have an objective definition it would apply to everyone, and the argument is frequently being made that it does not.  Again, useless.

Regarding people of European descent being unable to talk about their cultural views—This country has focussed very hard for decades on being the melting pot, on letting your ancestral past go, and on taking people one by one as individuals rather than identifying as part of a group.  Groups that experienced risk by implementing that never bought into it as much as white people (because they did not have the luxury of being able to safely set it aside), so white people of good will bought into it more than other groups.  It’s not surprising that they don’t necessarily think that they have a culture per se.  

I remember as a kid growing up with kids with Chinese and Russian backgrounds who went to Saturday schools to learn the ancestral languages, routinely, and with kids who grew up bilingual in Spanish and English because of their family backgrounds.  I wished that I had that, too.  My foo was primarily of German background, and during WWII my mom was taught or picked up the idea that German was shameful, and she felt like my wanting to learn it was immoral/unAmerican.  It wasn’t until DD was in preschool that, triggered by a teacher wanting the kids to talk about their heritages, I finally really thought through my own cultural identity.  You could argue that that delay was a luxury and there is some truth to that, but there is also a loss due to it.  So the two types of history kind of intertwine.  If I had grown up in the Midwest I think the identity issue would have been more clear cut.  I remember the first time I visited Milwaukee I kind of felt viscerally like I had found a tribe for myself there.

 

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

I really encourage anyone who's interested in thinking on this subject to read (or listen to) How to  Be an Antiracist by Ibram Kendi.  The entire book is pretty much on this topic - definitions, why they matter, how can we talk about these subjects in a productive way without getting defensive and shutting discussion down.  Because it really has to be talked about.

He also has an interesting thesis on what comes first - racist ideas (held by people), or racist policies (structural racism).   He argues that most often, the policies come first, then racist ideas are used to support why they are needed.  The policies are usually really about power, economic and otherwise.  The racist ideas are necessary because the mass of the population that is not benefiting from these policies will not support a them just because the policy-makers want to exploit other people for power or wealth.

Since he separates these two ideas, racist policies and ideas, he does also argue that people of all races can hold racist ideas, and admits to having held them himself.  Here is how he defines a 'racist idea': "A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way.   Racist ideas argue that the inferiorites and superiorities of racial groups explain inequities in society. An antiracist idea, on the other hand, is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences - that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.  Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities."

About things like affirmative action, which has been called 'discrimination' by some, he points out that discrimination can be racist or antiracist depending on whether you are using it to support inequity or equity - in the former case it is racist, in the latter it is antiracist.

He also agrees that there is no such thing as race, in a real, biological sense.  But also that if we try to pretend that because of this there can be no racism, is again to avoid reality - because whether or not it is a real thing, people act as though it were, which makes something we have to deal with.

Were there racist policies--- a lot ot  them-  Jim Crow laws, apartheid, etc.  But a lot of what is labeled as structural racism now is either things like bad laws that may affect minorities more because their incomes tend to be lower but actually the affect is on poor people no matter the race and these laws were Not enacted because of racism but because of wanting more money for government.  I am talking about such laws as seizure laws with no convictions and big payments needed for court fines, etc.  Now I completely agree that some of the people applying the laws are applying them in a racist manner that is completely unacceptable.  I think that the laws need to be changed but I thought that before these laws were even framed as racist.  Then there are people who are crying structural racism with regards to COVID19 and other health issues.  There is no structural racism there- blacks have higher rates of the risk factors, are one of the groups of people who tend to have the essential jobs - though I think Hispanics do too. And also tend to have bigger family gatherings,, apparently- according to reports, and according to a State Senate minority leader--- had a misunderstanding of what opening up our state means.  Also we have no idea how genetics applies w/Covid

[Corraleno]

5 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

I come down on the side of the more broadly something is defined, the less meaning it generally has. Specificity is important.

I’m going to be flying most of today and can’t check in to see what everyone else says, so that’s probably a good thing.  But I’m going to provide a link:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8455273/The-School-Tried-End-Racism-White-children-left-tears-guilt-privilege.html

I would argue that when this is the result of your attempts to teach tolerance and diversity, there is a massive failure.  And I think if you repeated this in schools across America you’d get a similar result.  The question is *why*.

So I held my nose and clicked the link and this quote perfectly sums up the slant of that article:

"When asked to discuss race, a student named Henry broke down because he was terrified of saying something which could offend someone, admitting: '[Before I talk about race] I think about how it's going to affect me in the future. If I say something bad, early in life, it could come back later in life.'

Oh noooo, when will people think of the poor white children, whose future might be damaged by saying something racist??? <wrings hands>  

 

Seriously? Seriously??? This is a reason why we shouldn't have hard discussions about race in schools — white children might be upset??? 

[LucyStoner]

21 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

So I held my nose and clicked the link and this quote perfectly sums up the slant of that article:

"When asked to discuss race, a student named Henry broke down because he was terrified of saying something which could offend someone, admitting: '[Before I talk about race] I think about how it's going to affect me in the future. If I say something bad, early in life, it could come back later in life.'

Oh noooo, when will people think of the poor white children, whose future might be damaged by saying something racist??? <wrings hands>  

 

Seriously? Seriously??? This is a reason why we shouldn't have hard discussions about race in schools — white children might be upset??? 

As much as I understand where you are coming from, I do have empathy for any 11 year old kid.  These aren't highschoolers, they are pre-teens and they are growing up in a media landscape where videos get posted, claims get made and then the full story shows something different and the repercussions are often severe.  I wouldn't want my sons featured on such a show, not because I think they could ruin their lives, but because I have qualms about putting kids on film about a lot of things.  Also, I don't know if the kids words aren't being misquoted or edited in a way that removes context.  It is possible that the article is why the kid comes across the way he comes across.  

The various EDI trainings and workshops my kids have participated in have been of mixed quality and I have concerns about my black and brown nieces and nephews in the same trainings.  Some of these programs unwittingly put black and brown kids on the spot about the issues.  One left my nephew quite upset.  Some are done well, some are well meaning but poorly executed and some are just off-base.  I've seen the same thing happen in sessions on bullying and disability rights as well- putting the kids who are bullied or disabled on the spot as an object lesson for their peers.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

50 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

This is why I usually don’t use the term racism at all.  No one has a definitive working definition of it, and the contempt with which people express that you have used the wrong definition tends to completely shut down conversation, beside which it’s laughably common to have conflicting contempts of that nature in the same conversation.  The word has become completely useless.

Plus if it did have an objective definition it would apply to everyone, and the argument is frequently being made that it does not.  Again, useless.

Regarding people of European descent being unable to talk about their cultural views—This country has focussed very hard for decades on being the melting pot, on letting your ancestral past go, and on taking people one by one as individuals rather than identifying as part of a group.  Groups that experienced risk by implementing that never bought into it as much as white people (because they did not have the luxury of being able to safely set it aside), so white people of good will bought into it more than other groups.  It’s not surprising that they don’t necessarily think that they have a culture per se.  

I remember as a kid growing up with kids with Chinese and Russian backgrounds who went to Saturday schools to learn the ancestral languages, routinely, and with kids who grew up bilingual in Spanish and English because of their family backgrounds.  I wished that I had that, too.  My foo was primarily of German background, and during WWII my mom was taught or picked up the idea that German was shameful, and she felt like my wanting to learn it was immoral/unAmerican.  It wasn’t until DD was in preschool that, triggered by a teacher wanting the kids to talk about their heritages, I finally really thought through my own cultural identity.  You could argue that that delay was a luxury and there is some truth to that, but there is also a loss due to it.  So the two types of history kind of intertwine.  If I had grown up in the Midwest I think the identity issue would have been more clear cut.  I remember the first time I visited Milwaukee I kind of felt viscerally like I had found a tribe for myself there.

 

I think you would find what this psychologist has to say is very interesting.   https://medium.com/@deborahlplummer/why-blacks-are-tired-of-hearing-about-white-fragility-and-why-it-matters-62c16ef9df35

 

[Corraleno]

48 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

As much as I understand where you are coming from, I do have empathy for any 11 year old kid.  These aren't highschoolers, they are pre-teens and they are growing up in a media landscape where videos get posted, claims get made and then the full story shows something different and the repercussions are often severe.  I wouldn't want my sons featured on such a show, not because I think they could ruin their lives, but because I have qualms about putting kids on film about a lot of things.  Also, I don't know if the kids words aren't being misquoted or edited in a way that removes context.  It is possible that the article is why the kid comes across the way he comes across.  

If you read the full article, the program actually had very positive results. The white kids became much more aware of their unconscious bias, of how much they assume white = normal and good, and how little they know about nonwhite history and culture. Yet AM described this program as "a massive failure." Why? Because it made a made ONE white kid cry because he was worried about the impact of saying something racist on HIS life? And that kid actually ended up learning a lot through the program:

Quote

 Henry explain[ed] "Personally, I don't think that there is too much of a problem. People overthink it. I don't think much about race. It's just not normally something I discuss."  ...  After several more days Henry said he was learning to feel more comfortable about having the conversations, revealing: 'I've learnt that race is actually a bigger issue that I thought it was, and it's not talked about enough."

So why would AM think this is a horrible program and a "massive failure"?  We can't talk about race unless we find a way to do it that avoids making white people ever feel the least bit uncomfortable even for a few hours? 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Corraleno

[LucyStoner]

15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If you read the full article, the program actually had very positive results. The white kids became much more aware of their unconscious bias, of how much they assume white = normal and good, and how little they know about nonwhite history and culture. Yet AM described this program as "a massive failure." Why? Because it made a made ONE white kid cry because he was worried about the impact of saying something racist on HIS life? And that kid actually ended up learning a lot through the program:

So why would AM think this is a horrible program and a "massive failure"?  We can't talk about race unless we find a way to do it that avoids making white people ever feel the least bit uncomfortable even for a few hours? 

 

I read about the program in other sources.  I certainly don't come at this from a place of never wanting a white kid to feel uncomfortable.  All I was doing was asking you to consider the quality of the source, much the same way that AM was asked to consider the quality of the source and not jump to conclusions that may be a function of the paper before deciding what exactly the kid meant or if that is all he cared about.  I only read the DM article after reading about this from two other sources.  My misgivings about the filming of children don't exist in just this context.  I also am not saying *anything like* "this training is a massive failure".  I don't think EDI trainings and programs are without merit in general but in reality, they are of massively different quality and not all schools execute programming well.  I am certainly in no way able to speak to AM's conclusions based on the article.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, LucyStoner said:

 

I read about the program in other sources.  I certainly don't come at this from a place of never wanting a white kid to feel uncomfortable.  All I was doing was asking you to consider the quality of the source, much the same way that AM was asked to consider the quality of the source and not jump to conclusions that may be a function of the paper before deciding what exactly the kid meant or if that is all he cared about.  I only read the DM article after reading about this from two other sources.  My misgivings about the filming of children don't exist in just this context.  I also am not saying anything like this training is a massive failure.  I don't think EDI trainings and programs are without merit in general but in reality, they are of massively different quality and not all school execute programming well.  

Oh I wasn't using that quote to disparage the kid at all — he actually learned a lot through the program, and I can totally understand his concern about not wanting to say the wrong thing. Kudos to him, and his teachers, for working through that and realizing that the fact that racism didn't affect him didn't mean it wasn't a real issue.

The reason I quoted it was because it seems like that was why AM thought the program was a "massive failure" that should never be repeated in US schools — it made a white kid uncomfortable. As if any discussion of racism must start by centering the feelings of white people.

[TravelingChris]

47 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

I think you would find what this psychologist has to say is very interesting.   https://medium.com/@deborahlplummer/why-blacks-are-tired-of-hearing-about-white-fragility-and-why-it-matters-62c16ef9df35

 

Boy I, a conservative-libertarian-realist agree with a lot in this article.  I have seen examples of this patronizing attitude displayed by so many white people lately on tv---- it has really bothered me.  Of course, not as much as the grandmother teaching her kid that the KKK is great or the probably teen going around my city painting swastikas, black lives don't matter, etc, etc.  But these people are being extremely patronizing.  I have noticed that at many of these rallies and riots, the great majority of the participants are white.  As I told my daughter, if you care about the underprivileged, go help them.  We have a charity in our city that my church founded 25 years ago.  The difference in that charity is that the founders listened to the people in the community as to what they needed and had people in the community in on the planning, board, etc.  We have a neighborhood store where people from various churches around town provide items - like at Christmas time we buy toys and other gifts for children.  The parents (almost all are mothers who have no partners because this is near a housing project) and buy the items for their kids.  They aren't free but very reduced prices--- why?  Because getting free stuff is demoralizing for many people but getting a $20 Lego set for $3 is not.   There is a preschool, Mother's group, after-school tutoring, community celebrations, etc.    What is super interesting is that in 2017 or 2018, the Southeastern Census department noticed this neighborhood as being an anomaly in all the Southeast long time underprivileged communities and came to investigate why---- it was this charity project which empowered the community, not dictated to it.

[TravelingChris]

36 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

People are willing to acknowledge racism and racists in ordinary life, but when it comes to church and the idea that the Bible has been used to perpetuate racism makes you look like a heretic to many and few are willing to talk about it and fewer acknowledge it. 

I wish I could explain how it makes me feel when I read about the slavery verses in the Bible with a full knowledge of what it was. When learning about Colonialism and how again the Bible was used to justify it. To learn about missionaries and how it was very much tied to colonialism and how the mandate of spreading the gospel itself was used to justify subjugating people. I wish I could explain how much mental gymnastics it takes to believe in the idea of a merciful God who would allow it especially if I want to believe that the Bible, all of the Bible is still relevant today and I just cannot. How much I pore over the slavery verses in the New Testament and what it really means in all the languages I know and all the versions in English because I can write off the Old Testament, but not the New. How much I still struggle with the idea of Christianity when I am not sure how my family converted and even though I tell myself it is history, God is beyond that, in grace and He will use even evil for good, I always come at a fork again and again where I have a choice of walking away or choose to believe even if I cannot understand a lot of the hows and the why's and the deeper I go, it makes me want to walk away. I wrestle with faith like a child and does it mean overlooking the weight of history ? 

I wish the church would acknowledge for some people because of their history, things like missions, missionary work, spreading the gospel is never easy and is always gray because of the weight of history and family history. That asking questions and wrestling with these things cannot be written of with pert answers like grace and forgiveness and mystery known to God. One of the hardest journeys of my life is my faith journey because the deeper I go into history the harder it is for me to hold on to faith and to hold on to it with sheer will power it means stripping away parts of the Bible, hymns, church and church history. I always thought racism was only in ordinary life, never spiritual life until I went deeper into history and the Bible.

 

Slavery has been a fact of life for thousands of years by thousands of cultures.  It was and is reality.  There is a lot of slavery still going on.  My mother and father were essentially slaves in the Soviet Gulag.  Romans enslaved lots of nationalities.  Some people and cultures are still enslaving people today.    I don't think that what is in the New Testament about slavery and the fact that slaves should be treated well but obey their owner is disturbing--- it is based in a different time and culture.  Just like women not speaking or covering their hair-  different time and different culture/  What I get out of that is basically employers treat your employess well and employees do your job and not slack off or cheat your employer.

[Alte Veste Academy]

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

I can’t tell you how much I won’t discuss here and elsewhere for just this reason.  And I’ve instructed my kids in the same way - step in if someone is wrong, or doing something cruel or wrong, but be VERY careful what you express in print or on any sort of record.  Just assume it all will come back to you someday. And that nobody cares about your intentions or context.

 

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Would YOU be honest in a group about your feelings about yourself or your culture or history? I won’t.  Not on here and not in real life, it’s constant self editing. And given the amount of PMs I get on here on these topics I’m not alone in that.

That constant feeling of nobody even trying to listen or understand, and everything I say being scrutinized, twisted, ignored, nitpicked, and never good enough.  That is not just because of a TV program, and I think a whole lot of people can agree with that sentiment.  Better to not speak up.  I just happen to have a bad habit of not ignoring as much on here as I should, to my detriment.

 

18 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

You’re reading actual nonsense into my intentions.  Again. Which happens all the friggin time on this forum, and is why I can’t and won’t speak in more detail than this.  Too much insulting, ill intentioned mind reading, assuming the absolute worst of WHATEVER the hell I say.  And if I didn’t mean any such thing well damn if we won’t twist it into that.

I should know better.  Sheesh.

You basically admit in these first two posts that you are not completely candid, not 100% honest about your feelings and thoughts. And that you participate (apparently guardedly) in some of these discussions against your better judgment. So why the anger about feeling misread? Participate fully so that people don't have to "read" your thoughts or intentions or break your bad habit of diving in halfway and risk being misunderstood.

[Corraleno]

31 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, rather I was pointing out the ongoing problem - which I suspect would be repeated in many schools and workplaces here too - where people cannot comfortably talk about their own heritage or issues around race if white.  It’s been conditioned hard core to the point that honest and open, let alone self identities affirming dialogue, just isn’t done.

You’re reading actual nonsense into my intentions.  Again. Which happens all the friggin time on this forum, and is why I can’t and won’t speak in more detail than this.  Too much insulting, ill intentioned mind reading, assuming the absolute worst of WHATEVER the hell I say.  And if I didn’t mean any such thing well damn if we won’t twist it into that.

I should know better.  Sheesh.

Can you please point to where in the article it says that white kids were discouraged from "talking about their own heritage" or identities? Because I just reread that entire article looking to see what I missed and I do not see what you're talking about. The only thing I could find that comes even close was this:

Mr Grant asked [the white kids]: 'Have you ever thought what it means to be white?' One of the girls admitted: 'It doesn't really mean anything to be white.'

Is that what you're talking about? Because to me that does NOT read like "white kids aren't allowed to talk about their wonderful white heritage"— it's more like white kids are so used to seeing whiteness as the normal/default that it doesn't occur to them to think about "whiteness" as anything distinct from human-ness.

[katilac]

3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

That constant feeling of nobody even trying to listen or understand, and everything I say being scrutinized, twisted, ignored, nitpicked, and never good enough.   

If only there were some way for people of color to identify with this! 

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

People aren't afraid of saying stupid things. People are afraid of saying true things

I think these statements are true but for very different reasons than you. When somebody has a racist or simply prejudiced belief, and they let that slip -it wasn't a stupid thing to say, it was a true thing to say. 

18 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, rather I was pointing out the ongoing problem - which I suspect would be repeated in many schools and workplaces here too - where people cannot comfortably talk about their own heritage or issues around race if white.  It’s been conditioned hard core to the point that honest and open, let alone self identities affirming dialogue, just isn’t done.

 

Can you give an example of when a white person talking about their culture or heritage or history would be uncomfortable and problematic? Not a personal example, just any example that would give me an idea of what you're talking about. 

 

  

[Guest]

Nm

Edited June 26, 2020 by Quill

[Alte Veste Academy]

8 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No thanks. I’m beyond done, and owe none of you anything, but would appreciate the courtesy of charitable assumptions where something is unclear.  And that is something beyond many on this board in recent years.

I think you're misdirecting your anger here. You're asking people to make charitable assumptions about things you intentionally leave unclear. So they should do the work of parsing and understanding what you yourself admit are deliberately incomplete explanations of your positions? 

And of course you don't owe anyone here anything. You're just shooting yourself in the foot, judging by how mad you have gotten over some of these threads.

[TravelingChris]

On 6/25/2020 at 2:37 PM, CuriousMomof3 said:

I

 My dd and dsil used to live in a HOA,  and my dd was on the board as a secretary.  They met this other couple and they started hanging out sometimes.  One day they were at a restaurant together and the other couple started talking about their DC vacation.  The guy talked about how his favorite place was the Holocaust museum and how his Grandfather was in the Germany Army, how proud he was of his role in WW2 in that army (supporting Germany, not as an underground spy or something for the Allies, and how he wishes Germany had won.  DD and dsil quickly excused themselves and never went out with them or even communicated with them.  But what restaurant they went to had nothing to do with his NAZI beliefs.  I have no idea if that restaurant was his favorite or not, but just like dd and dsil, I seriously doubt the owners were Nazis or even knew about his belief and most likely had no idea who he was. So I do not think just because you know someone is a Nazi or a white racist and you know their favorite restaurant that that means the restaurant is suspect.

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by TravelingChris

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

Boy I, a conservative-libertarian-realist agree with a lot in this article.  I have seen examples of this patronizing attitude displayed by so many white people lately on tv---- it has really bothered me.  Of course, not as much as the grandmother teaching her kid that the KKK is great or the probably teen going around my city painting swastikas, black lives don't matter, etc, etc.  But these people are being extremely patronizing.  I have noticed that at many of these rallies and riots, the great majority of the participants are white.  As I told my daughter, if you care about the underprivileged, go help them.  We have a charity in our city that my church founded 25 years ago.  The difference in that charity is that the founders listened to the people in the community as to what they needed and had people in the community in on the planning, board, etc.  We have a neighborhood store where people from various churches around town provide items - like at Christmas time we buy toys and other gifts for children.  The parents (almost all are mothers who have no partners because this is near a housing project) and buy the items for their kids.  They aren't free but very reduced prices--- why?  Because getting free stuff is demoralizing for many people but getting a $20 Lego set for $3 is not.   There is a preschool, Mother's group, after-school tutoring, community celebrations, etc.    What is super interesting is that in 2017 or 2018, the Southeastern Census department noticed this neighborhood as being an anomaly in all the Southeast long time underprivileged communities and came to investigate why---- it was this charity project which empowered the community, not dictated to it.

 

Charity is great, but it's not enough.  Some of the things you mention about this organization lead me to think it's doing the work intentionally to not play into the charity model.  That is great, because when done right, it does help break cycles of poverty and inequity.  There's still value in political action though because the laws don't change on their own.  I have spent my entire career working in the non-profit sector and I definitely prefer the model you describe of this organization you admire to some of the more paternalistic and patronizing models.  I'm glad that statistical area has had such stellar outcomes.  

4+ years ago, BLM protests had fewer white people.  And I am not saying white people shouldn't show up, but what I have noticed is that as they are, their voices and wants are edging out the voices of the people living and working in the most impacted communities.  I'm really worried about a certain narrow group hijacking it for their own objectives- namely a tying the real issues about disproportionate policing, over policing and police violence as inextricably linked to political goals that are never gonna happen.  My white friends from activist roots tend to speak in terms like "abolish capitalism" and my black and brown friends and family tend to want a police contract that will make things better and more funding for better alternatives.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[TravelingChris]

4 hours ago, kand said:

I agree with this. I don’t know the answer, but on an instinctive level, I feel like addressing this in a very direct instruction way with the very youngest of kids who are extremely concrete in their thinking still (like preschoolers) seems to risk planting negative ideas. Leading by example seems more appropriate to me at those ages. I can definitely see my 3 year old being confused and trying to make sense of the words I was telling her and thinking I was saying our friends of color are lesser in some way than our white friends. We are fortunate to have a diverse family and friend circle, and at this point in her life, I really think it would do more harm than good. I do have lots of these discussions with my other kids though, and they are old enough that they get it and I think it’s helpful. If we were in an all white environment, it might be that the equation was tilted the other way in favor of starting discussions earlier. 

Why is it a negative that the people of color found it encouraging and liberating and the white children did not? Is it not perhaps useful for that to sometimes be the way it is? Should the children of color not have a liberating experience because it might cause the white children to feel badly? It seems that in the end, even the kids who found it very uncomfortable at first found that it was useful.

From some of the quotes, I felt like some of the white kids had been hearing some weird things for them to be worrying about what they said was going to come back to harm them when they were adults. That seems very odd to me for kids that young to be thinking that way.

Mainly because they have nothing to do with any racist policies and are most likely not racists themselves.  What exactly are they supposed to feel guilty about?  Their skin color? The whole weight of the world. And yes it is very dangerous to be promoting anxiety and depression in pre-teens and feelings that they are somehow responsible for something other than their own actions.  We have seen skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in the Z generation.

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

Mainly because they have nothing to do with any racist policies and are most likely not racists themselves.  What exactly are they supposed to feel guilty about?  Their skin color? The whole weight of the world. And yes it is very dangerous to be promoting anxiety and depression in pre-teens and feelings that they are somehow responsible for something other than their own actions.  We have seen skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in the Z generation.

 

I don't think the intent is to promulgate guilt.  Guilt isn't an effective remedy for injustice to begin with.  When Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) programming devolves to that, it's a waste of energy and time (and often way too much money).  Knowing about the history and how systems do propagate racial injustice isn't a bad thing at all.  Sometimes real time social studies makes more of an impact than studying dry history (and I say that as an admitted history maniac, lol).

I wish people learned this in school so they don't perpetuate it later on in the workplace.  I don’t like seeing it reduced to corporate measures to reduce liability and various performative gestures.  It needs to be done *very well* and it is often not, but it can be done in beneficial and helpful ways. 

Deborah Plummer, who wrote that link you liked, also wrote this, in which she describes underfuctioning, overfuctioning and functioning anti-racists.  I found it really valuable when considering the language breakdown issue I mentioned.  https://www.dlplummer.com/blog/not-a-racist-then-lets-be-better-antiracist

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Corraleno]

30 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Mainly because they have nothing to do with any racist policies and are most likely not racists themselves.  What exactly are they supposed to feel guilty about?  Their skin color? The whole weight of the world. And yes it is very dangerous to be promoting anxiety and depression in pre-teens and feelings that they are somehow responsible for something other than their own actions.  We have seen skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in the Z generation.

That program was not, in any way, designed to make students "feel guilty" or "promote anxiety and depression."  It was designed to make students aware of what systemic racism is and why it is largely invisible to white kids but not to their black and brown classmates. And the kids did seem to come out of it feeling more comfortable discussing race and with a much better understanding of the issues.

If you want to talk about the anxiety and depression — what about the anxiety and depression that POC feel every day trying to live their lives in a racist society?  How is "fear of accidentally saying a racist thing" even in remotely the same category as "fear of being beaten or murdered because of skin color"?

If white people refuse to engage in discussions of race unless the precondition of every discussion is "it better not make me, a white person, feel uncomfortable in any way," then the necessary discussions will never happen. Trying to flip the script in order to portray white people as victims, because they feel some discomfort talking about race, seems particularly egregious when millions of people just watched a white policeman slowly murder a black man who was begging for his life. 

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I have never left one of those sessions feeling guilty.  Sad, inadequate to the task ahead of us?  Yes, absolutely.  In tears?  Yes, absolutely. Overwhelmed to think of what likes ahead?  Yes, absolutely.  But not guilty.

And I am very good at feeling guilty.  If you're not sure of that, go read my thread about my nieces coming to visit and how I feel guilty that they might get bored because my house is too small.  

This is a problem that has a lot of weight.  Even if we spread the burden across every American, it's still going to be heavy.  But the solution to that isn't to leave that burden on the people of color.  So, yes, those children are responsible for being part of the solution, even if their individual actions didn't cause it at all.  Just like I have a responsibility to address hunger in my community, even though I didn't cause that.  

I'll also say that racism is already dangerous.  Pre-teens and teens of color die at much higher rates than their white same aged peers.  

I started working in non-profits in Seattle in 1997. So I have been to more than a few EDI (and the preceding acronyms!) programs.  I have ambivalent views on them for lots of reasons.  One is that asking people to do this labor, often off the clock, at work can feel invasive at the very best.  And as much as I like books and learning, I think the tendency is for a certain ilk well intentioned people is to try and study their way to a deeper level of understanding and I’m not sure that that is happening.  Further, bearing in mind that not all EDI work is centered on race, I know that sometimes the exercises are for me, as a trauma survivor, just not anything I can or want to confront in a setting with my co-workers. I can’t speak for anyone else but I can say that friends and family members of mine who are black and brown have had some ambivalence about these trainings.  The issue may lie mostly with the setting and the quality of the training being offered.    The data on these trainings and actually helping make change is very mixed.  
 

I used to work in this very social justice oriented organization for homeless and very poor people.  I was in the tier of management right below the Executive Director.  I felt a strong connection to this group because my mom had helped support us financially with their employment program.  And my mom had just died.  The organization was screwy in a lot of ways and had my mom not just died, my better judgment would have kicked in and I would have been calling the head hunters at like 3-6 months in, tops.  I noticed a pattern emerge where the only people who were really successful working there were people with no first hand experience of poverty or homelessness. Yes, some of the people had eaten a little ramen in grad school or whatnot but that was situational, rather than generational or persistent poverty.  There was a whole curriculum, a well intended one that we were supposed to use in our staff meetings about class.  But it was executed in such a way that me and the two other people on staff with a personal experience with poverty would leave these trainings ready to stab ourselves in the eyes with forks to make it stop.  I’m not saying this is how all race focused or intersectional EDI trainings hit people of color.  I don’t know that and I can’t speak to that.  But I am stressing that the quality and execution of such training, especially in the work place, can be fraught.  And not just for white people who feel uncomfortable.  As for that job, it has been a full decade since I had enough and left,  they are still doing the same type of class and anti-racist training and I still hear from people working there or former employees who came after me who *find me* to decompress or ask questions about the toxicity of the work environment.  The last time I heard from someone was maybe 6 months ago and they literally needed advice on how to quit.  Everything changes, everything stays the same.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[TravelingChris]

2 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

I am sorry about your parents. I am not talking about that kind of slavery where a country abuses it's people based on an ideology. This is easily explained by me by corrupt leaders, you see forms of it all the time throughout history.

I am not talking about conquerers who came to my native country throughout history to plunder, to create empires and extend borders of their control. . Many of them did covert people as a means of control. Nowhere in my reading of the history of my native country did they say their primary reason was to spread their religion. 

 I am talking about a system that arose where slavery and colonialism was justified based on the Bible. The idea that specific verses were used to justify slavery and colonialism is what I am getting at. The mandate to share the gospel was hijacked by devout countries in the name of God to enslave people and it was justified as a mandate from God. Colonialism and slavery are closely tied to the spreading of the gospel. It is not the same to me. Justifying it as a different time and culture and then expecting the same verses to be relevant today between employer and employee takes a level of mental gymnastics I am not able to swallow. The Society for the Propagation of Gospel was directly involved in slavery. It is things like this that makes it hard. My native country's christian form of worship has it's roots very much in the Anglican church, a lot of protestant worship is still a form of Anglican even in native languages. People have said the Queen must apologize for colonization and it would be powerful. She has several times, indirectly done things but to my knowledge never directly apologized. I don't know how I will react to that. But I knew for my continuation in the Christian faith I needed to hear church leaders acknowledge it and people not do mental gymnastics like they do in American churches. 

I cried when this happened because this is directly related to my family's history in christianity in 2006. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the representative of the Church of England and the Queen's Chaplin i think, so it had great relevance for me.

https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/church-and-legacy-slavery

The words of the ArchBishop of Canterbury in 2006.

“The Body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time; it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors, and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the Body of Christ, is prayerful acknowledgment of the failure that is part of us, not just of some distant 'them'.

“To speak here of repentance and apology is not words alone; it is part of our witness to the Gospel, to a world that needs to hear that the past must be faced and healed and cannot be ignored ... by doing so we are actually discharging our responsibility to preach good news, not simply to look backwards in awkwardness and embarrassment, but to speak of the freedom we are given to face ourselves, including the unacceptable regions of ... our history.”

 

I think I would have had a hard time being a Christian if this did not happen. Grace, forgiveness, history, it was like that, re-interpreting verses really did not work for me. Even now, I cannot believe the entire Bible is relevant today, even the New Testament. I would like the church to not look upon that as a flaw or treat that as not being a "real" christian when they  justify racist hymn writers, slave owners, people involved in the slave trade and even missionaries who used the gospel to expand the kingdom of man in the name of God as "real" christians because we are supposed to judge their actions through their time in history and not our time. 

My parents weren't imprisoned because 9f ideology.  They were imprisoned because of hatred of their nationality.

And yes, some people did justify slavery with the Biblw. But in this country, there were splits in denominations over it.  And I believe one group. The Souhbrrm Baptists, have apologized.

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

That program was not, in any way, designed to make students "feel guilty" or "promote anxiety and depression."  It was designed to make students aware of what systemic racism is and why it is largely invisible to white kids but not to their black and brown classmates. And the kids did seem to come out of it feeling more comfortable discussing race and with a much better understanding of the issues.

If you want to talk about the anxiety and depression — what about the anxiety and depression that POC feel every day trying to live their lives in a racist society?  How is "fear of accidentally saying a racist thing" even in remotely the same category as "fear of being beaten or murdered because of skin color"?

If white people refuse to engage in discussions of race unless the precondition of every discussion is "it better not make me, a white person, feel uncomfortable in any way," then the necessary discussions will never happen. Trying to flip the script in order to portray white people as victims, because they feel some discomfort talking about race, seems particularly egregious when millions of people just watched a white policeman slowly murder a black man who was begging for his life. 

First of all, I reject what is termed systemic racism, for the most part.  Systemic racism is Jim Crow laws or apartheid or saying No Asians apply or something like that.  It is not having disparate outcomes. I do not know what you call systemic racism. Which government policies are racist?

Breanna Taylor was not killed because she was black but because the cops made an error on the no knock search warrant.  The same exact scenario happened in Texas with a white couple a few years ago.  I am sure it has happened other times too.  It didn't happen because she was black but rather that they had the wrong house.  The cop who killed George Floyd is obviously a bad cop but did he kill him because George Floyd was black or because he was considered by the cop to be a criminal and we don't care what happens to them.  The man in Glynco GA killed by that father/son team was killed because he was black.  But that is not a common happening.  All too many criminals are killed by bad cops but most of them are not black.

[Momto6inIN]

12 hours ago, bibiche said:

I think it is good and brave of you and important to address this.

I also think it’s pretty normal for a white person to have a knee-jerk uncomfortable reaction when confronted with labels such as racist or white supremacist. The important thing is to lean in and learn more, which you seem willing to do, rather than shut down all thought or discussion.

I don’t really know what you mean by “Jesus will help change my heart” but if that is something passive that you wait for, you might want to speed up the process by taking an active role and working to educate yourself.

I’d suggests for starters reading a little about white fragility (your feelings are so common that there is an area of research devoted to them!). Robin DiAngelo has a number of articles and books on this subject. And once you get a handle you can continue on with substantive anti racism books. I think Stacia compiled a big list, maybe it’s pinned somewhere?

 

 

 

Thank you! I have looked at the reading list someone posted and have a couple of them on hold at the library.

As a Christian, I believe that holding racist views is a sin. I also believe that Jesus came into this world not only to die for my sins and take my punishment for them, but also to provide me His spirit to overcome them in my day to day life. So while I depend on His grace to give me the ability to do that, I realize the actual day to day work is in large part up to me 🙂 If that makes more sense ...

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

First of all, I reject what is termed systemic racism, for the most part.  Systemic racism is Jim Crow laws or apartheid or saying No Asians apply or something like that.  It is not having disparate outcomes. I do not know what you call systemic racism. Which government policies are racist?

Systemic racism doesn't have to be a function of policy.  

Family where some siblings are black and some are white moves a lot (10 school changes in less than 10 years).  All kids are smart.  In multiple districts and states, schools default to putting a pretty white girl into advanced programs despite a noticeable speech impairment.  Same schools default to putting a black boy into regular classes or defaulting to voc ed.  Mother, white, has to push hard to get the placement and opportunities she thinks her son needs.  Same mother doesn't have to push hard for daughter- speech services are offered up no problem, advanced classes are the presumption.  

What is this?  

Edited June 26, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Momto6inIN]

11 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re noun v adjective

I think you have, in the bolded, drilled down to the place where the volatility resides.

The construct "_____ is A RACIST" suggests both that that identity is eternal (as opposed to, oops, I messed up, I'll seek to do better going forward); and also that that identity is complete (as opposed to what you've described about yourself, a complicated work-in-progress like all the rest of us, who has strengths and weaknesses and tries over time to build the strengths and work on the weaknesses).

As you've described, "racist" as an adjective connotes particular specific instances, episodes, behaviors.  It speaks to WHAT WE DO, not WHO WE ARE.  That is, I think, where the volatility is (and where the defensiveness arises, and the source from where HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST outrage pours, outrage that can be wielded as a weapon that sustains the very thing the outrage putatively is offended by.)

 

I have found personally that the route out of the defensive reflex is to chant like a mantra, when I know better, I can do better. It allows for redemption and doing-better, the next time. Fortunately for us all, we get a lot of Next Times.  "Racist" thoughts/behavior/reflexes, the adjective, allows for such redemption.  "Racist" as an identity, less so.

 

How about "racism" as a noun?  What does that noun mean to you?  That's the language around whichI think dialogue can be constructive.  Certainly where the public policy lies.

 

Thank you, there are some really good thoughts here!

I'm not sure what the term "racism" means to me. I think it does contain an element of more than just individual action or prejudice and instead more of a systemic widespread ubiquitous problem that takes more than 1 person to create and more than 1 person to solve. It seems more fixable and less hopeless to me to say, "Racism exists in my life" than to say, "I am a racist." I will probably be mulling that over for a while 🙂

[Momto6inIN]

11 hours ago, Quill said:

I’m not reading the interim posts yet so my reply will be unadulterated, straight from my heart. 

I think some things about your upbringing and mine are similar. I grew up in a very homogeneously white area. The first seven years of my education, I attended extremely conservative ACE Christian schools. My parents would say they are not racist and it’s true I didn’t hear overtly racist things coming from my parents or extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins). But they did still participate without comment in some things that were overtly racist. The school I attended most probably barred PoC from acceptance. The existence of the school in the first place was probably partially to avoid racial mixing and also to avoid evolution as a school teaching. I am not factually certain of this, but it would not be surprising at all. 

For a long time into adulthood, there were a lot of thoughts in my head that I now recognize as racist, but at the time I thought were “just normal.” (Don’t misunderstand; I’m not saying I have successfully eradicated every bias and nothing I ever think, do, or say is ever racist! I acknowledge I am a work in progress, as we all are.) I am still around many people - friends, family members, etc., - who think those sentiments are “just normal.” They also may use terms with no comprehension as to how offensive it is. Ex., a friend who negotiated a great bargain saying they “Jew*d” someone down. I call these out now. Hopefully, if I do it right, they will really put themselves in the other shoes and say, “Well, yeah; that actually is quite a rude statement.” 

My feeling about racist used as an adjective vs. as a noun is pretty much if the shoe fits, wear it. Most things we label someone as doesn’t encompass everything they do at all times, but the more they fit with the thing, the more comfortable we will be saying they are a __________(whatever label). So, let’s just take something neutral. My daughter is a Francophile. She loves France, the French language, the history of France, the foods of France, etc. This doesn’t mean she is always loving everything about France at all times. It’s just that, usually, she is given to thinking fondly of French things. Also, she could possibly come to feel differently and be less of a Francophile until she really couldn’t be described that way anymore. Maybe she will start to think Italy is much better. 

This is the same way I feel about someone being labeled as racist. For one thing, it doesn’t mean one can’t change and always has to be that way. For two, it’s not just the most extreme iteration of racism (getting racist tattoos, being a white supremacist) that does damage; therefore, it is not just the extreme iteration that gets to be called “racist.” 

I think the danger of, let’s say, reserving the noun for only the skinhead flag-waver, is that it makes “lower-level” racism seem not that bad, and things that are not that bad don’t get our collective attention for remedy. To put it in a Christian context that may resonate with you, sometimes people will reject the gospel because why? Because they think, “I’m a good person; I’m not a ‘sinner’” They get hung up on being called a “sinner.” So they reject the faith entirely because they don’t want to see themselves as defective or needing remedy. I think people do this with racism, too. They reject being called a “racist” for their soft racism and so they reject putting themselves in the shoes of another, which could lead to correction of their racist notions. 

I think we have a lot in common too. Although my upbringing was a lot more Hillbilly Elegy than conservative Christian LOL! I didn't become a Christian til college.

The bolded really gives me a lot to chew on. I see a lot of truth in that. Thanks for sharing it!

[Momto6inIN]

9 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

I really encourage anyone who's interested in thinking on this subject to read (or listen to) How to  Be an Antiracist by Ibram Kendi.  The entire book is pretty much on this topic - definitions, why they matter, how can we talk about these subjects in a productive way without getting defensive and shutting discussion down.  Because it really has to be talked about.

He also has an interesting thesis on what comes first - racist ideas (held by people), or racist policies (structural racism).   He argues that most often, the policies come first, then racist ideas are used to support why they are needed.  The policies are usually really about power, economic and otherwise.  The racist ideas are necessary because the mass of the population that is not benefiting from these policies will not support a them just because the policy-makers want to exploit other people for power or wealth.

Since he separates these two ideas, racist policies and ideas, he does also argue that people of all races can hold racist ideas, and admits to having held them himself.  Here is how he defines a 'racist idea': "A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way.   Racist ideas argue that the inferiorites and superiorities of racial groups explain inequities in society. An antiracist idea, on the other hand, is any idea that suggests the racial groups are equals in all their apparent differences - that there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.  Antiracist ideas argue that racist policies are the cause of racial inequities."

About things like affirmative action, which has been called 'discrimination' by some, he points out that discrimination can be racist or antiracist depending on whether you are using it to support inequity or equity - in the former case it is racist, in the latter it is antiracist.

He also agrees that there is no such thing as race, in a real, biological sense.  But also that if we try to pretend that because of this there can be no racism, is again to avoid reality - because whether or not it is a real thing, people act as though it were, which makes something we have to deal with.

This is one of the ones I'm hoping to get from the library. I had been a little apprehensive about reading it because most of the blog posts I've read that recommend it pretty much say that if I want to become an anti-racist then I have to vote Democrat. I don't want to get into politics, as I said on my OP, but I feel increasingly uncomfortable with both political parties and I didn't want to read that. Your comments and excerpts make me feel more comfortable that that won't be the case. 

[Momto6inIN]

I did read the whole thing and it was so so so helpful. I'm thankful you took the time to respond and type the whole thing out! ❤

Edited June 27, 2020 by Momto6inIN
Eta: to remove Curiousmom's quote per her request