Dear white America:

[nolawitch58]

My fellow white Americans, we need to talk about racism. Some of you still don't get it.

If you are not a racist, you do not need to proclaim it. Everyone around you will notice you don't use the N-word or stereotype all members of a race. When you take issue with a person of another race, it will be for an individual reason unrelated to his/her race or ethnicity. Too often, a racist will start a sentence saying, "I'm not a racist, but..." and then add something contrary to the first part of the sentence. Such proclamations make you sound stupid.

For those of you who don't understand why we shouldn't use the N-word, let me explain. First of all, why would you use the "gang members/rappers/street thugs say it" defense? You are none of those. You are a white person, often living in a safe suburb or quiet rural setting. You will never be using that word the same way they are. You can't. You cannot "take it back" or whatever you think you're doing by using it. You and your kind already had it and used it as a lethal weapon.

In case you failed history or couldn't be bothered to grasp the fact from cultural context, white people were large and in charge here for centuries. They used that power to deprive minorities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is as unAmerican as you can get. When whites weren't enslaving or impoverishing black people with Jim Crow laws, they were literally getting away with murders since all layers of government and law enforcement were filled with KKK members or sympathizers. The N-word and other epithets are verbal shorthand that validates that bigotry. When you as a white person use those words, you're expressing tacit agreement with the climate of terror they create for minorities. Are you really the kind of asshole who thinks other races are less than yours? No? Then stop using jargon that says you are.

The biggest reason to avoid using the N-word is out of respect for the memory of those who heard it as they died at the hands of racists. That word was just as much a part of the violence in their lynching deaths as the ropes or clubs that the mobs used to murder them. That is what you as a white person respresent when you use the N-word: the bigotry that kills. Is that really what you want to project?

White America, if you are not a racist, do not use the language of racism. It's just that simple.

Comments

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

Nicely said.

[msgeek.livejournal.com]

Win. Says it all.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

My Backhanded Disclaimer Rule says that if you have to start off a sentence with "I'm not a [insert group here], but..." disclaimer, it generally means that you probably are whatever you claimed not to be.

I also have the "This isn't any of my business, but..." disclaimer rule, too. If the disclaimer has to be stated, then it isn't any of your business.

Any kind of '-ism' has a set of internal rules that appear to conflict with outside (mostly 'white') observations. I am an albino- and I can call myself that. But other people are not allowed. When you switch from internal privileged discourse among members of a group- be they gay, black, disabled, mutated, religious- whatever- to any external observation, the rules shift too.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

I think there the problem lies: I for one didn't know that "albino" was any more of a derogatory term than "redhead" or "blue-eyed". Suppose I used it, you'd be terribly insulted, but I didn't even know that it's insulting, never mind knowing the politically correct term to use. In fact, it would be strange for me to seek for an alternative to a term that doesn't carry any special derogatory meaning that I can think of. Not being familiar with a conflict behind this, I would be insulting without ever meaning to.

I know that the "N" word is an awful swear word, because I have been told so. So I won't be using it. But suppose somebody else from my country used it? Or suppose an American used it, who was really ignorant. He should have known, but didn't. But that just says he's either ignorant or stupid, not that he's a racist. I wouldn't put people who are ignorant, stupid, thoughtless, unaware or indifferent in the same basket as racists.

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

People who are "ignorant, stupid, thoughtless, unaware or indifferent" give implicit support to racists or bigots. Because they won't do anything to change or stop the current situation. It was the numbers of the ignorant, stupid, thoughtless, unaware, and indifferent that permitted the Nazis to do what they did. (yes, I know I've Godwinized myself).

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

That Godwin rule has got to allow for valid references to Nazis. I can see the point of it if you start out talking about how Golden Retrievers are the best breed of dog and you end up in a shouting match that Dobermans or German Shepherds are better and someone calls Nazi. If the topic is racial hatred, I would think the Nazis are in the top ten of hateful racist bastards.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

Yes, certainly. Though I'd like to qualify that and say that lack of courage to speak out on behalf of the weak, and a lot of bullying on the part of the strong, are strong factors in such situations.

Anyway, the big difference between real racist and ignorant and thoughtless people is that the latter can be educated, to some degree, and I really believe that accusing them of racism might cause them stop listening entirely. So if somebody said "There were other people killed in WWII, why are the Jews making such a big fuss", I'd probably stop and explain, not accuse him of antisemitism. If somebody said "Hitler should have finished the job", that's a whole different story. There is nothing to teach or explain there.

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

Even Americans who have been living way out in the boonies in a cave so-to-speak know that the N-word is bad and why. The only excuse for such ignorance is that they were raised by badgers or wolverines without human contact or access to any media for any portion of their lives. Everyone else has no excuse at all.

Of course, there's no law against being a racist. Idiots are free to join the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Brotherhood and all the other nutbag organizations for their brand of stupidity. Too bad they're too chickenshit to come out and say how they feel. I suppose they don't want to suffer the consequences of their foul beliefs. That is even more despicable in my book.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

By the way, what brought all of this on? Not stupid Mel Gibson, surely?

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

I think you make some valid points, and I'm not prepared to disagree or agree with virtually any of them.
However, I do have to state what seems obvious to me, which is that racism (along with most other forms of discrimination) is a direct result of ignorance. You can't be racist, or bigoted in general, unless you are ignorant. Conversely, the 'cure' for bigotry involves the eradication of said ignorance, preferably through personal experience and close contact.

Now, it is possible to be ignorant without being racist, which is, I think, what you intended to mean, but I would say that the cases where unintended racist remarks come as a result of ignorance are going to be extremely rare, and be way overshadowed by the cases of actual racism due to ignorance. ('Actual' meaning the use of words which are known to be racist, or which coincide with an attitude or a position based in discrimination.)

Having said that, I didn't realize albino was a derogatory term, either. I understood it to be a clinical term describing the lack of melatonin,(is that the right compund?) resulting in skin, hair and eyes without color. If it is considered a derogatory term, I have no idea what the PC term would be, either.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

I disagree with you here. Values are a very sticky thing. Nobody can actually justify values. If you believe that all people are born equal, it follows that you cannot be a racist. But what if you don't believe that? Can you really prove that people are born equal? There are people who believe that humans are born in groups, each of which has a role to play in the world. That is racism, but this assumption cannot be any more disproved than the "born equal" statement. They are statements of opinion, not fact. One person believes that freedom and equality are above everything and he will fight to his last drop of blood for this. Another believes that his honor is above everything, and that to fight for his Emperor is the highest honor there is. One puts value in peace, the other believes in the glory of war. Americans believe that the pursuit of happiness is an essential right. Buddhists believe that the pursuit of happiness is the root of all evil. Ignorance? No. Values simply can't be justified, they are axioms used to justify other things.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's a fairly simple thing to disprove that some humans are less or more 'human' than others- that they are somehow inferior or superior based on racial type. Statistics prove the average intelligence, when taking into account differencs in education opportunities, is similar across all races, and that the ability to learn is similarly distributed. Biology proves the physical similarities between any given race. Other than cosmetic differences, there is no consequential difference between any two groups of people. The individual variances between people are so much wider than any genetic differences between groups that statements based on the group are inherently flawed. Which, of course, is the very basis of stereotyping; the assignment of generalized statements to an arbitrary group of people.

People are taught their values. If they are taught to hate, or to think themselves superior just by virtue of the color of their skin, that is ignorance, and it is racism.

The situation in which such things can not be proven, is when the individual in question maintains their position (belief) in the face of all evidence to the contrary. That goes beyond mere ignorance, and moves into the (IMO) vile territory of willfull ignorance, where one chooses to remain ignorant. That was explained to me as a child as the definitions of ignorant, and stupid, respectively. (Ignorance can be cured, stupidity is chosen. Actually, a different word which I will not repeat here was used for the condition I have identified as stupidity, but the essential nature of it is as described, and stupidity fits it very well.)
I see the same thing with biblical literalists and fundies of all stripes. The rejection of facts in favor of one's own belief system is a symptom of the persistence of ignorance.

btw, you seem to imply that a particular belief will be held above all others and is thus incompatible with other beliefs. I don't think that any one particular (reasonable) belief is sufficient to trump all others, and I'm pretty sure I'm not in the minority here. For instance, I can believe in equality whilst maintaining a belief in the importance of honor, and I can not conceive of a situation where I could not reconcile those two beliefs simultaneously.

Also, here in the US, we have gone beyond stating that all are equal as a simple individual opinion, and have incorporated it into our government some 235 years ago. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal..." and confirmed it again with the 14th Amendment.
That conflicting opinions continue to be taught is merely more evidence of the stubborn persistence of ignorance.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

First, I'd like to say that it's important not to underestimate one's enemy in this context. Always, when one believes that their opponent is stupid, uninformed, ignorant, does things just to spite, and so on - it actually deters from his ability to fight that person and be ready for the (very intelligent, alas) strategies employed by that enemy.

And I think you are very much mistaken. What does intelligence have to do with rights? Does intelligence tell you that a person is entitled to freedom, life, shelter, health care?

If so, does that mean that mentally challenged members of homo sapiens are not considered human as far as their rights are concerned? How about people whose intelligence has been destroyed by Alzheimer's disease? My values say my (mentally challenged) cousin is human, and that my late grandfather, who died of Alzheimer's, was human. Both of them are entitled, in my opinion, to life, liberty, and the rest of human rights.

So no, intelligence is not what defines us as humans, and therefore, facts regarding intelligence have nothing to do with the values we attribute to humans. Even if you tell me "Fine, humans are everybody who falls under the genus homo sapiens, defined by the genetic code XXXXX, and there are no differences between them based on that genetic code", it is a fact, but it still has nothing to do with the rights you might or might not attribute to them. Because it doesn't follow that equal genes entitle you to equal rights. That's a statement of opinion, not a fact!

Take those people who advocate for "equal but separate". Assume that in reality you could, indeed, create universities for black people and universities for white people that received exactly the same funding and both of whose academic work would have the same prestige in the academic world. Would this be OK? After all, you are not saying that only group A is entitled to proper high education, but you limit people of color A to university A, and color B to university B. That's still racism. But nobody is arguing with you about people's intelligence or even about their equal rights. What they are saying is that they shouldn't mix. You say "but why shouldn't they?" - he replies "But why should they?". Neither of you can find a justification other than "I believe people should be allowed to be mixed" or "This is God's will". These are not arguments based on fact, they are arguments based an internal conviction.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

1: Ignorant is not stupid. While the use of the word 'stupid' in place of a (possibly offensive) slang term in the previous post might lead you to think that I believe such, it is in fact the opposite of what I was saying. Ignorance merely means a lack of information. Willfull ignorance, which is something else entirely, is a refusal to accept bald-faced facts because they disagree with your beliefs or your current paradigm. Neither of these conditions denotes stupidity, although one might refer to the choice of willfull ignorance as a stupid choice, as no amount of belief will change actual facts. However, doing stupid things does not mean a person is genuinely stupid, and definitely does not reflect actual intelligence.

2: Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with rights. What I said was, there is no consequential difference between races, as proved by statistical and biological studies which show that there is no difference between races. Such studies evaluate such things as average intelligence, ability to learn, and physical/genetic differences between races. The point being, of course, that there is no difference between groups which is not completely overshadowed by individual variations. I'm really not sure how to make this any clearer, but you very badly misread what I wrote.

Because it doesn't follow that equal genes entitle you to equal rights. That's a statement of opinion, not a fact!

Well, yes, actually, equal genes DO mean equal rights, because you have to have a reason for refusing to grant those rights. One can state that one's opinion is that this race or that race is not entitled to equal rights, but then one has to back that up with something, because the lack of logic is all too apparent. Do redheads not get equal rights? What about people with blue eyes? People with freckles? Because these differences are just as cosmetic and just as indefensible as race. If we are all alike except for the color of our hair, or the color of our skin, then those two factors are equal, and there is no valid reason for suppressing the possessors of one over the other.
The alternative is to simply say "Because I say so." which is too ridiculous to be uttered, even by those who refuse to admit the facts. I have yet to hear that from any bigot.
Rather, they will submit bogus statistics which imply that a particular race is generally less intelligent, or violent, or prone to crime, or is somehow degenerate, or any other 'reason' they care to give, but the facts will not sustain their position, and then they either have to admit their failure to make their case, or fall back on their willfull ignorance of the facts.
Re; the separate but equal proposition. It's very easy to blast this as well, but I get your point, which I just reiterated above. Those who claim that races should be segregated, or discriminated against are, in fact, basing that on their opinion. However, the law (in the USA, and in most countries) clearly states that all are entitled to equality. In order for them to make their case, they have to show just cause, and they can't. Opinions have nothing to do with it. And I still maintain that only stubborn ignorance is to blame, and that these people don't get a free pass just because they were raised that way.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

And I realize that I wandered from your point; that if you are taught racism, it's not your fault. (Assuming I correctly understand your point?)
If your values teach you racism, it doesn't make it any less your fault in today's world, where such ideas are widely discussed, commented on, noted. One would have to be willfully ignorant or have been raised by racist wolves to not be aware of the issue, and being aware, and aware that there is at the very least controversy, it is that person's fault for not questioning, it is just as bad as racism developed on one's own, and it is still the result of ignorance, whether willfull or not.

And many racists believe that all people are born equal. They just don't believe those other races are 'people'.

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

Add me to the ranks of the uninformed. What do "persons who lack pigmentation genes" prefer to be called, if one were referring to such a person or a group of such persons? And are we still allowed to use the a-word in reference to that genetic condition if talking about non-humans, for example, about ferrets (where it's a rather common trait, as it's been encouraged in the domestic breeds)?

I am truly curious, and not being snarky.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

The "politically correct" term is 'person/people with albinisn'. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing myself- having been called 'albino' in an unfriendly way as a kid (and vehemently denying it) only to find out as an adult that I actually do have albinism. The stigma of albinism was so great that my parents denied that I had it and refused to get me any sort of special treatment beyond corrective surgery for my crossed and shaky eyes (at age 3) and actually hoped that I would 'color up' when I got older.

I didn't. When I faced my father about this a few years ago, and asked him if he knew I had albinism, he said he didn't want 'some sort of freak' as a daughter. My particular variant of albinism is not as severe as some- my vision is correctable so I am not legally blind, and I have developed a tiny bit of pigment as I have aged. I can 'pass' for blonde.

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

Never heard this before, but I'll try to remember it. Thanks!

[voxwoman.livejournal.com]

thank you.. and I had no idea there were ocular problems associated with albinism i in humans. My daughter also had strabisimus (crossed eyes) and amblyopia (caused by the crossed eyes) and a few years of vision therapy (and a second mortgage to pay for it) fixed her crossed eyes, but her vision in one eye is rather poor, even with glasses.

I also had no idea that the condition was stigmatized so much. People are ridiculously intolerant of anything different. I don't understand this, personally.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

That's very interesting. I'd never have thought there would be such a stigma about it in the west - though I did hear that the group was persecuted in parts of Africa, where they are believed to be witches, or worst - a source of ingredients for witchcraft (shudder). I guess the only real cure for that sort of thing is raising children in as externally mixed groups as possible, so that no hair color or thickness of glasses would come as a surprise to them. And they'd still need lots of education nevertheless. Children are experts on finding ways to form up in groups and attack the weak.

[sunfell.livejournal.com]

People who come from cultures where the predominant skin color is brown are black get treated a lot worse- but European people get stared at just as much. And I had a whole slew of nicknames bestowed on me as a kid: "Casper", "Snow White", "Spooky", "Ghost" and "Grandma", "Abominable Snow Girl" and of course, "Albino". Not fun.

Dear NOLAWitch

[ozanbaba.livejournal.com]

Can i hug you? Because that was good!!! Plus "I'm not a racist" starts points one thing, too; someone knows nothing about review and discuses anything at all (i claim that from my ass :P)

Re: Dear NOLAWitch

[nolawitch.livejournal.com]

*hugs back*

Wait for my next rant about the idiotic uproar over the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. :)