Because I'm not black

[cali]

I don't presume to tell black people what they can and cannot find racist. Because I'm not Jewish, I don't presume to tell Jewish people what they can and cannot find anti-semitic. It just seems the height of presumption to me, to do that.

I do know what I find racist or tinged with racial overtones, but I know I have a different take on it than if I were black.

[cloudythescribbler]

1. It IS however, important NOT to assume that ONLY blacks can judge what's anti-black bigotry ...

and this is not merely an academic point. Recently, in a grassroots group I am involved in, an assertion was made that a particular person, judging from their remarks on the web, was "racist" against Latinos. The statements were pretty provocative and egregious, but it was debatable whether the person making them should be automatically labelled 'a racist'. When someone (non-Latino white) tried to dispute the conclusion, the two Latinos participating in this discussion online then insisted that because THEY were Latino, they were the only ones to judge, NOT JUST WHETHER THEY WERE OFFENDED BY GIVEN REMARKS BUT WHETHER THE SPEAKER WAS RACIST. The notion was that their word, based on their ethnicity, was, in this situation, final. They say so-and-so is an anti-Chicano racist, and that's that.

I think that, while the point about ALWAYS looking to an allegedly targeted community (gays, women, blacks, etc) is well-taken, it is a good idea to stop short of the kind of real life pure credentialism I have just described.

[cali]

4. It's a thorny problem but if you'll note

I said that I know what I find to racist or tinged with racial overtones. I'm just saying that as I'm not black, I may not have the full picture as to why something is offensive or has racial connotations. And going to google to prove that a certain phrase or word doesn't have racial connotations, doesn't cut it for me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. As a white person, I can't tell a black person what should and should not offend.

On the other hand, the listener isn't necessarily better suited to judge the intent of the speaker than the speaker themselves.

And I do think that the common usage of a phrase has some bearing on the discussion.

[The Traveler]

2. Because I am human

I reserve the right to decide for myself if statements or behaviors are irrational, and if I find them so then I, too, get to express my opinion. The color of your skin, your gender, your religion, or your ancestral heritage provide no relief from the requirement to be reasonable and rational. Tolerance cannot be achieved through intolerance.

Having said that, I feel (as a pale assed Irish-American white boy who definitely cannot dance)we need to cut the brothers and sisters a little slack on this topic. Bigotry is alive and well and deeply ingrained in the system. Anyone here who thinks race and economic class are not the significant factors in, for just one example, the determination of sentences passed by our system of jurisprudence simply has not been paying attention. Hypersensitivity is only to be expected ... a nerve beaten raw by years of abuse is likely to react badly to even the slightest touch.

[TheSource]

11. Amen brother...

We are all in this together.

[TheSource]

13. Amen brother...

I love John Edwards supoorters.

[2rth2pwr]

3. If one Black person says that something is racist, that in and of itself

is "proof" that it's racist? Or do we poll the whole Black population?

[cali]

5. Neither.

First of all, I'm speaking personally. Second of all, there is such a thing as a rough concensus.

[snagglepuss]

6. That is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that someone feels slighted

does not make it so and that's a good thing. The reason why the fight for equality has been successful is that the injustices minorities have suffered have been observable. Segregation was not just people saying they felt segregated they were segregated. Just because someone feels something doesn't make it so.

[Asgaya Dihi]

7. How they can feel? No.

But how what they say sounds or looks to us, yes, we can and maybe should tell them that. This is a subject I've thought about number of times over the years, and yes you are right in that nobody can tell us how to feel about things no matter if we're a part of the group in question or not. Few groups are monolithic so they tend to have different ideas on exactly what the problem is even among themselves, one opinion is no more valid than the next on the face of it. Have to go past feelings and try to figure out what works.

I can and do try to point out things that I think are damaging to a cause from my perspective and this is one I've spent a little time on myself. Personally I hate it when people get caught up in parsing language which could have been incidental or a matter of how sensitive you are rather than of intent. While we're caught up arguing over the little things the huge screaming issues such as racial balances in prison/jail go without much notice, the shifting of populations in the census to move that population from their home towns and strengthen the voting power of their jailers goes unnoticed, and other very real issues such as the gross disparity in how mandatory minimums affect different population groups goes with little comment. The time could be better spent than parsing language if change is the goal.

It's one thing to tell someone how they are supposed to feel or what's supposed to offend them, that part they'll figure it out for themselves with little help from others. It's another though to point out that too much emphasis on one area and too little in others might from the outside seem counter productive. If we spend too much time complaining about the comparatively smaller things people are already out of patience with the subject by the time we get to the bigger ones.

[Catherine Vincent]

8. Sometimes you can't go by what a single black person says.

For instance, Tiger Woods. That reporter made a racist remark toward him and he thought it was no big deal. He didn't want to upset the white folks. :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. well if you were gay, you would be told frequently on DU, that you are overreacting to

homophobia

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Shoe and the other foot

The McClurkin defense team sure did not think gay people had the ability to call out bigotry against us. I was told 'its just church ways' or 'that's politics, grow up'. I was told to 'gain maturity and focus on real issues' I was told that Obama will close the gay bars, I was told Obama was the greatest and most courageous proponant of gay rights ever and how dare I question that? MY favorite was this one: "Its just Gospel. Chill."
So to me, as a guy who has lived a life with connections to many a community, the Obama people are engaging in a huge double standard. If you can accept overt and blatant bigotry against one group in your own campaign events, it is intellectually dishonest to engage in looking between the lines and giving no quarter when trying to call out bigotry in others.
Up in arms over the way Dr King was spoken about, as if the Clintons don't respect his memory, while ignoring the teachings and principles of Dr King is a cold kind of respect to offer to the man who said 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. yeah the next dr. king will NOT be obama or clinton. it wil be someone who can take on a real issue

like homophobia and convince the country that homophobes are just as vile as racists and/or tackle the issues of poverty.

regardless it wont be obama/clinton.

it probably wont be a politician either.

[Adelante]

10. I criticize anyone I think is wrong

I don't care about race, religion or gender when it comes to making judgments. This goes back to the 60s for me. I wouldn't limit myself then and I won't do it now. I remember a huge argument wherein the point was made that white writers shouldn't write about blacks, because they couldn't know the black experience. I responded, if that were valid, then black writers can't write about whites, which eliminates screenwriting, novel writing, journalism, etc. from equal opportunity. I can have a different take on anything or everything, based on my experience or race or gender or religion, but it's as legitimate a take as anybody's.