Race and Rosario

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

For the record, I'm not really dialoging with the OP, I'm dialoguing with you, so let's put the focus back there. I said my point there, and it has been pretty much you ever since. If you haven't noticed, you and I have had several flavors of this conversation over the years. 

 

You've said over and over and over again that this conversation cannot be had, but you don't seem to be too interested in figuring out your role in why it cannot be had. I'd argue we're doing a decent job at the moment of having this conversation, so don't take this as me saying it's impossible. Take my continued dialogue with you on this subject as someone trying to have it.

 

You're right that you cannot control the other side of the debate. Where I disagree though is that the only thing you can do is control how upset you get. For all the talk of sensitivity training that you hear on the left, this, to me at least, is rather perplexing. You and I have done our fair share of moderating where people drop a nice hand grenade in the middle of a conversation and then walk away. It kills dialogue, and it's one the main things on the site that we have to moderate. There's plenty of subtle and not subtle ways that this is done.

 

I'm guessing everyone here would understand an angry outburst if a poster walked in and dropped a couple of random racial slurs. So why then do you not see how people might get upset when someone implies they are racist? A lot of people find both equally offensive. There's listening, and then there's a legitimate attempt at understanding where someone is coming from. 

"but you don't seem to be too interested in figuring out your role in why it cannot be had"

 

This is not a defensive reaction but I feel the exact same thing about your opinion on this. And that makes the conversation really difficult to have for different reasons than I've outlined in previous posts.

 

White people hold the vast majority of influence and power in this nation. We simply do not see what it's like to walk around with privilege on a daily basis because it's invisible to us (I actually dislike the phrase "white privilege", as it's too easy to shrug off... I prefer something more along the lines of "white default", which focuses on how we walk through life as "Basic Human" and everyone else is "Other"). I don't get harassed by the cops, no one has ever asked to touch my hair, people don't mock my name, people don't avoid me on the street, people don't assume negative stereotypes about me unless they're completely benign and silly like "he can't dance".

 

And because we simply don't know what we're talking about here, I feel we need to curb our outrage when things get uncomfortable; when the conversation goes to a place that makes us squirm in our seats a little bit.

 

I don't pretend that everything that comes out of the left is intelligent or well-worded; hell, I disagree with loads of stuff said by people both to the left and right of me on the political spectrum. But what I try to do is ignore the most idiotic things that come from those sources and focus on the message.

 

Because it's obvious that there are very real, systemic issues surrounding race in this country. I can either get upset about how the message is phrased or I can get upset that the message needs to be conveyed at all. I choose the latter.

 

And if someone asks indirectly if my dislike of a player is racially-motivated, I'm not going to lose my **** over it because it's a legitimate question given the deep-seeded biases institutionalized in this nation. Again, I choose to pause and consider whether their statement has merit.

 

That doesn't mean I need to agree with their statement. Agreement is not required with anything but we should always be listening and we should not seek out accusatory tone to deflect the conversation to semantics at the expense of the message.

 

TLDR: white Americans have held the microphone for 242 years. It won't kill us to sit down and listen for a couple of minutes, even if the things said make us uncomfortable.

[jimmer]

Brock, serious question: You say white people have the huge majority of power and influence in this country. That's true, but isn't it also true that about 2/3 of this country is white and maybe that's a major contributing factor as to why white people have the majority of power and influence? Wouldn't you say a huge percentage of the white people in this country are also relatively poor and powerless too, with many of them having stereotypes attached to them as well?? It's like people say white people are the cause of so many bad things that have happened in this countries history and it's true, but it's also true that a huge chunk of white people (no, not by themselves, obviously) have been the reason why things get better cause, like you said, they have the power and influence.

[TheLeviathan]

 

TLDR: white Americans have held the microphone for 242 years. It won't kill us to sit down and listen for a couple of minutes, even if the things said make us uncomfortable.

 

I think, until you've embraced this, it's hard to have a good conversation.  I've had the benefit of many in my lifetime with some young black men in Chicago that definitely have opened my eyes and made me a better person.  They were hard, in part because of the difficulty in hearing the challenges they faced as children just to survive in this world and to feel the enormous privilege (in more of the definitional sense here) I've had that they didn't.  It's eye-opening and humbling.  

 

So yeah, you're going to have to hear some absolutely obnoxious lecturing (largely from white liberals to be honest) but go seek out some authentic conversations on race, privilege, and biases.  Those conversations can sound a lot like this one, but with some voices from people who share a much different experience than yours.  

 

And that doesn't have to be just about race.  If you're some rich yuppie, go talk to that lower middle class farmer.  If you're a man, open up and listen to the experiences of women.  If you're an atheist, go talk to that Mormon family.  It won't hurt unless you let it.  

[jimmer]

 

I think, until you've embraced this, it's hard to have a good conversation.  I've had the benefit of many in my lifetime with some young black men in Chicago that definitely have opened my eyes and made me a better person.  They were hard, in part because of the difficulty in hearing the challenges they faced as children just to survive in this world and to feel the enormous privilege (in more of the definitional sense here) I've had that they didn't.  It's eye-opening and humbling.  

 

So yeah, you're going to have to hear some absolutely obnoxious lecturing (largely from white liberals to be honest) but go seek out some authentic conversations on race, privilege, and biases.  Those conversations can sound a lot like this one, but with some voices from people who share a much different experience than yours.  

 

And that doesn't have to be just about race.  If you're some rich yuppie, go talk to that lower middle class farmer.  If you're a man, open up and listen to the experiences of women.  If you're an atheist, go talk to that Mormon family.  It won't hurt unless you let it.  

I agree with you. Brock's comment that you quoted, ' TLDR: white Americans have held the microphone for 242 years. It won't kill us to sit down and listen for a couple of minutes, even if the things said make us uncomfortable', is an extremely important point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, serious question: You say white people have the huge majority of power and influence in this country. That's true, but isn't it also true that about 3/4 of this country is white and maybe that's a major contributing factor as to why white people have the majority of power and influence? Wouldn't you say a huge percentage of the white people in this country are also relatively poor and powerless too, with many of them having stereotypes attached to them as well?? It's like people say white people are the cause of so many bad things that have happened in this countries history and it's true, but it's also true that a huge chunk of white people (no, not by themselves, obviously) have been the reason why things get better cause, like you said, they have the power and influence.

Well, you're right about power and influence... but white Americans make up about 2/3rds of America (not 3/4) but control something like 90% of the positions of influence and power. It's wildly disproportionate and that's after the huge gains made in the past half century.

 

White people certainly have poverty issues (I highly recommend the book "White Trash: 400 Years..." if you really want to deep dive on that), the issues are different and have often been leveraged that because they're white, they're still better than the richest black man. This country was getting closer to a class-based movement in the early 20th century but, as had happened several times previous in the country, politicians and power brokers leveraged whiteness to keep the poor apart and powerless.

 

But a poor white man is still better off than a poor black man. They won't be arrested as readily, they won't be put in jail for as long if caught, and if they manage to pick themselves off the ground (which is easier if you're white and not under the yoke of a system that seems to enjoy stepping on your neck), they can slide right into "American society" like nothing ever happened at all.

 

No matter where you stack a black man versus a white man economically, the black man is at a bigger disadvantage to not only gain economic advantage, but simply to hold on to his current status.

 

"White privilege" (again, don't care for this term) isn't about white people actually having privilege; it's about society at large not getting in their way when they try to make progress.

[jimmer]

I changed it to 2/3. It said 3/4 cause I am a poor typist :-)

[ashbury]

I’ll just say that out of the ones I’ve met... very few. Maybe 20% if I’m feeling generous.

There's quite a margin from "generous" to "I would have guessed an order of magnitude lower."

[ashbury]

White people hold the vast majority of influence and power in this nation. We simply do not see what it's like to walk around with privilege on a daily basis because it's invisible to us (I actually dislike the phrase "white privilege", as it's too easy to shrug off... I prefer something more along the lines of "white default", which focuses on how we walk through life as "Basic Human" and everyone else is "Other"). I don't get harassed by the cops, no one has ever asked to touch my hair, people don't mock my name, people don't avoid me on the street, people don't assume negative stereotypes about me unless they're completely benign and silly like "he can't dance".

I think this gets to the heart of something important. For me, it's not useful to think of it as privilege, because it's what I think everyone should have. Not as some lofty, "someday we'll have flying cars", but right now, we should not have law-abiding people afraid to interact with the police. It's "Basic Human" in the sense of basic human rights. To the extent I have it and others don't, well, it's only a privilege in the sense that there's an advantage that goes unnoticed most days - but it's not something specifically bestowed on me or others like me, it's something rightful that's withheld from too many others. It's twisting a word to call it privilege.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think this gets to the heart of something important. For me, it's not useful to think of it as privilege, because it's what I think everyone should have. Not as some lofty, "someday we'll have flying cars", but right now, we should not have law-abiding people afraid to interact with the police. It's "Basic Human" in the sense of basic human rights. To the extent I have it and others don't, well, it's only a privilege in the sense that there's an advantage that goes unnoticed most days - but it's not something specifically bestowed on me or others like me, it's something rightful that's withheld from too many others. It's twisting a word to call it privilege.

Yep, which is why I think the phrase is counter-productive in a few different ways.

 

But to bring this statement back around, I don't get upset when people use the term "white privilege" just because I dislike the phrase; that would be discarding an easily-understood message because of semantics.

[ashbury]

But to bring this statement back around, I don't get upset when people use the term "white privilege" just because I dislike the phrase; that would be discarding an easily-understood message because of semantics.

Oh, I've never launched into a discussion upon hearing the phrase, before this. For approximately the reasons you state. Also, because it's far too complex to unravel in a casual conversation, and is always a lower priority than the actual topic under discussion.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Oh, I've never launched into a discussion upon hearing the phrase, before this. For approximately the reasons you state. Also, because it's far too complex to unravel in a casual conversation, and is always a lower priority than the actual topic under discussion.

Oh, I don’t think you do... just tying the conversation with you into conversations with others.

[TheLeviathan]

I wish we could have a conversation about that term.  Yes, there are larger issues so I too haven't died on that hill, but the intention of that phrase is to jar people to attention and make them uncomfortable.  That's fine, I understand the importance of that.

 

But then we have to move forward and the connotations that "privilege" comes with derails that.  All of us in this discussion can move past that and continue the dialogue but, frankly, we're not the ones we need to add to the dialogue.  The people we do are (in some cases) rightly insulted and turned away by that rhetoric.

 

The gravity of the issue leads me to also avoid that fight, but at some point I wish we could recognize how there comes a point where we want to be constructive and work to be that in every way we can.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I wish we could have a conversation about that term. Yes, there are larger issues so I too haven't died on that hill, but the intention of that phrase is to jar people to attention and make them uncomfortable. That's fine, I understand the importance of that.

 

But then we have to move forward and the connotations that "privilege" comes with derails that. All of us in this discussion can move past that and continue the dialogue but, frankly, we're not the ones we need to add to the dialogue. The people we do are (in some cases) rightly insulted and turned away by that rhetoric.

 

The gravity of the issue leads me to also avoid that fight, but at some point I wish we could recognize how there comes a point where we want to be constructive and work to be that in every way we can.

Absolutely and well said. We need to reach out to those that have issues with the vocabulary used around this issue, as diehard pointed out.

 

And we can have that conversation, for sure... but I know you agree that it’s hard to get white people at large to the table because we fight over such simple issues as this orginal thread topic.

 

I won’t just come to the table, I’ll be ecstatic to be there, if we can actually talk about race without sidebars and tone policing before we even walk into the room.

 

But to do that, white people need to shut up and listen for a minute.

 

And how do we convince a people that are so obviously in power, yet refuse to acknowledge said power, to shut the **** up?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Absolutely and well said. We need to reach out to those that have issues with the vocabulary used around this issue, as diehard pointed out.

And we can have that conversation, for sure... but I know you agree that it’s hard to get white people at large to the table because we fight over such simple issues as this orginal thread topic.

I won’t just come to the table, I’ll be ecstatic to be there, if we can actually talk about race without sidebars and tone policing before we even walk into the room.

But to do that, white people need to shut up and listen for a minute.

 

Well said.  But we've also become experts at completely missing the point of what other people are saying.  (Or deliberately confusing what they intend.  See: Flags and Kneeling)

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well said. But we've also become experts at completely missing the point of what other people are saying. (Or deliberately confusing what they intend. See: Flags and Kneeling)

It makes it a lot harder when one side is, intentionally or not, obfuscating the argument.

[ThejacKmp]

 

It gets old and it makes people leery of criticising anyone that isn't white because the label racist gets thrown around so easily, especially on the internet when people dont have to face the person they are accusing of being a racist. 49 years on this planet, the only time I have ever been accused of racism was on this site. And it was ridiculous allowed to happen over and over and the poster was allowed to stay.

 

Aside: I went to the game today and then bowled (poorly) in my league. Don't have a smart phone so was happy to come back and see this blow up kind of. I take it back Ashbury, Sports Bar is a thing!

 

I think we need better language around the word racist. We use racist to discuss everything with race and it should be more nuanced. Skinheads are racist, my deceased grandpa's endless discussions of the neighborhood transitions in Chicago was racist -- they made grand assumptions based on stereotypes and applied them to people based on skin color.

 

And yet we have jimmer and USAFchief saying that the only time they get called racist is here. And that's a problem because I'm pretty sure they're not racist in the sense of my grandpa and skinheads. At the same time, I think most reasonable people can comprehend that there are unconscious biases that we all have because we grow up in a world that takes race super seriously. But that doesn't mean we're racist. 

 

What we need is another word that describes that societal De Facto racism that we all have at least a bit of. I propose "racial". It doesn't mean we're applying ****ty stereotypes willy nilly but acknowledges that we see race and our viewpoint may be tainted by it. Our opinions are racial. I know that happens to me all the time.

 

I have an ongoing battle with the racial aspects of my worldview. I don't like being called racist because I equate that with skinheads, the alt-right and my grandpa (a lovely guy who was progressive in 1950 and racist in 2010). But I'm certainly racial. I try to fight it but I'm racial.

 

Maybe this makes no sense? I have been drinking :-)

[ThejacKmp]

 

have you read the whole entire original thread, where he asks why no one criticized Punto (in direct response to me, point for point) among other things? It isn't a question....no way. It's an accusation.

 

You made this personal in a way that is kind of strange. I replied to a comment in the original thread but that doesn't mean it wasn't part of a larger discussion and it doesn't mean that I was setting this up as a thejackmp vs. Mike Sixel throwdown. I felt uncomfortable with the coverage of Rosario before last night (Dick and Bert treat him like a child sometimes) and it crystalized last night for me. I happened to piggy back off something you said but I think that:

 

A) I was pretty clear about using broad language and ambiguous statements to make this a "Twins World' issue and not a "Mike Sixel" issue

I in no way called anyone racist, just brought up the concept of race in how we view individual players.

 

It feels like you took this whole thing really personally and that's a thought process happening just for you. I wasn't a part of that at all.

[ThejacKmp]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts on this. As stated before, I came home and checked Twins Daily (as I do when I come home after a few drinks out) and really enjoyed the conversation. I didn't agree with everyone but I got something from everyone's POV and loved the discussion. 

 

It's a discussion worth having. We talk about race and the NFL and get pigeon-holed into "Don't you love America?" and "You're a flag burner aren't you?"* Baseball should be more open to talking about race because it's a real thing. Baseball is also uniquely prepared to make it not just the Black-And-White issue history and pop culture makes the Civil Rights movement. Cesar Chavez and the Latino experience in America is criminally underrepresented and I hope baseball can be a catalyst to talk about that.

 

Again, many thanks and I hope we can keep the discussion going. No one is wrong and we're all better to hear all sides. Except whomever ya'll are talking about who called people who disagreed with him racist all the time. That guy sucks.
 

* Just my opinion but the thing I love most about America is our ability to burn a flag. Nothing says free speech like the ability to burn the flag that defends that free speech. Amazing, just amazing.

[PseudoSABR]

I think there's a problem when we try to find the right words to get white men* to join the conversation. 

 

If others have a detriment, you have a privilege. (Even if it's on the basis of human rights; if the nomenclature makes you uncomfortable, well, good. ).

 

Racism, even though over charged, is still the grammatically correct word to refer to the effect of race coloring judgment. Don't like it? Do something about it.

 

I look forward to the day when people stop demanding to have this difficult conversation on their terms. 

 

*Look, I really adore all the posters in this thread, but I am disappointed by the defensiveness and thin-skinedness. 

[TheLeviathan]

Maybe this makes no sense? I have been drinking :-)

Isn’t that when you do your best thinking?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I look forward to the day when people stop demanding to have this difficult conversation on their terms. 

 

*Look, I really adore all the posters in this thread, but I am disappointed by the defensiveness and thin-skinedness.

 

Yeesh is there a lot of irony here.

 

I think you have badly misconstrued what nearly everyone in this thread has said.

[ThejacKmp]

 

I think there's a problem when we try to find the right words to get white men* to join the conversation. 

 

If others have a detriment, you have a privilege. (Even if it's on the basis of human rights; if the nomenclature makes you uncomfortable, well, good. ).

 

Racism, even though over charged, is still the grammatically correct word to refer to the effect of race coloring judgment. Don't like it? Do something about it.

 

I get part of what you're saying. I didn't feel totally comfortable as a white dude saying that we need to water down the word racist - I get that it's pretty convenient to think that and that lots of progress with race gets nullified by watering down what the 15th Amendment meant or what school busing meant etc.

 

But at the same time, we're talking about an incredibly controversial topic and we're using one word to describe things - people are racist or not racist and there's nothing in between. I think that having some more nuanced language to discuss things would be useful for cutting down defensiveness and making it easier to call out the microaggressions for what they are - moments of racialism. I don't want to speak for anyone but it's got to be hard to know that to call someone out, you have to call them this loaded term racist knowing that they're likely going to fight you tooth and nail on it and not get your point.

 

Maybe having a different word to use that brings up the topic without personalizing 300 years of history would be useful? I could be very wrong of course, just a thought.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Maybe I should use a different example. On TwinkieTown a couple months ago, some idiot said something about Sano's weight because he was eating too much fried chicken. Horrendously bad thing to say. People called the guy out on it. Now, from there is seems there are two possible options. One, you could look at what you said and read the concerns that others had and say, "holy crap, that's on me. I messed up." Or you could get defensive and attack everyone else, pretend you didn't know fried chicken had any connotation, etc. Guess which one this idiot picked.

 

The point is, we're at a place where people are openly offended at the mere suggestion that they reexamine why they say certain things. This thread questioned why we are ragging on Rosario for not hustling on a pop up. I wondered if we'd have used the same thread title if it wasn't Rosario. (I'm fairly confident we wouldn't have). At that point, maybe someone should say "let's see why did I do that?" And, as Tom answered, he explained why he did that. Tom doesn't seem upset and no one has called him a racist. Tom thought about the issue, considered why he did it and explained it. That should be good for this. What Tom didn't do was attack the people who brought up the questions or showed fake outrage that someone dare question him. That, to me, seems like a good way to move on this.

 

Your TwinkieTown example is certainly more clear cut, so I won't really argue that one with you. I've also been one of the ones defending Sano in this whole weight conversation, and for the most part, I don't think complaints around Sano's weight (sans poster excluded) are targeted at his ethnic background.

 

But to your second point, the question I'm asking you has more to do with your approach. People aren't going to ask "why did I do that?" when the implication of what you said basically says they are being racist. They're far more likely to get upset. This is a really good example about how it's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar. If you want people to actually ask those questions, then I suggest you pick a different approach.

 

As to your other point, I'm just going to disagree on Rosario. I don't think you'd have seen that thread title with Sano or Buxton, as neither of them have a long history of head scratching plays. Rosario is being maligned for a bit more than not hustling out a pop up (to be clear, he didn't run at all). He's being maligned because of way too many WTF moments over the last few seasons.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

"but you don't seem to be too interested in figuring out your role in why it cannot be had"

 

This is not a defensive reaction but I feel the exact same thing about your opinion on this. And that makes the conversation really difficult to have for different reasons than I've outlined in previous posts.

 

White people hold the vast majority of influence and power in this nation. We simply do not see what it's like to walk around with privilege on a daily basis because it's invisible to us (I actually dislike the phrase "white privilege", as it's too easy to shrug off... I prefer something more along the lines of "white default", which focuses on how we walk through life as "Basic Human" and everyone else is "Other"). I don't get harassed by the cops, no one has ever asked to touch my hair, people don't mock my name, people don't avoid me on the street, people don't assume negative stereotypes about me unless they're completely benign and silly like "he can't dance".

 

And because we simply don't know what we're talking about here, I feel we need to curb our outrage when things get uncomfortable; when the conversation goes to a place that makes us squirm in our seats a little bit.

 

I don't pretend that everything that comes out of the left is intelligent or well-worded; hell, I disagree with loads of stuff said by people both to the left and right of me on the political spectrum. But what I try to do is ignore the most idiotic things that come from those sources and focus on the message.

 

Because it's obvious that there are very real, systemic issues surrounding race in this country. I can either get upset about how the message is phrased or I can get upset that the message needs to be conveyed at all. I choose the latter.

 

And if someone asks indirectly if my dislike of a player is racially-motivated, I'm not going to lose my **** over it because it's a legitimate question given the deep-seeded biases institutionalized in this nation. Again, I choose to pause and consider whether their statement has merit.

 

That doesn't mean I need to agree with their statement. Agreement is not required with anything but we should always be listening and we should not seek out accusatory tone to deflect the conversation to semantics at the expense of the message.

 

TLDR: white Americans have held the microphone for 242 years. It won't kill us to sit down and listen for a couple of minutes, even if the things said make us uncomfortable.

I suspect we are talking past each other here. I don't think you're wrong at all to suggest that white people need to sit down and listen for a couple minutes. You've read what I've said, I've made it very clear that part of the problem is not just listening, but not listening to understand.

 

I am saying that it's the accusatory tone is what deflects a lot of this to semantics. I'm saying that inflammatory (and quite frankly unreasonable) accusations is why no one has the conversation. I get the need to try and filter it out to get to the message. It's really hard to do though when the conversation is killed before it can start.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Aside: I went to the game today and then bowled (poorly) in my league. Don't have a smart phone so was happy to come back and see this blow up kind of. I take it back Ashbury, Sports Bar is a thing!

 

I think we need better language around the word racist. We use racist to discuss everything with race and it should be more nuanced. Skinheads are racist, my deceased grandpa's endless discussions of the neighborhood transitions in Chicago was racist -- they made grand assumptions based on stereotypes and applied them to people based on skin color.

 

And yet we have jimmer and USAFchief saying that the only time they get called racist is here. And that's a problem because I'm pretty sure they're not racist in the sense of my grandpa and skinheads. At the same time, I think most reasonable people can comprehend that there are unconscious biases that we all have because we grow up in a world that takes race super seriously. But that doesn't mean we're racist. 

 

What we need is another word that describes that societal De Facto racism that we all have at least a bit of. I propose "racial". It doesn't mean we're applying ****ty stereotypes willy nilly but acknowledges that we see race and our viewpoint may be tainted by it. Our opinions are racial. I know that happens to me all the time.

 

I have an ongoing battle with the racial aspects of my worldview. I don't like being called racist because I equate that with skinheads, the alt-right and my grandpa (a lovely guy who was progressive in 1950 and racist in 2010). But I'm certainly racial. I try to fight it but I'm racial.

 

Maybe this makes no sense? I have been drinking :-)

 

You seem quite coherent when you've been drinking  

 

Very well said. 

[gunnarthor]

 

 

 

I think we need better language around the word racist. We use racist to discuss everything with race and it should be more nuanced. Skinheads are racist, my deceased grandpa's endless discussions of the neighborhood transitions in Chicago was racist -- they made grand assumptions based on stereotypes and applied them to people based on skin color.

 

And yet we have jimmer and USAFchief saying that the only time they get called racist is here. And that's a problem because I'm pretty sure they're not racist in the sense of my grandpa and skinheads. At the same time, I think most reasonable people can comprehend that there are unconscious biases that we all have because we grow up in a world that takes race super seriously. But that doesn't mean we're racist. 

 

 

Out of curiosity, why should we change the word? Are we going to say that racism has to equal skinhead behavior? That's certainly what some people want. Christ, I've heard/read hundreds of comments like "the Nazis are the real racists" or "I'm not racist, I voted for Obama."  If society has trained you to act one way when three black teenagers walk toward you on a sidewalk as opposed to how you'd react to three white teenagers walked toward you, shouldn't we label that behavior racist? (The "you" being the universal "you" and not ThejacKmp).

 

It seems like you're suggesting that we don't use that term because it makes some people uncomfortable. And those people are probably white people. I don't think we should change the language of racism to make white people feel better, regardless of whether it makes them more likely to listen now. If we're doing that, we're already telling them that certain racist behavior isn't racist. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Out of curiosity, why should we change the word? Are we going to say that racism has to equal skinhead behavior? That's certainly what some people want. Christ, I've heard/read hundreds of comments like "the Nazis are the real racists" or "I'm not racist, I voted for Obama."  If society has trained you to act one way when three black teenagers walk toward you on a sidewalk as opposed to how you'd react to three white teenagers walked toward you, shouldn't we label that behavior racist? (The "you" being the universal "you" and not ThejacKmp).

 

It seems like you're suggesting that we don't use that term because it makes some people uncomfortable. And those people are probably white people. I don't think we should change the language of racism to make white people feel better, regardless of whether it makes them more likely to listen now. If we're doing that, we're already telling them that certain racist behavior isn't racist. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

I'm suggesting that we use the term but also find some other vocal to augment our discussion. I can say something is blue and it's true but it doesn't really help you know what kind of blue. That's why we have all kinds of modifiers with it so you can know that I'm looking for a sky blue sweater vest and not a turquoise sweater vest.

 

We don't have those modifiers with racism, a term much more nuanced and important than blue. We label things racist and non-racist. It's very black-or-white (no better term for that, apologies) and it promotes argument and not nuanced discussion. When we were talking about Jim Crow or Bull Connor, we didn't need nuanced. We needed to call a spade a spade. But when we deal with racism that's internalized, we need to have more nuanced discussions. And that calls for different words.

 

I think it comes down to whether you think your actions being called "racial" would be no big deal. If someone told me, "Hey that comment you made to Dan was pretty racial" I would want to figure out what I said, it would still disturb me. But it wouldn't be labeling me a racist (on the level with skinheads and Trump) so perhaps I'd be more willing to take an honest look at what I said to Dan and not fight back.

 

I also think it gets more people interested in talking about it. We've seen people being defensive in this thread because they object to being called racist. It becomes a discussion of what is and isn't racist. The discussion of racism today is too often about defining it logically when it really should be about feeling it emotionally.

[ThejacKmp]

 

I am saying that it's the accusatory tone is what deflects a lot of this to semantics. I'm saying that inflammatory (and quite frankly unreasonable) accusations is why no one has the conversation. I get the need to try and filter it out to get to the message. It's really hard to do though when the conversation is killed before it can start.

 

Yeah this. And I think we need to acknowledge that a lot of that is on white people because we tend to freak about being called racist. Nothing gets our hackles up like being associated with slaveowners and skinheads - which only we are doing in our heads. 

 

But it's hard not to. If you're a reasonably educated and empathetic person you have a lot of white guilt. You go through the world feeling bad because a part of you always knows that any success you have hinges in part on skin color and that choices you make contribute to the terrible racial dynamics of our society (I have a friend who just moved to Saint Anthony Village because his kids are hitting school age. He feels bad because he's sending his kids to a good school that is lily white. Should he do what's best for his kids or try to help the system in South Minneapolis? That's a tough question.) 

 

That's why I think we need better language. Not for people of color who experience racism - they can find the nuance without needing new words. But it's a lot easier and more productive in dealing with white people and white guilt. It moves the conversation along to say, "I'm not calling you Bull Connor, I'm just saying that your viewpoint on rap culture is racial. Let's work on that."

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeesh is there a lot of irony here.

I think you have badly misconstrued what nearly everyone in this thread has said.

Save for the fact that we're not really talking about race, but talking about how to talk about race. Again, this effect is aggregate, and not really any one person's doing.  But again, we've jumped the actual substance of the conversation and are in some kind of meta-discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Aside: I went to the game today and then bowled (poorly) in my league. Don't have a smart phone so was happy to come back and see this blow up kind of. I take it back Ashbury, Sports Bar is a thing!

 

I think we need better language around the word racist. We use racist to discuss everything with race and it should be more nuanced. Skinheads are racist, my deceased grandpa's endless discussions of the neighborhood transitions in Chicago was racist -- they made grand assumptions based on stereotypes and applied them to people based on skin color.

 

And yet we have jimmer and USAFchief saying that the only time they get called racist is here. And that's a problem because I'm pretty sure they're not racist in the sense of my grandpa and skinheads. At the same time, I think most reasonable people can comprehend that there are unconscious biases that we all have because we grow up in a world that takes race super seriously. But that doesn't mean we're racist. 

 

What we need is another word that describes that societal De Facto racism that we all have at least a bit of. I propose "racial". It doesn't mean we're applying ****ty stereotypes willy nilly but acknowledges that we see race and our viewpoint may be tainted by it. Our opinions are racial. I know that happens to me all the time.

 

I have an ongoing battle with the racial aspects of my worldview. I don't like being called racist because I equate that with skinheads, the alt-right and my grandpa (a lovely guy who was progressive in 1950 and racist in 2010). But I'm certainly racial. I try to fight it but I'm racial.

 

Maybe this makes no sense? I have been drinking :-)

 

Well said!