Dear Log,
Out of laziness (mostly the bad kind), I usually fall into the whole "everything is equally valid, let's all hug and sing kumbaya" mode when it comes to language and usage. And when there is real-life home-style simpering vile 3D injustice in the world, it feels just lame to harp about some tiny point of language. But I can't stop myself. Here goes:
Your little CV/biodata thing, it's not a resume. It's not even a resumé. It's a résumé. Can't type the accents on your keyboard? It's okay, I feel your pain. Just copy the word from here and paste as needed.
Re:"That word"
TorgoX on 2002-01-09T04:17:40
I understood his argument, but I found it fundamentally irrational, or at least irrationally expressed. It was not "the word is bad because..." but instead "this upsets us (or really, some of us), although you wouldn't really understand it".Moreover, it's founded on a basically flawed theory of meaning -- the idea that you get to judge words based not on their intended meaning (because that would really be "context"), but on however listeners or passersby want to willfully misconstrue them.
I run into a similar thing with American Indians -- as a linguist, every so often I get email from earnest Natives who want me to prove that "squaw" is offensive with my expert opinion that it's borrowed from some obscure obscenity. But I say, no, everything seems to point to it coming from an everyday Algonquian word meaning simply "woman"; and moreover, arguing meaning from etymology is fallacious; and in fact, the concept of having to "prove" that something (word or not) is offensive, is pretty shaky. ("Saying that cultural objects [including words] have value is like saying that telephones have conversations" -- Brian Eno.)
I await the day when some fringe group announces that it (hereby) finds prime numbers offensive.
Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T06:25:03
That's all very nice but...
As a white person its not really your position to be telling black people what they can or cannot be upset over.
Honestly, it sounds irrational to me too, but I suspect that this comes from the racism of being white. More importantly, I realize that if I made the argument you're making, black people would interpret it as racism. At which point you'd say something about how irrational that is. Except the fact is, that given the average black person's experience, assuming racism is an entirely rational response.
As to the link to the uiowa page, I think its quite clear that the white professor was racist, which isn't to say that he shouldn't be able to use the word 'niggardly' in class. Rather, it seems like he mishandled the black student's reaction quite badly and probably did a really good job of making her feel like crap.
The fact is, white people _are_ for the most part horribly insensitive to black people. If you can't understand why that student would feel so upset, well, you're white. You're able to ignore racism and prejudice pretty much at will, and you probably do most of the time (which isn't a personal attack). That's what white privilege is all about and you and I both take advantage of it. But that student can't ignore racism because it smacks her in the face every day.
So by your standards she's "over-sensitive". But she's probably pretty damn tough. I can't even imagine what she has to put up with on an ongoing basis as a black woman at a university in Wisconsin. I doubt that if you or I suddenly had to live with the level of hatred and prejudice an average black person experiences we'd do much better.Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T06:26:27
I realized that its hard to communicate some of this stuff online, and I don't want this to sound really accusatory or hostile, because I'm not trying to single you out as some paragon of white racism.
I hope that we'll have a chance to chat about this face-to-face in the future at YAPC or OSCON.Re:"That word"
pudge on 2002-01-09T14:49:32
As a white person its not really your position to be telling black people what they can or cannot be upset over.Then I say the converse is necessarily true: it is not a black person's position, as a black person, to be telling white people what words they can or cannot use.
I personally don't think anyone has any business telling people what words they can or cannot use, or what they should or should not be upset about, and further that this never has one damned thing to do with color.
Honestly, it sounds irrational to me too, but I suspect that this comes from the racism of being white.
Speak for yourself. I am not racist in the slightest. In fact, if I were to agree that white people should treat black people differently just because of the color of their skin, as you suggest, then I would be a racist. I refuse.
You readily group people into separate racial groups. I call that irrational, and I call that racism. When Alan Keyes begins hosting his weeknightly hour-long talk show on MSNBC later this month, do you think it will be reasonable or helpful in any way to treat him as you have described we should treat "blacks"? (If you are unaware, Alan Keyes is a conservative Republican black man, former ambassador to the UN and presidential candidate, who has such "heretical" beliefs as the reasonableness of racial profiling in law enforcement, the unreasonableness of government-sponsored welfare, etc.).
The fact is, white people _are_ for the most part horribly insensitive to black people.
I am horribly insensitive to all people, until I get to know them. What does it mean to be "sensitive" to black people? It means that I know what black people are thinking, and that I am sensitive to their feelings and thoughts. But I don't know what black people are thinking, not because I am white, but because black people don't think as a group. Therefore I cannot be sensitive to black people, and neither can anyone else.
Black people are as diverse as any other group: they completely span the spectrum of views on racism, politics, religion, culture, and the rest. Sure, they almost universally think that slavery was wrong. Well, so do I. That's about all "black people" have in common, and it is something I have in common with them. So excuse me if I find it completely illogical to put black people in a box and imagine that it is possible to be sensitive to them.
In other words, how can one possibly be sensitive to "black people" when "black people" don't universally share any of the same sensitivities, except for those that one also shares?
You might say that Keyes and others are exceptions to the rule. You might even be vindictive and unreasonable, and call him an Uncle Tom. But I say when dealing with other people, exceptions are the rule. My duty as a fellow human is to treat everyone I meet with the same high level of respect. I have no obligation to, and can see no logical value in, trying to guess how someone might react to something I say or do. And further, I think it shows a fundamental lack of respect for the individual to treat him as though I know what he is thinking, when I cannot possibly know such a thing.
I have a good friend who is gay, and is sensitive regarding jokes about AIDS, for example. So I don't make such jokes in his presence. That one I could have guessed, probably. I have another friend who is sensitive about jokes regarding car accidents. He is far more distressed about that than most black people I know are about using the word "nigger." How could I possibly know that until I get to know him, and possibly unfortunately offend him along the way? And I have a good friend who is black who is doesn't have any problem with me using the word "nigger" in certain contexts, because he knows I love and respect him as a person, and that I am merely joking, and he gives as good (well, better) than he gets.
The point is that we should attempt to treat everyone as an individual and get to know them and be sensitive to whatever they, as individiduals, are sensitive to, and that we shouldn't treat people as member of a group, because that is racism and that is offensive.
Indeed, I wouldn't use the word "nigger," or joke AIDS, or joke about car accidents, in front of anyone I didn't know wouldn't be offended. Anything I think might cause distress to a "black person" is something I think might cause distress to any person. Yes, the word nigger is offensive. But I know far more whites, per capita, than blacks who find it inherently offensive. What does that tell us?
That's what white privilege is all about and you and I both take advantage of it.
It is not "privilege" to be treated well. "Privilege" means something "above and beyond" expectations. I will readily agree that many people, for many reasons, are treated poorly, including blacks, Jews, fundamentalist Christians, Republicans, Democrats, and whites. But when they are treated poorly, it is not evidence that those who are not treated poorly are "privileged." It is evidence that they are treated poorly, that they are not getting treated as they deserve to be treated.
To use "privilege" in this manner implies that people don't deserve to be treated well, and that people who don't have it can't expect it, and those that do are lucky to have it. It's the other way around: everyone deserves it, those that don't have it should, and those that do are not lucky, but normal.
OK, I think that's enough. If you've read this far, thanks.
:-) Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T18:37:30
Speak for yourself. I am not racist in the slightest.
It is simply not possible to be white and not be racist. You have enjoyed white privilege your entire life, at the expense of people of color. That is racist.
Now as to how I'd define white privilige, just follow the links.
I doubt you could honestly tell me that you haven't experienced those privileges. If you have. but maybe you've never noticed them, that's a privilege too.
That is the heart of racism. Its not about whether you think black people are inferior or not, though that can be part of it. Its about how your life is measurably made easier by your race, while conversely a person of color's life is made more difficult. Its about how racism pervades every form of media we see, our educational system, and our institutions of government in ways that guarantee that white people are racist.
As to what black people have in common, well, they have in the common the experience of experiencing racism. This doesn't necessarily lead to a unified political view, but it is something that is shared by all black people. And that's what I think white people are horrible insensitive to. But I doubt I could convince you of these things. If you haven't done so in the past, you might talk to some of your friends who are people of color and ask them to tell you about experiences in their life where they felt they've been the victims of racism. Maybe they won't have any but frankly I'd be pretty surprised if that were the case.
As to my use of the word privilege implying that people don't all deserve to be treated well, I don't think you actually believe I think that. My use of privilege means it is something that some (white) people have and something that others (people of color) don't. That doesn't imply that everyone shouldn't have it, but then it wouldn't be a privilege any more, it'd just be treating everyone equally, which I do think is a good thing.
And yes, I read all the way to the end.Re:"That word"
pudge on 2002-01-09T19:21:48
It is simply not possible to be white and not be racist.
Only insofar as it is not possible to be human and not be racist.
You have enjoyed white privilege your entire life, at the expense of people of color.
No, I have not.
I doubt you could honestly tell me that you haven't experienced those privileges. If you have. but maybe you've never noticed them, that's a privilege too.
I refuse to bow to your desire to use the word "privilege" to mean "normalcy." Please use words properly. Yes, I know that words mean what people use them to mean, but my hope is that we can stop this linguistic abomination before it spreads much further.
But no, I have not experienced these things.
Its about how your life is measurably made easier by your race, while conversely a person of color's life is made more difficult.
My life is not made easier by my race. It is true that, usually, my life is not made harder by my race. But those two things are not the same. I do not view life as a contest, whereby others being subjugated makes my life that much better or easier. I do not compete with anyone else for what I have. If I could not get what I have because someone else had it, I would get something else. My life is my own. Are the lives of "white people in America" better because of the subjugation of blacks? Perhaps. But what's that got to do with me? I am not a group.
As to what black people have in common, well, they have in the common the experience of experiencing racism.
Nonsense. What black people have in common is the same thing we all have in common: being treated poorly for dumb reasons. I have been a victim of such treatment moreso than many black people I know. Growing up in Eastern Massachusetts as a non-Irish non-Italian right-wing conservative Republican born-again Protestant who was smart and awkward and tall and overweight
... I was more of an outcast than any kid of color in the town.
I am not trying to say that racism isn't bad or serious. But I have had it worse than many black people. I have had it far worse than Tiger Woods, for example. I have been the object of more derision and subjugation than him. It's nonsense to put "blacks" in a special victims group.
As to my use of the word privilege implying that people don't all deserve to be treated well, I don't think you actually believe I think that.
Well, then don't keep using that word, then.
Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T20:06:13
>> You have enjoyed white privilege your entire life, at the expense of people of color.
> No, I have not.
Yes, you have.
People of color are less able to compete with white people for things like quality education (starting with elementary), college admissions, jobs, housing, loans, etc.
That's not to mention the fact that if you get arrested you're more likely to get a light sentence (no jail), you're less likely to get arrested in the first place, you're less likely to be beaten by a police officer, less likely to be shot by one.
So all these things reduce the amount of competition for the things that you want by making sure that the playing field is not equal.
Then there's the historical impact of racism which ensured that your family has had more of a chance to build up wealth from generation to generation than people of color, further improving your chances for success.
> I refuse to bow to your desire to use the word "privilege" to mean "normalcy." Please use words properly. Yes, I know that words mean what people use them to mean, but my hope is that we can stop this linguistic abomination before it spreads much further.
Its only "normal" because you're white! Please read the dictionary definition of privilege
Specifically, 1.a., "A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste."
So, you have had a number of advantages because of your skin color that people with different skin colors do not have and you somehow think that qualifies as normal and not a privilege?
> My life is not made easier by my race. It is true that, usually, my life is not made harder by my race. But those two things are not the same. I do not view life as a contest, whereby others being subjugated makes my life that much better or easier. I do not compete with anyone else for what I have. If I could not get what I have because someone else had it, I would get something else. My life is my own. Are the lives of "white people in America" better because of the subjugation of blacks? Perhaps. But what's that got to do with me? I am not a group.
Ok, so its not easier but its not harder. But relative to a person of color, your life is easier, right? As to whether life is a contest. Well, it _shouldn't_ be. But the fact is that everything you have is something someone else cannot have. They can't have your job. They can't have your inherited wealth. They can't have your home. That isn't to say that it is a zero sum game, and you have to give all that up. But rather, inasmuch as less people of color are inhibited from competing for limited resources that are universally wanted, white people have an advantage in terms of getting them.
And yes, white people in America have very much benefitted from the subjugation of blacks (and Native Americans, and hispanics, etc). The fact that this country is fabulously wealthy comes at least in part from the theft of Native land, the exploitation of slave labor, etc. And you benefit from that. Certainly, if you were born a black man, you wouldn't be nearly as likely to have what you have now in terms of job, wealth, education, etc.
You have benefitted quite directly from that historical exploitation.
> I have been a victim of such treatment moreso than many black people I know. Growing up in Eastern Massachusetts as a non-Irish non-Italian right-wing conservative Republican born-again Protestant who was smart and awkward and tall and overweight... I was more of an outcast than any kid of color in the town.
But its highly unlikely that the police were more likely to stop you for driving in an Irish neighborhood. Nor were you significantly less likely to be called on in math class. Nor did you have trouble finding positive representations of white people in the media. And I'm sure when you applied for a job you weren't less likely to be considered because of your race. This isn't about being an "outcast". I don't really give a flying *beep* about your difficult time in high school (been there, done that myself). That's a far cry from institutional racism that limits your opportunities for the rest of your life.
I don't really think that this sort of forum is productive for an ongoing discussion of this nature. I would suggest that you read some books on racism before we go any further. Two of my favorites are "Uprooting Racism" by Paul Kivel and "The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks" by Randall Robinson. These books make any point I could make in far greater detail, with supporting examples even. You and I could go back and forth on this for a long time, but I'm not sure what the point would be.
Perhaps you have some books/articles representing a contrary viewpoint you'd like to recommend. We could both agree to read something on each other's lists and then come back to this.Re:"That word"
pudge on 2002-01-09T21:21:10
People of color are less able to compete with white people for things like quality education (starting with elementary), college admissions, jobs, housing, loans, etc.
I do not compete with anyone for any of these things. Education? It was public, open to everyone who lived there. College? Nearly everyone got in to my college, and I would have had a better chance if I were not white. Job? Probably no difference, but if there were, it would be easier if I weren't white. Housing? I was the only one to put a bid on this house, and there were plenty similar houses available to all comers. Loans? Perhaps somewhat competitive, but anyone can get the simple loans (car and house) that I have, with the financial record I have.
That's not to mention the fact that if you get arrested you're more likely to get a light sentence (no jail), you're less likely to get arrested in the first place, you're less likely to be beaten by a police officer, less likely to be shot by one.
Again, these are not of the first category (ways my life is better because of racism) but of the second (ways some peoples' lives are worse because of racism).
Its only "normal" because you're white!
It is how *everyone* *should* be treated. It is not Privilege, it is Right. The way others are treated sometimes is Wrong. It is not Privileged and Not Privileged, it is Right and Wrong. "Normal" was not a good word, OK; I meant it more as what normal should be, rather than what normal is. It is not "privilege" for me to walk down the street and not have people suspect me as a thief. That is how it *should* be for *everyone*. It is Right that I am treated that way, not Privilege, and Wrong that in some cases colored people are not treated that way.
Ok, so its not easier but its not harder. But relative to a person of color, your life is easier, right?
Not to Tiger Woods, no. Not to the millions of millionaires of color in this nation, no. Not to the millions of people of color who may not be rich, but who are very content being who they are and where they are, no matter how life has beaten them down. At best, my life is no easier than theirs. The answer is No. To *some* people of color, is my life easier? Yes. But there are more white people who would think my life is easier than colored people!
inasmuch as less people of color are inhibited from competing for limited resources that are universally wanted, white people have an advantage in terms of getting them.
I may have certain advantages in getting what I want, but it is not because of race, it is not because there are fewer people in the pool. If I can't get something, then I don't want it, and I get something else. It is not a competition, and I don't want what I can't have. So I never have any trouble getting anything I want.
The fact that this country is fabulously wealthy comes at least in part from the theft of Native land, the exploitation of slave labor, etc. And you benefit from that.
Well, if you want to go there, descendants of blacks in America who were taken as slaves are much better off than they would be if they had been left in Africa
... so they benefit too. Of course, the slaves didn't kill the Indians. But neither did I.
Nor did you have trouble finding positive representations of white people in the media.
Poppycock! I *still* have trouble finding positive representations of white people, or any people, in the media.
This isn't about being an "outcast". I don't really give a flying *beep* about your difficult time in high school (been there, done that myself). That's a far cry from institutional racism that limits your opportunities for the rest of your life.
No, it is not. Because most people of color are *not* so limited. And those that are, are limited because of how they grow up, not because people subjugate them all along the way as they try to make their own lives. The point I was making, which you missed or ignored, is that what I experienced *is* worse than most of the "people of color" I know have experienced. The black kids I went to school with were popular, they were not victims of racism, their parents were wealthy
... they had all the opportunities I had and more. Again, Tiger Woods is not "limited."
I keep mentioning him because he makes your whole argument tumble. You keep saying "people of color" and "black people" as if they are all one group. They aren't. And you know what? Neither are white people. Most black people are not in poverty, are not significantly fettered by racism from being whom they want to be and doing what they want to do. More white people are limited from doing what they want to do than any other racial group in the U.S., in raw numbers. More white people have poor access to education, loans, jobs than any other group. That's not to say there is not a problem with the situation of "black America," and one that society is largely responsible for. But it is to say that the issue is not white vs. people of color. We are all in one big messed-up pot, and we all need to work to get out of it, and blaming people and segregating them and generally being pissy isn't helping anything.
The single biggest problem in getting to be whom you want to be is your education and economic background, regardless of your color.
Perhaps you have some books/articles representing a contrary viewpoint you'd like to recommend.
I don't feel the need to read any more books or articles on the subject. If you'd like, check out Alan Keyes: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America.
You want to put people in a box, to blame people, to subjugate people by thinking they what they have is fine, that to be treated well is "extra" and not "right". I want to lift people out of their boxes, whatever they are, and I want everyone to see everyone else as fellow people on this big ball of dirt who are carefully and wonderfully made. I want everyone to have opportunity to do and have whatever they want. And your way just makes that harder, because you're segregating people, you're blaming people who are trying to help; you're inciting people to hate and to anger against their brothers and sisters in humanity, brothers and sisters who are not the problem in the first place.
Re:"That word"
Matts on 2002-01-09T19:30:10
As a white person its not really your position to be telling black people what they can or cannot be upset over.
Isn't that perpetuating segregation? I thought we were all human beings.Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T20:10:46
No, its not perpetuating segregation. The "we're all human beings" argument sounds like your average "color blindness" argument. IOW, something like this:
We all need to treat each other as individuals, not as white or black. We should ignore each other's skin color and deal with people one on one.
This is a particularly common argument among geeks, who tend to be strongly individualistic and get really upset at being lumped into a group (like "white people").
But the fact is, _only_ white people have the privilege of being able to ignore race (that is one of the core defintions of white privilege, in fact). People of color just don't have that power. They can try all they want to "just be an individual", but they _will_ be treated as a member of their racial group, whether they like it or not.
So of course the ideal world is one wherein everybody is an individual. But we're not there yet, and white people ignoring race won't get us there. In fact, white people ignoring race (when they feel like it) is the main thing keeping us from getting there.
See the books I recommended in my response to Pudge. I really don't think I can do these arguments justice in this type of forum.Re:"That word"
Matts on 2002-01-09T20:31:19
But the fact is, _only_ white people have the privilege of being able to ignore race
It's not a fact, I'm sorry I won't accept it as such. As an example, my wife did her A levels as a mature student at Uxbridge College in London - a predominantly asian community, and suffered what would be known as racial abuse. Ergo, your statement is untrue.
I can't accept that desiring integration, which you call ignoring race, is going to hinder progress towards racial equality. I just can't accept that, it goes against my rock.
You're right, this is of course a bad forum for discussing this, but then again it's probably one of the better ones we have (web bulletin boards that is, not necessarily use.perl), since we don't meet f2f often enough, and we're not about to make a conference call:-) Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T21:37:56
Did that so-called abuse significantly restrict her access to wealth and power in England? I doubt it. It might have been personally painful, and I think that sucks. But its not the same as the institutional oppression that affects people of color.
And my statement was obviously not 100% true. There are times when white people cannot ignore race. And there are times when people of color can. But by and large, it just isn't like that.
I'm all for integration and ignoring race, but not until after systemic (institutional) racism has been addressed and corrected. Until that is done, there just is no way that ignoring race will help.
And FWIW, I used to feel pretty similarly to how you and pudge feel, but I realized (after talking to various people and most importantly, doing some reading) that I was just plain wrong.
I'd highly suggest reading one of the books I suggested to Pudge. Robinson's book is mostly focused on the history of racism in the US, but I suspect much of it translates fairly well to the UK.Re:"That word"
pudge on 2002-01-09T21:43:16
OK, then forget the rest of the discussion, what do you want to *do* about it?Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T22:22:28
Well, I try to do stuff about it all the time. I consider educating others (white people, in particular) the best thing that can be done right now since white people are the ones that are the problem and because they also have the power to fix things.
I consider the Perl community a good target for this effort because I know people here already (soft targets) and I consider many of them intelligent enough and open-minded enough to be willing to have these discussions.
Its certainly a better use of my time than standing on a street corner on a soapbox saying these things into a megaphone or even handing out flyers or whatnot.Re:"That word"
pudge on 2002-01-09T22:35:36
You didn't say what should be done to fix things. You just reiterated that white people are to blame.Re:"That word"
autarch on 2002-01-09T23:05:20
Some things I'd like to see off the top of my head:
- civilian police review boards for all police forces. These boards should include a racial mix representative of the communities they serve.
- reparations for native americans and black people for genocide and slavery. Note, I am not talking about giving money to people, but rather taking that money and using it to support communities of color, provide scholarships, provide low-interest loans for homes/businesses, etc.
- more positive media representation of minorities. less stereotypes of black people as criminals, drug addicts/dealers, musicians, and sports heroes. more black people as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.
- affirmative action at colleges and in the workplace until we have achieved parity in representation (about 17% of people on average in colleges should be black. 17% of corporate employees, across, job descriptions, should be black).
- teach about racism in public schools.
Okay, I'll stop there before your head explodes;)
And that's just my domestic agenda. US foreign policy is largely racist as well and needs a lot of fixing too.Re:"That word"
pudge on 2002-01-09T23:37:38
- Civilan review boards, fine. They should include not a racial mix representative of the communities they serve, but a social mix. That could be racial, it could be economic, it could be religious, etc.
- Those are separate issues. Native Americans are a different story; we made and broke treaties, and we should honor the treaties or settle them in various ways. However, I have no problem with helping communities that need help; I just see no need to limit that to communities of certain races. As I said, America as a nation bears some responsibility for the plight of poor blacks, so yes, they should be helped, but I think it should be one focus of a larger effort to provide better education and business help to economically depressed areas.
- The media is what the audience wants it to be. I personally don't see any problem with how blacks are represented in the media, as compared to how any other group is represented. They are mostly represented a lot better than conservative Christians are
... in any event, I agree we should have an overhaul of much of the media, especially on television and in popular music, but that can only happen when the audience wants it to change.
- Affirmative action as you describe it is racism. It is immoral and wrong. It is offensive on every level, to everyone involved. It is offensive to the people who are excluded because they are of a certain color, and offensive to the people who are included for similar reason. You cannot solve racism by perpetuating it, and this is, by definition, institutionalized racism. [Also, it is not affirmative action, it is quotas; affirmative action was designed to go out and find job candidates in depressed areas, not to hire them based on race.]
- I don't want schools teaching racism, because as this discussion proves, racism is much like politics and religion. A teacher who tells my child that she is a racist will lose her job immediately.
Re:"That word"
Matts on 2002-01-09T21:56:59
Did that so-called abuse significantly restrict her access to wealth and power in England?
Seriously though - had it caused her to not wish to go back to college and thus fail her exams (which in fact it was partially why she didn't go back, but she did pass regardless, but only because she's extremely smart) she would not have A-levels, not got into St Andrews university, and not be at Oxford now. So yes, it could have had that effect on some "white" people. Absolutely. It's not a one way door.
It all in the end boils down to education. On both sides of your invisible fence.
