Racism

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Friday, August 24, 2007

The Benefit of the Doubt

by Nanette

From The Free Dictionary:

give someone the benefit of the doubt
to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either.

I’m afraid this is going to be more ‘stream of consciousness’ typing, taking the thoughts as they come - which is what I am actually more comfortable with - rather than something that has a specific beginning, middle and ending. Or point. I did have something else planned, having to do with the question “Why is this a feminist issue?” but, you know… I think I’ll just leave that one for another place and time. Heh.

I, as always, speak only for myself and my experiences and not as a spokesperson for any particular group of people.

So, this is an off the top of my head topic, mostly because I’ve been seeing that phrase (the benefit of the doubt) used lately and it does sometimes seem to me that different people have different ideas of what that means - depending on which side they are looking at it from, I suppose. I know, shocker. It often comes up (in one way or another) during discussions of race on and off the blogs, especially when it’s an issue of someone - usually, but not always, a person of color - saying to a person - usually, but not always, White - “hey… you know, that’s a racist saying, picture, way of thinking”. 

Needless to say, this is not always greeted with cries of joy, thankfulness and relief. More often with defensiveness, pushback, argument, hard feelings, hurt feelings, discussion and then - if we’re lucky - some sort of resolution. And in there somewhere, sometimes, wails about being given the benefit of the doubt. And that’s when I wonder… what is it people think the benefit of the doubt actually is? Whatever their interpretation is of it, it’s far different from mine, I guess.

I have a favorite blogger, a White guy, that I came across through a link from another site - most of the time, with those, I go, look at whatever it was that was linked, and then forget to go back again, but with this one I was so impressed with the quality of writing, as well as the sense of humor and heart of the writer that I put it on my daily reading rotation. Almost as much fun as his writing is seeing the pictures that he finds to go along with the posts - some of them are just brilliant. Old timey, retro stuff a lot of them - really fun and neat.  He doesn’t write much on race (that’s not what I visit his site for), but when he does it’s with a level of understanding - including knowing that there are some things he can’t understand - of righteous rage (especially about Katrina) and a talent for getting to the heart of the matter. I knew that this was someone who “gets it” and I felt comfortable there.

So, imagine my… well, surprise, surely, but mostly shock and um… gut kicked feeling when one day I click on the site and there is this really dreadful, racist picture there, illustrating a post. Oh man - I knew what it was about, from the post… it was being used to illustrate some sort of racist thing right wingers were doing or saying regarding Black people and he was ripping them a new one. Still…

I had a dilemma. I was a fairly new commenter and, I’m pretty sure, either the only or one of the few commenters who was Black or of color and I felt I could do one of a few things.

1.) I could just say “oh well, I know what he’s doing and that he’s not racist himself” and just let it pass and keep commenting there as if nothing had bothered me.

2.) I could just scratch the site off my rotation and move on to somewhere else.

3.) I could mention that, while I understood the intent, that the picture was worse (to me) than whatever it was he was writing about or against, and that it made me extremely uncomfortable.

#3 is the one that is most fraught, for me, as a person of color. So many things can (and often do) happen when one chooses that option. And, the thing is, you never know which reaction you’ll be hit with, even if you are dealing with the nicest, most aware, most “I get it” (usually) White person that you know, especially if it’s someone you like and who you believe likes you. Anywhere from an outright denial of the racism to “well, reasonable people can see that sometimes things, when used like this, aren’t racist” (which, of course, puts you right away in the “unreasonable” category), to - as someone recently pointed out - if they are selling something, other (usually) White commenters coming to the defense of the original writer, declaring that of course it’s not racist, whatever it is you are selling I am going to buy 10 and give them to all my friends and family, to eventual grudging acceptance that, okay maybe it’s racist, but you’re a jerk for pointing out, to oh okay, sorry, i didn’t think of that, thanks for pointing it out.

Me, I dithered a lot, all the time with this huge pain in my stomach because if I got the “wrong” reaction, I would have just been so disappointed, I love the site so maybe it’s better to say nothing, but if I don’t say anything how can I then continue to enjoy the site, knowing that I don’t trust this person enough to speak, and if I don’t trust this person enough to speak and don’t trust him and his reactions enough to believe that he’ll do the right thing, or if I don’t trust this person enough to believe he’s not going to turn into someone else and start spewing accusations and vitriol at me for speaking up… well then, what the heck am I doing here? Do I trust this person or not? Okay, yes, I do.

So, I went into the comments of the post and said something to the effect that, while I usually love all your pictures, I do not love this one. It’s racist. And his reaction was to change the picture immediately and then to comment on why he had used it, and what he was trying to accomplish, but that he definitely could make the same point with a different picture.

Or something like that, this was a while ago.

In making the decision to not just shake my head and move on, or to stay silent and probably seethe or to roll my eyes and think “oh well, par for the course” but deciding instead to bring this to his attention, come what may, and to believe (or at least hope) there would be no blowback from it… I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

When people’s commenters (friends, co-workers, so on) choose forms of options 1 and 2 and opt not to mention that something is, even if unintentionally, racist (or wrong in some other fashion), it may be quieter and less painful for the original poster and less uncomfortable for those that like and support them, but that person is not necessarily being given the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion.

They’ve already lost it.

Added 10/12/07 - Rachelena, of Life in Lenaville, in response to a few things going on in her orbit, has written what I consider to be a perfect companion piece to this. Well worth reading and absorbing.

share this post! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---

Friday, June 15, 2007

TFTD - A Different Order of Reality

by Nanette

It’s really too hot here to do much of anything, but in accordance with my “write something every day” thingy, here is today’s Thought for the Day. 

“Art is man’s constant effort to create for himself a different order of reality from that which is given to him.” Chinua Achebe

Chinua Achebe, considered by some to be the father of African literature (that is written in English) won the prestigious Man Booker award this year, in honor of his literary career. I’ve not actually read any of his work (except for small excerpts here and there), but someday I’d like to. His “Things Fall Apart”, written in 1958 - I think this was his first published book - analyzes the effects of colonialization on Igbo society in Nigeria, and has been translated into over 50 languages. Hmmm. That was the year I was born. I definitely need to get that then, if only to see how things have changed - or not - since he wrote it.

Posted by Nanette on 06/15 at 05:59 PM
General • Just Life • Racism • ThoughtForTheDay •
(0) Comments • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

share this post! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Yes, Virginia, the “R-Word” is as offensive as the “N-Word” and the “C-Word”

by Nanette

Now, we all know that society is loath to give up its epithets and racial slurs… but it can be done. We’ve almost extracted n****r, ch*nk, sp*c, k*ke and w*p from “polite” conversation… we can do it with r*dsk*n too, if we put our minds to it.

I've taken that title straight from Wampum, where MB Williams reminds us,

...." in the wake of the "misogynist language" dust up: It's not only about women and African-Americans."

[....]

Just one time, I love to see Progressives of all ethnicities develop a knee-jerk response to "Redskin" and object to it's gratuitous use. Where to start? Well, Technorati lists 7,527 instances of the use of the word; Google News,12,300 instances; Google blog search, 116,203 instances.

There is a lot more there, in between the ellipses, so read it all.

Not too long ago, in the course of two different conversations about language... probably a couple of months or so apart, two separate (white) people told me:

"You know, at one time the "N" word wasn't considered offensive."

The first time I heard that, I said, "Of course it was", and the reply... "No, sorry, it wasn't". Before I could continue, someone else jumped in with another word to discuss and we moved on, and I pretty much forgot about the incident. The next conversation was conducted on a major "liberal" blog - the topic being profanities, obscenities... and a racial slur. Well, that's not what the title of the piece was, but it may as well have been. I pointed out to the author that one of these was not like the other... that while some were good old "Anglo-Saxon curse words", and others derogatory terms for the body parts of women, or certain taboo activities between close family members, only one was a specific racial epithet against a specific group of people. And, to the best of my memory, that's when he stated...

"You know, at one time the "N" word wasn't considered offensive."

This time I was able to stop a minute and consider... what is he talking about? And when I realized, it was just too depressing. I didn't even continue the conversation.

See, what he meant was, at one time the use of the "N" word wasn't offensive to the majority population. And that's true... it was not at all an offensive word to most of them. It was used in casual conversation, in "polite society", whether one was speaking of (or to) a black person on the street, or one you were getting ready to string up. That the person the word was being used against may have had some objection to the epithet (not to mention the often attendant actions) was not even a consideration. They were non-persons in those times, incapable of being offended or, if they were, certainly in no position to complain about it. And what these two well-intentioned, leftish people done was once again, in 2006, removed the personhood, the humanity from those same people who had lived and died as non-persons and/or subhuman, only having been granted retroactive humanity in the history books and society, as different countries come to terms with their pasts. Still, it is apparently only after the real people - "polite society" - deem a word offensive that it actually becomes so.

So... what then does that say about the continued, and very public, use of the "R" word? To me, it says that in the minds of the majority culture – which in this instance would include everyone who is not Native American - Native Americans have not yet achieved full "personhood". The fact that they might object to what is, to many of them, a horrendous racial epithet not only being used in "polite conversation", but screeched from the top of people's lungs as they cheer for the football team that wears that name is simply beyond the ability of some to grasp. The hoary old "being too sensitive" is tossed about, along with "Hey, I'm not PC" and "It's always been this way" - even if it has not and as if that means anything anyway. Then, there is the "But, this (verbal and visual epithet) is used respectfully and/or proudly" defense. Or, maybe it's the "We're using it in an ironic way, to highlight the racism of others" defense, that some who insist on using racist imagery claim.

I think not:

Why was the public allowed to watch a pig painted red and wearing an Indian ceremonial bonnet run around at the halftime of a Washington Redskin's football game without comment from the fans or press? If the pig had been painted black in order to honor the many black fans of the Washington football team, and an Afro wig had been attached to its head, would there have been a reaction by the media and the fans?

[from an editorial quoted in MB's article]

I'd be happy if someone could explain to me where the respect, pride or even irony can be found in something like this. Really, ... because the rhetorical contortions needed to show why something like this is not only considered perfectly acceptable, but not even worth a murmur of protest from those who saw it, would no doubt be a remarkable sight.

Now, we all know that polite society is loath to give up its epithets and racial slurs... but it can be done. We have, so far, almost extracted n****r, ch*nk, sp*c, k*ke, w*p, and probably others that I don't know or don't remember, from "polite" conversation, as each group was recognized for at least semi-personhood. We can do it with r*dsk*n too, if we really are determined to do so.

It's easy to do, you know, on a personal and political basis... all it takes is acknowledging that Native Americans are full, living, complete, complex, breathing, thinking persons in their own right, with individual cultures, opinions, religions and identities - and not just pictures in a history book. That each one has the right to not only not have racial epithets hurled at them across the airwaves, in newspaper print, from street corners and on blogs, but to also determine what is their preferred method of address. And it just may differ from person to person, as there is no monolithic "Indian" or anything, but that's okay. I'm pretty sure most of us can hold more than one thought or word in our minds at one time.

Possibly the most effective method is also just saying, "no more".

Once people can wrap their minds around these apparently astonishing concepts, the rest is cake.

[Edited for clarity. Hopefully.]

Posted by Nanette on 12/06 at 03:19 PM
Civil Rights • Coalitions • Racism • Society • ShameOnUs • Humanity •
(21) Comments • Permalink • Tell-a-Friend

share this post! | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

---

Page 1 of 1 pages