The Black Friend Defense

[Underseer]

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this lame excuse. No, I'm not complaining about Republicans using this defense. Republicans are a bunch of racists and thus have an obvious motive to use bad arguments to deny racism; I assume that they can’t be reached with logic or appeals to decency. No, I'm sick of hearing variations of the black friend defense from people who ostensibly should know better (such as prominent members of the atheist community).

I think most of us have heard the rumor that Hitler was part Jewish. Let's assume for the moment that this rumor is true for the sake of argument. Let's assume that Hitler was part Jewish and further that he said and did all of the same things we remember him doing.

Does Hitler's Jewish descent prove that he wasn't prejudiced against Jews?

Of course it doesn't prove any such thing. Whether or not Hitler had Jewish ancestors or had Jewish friends has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Hitler was prejudiced against Jews. The only things that matter to the question of whether or not Hitler was bigoted against Jews are the things he said and the things he did, and you know what?

The things he said and did were pretty fucking bigoted.



It’s Possible to Say or Do Bigoted Things Without Meaning To

I come from a multiracial family, and I know all too well that having relatives from three different races doesn’t automatically make all of your words and deeds not racist. If you are from the privileged group, it’s still hard to see racism at all, but the consequences of saying or doing something even mildly racist are much worse. (I’m half white, half Asian, so I have to actively fight against the temptation to see things from an exclusively or conveniently white perspective.) Further, if you know family dynamics, you know that people don’t always complain when a relative does something bad for fear of starting a loud, angry argument, especially when it’s an older relative. The same dynamic can happen with friends as well as family.

Privilege can make you blind to prejudice, but so can culture. Culture by definition is a series of shared assumptions that are almost never discussed openly. Culture is by its very nature pervasive, insidious, and we are largely unaware of the influence it has on us. When someone challenges a cultural assumption, it is sadly normal to become angry and defensive.

The pervasive and insidious nature of culture is cynically used by missionaries to convert entire cultures. For example, missionaries had much more success converting indigenous Americans to Christianity once they convinced indigenous people to treat women and homosexuals worse.

In Europe, racism was inserted into culture to provide rationalization for colonialism. In America, racism was inserted into culture in order to allow rich white people to more easily screw over poor and middle class white people. Unfortunately, removing it is proving more difficult than inserting it in the first place.

Between privilege and culture, it is possible to be mildly or even greatly bigoted without even realizing it in the same way that hearing people can make deaf people feel isolated and excluded without intending to.

Further complicating this is the tendency of white people to think of racism as a binary thing: you’re either completely racist or completely not racist with nothing in between. If you are not actively burning crosses in your neighbor’s yard, that must mean that you are practically the long lost brother of MLK Jr himself.

As if that isn’t bad enough, many white people define racism by intent rather than effects.

Both of these definitions are self-serving in ways that should be obvious. I do not mean to imply that people deliberately define racism this way so that they can harm others, but because it is sadly normal for human beings to resist admitting when we are wrong about something, and we will grasp at incredibly flimsy logic to avoid admitting our own flaws to ourselves.



That’s Not What Friends Do

The worst thing about the black friend defense is not the bad logic (it’s an appeal to authority fallacy), but the simple fact that you are using a friend as a human shield against accusations of racism. That’s not what a friend is, and that’s not what a friend does. I should not have to explain this to adults.

If you were really a friend, instead of doing that, you would welcome criticism for fear of hurting a friend. Simply being part of the privileged group can make it difficult for you to see the effects of your words and deeds. Feedback from those not in the privileged group can sometimes be the only way to notice at all. Not only can privilege make you blind to the effects of your words and deeds, but it can make you feel entitled enough to demand that others not mention your flaws (white/male fragility).

It’s all too normal for humans to react negatively and emotionally when others point out a flaw. It’s all too easy to want to avoid noticing or thinking about evidence of your own flaws and to dismiss or even get angry at anyone who points them out. Unfortunately, in this case, we are talking about something that actively harms others in this world, sometimes in profound ways.

Muslims in Muslim majority countries make excuses for mistreating religious minorities. This has consequences. White people in America make excuses for white supremacists (most recently with ridiculous “both sides” arguments in response to Nazi terrorism in Charlottesville). This has consequences. A growing number of Hindu nationalists are making similar excuses for mistreating non-Hindus in India. This has consequences. When you make bad excuses for bigotry, this has consequences.

It’s very human to want to avoid conflict, especially in social situations, but in certain cases avoiding conflict can make injustice worse. In the case of bigotry, we are talking about injustices that can include consequences like murder.

The black friend defense should not be accepted, especially not from people who genuinely don’t want to be bigots. People who use it should be corrected. An argument this bad should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.

If you really think that you are being accused of bigotry unfairly, then keep the conversation focused on your words and deeds. Anything else should be seen as an attempt to steer the conversation away from the only thing that could prove that you’re not racist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When a lot of people hear "racist" they translate that to " don't like" or "mistreat" people of another race. Them having friends who happen to be said race is a pretty good indicator against that.

Also, why do you object to racism being defined by way of intent? You aren't talking about a subtle and subconscious racial bias when you make reference to Hitler. Nor did Hitler have a lot of Jewish friends.

Perhaps we need more words to cover the various types and degrees of "racism" so we don't slide into equivocation.

If people knew you meant subconscious bias or systemic bias or holding some stereotypes, and not a hatred or intentional mistreatment, then you probably wouldn't be met nearly as often with this "black friend" defence.

 

[fast]

We have to have two blacks friends to not be a racist or bigot now?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also, why do you object to racism being defined by way of intent?

My grandmother used to refer to blacks as 'darkies.'
That was the term when and where she grew up.
She did not mean anything bad or demeaning by it, and insisted 'They prefer that term!' She was just a sweet little old lady who didn't know fucking shit about what she was talking about in this particular instance.
I have other relatives who are not intending to be mean, but casually believe all sorts of things about certain races. Laziness, decreased ability, increased promiscuity,

It's still judging people by their race, thus racism, and it can be quite offensive, without being something done with the intention of doing harm, or being mean.

Like our kindergarten teacher who thought she was showing a concerned interest in her new students when she asked the mother of the first black kid she'd ever taught: "Do you know who the father is?"

 

[Underseer]

When a lot of people hear "racist" they translate that to " don't like" or "mistreat" people of another race. Them having friends who happen to be said race is a pretty good indicator against that.

And that's exactly the sort of convenient definition I was talking about.

Muslims in Muslim majority countries genuinely believe that they intend no harm against religious minorities in their countries. Should we therefore accept that they are not harming religious minorities at their declaration of intent, or should we examine the effects their words and deeds have on religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries?

Also, why do you object to racism being defined by way of intent? You aren't talking about a subtle and subconscious racial bias when you make reference to Hitler. Nor did Hitler have a lot of Jewish friends.

Explained above and in the article already. If Hitler had Jewish friends but did all the same things, he would still be a bigot. Who his friends are doesn't matter. When we determine whether or not Hitler was racist, the only thing that matters are his words and deeds.

Do you agree that his words and deeds we examples of bigotry?

If you found out that Hitler had Jewish ancestors, would that disprove that he was bigoted towards Jews?

Perhaps we need more words to cover the various types and degrees of "racism" so we don't slide into equivocation.

We really don't need any such complication in language.

If people knew you meant subconscious bias or systemic bias or holding some stereotypes, and not a hatred or intentional mistreatment, then you probably wouldn't be met nearly as often with this "black friend" defence.

Again, you are trying to define racism by intent rather than effect, probably so that you can't be held to account for the effects of your words and deeds.

If you are told that something you are doing is harming others, then your intent will be accepted as an excuse provided that you stop doing it.

If you use intent as an excuse to keep doing it even after you were told, then we can only conclude that you intend harm.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And that's exactly the sort of convenient definition I was talking about.

Yeah, it certainly doesn't cover unintentional or well meaning racism, as Keith pointed out above. It only covers the intentional and hate filled Hitler and KKK type stuff. When you invoke Hitler, as we see happening in the article, this definition and all of the repulsion and blameworthiness attached to it comes to mind.

That's why we need better and more precise terminology, so we don't wind up equivocating Hitler's racism with Keith's grandmother's racism, which is what causes the "black friend defence" to be nonsensically made to the latter.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Again, you are trying to define racism by intent rather than effect, probably so that you can't be held to account for the effects of your words and deeds.

If you are told that something you are doing is harming others, then your intent will be accepted as an excuse provided that you stop doing it.

If you use intent as an excuse to keep doing it even after you were told, then we can only conclude that you intend harm.

Says the guy who thinks using the term "conservolibertarian" is a valid argument.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have a black friend and he's a real prick, but he's a bud, so what are you gonna do?

 

[Underseer]

You have a son named Billy. Little Billy has lots of toys and Billy loves playing with his toys. Some of his toys have pictures of Mickey Mouse on them. Billy loves Mickey. Billy loves Mickey so, so much. Mickey would never hurt anyone, so Billy reasons that if he hits his sister Sally with a Mickey toy, it definitely won’t hurt her.

So Billy hits Sally with the Mickey toy.

Sally cries out in pain and asks Billy to stop. Billy becomes confused and angry. Hitting her with the Mickey toy definitely shouldn’t hurt her, so why is she asking him to stop? Sally must be trying to be mean to Billy. She’s just trying to make Billy feel bad. Billy decides that he will hit Sally even more to get back at her for being so mean. It's all Sally's fault that he has to hit her now because she complained about it.

The screaming and yelling is hurting your ears, and so you intervene.

You explain to Billy that it is wrong to hit his sister with the toy because it hurts her. Billy gets angry and defensive and insists that hitting her with the toy is not a bad thing to do because he doesn’t intend to hurt her. Billy promptly goes back to hitting his sister with the toy and yells at her for complaining about it.

You intervene again.

You explain to Billy that the moment Sally complained, he should have stopped. That alone should have been good enough reason to not hit his sister even if he didn’t believe that doing so would hurt her. Billy gets angry and says that you are a bad person for saying that there is something wrong with what he was doing. He didn’t intend to hurt Sally, therefore you are wrong to ask him to stop hitting her with the toy. Further, you are making him feel bad by accusing him of doing something wrong and promptly resumes hitting his sister with the toy.

You intervene yet again.

You point at the red welts on Sally’s arms and shoulders. You explain to Billy that this is evidence that he is hurting her, and even if he doesn’t believe her when she says that it hurts, the evidence of harm should be enough reason to stop hitting her with the toy. Billy gets angry and insists that you are the one who is wrong because you are making him feel bad about the whole thing. He does not intend harm, therefore there is nothing wrong with continuing to hit his sister with the toy. If Sally complains about it, Sally is the one at fault because she is making him feel bad. You are also the one in the wrong because you are making him feel bad. He didn’t intend harm, and that should be the end of the discussion.

Does intent matter?

Yes, of course it does. In the moment when Billy first decided to hit his sister with the toy, he can be excused because he did not understand that his decision would hurt someone. It stopped being a valid excuse the moment his sister first said “Ow.”

Had Billy been more mature, the moment his sister complained, he would have apologized and promised not to do it again.

Unfortunately, that's not what Billy did.

If Billy keeps doing it even after Sally asked him not to, then intent no longer matters. If Billy keeps doing it even after a third party agrees with Sally, and even after the third party points to the evidence of the red welts, then intent does not prove that Billy did nothing bad. No matter how unfair Billy thinks it is for other people to criticize him for it, if he keeps hitting Sally with the toy, he is in the wrong. If he keeps hitting Sally after being told that it is wrong and after being shown the evidence of harm caused by his actions, then we can only assume that he intends harm (or else is too stupid to stop causing harm) and think less of him for it. For intent to be a valid excuse, Billy has to apologize and promise not to do it again. That's how these things work.

By the way, Billy is a spoiled little shit because for far too long, no one would tell him when he was doing something wrong. That is why he genuinely thinks being told that he is wrong about something is worse than the physical harm he brought to his sister.

Racism and other forms of demographic-based bigotry have been hurting people for a very long time. It is still hurting people today. Refusing to understand when other people explain to you that this stuff causes harm does not absolve you of blame. Claiming that what you are doing is not wrong because of intent does not actually mean anything unless you apologize and stop doing it. If instead you hide behind the intent excuse and get angry at people who find fault with what you are doing, then you are just as much of a spoiled little shit as Billy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Had Billy been more mature, the moment his sister complained, he would have apologized and promised not to do it again.

Unfortunately, that's not what Billy did.

If Billy keeps doing it even after Sally asked him not to, then intent no longer matters. If Billy keeps doing it even after a third party agrees with Sally, and even after the third party points to the evidence of the red welts, then intent does not prove that Billy did nothing bad. No matter how unfair Billy thinks it is for other people to criticize him for it, if he keeps hitting Sally with the toy, he is in the wrong. If he keeps hitting Sally after being told that it is wrong and after being shown the evidence of harm caused by his actions, then we can only assume that he intends harm (or else is too stupid to stop causing harm) and think less of him for it. For intent to be a valid excuse, Billy has to apologize and promise not to do it again. That's how these things work.

By the way, Billy is a spoiled little shit because for far too long, no one would tell him when he was doing something wrong. That is why he genuinely thinks being told that he is wrong about something is worse than the physical harm he brought to his sister.

All this from the guy who thinks using the term "conservolibertarian" constitutes a valid argument. Amazing.

 

[Elixir]

Little Billy is an asshole, and he and his parents should be quarantined from society - no matter what color they all are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It’s all too normal for humans to react negatively and emotionally when others point out a flaw. It’s all too easy to want to avoid noticing or thinking about evidence of your own flaws and to dismiss or even get angry at anyone who points them out. Unfortunately, in this case, we are talking about something that actively harms others in this world, sometimes in profound ways..

Well, part of it is the binary nature of the word in some people's minds.
Someone just casually makes assumptions about another person, then is accused of racism, or their action is identified as a racist act, they think they're being accused of wanting to kill all black people. Since they don't feel that way, they're going to defend themselves against the accusation they think is being made, rather than deal with the action they just took and the consequences of that.

 

[blastula]

I am so not racist that I have zero minority friends.

 

[RavenSky]

Like our kindergarten teacher who thought she was showing a concerned interest in her new students when she asked the mother of the first black kid she'd ever taught: "Do you know who the father is?"

What!?

I have a hard time believing that one was innocent concern

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have a hard time believing that one was innocent concern

Small town Utah with big Mormon families. Just about 90% of her students are related to people she's taught before, or knows from Sunday School. So she always tries to help the kids feel welcome by reminding them they know someone who's done this before.
"I knew your cousin" or "I taught your sister last year" or "Was that you i saw at the parade?" Whatever she can think up.
If she can't do that, she tries to find some sort of connection. "I see your daddy at the Drug Store" or "Your mommy is my grocer," sort of thing.

She has been bitten a few times with those, though, because of divorce, remarriage, estrangement... The parent delivering child has to point out that the dad is no longer allowed within 50 feet of the kid, or that's not her actual daddy, or explain why mommy and child have different last names...

She sees this kid, instantly figures she has never had a relation in her class, half the script is tossed out. She kinda panicked. She meant to ask 'what does daddy do?' when her stereotype made her think that might also be a loaded question. This is what her mind offered under that stress.

 

[fast]

Little Billy is an asshole, and he and his parents should be quarantined from society - no matter what color they all are.

But that is very racist and must be avoided. There are kinds of racism. Your attempt to eliminate racism (of the first kind) will result in racism (of the second kind), so although the intent to show no racism through your proposed act is admirable, the consequences of your act becomes abominable when applied to a larger scale.

Granted, my saying that has the appearance of racism (of the third kind), but it's used only to demonstrate the folly of your logic. The key is to seek solutions where intentions (behind acts) and consequences (of acts) are thoughtfully considered.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Like our kindergarten teacher who thought she was showing a concerned interest in her new students when she asked the mother of the first black kid she'd ever taught: "Do you know who the father is?"

What!?

I have a hard time believing that one was innocent concern

Stereotypes are often applied without real intention of harm. This is the reason I generally consider racial prejudice and racism to be related but different phenomena. EVERYONE has prejudices, just by virtue of the need to make personal judgements based on imperfect knowledge. But prejudices can be eliminated by experience and critical thinking, once you learn more about the people you about whom you are making a judgement (and is also the reason people who recognize their own prejudices will deliberately reserve judgement until they know for sure what's going on). Racism is a mental framework in which encourages and amplifies prejudices and makes it very difficult to replace them with real information. It's like Flat Earthers or Creationists: any new information they encounter will be re-interpreted to fit into their existing biases about how the world is supposed to work.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The key is to seek solutions where intentions (behind acts) and consequences (of acts) are thoughtfully considered.

So again, the ideal approach is to reserve judgement until you know for sure the intent and the consequences. A person may say something racist-sounding but the intent of which is unclear, or you may make a judgement about a person based on what you think you understand about their racial background but have no evidence if it's actually true. The best approach to BOTH people is to make no assumptions either way, be polite in asking for more information, and be equally polite in answering.

In the case of Keith's Kindergarten teacher: She clearly doesn't know for sure if the mom is married and doesn't want to embarrass her by asking her about her husband or fiance which she may not have (because that's a thing, or so she thinks, that black people often deal with). Of course, asking "Do you know who the father is?" is stupid and rude, since it comes with the assumption that maybe she DOESN'T and implies she is promiscuous and irresponsible. Mom has the option to let this pass and just explain patiently her circumstances and then politely point out "That is a very impolite thing to ask someone, you know." The teacher, on the other hand, is better off checking her assumptions and saying "If you don't mind me asking, who else do you have in your family at home?" and letting mom provide whatever information she cares to share.

 

[Keith&Co.]

(and is also the reason people who recognize their own prejudices will deliberately reserve judgement until they know for sure what's going on).

yeah, that's what I did.
A long time ago, I noticed that when I see a black man with a white woman, I would instantly judge her badly. It didn't last long, but I did have that flash of prejudice. No idea where it came from. But over the years, every time it came up, I examined it for a bit, and pretty much wore it out.

The other polarity, of course, makes me horny.

 

[Elixir]

(and is also the reason people who recognize their own prejudices will deliberately reserve judgement until they know for sure what's going on).

yeah, that's what I did.
A long time ago, I noticed that when I see a black man with a white woman, I would instantly judge her badly. It didn't last long, but I did have that flash of prejudice. No idea where it came from. But over the years, every time it came up, I examined it for a bit, and pretty much wore it out.

The other polarity, of course, makes me horny.

Great example - our prejudices are our prejudices, and it is our individual duty to maintain tactical "situational awareness" of triggers to our own prejudices and consciously examine them into oblivion.
A couple of years ago I hired an outside IT company to manage and configure our network hardware and security software. The company came highly recommended by people I know and trust, and I had good conversations with the owner, Patrick and made arrangements for him to come see us.
When he showed up for our first face-to-face meeting and site inspection, I was amazed at myself for being shocked that he turned out to be a 6'5", imposing presence of a black man. Heck - he didn't SOUND black, after all. And something within me was wondering how this black guy ever became so expert in network security science, as if that was a field that was somehow out of bounds for a black person (he had done a lot of work for CIA and other fed agencies, as well as Fortune 500 companies - heck of a resume). Of course I KNEW better, but there was something within me that I had to re-examine time and again for like six months before it faded away. FWIW, that guy is now someone whose very presence inspires nothing but huge confidence and a feeling of utter safety when he's around - like some guardian angel, rather some stereotype of a "big 'ol black guy". Funny that my mind didn't jump to "big scary looking black guy" until I met him in person, eh? That's a problem.

FWIW, I absolutely love Patrick and all the (almost all white) people he has gathered around him to form his Company - the greatest resource of its type that I could ever hope for in a rural area like this. They're like brothers and partners to me.
I still think of Patrick though, when I find myself making assumptions about latinos, blacks, asians, short people, tall people, young people, curly haired people, blue-eyed people, and in fact ANYONE.
I realize that any time I meet anyone, I make ten thousand assumptions about them before I have two facts about them in hand. Without every individual making an effort to maintain awareness of our prejudices (which I think are unavoidable) and making a conscious effort to examine them, bigotry will never be reduced.