The motive and effect of "Black people can't be racist"

[Jolly_Penguin]

Calling Evolution a Theory, under a definition of "theory" as meaning provisional, does not create a statement of bigotry.

Neither does AA's definition under the normal sense of the term "bigotry".

Way to strain your neck to miss the point. It doesn't matter what Athena means to say when she says "Black people can't be racist". It matters what people hear when she says it. When she makes that statement, many (indeed most) are hearing a bigoted statement, regardless of what Athena intends. It doesn't make Athena guilty of bigotry, but it does give that impression, and Athena knows it. Perhaps she doesn't care. Perhaps she thinks it will accomplish something, but let us not pretend she doesn't know. You know too, despite your verbal acrobatics to avoid the point.

 

[laughing dog]

Way to strain your neck to miss the point. It doesn't matter what Athena means to say when she says "Black people can't be racist". It matters what people hear when she says it. When she makes that statement, many (indeed most) are hearing a bigoted statement, regardless of what Athena intends. It doesn't make Athena guilty of bigotry, but it does give that impression, and Athena knows it. Perhaps she doesn't care. Perhaps she thinks it will accomplish something, but let us not pretend she doesn't know.

Talk about missing the point. If some people illogically conclude that they are hearing a bigoted statement, that is their problem. And if some people persist in that illogical conclusion in spite of these explanations, then those people really aren't interested in dealing with racism in any concrete or effective form: they are looking for an easy way to dismiss the issues. You need to move past your indignation because actions speak louder than words: bigotry is not defeated by talk but by actions over time.

[
You know too, despite your verbal acrobatics to avoid the point.

You really are clueless here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Talk about missing the point. If some people illogically conclude that they are hearing a bigoted statement, that is their problem.

That is also anyone's problem that seeks to deflame racial tension and bigotry.

And if some people persist in that illogical conclusion in spite of these explanations, then those people really aren't interested in dealing with racism in any concrete or effective form: they are looking for an easy way to dismiss the issues.

Don't be so quick to assume that they will hear these explanations. Not all who say "black people can't be racist" give these explanations. Often it is stated as if reciting a fact, with nothing more. Athena herself did not explain it until she was pressed to do so. And not all who hear the phrase stick around to hear the explanations even if you're ready to offer them. Would you stick around to hear the explanation of somebody who speaks like a white supremecist? As I noted above, maybe that guy who says "nigger" means something entirely different and not racist by the term. Maybe he has a different definition, the people hearing him have never heard and wouldn't agree with. Maybe he'll even explain it to you if you entertain him, but I doubt many will want to hear him out. Maybe he'll object that you can't force him to use the predominant definition, that it is an ethnic slur. Many will dismiss him as a bigot and walk away. This should be obvious to him, and he should think about using different words.

 

[Togo]

I think there's some confusion here.

Are you concerned about the truth value of the statement, or the effect it will have on naïve listeners?

Earlier posts appeared to concern the truth value, which is why we got so many responses along the lines of whether you were assuming your own definition as default. If you're happy with the truth value, but are just worried about the effect of statements that appear to be 'statements of bigotry', then that's a very different matter.

So who are we worried about for these statements? These are people who are concerned about attitudes rather than actions, as I discussed earlier. They're people who would not stop to listen to explanation or argument, and would not attempt to find out more, as you described. They are people who are prone to take information, reach a conclusion, and stop there. In other words we're talking about people prone to prejudiced. (pre-judice - reaching a judgement before they have all the facts).

More over you objected to the parallel I drew with claims about the term 'theory' in science, on the grounds that that 'wasn't a statement of bigotry'. I wouldn't agree, since the entire point is the religious believing that temporary, contingent or 'placeholder' ideas are being elevated above their religious beliefs, which would indeed be bigotry if true, because it would be falsely promoting uncertainty as certainty in a deliberate attempt to insult or belittle the religious. But even leaving that to one side, your objection makes no sense unless there is a factor of people not only being misled, but actually insulted or offended by the attitudes they believe are being expressed.

So the concern is that there is population of people who are uninformed, predominantly white and mildly prejudiced, who might take offence? We known they're uninformed, because they don't understand the context. We know they're most likely white, since they're assuming racism refers to attitudes held rather than discriminatory actions, and we know they're mildly prejudiced, because they'll walk away rather than try and find out what was being discussed. And we know that we're mainly concerned about them being offended rather than misinformed, because otherwise the use of any kind of technical language would be equally an issue.

An interesting point. My instinct, I'll admit, is to simply ignore such people. We're here on a forum based on the idea of people willing to listen to... unusual opinions, and to discuss them in some detail. People who aren't interested in learning what the issues are, and aren't willing to listen to those who disagree with them, are going to struggle in any case, and the issue is too important to restrict the discourse to a level they could more easily relate to. I'm happy if such an effort is made, of course, but it can't be a requirement without debasing the discussion. Maybe this is a European/US thing? Europeans tend to leave complicated issues as being complicated, and get called elitists, while Americans tend to lower public debate to the lowest common denominator, and get called ignorant. But I'm struggling to see why discussion of a serious problem should be restricted to terms unlikely to be misunderstood by people who aren't likely to listen to the details, let alone seriously consider them.

I'm happy to agree that 'Black People can't be racist' is not a good choice for a campaign slogan, but beyond that it's hardly the only statement that is likely to be taken out of context or misunderstood, and I think we ultimately need to rely on people involved in a serious discussion to take the discussion seriously.

 

[laughing dog]

That is also anyone's problem that seeks to deflame racial tension and bigotry.

Again, discussion ought to work.

Don't be so quick to assume that they will hear these explanations.

You seem to continually miss the point. If they don't wish to hear the explanation, then people are wasting their on them.citing a fact, with nothing more.

Not all who say "black people can't be racist" give these explanations. Athena herself did not explain it until she was pressed to do so.

But she did. And look what it got her.

And not all who hear the phrase stick around to hear the explanations even if you're ready to offer them. Would you stick around to hear the explanation of somebody who speaks like a white supremecist? As I noted above, maybe that guy who says "nigger" means something entirely different and not racist by the term. Maybe he has a different definition, the people hearing him have never heard and wouldn't agree with. Maybe he'll even explain it to you if you entertain him, but I doubt many will want to hear him out. Maybe he'll object that you can't force him to use the predominant definition, that it is an ethnic slur. Many will dismiss him as a bigot and walk away. This should be obvious to him, and he should think about using different words.

"Nigger" has a long and well-established history as a degrading slur. Believe it or not, racist does not. Moreover, anyone with an ounce of intellectual curiousity should wonder how white people could be racist but not black people. So, your example is really rather unconvincing. Togo has a much longer reply above, and a couple sentences neatly captures my attitude - " But I'm struggling to see why discussion of a serious problem should be restricted to terms unlikely to be misunderstood by people who aren't likely to listen to the details, let alone seriously consider them. I'm happy to agree that 'Black People can't be racist' is not a good choice for a campaign slogan, but beyond that it's hardly the only statement that is likely to be taken out of context or misunderstood, and I think we ultimately need to rely on people involved in a serious discussion to take the discussion seriously. "

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are you concerned about the truth value of the statement, or the effect it will have on naïve listeners?

Is it not clear in both the thread title and opening post? The motive and effect of "Black people can't be racist" is what I was asking about.

The concept of a "truth value of a definition" makes little sense to me. The meaning of words change over time and between contexts and mean whatever the people speaking and hearing mutually believe them to mean.

I was asking about the effect of the phrase on listeners who don't know Athena's niche definition of the word, naive people as you may call them, but the vast majority of people, as evidenced in the thread by the confusion of so many people who responded. I was also asking about the motive of the speakers of this phrase, who know full well how it will be heard, and yet claim to be working against division instead of towards it. They seem to cling very tightly to their definition of the word, when they could simply adjust and say "systemic racism" and avoid all confusion and resistance. As you say, it is "not a good choice for a campaign slogan", to put it lightly.

I was not expecting there to be so much resistance and argument over the semantics and which "must be used". Athena seeks to exclude individual racism from what enters our mind when we hear the word "racism", seeking to restrict its meaning. As Emily has pointed out, the opposite is pushed for with "rape". The question of the motive behind both of these agendas is one I find interesting, and that is what sparked the OP. That we couldn't get a straight answer until 20 pages later, was even more curious.

"Nigger" has a long and well-established history as a degrading slur. Believe it or not, racist does not.

It may not be on the same level, but the word "racist" most definitely carries a heavy emotional punch behind it. I suspect that this is why Athena is so keen to redefine it. She wants to use the emotional impact that it carries. She suggested this in a post that I asked for clarification on, though she ignored tat request. It does grab attention and has a very heavy weight to it. It will make people defensive, just like calling somebody other names they associate with personal character faults, even if you redefine the term.

If we say that drugs that more black people than white people abuse are criminalized, and drugs that more white people than black people abuse are not, and ask if there is any real justification for this, and demand fairness, if would be hard for a reasonable person to disagree. Say that this is the case because the people who made the laws are white, you'll probably get an intellectual discussion on the topic, even with some people who are especially tribal. Instead say "Black people can't be racist" and you have a much smaller chance of getting that done. You have much higher chance of people either dismissing you as a bigot or setting a negative tone before you go on to explain your redefinition of the term (while you refuse to explain why you insist on it as the proper definition).

An interesting point. My instinct, I'll admit, is to simply ignore such people.

But such are the very people you most need to change. And there is a continuum for this. More will hear you out and have empathy if you don't go out of your way to be divisive and sound racist yourself. To address racism you need to address tribalism. And to do that you need to avoid bolstering the divisions and attitudes you seek to repair.

I'm happy to agree that 'Black People can't be racist' is not a good choice for a campaign slogan, but beyond that it's hardly the only statement that is likely to be taken out of context or misunderstood, and I think we ultimately need to rely on people involved in a serious discussion to take the discussion seriously.

Words matter.

I would compare it to somebody saying "Niggers are the problem *long pause* Camaroon has so many of them fleeing into it from Nigeria due to the Boko Haram Terrorist group. What? You insist I call them Nigerians? Why should you get to force your definition on me? Nigerians are anyone from Nigeria. Niggers are those who live along the river Niger." That is pretty much how "Black people can't be racist and white people can't be victims of racism" sounds to these people. You can then go on to explain "I mean racism as meaning prejudice plus power, and white people are in charge so they can't be victims of racism, etc" but that doesn't change the emotional impact of the term you used - even if should. Saying something that sounds racist, knowing full well you're doing it, and then explaining how you're using a different definition to make the statement not racist..... why do that?

 

[laughing dog]

It may not be on the same level, but the word "racist" most definitely carries a heavy emotional punch behind it. I suspect that this is why Athena is so keen to redefine it. She wants to use the emotional impact that it carries. She suggested this in a post that I asked for clarification on, though she ignored tat request. It does grab attention and has a very heavy weight to it. It will make people defensive, just like calling somebody other names they associate with personal character faults, even if you redefine the term.

You keep missing the point - if people get defensive it is because they either do not wish to understand or that they are incapable of understanding. Insi

If we say that drugs that more black people than white people abuse are criminalized, and drugs that more white people than black people abuse are not, and ask if there is any real justification for this, and demand fairness, if would be hard for a reasonable person to disagree. Say that this is the case because the people who made the laws are white, you'll probably get an intellectual discussion on the topic, even with some people who are especially tribal. Instead say "Black people can't be racist" and you have a much smaller chance of getting that done. You have much higher chance of people either dismissing you as a bigot or setting a negative tone before you go on to explain your redefinition of the term (while you refuse to explain why you insist on it as the proper definition).

I disagree those assessments of relative probabilities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Neither does AA's definition under the normal sense of the term "bigotry".

Way to strain your neck to miss the point. It doesn't matter what Athena means to say when she says "Black people can't be racist". It matters what people hear when she says it. When she makes that statement, many (indeed most) are hearing a bigoted statement, regardless of what Athena intends. It doesn't make Athena guilty of bigotry, but it does give that impression, and Athena knows it. Perhaps she doesn't care. Perhaps she thinks it will accomplish something, but let us not pretend she doesn't know. You know too, despite your verbal acrobatics to avoid the point.

I don't see a bigoted statement, I see a case of misunderstanding of the problem. She's focused on the big picture and can't see it's really nothing but the sum of a bunch of small pictures.

 

[Unbeatable]

Yes, because first and foremost we should worry about causing resentment in white folks.

Well to be fair, it's probably not a good idea to bite at the hand still holding the whip. It's a question of prudent strategy. Are we at a point where resentful white folks can be safely dismissed as a mere speedbump on the road of progress, or do they still have enough numbers/power to act as a spike strip?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Good question and good point. Also, it is counter productive to go out of your way to antagonize those you seek to change, those who have the power for change, as well as generally anyone you are seeking to appeal to for social justice amd fairness. Clean hands doctrine on a psychological level.