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

[Mumbles]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

And...the issue with that is?

Okay, you aren't part of the in-group. So what?

Here's the thing...I use the word "nigga" in informal settings pretty freely, if I know that others will accept it. I'd never use it around my mother, I absolutely never use it at work. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that it's not much different than having someone you don't know walk up and call your spouse "honey". This argument is actually very simple. We all know what the boundaries are, and yes, they're based in part on your skin color, your sex, your orientation, your political affiliation, your family and friends. So, let's be clear - if you aren't part of the group, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The end.

But more importantly, we can see how race actually affects people's lives. For example, this case. White dude with no shirt on shows up and begins shouting slurs at a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Then, he accosts a black guy who was simply walking into a nearby mall. A security worker shows up - and immediately pepper-sprays the black guy, and then hauls him off even as the protestors tell him that he's got the wrong guy. That's the sort of thing I personally worry about (I also worry for the many young women in my family, but those worries are often far different).

 

[Bomb#20]

Excuse me? Where the devil did I apply any motive to your communications?

My reply to the Op which I linked you to in fact reflects an argumentation based on the definition of racism you appear to reject.(race hierarchy, superior versus inferior) Further, I did refer to history as a demonstration of the absence of a sense of "racial" superiority among people of Black ethnicity.

No you didn't. If that's an opinion you intended to express in post #54, you failed. What you said was that black people are not notorious for having that sense, that the ethnic group doesn't nurture or cultivate such a sense, and that the population of French black people couldn't feel such a thing. Those are all claims about views held by an ethnic group as a whole. They say nothing one way or the other about the presence or absence of any particular opinion in any particular individual. So all you're implying in that post is that a black guy who thinks blacks are the superior race is an aberration.

(Moreover, as you noted in that post, "Usually, the superior is attributed to one's own ethnic group". There has to be a reason you said "usually". For example, you're probably aware that a great many white believers in the race-linked genetic determination of IQ rank the races as East Asian > White > Black. Your definition implies such people are racists even though there hasn't been long-term institutionalized oppression of whites or blacks by east Asians. So unless you're prepared to claim that all black people are incapable of being persuaded by the same IQ studies that convince so many whites and Asians, your own post actually contradicts the "Black people cannot be racist" thesis.)

People of Black ethnicity having been a group persistently subjected to exploitation, oppression, enslaving etc... My argumentation was in fact leaning towards an approach arguing in favor of what you refer to as a "rhetoric", meaning the why and how "Black people cannot be racist".

That's a very strange linguistic construction. Maybe it's normal in French. Are you claiming black people cannot be racist?

I thought it would have been odd that you would describe the type of argumentation I relied on in my reply to the OP without including my own communications in your perception of the motive you attribute to people who follow the same reasoning and approach I followed. My apologies then as you have confirmed that it was not your intention.

Not only was that not my intention; that was not even a half-way reasonable construction for you to place on my description. What I was describing was the use of that type of argumentation for the specific purpose of proving black people can't be racist.

People might adopt the definition of racism you relied on in your reply for any number of possible reasons. For example, they might adopt it because they're suffering under the delusion that the meaning of a word of a natural language is determined by the rulings of a governmental regulatory body and not by the actual usage patterns of the native speakers of the language. If somebody had intended to claim people with all those other possible reasons for using your definition instead of Jolly_Penguin's definition were motivated by a desire to disparage the morals of white people, don't you think he'd have said that's why the people using the contrary definition insist on not using Jolly_Penguin's definition, instead of saying that's why the people pushing the "black people can't be racist" rhetoric insist on not using Jolly_Penguin's definition? You read a claim about a narrow and clearly identified set of people, and you decided, without evidence, that I was making the same claim about a much broader set of people.

For starters, I do not consider an approach arguing in favor of "Black people can't be racist" to be a "rhetoric",

I doubt if your opinion on that point matters a whit to Jolly_Penguin. So I saw no reason to seek out your endorsement of his characterization of it as "rhetoric" before going along with his terminology. Do you refrain from using terms in your replies to other posters until you've checked whether some third party considers your usage to be apt?

approach relying on a specific definition of racism (race hierarchy/superior versus inferior) and what you referred to as a "constructing a narrative of history". Your response to such approach was one of attributing negative motives while you did not demonstrate that :

1) Such definition of racism is invalid.

2) The narrative of history is incorrect.

Meaning instead of challenging the argumentation they rely on, you attacked their intention by attributing to them a negative motive. The negative motive in question being :

they think they accomplish what they want: a demonstration of the moral inferiority of the white race and the moral superiority of other races.

You say that like it's a bad thing. What's your issue with my making such a response? Are you telling me that I have unwittingly been posting my analysis of those people's intentions and motives to PD's 'The soundness of the arguments for "Black people can't be racist"' thread? Or are you criticizing me for not replying to Jolly_Penguin's OP with off-topic comments that don't address the question he asked?

In any event, were I to have explained why that definition of racism is invalid, and why that narrative of history is incorrect, it seems to me far-fetched to suppose I would have been telling Jolly_Penguin anything he didn't already know. So you also appear to be criticizing me for talking to Jolly_Penguin as if he were Jolly_Penguin instead of talking to him as if he were you.

If such motive were to be revealed by someone arguing in favor of " Black people can't be racist", I would actually be the first one to debunk such claim. Considering that one could hardly argue that there is any "superior morality" at play when it comes to how, as a result of wars and conflicts in between various regional tribes in Africa, prisoners were "sold" to slave merchants to then be destined to the Northern American continent while transiting via the Island of Gorée in Senegal. Meaning that within the mercantile system of slavery, those African native tribes were complicit of the systematic exploitation of their own peers.

Their own peers by what criterion? The criterion that you regard people in tribe A as the equals of people in tribe B? Do you have any reason to think the people of a tribe that raided neighboring tribes to acquire prisoners to sell to slave merchants generally felt that the people of the tribes they were raiding were their equals?

 

[ksen]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

And...the issue with that is?

Okay, you aren't part of the in-group. So what?

Here's the thing...I use the word "nigga" in informal settings pretty freely, if I know that others will accept it. I'd never use it around my mother, I absolutely never use it at work. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that it's not much different than having someone you don't know walk up and call your spouse "honey". This argument is actually very simple. We all know what the boundaries are, and yes, they're based in part on your skin color, your sex, your orientation, your political affiliation, your family and friends. So, let's be clear - if you aren't part of the group, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The end.

But more importantly, we can see how race actually affects people's lives. For example, this case. White dude with no shirt on shows up and begins shouting slurs at a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Then, he accosts a black guy who was simply walking into a nearby mall. A security worker shows up - and immediately pepper-sprays the black guy, and then hauls him off even as the protestors tell him that he's got the wrong guy. That's the sort of thing I personally worry about (I also worry for the many young women in my family, but those worries are often far different).

Mumbles, you obviously cannot fathom the amount of oppression white people are feeling for not being allowed to say "nigga".

I could whitesplain it to you if you'd like.

eta: and anyone else with a question should ask it here and then report the answer back to us

 

[4321lynx]

This discussion is centred on racism in the USA, with some general discussion of slavery and colonialism, as usual with accusations and some 'mea culpa' breast-beating involved.

Are we ignoring the, to me obvious, fact that all nationalism and tribalism is in part racism. Think of the Germans in time of the Nazis. Think of what happened between the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi, after colonialism. Think what happened to the Ndebele ("Matabele") and the majority Shona in Zimbabwe during the "Gukurahundi", also post-colonial -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi . Think of the Somalis, who unable to insult the equally black Bantu living close to them, called, and perhaps still call them "Flatnoses" to show their feelings of superiority. Think of the Africans in Mozambique who experienced slavery at the hands of the Portuguese, but often with Portuguese half-breeds doing the initial slave-hunting, and the same in East and Central Africa with Arab-African half-breeds doing the hunting and conveying. The Africans there used to say that God made the Black man, and the White man, and the Arab, but the Devil made the Half-breed.
That's not racism?
Racism is a universal human reaction to the "Stranger". That does not excuse it and does not prevent us from condemning it, but unless we acknowledge that fact we will never really come to grips with it. Yes, it's alive and well but hiding, in Canada and the USA, just think of the mutual attitudes of the Gringos to the Latinos, or the "Mangecakes" (?spelling) to the Italian "Wops". And it was not so long ago that the same attitudes prevailed in respect to the Jews here and the USA.
I suppose I am guilty of racism when I say to my wife "Just think what the Germans would have achieved if they lived in the area that is Russia." (Neither of us is German, my wife is a Latina and I am one of the "Untermensche" of recent history.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ Very well said.

Anybody and everybody is subject to tribal impulse and an be racist, and to set one group apart from that (even if they have been the victim of it more than not) instead of recognizing it as a universal human trait, is going to do more harm than good.

 

[thebeave]

And...the issue with that is?

Okay, you aren't part of the in-group. So what?

Here's the thing...I use the word "nigga" in informal settings pretty freely, if I know that others will accept it. I'd never use it around my mother, I absolutely never use it at work. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that it's not much different than having someone you don't know walk up and call your spouse "honey". This argument is actually very simple. We all know what the boundaries are, and yes, they're based in part on your skin color, your sex, your orientation, your political affiliation, your family and friends. So, let's be clear - if you aren't part of the group, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The end.

But more importantly, we can see how race actually affects people's lives. For example, this case. White dude with no shirt on shows up and begins shouting slurs at a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Then, he accosts a black guy who was simply walking into a nearby mall. A security worker shows up - and immediately pepper-sprays the black guy, and then hauls him off even as the protestors tell him that he's got the wrong guy. That's the sort of thing I personally worry about (I also worry for the many young women in my family, but those worries are often far different).

Mumbles, you obviously cannot fathom the amount of oppression white people are feeling for not being allowed to say "nigga".

I could whitesplain it to you if you'd like.

eta: and anyone else with a question should ask it here and then report the answer back to us

I think the problem here is that white people have been told that the word "nigger" is so vile and disgusting, that we can't even say it out loud. We have to say "N word". But blacks saying it in everyday conversation and in songs or in the lockeroom is OK. It's a case of "Do what I say, not what I do". That's hypocrisy and its always annoyed me (with any word or action). Like telling your children they can't say "fuck" and grounding them for doing so, but you walk around saying "fuck" all the time in front of them. Wouldn't that annoy you if you were that kid? I understand that blacks rationalize using the n-word among themselves by citing past history, power, racism, etc but I don't think I really buy it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the problem here is that white people have been told that the word "nigger" is so vile and disgusting, that we can't even say it out loud. We have to say "N word". But blacks saying it in everyday conversation and in songs or in the lockeroom is OK. It's a case of "Do what I say, not what I do". That's hypocrisy and its always annoyed me (with any word or action). Like telling your children they can't say "fuck" and grounding them for doing so, but you walk around saying "fuck" all the time in front of them. Wouldn't that annoy you if you were that kid? I understand that blacks rationalize using the n-word among themselves by citing past history, power, racism, etc but I don't think I really buy it.

Or it's an example of a historically oppressed people taking the terms that have been used to marginalize and degrade them and giving them a new positive spin in order to take control of the terms to empower themselves.

It's one or the other.

 

[laughing dog]

Mumbles, you obviously cannot fathom the amount of oppression white people are feeling for not being allowed to say "nigga".

I could whitesplain it to you if you'd like.

eta: and anyone else with a question should ask it here and then report the answer back to us

I think the problem here is that white people have been told that the word "nigger" is so vile and disgusting, that we can't even say it out loud. We have to say "N word". But blacks saying it in everyday conversation and in songs or in the lockeroom is OK. It's a case of "Do what I say, not what I do". That's hypocrisy and its always annoyed me (with any word or action). Like telling your children they can't say "fuck" and grounding them for doing so, but you walk around saying "fuck" all the time in front of them. Wouldn't that annoy you if you were that kid? I understand that blacks rationalize using the n-word among themselves by citing past history, power, racism, etc but I don't think I really buy it.

It isn't at all like having a different standard for saying "fuck" because "fuck" was not used as part of institutionalized oppression.

I find this discussion utterly fascinating. Words have different meanings (just look in a dictionary sometime if you don't believe me). Meanings resonant with people based on their experience. Debating whether or not, _____(you fill in the blank) can be "racist" seems to me is really irrelevant. It doesn't change BEHAVIOR or HISTORY. Whether or not blacks can be "racist" or bigoted asswipes does not change the current nature of institutional racism in the USA.

 

[ksen]

Mumbles, you obviously cannot fathom the amount of oppression white people are feeling for not being allowed to say "nigga".

I could whitesplain it to you if you'd like.

eta: and anyone else with a question should ask it here and then report the answer back to us

I think the problem here is that white people have been told that the word "nigger" is so vile and disgusting, that we can't even say it out loud. We have to say "N word". But blacks saying it in everyday conversation and in songs or in the lockeroom is OK. It's a case of "Do what I say, not what I do". That's hypocrisy and its always annoyed me (with any word or action). Like telling your children they can't say "fuck" and grounding them for doing so, but you walk around saying "fuck" all the time in front of them. Wouldn't that annoy you if you were that kid? I understand that blacks rationalize using the n-word among themselves by citing past history, power, racism, etc but I don't think I really buy it.

I do agree with you that the whites complaining about not being able to say "nigger" are the kids in that scenario.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I find this discussion utterly fascinating. Words have different meanings (just look in a dictionary sometime if you don't believe me). Meanings resonant with people based on their experience. Debating whether or not, _____(you fill in the blank) can be "racist" seems to me is really irrelevant. It doesn't change BEHAVIOR or HISTORY. Whether or not blacks can be "racist" or bigoted asswipes does not change the current nature of institutional racism in the USA.

I explained it in the OP.

Words have meaning and affect on the listener. If I knew something I said came across in a racist way, and I insisted on phrasing it that way anyways, you would have reason to question my motive and goal, especially if I told you that my motive and goal was to combat racism.

Here is a parallel going in the opposite direction: We could define Racism is very strict terms, as some have, to mean only written laws regarding slavery and Jim Crow, and then we could go around proclaiming that "There is no more Racism in America". We could repeat that every time somebody complains about bigotry and unfair treatment to black people, and then we could tell them we are using the above definition of racism and that words have different meanings, and that whether or not "racism" exists, the current nature of institutional treatment regarding race doesn't change.

Saying "There is no more racism in America" is misguided and looks suspect. Same with "Black people can't be racist".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I find this discussion utterly fascinating. Words have different meanings (just look in a dictionary sometime if you don't believe me). Meanings resonant with people based on their experience. Debating whether or not, _____(you fill in the blank) can be "racist" seems to me is really irrelevant. It doesn't change BEHAVIOR or HISTORY. Whether or not blacks can be "racist" or bigoted asswipes does not change the current nature of institutional racism in the USA.

I explained it in the OP.

Words have meaning and affect on the listener. If I knew something I said came across in a racist way, and I insisted on phrasing it that way anyways, you would have reason to question my motive and goal, especially if I told you that my motive and goal was to combat racism.

Here is a parallel going in the opposite direction: We could define Racism is very strict terms, as some have, to mean only written laws regarding slavery and Jim Crow, and then we could go around proclaiming that "There is no more Racism in America". We could repeat that every time somebody complains about bigotry and unfair treatment to black people, and then we could tell them we are using the above definition of racism and that words have different meanings, and that whether or not "racism" exists, the current nature of institutional treatment regarding race doesn't change.

Saying "There is no more racism in America" is misguided and looks suspect. Same with "Black people can't be racist".

How so? And let say once again. No one is trying to say the black people are morally superior to white people or that black people can not hurt white people or that black people can not be evil. But we are talking about racism within the framework of white, or Eurocentric, supremacy. We are talking about the institutions and residual effects that come out of a particular history. And calling black folk, the oppressed in this instance, the racists comes off like a "just as bad" argument, where black folk are equally powerful, equally privileged, and equally responsible for that history and its effects.

 

[Axulus]

"Black people can't be racist" has been exclusively used (in my experience) in reponse to critisism of them throwing the word "nigger" around within their own group. "Black people can't be racist" is just shorthand for "A nigger can call another nigger a nigger, but a white man cannot call a nigger a nigger without it being racist".

It's like saying, "It's OK, I'm Jewish" after telling a joke.

And...the issue with that is?

Okay, you aren't part of the in-group. So what?

Here's the thing...I use the word "nigga" in informal settings pretty freely, if I know that others will accept it. I'd never use it around my mother, I absolutely never use it at work. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that it's not much different than having someone you don't know walk up and call your spouse "honey". This argument is actually very simple. We all know what the boundaries are, and yes, they're based in part on your skin color, your sex, your orientation, your political affiliation, your family and friends. So, let's be clear - if you aren't part of the group, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The end.

But more importantly, we can see how race actually affects people's lives. For example, this case. White dude with no shirt on shows up and begins shouting slurs at a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Then, he accosts a black guy who was simply walking into a nearby mall. A security worker shows up - and immediately pepper-sprays the black guy, and then hauls him off even as the protestors tell him that he's got the wrong guy. That's the sort of thing I personally worry about (I also worry for the many young women in my family, but those worries are often far different).

Do you have systematic data on how many of these kinds of incidents occur per 100,000 black individuals (or black men)? Is your worry rational based on the incidence rate or are you relying upon a series of anecdotes to draw an invalid conclusion?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How so? And let say once again. No one is trying to say the black people are morally superior to white people or that black people can not hurt white people or that black people can not be evil. But we are talking about racism within the framework of white, or Eurocentric, supremacy.
We are talking about the institutions and residual effects that come out of a particular history.

Yes, you have explained it a number of times. I agree with most of what you mean to say. I know what you mean by "Black people can't be racist". I also know how people hear it. The two are not the same. You know this. So why create the confusion, resentment, division, and make yourself appear racist if your goal is the the opposite? It does not compute.

 

[ksen]

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

 

[4321lynx]

How so? And let say once again. No one is trying to say the black people are morally superior to white people or that black people can not hurt white people or that black people can not be evil. But we are talking about racism within the framework of white, or Eurocentric, supremacy.
We are talking about the institutions and residual effects that come out of a particular history.

Yes, you have explained it a number of times. I agree with most of what you mean to say. I know what you mean by "Black people can't be racist". I also know how people hear it. The two are not the same. You know this. So why create the confusion, resentment, division, and make yourself appear racist if your goal is the the opposite? It does not compute.

Agreed.

If AA said "black people can't be racists because they did not have the power throughout history to be racist "superiorist" towards the whites or the Arabs, and still don't, except in Africa," then I would agree with that 100%.

As for the n''''''' word, it holds a special place in the USA and to an extent in Canada. I as a foreigner, and many immigrants as well, never saw anything wrong in calling a man a negro, it is the Latin for black after all. I thought for a long time that nigger/nigra was just the more ignorant White-trash way of pronouncing it. White-trash to me at that time being almost any Southern racist, no matter how influential. how rich, how reputedly "well" educated, or how high up in the KKK he or she was.

Is the KKK an equal opportunity club, with women members now? And don't tell me the KKK doesn't exist, not after the election results the other day.

 

[laughing dog]

I find this discussion utterly fascinating. Words have different meanings (just look in a dictionary sometime if you don't believe me). Meanings resonant with people based on their experience. Debating whether or not, _____(you fill in the blank) can be "racist" seems to me is really irrelevant. It doesn't change BEHAVIOR or HISTORY. Whether or not blacks can be "racist" or bigoted asswipes does not change the current nature of institutional racism in the USA.

I explained it in the OP.

Words have meaning and affect on the listener. If I knew something I said came across in a racist way, and I insisted on phrasing it that way anyways, you would have reason to question my motive and goal, especially if I told you that my motive and goal was to combat racism....

So it would not bother you if I thought your OP was an attempt to minimize white racism by deflecting attention to some minor "issue"?

Here is a parallel going in the opposite direction: We could define Racism is very strict terms, as some have, to mean only written laws regarding slavery and Jim Crow, and then we could go around proclaiming that "There is no more Racism in America". We could repeat that every time somebody complains about bigotry and unfair treatment to black people, and then we could tell them we are using the above definition of racism and that words have different meanings, and that whether or not "racism" exists, the current nature of institutional treatment regarding race doesn't change.

You don;'t have to do any of that - there are already plenty of people, including regular posters here, that do so.

Saying "There is no more racism in America" is misguided and looks suspect.

I disagree. It doesn't look suspect, it is nonsense.

Same with "Black people can't be racist".

Obviously, there are people who disagree on its merits. I think the argument is really moot, because it clearly gives the impression of a false equivalence between the problem of potential or actual black "racism" and white racism towards blacks in the US.

 

[laughing dog]

And...the issue with that is?

Okay, you aren't part of the in-group. So what?

Here's the thing...I use the word "nigga" in informal settings pretty freely, if I know that others will accept it. I'd never use it around my mother, I absolutely never use it at work. Ta-Nehisi Coates points out that it's not much different than having someone you don't know walk up and call your spouse "honey". This argument is actually very simple. We all know what the boundaries are, and yes, they're based in part on your skin color, your sex, your orientation, your political affiliation, your family and friends. So, let's be clear - if you aren't part of the group, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. The end.

But more importantly, we can see how race actually affects people's lives. For example, this case. White dude with no shirt on shows up and begins shouting slurs at a pro-Palestinian demonstration. Then, he accosts a black guy who was simply walking into a nearby mall. A security worker shows up - and immediately pepper-sprays the black guy, and then hauls him off even as the protestors tell him that he's got the wrong guy. That's the sort of thing I personally worry about (I also worry for the many young women in my family, but those worries are often far different).

Do you have systematic data on how many of these kinds of incidents occur per 100,000 black individuals (or black men)? Is your worry rational based on the incidence rate or are you relying upon a series of anecdotes to draw an invalid conclusion?

One instance is one too many. Do you really think that the security guard sprayed the black victim at random?

 

[Axulus]

Do you have systematic data on how many of these kinds of incidents occur per 100,000 black individuals (or black men)? Is your worry rational based on the incidence rate or are you relying upon a series of anecdotes to draw an invalid conclusion?

One instance is one too many. Do you really think that the security guard sprayed the black victim at random?

We weren't talking about how many is too many. Any incidence of crime or gross negligence is one too many. We were talking about whether there is a logical basis for an ongoing worry of becoming a victim of it, especially in comparison to other risks.

 

[laughing dog]

One instance is one too many. Do you really think that the security guard sprayed the black victim at random?

We weren't talking about how many is too many. Any incidence of crime or gross negligence is one too many. We were talking about whether there is a logical basis for an ongoing worry of becoming a victim of it, especially in comparison to other risks.

That may be what you think "we" were talking about. But I don't think anyone else but you was.

 

[thebeave]

I think the problem here is that white people have been told that the word "nigger" is so vile and disgusting, that we can't even say it out loud. We have to say "N word". But blacks saying it in everyday conversation and in songs or in the lockeroom is OK. It's a case of "Do what I say, not what I do". That's hypocrisy and its always annoyed me (with any word or action). Like telling your children they can't say "fuck" and grounding them for doing so, but you walk around saying "fuck" all the time in front of them. Wouldn't that annoy you if you were that kid? I understand that blacks rationalize using the n-word among themselves by citing past history, power, racism, etc but I don't think I really buy it.

Or it's an example of a historically oppressed people taking the terms that have been used to marginalize and degrade them and giving them a new positive spin in order to take control of the terms to empower themselves.

It's one or the other.

And so this is something that all white people should know? Were flyers being passed out in white neighborhoods explaining this? Some of us have a life and don't have time to take an ethnic studies class at night school to learn all the nuances, history and context to safely interact with other races. How about everyone just keep things simple and not use ethnic slurs against other races (or your own).

Its getting to the point where you need a god damn sociology degree to understand and/or not offend people of other races or genders.