Funny vs Racist

[rmcrobertson]

Trying to remain polite---first off, the fact that WE don't see connections (or don't wish to) doesn't mean they're not there. And second--perhaps we could spend a little time discussing the issues, rather than maundering about whether or not other people raise them in a way that fits neatly into what we like to see on our plate?

And last--anybody willing to discuss the raised issue? That maybe we're members of a society, a society with a history, and that society and history just maybe possibly have something to do with the way we use words?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Wow.

Well, leaping into the highly-emotional fray....

To address the original issue: HUMOR often stems from things we think are unexpected, or perverse, or unusual. That's why someone read one way may be funny, and another way, racist.

To address the myriad comments after that: We all have our own experiences with race, with gender, with SES. I would like to point out that, according to numbers across the country (not about any one person's experience in particular), yes, black folks are still dealing with problems embedded in our racist past, as a nation. And with current racial problems.

On a final note: I honestly am surprised to read about so many guys who are frothing-at-the-mouth enraged that black people can call each other n****r, but they can't call a black person such a term.

As someone who, in many situations, has had to actively work against people's expectations ("it's got breasts, it can't do _____!"), you learn to suss out the social and political situations as best you can. Women still realize glass ceilings exist, and that you may get fired for getting pregnant, or not wearing makeup (another thread). Non-white races realize that they will have to put up with a lot of cr*p, perhaps intentional and perhaps not, often on a daily basis.

It's bizarre to me to see people getting so upset that they feel they, too, have experienced this kind of unequal expectation, based on gender or race. Do I think it's right? No. Do I understand the frothing-mouthed nature of the anger about how non-white races and women (non-male gender, maybe?) are working to be treated in general, or the things they can "get away with", like the "n"-word? Not at all.

 

[Darksoul]

-I don't think its a matter of "whites" not being able to use racial slurs so much as why would you refer to anybody in a derogatory manner, especially someone you have something in common with, i.e. race. I don't walk around and call my "white" friends "cracker" or "honkey". But if I did, someone might call me racist. And yes, btw, I am "white". Stupid labels.


A---)

 

[Adept]

As far as I can see, it's simply about good manners. You can tell a joke about someone or something, so long as you know that any offense caused will be very minimal. If you deliberately tell a joke that you believe will cause someone to be offended, then you are just being rude.

I know I can call my closest friends the most attrocious names under the sun, words you wouldnt even hear in an angry mechanics workshop. And we all laugh, and think its a great joke. However, if I was to say those same words to a stranger, they would be considered very rude.

Which is fair enough. It isn't our place to tell someone what should offend them and what shouldn't, or what they should find funny and what they shouldn't. For example, I find Roberts eclectic and inconstant use of the royal 'we' to be quite funny. Others likely wont.

You know that if you, as a white stranger, call a black person a ****** (And I dont see why I should be afraid of using the word in a post, after all I am not using it as an insult), you will offend them. To do so knowing you will cause offense is just rude. Who cares why they are offended by it? It isn't your concern.

Black people can get away with it because they know they will not be causing offence by using it. Even white people can use it with their black friends, if the right level of familiarity has been reached.

The same things coming from different people mean different things.

I agree with Bester in some regards, we should be able to be as proud of ourselves as white people, as other ethnicities are. There should be as many white pride parades as there are black pride parades, etc.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I am a man and expect to be treated as such and will not tolerate anyone "in-my-face." I will do my utmost not to do the same and to my memory I haven't.

In citing Rock and a cartoonist as examples I neve once suggested that you should be treated as anything less than a man. Look at the title of the thread.


There's no need to get in my face with the attitude of "hey you OWE me mutha fu--er!" Actually I don't owe them squat and by the same token they owe me... nothing.

Cite specifically where I demanded reparations for blacks or advocated entitlement programs.

I'm making my own way through this life best as I can, I expect no less from anyone else.

Fine. Kudos to you--once again--for your addictions recovery.

Now cite the statistics for incarceration of blacks versus whites for identical drug offenses, MACaver, and tell me how a person with dark skin can get through life as best he can. Minorities are turned down for home loans at a far greater rate than whites. Their unemployment rates are double that of whites, and make less per capita than whites. Perhaps they lack industry and a work ethic, eh? Or should we embrace the theories of "The Bell Curve?"

I have never been an advocate for positive or reverse discrimination. However, I find it ludicrous to expect black comedians and cartoonists to suddenly be "polite" after their having directly experienced racism. Let them vent openly. Let white racists vent openly, if they like. Double standards be damned. I would prefer that.

We can then quit pretending that this issue doesn't exist and expose it for all its ugliness. It didn't "go away" in the seventies. It went underground, and its advocates have taken up the rod and staff of "fairness" in their tu quoque attacks against minorities. It's a glaring distraction from the greater injustices that yet exist, but rarely get mentioned anymore.

http://www.indiana.edu/~speaweb/perspectives/vol3/necess.html

http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2004/10/11/daily15.html


Regards,


Steve

 

[kenpo tiger]

Adept said: "Which is fair enough. It isn't our place to tell someone what should offend them and what shouldn't, or what they should find funny and what they shouldn't. For example, I find Roberts eclectic and inconstant use of the royal 'we' to be quite funny. Others likely wont."

Hit the nail on the head, imo.

*One* finds Robert amuses *one* immensely. He can, however, make use of a few 'acidulous pejorative(s)' (thanks Steve. that's a luscious one.) one too many times for *one's* comfort level, although it's done in a subtle way and not "in your face".

So. I think maybe the problem here is feeling left out. Hear me out please. You can horse around with your buddies and call each other whatever you choose, but you can't call just anyone just anything you choose. I would no more walk up to you, Caver, and address you as 'Homie' or 'Buddy' (ugh - I hate that. Why do guys do that?!) or 'N****r' unless there was a relationship in place which dictated that that was proper. Same way I expect you not to refer to me as 'Hon', 'Sweetheart', 'Babe', or 'The Little Woman'. Inappropriate, as was calling an African American male 'boy'. Respect is conveyed in many different ways, including what you say as well as how you say it.

You don't have the right to automatically assume that whatever you want to call someone will be well-received.

You also have to realize that each culture develops its own shorthand language, and using the 'n' word isn't part of white culture shorthand. In fact, you run the risk of looking and sounding pretty stupid by trying to be something you aren't. Same as people employing polysyllabic words they don't know the meaning of in the wrong context because they think it will impress others. It's embarrassing.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

An article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. that is related to this topic, first published in the Miami Herald:


IN BIGOT VERSUS BIGOT, WHITE RACIST IS WINNER


''Black people cannot be racist.''

It's been maybe 20 years since the first time I heard some member of the black intelligentsia say that on an afternoon talk show. Naturally, all hell broke loose.

Years later, all hell still awaits repair.

I base that assessment on the response to something I did in a recent column. Namely, I defined racism as ''this practice of demeaning and denying based on the darkness of skin.''

Man, what'd I want to go and say that for? The flood of letters has been unrelenting, dozens of aggrieved Caucasians wanting your poor, benighted correspondent to know that racism, thank you very much, is also felt by those whose skin is not dark at all. Several folks figured I must be one'a them black folk who considers black folk incapable of racism. One individual went so far as to contend that yours truly, like most blacks, hasn't a clue what racism really is.

Well, golly, where to begin?

First, my take on the ''blacks can't be racist'' argument: Unassailable logic, unfortunate rhetoric.

People who make that argument reason as follows: Yes, blacks can be prejudiced or bigoted, but not ''racist'' because racism involves systemic oppression -- the wielding of power. As blacks neither wield power nor control the system, the reasoning goes, it's beyond their ability to be racist.

I get impatient with people who make the argument in those terms, terms that seem, frankly, calibrated to produce more confrontation than insight. Most people who hear the point framed in that way are, understandably, unable to get past those first inflammatory words: ''Blacks can't be racist.''

So let's frame it another way. Let's allow that black folks can, indeed, be racist. Or prejudiced, intolerant, biased, bigoted or any other word that floats your boat. Black people are, after all, members of the human race and, as such, are heir to all the idiocy by which human beings are beset.

But with that established, let's also say this: It's an affront to common sense to suggest there is equivalence between black-on-white bigotry and its opposite. This is the point the black intelligentsia's rhetoric has obscured and people like my correspondents have denied, avoided and ignored. As an aggregate, bigoted blacks have much less power to injure whites than vice versa. They also have less history of doing so. These are incontrovertible facts that render hollow the yowling demands that the racism of blacks be accorded a place in the national consciousness commensurate with that of white people.

Hey, when you find a black bigot, feel free to censure and ostracize him or her as the circumstance warrants. I don't care. Just don't pretend the transgression is what it is not. Don't claim it represents a significant threat to the quality of life of white Americans at large.

Because if it represents such a threat, then where are the statistics demonstrating how black bias against whites translates to the mass denial of housing, bank loans, education, employment opportunities, voting rights, medical care or justice? And please, spare me the anecdote about Jane, who couldn't get into school or Joe, who lost his job, because of affirmative action.

Not the same. Not even close. There are, in fact, reams of statistics documenting that racism has fostered generation after generation of Joes and Janes -- not to mention Jamillas, Rasheeds and Keshias -- in the African-American community. And those numbers come not from the NAACP, the Nation of Islam, the Congressional Black Caucus or any other group with an ax to grind but, rather, from the federal government and from university think tanks. Yet even with those bona fides, some people find evidence of white racism's power dishearteningly easy to ignore.

They have to, I suppose. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to continue pretending an equivalency that does not exist. And somewhere inside, even they must recognize that fact.

Put it like this: If given the option of going through life as a white man suffering the effects of black racism or the reverse, I know which one I'd choose.

I bet every one of my correspondents does, too.




End of article.


Regards,



Steve

 

[Melissa426]

Minorities are turned down for home loans at a far greater rate than whites. Their unemployment rates are double that of whites, and make less per capita than whites.

I agree that this is true, but I wonder WHY?
Do you know? Certainly spotty employment will keep your income down, and probably not endear you to the mortgage company. So that begs the question, why spotty employment?
Can you say, for instance, in your hometown of Bloomington, IN, that blacks do not have the same opportunity for a good education? Aren't the public schools pretty decent there?
I agree that there is an issue that blacks who try to succeed in "a white man's world" fall prey to the Uncle Tom label, get accused of abandoning their culture. HOw should that issue be addressed? If you disagree with what Bill Cosby and Chris Rock are doing, ( and I don't know that you do) what is a better choice?

I hear what you are saying HHJH, (and McRobertson, etc) but I wonder what the solution is that is fair and equitable to all.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[ghostdog2]

For what it's worth, The Bell Curve isn't a theory, it's a fact. Populations when plotted statistically fall into a bell curve distribution.
The book The Bell Curve reports on a number of studies of the population at large and demographics within it. The results of those studies have been examined and sometimes criticized but have held up pretty well over the years.
Clearly this is for another thread, but I thought it worth mentioning.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

For what it's worth, The Bell Curve isn't a theory, it's a fact. Populations when plotted statistically fall into a bell curve distribution.
The book The Bell Curve reports on a number of studies of the population at large and demographics within it. The results of those studies have been examined and sometimes criticized but have held up pretty well over the years.
Clearly this is for another thread, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Sorry, the ideas put forth in The Bell Curve are bunk. No self-respecting scientist would refer to that piece of ...stuff... for factual information.

We can start another thread if you'd like, but I can't let that statement stand here without a firm rebuttal. Those numbers have been sifted, doctored, "cooked"... and misinterpreted.

 

[ghostdog2]

"Those numbers have been sifted, doctored, "cooked"... and misinterpreted." By Feisty Mouse

No, the numbers weren't doctored or cooked. Misinterpreted, maybe. The studies and research were and are widely accepted by experts in the fields involved. Read it. You might actually like it. Only a very small portion of the book touches on race, which is the topic that seems to have most people upset.
For the most part it is a review/discussion of the heritability of generalized intelligence and its value/reliability as a predictor of certain things ranging from academic success to parenting skills. There is little scientific dispute about either point, i.e heritability or predictive value.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

You seem to think I don't know what the book is about.

I understand the studies of "general intelligence" and heritability.

The bell curve concept was based on, among other things, regression to the mean on gross anatomical measures.

Discussing the heritability of "general intelligence" (which changes dramatically according to what test is used and how the people are tested) is a whole other field, which is hotly debated.

 

[ghostdog2]

Perhaps we can go to PM after this, but like you, I hate to see public mis-statements uncorrected.
The heritability of IQ is unchallenged. There is some dispute over the degree of heritability, but if you stick around 50% you'll be on the low side of safe.
No, the studies ( and there are thousands referenced in the book ) were not based on reversion to the mean. Read the book and the appendices which will direct you to the research. A good bit but not nearly all of the studies are discussed and explained in the text.
Time has re-inforced the conclusions as well as the validity of the assumptions of the book. One of which is the fact the g or general intelligence does not change significantly if both tests are fair and fairly administered. It is more or less constant and not dramatically varied by testing methods.

 

[The Prof]

Very Interesting!!!! I guess that in some ways one can see some truth to it.

And you are right about one thing, it's not what's said, it's who'se saying it.

The Prof.

Why is it ok for members of non-white ethnic groups to make racist jokes, and it is "funny", but if a white does it, it is "racist" and "bigoted"?

The first comic ran in our local paper. It is deemed "funny".

If the second comic had been sent in, how many papers would have ran it, and of those who did, who many would be issuing apologies, pulling future strips, etc?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

ghostdog - we'll have to take this to another thread.

Insisting that there are lots of studies and therefore it must be true, or that "g" does not vary according to test, is just ... I don't know what to say.

Start a new thread, we can take it there.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. First and foremost, why in the world would my pride--such as it is--need to have anything to do with the color of my skin? One had thought that self-confidence came from a sense of strong identity, and that (by the very logic argued for by those who got all bothered about that cartoon) generally speaking, one was supposed to take pride in a) one's country, b) the achievements of the human race. Sure, "race," is tangled up with this--but taking pride in the achievements of white people is just silly.

2. The whole concept of, "race," is biological. It is largely a fallacy. "Ethnicity," is what us kids are talking about; it has to do with culture and with history.

3. Ran into this "bell curve," stuff back when was an undergrad and studied behavioral genetics with a guy named Robert Plomin. (Look him up.) it may be useful to mention actual science here: a) "intelligence," is quite difficult to define and to measure, being very situation-specific; b) to the extent that intelligence can simply be measured as, say, problem solving for certain kinds of problems, the consensus is that its heritability depends on a complex of genes; c) there appear to be larger variations in IQ that can be directly attributed to education, experience and to culture than to genes--the famous example is that IQs for Northern Irish Catholics test out as being as much lower than Northern Irish Protestants as "African-American," IQs test as being lower than those of, "white," people; d) all info from genetics, at best, tells you something about groups and nothing about individuals.

4. The history of the concept of intelligence, and of the heritability of intelligence, suggests strongly that the "science," remains hopelessly contaminated with class and "racial," bias. See Gould, "Mismeasure of Man;" see Galton's, "g," and the origins of the Binet IQ test in the French Army circa WWI.

5. It is absurd to claim that African-Americans and other minorities have, as groups, precisely the same access to education that groups of "white," middle-class people have. A look at very simple, very obvious population data for colleges, universities, prep schools, elite schools at all levels, will show you that. Generally speaking, the actual scientific take on that is that African-Americans, as a group, tend to have lower levels of income and to live in places that offer fewer educational advantages at all levels. The generally-accepted interpretation is that the effects of some 300 years of systematic, pervasive racial structuring of society do not go away in one or two generations, even with everybody thinking the best thoughts imaginable.

6. It is odd--or perhaps not so odd--that a discusssion of a cartoon rapidly turned into an attempt to provide scientific bases for a claim that African-Americans are less smart. Funnily enough, these discussions never seem to mention that by the same tests, Asian-Americans are smarter than white folks--until of course somebody brings up the goofy idea that it's unfair that, "they," get all the schools and the jobs just because, "they're," smarter and work harder.

7. Again: the folks who get all hot and bothered by that cartoon don't understand who their real enemies are. The issue isn't "race," but social and economic class; the problems don't lie with poor black people or even with illegal immigrants, but with the likes of Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Leykis, and the rest of the guys who do very, very well by more-or-less open race-baiting, and very open support for the advanced capitalism that's really your problem.

 

[The Prof]

Hi,

I have always hated discrimination. Hell, I was shot at by a KKK member about 19 years ago when I first moved to Florida for protesting a KKK rally.

We purchased our home in a multi cultural neighborhood because that's the was we prefer to live. It is still a very fine, multi cultural, crime free and enjoyable working class neighborhood.

Your points are very correct. For me, I have always taken exception to the Black Congressional Caucus because I feel that it is a mockery of equal but separate. If we had a White Congressional Caucus I am sure it would not be condoned.

I don’t know, I just hate all this racial crap. But so many times I see the reverse discrimination at work and it really bums me out.

The Prof

Racist - White Power
Not Racist - Black Power

Sexist - Male
Not Sexist - Female

Bigoted - "Those Damn Indians"
Not Bigoted - "Those Damn Whites"


Racist/Bigoted/Sexist
- National Association for the Advancement of White People
- White Pride Day
- Not hiring a lesser qualified minority

Not Racist/Bigoted/Sexist
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- Black Pride Week
- Skiping over a fully qualified and experenced white male to hire an inexperienced and under or non qualified minority.


Bigots:
- Archie Bunker
- Ralph Kramden
- Anyone who takes pride in Confederate History

Not Bigots:
- Dave Chapelle
- Fred Sanford
- Anyone who bashes Confederate History

Then, we come to this enlightened view of the US: http://www.tremble.com/scribblins/images/us_of_ra.gif

 

[ghostdog2]

"It is odd--or perhaps not so odd--that a discusssion of a cartoon rapidly turned into an attempt to provide scientific bases for a claim that African-Americans are less smart. Funnily enough, these discussions never seem to mention that by the same tests, Asian-Americans are smarter than white folks--" rmcrobertson

In an effort to be fair to me and Feisty Mouse, neither one of us used the term African-American or referenced it. Did we?
And no where did she or I claim they were "less smart" or try to find a scientific basis for that position.

As for Asians, "you got that right" as thet say around here. Asians seem to test about one half standard deviation higher than whites. Does this make us less smart? Don't know, but denying it's so won't make us any smarter.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

1. First and foremost, why in the world would my pride--such as it is--need to have anything to do with the color of my skin? One had thought that self-confidence came from a sense of strong identity, and that (by the very logic argued for by those who got all bothered about that cartoon) generally speaking, one was supposed to take pride in a) one's country, b) the achievements of the human race. Sure, "race," is tangled up with this--but taking pride in the achievements of white people is just silly.

2. The whole concept of, "race," is biological. It is largely a fallacy. "Ethnicity," is what us kids are talking about; it has to do with culture and with history.

3. Ran into this "bell curve," stuff back when was an undergrad and studied behavioral genetics with a guy named Robert Plomin. (Look him up.) it may be useful to mention actual science here: a) "intelligence," is quite difficult to define and to measure, being very situation-specific; b) to the extent that intelligence can simply be measured as, say, problem solving for certain kinds of problems, the consensus is that its heritability depends on a complex of genes; c) there appear to be larger variations in IQ that can be directly attributed to education, experience and to culture than to genes--the famous example is that IQs for Northern Irish Catholics test out as being as much lower than Northern Irish Protestants as "African-American," IQs test as being lower than those of, "white," people; d) all info from genetics, at best, tells you something about groups and nothing about individuals.

4. The history of the concept of intelligence, and of the heritability of intelligence, suggests strongly that the "science," remains hopelessly contaminated with class and "racial," bias. See Gould, "Mismeasure of Man;" see Galton's, "g," and the origins of the Binet IQ test in the French Army circa WWI.

5. It is absurd to claim that African-Americans and other minorities have, as groups, precisely the same access to education that groups of "white," middle-class people have. A look at very simple, very obvious population data for colleges, universities, prep schools, elite schools at all levels, will show you that. Generally speaking, the actual scientific take on that is that African-Americans, as a group, tend to have lower levels of income and to live in places that offer fewer educational advantages at all levels. The generally-accepted interpretation is that the effects of some 300 years of systematic, pervasive racial structuring of society do not go away in one or two generations, even with everybody thinking the best thoughts imaginable.

6. It is odd--or perhaps not so odd--that a discusssion of a cartoon rapidly turned into an attempt to provide scientific bases for a claim that African-Americans are less smart. Funnily enough, these discussions never seem to mention that by the same tests, Asian-Americans are smarter than white folks--until of course somebody brings up the goofy idea that it's unfair that, "they," get all the schools and the jobs just because, "they're," smarter and work harder.

7. Again: the folks who get all hot and bothered by that cartoon don't understand who their real enemies are. The issue isn't "race," but social and economic class; the problems don't lie with poor black people or even with illegal immigrants, but with the likes of Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Leykis, and the rest of the guys who do very, very well by more-or-less open race-baiting, and very open support for the advanced capitalism that's really your problem.

#3 - you had Plomin? Huh, small world! He's an interesting guy. I'm not crazy about all of his work, but he is by far more of the "middle of the road" behavior genetics guy, rather than the hair-on-fire folks.

#4 - rock on.

#7 - I don't think anyone else is listening - it's easier to get upset about some guy somehow taking your job, rather than an entire power structure.

ghostdog - studies, and popular press books based on past studies, such as the Bell jar, are based on tests of "general intelligence" that historically rate black people as less intelligent than white people, I believe that was what robertson was referring to.

g.i. tests tell you more about variation between ethnicities (or "races") and how they have access to education, etc., rather than about anything genetically inherited. Also, "heritability" and "inherited" get confused quite a bit in such writings, which makes it even more tricky. If there is a lot of variation, it can come from environmental sources, as well as biological sources. Biological sources that are ignored in such discussions can include: proper nutrition during infancy and childhood; current nutrition; infant care and social development; enriched environments for children; social environment, and social expectations. These all can affect the physiology ("biology") of people.

Additionally, as robertson pointed out, genetic "models" as proposed by people looking for "the 'g' gene" are too simplistic. Most of our traits - particularly complex traits - are based on a large number of interacting gene products. These gene products can act in synergistic ways, although most behavior genetics models are based on looking (and assuming there only exist) for additive genetic variance. Looking only for additive genetic variation, and parsing out "everything else" when you don't know what "everything else" is, can lead to grossly inflated models that point to, say 50% heritability for a trait. Which does not mean that 50% of the trait is inherited.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Ah - standardized testing. I suppose it was inevitable that we got around to discussing it vis-a-vis racial 'inequality'.

Fact of the matter is, some people know how to take test better than others. Someone referred upthread to regurgitating what teachers tell you in order to get good grades. Isn't that really what testing of all types does? If you ask a child who has grown up in an urban environment -- black, yellow, red, or white -- about farm animals, they're going to do poorly. Same for children who grew up in rural areas if you were to ask them how to take a subway, bus and possibly cab to reach a certain location (assuming one leaves Chicago at 8 pm, traveling at a speed of 85 mph and another leaves NY at 8:30 pm, traveling at a speed of 90 mph with a tailwind... ) You cannot measure 'intelligence' by imposing your standards on those who have different life experiences.

And, who's to say that 'street smarts' are not intelligence? As martial artists, we all strive for being mentally as well as physically prepared should a confrontation arise. 'Street smarts' is an intelligence no one can teach you really. It's environmental (forgive me, Dr. Freud. I sound Skinnerian...) and thus, comes with 'the territory'. If you were to put some of the ivory tower intellectuals I work with (back, Robert, back!) in a confrontational situation, there is absolutely no way that their genius-level IQs will save them, other than possibly buying a little time by confusing their attackers with talk.

So prove to me what intelligence is and how one can measure it. Even in another thread.