Last night there was some pretty intense discussion over using adjectives to describe people. The topic was whether someone is a rampaging, black super hero or a rampaging super hero. Several of us objected to the use of the word black as a designator. We don’t describe them as white super heroes – in Hollywood it is a given that heroes are white. We don’t say white super models, but we say black super models.
The discussion was focused on the racist aspect that some of us felt was in the phrase. But for me, and perhaps others, using any designator continues with stereotypes and oppression.
Let me tell a brief story about a child that changed my way of thinking. Some 32 years ago on a camping trip I met a child, a 2nd or 3rd cousin, that provoked an entirely new way of thinking for me. I was 18 and the child was about 9. When I asked the child who he was his answer “I’m the stupid child”. Needless to say I was stunned. I then asked why he called himself that…his answer “because I’m stupid and I’m a child”.
What the hell happened to the parents or family or friends that could create this attitude in a small child?
Maybe I’m more sensitive to designations since I live in the San Francisco area. My co-workers during the past 25 years are all colors and nationalities and religions and sexual persuasions. It was appalling to watch the racism that surfaced after 9/11 against my Muslim friends…by their alleged friends. I watched my dear friend, who happens to be Pakistani and Muslim, in tears when accosted on the streets because of her appearance. Working with politicians here we don’t say “gay city council member” or “black congressman” or “black mayor” or “woman district attorney”. They just are.
Part of my comments last night pointed out that designation indicates uniqueness. When someone is called funny or short or tall it is a means of singling them out. I have sense of humor, but people don’t call me a `funny accountant’. Sounds strange doesn’t it.
This is meant to be an open discussion of what words mean and why it matters when we use designators.
What other things do we hear and not say anything about?
Obviously I think words matter a lot…and hope that someday we won’t have to have these discussions. Until then….
Great topic, SallyCat. . .and you know the “Queen of Words” just has to join in here.
I couldn’t be more in tune with your observations on this. I could say that I “don’t see colors or differences”, but that would be absolutely untrue. I just don’t seem to see them in the ways that many do. I see them as wonderful. As beautiful diversity, and I am very discontent living in an area where there is so little visual, cultural and any other diversity.
These descriptors really are nonsensical. “Hi! I’m Shirl and I’m non traditional spiritual.” “Hi! I’m Shirl and I am a Lesbian.” “Hi, I’m Shirl and I am 1/16th Native American.” “Hi, I’m Shirl and I’m an overly wordy writer.” “Hi, I’m Shirl and a lefty rabid bleeding heart lliberal socialist.” “Hi, I’m Shirl and I was adopted.” “Hi, I’m Shirl and I’m a sarcastic humorist.”
Frankly why would I (or anyone) think to introduce ourselves in such a way? If we would not use a designator for ourselves, then why would we choose to use such for other people? And if you do use a designator for yourself, I would be curious as to why.
However, I am very, very fond of the idea of using “Funny Accountant” to describe you, SallyCat!!! Just plain tickles my fancy.
Words have power, and words matter.
I mentioned how words matter today in a diary referring to FOX NEWS
FOX
NOUN:
pl. fox·es , also fox
Any of various carnivorous mammals of the genus Vulpes and related genera, related to the dogs and wolves and characteristically having upright ears, a pointed snout, and a long bushy tail.
The fur of one of these mammals.
A crafty, sly, or clever person.
Slang A sexually attractive person.
Nautical Small cordage made by twisting together two or more strands of tarred yarn.
Archaic A sword.
VERB:
foxed , fox·ing , fox·es
VERB:
tr.
To trick or fool by ingenuity or cunning; outwit.
To baffle or confuse.
To make (beer) sour by fermenting.
To repair (a shoe) by attaching a new upper.
Obsolete To intoxicate.
VERB:
intr.
To act slyly or craftily.
To turn sour in fermenting. Used of beer.
Just another example of why words are important.
I’m thinking in very personal terms here but how I judgment potentially hurtful language is based a lot on intent. I got called a lot of names in my childhood because I was Jewish, wore glasses, and was in a gifted children’s program. You might be surprised that I didn’t mind being called a “dirty kike christ killer” nearly as much as being called a “special class queer.” That’s because the Jewish slurs were really just ritual while the “special class” ones were meant to be personal and hurtful.
Another example — it’s one of my favorites. I was out drinking with some friends and one of them, who was getting pretty blasted, spilled some beer on her shirt, and yelled out “Well, screw a Jew.” Then she looked at me, horrified, and slurred “I didn’t mean anything by it — it’s like fuck a duck.”
And I gave her a complete pass because I know she didn’t mean anything about it, I knew we were friends, and even more I knew that her embarrassment would make her think about a lot more about her language in the future.
I understand giving a pass to your friend because she was embarrassed and knew she had potentially offended you.
My concern is not your friend, with whom you can talk about this. The issue is that others in the bar heard the comment and could or would pick it up.
I think that I can only change people one person at a time. If I had made her feel bad and been vocal about it, I don’t think I would have done anything to change the people at the bar who might be prejudiced but I would have lost the chance to get her to be more sensitive about her language. And I like to think that she might have “passed” some of that sensitivity on to other people. (I might also mention that this was in small town southern Indiana and I was the “first Jew” for almost all of these people so I saw myself as having a diplomatic function as well.)
Another example. Years ago I worked with a women who always used offensive language when talking about blacks (she was much older and just considered it the way she had been taught). However, she was very offended — as a good Christian — that I used words like fuck and shit. So we made a deal. She would stop using the language that offended me and I would stop using the language that offended her. What happened in the process of “keeping the deal” is that she actually started to think about language and how it could be hurtful. Maybe the change was permanent, maybe it wasn’t but I got a thought process going.
The same goes for your super-hero conversation — just having the conversation is a way to start getting people to be more thoughtful about how they use language.
40 years ago I enraged a grandparent by drinking out of the wrong water fountain. I didn’t understand why I shouldn’t. After enduring a slap and some verbal abuse I went right back and did it again.
If I refer to one accountant out of several different ones, I don’t see the problem in referring to the funny one, as long as it’s not done in a demeaning manner.
It is demeaning, even when done in a “funny manner”. It may not be demeaning to the person you are saying it to… but it’s being used as a … a what????
A put down. Even in jest – it’s putting down a segment of society who can NOT fight back against this slur.
Replace “retard” with the word “nigger” in your mind and ask yourself if you would still use it? Most likely you would not.
Cognitively disabled people do not “empower” the word “retard”. You never see a group of young Down’s boys saying, “Hey retard!!! How ya doin'”.
It’s a put down. It is demeaning. It’ demeans those who work harder than most.
And… I think it demeans the ones who use it. 9 times out of ten they are great people who would never utter a slur in their life.
Words matter IF we think about them first.
So.. I just call everyone assholes and fuckers… đŸ™‚
Phrases like the “gay councilman”, “black superhero,” or “female lawyer” make me crazy. As a English teacher, I appreciate the attempt at precision with an adjective.
But, words are more than parts of speech, they carry a ton of baggage. Phrases like those imply that “normal” is a white, straight male in those positions. White guys, like the, let’s say John Roberts are not called the “white, male Supreme Court nominee.” Instead adjectives like “brilliant” are used to describe him. Those are more insightful adjectives, as they reveal more about who a person really is, as opposed to who they are on the surface.
This may or may not be the spot to bring it up, but I am a little spooked at the language being used by the retired CIA posters. I appreciate that they bring a different point of view to our community. I even appreciate being reminded that there are people in the world who think nothing of using those terms. That, however, is a sign of white, male privilege. Often white guys(and gals) don’t mean anything by those terms, they just don’t think when they use them because they are so used to being the dominant force in society. They are incapable of seeing the world from a different point of view.
I have plenty of racists in my family and I have basically reduced all contact with them to weddings, etc. But, their words ring in my ears as I look at my beautiful son. I know what what is in their actual hearts. This is why I did not have a family baby shower and that I have not yet called them with my joyous news.
My family, too, is full of racists, Bush-loving zealots.
I’ve been dealing with some of their luggage for a while.
As I was talking to my friend about how we truly don’t rely on or need our families… she said she wished there could be a way she could adopt me – I said there was – it’s called friendship.
My friends are my family. Having been “around” and living far removed from “family” I can tell you – family blood lines mean sguat. It’s all about the people in our lives that we love that are truly family.
I’m learning to say, “they’re blood relatives” and “they are family” – for me – they mean two different things.
Congrats on the baby đŸ™‚ I’m enjoying reading about your journey.
Thanks Janet. My parents cried tears of joy when they met Andrew. My brother can’t wait for Thanksgiving. As for the rest of them – fuck ’em.
is another example of this. I spent hours trying to convince some folks at the orange site once how this was an unfortunate and racist term. (Why not just “trash?” Because trash already has a default color, is the phrase’s implication.)
It’s perfectly true that well-meaning people can use a phrase like “white trash” or “black superhero” without meaning anything negative. But words both reflect and shape attitudes, and pointing out the connotations of such phrases is part of my progressive duty. (For the phrase “white trash” in particular, the response is usually “I never thought about it, but you’re right.”)
It always sucks to be corrected, especially in public. Having said that, I’m very disappointed at the defensive responses to critcisms that SallyCat and poco raised.
Larry Johnson chose to blame those who brought it up. I’m not reading anything into his motives, I was just pointing out that being flippant about torture was wrong, which he answered with silence. I look forward to skipping his future writings.
My daughter is called White Trash fairly routinely at school. It seems to be the new popular racial slur against caucasions, as opposed to referring to a particularly silly stereotype.
A good reminder on terms. I periodically step into that fray – usually on the term “trailer park trash”.
My family lived in trailer parks for a good portion of my childhood. We lived with other blue collar workers, military families, and retirees. Every time someone smears people living in trailers, they are smacking down hard working folks trying to make a home.
Then and now, trailers are just another means of housing. An apartment, a trailer, a house…all are homes.
So…white trash and trailer park trash are pretty high on my button push list.
to me, someone’s race often still matters in this country. Sometimes it matters because the person that is being desrcibed thinks it matters.
So, some professors would prefer to be called black historians, for example. Other professors would be deeply offended by that same designation.
The same could be said for poets, comediennes, and various other lines of work where someone’s race may be an essential part of their work, or where they are coming from. In essence, they are saying that they see things in the way they do because of their race. Other people find that limiting, or even insulting.
If someone’s race has no informational value, then it is probably gratutious to mention it: black doctor, black accountant. But black lawyer could be significant, as Scooter Libby is hoping it will be.
Someone’s race can have high informational value if their job is an unusual one. So, it is noteworthy when black or hispanic people get top jobs in baseball, where they have tradtionally held few posts. White rappers are unique enough that it is worth noting, for purely informational purposes. There is a Hasidic reggae artist out there. They should stop mentioning his faith everytime they play his music on the radio, but it is noteworthy.
Finally, race can be important when the subject is the racism, or race-envy. So, if someone ‘wishes they were black’ or dislikes white people, it is important to know what race they are, to understand where they are coming from.
Ultimately, it is very difficult to tell whether someone is a racist by the language they choose. Some formulations may show signs of racism to some people that are not meant. Larry Johnson chose to talk about Denzel Washington, not because he was black, but because he tortured people in the movie. He chose to mention the fact he was black (presumably) because it is funny to imagine Dick Cheney fantasizing about being black (what with his 0% popularity among the black community).
Mentioning Denzel’s race probably didn’t add much to his overall point, and it certainly detracted from it for some people. But it wasn’t meant as hurtful to anyone but Dick Cheney.
Thank you BooMan for saying what I’ve been trying to express.
My concern is more in terms of continuing the habit.
A few years ago we elected a woman as District Attorney. The news reports were, XXX, the first woman to hold this office. That was it…further news reports never discussed that she was a woman. A person is selected as a sports official – fine say they are the ‘first’ black person to hold the position. Then stop mentioning it. Accept it and let’s make it way of life by not making a big deal about it.
What I find disturbing is that we still use the designators. As someone else mentioned it is black suspects but not white ones, it is hispanic attackers not white ones.
When do we stop using the designators?
Part of me wants to believe that Larry Johnson did not mean to be racist in his comment. Part of me was ready to let it drop until he commented that we had blown it out of proportion. Now, I’m not sure and spent part of last night re-reading the diary and all of the comments.
A huge concern was the amount of defensiveness in the comments. The indication for me from the comments was that it is okay to use designators and those of us that disagreed were too sensitive. Thus the diary today…
I guess I would be in the camp that thinks you were too sensitive. That doesn’t mean that I disagree with your concerns, or the points you made. But, I don’t think Larry deserved to have the worst assumed about him.
I am also a little defensive of how rough certain people are towards Larry and Pat just because they have served in our intelligence agencies. Comments about how they are sadists, or tools, or bad people because they tried to keep us safe and put their lives on the line to do so…
That really bothers me from a courtesy standpoint. It’s also embarrassing to me personally. So, I’m a little defensive about the name-calling. I’m trying to stand back because I don’t want people to feel they can’t be honest in their comments, but it is tough to watch at times.
* disclaimer * I didn’t read the diary so this is a general comment.
Perhaps, people who get called on making prejudiced comments shouldn’t be so sensitive themselves. Perhaps, they ought to stop and think that in this medium, we don’t have the cues that we would in conversation to be better able to read the intent of a remark and that it is more incumbent on them to take care that their remarks won’t be misinterpreted. And rather than be defensive they could apologize for creating that impression and offer to try to do better.
meant to be racist or pro-torture in what he wrote. I didn’t read it that way, although my eyes definitely tripped up on both phrases.
But if I used the word “retard” to express my displeasure with someone, then received a respectful reprimand from Dammit Janet, I hope I could shrug off my embarrassment and apologize. Even if I pointed out how my usage came from a different point of view. Intentions don’t matter in ASCII; the words stand alone.
I totally hear where you’re coming from, BooMan. Larry and Pat are important contributors to this site. I have missed the derogatory comments you mention, and I’m glad I did. But I don’t give anyone special deference because of their front-page status. I just wanted to point out unfortunate language, and I’ve been quite disappointed at the response.
for who they are and what they have done. Serving our country in some difficult ways is not easy. I was crazy enough to send an email to the CIA when the first rumblings broke in 2002 and the WH tried to blame them. It was an assurance that I believed in the people that worked there…and that they were the scapegoats. I still believe that about 99% of the agents.
What is disturbing to me is that anyone in a position of interacting with people of diverse races would make the distinction.
For me the diary phrase had an immediate and visceral reaction about the word black. I read it to my husband, as mild mannered as they come, and he had the same reaction. It wouldn’t make any difference if the writer had been me or you or anyone else on this site or other site. My reaction would be the same.
I don’t think you stifle conversation Booman. You provide input and opinions that we value. When we violate the ‘don’t be a prick’ rule, it is your role to step in and remind us.
If my comments were insensitive to Larry and his CIA background, then I offer my sincere apologies. No offense was meant to anyone. The discussion turned much more antagonistic than any of us could have anticipated.
My take on this: There are many words used everyday that are offensive to someone..and on this site….for example the f word, the n word..the c word, and so on that are also used as decriptors and labels…that I personally find offensive…there are also people who are offended by any use of God, Jesus or Christian in a pejorative way even OMG has been noted to me as offensive by a friend, as well as the use of feminine and masculine perjoratives, such as don’t be a pr…..k, which seems to me would/should be offensive to males, but I never hear them say it.!
So what’s the solution, I don’t know, I practice tolerance for the most part.
I fully sympathize/empathize with Booman and his take on this and I can see how it would be embarrasing and offensive to him in regards to his guest bloggers.
Our media locally in Socal went throught this several years ago reg. using descriptors of race in reporting, and it was generally decided not to use them unless it was germaine to the reporting, such as someone who was wanted and a descriptor was necessary and helpful.
Anyway those are my thoughts…FWIW
I think that whenever one’s use of a descriptor raises the question, “Why is that relevant?” one should rethink use of the descriptor. That is especially true when use of the descriptor involves such sensitive areas as race, gender, religion, and so on.
When I read the “rampaging, black super hero” reference, I was puzzled as to why anyone would think Dick Cheney wants to be black. The reference to Denzel Washington’s race seemed entirely gratuitous and, therefore, objectionable.
When we use a word, our readers or listeners presume that we are using that word for a reason. So when there’s no good reason to use a word, it’s better to leave it out.
I think I could be offended by, or find objectionable, your signature line reference. I could find it sexist that you promote an ideology that a blanket statement can apply to all women and only women. To add insult to injury it also implies that not being a woman prevents the appreciation and value of patriotism in a way as exceedingly as only a woman can.
It implies something above or below the norm when the sentiment expressed is judged by the fact it applies to a woman.
I could, but I don’t.
Since the quote was attributed to a woman stating her personal perspective it would be interesting to discuss how it could be construed as sexist. She stated her feelings based on her status in society, as a woman.
However if we change that line:
The second sentence I woud construe as sexist and a generalization.
Words mean something and grammar even more…thanks to all the teachers that made me work on my writing. (Even if I end sentence with dangling participles now!)
The second sentence I woud construe as sexist and a generalization.
Words mean something and grammar even more…thanks to all the teachers that made me work on my writing.
But if I did construe offense by that original statement, evidently by my lack of education as you imply, then I would be the one who is wrong for being offended? I would be wrong for not being able to discern the true meaning behind the grammatical nuance of the quote?
The thanks was for all of the teachers that we encounter. Some teachers are our parents or community or schools. This blog could be construed as a teacher, for making me think about the nuances here. You could be considered a teacher for asking me to think about the response in this comment.
For me it was the grammar of the sentence…plural versus singular…that made the difference.
IF you construed offense, I would ask why a single person’s opinion about their place in the world was sexist?
Because the comment in the signature line sounds like the factor of being a woman either entitles or deprives one of feelings for country that don’t apply equally to others. It could be that if gender didn’t matter then it’s a gratuitous use to evoke a reaction. That to me might give it the appearance of being sexist.
Jumping in here with both feet in mouth—oooof!
My history is quite a bit rusty–had the suffragetes succeeded completely by the time Woolf wrote this?
I do know that it was not until the 1980’s that Britain changed the law that had up till then only allowed men who married foreign women to grant their wives citizenship. British women who married foreign men had no such rights. This, as I mentioned, was amended fairly recently to grant gender equality.
So when Woolf says:
“As a woman, I have no country. . . .” It seems to be a reference to the fact that women did not share the rights and privileges of being an full-fledged citizen.
And when she says
“As a woman, my country is the whole world,” it seems she is making lemonade out of lemons.
That is indeed a point Woolf makes in “Three Guineas,” and is part of the historical context of the quote.
It would take some twisting for this quote to mean that “not being a woman prevents the appreciation and value of patriotism.” The quote is taken from Three Guineas, in which she questions why women, who have historically been treated as “outsiders,” should lend their support to war:
Such then will be the nature of her `indifference’ and from this indifference certain actions must follow. She will bind herself to take no share in patriotic demonstrations; to assent to no form of national self-praise; to make no part of any claque or audience that encourages war; to absent herself from military displays, tournaments, tattoos, prize-givings and all such ceremonies as encourage the desire to impose `our’ civilization or `our’ dominion upon other people.
It’s a feminist statement, and she’s discussing her role as a woman in society. If we were discussing Denzel Washington’s role as a black man in society, then I wouldn’t find it offensive to bring up the fact that he’s black.
The fact that Denzel Washington is black wasn’t really the issue being discussed as much as LJ’s reference to a ‘rampaging black superhero’. I don’t think he was making a social statement with the reference. I guess I missed a lot in those posts.
I didn’t get a negative inference from his statement.
Had he used the Incredible Hulk, would we be outraged at the gratuitous reference to a ‘rampaging green superhero’?
I stand by my original comment–if the descriptor isn’t relevant, there’s no good reason to use it. I’m not sure why you continue to insist that it’s perfectly OK to describe someone according to race under circumstances where race is irrelevant to the context in which that person is being described.
I’m not saying it’s perfectly ok to do that and I’d appreciate not being judged that way. I’ve said this a number of different ways in several threads that I don’t think that reference is necessarily a negative statement just because it’s not necessary.
I think it’s an irrelevant and insignificant reference like many that happen as a normal part of life and aren’t a problem until a problem is created.
I considered it to be nothing until it became the basis for allegations of racism that I felt were untrue.
but whether we all need to be more conscious of how we use language in this medium. It’s very difficult to judge the emotional content of a comment — we don’t have the visual and vocal clues that we get in conversation and we may not know the person making the comment very well.
That means that language use in internet discussions needs to be much more considered than it would be in normal use.
If I say something that might be hurtful to another person or group of people, I want to know that I’ve done that. If no one tells me, I am denied both the opportunity to point out how they might be incorrect or to learn that I should rethink how I am phrasing those particular thoughts.
Descriptions like “Black,” Female” and “Gay” are not offensive in themselves. (In fact one could argue that no word is offensive in itself; it derives meaning from how it is used…
Sometimes knowing these things can be helpfull. They can be innocuous, or they can be racist. An innocuous example might be “My sister works for a female Senator crafting legislation to help poor women.” A racist example might be “That black man just cut in front of me in line!”
But the problem isn’t just that we point out when someone is black, female, gay… We also DONT point out when something white male etc. is taken for the norm. We need to start pointing that out more.
A …black… acquaintance is a teacher and is working a lot of Black history into the curriculum. At dinner someone said, “I don’t think you should use race to teach history.” His response was that we already do. We teach WHITE history, we just don’t call it that.
This is what I’m having trouble understanding.
A racist example might be “That black man just cut in front of me in line!”
I don’t consider this statement racist as it is on it’s own. I see the word ‘black’ as just another word to identify the line-jumper. I think the racism is created when the assumption is made that color is inherently associated with line-jumping.
I think that poemless and rumi just perfectly summarized how I see all of this. Its the CONTEXT and its the racist intention that goes with it. So thanks to the two of you.
I think these kinds of conversations are really important to have. So thanks to SallyCat for bringing it up. Our words do matter – but I think the context and the intention do too.
We have a very diverse group of people at my job and we’ve had the beginnings of some conversation about things like this. And I am convinced that there are no right answers – but relationships and conversation. For example, I am white and have talked with a black woman (see – here’s and example where its helpful) who finds the use of the term “African American” offensive. And there are others who prefer it. What this teaches me is that you can’t always be “right” for everyones sensibilities. But you can listen to peoples feelings/opinions and learn.
Why does it matter that the line jumper is black? Isn’t it enough to say that some guy cut in front of me? What is being implied by bringing into the discussion the “race” of the person doing the act?
If that’s the case, why did you identify the person (line jumper) as black? I assumed it was a necessary qualifier to identify the person in a group of people or it wouldn’t have been used.
Even in that case, if it had been a white guy, do you really think a white person would have said “A white guy jumped ahead of me in line”? When race or sex or religion is used when in cases where it has no purpose, what we are pointing out that the person is something other “normal.” I don’t think this kind of language use is necessarily a indication of bigotry (we’d have to know the underlying attitudes to figure that out) but it does support it by acquiescing to the idea of otherness.
As long as people point out this usage with good will and civility and it is taken in the same way, we will all gain by having this type of language eradicated. Language can cause changes in attitude as well as follow them.
People use those identifiers all the time, perhaps to reinforce the otherness of the person being discussed. Let’s take race of of this for a second.
Example – “Sorry, I’m late, I got caught behind some old guy going about 20 miles under the speed limit.”
This reinforces a negative stereotype. My father is almost 70 and drives the speed limit or higher and if you’ve ever been to Orlando, the traffic is crazy, so not all elderly people drive excessively slow.
A less offensive, less stereotypical way to say it might be “Sorry I’m late. I got caught behind some really slow traffic.”
I have these 2 replies in the wrong parent here.
It doesn’t really matter though because I understand the perspectives of all the posts and I don’t want to cause any major disruption. My posts here were an effort to highlight a danger of hypersensitivity when dealing with these reactions.
I think an equal amount of responsibility for the reaction should be taken by the one reacting. As it was said earlier that if one defends an objectionable remark maybe that person should examine their own prejudices. I think that applies both ways and should be done by those who may be offended too easily.
At any rate it prompted another rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I have no problem with anyone here and I respect opinions that disagree with mine. I enjoy the exchange of ideas and I hope I didn’t offend anyone here.
Thanks to all that participated in this dialogue today.
It has been thoughtful and thought provoking all day.
Something my husband said last night stuck with me today as I read each comment. He said basically “The written word is all you have on a blog so the words matter. If we were face to face we would have body language and facial expressions to help express what we want to say.”
Perhaps we’ll all consider what our words say or how we read others words in the future. Words, here on the blogs, are all we have.
Agreed. thanks, and I think there was a group hug of sorts in there somewhere. Those are my favorite.
Can we go destroy The New World Order now?
I think you are dead on, Sally, both here and in your original comment in last night’s diary. Designators of race, gender, class, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, when they are used to indicate that the person being described differs from the (white, straight, male, middle-class, mentally and physically able) norm, work to reinforce that norm.
In other words, using these terms, in this way, reinforces the status quo. I had not thought this would be a controversial proposition among progressives. However, I just read last night’s diary and comments, and clearly you touched some nerves. Thank you for pursuing the topic in your diary today.
An anecdote, to close with: When my son was around 10, one of our favourite TV shows was the comedy improv show Whose Line Is It Anyway?. There was a rotating cast of comics — one of our favourites was Wayne Brady, who is black.
When we were watching the show one night, he said to me, “Mum, do you notice how, when people want to know if Wayne is going to be on the show, they say, who’s on tonight, is it the black guy? Nobody ever says, is the white guy on?”
At the age of 10, my son, who is Indo-Fijian, noticed how racial designators create normative meanings. I hope we can all do the same — and keep dialoguing about it.
I don’t want to misunderstand because I agree this is important dialogue.
When your 10 yr old asked that, it was just the fastest way to ask if Wayne was on the show that night, correct?
Um … no, if I understand your question, which I’m not sure I do. My son was sharing with me his observation that other people referred to Wayne Brady as “the black guy”, but never referred to any of the other guys on the show (all white) as “the white guy.”
In other words, a person’s race was only mentioned when that person was not white.
Just for clarification,
I’m a fan of the show and I think Wayne was one of a very few non-white actors, if not the only one. In my opinion he was definitely the funniest and could have easily been identified as the guy who can sing the best.
The show had a consistent panel of 4 actors and almost always had only one nonwhite person on it. To identify the one of them who is probably unique by color is not racism but efficiency in conversation.
I could be wrong but it’s my experience that people who are black proudly identify with that part of their individuality.
Back to WLIIA, do you like the person that does the weather report?
It hasn’t aired here in quite a while, so I haven’t seen it for some time. Can’t remember the weather report person, but we both really liked all the regular comics on the show — especially Wayne.