Asymmetrical Information

I don't know, if we say that certain categories of racial/ethnic insults are worse than others, we've got to make difficult decisions as to what groups are more deserving of protection than others. What about anti-Semitic remarks? Jews are fairly successful in America but have a terrible history of persecution. Or anti-Asian remarks? Asian do generally okay in America, don't have too bad a history of persecution, yet are a highly distinctive racial group. Or to make things even more complicated, what about racial insults delivered by people of one minority group against a different minority group?

It's easier and more sensible to say that all racial/ethnic insults are equally bad.

It's easier and more sensible to say that all racial/ethnic insults are equally bad.

Who ever said solutions to hard problems were going to be easy?

There's a double standard for whites and blacks in our culture regarding racial epithets. As there should be. A black man calling a white man "cracker" is not nearly so bad as a white man calling a black man "nigger". That doesn't mean endorsing the use of the former epithet, or liking the people who use it. There should be cultural opprobrium for both. But there should be much more cultural opprobrium for the latter, because it is a symptom of a cultural sickness that needs to be stamped out not just for social comity, but because justice demands it.

Why? It seems to me that there is a far greater problem with denigrating academic achievement and playing by the rules while glorifying the gangsta lifestyle than there is in institutional racism against blacks among whites. The latter may lead to an innocent black driver getting pulled over and questioned for a minor traffic offense that a white driver might get a pass on. The former leads to a 70% illegitimacy rate and an epidemic of black-on-black crime. Seems to me that that is the “cultural sickness” that “justice” and reason would be most concerned about.

Race in America is very, very complicated, and yes, black cultural attitudes towards academics are a huge problem. But there is solid evidence that, for example, "black" resumes are much less likely to get an interview than an identical "white" resume: being black is equivalent to having a prison conviction on your resume. At the very top levels, that may work in reverse, but for the enormous bulk of minorities, that's pretty strong evidence that it isn't just a matter of "Work hard and prove yourself and you'll have all the opportunities offered to a white person".

My guess would be that there are some family members, of people whose remains are mouldering in graves, who would disagree with the notion that the use of the term "cracker" was less harmful than the use of the term "nigger", when an associate of Al Sharpton (as Shaprton stood by and gave support with his silence) called for a "cracker" to be made to "suffer", for the crime of operating a clothing store in Harlem. Yes, on average, the use of the word "nigger" is more harmful, because, on average the target of such invective is more likely to lack the means to defend himself, be it physically or economically. When the use of the word "cracker", however, is specifically intended to dehumanize (as it nearly always is, just like "nigger"), in a setting in which violence bubbles just below the surface, invective cannot get any more harmful than that, no matter what consonant a word begins with.

I think the obvious inside/outside rule is gettng missed in the Imus discussion. People will normally say the worst things about members of their family, team, clique, or social group. Those same people close ranks when someone outside the family, team, or social group says the same thing.

Well, if Imus had made the vile remark about Maya Angelou (which, for all I know, he has at some time), he may have gotten away with it, because the target of his invective would have been a person well into her professional life with the means to defend herself. The notion of slandering very young adults who were playing basketball might have upped the ante on the response to the vile remarks.

an associate of Al Sharpton (as Shaprton stood by and gave support with his silence) called for a "cracker" to be made to "suffer", for the crime of operating a clothing store in Harlem

Inspired by those words, an arsonist set fire to the store and several young female Hispanic employees burned to death.

I think the obvious inside/outside rule is gettng missed in the Imus discussion. People will normally say the worst things about members of their family, team, clique, or social group. Those same people close ranks when someone outside the family, team, or social group says the same thing.

"...a system which considerable evidence shows is still rigged against people simply for the colour of their skin."

This is such nonsense. The system is thoroughly rigged in FAVOR of black people. School admissions, jobs, expectations, standards - everywhere, blacks are held to lower expectations, their faults are excused, they are given special treatment. They can indulge in rank racial discrimination and hypocrisy with impunity, while a single offhand comment can cost a white man his career.

And have you considered that the reason people might reject "black" resumes might be nothing other than long experience that blacks tend, on average, to be relatively unreliable and incompetant? As well as being walking tinderboxes of potential racism accusations and legal trouble? Have you considered that people might be making entirely rational decisions based on experience? That it might not be just pure, irrational racism, but an entirely rational attempt to avoid trouble? Blacks DO have a 70% illegitimacy rate. They DO have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. To say that our "system is rigged against people simply for the color of their skin" is just garbage. It is not the COLOR OF SKIN, it is the CONSISTENT HORSESH*T BEHAVIOR.

And have you considered that the reason people might reject "black" resumes might be nothing other than long experience that blacks tend, on average, to be relatively unreliable and incompetant? As well as being walking tinderboxes of potential racism accusations and legal trouble? Have you considered that people might be making entirely rational decisions based on experience? That it might not be just pure, irrational racism, but an entirely rational attempt to avoid trouble? Blacks DO have a 70% illegitimacy rate. They DO have a much higher rate of criminal behavior. To say that our "system is rigged against people simply for the color of their skin" is just garbage. It is not the COLOR OF SKIN, it is the CONSISTENT HORSESH*T BEHAVIOR.

This is very valuable. Because when I was recently dealing with an irruption of LGFers on my site, a couple of them trotted out the "You can't call us bigots for hating every single Muslim on the planet, because we're objecting to what Muslims do, not like those awful racists who hate people for what they are." My response to that, as borne out in the quoted paragraph, is that all bigots can and do NAME behavioral reasons for their prejudices.

When this thing first broke, my initial response was surprise that Don Imus was still on the air, since I no longer know anyone who listens to him. Once again I'm out of the loop. My second reaction was amazement that anyone is still taking Al "get your yarmulkes on tight" Sharpton seriously; he's one of the few public figures that is a proven liar. Proven in a court of law, mind you.

My third reaction was mild bemusement that in a culture where it seems that 10% of the vehicles driven by people under 30 are belching out "WHERE BE ALL MY BITCHES AND HO'S?" with the windows down, that somehow Imus is the only one to take any heat for calling black women whores.

Jane, did you read the piece by Malkin I posted on this yesterday? Do you have the guts to read the raps out loud, even in the privacy of your own dwelling? Or do you only find such language to be offensive when spoken by an aging shock-jock who is fading into history as I write this? Rap and hiphop are cesspools of hate: hate for women, hate for whites, hate for other blacks, hate for the police. The time is long past to talk about this in a serious manner, because what people listen to does affect their mental habits to some extent.

You breeze by the larger issue of the rap/hiphop/gangsta culture, as though it's somehow a given that this trash is acceptable to young black people, because, well, it just is. Are you saying that it's too much to expect young black men to act like adults, perhaps? Engaging in the bigotry of low expectations, as in "Oh, well, you know, we can't expect those people to live up to the same standards we apply to ourselves"? Because it sure looks that way. I hope I'm wrong.

Thorley,

A couple of questions regarding your first post.

Has there ever been institutionalized racism in America?

If so, has institutionalized racism played any role in the development of how one racial group views another?

My answer to both questions is an unqualified yes, though please don't extrapolate into any claims / counterclaims about affirmative action, personal responsibility, etc. However, I think it's too simple to say that because we don't have institutionalized racism in America today (which is also a debatable point) then institutionalized racism can be dismissed from the topic at hand.

Cheers,

I'm not with you on this one, Jane. Taboos against words only lead to their widespread, casual use. Look how well the taboo against swearing worked. Racial epithets will be the new swear words as long as they draw a reaction.

As far as I'm concerned, rappers using the N-word compares to New Englanders adopting the erstwhile slur, "yankee." The toxicity of the word is diffused rather than heightened.

Words are never the problem. The problem is the ill-will behind the words, where it exists, and the faux outrage where it doesn't.

ArtD0dger, the taboo against swearing worked pretty well until the 'do your own thing' era. Just like the rules against blowing smoke into people's faces, and a whole world of other cultural artifacts. We threw all that stuff away, and now can't figure out why civilization is a great deal more obnoxious, coarse, and engaged in a race-to-the-lowest-behavior. Imus is but one symptom of this decline in standards, the Anna Smith saga he's displaced from the headlines is another. Maybe this endless spiral into ordure doesn't bother you, because you've never known anything else?

You say "words are never the problem". How is that different from "words don't mean anything, except what is convenient to me"? Do you want to walk very far down that road?

Add me to the long list of people who strongly disagree with you on this point.

In my view, there should NOT be a different standard applied to people based on the color of their skin.

You think this double standard helps minorities. I strongly believe it hurts them.

We should aim for a color-blind melting pot of a society. We can be aware of our differences, and have pride in our cultures. But we should NOT apply a race-based sliding scale to our responses to any offenses. Wrong is wrong.

Going one step further, your mindset might even contribute to a "ghetto" mentality, isolating people from broader society based on minority status. That is the opposite of the goals you hope to achieve.

The problem wont go away, mostly because we cant even really talk about it. Anyone that says anything other then 'its whiteys fault' gets pilloried by people like jim. The result being, its easier to just avoid them whenever possible, while the inner city 'culture' gets progressively more self destructive.

there is solid evidence that, for example, "black" resumes are much less likely to get an interview than an identical "white" resume:

So you’re telling us that employers were getting two identical resumes but with different names at the top? Or that the researchers sent out two resumes that they thought were similarly qualified but then determined that if an employer called back one but not the other, it must have been because of the perceived ethnicity of the name? Instead of for other reasons such as there may have been differences in the qualifications in the similar resumes that mattered to the employers. Or because many HR people spend about 60 seconds in initially looking at a resume and there may have been differences in how they were written that attracted the attention of the person who did the initial review. Or because callbacks were done on a rolling basis until they found a qualified applicant. Or for any other number of reasons that a serious job seeker could tell you affects whether you get a call back or not and are nearly impossible to control (let alone hold constant).

For anyone whose interested, I’d suggest reading “The Causes and Consequences of Distinctly Black Names” (click on my name for the PDF) by professors Fryer and Levitt who challenged the “phony resume” studies and found in the aggregate that over a person’s life the ethnicity of their name really didn’t have a negative effect whereas things like being born and raised in a single parent household did.

Well, here's how I'm feeling about the whole subject. There's no denying that there is a double standard in this country held up for whites and blacks. And there is no doubt also that both whites and black primarily play into our steriotypes without much fuss about it. But what I feel we really need to consider is just the individual. I mean of course there is a large problem with not dealing with a majority of a group. But look it's an ideal it's probably a very tedius and difficult solution but what? Is there and solution other than asking ourselves to focus on indivudual charecter? I think not.

ellipsis, I have no problem with the 'do your own thing' era that does not fall into the ‘and be sheltered from the consequences’ clause which you seem to find too unimportant to distinguish. And yes, this “endless spiral into ordure” that has you so worked up does not weigh particularly heavily on my mind.

Your last question flabbergasts me. My point is that it is precisely what is meant by the users of words that is important, and not what I or others may wish to impute to them.

In general, I don't like double standards. And I think the Imus thing is a tempest in a teapot. The guy is a blowhard who says stuff to get a reaction. He spouts offensive crap because, frankly, that's what he's got.

But white racism has a lot more potential for damage than black racism (no more inherent evil, just more ability to do harm), because in this society, whites have a lot more power than blacks. It's the same reason we get a lot more worried about repression and moves toward single-party rule in Russia than in Uzbekistan.

The resume experiment doesn't tell you about racism, quite. It tells you about what information someone gleans, consciously or not, from names. Is it that you'd rather hire Jane than Latika because you're a racist, or because you suspect the names are carrying some additional information about their upbringing, likely personality, likely actions on the job, etc.? And it involves a situation where the person reviewing resumes is, frankly, likely to be looking for reasons to throw them out, so he can winnow the candidates down to a manageable set. I'm a bit skeptical of an attempt to infer a lot about the day-to-day impact of racism from that. (Though you should probably give your child a fairly normal-sounding name to make his life easier.)

whites have a lot more power than blacks.

I hate this kind of sloppy language and the sloppy thinking that underlies it. People with lots of power are disproportionately white. This does not translate into anything useful for white janitors, coal miners, or prison inmates.

There was good reason to be worked up about (the appearance of) racism by Trent Lott not because he was white, but because he was in a position of considerable power. Similarly, to the extent that Al Sharpton has power--and he does have some--racism on his part should worry us.

On the other hand, I don't worry too much about racism amoung drunken bums of any color.

"White people" don't have power. Certain specific people, most of whom are white, have power. Racism by those in power regardless of color is a problem; racism by the powerless is not.

It was double standards that got the US into its present state of racial doubletalk, and now Jane gives us more doubletalk indicating that double standards are okay because of that past?

Garbage. Either a word is offensive on its own connotations, or it isn't. If it is, then it shouldn't matter whose mouth it comes out of; the party in question should be shamed and shunned. If a group of people are, instead, permitted to use demeaning and offensive words to describe people of their own race, and yet other races are regarded as having broken the eleventh commandment when reciprocating, then what we have is a very destructive tribalism at work. The tribe clings together even while the tribe is trying to destroy itself.

About three weeks ago, the Daily Show had a segment in which "Senior Black Correspondent" Larry Wilmore and "Senior British Correspondent" John Oliver went out with camera crews; Wilmore would openly confront people with the "enn- word" and ask them what they thought about it, while Oliver would delicately ask people what they thought about it without actually saying it. Though no doubt cherrypicked, the results defied parody, and were a terse summary of how ridiculous the debate has become.

A-M

In fairness, in-group/out-group distinctions seem unproblematic to me. I call myself a "gun nut," but I consider it offensive from other people. I know or have known Jews, blacks, gays, rural southerners etc. who use epithets for themselves which would be unacceptable coming from outside their group. I don't think that is really a problem.

The problem is when one group gets to be genuinly discriminatory/offensive to other groups by virtue of being a "minority," i.e. blacks can call whites names but not the reverse.

It really isn't double speak - Imus is still free to write and publish what he wants, just as any gansta rapper is. MSNBC and CBS just won't pay him to do it anymore, just like they don't pay rappers who say outrageous things.

ArtD0dger wrote:
ellipsis, I have no problem with the 'do your own thing' era that does not fall into the ‘and be sheltered from the consequences’ clause which you seem to find too unimportant to distinguish.

I don't bother to distinguish that clause because it doesn't apply, and never did apply. The "do your own thing" generation always demanded free clinics for the VD they passed around, free methadone for the heroin they bought, and so forth. There was always "and be sheltered, protected, rescued from the consequences no matter the cost", and that continues to this very day.

The result is an endless spiral of laws and regulations. Once we had a code for smokers, when and where they could light up. Then 'do your own thing' came along, and we got people blowing smoke into other people's faces in elevators, restaurants, etc. which led in time to laws that criminalize such behavior. 50 years ago a man blowing cigar smoke into the next booth was a boor; he'd either be asked to leave, or punched in the snoot, depending on the restaurant. Now we are supposed to call the cops. Are we better off?

And yes, this “endless spiral into ordure” that has you so worked up does not weigh particularly heavily on my mind.

Great. Got any children? I'm guessing you don't.

Your last question flabbergasts me. My point is that it is precisely what is meant by the users of words that is important, and not what I or others may wish to impute to them.

Cool. Signed any contracts lately? You may choose to impute the meaning "will pay when I feel like it" into the words "shall pay", but others (like judges) will choose to impute a meaning different than yours. And you will pay. Because words mean things, no matter how you may wish otherwise.

I don't bother to distinguish that clause because it doesn't apply, and never did apply. The "do your own thing" generation always demanded free clinics for the VD they passed around, free methadone for the heroin they bought, and so forth. There was always "and be sheltered, protected, rescued from the consequences no matter the cost", and that continues to this very day.

OT: but last night on the Simpsons, they replayed “Marge vs Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens and Gays,” the episode where there was a movement to get rid of all of the “child friendly” things in town because the childless people were sick of having to pay for other people’s children. There was a great line where Homer said “this is so unfair, we never would have had all of these children if we knew we’d have to pay for them ourselves!”

Rob,

Fair enough. White ethnic politics are potentially scary because a white ethnic political movement could gather an enormous level of power. We can pretty much see how much power black ethnic political movements gather, and it's not the same.

Again, I'm not saying it's different morally. Black ethnic identity politics and white ethnic identity politics are morally indistinguishable. But the consequences aren't the same, in the same way that rising militarism in Japan just has a different sort of likely impact than rising militarism in Uruguay.

You know something, ellipsis, it's quite amusing to see you lecture on the inviolate meaning of words even while you freely ascribe your own feverishly detached meanings to mine.

You know, ArtD0dger, words mean things. Let's revisit the only point that you seem to have:

My point is that it is precisely what is meant by the users of words that is important, and not what I or others may wish to impute to them.

So if someone stands outside your door at midnight screaming "I'M GOING TO KILL ARTD0DGER NOW!", you wouldn't call the cops or otherwise take any measures to protect or defend yourself, because the meaning you or someone else might want to impute to those words is of utterly no importantance. Right?

In fairness, in-group/out-group distinctions seem unproblematic to me. I call myself a "gun nut," but I consider it offensive from other people. I know or have known Jews, blacks, gays, rural southerners etc. who use epithets for themselves which would be unacceptable coming from outside their group. I don't think that is really a problem.

That excuses blacks calling blacks "nigger". It certainly does not excuse black men who use the words "bitch" and "ho", to the almost complete exclusion of all other words for women.

As for power: Perhaps the average black man has less power than the average white man, but Al Sharpton has more power than Jane Galt and all her regular readers put together - and he has repeatedly used it to hurt people. He slandered policemen and a prosecutor in the Tawanda Brawley case, and has neither apologized nor paid the judgement that a court levied against him. He helped cost the Duke boys hundreds of thousands in legal fees and get them kicked out of college, on a complete lack of credible evidence. Some of his rants have been followed by riots in which people died.

Imus's bad joke didn't hurt anyone. He should be off the air, but people should have stopped listening to Sharpton or reporting anything he says a long time ago.

There is no excuse for a double standard in a society that claims to support equality before the law.

This is exactly where the entire controversy around Bernard Goetz went wrong. If you give someone an existential excuse to respect or disrespect an idea with the implication that excuse is not universal, then you sow the seeds of destruction of a civil society.

Here's another example of where "do your own thing, it's my life, you're not the boss of me" has gotten us, ArtD0dger.

CDC alarmed at rise of drug-resistant gonorrhea

At the rate we are running out of antibiotics, in about 10 years or less there won't be any way to cure new cases of the clap. I hope that isn't the case, but the pipeline is empty right now and new antibiotics aren't discovered overnight. Suppose the worst case, what do you suggest we do at that time?

Ah, ellipsis, so now I am expounding in favor of drug-resistant gonorrhea. I must admit that I am awe-struck by your incisive postmodern deconstruction of my hegemonic meta-perceptual textual narrative.

You keep using words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Fine, what about a white man calling a black man "chocko"?

No racial history for the word, just a randomly assigned swear word for a subclass of a race.

Tell me it's okay. Or tell me it's not. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

If anyone gets fired for using a word, then everyone ought to have to drink from the same kool-aid.

In fairness, in-group/out-group distinctions seem unproblematic to me. I call myself a "gun nut," but I consider it offensive from other people. I know or have known Jews, blacks, gays, rural southerners etc. who use epithets for themselves which would be unacceptable coming from outside their group. I don't think that is really a problem.

The problem here is, it isn't just occurring among a group of the like-minded shooting pool in the back room (although it is sometimes used in that fashion). Instead, it's mainstream and is part of a broader subculture of derogatory hate.

White ethnic politics are potentially scary because a white ethnic political movement could gather an enormous level of power.

Well, I certainly agree with that. But the best way to head off a scary white ethnic political movement is to insist on colorblindness. White people as a whole are not likely to agree on nearly enough to unite, but if you start applying racial/ethnic double standards that disadvantage them--even if the disadvantage seems silly compared to, say, slavery--you give them something to get motivated about.

Which means that if you're really worried about "white power," the best thing to do is NOT make excuses for "black power" or "La Raza" or CAIR, but to hold them to the same standards you hold white people.

So if someone stands outside your door at midnight screaming "I'M GOING TO KILL ARTD0DGER NOW!", you wouldn't call the cops or otherwise take any measures to protect or defend yourself, because the meaning you or someone else might want to impute to those words is of utterly no importantance. Right?

Ellipsis-
It seemed like dodger's original comment was about the criteria for when a statement should be considered offensive. Is a word offensive if it was spoken with an intent to disrespect someone? Or is it offensive when the listener feels offended.

He was not, unless I misread him terribly, saying that words have whatever semantic connotations that we want them to have.

ArtD0dger wrote:
Ah, ellipsis, so now I am expounding in favor of drug-resistant gonorrhea.

Are you? That is certainly news to me. Perhaps you are merely confused?

I must admit that I am awe-struck by your incisive postmodern deconstruction of my hegemonic meta-perceptual textual narrative.

Good.

You keep using words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Yes, I keep using words. You appear to be confused. So what?

Reading about the race wars between whites and blacks has always amused me greatly. But then, I'm a member of a minority group that isn't routinely in the news or grabbing headlines or playing racial politics.

Does racism still exist in modern America? Don't be stupid. Of course it does. So what?

I have skills and abilities to offer, and if someone can't see past the color of my skin to find it valuable, I'll find someone else who can.

It would be easier for me to point fingers and say "those people aren't giving me what I think I deserve for what I have to offer, so I'm just going to give up and live a life of crime because there's a hidden system of institutionalism oppressing me!" -- but that would be lazy of me, no?

You deal with the individuals you meet. Trying to deal with an entire group of people like an individual just leads to racist politics. Sure, statistically ethnic group A may exibit trait B, but this person sitting in front of me is not representative of their entire race, nor should I hold them responsible for the actions of what someone who happens to look like him has done.

Basing policy upon the color of one's skin reinforces racism. Every time. Basing policy upon non-hereditary factors -- that treats you the same regardless of the color of your skin -- does not. Poor white folks should be just as eligible for scholarships as poor black folks.

Yes, there was institutionalized slavery. Yes, it was horrible. Yes, policies were put into place to try to rectify that great wrong.

Look how well they've worked.

Ellipsis-
It seemed like dodger's original comment was about the criteria for when a statement should be considered offensive. Is a word offensive if it was spoken with an intent to disrespect someone? Or is it offensive when the listener feels offended.

Well, ok, let's take that and noodle it a bit...

Suppose we have a couple of people, persons C and D, who are in luv. In fact, they are in wuv, and have their own cutsey-poo language that has evolved between them. This being the naughts, naturally their personal symbology has an edge; because person C said to person D while in the throes of passion one night "Oh, snugglebunny, you're killing me!" they got in the habit of using the word "kill" to mean "love", in both the carnal and companionate sense. Thus they say things like "Oh, snookums, you just kill me!" and "I do kill you, don't I"?

One fine day they are in the rope line waiting to shake the hand of the President of the United States, and express to each other how much they love POTUS and wish to express that love for him, using their own private code words...

Seems to me that ArtD0dger would insist right about now that all that matters is what they mean to each other when they use the words "kill" and "President" in close proximity and any meaning that any other person wishes to assign to those words isn't relevant. Unfortunately, the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals in the Secret Service would disagree, since they operate from the old, pre-modern, non-Foucaultian, extremely-un-deconstructed premise that "Words Mean Things".

So we are back to my original point...

He was not, unless I misread him terribly, saying that words have whatever semantic connotations that we want them to have.

Eh? That's pretty much the only way I find to read him. Not being a postmodernist, I could be wrong...

(Postmodernists are never wrong, they sometimes appear that way because everyone else doesn't understand what they are saying...)

Comments are Closed.