Facebook comments I am not currently writing.

[matt_doyle]

Pointing out racism is not "race-baiting."  The problem of racism will not go away if we all stop seeing race.  How many of your problems go away when people ignore them?

Let's break down a simple, straightforward example of how "colorblindness" perpetuates racism, rather than helping to solve it.  Charge a black man and a white man with the same crime.  Put them both in court.  Prosecute them with the same degree of evidence.  The black man is more likely to be convicted than the white man.  But let's say they're both convicted.  Sentence them.  Statistically speaking, the black man will receive a harsher sentence for the same kind of crime carried out under the same conditions.

Does this make the judge and jury racist?  Depends on what you mean by the word.  If you mean, do they hate minorities, do they think of other groups of people as subhuman, are they consciously trying to oppress and disenfranchise people of different colors?  No.  Or at least, most of them aren't.  But just like a drink doesn't make you an alcoholic, you can commit racist actions, have racist thoughts, without being a racist in that sense.

Let's look at why.  Why are we more suspicious of black people than white people?  Why do we treat minorities worse when they are accused of the same acts with the same evidence against them?  For most people, rather than conscious bias, it's a subconscious thing.  We know that there are more black people in prison than white people.  Black people and white people alike report that black people seem more threatening and more suspicious to them, on average (maybe because more of them are convicts?  It's a vicious cycle).

But that's exactly why colorblindness hurts people.  If you don't think about and process the reactions you're having, you're never going to realize the source of this bias.  If you truly do not see color, then you are more likely to perpetuate the cycle of systemic and institutional racism without examining the cause of your actions or working to come to a balanced, rational conclusion.  You won't realize why you find the defendant more dangerous than his paler co-defendant.  You won't be able to stop it.

Which is why, when someone accuses someone else of race-baiting, or says someone played the race card, my default response is just to say "bullshit."  Because it is bullshit.  And you can only explain it so many times before it makes you too mad to have a useful conversation.

Thoughts?

Comments

[purgatory]

More of a question based on your postings on racism and sexism. A lot of people say that being male makes one inherently sexist, and being white makes one inherently racist. That there's simply no way to get around it. No matter your alliances, you still feed into the systematic oppression of women and people of color.

So, as a white male, what do you feel about that thought?

[matt_doyle]

Well, it really depends on how the words racist and sexist are being used. If they mean, as it looks like you're saying, that as a white man I'm part of a system where it is beneficial to be white and male, and the favorable assumptions that people have about white males will grant me benefits that people who are not white males will not receive -- yes. I can be confident of my opinions without being called bitchy. I can be visibly poor in public places without people treating me like a threat or a pariah (or at least, I usually can. There are always degrees).

It means I am programmed with assumptions about the way the world works that favor people like me, and discriminate against those not like me. I can do my best not to take advantage of that, or to use those advantages in ways that benefit those who lack them -- but it's my choice. I can ignore or contribute to sexist and racist behaviors in a way that a person directly subject to those biases is going to have a tougher time doing.

The question is, is calling me sexist and racist in this way automatically a value judgment? I don't think so. It just denotes the state of being I am subject to. Calling someone rich doesn't mean you're condemning them for it, and in most antiracist activism circles (most!), mentioning privilege and systemic sexism and racism isn't meant as a slam. It's an acknowledgement of the inequity of the situation.

Someone who says that because I am a white male I must not think much of women and minorities and I enjoy acting better than them, on the other hand? That person would be flat out wrong. And generally, when a white dude is called sexist and racist, that's the accusation he hears, whatever was meant by it.

[purgatory]

A few of these miss the point of what I was asking, so I'm going to hone in on more of what I was inquiring. Because I see a lot of this, so pardon my hyperfocusing.

When you posted above saying that people who are white--a judge, a jury--who immediately give harsher judgement to a black defendant than they would a white defendant, that it doesn't make them blatantly racist, but they are still performing racist actions.

In this statement, we are declaring that these judges and juries, because they are white, are inherently inclined to be harsher towards people of color. So, it would have to apply to all of us white people, and extend to men, rich individuals or straight people, when looking to their polar opposites.

So, in the statement, "being a white male makes you inherently racist and sexist", it's not an accusation, right? It's simply a statement on what is because of what you are.

But if as a white person, you're not racist, then we can't extend that same thing to white individuals, right? Especially since people of color are also judges, police, jury, and tend to be found with the same bigotry (since we cannot call it racism when it's about a person of color in regards to another).

It's akin to men. Are all men inherently sexist in their behaviors, not just the benefits they accept from society? Or do we only consider them sexist on the benefits and accept they are not sexist when they speak over women, or try to slutshame us?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying you're racist, but I see this a lot, and you post a lot about desiring discussion on this, so I hope you understand!

[matt_doyle]

I'm sorry, is there another way you can phrase this? I'm in no way offended, but I'm afraid that I'm not understanding -- I've re-read this comment three times and I'm not sure what you're asking or what point you are making, so I can't really answer.

[purgatory]

I'm saying that you're stating that people are inherent in their actions as what they are (color, in the case of your original post), and not what they are given or what they benefit from, and that this is final. But you've come around again and said there are multiple ways to look at it, when asked for you to reflect on your own role in the world. You've basically said you're not racist in the same ways you've said the hyperbolic judge and jury are.

I inherently benefit as a white person, but suffer as a female. I am inherently racist in some ways, and despite actively doing what I can to keep myself in check, I am what I am. Sure, I don't think I'm actively racist! But I'm white, and therefore there are no multiple definitions when we look at it from the current social justice movement perspective.

[matt_doyle]

I am pretty sure that is not what I said. I said we are born into a social system which gives us certain advantages and disadvantages, and programs certain perspectives into all of us. I *am* racist in the same what that judge and jury are (and incidentally, a black jury and a white jury, as noted, BOTH show prejudice against black people). If the jury is COLORBLIND, that is, they believe the appropriate solution to discrimination is ignoring it, then they are perpetuating the system in a way I am not. This may change the social programming, but it doesn't stop me from accruing the benefits of my whiteness.

Er, basically, I don't dispute your argument; I dispute your summary and/or understanding of what I said.

Yes, there are multiple ways to look at it.

there are no multiple definitions when we look at it from the current social justice movement perspective

Er, social justice people argue these points all the time with one another, so I'm afraid I have to dispute that as well.

Addrssing what I think you're saying there (and I may be wrong, please correct me if so) I think the disparity is that the prevailing perspective taken by the social justice movement is NOT the prevailing perspective taken by the rest of society, and therefore (as I said!) when a social justice activist accuses someone of racism, the accusation they are making and the accusation the other person is hearing often do not match up. But I already made that point above, so I'm still not sure where you're going with this.