meshair

Every time I hear this kind of thing, I'm reminded of this (quoted from Mismeasure of Man): "They devour half-putrified carrion. They are given to orgies, love a noise, and make a great outcry in the markets. They murder in cold blood in order to rob, and were formerly suspected of cannibalism.…" But it's not all bad news, because, "It is to be noted that this race, so low morally and so incapable of cultural and intellectual development, a race that can never carry on any industry , and which in poetry has not got beyond the poorest lyrics, has created in Hungary a marvelous musical art— a new proof of the genius that, mixed with atavism, is to be found in the criminal..." (Lombroso, 1911) I personally feel that the "black people are cool" stuff is just a modern version of that; America has a long list of vicious steretypes about non-whites, and adding "but they sure can dance!" to the end of that list doesn't make it any better.

Well, I'm not the one who originated the idea that a group that is constantly hurt by racism are going to be hurt more by racial slurs then the people who aren't; I don't know who first put that on paper, or whether it was "for" them to do so, but I certainly agree. It's not like I don't understand where AmPaul's coming from; I don't enjoy being insulted. But I also think that you give up some of your right to be offended when you participate in the dialogue. "I'll talk with you about how my race has systematically oppressed yours for centuries, and how I'm still benefitting from it, while you're still suffering from it, but only if you agree not to be mean about it?" If AmPaul thinks that I've been rude, I'm perfectly willing to apologize--in fact, I do apologize. I've spent the conversation being smug and dismissive, and it was uncalled for; it's not like "People should be nice to each other" is a position I disagree with. I just think that if anyone's not going to live up to that ideal, it matters a heck of a lot less when that person isn't the one in power.

You didn't answer my question. Possibly because the answer is obviously "No, white people as a group are not hurt by this stuff." AndrewT obviously isn't any spokesperson, but you can go to the NAACP, or GLAAD, or a thousand other actual civil rights groups and be told that yes, they are offended by such-and-such. You have apparently decided that white people are being hurt by ... something ... and as a white person I'm not, and frankly, I don't want to take racial responsibility for your ridiculously thin skin.

Do you think "white people," as a group, are hurt by, for example, saying that white people can't dance? I know I'm not, and if nobody elected me as the grand spokesperson for white people, nobody elected you either.

So who gets to decide what a word "really" means, anyway? Is there some kind of ruling council? Because most words have more than one definition, and you can use context to decide what the person means...

Every ep with this guest makes me uncomfortable. Really an unappealing person.

Wasn't the Onion Tweet satire? They took the rampant sexism that people display towards female celebrities and showcased how gross it was by directing it towards a kid. At least, that's what I assumed they were doing.

I can see why Andrew didn't want to provide ammunition for the type of people Shariq Torres is talking about, but I don't really feel that "white people started racism!" is much of an answer to the question posed.

American attitudes towards race are gross and depressing, but it is possible to overstate things.

Agree. In particular, her accusation of sexism really ought to have been addressed. Pretty much everyone in the world has some amount of agency, but that doesn't mean that people can't be exploited due to one-sided power dynamics. I wonder if she'd be willing to make the same argument where the dynamics are more explicit; e.g. would she defend a teacher hitting on his student because the student has agency?

pfchangs nailed it; fetishizing other races is certainly a form of racism, but I think Andrew dropped the ball when he tried to frame this debate in those terms.

The answer is either "obviously yes" or "obviously no" depending on how you define racism*. But the basic idea behind what she was saying--that being called a honkey that one time, or being told that white guys can't dance, is profoundly different from living under a system of wide-spread, institutionalized bigotry--is worth remembering. * Trying to decide on the "correct" definition of racism seems misguided to me. Words have more than one meaning because they're used in more than one way; that's how language works.

Where did you dredge this guy up from? Jesus Christ.