Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Ocelot]

I'm sure you can imagine easily enough how "Don't be so niggardly," said to a black person just so, can be a deliberate attempt to bait them. I have seen this done. So sure, sitting by itself in the dictionary the word is not racist, and most uses of the word are not racist, but it's sure funny how every time discussions about racism and interpretations thereof come up, someone will haul that one out as some sort of challenge, like if you flinch upon hearing it then haw haw, you don't know your etymology. When seeing people flinch is the point.

Amanda, If someone is attempting to demonstrate that "thing A" exists and you disagree, then in order to convince that someone you're right you have to actually talk about "thing A". Pointing to "thing B" and saying "look over there" doesn't work.

 

[Amadanb]

Forgive if I'm wrong as nuance is difficult in a written medium, but are you underhandedly accusing me of something? It sure looks like you are what with the "gee whizz, every time this comes up people push the envelope" talk there. Do you think I'm a racist looking for a way to get around using the actual N word?

No, I don't think that. What I think is that the "niggardly" argument is a tired one (kind of like the "How come black people can call each other ****** but I can't?") that uses an attempt at rhetorical cleverness to assert that racism cannot exist without intent. And the subtext of such arguments is that people who perceive racism (as with the black delivery man anecdote) are being overly sensitive/insufficiently critical thinkers.

I mean, if the real question were "Is the word niggardly racist?" then the obvious answer is to look in the dictionary and say no.

So, your specific question:

If I say "don't be so niggardly" to a black person and they think it's a racist word, am I being (unwittingly) racist?

Assuming you did so without malicious intent (and I'd consider it malicious to use the word anticipating that they might react badly and being "curious" what will happen - and no, I am not saying you would do that), then no, you weren't being racist. But at the same time, if they do think it's a racist word, that wouldn't necessarily make them overly sensitive or ignorant either. Previous experience (for example, with people deliberately using the word to bait them), as with the black deliveryman, might give them less reason to be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think whether or not a "thing" is racist is a binary proposition. And that's kind of the point - social circumstances can shape whether an event has racist implications, independently of etymology or intent.

 

[Ocelot]

And the subtext of such arguments is that people who perceive racism (as with the black delivery man anecdote) are being overly sensitive/insufficiently critical thinkers.

Could you explain how you're getting that subtext

Now, they sorted it out and shook hands but had they not, had the delivery guy not made a big deal out of it (either because he didn't feel like getting into an argument, or because he didn't have the confidence to make an issue of it) that delivery guy would have gone away thinking that he'd just experienced a shocking example of racism. And perhaps there's a case to be made that my friend should have thought of the potential implications of what he was about to say (although, ironically, that would have involved thinking of the delivery guy's race as his primary characteristic, which I'd say was one of the defining characteristics of racism), but I don't think that you can say that what he said was actually racist. Certainly not in intent.

But how many times do people generally believe that they've experienced some form of prejudice when they actually haven't? This is not to belittle or discount the experiences of those people, or indeed to claim that prejudices don't exist and aren't a huge problem, but just to point out that our experiences of reality aren't necessarily an accurate representation of reality and that they therefore should always be approached with a degree of scepticism, and empirical data should always be preferred, if such a thing is possible.

It would have been legitimate for the delivery guy to feel like he'd just encountered racism. That doesn't mean that he did.

 

[Dissolution]

A better example might be a cultural misunderstanding.
The whole fried chicken and watermelon stereotype seems to be something that's largely foreign to those who aren't familiar with the US.
I can see someone being offended by the offer of some without any racism being involved on the part of those making that offer.

"Fancy something to eat? How about some fried chicken? I think we've got some watermelon too, if you're still hungry later."

 

[qwints]

Yes I can. How is that relevant to what I was asking?

Let's review the conversation -

Squeegee: Is the word 'niggardly' racist?
qwints: It's not a racial slur, but it can function that way
Mark Corrigan: How?
Several people explain how it can function as a racist slur
Mark Corrigan: That's not what I was asking.

You asked me to explain my point, which Squeegee and amadan understood. When they and I do, you say the explanation of my point is not relevant to what you were asking. I'm confused.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I didn't just ask how though, did I?

ETA: Thank you AmadanB. That's what I was wanting to know, and you answered clearly.

 

[Fizil]

Let's review the conversation -

Squeegee: Is the word 'niggardly' racist?
qwints: It's not a racial slur, but it can function that way
Mark Corrigan: How?
Several people explain how it can function as a racist slur
Mark Corrigan: That's not what I was asking.

You asked me to explain my point, which Squeegee and amadan understood. When they and I do, you say the explanation of my point is not relevant to what you were asking. I'm confused.

You are either not understanding what is being asked, or deliberately being obtuse about it. The question was never "how can the word 'niggardly' be used in a racist context?". It was "Is using the word 'niggardly' racist when there is no racist intent, but such an intent is inferred by the listener?"

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Those sound like feelings that, as far I can tell, pretty much everybody has. At the end of my work day, which involves talking all day, the last thing I want to do is go out and be social or be among crowds. I think of my season of 12 hour days, 7 days a week as "going to jail" for three months and pretty much announce I'm going incommunicado until it's over.

Yeah, that doesn't really describe my situation. For example, I've just had 2 weeks off. During that time I've only left my flat to buy food, and the only communication I've had with anybody at all (bar one phone call from my boss asking me if I could remember which flight case certain microphones had been packed into on the last job before I left) is on this message board and about twice when my avatar in an MMO waved at some random person. I was unemployed for a while and I noticed at one point that the only actual words I'd spoken to anybody other than my computer screen or television set in 4 whole months were saying "thank you" to various clerks when I'd been buying food and various sundries.

If it were possible, I'd ideally love to live alone on an island somewhere (a pretty big one with woods and a small mountain I could climb, but also with the internet and a cinema), and have food and supplies air dropped in, and never, ever see another human being again. Or, to put it another way, you know you get stories in which people wake up and the world is completely empty of people? You're supposed to find those stories spooky and unpleasant, yet I always think how nice that would be - just so long as the internet still existed, and they kept on making Doctor Who.

I really don't feel the need for company. I love my own space, and don't seek out others. I never have done, really, not even as a child. It's not that I don't get on with people, it's just that given the choice between being alone and being with someone else (purely in terms of company, not if there's work to be done and sharing the load will make it easier), I'll choose alone every time. When I say that I'm about as ungregarious as it's possible to get, I'm not exaggerating at all.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I don't think that. What I think is that the "niggardly" argument is a tired one (kind of like the "How come black people can call each other ****** but I can't?") that uses an attempt at rhetorical cleverness to assert that racism cannot exist without intent.

Well, let's be clear, here, as "niggardly" was my example. Now you're asserting that this is necessarily an argument that racism cannot exist without intent. However, if you'll read back over the last couple of pages you'll see that it was brought up in response to a specific opinion that qwints said he held - that if someone from an ethnic minority perceives there to be racism, then that necessarily means that there is racism. I chose that example because it's a real-world example that everybody is familiar with, and because the facts of the case(s) are unequivocal.

Furthermore, as you read back over the last couple of pages you'll see that I have already explicitly denied that I'm making the argument that racism cannot exist without intent. You'll also see another post in which I explicitly address the issue of intent with regards to "niggardly", citing the example of stressing the first two syllables before you did the same.

And the subtext of such arguments is that people who perceive racism (as with the black delivery man anecdote) are being overly sensitive/insufficiently critical thinkers.

Please, if you're unclear as to the subtext of anything I've written, ask for clarification rather than making up some random offensive crap and ascribing it to me.

I mean, if the real question were "Is the word niggardly racist?" then the obvious answer is to look in the dictionary and say no.

The real question, in context, was "is the word 'niggardly' racist when used innocuously yet someone mistakes its meaning and takes offence?" As far as I can tell from qwints' posts the answer must be "yes", but he has yet to answer that specific question.

Assuming you did so without malicious intent (and I'd consider it malicious to use the word anticipating that they might react badly and being "curious" what will happen - and no, I am not saying you would do that), then no, you weren't being racist. But at the same time, if they do think it's a racist word, that wouldn't necessarily make them overly sensitive or ignorant either. Previous experience (for example, with people deliberately using the word to bait them), as with the black deliveryman, might give them less reason to be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

Absolutely. As you describe it, though, wouldn't you say that it was a "false positive", as I initially posited? Had the delivery guy not confronted my friend about the situation and had instead gone home and told his family about the horrible racism he encountered at work, can you not see how, despite his feelings being completely legitimate, his feelings wouldn't be an accurate representation of the reality of the situation?

 

[Amadanb]

Absolutely. As you describe it, though, wouldn't you say that it was a "false positive", as I initially posited? Had the delivery guy not confronted my friend about the situation and had instead gone home and told his family about the horrible racism he encountered at work, can you not see how, despite his feelings being completely legitimate, his feelings wouldn't be an accurate representation of the reality of the situation?

Okay, bear with me: I have a theory. What we are really debating is whether "racism" is a behavior, or a phenomenon.

If it's a behavior, requiring that someone actually "do" something racist, even if (perhaps) inadvertently, then yes, the above situation would be a "false positive", as you put it - appears racist, but isn't.

I would say that those who are saying that racism occurs when someone perceives there to be racism directed against them, are not so much arguing that someone can be racist even if they are acting completely innocently, but that our social context is such that someone can experience racism even in the absence of racist behavior. The black person told he should "come in through the back" - his initial reaction will be the same whether the statement was actually referring to his race or not, right? It will be informed by his place in society, his previous experiences, and he feels the way someone who's just been subjected to racism feels.

Now, that reaction may be mitigated upon further investigation and finding out what the intent actually was. But does that mean his reaction - "Holy ****, I've just experienced racism!" - was a "false positive"? Or that it will disappear (and no longer affect him) just because now he knows that this particular incident was not motivated by racism? I mean, if you told me (a white guy) that I was supposed to "come in through the back," I might be confused, but it wouldn't even occur to me that someone was being racist towards me.

Somewhere (I cannot remember where) I read a pretty good description of this phenomenon (by a black guy), in which he points out that a lot of black people go through this on a daily basis. Someone says something, looks at them in a certain way, edges away from them in an elevator, follows them in a store, a cop pulls them over, and of course they don't know what the other person is thinking, so they're always wondering: "Was that racism? Or am I just being paranoid?"

I am not saying that every time a minority thinks they've been subjected to racism that someone was being racist. But I can see how racism can be present even without a racist "actor."

 

[qwints]

The listener's perception is real, regardless of the speaker's intent. Whether it's someone who's using a word that predates the slur it sounds like or someone who mentions an offensive stereotype they're unaware of doesn't change the listener's experience. It should inform the response, as inadvertent offense is a different kind of thing than intentional offense, but the offense is still real and still justified.

Compare John McWhorter's analysis of "tar baby^WP" with a blogger's take on it. Although they disagree on the obviousness of racial implications, both agree that the white speaker who was referring to a black person has caused offense and should apologize. You can offend someone even if you don't mean to - that's a racist effect without racist intent.

As applied to the use of the word "niggardly," if a white person uses the word with no ill intent and a black person is offended, all I'm saying is that the offense really exists regardless of the speakers intent. I'm labeling that offense a racist effect, which may b confusing the situation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Okay, bear with me: I have a theory. What we are really debating is whether "racism" is a behavior, or a phenomenon.

I'm not. I believe that it can be either or both, depending on context.

If it's a behavior, requiring that someone actually "do" something racist, even if (perhaps) inadvertently, then yes, the above situation would be a "false positive", as you put it - appears racist, but isn't.

Okay. So, to go back to where this all started - it's a bad idea to rely upon people's emotional reactions in order to build up a picture of the world, as those may not accurately reflect what the world is like.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The listener's perception is real, regardless of the speaker's intent.

Given that I explicitly said this in my very first post on this subject, have reiterated it since, and nobody has argued against it, I have no idea why you're saying it as if it's a response to anything that anybody has said. It's not a revelation to anybody, it was one of the premises upon which this conversation was founded.

 

[Fizil]

The listener's perception is real, regardless of the speaker's intent. Whether it's someone who's using a word that predates the slur it sounds like or someone who mentions an offensive stereotype they're unaware of doesn't change the listener's experience. It should inform the response, as inadvertent offense is a different kind of thing than intentional offense, but the offense is still real and still justified.

Compare John McWhorter's analysis of "tar baby^WP" with a blogger's take on it. Although they disagree on the obviousness of racial implications, both agree that the white speaker who was referring to a black person has caused offense and should apologize. You can offend someone even if you don't mean to - that's a racist effect without racist intent.

As applied to the use of the word "niggardly," if a white person uses the word with no ill intent and a black person is offended, all I'm saying is that the offense really exists regardless of the speakers intent. I'm labeling that offense a racist effect, which may b confusing the situation.

This depends entirely on what you are apologizing for. One should not apologize for using those terms. One might apologize that your choice of words caused someone some distress through misunderstanding. However that is true whether or not we are talking about racism, so it is really beside the point. It still doesn't make the experience of racism any more "real" than the occasional vibration I feel in my shirt pocket when my phone is not ringing .

 

[squealpiggy]

Are they white?

Then yes.

I would hate anyone to think my little Adolf and my little Eva were racists...

 

[Amadanb]

Okay. So, to go back to where this all started - it's a bad idea to rely upon people's emotional reactions in order to build up a picture of the world, as those may not accurately reflect what the world is like.

I don't think one's picture of the world is necessarily independent of emotional reactions. I mean, there is a reason the black person perceived racism, even if none was intended, right? He didn't just pull some irrational assumption of an inexplicable prejudice against his skin color out of thin air.

Jumping to further conclusions (or rash actions) based on that would be a mistake. But you can build up a picture of the world that isn't inaccurate based on the fact that a black person could reasonably believe someone is being racist in that situation, and that it provoked an emotional reaction.

 

[blutoski]

I'm sure you can imagine easily enough how "Don't be so niggardly," said to a black person just so, can be a deliberate attempt to bait them. I have seen this done. So sure, sitting by itself in the dictionary the word is not racist, and most uses of the word are not racist, but it's sure funny how every time discussions about racism and interpretations thereof come up, someone will haul that one out as some sort of challenge, like if you flinch upon hearing it then haw haw, you don't know your etymology. When seeing people flinch is the point.

Yeah, 'gay' and 'queer' have the same misuse as a 'get out of jail free card' for accusing somebody of homosexuality with disingenuous cover.

"Oh, yes I said he was a gay queer man who likes cock, but I didn't mean to imply he was a homosexual: I meant he was happy, peculiar, and fond of chicken. You people are just looking for prejudice under every rock or what?"

 

[qwints]

Squeegee, do you think someone can experience racism without another person's conscious racist intent?

 

[qwints]

It's a handy rhetorical tool in my quest to ask if this situation is "accidental racism" to him, and yourself because it CAN be used like that and because even when used blankly it can be seen as being racist.

It can be racist, with or without the intent of the speaker, if it offends the listener. Is that a straightforward enough answer? I cited this post for a reason.

most racism is ‘accidental’ and black people already know that;

I'll also point out Project Implicit.

 

[squealpiggy]

Squeegee, do you think someone can experience racism without another person's conscious racist intent?

Of course someone can. But somebody being racist without knowing it is not the same as somebody incorrectly assuming racism when none occurred. For example in misunderstanding the word "niggardly".