Black and Jewish History

[maddog]

:ranton:

I'm having dinner with a friend. This is an elderly friend. An elderly friend who happens to be Jewish. There are certain opinions I can't really express to her, because, e.g., any criticism of Israel and its policies or actions is immediately equated with "anti-Semitism." So I generally avoid those kinds of topics with her. I talk about other things, like rocks, puppies, our dysfunctional families, travel, movies, and other more innocuous (i.e., non-political) things.

So she remarks that she's tired already of "Black History Month." There are snippets every day on TV on every channel and she's tired of it. I respond with some remarks about a movie we once saw (The Four Feathers -- nothing to write home about) in which the nominal hero is this 19th C. British soldier who goes off to the Sudan or someplace in north Africa to redeem himself from accusations of cowardice. He has all these adventures and eventually regains his status of honor, but he could never have done any of it if his stupid life had not been saved by natives. Same thing happens in real life. Sir Edmuind Hillary gets all the renown for climbing Mt. Everest, but the sherpa who did the exact same thing gets nothing. Same thing for Perry the North Pole explorer; he was accompanied by an unsung Black man, who went farther, did more than Perry, and even saved Perry's life a time or two. Everyone knows Perry's name, but not the name of his companion (I've even forgotten myself at the moment; I'll have to look it up again).

So she responds that the segments about Black history are not really about history. She is naturally drawn to make comparisons between the Black people and the Jewish people, and if you look at their achievements in history, Jewish people far outstrip Blacks. She says, look at Einstein, look at Freud. I am dumbfounded. I'm simply looking at her. Then she says, "don't stare at me that way. It's very discomfiting. If you don't stop, I'll leave." I say, "I haven't said anything." She says, "you don't have to. You look angry."

That's the sort of thing that happens to me all the time. If I say something, I'll be wrong. I'll say something in anger. I'm not anticipating an argument, so I don't have a carefully thought out response. So I say nothing. I'm still wrong, even if I have said nothing and done nothing. I can't win. You know, they say that animals under stress have a "fight or flight" reaction. There's a third "f" besides "fight" and "flight." There's also "freeze." That's my most common response to surprise, anger, fear and other emotions. I just don't know what to do. I freeze in the headlights and get run over by the train.

It bothers me a lot that one of my friends is, at heart, apparently a racist. On the other hand, so am I. I feel I am a racist every time I see something, e.g., in the "In These Times" (progressive magazine) I am reading today, which has an ad about "Stopping the War on Women of Color." I get the fleeting wish that I, too, were a woman of color so I could properly stand together with them, and the next fleeting thought is, "no, I don't. I'm grateful I'm only an atheist lesbian woman, and not also a Black atheist lesbian woman. Three strikes are enough." What does that say about me and my character? I'm afraid I am a racist coward. I feel for another columnist in the same magazine, a Black writer/editor, who describes Black History Month as, "an opportunity to obsess on race without guilt," but is "tempted to skip the subject, just to confound expectations." He can't quite bring himself to do it, however, because, "the topic is too serious."

Darn tootin' it is. I'm reminded of an interview I saw recently on Tavis Smiley with Ken Burns, about his Jack Johnson boxing documentary. Smiley asked Burns how he, as a White man, "gets it" about race, when so many other people don't. Burns's response was interesting. He is interested in history, and every topic he chooses, if you scratch the surface, there is race, just underneath. It was true in the Civil War, it was true about baseball, it's overwhelmingly evident in Jazz; there is no place you can turn in the history of this country (USA) and not find it. Yes, it's there -- really, it's everywhere. But there are sensitive and understanding ways to treat it, and the problems it has inherited. And then there are insenstive bigots who should know better, but who seem to think that the problems either aren't there, or are of the victims' making. Pisses me off. Don't know what to do about it.

:rantoff:

#289

[livius drusus]

Excellent rant, maddog. I know just what you mean about the freeze reflect, and although I can usually parlay it into a kind of light mockery which gets my point across, I don't think that kind of tactic would work with someone like your friend who reacted so negatively to the very look on your face.

One of the things that gets me about your friend's nonsense is that the guys she mentions aren't even American. I mean, Einstein and Freud? What the hell do they have to do with anything? They're just big names is all, and if that's the standard I betcha even she could come up with more famous American black people than famous American Jewish people, if only because the former are pretty much out on sight, whereas the latter are not necessarily instantly recognizable as Jews.

Another thing that bugs me is that she's all huffy about a few hours of programming focused on black people. I love February programming! It's bound to be good watchin' (and often great listenin'). I saw a little hour-long documentary this past weekend on PBS called Blacklist about the cold shoulders black actors had to deal with, particularly activists of any kind. Ossie Davis was on it and the soundtrack was mainly Paul Robeson singing spirituals in the way that only he could sing them.

I can't even find any references to it on the PBS site now, but that's the kind of great little nugget you stumble across a lot more in February than you do any other month of the year. If that's not history I don't know what is.

[Sweetie]

So she remarks that she's tired already of "Black History Month." There are snippets every day on TV on every channel and she's tired of it.

I don't understand what the problem with that is, I guess. Anything that is overdone people just get tired of hearing it, that's pretty normal. If there was such a thing as Catholic history month, we might get tired of it, fancy that, even me and I'm Catholic. :D

"Irish Catholics in America - 'Irish need not apply.'"

"The Inquisitions- Catholic history of oppression and tyranny."

"The Church, A Continual Controversy - Archbishop Fulton Sheen 'the Church loves controversy, and loves it for two reasons; because intellectual conflict is informing, and because she is madly in love with rationalism."

"Catholic Saints - A look at a different Saint every day!"

"The Popes from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II."

"The History of Catholicism in Western thought."

You get the idea. I can only find interest in these subjects a piece at a time interspersed with other subjects, I hate inundation. Even this whole political gay-marriage bit, I'm almost like to the government and the News I could say, do what you're going to do and be done with it, let's get on with something else! I'm tired of hearing about it!

Just a thought.

I suppose I'm just having trouble seeing a clear indication of racism from your post. The only questionable thing that she said was that black history wan't real history but I don't understand what that would mean, and that Einstein and Freud were historic Jews who were greater than anybody the black community has been able put out. Does this thought for her extend past the black community to the Chinese for instance, Middle Eastern persons, Indians, the average European, Christians?

[Sweetie]

e.g., any criticism of Israel and its policies or actions is immediately equated with "anti-Semitism."

This type of thinking is very pervasive in our society though, very common.

I'll give you an example of why I would say that:

Had a friend we hung around with in our group. We fought, I thought he was an asshole, he thought I was a bitch, we couldn't stand each other, stayed away from each other and basically have never spoken since but he hasn't been around anymore to do so. Homosexuality wasn't an issue in our group, nobody really cared, nobody fought about it, nobody had any severe feelings about it or if they did, never voiced. Shortly after the break he came out of the closet. My first thought was, "whew, thank God he came out after 'cause then I don't have to be accused of thinking he's an asshole just 'cause he's gay." So, I'm still allowed to think he's an asshole only because I thought so before I knew he was gay. To call him an asshole if I'd only come to say it after he came out, that's just not socially acceptable. :doh:

Any criticism of any homosexual or homosexuality for whatever reason is often considered gay-hating so at least we know she's not unusual. :P

[Zoot]

On CF recently, someone warned me that I'd be accused of anti-Semitism for something, and that guy also went on to say that he tended to find that "anti-Semite" meant "someone who the Jews were against for some reason", rather than the other way around. I responded with this:


Actually, I prefer the definition that it is someone who the Jews are against for one reason or another.

As with so many terms, we must distinguish between the correct sense and what Chomsky calls the "technical sense" of the word. I tend to call it the rhetorical sense.

"Terrorism", for example, in the correct sense means the use of violence against civilians to achieve political goals. In the rhetorical sense, it means such activities by designated enemies of the US. So a CIA carbomb in Beirut in 1985 that killed 80 civilians is not terrorism. Nor is Israeli gunships firing missiles into crowded Palestinian streets. But a Palestinian suicide bomber or an Iraqi resister is a terrorist.

"Anti-Semite" is another such word. It's fascinating, actually. Consider, firstly, the Oxford dictionary definition of "Semite": a member of a people speaking a Semitic language, in particular the Jews and Arabs. Both Jews and Arabs are Semites. Here is the same dictionary's definition of "anti-Semitism": hostility to or prejudice against Jews.

It's not that the dictionary is wrong. Dictionaries exist to standardise existing conventions in language. This is how the words are used, so that is what they mean. It does, sadly, render us without a term for anti-Arab racism that easily rolls off the tongue. In theory, anti-Arab racism, which is very prevalent in the world, would be a form of anti-Semitism.

As for the term itself, correctly, by convention, "anti-Semitism" does indeed mean "hostility to or prejudice against Jews", which is to say, the Jewish ethnicity. In this sense, there are anti-Semites in the world, be they neo-Nazis or white supremists (who tend to be racist towards many ethnicities) or those who have absorbed the vague notion that Jews are isolated and hostile towards Gentiles (an affect that is mostly the result of low self-esteem and borderline paranoia).

Then there is the rhetorical sense of "anti-Semitism", which is the one that Palaeo says is "someone who the Jews are against". Of course, this immediately cannot be an accurate literal definition, because there is no such organisation as "the Jews" to have any kind of collective againstness in the first place. If we replace "the Jews" with "the pro-Israeli lobby", we close in on some degree of accuracy. This is where people are accused of anti-Semitism in rhetoric - people who appear threatening to Israel in some way, or to be even more exact, threatening to a particular attitude towards Israel, a particular vision for Israel.

It is in this sense that someone may be called anti-Semitic for calling Israeli laws racist for favouring one ethnicity over another in matters of land ownership or citizenship, for example. It is simply a statement of fact, and need not be compelled by any actual prejudice towards the Jewish ethnicity. Yet it fits the rhetorical definition of anti-Semitism.

Brilliantly, plenty of Jewish people fall into this rhetorical category of anti-Semites. Of course, even propagandists have limits, and they tend to stop short of calling, say, Noam Chomsky anti-Semitic. Instead, they call him a "self-hating Jew".

These are yet more reasons I am very careful to distinguish between the Jewish ethnicity and the Israeli government or Israeli state. They are by no means identical, and criticism of the latter does not at all constitute racism towards the former.

[viscousmemories]

I suppose I'm just having trouble seeing a clear indication of racism from your post. The only questionable thing that she said was that black history wan't real history but I don't understand what that would mean, and that Einstein and Freud were historic Jews who were greater than anybody the black community has been able put out.
I interpreted her friend saying Black history isn't "really history" to mean black people haven't made any contributions to society significant enough to qualify as "making history". That thought was reinforced by her contrasting the contributions of Blacks unfavorably with the those of Jews. It seems racist to me, too.

Any criticism of any homosexual or homosexuality for whatever reason is often considered gay-hating so at least we know she's not unusual.
Isn't being critical of someone for being gay just a nice way of saying gay-hating?

[Gurdur]

Black and Jewish History
Won't someone please think of the Falashas ?

[maddog]

I suppose I'm just having trouble seeing a clear indication of racism from your post. The only questionable thing that she said was that black history wan't real history but I don't understand what that would mean, and that Einstein and Freud were historic Jews who were greater than anybody the black community has been able put out.
I interpreted her friend saying Black history isn't "really history" to mean black people haven't made any contributions to society significant enough to qualify as "making history". That thought was reinforced by her contrasting the contributions of Blacks unfavorably with the those of Jews. It seems racist to me, too.

Any criticism of any homosexual or homosexuality for whatever reason is often considered gay-hating so at least we know she's not unusual.
Isn't being critical of someone for being gay just a nice way of saying gay-hating?Yes, vm. That was/is my take on these points as well. I told my friend that, while she might be tired of the spots, I personally enjoy learning about people and their contributions that have been overlooked, and then went into my movie/history references.

Black and Jewish History Won't someone please think of the Falashas ?I don't understand what an Ethiopian Jewish sect has to do with the problem between me and my friend.
#290

[Sweetie]

Isn't being critical of someone for being gay just a nice way of saying gay-hating?

Yes, it would be that if that's the case but that's part of my point, that's where society blurrs the lines and rejects critical thought and then uses social maneuvers to advance their own biases. It's also a case of the fallacy of an appeal to sympathy which is consistent with propoganda and other such things. It's very pervasive in our society, just to point it out puts you in the hotseat but I say fuck political correctness.

I said exactingly that I intensely disliked this man before I knew he was gay and this was a mutual thing. Now any criticism of him socially would be equated with gay-hating, it doesn't matter that it's mutual, it doesn't matter that it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The criticism is besides the fact of his homosexuality but society often and unthinkingly refuses to make this distinction, ie: I dislike the man, now the man is a self-proclaimed homosexual therefore if I continue to dislike the man then I dislike the homosexual because he "is" a homosexual therefore I dislike homsexuality or I hate homosexuals.

People self-identify with alot of things. In the example presented, a Jewish woman identifying with her country or at least her country of culture, with other Jews, she doesn't seperate these things from herself, she can't see the difference. Any criticism is unacceptable because it is a criticism of her innermost being, of herself because she self-identifies which is ironic because it's exactly what black persons are doing when they celebrate black history month, they too self-identify with their history, with black men and women who came before them, they take pride in the previous achievements and feel anger at the previous abuses to their people and carry all this on and that's all fine and it's a good thing, people want to know who they are, where they come from and a part of who they think they are is to them, where they came from. I'm just noting that it's the same thing but the principle purpose of these things I think, is to recognize the mistakes made previously in the past. History repeats itself.

Now I, since I do not know anything about my biological father, sit at the cross-roads in some of these areas. I know my history on my Mother's side but not my Father's so does that mean I only know half of who I am? It's never occured to me that that is the case, I just am, I rise and fall on my own merits.

In this modern and enlightened world we think we're free of these problems and we point fingers, we are not free of them, as Chesterton would say, nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes disguised as new and people fail to see it in themselves, this is what I consider to be the very definition of hypocrasy and ignorance which is the foundation of real bigotry. Let he who is without it cast the first stone ie: it's a human failing, and we're all human.

Maddog had to say when she figures having three strikes against her is enough, she wouldn't wish to be black as well and for her she seems to express that that's a feeling worthy of guilt. It's no worse than thinking that one is glad to have food as opposed to living in a Third World country, of course we prefer one rather than the other though sometimes the others are better off, I think ie: I would rather be hungry than hopeless, I would rather have nothing but have meaning than to have everything which is meaningless, I would rather have little and be grateful than have much and care less.

As to the idea that being a woman is a strike against one, I would disagree with that. I think that one who is less than pretty/good-looking whether male or female, black or white, hetero or homosexual or the one with little or no self-esteem has a bigger strike against them as far as struggling within society but I've never been made to feel that my womanhood is a handicap, in fact it's a strength because it spits in the eye of anybody who thinks they can make it any less, though I have been made to feel that my Catholicism was a handicap and a weakness. I don't consider it either, I don't identify with it, an attack against Catholicism then is not an attack against me. I do what I do because at present it is what my intellect dictates that I should do, if my intellect sees something else, something other than, then I'll do that, so be it.

So let it be written, so let it be done. *gong* :D

[viscousmemories]

Yes, it would be that if that's the case but that's part of my point, that's where society blurrs the lines and rejects critical thought and then uses social maneuvers to advance their own biases. It's also a case of the fallacy of an appeal to sympathy which is consistent with propoganda and other such things. It's very pervasive in our society, just to point it out puts you in the hotseat but I say fuck political correctness.
Are you saying any criticism of gay-hating speech is a fallacious appeal to sympathy?

I said exactingly that I intensely disliked this man before I knew he was gay and this was a mutual thing. Now any criticism of him socially would be equated with gay-hating, it doesn't matter that it's mutual, it doesn't matter that it has nothing to do with homosexuality. The criticism is besides the fact of his homosexuality but society often and unthinkingly refuses to make this distinction, ie: I dislike the man, now the man is a self-proclaimed homosexual therefore if I continue to dislike the man then I dislike the homosexual because he "is" a homosexual therefore I dislike homsexuality or I hate homosexuals.
I don't believe it makes any sense to talk about what 'society' might think or say. Society is composed of millions of vastly different people with completely different ideas about things. For example I'm a member of society, I believe that homosexuals deserve fair and equal treatment, and I wouldn't assume you hate homosexuals if you told me you hate someone who is gay unless I had good reason to believe that you hate him because he's gay.

You said society assumes anyone who is "critical of homosexual[s]" is "gay-hating". In my view being "critical of homosexual[s]" necessarily implies a criticism of someone on the basis of a quality of their personhood they cannot change. To me, criticising someone for personal qualities that are beyond their control is hateful. Hence in my opinion being critical of homosexuals is not importantly different from "gay-hating".

In this modern and enlightened world we think we're free of these problems and we point fingers, we are not free of them, as Chesterton would say, nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes disguised as new and people fail to see it in themselves, this is what I consider to be the very definition of hypocrasy and ignorance which is the foundation of real bigotry. Let he who is without it cast the first stone ie: it's a human failing, and we're all human.
Condemning bigotry isn't casting stones, it's asking others not to cast theirs.

[Sweetie]

Are you saying any criticism of gay-hating speech is a fallacious appeal to sympathy?

No, that's not it unfortunately, I don't see how you were able to associate the two from the words I actually spoke unless you were doing what I said people usually do but it's of no matter, people have different frames of reference so.

However, this could lead to an interesting discussion. If you seperate "I" from my race, religion (or lack thereof), culture, gender and sexuality, who am I exactly?

If you're interested in such a thread and start one, I'll participate.

[viscousmemories]

I said:
Isn't being critical of someone for being gay just a nice way of saying gay-hating?
You replied (in part):
Yes, it would be that if that's the case but that's part of my point, that's where society blurrs the lines and rejects critical thought and then uses social maneuvers to advance their own biases. It's also a case of the fallacy of an appeal to sympathy which is consistent with propoganda and other such things.
So I asked:
Are you saying any criticism of gay-hating speech is a fallacious appeal to sympathy?
I thought I had made a reasonable inference from a statement that wasn't very clear to me, and asked you to clarify if that's what you meant. If you're unwilling to do so that's fine, but I don't get your suggestion that I might be "doing what [you] said people usually do". If you mean to suggest that I'm somehow deliberately mischaracterizing what you said, I'm not.

[Sweetie]

Alright, so my taking that path as opposed to any other as example isn't managing to convey my meaning, so I'll try a different approach because I really don't feel like haggling over the other.

The OP asserted that this woman was a racist and used three things supposedly intended to indicate that she was:

1) she complained of black history month programming
2) she asserted that some Jews were great in history, better than others of the black community, but whether she's non-discriminating in this sense, ie: does this include from the Christian community, the Chinese community, etc, I don't know.
3) any criticism of Israel is considered to her to be anti-Semitism

My contention was that that's not enough information to determine that she is in fact a bigot/racist and I hate when people are so judgemental and just throw around the term racist and bigot as if it's candy and as if their definition is overiding, I would first take a path to understand what it is exactly that motivates her to say these things, and then I would try to find similarities of everyday life and everyday people who do the same damn things and yet nobody considers them racist or bigotted.

I would assert that people self-identify with race, culture, gender, religion and sexuality to begin to draw comparisons.

So, this woman obviously self-identifies with race and culture, not sure whether religion would be included in that or not, and this is natural and normal, everybody is seeking unity, belonging to something bigger, everybody does want to know where they come from, their "people" so to speak. I am liable to question the meaning of that though because I don't necessarily have a "people" nor a strong cultural heritage except for a culture that's culturally diverse, ie: Canadian.

We identify with Canadian, with American, we cheer for the teams that represent our city, etc. This has always been a strange thing and I've always questioned it. People fight wars, kill and die just because they were born in a certain place as opposed to another who was born in another place and I've never seen the reason in it, though I understand why it has to be that way, but on a basic level it makes no sense to me.

So, I have a question for you guys.

For visciousmemories:

Name three people who you think were great in history, who did your community a great service or Western thought, the three greatest people in your estimation.

If they're not all non-theists then perhaps you are more free of this than most, because I would assume you identify with fellow atheists and I'll attempt to throw the game first of all, by asserting that Gandhi is a non-theist. :P

For maddog:

Same thing, but with an additional qualifier, if they're not all non-theists or homosexual.

For any black members:

Same thing, but without using the name Martin Luther King.


If this goes one way, then that's good, you are more free of bias than others I think, if it goes the other, what does it show but that we all identify with "our people" in some way and so this woman's assertion that Freud or Einstein were greater is not unusual nor is it necessarily racist, especially if we think that this or that one was greater, and suprising enough, they're greater and we agree with them, how odd. :D

That's dealing with one of the "proofs" of her racism, I already dealt with the black history month programming proof and I would assume most would agree. Catholic history month programming would be damned annoying after a week and most of you would not be afraid to say it, but if it's black history month programming most would be afraid to say it, because it wouldn't be "politically correct," it might offend one who think that a criticsm of a month of programming is offensive to the black community, which it's not necessarily. This is the type of thing I mean by society, social disapproval even though these things may have nothing to do with one another, no direct causal relationship but people would be afraid to even give the appearance of racism, for instance, this woman who was feeling defensive, "don't look at me like that."



Oh hey, interesting tidbit, I watched a documentary and I would assume the information provided was true or mostly true because this channel isn't prone to stating things for the sake of sensaitionalism, but did you know that Hitler either didn't know who is biological father was or something along those lines? First thought is, imagine if his biological father was a Jew. Hitler might have felt pretty stupid then :doh: or he would have been smart and just killed himself first and saved us all the trouble. :P

Sorry, my strange and difficult to get accross sense of humour at work here. :D

[livius drusus]

Picking "greatest" people is an impossible task for me. I end up feeling like I do when I go to the video store without a list: just sort of lost in the myriad options. Still and all, I can definitely say that the odds of me picking 3 atheists are nill. In fact, I would have to search high and low to pick 3 world-shattering atheists at all, nevermind from the pool of people I consider the "greatest".

I don't think it's because I'm a paragon of non-bigotry, mind you. I think it's because most of us educated in the history of "great people" were pretty much taught according to similar (mainly Eurocentric/Western Civ) standards, and atheist was not exactly one of the criteria. :shrug:

[beyelzu]

I named three great people here, so as not to derail the thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42857#post42857)

[viscousmemories]

My contention was that that's not enough information to determine that she is in fact a bigot/racist <snip>
How bigoted or racist do someone's comments have to be before it's reasonable to say they are a bigot or racist? I mean seriously, if I say "Asians are stupid" does that give you enough information to judge whether I'm a bigot? Not necessarily. Would it be fair to say that comment is bigoted? I think so. Well isn't calling someone's comments bigoted equivelant to calling them a bigot? I've heard some suggest as much, but I'm pretty sure I disagree. It seems like it's possible for people who aren't bigots to make bigoted comments.

Name three people who you think were great in history, who did your community a great service or Western thought, the three greatest people in your estimation. If they're not all non-theists then perhaps you are more free of this than most, because I would assume you identify with fellow atheists and I'll attempt to throw the game first of all, by asserting that Gandhi is a non-theist.
I've never been much into hero worship, honestly, but you make a big mistake assuming that I would identify foremost with other people who don't believe in god(s). I think it's common for people who believe in God and assign him ultimate importance to assume that people who don't believe automatically assign that lack of belief ultimate importance, but it isn't the case with me. The possibility of god(s) has as much importance to me as the possibility of a teacup circling Saturn (to steal a concept from an unknown source). I am not much concerned with other people's religious beliefs or lack thereof except inasmuch as they impact a discussion we're having.

[John Carter]

Sweetie, your programming "proof" is at base a strawman. There is in fact very little dedicated black history programming in the format you suggest. There may be some of that kind of thing on public broadcasting, and the History Channel has done a little bit, but the vast majority of the actual "black history programming" is in the the form of public service announcements. These amount to little more than commercials, and are just as easily ignored.

Wasn't Ghandi a Hindu? I could be wrong about that, but if he was then he was certainly a theist as I understand the term. As for your homosexuality analogy, it really doesn't bear up under scrutiny. At least, not if my own experience is anything to go by. I grew up in an area with a very large gay population. I also worked in restaurants for many years, and there are a lot of gays who work in that industry. Thus I have had many gay neighbors and co-workers. As with any group, some I liked and others I disliked. I cannot recall ever being accused of bigotry because I didn't like some particular gay person.

[maddog]

Sweetie:
I'm really sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough to you. I have a long history with this friend (over 20 years) and, believe me, this is not the first time such things have been said.

Even ignoring long personal history, however, examine the things said at face value, as I described them. If someone said to you, "Look at the overall achievements of the Jews and compare them with the achievements of Blacks; what have Blacks done? [pregnant silence] What have Jews contributed? Look at Einstein, look at Freud." I'd be really, really surprised if your jaw didn't drop, too.

This thread is not about whether I have misjudged my friend. This is about what to do in case someone you ARE close to IS bigoted. What do you do. How do you react. In the moment, I couldn't think of anything constructive to say, and yet I wasn't "allowed" to saying nothing, either. What's the right response in that situation?

Secondarily, recognizing racism in someone else doesn't necessarily mean we DO get to say something about it, because we (i.e. I) have our (i.e., my) own racism to deal with, too. I'm heartily ashamed of it, but I can't deny it's there. My problem is, I don't know what to do about it.

This thread also isn't about whether you have been lucky enough to avoid gender/ sexual orientation/ (non)religious bias. Just because you haven't experienced them personally is beside the point, and irrelevant to this thread, in the sense that what I was ranting about and seeking some insight about is how to deal with pervasive racism in American society, including my own, in a sensitive way that can heal wounds and restore bonds, including my own.

I am not going to debate, in this thread,
(1) whether my assessment of my friend's remarks was appropriate
(2) the analogousness of a hypothetical "Catholic history month"
(3) how tired people are of hearing about gay marriage
(4) whether society judges people as anti-gay if they simply don't happen to like a gay person
(5) what anti-Semitism really is
(6) the Falashas
(7) "appeal to sympathy" fallacies
(8) the existence of gender bias
(9) whether the concept of "I" can be separated from self-identifying characteristics
(10) name three great people . . . etc.
(11) sick Hitler jokes
All of these are unwanted derailings of the point of the thread. (Thank you, Beyelzu, for taking #10 elsewhere.)

#294

[Beth]

My husband's grandfather is a huge racist. We all deal with him by either ignoring his rants or telling him to shut up. There really is no other way to deal with him because he is stubborn and will not change. Sometimes I will say that he hurts me when he says such hateful things and then he says "Well, Babydoll", and studders into something else.It silences his rants, but does nothing to remove the hatred. There are other people in the family that I can tell them that I am offended and can actually use the Bible as an argument against their racism or bigotry. But, yes, I like the op, you brought up a good topic and I can sympathize.

[viscousmemories]

This thread is not about whether I have misjudged my friend. This is about what to do in case someone you ARE close to IS bigoted. What do you do. How do you react. In the moment, I couldn't think of anything constructive to say, and yet I wasn't "allowed" to saying nothing, either. What's the right response in that situation?
Oops. I'm sorry for my part in the derail and not answering your question begin with. I obviously didn't get the essence of your OP, but I understand what you're asking now.

Anyway my short answer is "I don't know". The longer answer is that I feel an instinctive inclination to confront bigotry and discrimination when I see it - and for the most part I've done so - but as a result a lot of people seem to think I'm a self-righteous busybody. I've been wrestling with this issue for many months and I haven't solved the problem.

In my experience people don't like to be judged at all, much less as a bigot. And even if your intention isn't to judge, anything that might be construed as judging will be. So all of the following responses in the situation you describe probably would've had the same results as your silence:

"You're a bigot!"

"That's a bigoted thing to say."

"I think I get your point, but that comes off sounding bigoted."

"Isn't that just bigotry, though?"

"Doesn't that seem bigoted to you?"

So if there's no way you can express yourself or even discuss your own feelings about the ethics of a given issue without someone assuming that you're intent is to judge them, what are you supposed to do? That's the part I haven't figured out yet. I think this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14091#post14091) lisarea wrote last fall makes some very good points related to this issue. Most importantly (in my words) that there is a fine-line between integrity and self-righteousness, and one should be careful not to confuse them. At least that's something I got out of what she said.

Bottom line for me is that I would probably confront a friend of mine who said something like that, but I'd first thoroughly examine my own motives and choose my words carefully to make it more of an exploratory discussion than preaching my own values. I've had only limited success with that when I've tried it in discussions here, but better results than when I come out swinging. Then again a friend who threatens to leave because you look angry might not be open to any criticism, in which case I don't know how you could do what you feel is right and still be friends.

[maddog]

This thread is not about whether I have misjudged my friend. This is about what to do in case someone you ARE close to IS bigoted. What do you do. How do you react. In the moment, I couldn't think of anything constructive to say, and yet I wasn't "allowed" to saying nothing, either. What's the right response in that situation?
Oops. I'm sorry for my part in the derail and not answering your question begin with. I obviously didn't get the essence of your OP, but I understand what you're asking now.

Anyway my short answer is "I don't know". The longer answer is that I feel an instinctive inclination to confront bigotry and discrimination when I see it - and for the most part I've done so - but as a result a lot of people seem to think I'm a self-righteous busybody. I've been wrestling with this issue for many months and I haven't solved the problem. Funnily enough, vm, I at first read your response as an "instructive inclination," rather than an "instinctive inclination" to confront what we don't wish to promote. "Instructive" is the right flavor of what I'm looking for. I think that's why I at first was displacing and deflecting -- you are tired of the programming, but I enjoy it. The media controls so much of what we know and learn, and those media, even in pre-TV times, have made much of the "sung" heroes while often ignoring the equal or greater achievements of their companions, when those companions happened to be people of color/not members of the dominant paradigm. Even in works of complete fiction, the status of hero is often given to one who is actually far less competent and has far less character -- less "heroic" -- than another person whom the story oddly places in a lesser status. In other words, I think I was attempting to be engaging on the topic, and to demonstrate its uses and interests -- not to invalidate the opinion -- "I'm tired of it" -- but to dispute the potential bias underneath, i.e., that Black history isn't "really" history, or there's nothing of value in Black history, or Black Americans haven't made significant contributions to history. We might not think so, but look how we have been educated -- the achievements of Black Americans have been systematically ignored for centuries, and the "hero" stories leave out their equal, and contemporaneous, contributions.

In my experience people don't like to be judged at all, much less as a bigot. And even if your intention isn't to judge, anything that might be construed as judging will be. So all of the following responses in the situation you describe probably would've had the same results as your silence:

"You're a bigot!"

"That's a bigoted thing to say."

"I think I get your point, but that comes off sounding bigoted."

"Isn't that just bigotry, though?"

"Doesn't that seem bigoted to you?"
Agreed that none of the above responses would be received well. Actually, none of them occurred to me as something to actually say. You know, that old one your mom always told you, "If you can't say something nice . . . !" I was just more or less flabbergasted. The deflective approach had obviously not helped at all. And then, too, what an egomaniac I must be to think that I have anything instructive to say on the subject of overcoming racism, when I'm singularly unable to overcome my own, at least at the level of feelings. I am, however, a True Believer in Justice with a capital "J" and in the color-blindness norm. Even if I can't change my inner feelings completely or successfully as of yet, I CAN change what I actually do -- my behavior. I can do my best to bring my own conduct in line with the color-blindness norm I say I believe in.

Even several days later, I have no good answer. Again, I'm colored by my background and my foibles. I hate conflict. I believe in civility. I don't like arguments. I have to believe that there is a way to disagree with someone over things -- even over important things -- without necessarily giving up the friendship. I'm hoping there is a way to do it, to state MY position and MY feelings, without attacking the other person, that will help through modeling. But that's my M.O. -- indirectness. It's a coping mechanism I learned as a child and it has served me well for a long time, but not in every circumstance. I keep learning from my therapist that dealing directly, rather than indirectly, is what mature adults do. But it's a skill I haven't mastered yet.

OTOH, it's also from my therapist that I've learned to focus on myself and MY feelings. It doesn't accuse the other person. And, how can they argue with you if you say, "I feel" a certain way? They can't. (MInd you, you can't say, "I feel that you . . ," and have it work. Gotta keep the focus on myself only.)

Perhaps I could have shut things down by saying, "I don't feel comfortable talking about this any more." But shutting th ings down doesn't really achieve understanding between us.

I don't get the feeling that a strictly rational approach would have been successful at the moment, but think about it. All of the history we have learned is Western-centered. Even the cradles of civilization in Egypt and Mesopotamia are treated as in the Western tradition. Judaism is largely in the Western tradition. Now, I know about the Zimbabwe ruins and the Mali kingdom, and Timbuktu as a university and cultural center, and Lamu and other places on the East African coast that had long history of trade with Arabs and India. But the impression I have is that the history of sub-saharan Africa is mostly non-urban, whereas all of the civilizations we concentrate on studying, from Babylon, Athens and Rome on down to modern times have a great deal to do with the success of urbanized cultures. So, if the Jews -- or any people -- had not been part of an urbanized Western culture, what would their contributions to history have been? Look at the inventions and contributions of the Chinese. Can we name any great Chinese thinkers, inventors, contributors to history? It's hard, because we don't get taught about it. Doesn't mean they weren't there. The southern hemisphere has been largely exploited, and on the short end of the stick. Their peoples have been enslaved, they have been colonized and closed out of self-government, and had a hard time simply surviving, because of European domination. You try to run with two cannonballs tied to your feet, and see how far you get. But even a discussion like this -- dispassionate, even dull, factual analysis -- would probably be too accusatory to get any good results.

So if there's no way you can express yourself or even discuss your own feelings about the ethics of a given issue without someone assuming that you're intent is to judge them, what are you supposed to do? That's the part I haven't figured out yet. I think this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14091#post14091) lisarea wrote last fall makes some very good points related to this issue. Most importantly (in my words) that there is a fine-line between integrity and self-righteousness, and one should be careful not to confuse them. At least that's something I got out of what she said.

Bottom line for me is that I would probably confront a friend of mine who said something like that, but I'd first thoroughly examine my own motives and choose my words carefully to make it more of an exploratory discussion than preaching my own values. I've had only limited success with that when I've tried it in discussions here, but better results than when I come out swinging. Then again a friend who threatens to leave because you look angry might not be open to any criticism, in which case I don't know how you could do what you feel is right and still be friends.Exactly. Choosing words carefully is so important. I didn't get a chance to choose any words, however. I was so surprised, and I guess my "surprised" looks like other people's "angry." So then it turns into what my "expression" is, instead of what the conversation is supposed to be about. Nice way to make it someone else's responsibility and not your own! If I was looking for anything to say to her, it would probably not be criticism, per se, it would be disagreement. I'm hoping that friends can disagree about things, even important things sometimes, and still be friends.

#295