Friday, March 27, 2009

ignore racism or stand up to it

When white people encounter racism, they usually have a choice. They can retreat and ignore it, or they can stand up and fight it.

In most cases, they have such a choice because the racism they're confronted with is directed not against them--after all, they're white--but against someone else, someone who isn't white. The well-meaning white person can either obey his or her conscience, by openly confronting racism, or else remain silent and walk away, seemingly unscathed.

The ABC television show "What Would You Do?" recently staged some racist shopping incidents for unsuspecting spectators. These stagings were an "experiment," according to the show's host, John QuiƱones, an effort to see what the spectators would do in response to blatantly racist behavior.

I question the usage of that word here, "experiment,"* in part because "What Would You Do?" is corporate entertainment. That means it's actually a form of bait, an effort to draw in viewers for the real "programming," which is the commercials paid for by other corporations (which in turn means that we viewers are the real "product"--ABC sells our eyeballs to the advertisers, and the more eyeballs they can attract, the more money they can charge for the commercial slots).

Nevertheless, this "What Would You Do?" segment is well worth watching, in part because it goes beyond merely pointing out that black people are much more likely than white people to face harassment while shopping. It also asks, and demonstrates, what white shoppers tend to do when they witness the harassment of black shoppers: most ignore it, but some confront it.

What would you do, whether or not you're white? Would you go about your own business, ignoring the harassment, thereby remaining "ignorant"? Or would you go as far in an anti-racist direction as the white woman at the end of this segment does?




Personally, I've never seen this kind of in-your-face racism while shopping, but I have encountered more low-key examples. In such instances, I reject the perquisites and inducements of my white privilege, by confronting store-clerk racism.

For instance, I've asked why someone else's "further identification" was asked for, but not mine, and I've also asked why someone's change was placed on the counter, while mine was placed in my hand.

By refusing to "ignore" such incidents, I now notice them more often--I'm less "ignorant" about the racism that surrounds me, and more willing to do something about it. I spend less time pretending not to know what I actually do know.


Have you encountered racism while shopping? If so, what did you do?


*Update: For more on the dubious claim that what happened in this TV show is a viable "experiment"--and on the probability that it will increase racism as much or more as it challenges it--see Peter Herrick's post at Liberation in the Classroom.

Update II: For a great take on this TV show that illuminates the part of this show that I didn't know how to write about, see Chauncey DeVega's post at We Are Respectable Negroes. DeVega writes in part,

In my opinion, what is actually noteworthy and striking about the ABC News vignette is how the young white woman begins to cry when she witnesses the racist treatment of the black female shopper/victim. This is the real power of the "Shopping While Black" featurette. Here, the truth is not in the great reveal that black and brown folks are racially profiled. Rather, for those raised to believe in post-racial and colorblind politics, the cult that is multicultural America (where race no longer matters because hip hop is now "youth culture" and White kids can say "nigga" or that United Colors of Benetton ushered in the "cool" that is the marketing and corporatization of racial diversity in the 1990s), to actually see the ugliness of white supremacy is utterly shocking and painful.

80 comments:

  1. i have mixed feeling about this 'experiment'. It some ways, it goes to prove a point that most of us - at least us folks of color - have known to exist for a long time. but in other ways it seems exploitative of racism for entertainment purposes. that said, most of the racism i've encountered while shopping (as a black woman) is of a more subtle but equally humiliating type. i am almost always asked for identification when paying by credit card - sometimes several forms of identification - while i notice that *no one* else in line is asked. i also have sales people regard me with suspicion when i inquire about a particularly expensive item. Or sales people just flat out ignore me until they realize that i really do have the funds to purchase. these more subtle incidents are so much harder to 'prove' and thus are less likely to be something that other people will come to my defense about.

    It is interesting that when the actress 'dresses down' in the second scenario, she is wearing her hair natural. Just a minor point that black women are often seen as more professional, more middle-class and more credible when our hair is mimicking the tresses of white women. I hadn't thought of this before watching the video, but it made me wonder if my own natural hairstyle aggravates my shopping experience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm so glad that you posted this. It's nice to see that not all white people thing that white privilege means that all white people are racist. The best way to combat racism is to expose it for what it really is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I did notice the hair difference. I actually watched this on a different blog yesterday, Womanist Musing I believe, I can't remember.

    I think a more subtle demonstration would have been more relevant, like you said. I know it's harder to pull people in that way but if we can have people acknowledge the more subtle forms (asking for identification) then the blatant ones will be too obvious to ignore.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i was glad when the two women walked out, and it spurred everyone else to do so (the group mentality often needs a little nudging to act, which is also probably why not many people said anything and just went about their business--it takes guts to confront racism, as well as other things).

    but what this illustrates is that the majority still finds it acceptable to be racist, or the victim of this treatment is just pulling the race card, since most people were able to ignore it and continue shopping.

    i'm still shaking...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have been followed in stores since I was 8 years old. From a $1 store to Dillard's. Each time the following is SUPER BLATANT. The person is never any more than 5 ft away from me and always retouching items I have browsed.

    At Dillard's it was my roommates and I. Lindsey & I are black, Rachel, white. Lindsey and I were followed like smoke follows fire. We asked another clerk there who said that it happens ALL THE TIME. We demanded to speak to management who apologized profusely.

    Rachel said she didn't even notice.

    I'm a honor roll, girl scout, college grad, but none of that matters if you're shopping while black.

    I wonder how many white people have to wonder about if how they've dressed or styled their today will communicate "thief" to the store's staff?

    Also, as JC said, I very much question the ethics of doing a show like this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I admit to liking this show -- there's something interesting in seeing differing reactions to situations like this. But the fact that they show such blatant, in-your-face examples of racism bothers me. It's not entirely reflective of our society right now. Don't get me wrong -- I've seen plenty of blatant racism, but I know that I am more likely to find white allies in those situations. But in my everyday experiences with prejudice that is often invisible to those blinded by white privilege, I find no allies among whites. THAT is what troubles me the most.


    I do like how the show highlights prejudice against all kinds of different people -- particularly highlighting the incredible problems that Latinos and Muslim & Middle Eastern Americans face in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As for encountering racism while shopping, I have been watched or followed a few times -- not terribly often, but enough so that I am hyper-aware of my actions, and where my hands and my bag are in stores, so as not to arouse extra suspicion. I have repeatedly been skipped over or cut in line at stores (and at bars). I usually let it slide, but I find it rather humiliating.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I understand how the ethics of this piece is suspect, but I think since the (non)response of bystanders was the thing under critique, it was ok. The people who did nothing come off as the "bad guys" and thus racism was not excused in any way.

    Plus, I would suggest that this is the type of thing that is needed to get through to many (probably most) well-meaning but clueless white people. I say this having been (being) one myself. Even in the face of obvious and public racism, most chose the easy way out. Clearly, many people need to be shown either the proper way to respond or that it is ok for white people to publicly stand up against this.

    Moviegirl made a great comment that showing the more subtle forms this takes would have been beneficial.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This clip infuriated me. The racism the show illustrated obviously, but the fact that they created an entire episode to subject people to this is crazy.
    I ended up writing an entire post of my own about it because of my concerns about things like informed consent. Real research, such as what happens at universities, have to go through IRBs for human subject oversight to prevent abuses, like what happened in the Tuskegee case. In this TV show, I doubt any IRB would have approved this, and I worry how many of the "over one hundred" customers they filmed were debriefed about the 'experiment' and given some context to understand what they witnessed and hopefully understand how better to respond in the future. Otherwise, it's ABC letting (lots of white) people go about their merry business thinking that it is appropriate for store employees to treat POC this way. Silence is collusion and, unless ABC did an awful lot of off-camera work, they reinforced that for lots of people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, good point Peter. I've added a note in this post about your post, and I appreciate your spelling out there of what I sensed was wrong with a fishy claim: that what this show's makers did in this segment is some sort of legitimate, anti-racism "experiment." It seems counterproductive, and maybe even abusive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That girl who cried, she said "I'm so glad that is isn't real." or something very close to that.

    someone needs to wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I suppose I have mixed feelings about getting involved with racism because at what point does it go from "concerned citizen" to "White person to the rescue!"? Due to their privilege White people think everything is their business and people always need their help. So I guess it would be a judgment call as to "would this person benefit from me calling out this racist bullshit or am I just suffering from a savior complex?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am so glad you posted this! I read your blog everyday but I just had to comment on this post.
    I'm glad to see that I'm not insane and imagining the racism I endure while shopping. I've had sales clerks refuse to let me try on clothing and directly after refusing me let a white person into a dressing room. I've had clerks wipe down merchandise I've touched or even refuse to let me touch merchandise.
    At one makeup counter I had a clerk refuse to let me put a lipstick sample on the back of my hand-she literally took the tester from my hand and looked at me with disgust.
    These instances make you feel so humiliated and dirty. The worst thing of all is not even the racism. It's the fact that now that I live abroad I get the same treatment because these racist ideologies have become global.
    And just like in America, I still have that "white friend" who can give me 50 reasons why it wasn't racist.
    For example, "maybe it's because you were dressed inappropiately."
    Why should I have to dress up and/or wear new clothes to buy new clothes? WTF? I even tried out that theory. I've gone shopping dressed up and I STILL got the same treatment.
    I recently started a walk through system when shopping. Whenever I notice a store that I may want to shop in, I do a walk through in regular clothes and no cash on me. If clerks are rude or disrespectful to me based on my perceived race or class, I won't shop there. I will also tell others I know not to shop there because the store is racist.

    ReplyDelete
  14. First, there was no racism. There was concocted racism of a ridiculously inexplicable type. I, like Mason, have never witnessed anything of this nature in 35 years.

    The insidious implication was of course the inference that the white people who didn't intervene were also racist.

    Ironically, the one fella actually called it right. This is playing the "black" card.

    Playing the "black" card means I and other whites are obligated to intervene in a situation that represented nothing more than a heated verbal disagreement between autonomous individuals in a liberal society.

    What liberal principle mandates us to intervene on behalf of blacks for no other reason than our white skin?

    What liberal principle mandates us to intervene for no other reason than the perceived victim is black?

    With these assumptions, it is understood that our intervention is to be seen as mandated and our lack of intervention is to been seen a vile racism, i.e. evil.

    If this isn't playing the "black" card then what is?

    And herein lies the rub, how do "liberal progressives" get away with constantly violating their own principle of absolute freedom and equality?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Todd said:
    "Clearly, many people need to be shown either the proper way to respond or that it is ok for white people to publicly stand up against this."

    Great point. Even for POCs who likely experience this type of situation on at least an occasional basis, it seems that it would be difficult to find the words (maybe even the courage) to explain to the clerk why these situations are problematic. I would like to think that I would say something, myself, but having grown up in the South and experienced subtle racism pretty much constantly, I admittedly have grown rather callous to it (at least superficially) and typically don't even bother to confront it when I'm the victim.

    Honestly, it would take a tremendous amount of time and energy to confront every instance of subtle racism I, and I imagine most POCs, experience.

    So in response to Stella, by all means, I'd say step in and confront these types of situations if you have the inclination. Confronting consumer racism wouldn't be so much for the benefit of POCs (who can simply take their business elsewhere), but for the benefit of Caucasians, demonstrating, like Todd suggested, the proper response and that it's OK to stand up to these injustices.

    Often when POCs confront these situations, as is seen in the video, our reactions are seen as "playing the race card" and are simply written off. That's likely why some POCs don't even bother.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thordaddy said:
    "Playing the "black" card means I and other whites are obligated to intervene in a situation that represented nothing more than a heated verbal disagreement between autonomous individuals in a liberal society."

    To be fair, the producers of the video do differentiate between different types of "improper" responses: ignoring the situation, simply leaving without saying anything, defending the clerk. Regardless of the claims the video is making about the "proper" response, a simple failure to intervene doesn't seem to be what they're positing as the least proper way to react.

    Sure, their framing of intervention as the only truly ethical reaction is problematic, but idealist liberal rhetoric isn't any more suitably applicable to this situation. In a society where racism exists, there are no truly "autonomous" individuals. And whether one is a participant or an observer in this type of situation, skin color as a factor of privilege and influence does play into to any determination of the ethical nature of one's response to this situation.

    Liberal progressivism aside, the situation depicted in the video is clearly "messed up," and a failure to react to it at all has ethical implications, if not on the observer, him/herself, then on the philosophical underpinnings of his/her failure to react.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm impressed Macon, at how you manage to both slam the show that you're highlighting and backhandedly praise it as "worth watching". A wonderful example of your fence sitting position on so many topics. Talk about wanting to have it both ways.

    I must say, like you I have never witnessed anything so clearly blatant as what was depicted in the show. Although I'm sure it does happen in some areas of the country.

    Nor have I witnessed any of the "subtle" racisms mentioned by jc and some of the other posters. I will admit however, that it's entirely possible that as a white dude, I may have ignored it without realizing it.

    As I've stated before, my home town/city is now more POC than White so I'm not sure it actually happens as much here as it does elsewhere. With the majority of the workforce being POC, I don't see them tailing, or questioning other POC as mentioned in some of the other posts. As a matter of fact, I have actually experienced racism on the other side of the coin. Clerks actually ignoring me as I stand in line ( while they talk to their friends/co-workers) or neglecting the common courtesy of a "hello". I stopped myself short of saying reverse racism because racism, no matter who commits it, is still racism at it's core.

    As for being asked for additional ID when purchasing, in this day and age of identity theft, I find it reassuring when I'm asked to present ID, (yes, white dude and all, I have been asked for ID too) because it works in my favor for the clerk to be sure I am who I say I am.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thank you for your backhanded praise for what impresses you about this post, Brother of another Color. However, I don't see what you point out as my wanting to sit on a fence and have it (whatever "it" is in this case) both ways as a problem. I find the show worthy of "slamming" in some ways, and worthy of interest and even qualified praise in others. I'm able to hold both of those modes of appraisal in mind at the same time, you see, and I think an appraisal of this segment that either roundly condemns it or roundly praises it would be simplistic.

    I in turn am impressed by your totally solipsistic approach to the racialized elements of shopping--what you report is all about you, isn't it? Which makes it, ironically, a common, unself-consciously white perspective. Although you admit, with seeming reluctance, that you're white, you don't seem interested in or aware of what that really means about how different your shopping experiences tend to be from those of other, darker shoppers. You seem more interested in saying instead, "Hey, don't forget that it happens to white folks too." Nevermind, you seem to say, how much, much more it happens to non-white folks, and how much worse it is when it does happen to them.

    You seem, that is, to be willfully blinding yourself to the fact that America is still a white supremacist society.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jackson Brown says,

    To be fair, the producers of the video do differentiate between different types of "improper" responses...

    And yet, there are no such things as "improper responses" in a truly free society, i.e. a liberal progressive society. This imposition of a "proper response" is just that... An imposition that obligates and burdens others to act on another's behalf. Yet, what liberal principle necessitates this imposition that is primary to the principle of freedom?

    Regardless of the claims the video is making about the "proper" response, a simple failure to intervene doesn't seem to be what they're positing as the least proper way to react.

    Context is everything in this indoctrination session. The point was to "show" people what to do and not to do in a particular case of white racism towards a black woman. And for dramatic effect, the "racism" was HIGHLY fictionalized. Not a single commentator has claimed to have witnessed or to have been a victim of such blantant "racism."

    Sure, their framing of intervention as the only truly ethical reaction is problematic, but idealist liberal rhetoric isn't any more suitably applicable to this situation.

    Yet, as liberal progressives - unless one is going to claim this the entertainment of "conservatives" - can provide no truly ethical reaction and still lay claim to the idea that they are liberal progressives.

    In a society where racism exists, there are no truly "autonomous" individuals.

    This says that no society is truly free including our own. But does the video represent a loss of someone's freedom? Meaning, did this highly fictionalized instance of white "racism" actually impede the black woman's freedom?

    If so, how so?

    And whether one is a participant or an observer in this type of situation, skin color as a factor of privilege and influence does play into to any determination of the ethical nature of one's response to this situation.

    What "privilege" did the white sales clerk have over and above the black woman? Was it the "privilege" of other whites not intervening? Again, liberal progressives are at a loss in explaining how anyone should, could or would act in any situation in a society that declares freedom, i.e., liberalism, paramount? The only explanation is that "liberal progressives" are really no such thing.

    Liberal progressivism aside, the situation depicted in the video is clearly "messed up," and a failure to react to it at all has ethical implications, if not on the observer, him/herself, then on the philosophical underpinnings of his/her failure to react.

    The situation is highly fictionalized and can hardly be said to represent any kind of reality experienced by the average black person. Again, not one person has claimed to EVER have witnessed or been victim of such a scenario.

    You seem to give the notion that strangers should react to others in their moments of implied supremacy? Meaning, people should intervene in instances of white racism towards black people. What you don't articulate is WHY? Especially when no one has actually lost any freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thordaddy said:

    You seem to give the notion that strangers should react to others in their moments of implied supremacy? Meaning, people should intervene in instances of white racism towards black people.

    From an ethical standpoint, yes, I think that an observer in this situation should react in some way, even if that reaction is a delayed one. It might be a simple as reflecting on the episode afterwards and making the decision to no longer patronize the business.

    Reacting isn't synonymous with intervening, however. In fact, in my post preceding the one you're referring to, I acknowledge that I often don't intervene in situations of consumer racism, myself. I do react, however, by not shopping at establishments that employ racially discriminatory staff.

    This says that no society is truly free including our own. But does the video represent a loss of someone's freedom?

    Again, in this case, there's been a slight conflation of terms. I think you interpretted my assertion regarding individuals' lack of autonomy correctly in the first sentence. Hence, the video doesn't depict a loss of freedom so much as it demonstrates (albeit, as you say, in a "highly fictionalized" manner) a POC's lack of freedom in a racist society.

    This viewpoint is part and parcel of the reason I think intervention is not necessarily the most productive reaction. Because this type of situation isn't necessarily a wresting of one's freedom but a demonstration of a preexisting lack of freedom, intervention wouldn't necessarily change the circumstance that gave rise to the situation.

    Again, liberal progressives are at a loss in explaining how anyone should, could or would act in any situation in a society that declares freedom, i.e., liberalism, paramount? The only explanation is that "liberal progressives" are really no such thing.

    There are a number of ethical options for how an observer in this siutation "should, could, or would act." As I said before, simply ceasing to shop at the establishment is an option. Another is to continue shopping there (because I know many places don't offer much variety in the way of places to buy goods) but to tell friends about the racist incident so that they may be informed about the nature of the establishment or of the employees working there. And sure, intervention is an option as well.

    I don't think nailing down "the" one ethical action is as important as recognizing the various ways in which to ethically react.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jackson Brown says,

    From an ethical standpoint, yes, I think that an observer in this situation should react in some way, even if that reaction is a delayed one.

    In this scenario, it seemed that all observers reacted in some way, but what is not clear is what liberal principle necessitates ANY ethical response?

    Because this type of situation isn't necessarily a wresting of one's freedom but a demonstration of a preexisting lack of freedom,...

    So you concede that, fundamentally, no liberal principles were subverted by these HIGHLY fictionalized "racist" encounters?

    In fact, you have merely established that NONE of us are absolutely free and such is the human condition. But again, it isn't clear what liberal principle would impose a certain reaction to racism as opposed to something like the progressive income tax. Both are demonstrations of a "preexisting lack of freedom," but only racism seems to raise the ire of liberals. There isn't a principled explanation as to WHY this is the case?

    There are a number of ethical options for how an observer in this siutation "should, could, or would act."

    Yet, none of the ethical options can be rooted in progressive liberalism, i.e., expanding freedom. Instead, what we have are the simple prejudices and biases of those that claim to be "liberal progressives." And because the "ethical options" are a finite list and racism is inexplicably deemed verboten, these "liberal progressives" actually become coercively impositional.

    They literally become what they abhor. This show was the very essence of "liberal progressives" attempting to coercively impose their worldview through HIGHLY fictionalized acts of racism. Yet this worldview has no legitimate basis. It's diabolical and needs to be seen for what it actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thordaddy:

    It sounds like you're taking issue with liberal progressivism more than with my personal point of view, so I'll step back from this debate.

    I will agree that the events depicted in the video are highly fictionalized and that the intent is to indoctrinate the viewer. I'll also agree that no one is truly free in American society.

    But I take issue with the idea that reacting even in a passive way to such events doesn't expand freedom in a sense.

    A mistake in examining this situation, I think, is focusing too much on the racially discriminatory event, itself, and not enough on its consequences. A reaction as simple as the customers spreading the word about racially discriminatory events spreads awareness and, hence, empowers other shoppers to make more informed decisions about the businesses they choose to patronize. That in itself is an expansion of knowledge and, in a sense, freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I haven't seen blatant racism that often, but I once overheard a few drunken Finns harass and threaten some black men who wanted no trouble from anyone outside my apartment window. I opened the window, took out my camera, snapped a photo and yelled to the Finns to bugger off and informed them that should they continue I had their photo and I knew the email address of the police department. (It worked.)

    Unfortunately, not long ago there was an obscene case of racist violence committed by the police force itself in Finland. Turns my stomach to think about it, but the story is too long for a comment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jackson Brown,

    I'm taking issue with the messenger and the fact that many on this blog fail to see the coercive impositional nature of the message because they are of like nature to the messenger.

    You continue to posit that some sort of reaction is ethically mandated, but you don't tie that notion into the principles of the messenger.

    We know racism exists, but it isn't clear that even in this highly fictionalized account such racism has any substantial effect on the freedom of its "victims."

    This in turn raises the question of WHY the messenger believes an ethical response is required in such racist situations as opposed to say something like the progressive income tax?

    WHY is an ethical response required in situations of racism and what liberal principle is the primary one that provides the justification for such an imposition?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thorndaddy: Ironically, the one fella actually called it right. This is playing the "black" card.

    Playing the "black" card means I and other whites are obligated to intervene in a situation that represented nothing more than a heated verbal disagreement between autonomous individuals in a liberal society.


    It seems like you missed what that guy was saying. He said that the black lady was playing the race card after witnessing her response. He was implying that she had no right to respond the way that she did - that it was OK for her to be treated the way she was. This was a "heated verbal disagreement" but it was in response to blatenly racist treatment. I'm not saying that everyone person should be expected to jump into that situation - not everyone has an outgoing or confrontational personality. However, I don't see how it's OK to blame the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thordaddy: I, like Mason, have never witnessed anything of this nature in 35 years.

    And that is suppose to mean what? That the world and all that happens in it always happens within an earshot if not right in front of you? That whatever there is to be experienced, that whatever there is to be witnessed, has to be something you've seen/experienced or else it doesn't exist?

    Seriously, what is the purpose of statements like yours? Why do you think it is relevant?

    This is about as odd as a reluctant heart patient saying since they've never seen an open heart surgery, etc. that the medical science doesn't exists and, as such, they are justified in not seeking medical attention for their heart condition.

    Exactly why having to personally witness something has any bearing on whether it exists or not (or, in this case, whether its something worthy of a TV show, even one as imperfect/overbearing as this one... NOTE: Both the "actress of color" and commenters here have said they've experienced or witnessed Shopping While Black, etc.).

    Which brings me to my closing point: are these "I haven't seen" statements really more about trying to negate or otherwise call into question, in this case, what other commenters have said they know exists/have experienced/witnessed?

    I'm just saying... because I see no other reason for someone to make a statement that's literally irrelevant.

    It would seem to me that TV specials like this and others like the ones with Black/White testers at car dealerships or as equally qualified job applicants go to production precisely because a certain amount of people, large numbers of people who say because they've never seen it that it doesn't exists or, like the guy in this fictional yet basically BASED ON A TRUE STORIES (ask Oprah) will readily blame the victim of freedom restricting discriminatory abuse when no one is watching and potentially judge them in full view of the general public as racist or what-have-you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Which brings me to my closing point: are these "I haven't seen" statements really more about trying to negate or otherwise call into question, in this case, what other commenters have said they know exists/have experienced/witnessed?

    that was exactly the point of that comment, if he hasn't seen it or experienced that it is not possible and all the people who have experienced it are just exaggerating or playing the victim or using the race card

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kevin Lockett,

    You fail to understand that I may interpret playing the "black" card in any way I desire just as you and other blacks may interpret "racism" in whatever manner you desire.

    Further, in a liberal society, my interpreted perception is given primary significance and you as a liberal progressive must concede that. This means that your rebuttal has no basis in your purported liberal principles as my interpretation may be every bit a "true" as yours.

    The question then remains.

    What liberal progressive principle necessitates a coercive impositional ethical reaction to racism?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Nquest,

    Don't be silly as you implicitly sell the absurd notion that whites commit invisible racism unknowingly.

    How is it irrelevant if liberal progressive entertainers concoct a false reality in order to make coercive demands on white people in particular?

    And how is it irrelevant if not one person in this entire discussion has ever witnessed such a highly fictionalized "racism?"

    Would you say this lack of experience in regards to God was equally irrelevant?

    Again, here is a liberal progressive making judgments and inexplicably questioning the perception of others while seemingly unaware that he has abandoned his liberal progressive principles.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thorndaddy,
    Just to let you know, I really don't like it when other people tell me what I believe, especially when they're wrong.

    While I am a "liberal" I do believe that there is a right and a wrong, and sometimes these things are absolute and immutable. There is a correct interpretation of what the gentleman in the video was saying. You can't just make up any interpretation and say that it's correct because it's your opinion. If that was the case, you could say that what he really meant was that elephants shouldn't eat pink bananas, and I'd have no basis for disagreeing with you. I think this would be a failed philosophy.

    The man, while engaging in a conversation with the sales person, agreed that the black female was out of line and that she was playing the "black card." How do you interpret this as anything other than him saying that she was playing the "black card" by complaining about unfair treatment? Also, his tone suggested that she was wrong for doing so. Are you suggesting that she should have been OK with being treated that way?

    Maybe the real problem is that YOU like to stereotype people, and think you have liberals all figured out without even listening to what we have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kevin Lockett,

    It's a good thing that you believe in objective truth. And so the objective truth about this highly fictionalized scenario of "racism" is that the black woman lost none of her freedoms. In fact, she was very much given the opportunity to exercise her freedom as Jackson Brown intimated.

    Now, you may take the position of Jackson Brown and impose the notion that others must react, perhaps intervene, on account of this highly fictionalized scenario of racism, but you can't do so under the pretense of applying liberal principles... Can you?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thorndaddy,

    1. How do you define "liberal principals"? For me, phrases like "I am my brother's keeper" come to mind, but I'm guessing you have a different definition.

    2. She lost no freedoms? Do you mean she had none of her Constitutional rights violated? Or do you literally mean she lost no freedoms? It seemed to me that she lost the freedom to shop in that store peaceably. Maybe you can argue that this is not a "right" but she did loose something.

    3. When did I say that the other people in the store had an obligation to intervene. It would be nice if they would, but, as I believe I stated above, it's unreasonable and unfair to expect that everyone would. That's just not in everyone's personality. It is reasonable to expect that a person not approve of what the sales clerk was doing, and that they would at least take the incident into consideration when deciding whether or not to patronize that establishment in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Kevin Lockett,

    I would say liberal principles start with the idea of being free to do as one pleases. Now, we understand that this is not absolute and many things we can not do without serious consequence.

    The question is the motivation for this liberal "entertainment?" You seem to remain aloof as to its purpose which is to tell white people what to do and what not to do in situations of highly fictionalized "racism" against black people.

    Do you acknowledge this purpose?

    So the question becomes how this imposition is rooted in liberal ideology? The second question becomes WHY must we acknowledge a highly fictionalized "racism" that merely provided a black woman an opportunity to exercise her freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I completely understand that the motives of the show are not completely pure. There are still things that we can take away from it, however.

    Also, is it bad to educate whites on how to respond to such a situation? Is that a bad conversation to have? Based on the reactions of the other shoppers (who thought the situation was real and reacted as they would have had it been), it's a needed discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ^^^ Haha, having the meaning of one's words skewed ... it is funny.

    Seriously, Thordaddy, as I've pointed out earlier, you're basing a lot of your arguments on misreadings/ misinterpretations of comments and broad conflations of terms.

    Some of your points are indeed valid, imo, but when you misread others' arguments so consistently, it makes it really hard to hold an earnest debate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Whoops, extra ^ on that last post. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Brown and Lockett,

    I think it would be reasonable to assume that both of you believe we live within a "white" dominated paradigm. But have you ever taken that further and speculated that we actually live under a "white" liberal paradigm which in actuality is just a liberal paradigm?

    The motives and intent of this show cannot be dismissed as it is the motive and intent of liberals to "educate" us as to the proper responses in situations of racism.

    But what we actually learned from this show is the objective fact that even in highly fictionalized instances of "racism," the black woman never lost any real freedom. In fact, she was given the opportunity to exercise her freedom within a very liberal society.

    So before you draw your interpretations on how to react or intervene in instances of racism, the objective truth is that even real racism is hardly an obstacle to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the average black person in our modern liberal society.

    With this understanding, white liberals can claim to live in a liberal society. What they can't explain is WHY they are trying to impose their will on the rest of us and still lay claim to being liberal?

    It seems rather like an attempt to showcase their implied supremacy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This story is the best reason ever to shop online. No one can racially discriminate or try to diminish your humanity against you when you are shopping in cyberspace.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thordaddy: Don't be silly as you implicitly sell the absurd notion that whites commit invisible racism unknowingly.

    I sold nothing and there was nothing "invisible" about the racism depicted in the TV show that is, again, BASED ON TRUE STORIES.

    What I did do was pose direct, EXPLICIT questions to you about what you clearly went about trying to do with your statement. Either you can answer my questions or you can KNOWINGLY, blatantly try to skirt them for obvious reasons.

    YOU SAID:
    I, like Mason, have never witnessed anything of this nature in 35 years.

    I clearly, EXPLICITLY asked you what is that supposed to mean? i.e. why did you say that and why you think/feel what you have witnessed or, in this case, not witnessed is relevant. I also clearly asked you what was the purpose of you mentioning your experience when other commenters have stated (as the actress in the show) that they have personally experienced/witnessed/seen the very real, very visible, very obvious racism that you not-so-curiously tried to frame as a "heated verbal disagreement."

    We all know the TV show was "fictional". They said so themselves. So it's high comedy for you to carry on about the scenario being "fictionalized." Like... duh!! But, obviously, with you invoking your 35 years experience what you clearly appear to be trying to say...what you clearly are trying to "sell" is that all claims regarding Shopping While Black are fictional or "exaggerated" (to use THELADY's) especially when you fixed your mouth to say the overdone TV re-enactment of sorts represented a mere “"heated verbal disagreement."

    Also, my exact question to you was:

    Seriously, what is the purpose of statements like yours? Why do you think it is relevant?

    That's an EXPLICIT and very direct question. It's not a hard question. Hell, it's only one word, really. WHY?

    I don't know why that's too much for you to handle. I also don't know what caused you to ramble and scramble trying to find other analogies or "how is it irrelevant" rhetorical questions when the analogy I supplied was damn near perfect with no "please buy what I'm selling" rhetoric. So be my guest. Tell me how relevant not personally witnessing open heart surgery is to the medical science reality. And since testimonals are used to promote awareness... Tell me how relevant is a person’s statement about not personally witnessing/experiencing open heart surgery when there are people who can swear that the medical science exist and have the scars to prove it.

    Re: your special “would you say” pleading regarding God... It's easy for me to say, "who the hell are you to tell someone that there is no God when their belief/religious experience tells them that God is real." If religious belief was the part of the topic here my position would be perfectly consistent. Indeed, your position here via your non-witness statement places you as the person arguing the negative (i.e. that "God is not real" or, in this case, Shopping While Black is not real).

    The least you can do is keep your own argument straight.

    So, frankly, your pleading "would you say" question about God doesn't even make sense as a counterpoint.

    YOU SAID:
    How is it irrelevant if liberal progressive...

    I asked you WHY do you think your 35 years non-witness experience is relevant. That has little, if anything, to do with the "entertainers." But you can used your preferred term. So, now, my question is:

    HOW IS YOUR 35 YEARS NON-WITNESS EXPERIENCE RELEVANT?

    I openly stated why I think you invoked your experience. I've stated how I see no other reason for someone to make a statement like the one you did, and particularly the way you did, than to try to negate or call into question what other people state is real, that they have experienced or witnessed Shopping While Black. Now, unless you are ALL SEEING, ALL KNOWING, etc... I don't know why your experience is relevant WHEN the factual reality of Shopping While Black can't be questioned, at least not with you trying to present your experience as the trump card over other people's experience.

    ReplyDelete
  40. That's okay, Thordaddy... I read the other thread and found this revealing statement of yours:

    I debate with black people, but they invariably all go down the same path except for maybe Lockett. At least he claims to embrace objective truth and doesn't necessarily believe black perception of racism is always true.

    Now it's clear why you invoked your apparently ALL KNOWING, ALL SEEING personal experience and presented it as the experience that trumps "Black perceptions of racism." For surely you availability as a witness automatically trumps not only Black people's ability to interpret their own experiences "objectively" (you know, they/we have such a big problem distinguishing between mere "heated verbal disagreements" and disagreements over whether some White person is justified in negative stereotyping us and treating us according to the stereotype).... No, your non-witness experience trumps Black people's ability to have an experience that you aren't privy to or otherwise aware of... if you're even honest enough to acknowledge anti-Black racism and admit that it is anti-Black racism when you do see/witness it. Something that obviously a legitimate question given both your weird "heated verbal disagreement" statement here and your revealing statement suggesting that you (in all your Whiteness, I guess) are the possessor of ALL "objective truth" and Black folk perceptions regarding racism are faulty until you (again, in all your Whiteness, I presume) render them valid based on you being there to personally witness incidents where Black people claim racism happens.

    Of course, they/we can't be telling the truth because nothing Black people say about their own experience can be valid/true unless you validate it as true.

    Of course, we all have to accept what you say at word because whatever you say about your experiences is ALWAYS not only true for you but it is, apparently, universally true. So, since you haven't seen these Shopping While Black incidents in all your 35 years, they simply can't exist because you are ALL SEEING and ALL KNOWING or something.

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @thordaddy
    >But what we actually learned from this show is the objective fact that even in highly fictionalized instances of "racism," the black woman never lost any real freedom. In fact, she was given the opportunity to exercise her freedom within a very liberal society.

    Why do you think that you can judge for another person, whether her freedom was violated or not?

    >the objective truth is that even real racism is hardly an obstacle to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the average black person in our modern liberal society.

    what is "real racism"?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nquest asks,

    I clearly, EXPLICITLY asked you what is that supposed to mean? i.e. why did you say that and why you think/feel what you have witnessed or, in this case, not witnessed is relevant. I also clearly asked you what was the purpose of you mentioning your experience when other commenters have stated (as the actress in the show) that they have personally experienced/witnessed/seen the very real, very visible, very obvious racism that you not-so-curiously tried to frame as a "heated verbal disagreement."

    It's meant to mean exactly what I said. Not in 35 years have I ever witnessed such a thing and either has anyone else on this thread. Does that mean overt and explicit racism doesn't exist...? Of course it doesn't. But what is does mean is that this "entertainment" was a highly fictionalized instance of concocted racism who's real world equivalent is questionably dubious

    If you want to claim this irrelevant then how liberal of you.

    Nquest, you seem unable to grasp that even in a concocted instance of "entertainment" racism all that was learned is that black people LOSE no real freedoms in a liberal society.

    Don't you get it?

    You think these liberal progressive entertainers are educatin' us intolerant, insulated folks when in reality all that "they" have done is shown us that in a liberal society even the most blatant and explicit "racism" doesn't thwart the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of single black person.

    Open your mind, homey!

    ReplyDelete
  43. jw asks,

    Why do you think that you can judge for another person, whether her freedom was violated or not?

    You saw the video. If that was "racism" then what freedoms did the black lady lose? Or, are you going to claim that you can't judge either and that the truth of the matter (whether this racism actually means anything significant) is purely the domain of the "victim's" perception?

    what is "real racism"?

    That is increasingly hard to say in a liberal society and it is not by mistake. It is everything (a black person's subjective perception) and nothing (a black person's subjective perception).

    Again, you seem to miss the underlying point. In a liberal society, racism has no effect on one's freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  44. >You saw the video. If that was "racism" then what freedoms did the black lady lose? Or, are you going to claim that you can't judge either and that the truth of the matter (whether this racism actually means anything significant) is purely the domain of the "victim's" perception?

    So you think it is ok and not limiting to a person to be treated that way? For me it clearly violates the freedom of a person, when somebody is treated the way the Black woman was treated. It also violates the dignity of a person.

    >That is increasingly hard to say in a liberal society and it is not by mistake. It is everything (a black person's subjective perception) and nothing (a black person's subjective perception).

    Means, you don't have an answer

    >Again, you seem to miss the underlying point. In a liberal society, racism has no effect on one's freedom.

    according this claim of you, the US isn't liberal, therefore, what is your point? On another blog you wrote, that affirmative action is discriminating against white males, I think you consider yourself a victim and this is where you are coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  45. sorry, forgot my name, the post April 1, 2009 7:07 AM is by JW

    ReplyDelete
  46. >“Again, you seem to miss the underlying point. In a liberal society, racism has no effect on one's freedom.”

    As if slavery didn’t exist in a liberal society. As if Jim Crow laws didn’t exist in a liberal society.

    >“You think these liberal progressive entertainers are educatin' us intolerant, insulated folks when in reality all that "they" have done is shown us that in a liberal society even the most blatant and explicit "racism" doesn't thwart the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of single black person.”

    You’ve said some asinine things on this blog, Thordaddy, but this crosses the line for me. My friend who was recently nearly beaten to death because of his race begs to differ that “even the most blatant and explicit racism does not thwart the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of [a] single black person.” Fuck you, you intolerant, insulated troll. I've tried to be civil to your ignorant posts--and it is ignorance to be so clueless about liberalism and racism--but this is too much.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Todd,

    Get off your high horse. Racism, poverty or violence are not unique to blacks. And your patronizing attitude towards them will only gain you resentment.

    You think blacks are the only one beaten to death for their "skin" color? Open the paper and turn on the news... Oh wait, you won't find such things in modern liberal publications.

    The fact is Todd, you live in an insulated liberal society that gives you little chance to step outside and look from about. If you did, you would see that you're a sucker getting played and your very way of life is what you're losing.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Racism, poverty or violence are not unique to blacks.

    Yet another off-the-wall statement that's IRRELEVANT to the issue at hand. IRRELEVANT as it bears no resemblance to anything Todd said. Thordaddy, you really should stop announcing how ill-prepared and ill-equipped you are to engage in OBJECTIVE TRUTH seeking debate.

    “even the most blatant and explicit racism does not thwart the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of [a] single black person.”

    That was your statement, *HOMEY*

    So you look rather stupid (unprepared and inept) whining to Todd about something Todd never said or intimated.

    Todd responded directly to what you said. You, however, per your pattern, find it too hard to do the same. So, it's clear you lack the skills (and, perhaps, the intellect) to engage in "any real" debate much less handle the OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

    Todd questioned your "liberal society" axiom and, showing a clear lack of skill, you not only avoided engaging in that debate about the OBJECTIVE TRUTH of whether "racism has no effect on one's freedom" in a "liberal society" but you tried to create a smoke screen with your rhetorical question that, again, wasn't based on anything Todd said (again, he said nothing about Blacks being the only ones...).

    Now, as for the nonsense you posted while pretending to respond to me...

    You think these liberal progressive entertainers are educatin' us intolerant, insulated folks ..."

    Dude...

    ____T____M____I____

    ____T____M____I____

    But, now that we know you that you know you are INTOLERANT and INSULATED... We can just disregard all the psycho-babble and orange flavored beetle juice you spilled all over this thread.

    Thanks for playing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. >”Get off your high horse. Racism, poverty or violence are not unique to blacks. And your patronizing attitude towards them will only gain you resentment.”

    I never wrote this was unique to blacks. Speaking against racism is not evidence of a patronizing attitude.

    >”You think blacks are the only one beaten to death for their "skin" color? Open the paper and turn on the news... Oh wait, you won't find such things in modern liberal publications.”

    On the contrary, I do find it in “modern liberal publications,” but it’s completely irrelevant to my comments, to this thread, and to this blog, which is about “Stuff White People Do.”

    >”The fact is Todd, you live in an insulated liberal society that gives you little chance to step outside and look from about. If you did, you would see that you're a sucker getting played and your very way of life is what you're losing.”

    Riiiiiggghhht. Who’s on the high horse? Presuming to know what I see and from where. You don’t know anything about my life. Poor little me, just a sucker getting played. By whom, I wonder. And what’s this way of life I’m supposedly losing anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nquest,

    You're not a minority. That's an objective truth. So quit pretending as if you're this poor sap who can't spread his "message" of victimhood to a global audience.

    When has "racism" ever stopped you from exercising your freedoms? When has "racism" ever stole your freedoms?

    Just because your mind tells you that racism is this or that, where's the proof in Nquest's life? Or does he think he can speak for others?

    Can you give us just one example of the "racism" you've encountered in which your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were thwarted? Or, are you going to tell us how irrelevant that is too?

    Todd,

    When you can think for yourself then get back to me. I want to know what you really think and not what others have told you to think.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thordaddy, tell me how the freedom of the Black woman in the video was not violated.

    you wrote:
    >Again, you seem to miss the underlying point. In a liberal society, racism has no effect on one's freedom.

    prove this. Come up with facts and stop your empty rethoric

    ReplyDelete
  52. jw,

    You saw the video.

    What freedoms did the black lady lose?

    Just answer the question for yourself.

    And again, unless you believe we DO NOT live in a liberal society, then tell us how "racism" limits one's freedom?

    What freedom is limited?

    We can watch the video and conclude unequivocally that the black woman actually had an opportunity to exercise her freedom as Jackson Brown had pointed out so eloquently.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Thordaddy, I've posted what I really think. I guess you just can't seem to understand why a white person would really disagree with you.

    And for crying out loud, you might at least look up liberalism on Wikipedia before you post again, because you come off as a complete dolt. Better yet, try reading some books.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Todd,

    The more you post, the less life experience you seem to have. For goodness sake, you think it tough to have a "white" person disagree with me? That's why I'm here, knucklehead. See, I like to venture outside my comfort zone for the very purpose of meeting indoctrinated white liberals such as yourself. I like to meet black supremacists like Nquest, too.

    What I don't appreciate is a clown who wants to offer his analysis without ever clarifying his first principles.

    I haven't a clue as to why you think the way you think and therefore I am left to speculate on what little intellectual tidbits you provide.

    Do you believe in a "white supremacist" paradigm?

    Do blacks in the present lose real freedoms when encountered by verbal "racism?"

    Are "whites" inherently racist?

    If so, does this mean "whites" are inherently evil?

    I bet if you put these questions to Nquest you might be disturbed, but only if you aren't too liberal. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  55. >"The more you post, the less life experience you seem to have. For goodness sake, you think it tough to have a "white" person disagree with me? That's why I'm here, knucklehead. See, I like to venture outside my comfort zone for the very purpose of meeting indoctrinated white liberals such as yourself. I like to meet black supremacists like Nquest, too."

    Wrong again. I’m well-traveled, well-read, have lived abroad, and have a wide range of friends, colleagues, and life experiences. When you post that “others” [read blacks] have a “hidden distaste” for “my kind,” you imply that my kind can only be white. I didn't say it was tough for you to have a white person disagree with you, but it obviously bothers you that I don’t subscribe to your racial solidarity, otherwise you wouldn’t insist that I “can’t think for myself,” or could only have “adopted the thinking of others”, or I am “indoctrinated.”


    >"What I don't appreciate is a clown who wants to offer his analysis without ever clarifying his first principles."

    You don't clarify what you mean by "first principles," clown.

    >"I haven't a clue as to why you think the way you think and therefore I am left to speculate on what little intellectual tidbits you provide."

    Clearly you haven’t a clue. You’ve demonstrated precious little ability to make accurate speculations. And again, your basic misunderstanding of liberalism and affirmative action is still coming through. At least read the Wikipedia entries on them before you post.

    >"Do you believe in a "white supremacist" paradigm?"

    You don't clarify what this means. Do we live in a society which privileges white people? Yes, we do. Lots and lots of evidence here, on job discrimination, housing discrimination, the justice system, in education, in the lived experiences of people of color, etc.

    >"Do blacks in the present lose real freedoms when encountered by verbal 'racism?'"

    Trying to narrow down racism to only verbal racism to make your point, huh? I don’t know why, since the video did not represent “merely” verbal racism, but the ACTION of preventing the black woman’s freedom to shop in that store. Still, there’s a compelling argument that “merely” verbal racism contributes to institutional and systemic racism.

    >"Are "whites" inherently racist?"

    Nope.

    >"If so, does this mean "whites" are inherently evil?"

    Nope.

    >"I bet if you put these questions to Nquest you might be disturbed, but only if you aren't too liberal. Get it?"

    Nothing you’re capable of saying will go over my head, so yes, I get it. And I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thordaddy,
    again, define "real racism"
    define "freedom" and how you can support your claim that "the black woman lost none of her freedoms"

    ReplyDelete
  57. Todd says,

    Wrong again. I’m well-traveled, well-read, have lived abroad, and have a wide range of friends, colleagues, and life experiences.

    This doesn't mean you have any experience with black people which is the context of this discussion. It's not even apparent that you've ever actually met a principled conservative that allowed you to recognize your subconscious liberalism.

    But I digress, as I said it only seemed as though you had little life experience and it should have been understood that I was making such a statement in regards to a certain context.

    Then you beg,

    You don't clarify what you mean by "first principles," clown.

    What makes you do what you do when you climb out of bed are your "first principles." What are yours and why do they cause you to be so concerned over white racism and black victimization?

    Next you puff,

    Clearly you haven’t a clue. You’ve demonstrated precious little ability to make accurate speculations. And again, your basic misunderstanding of liberalism and affirmative action is still coming through. At least read the Wikipedia entries on them before you post.

    I know you are a self-denying liberal. I know that you can't articulate why "racism" is near the top of your list of concerns as opposed to say abortion or the progressive income tax. I know you have probably had no violent or potentially deadly encounters with black folk. Should I go on?

    Then you say,

    Do we live in a society which privileges white people? Yes, we do. Lots and lots of evidence here, on job discrimination, housing discrimination, the justice system, in education, in the lived experiences of people of color, etc.

    What does that mean? What does it mean when a historic majority favors its own? What does it mean when Todd's mommy favors Todd? Why do you adopt this alien notion that favoring your own is abnormal while favoring the "other" is normal?

    Where do such ideas come from if not from your ideology? These ideas didn't come naturally, did they?

    Lastly you say,

    I don’t know why, since the video did not represent “merely” verbal racism, but the ACTION of preventing the black woman’s freedom to shop in that store. Still, there’s a compelling argument that “merely” verbal racism contributes to institutional and systemic racism.

    You seem at a loss in understanding that when one is presented an opportunity to exercise their freedom then one cannot simultaneously lose their freedom.

    You want to drive home the idea that a black person that is "victimized" by verbal racism of a highly concocted variety has actually lost their freedom. And your evidence of such loss...

    She can't shop at the store...?

    But in reality, she could shop at the store as the entire exercise was FICTIONALIZED ENTERTAINMENT of the liberal progressive kind.

    ReplyDelete
  58. jw,

    Was the black lady presented an opportunity to exercise her freedom as Jackson Brown so eloquently noted?

    If so, how could she have simultaneously lost her freedom?

    You seem to think freedom includes freedom from "racism." The "WHY" is the question you don't answer. Because if you did then you would recognize that the WHY is nothing more than adherence to your supposed ideology of modern liberalism.

    What is real racism?

    Real racism is what it always was... Implied supremacy based on skin color.

    Now, you and those like you have attempted to liberalize the definition of real racism, but all that you've really done is make it harder to identify and define. You've also, on account of your liberalism, expanded the reach of "racism" to include a greater and greater scope of human interaction.

    With this in mind, now "racism" is just whatever a black person claims it to be. But we know that this can't always be the case, can it?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thordaddy,

    The more you post, the more you show yourself to be ill-equipped and overmatched. I'm still waiting for an earnest response/answer from you:

    "I also clearly asked you what was the purpose of you mentioning your experience when other commenters have stated (as the actress in the show) that they have personally experienced/witnessed/seen the very real, very visible, very obvious racism that you not-so-curiously tried to frame as a "heated verbal disagreement."
    March 30, 2009 10:24 PM

    I'm waiting on you to not only explained that but to also explain why you felt like you had to lie >>>

    "It's meant to mean exactly what I said. Not in 35 years have I ever witnessed such a thing and (n)either has anyone else on this thread."

    Obviously your position is so weak you felt like you had to lie. Not only that, but your position is so weak, so truth-adverse that you figure you have to pull out all the stops, scrambling from tangent to tangent... anything but confront the sand-like bs your position has as it foundation.

    But, whenever you get through...

    "...what was the purpose of you mentioning your experience when other commenters have stated (as the actress in the show) that they have personally experienced/witnessed/seen the very real, very visible, very obvious racism [depicted in the show]?"

    Note: JC, ROXIE and THESCIENCEGIRL were some of the first commenters to say they have experienced SWB.

    So what is all the lying for, Thordaddy?


    Also...

    Tell me how relevant is a person’s statement about not personally witnessing/experiencing open heart surgery when there are people who can swear that the medical science exist and have the scars to prove it.

    You can either address those things directly, honestly... or prove my "black supremacy" -- i.e. prove how my ability (and that of pretty much everyone else in this thread) is superior to yours.


    PS:

    Thordaddy, do you project much??

    You're the one who got caught decrying AA because it is "the attempt to claim we're all really equal" according to you.

    Ha! That was another time when my "black supremacy" came through... When I asked you to explain that comment and noted how "it's like you're forwarding some kind of racial supremacy idea" YOU GOT REAL QUITE!! lol

    Then, like a predictable sucka!! "Nquest is a black supremacist."

    ROFLMAO!!!!

    I hope you can defend yourself better than that. Trying to call somebody else what you've demonstrated about yourself is the lamest, most pre-K trick in the book, Thordaddy.

    Calling me a "black supremacist" provides absolutely no cover for you. Plus, you're bound to open your mouth and let some more of that bs slip out anyway. But your misery (damn you f*cked up!) will get none of my company... lol

    ReplyDelete
  60. Nquest,

    I can't stand fellas that whine when they're not being treated like individuals and then whine when they're not treated equally.

    Which do you want, homey?

    In a liberal society, you're taught to believe you can have it both ways.

    Thus, in a highly fictionalized instance of "racism," you conclude racism alive and well. But if such "racism" is alive and well why the need for highly fictionalized instances of "racism" masquerading as "entertainment?"

    Why not film the real thing and see what white people do?

    Again, you claim that some have experienced what we saw on the video, but I see no evidence that suggests those ladies experienced the overt and explicit, albeit highly fictionalized, instances of racism shown in the video.

    Nquest, just tell us how "racism" has thwarted your freedom as opposed to giving you an opportunity to exercise your freedom within a liberal society?

    And then tell me what principles require me to care that you get to exercise your freedoms in confronting said racism?

    Lastly, how is your experience of "racism" relevant other than to say you suffer the human condition. Or, are you of the mind that you can't be racist?

    ReplyDelete

  61. With this in mind, now "racism" is just whatever a black person claims it to be. But we know that this can't always be the case, can it?

    I don't believe anything you say.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This doesn't mean you have any experience with black people which is the context of this discussion
    And even though there are black people participating in this discussion with you, it is clear that you don't have this experience either.

    ReplyDelete
  63. >Was the black lady presented an opportunity to exercise her freedom as Jackson Brown so eloquently noted?

    there is not just freedom to do something but also freedom from something. Being singled out in a shop because of race and being prevented from shopping there by the employees, this is discriminating against a person, which means the freedom from discrimination and therefore the freedom from oppression of the Black woman was violated, therefore she also is not able to exercise her freedom in a democratic nation to enter this shop to buy something.


    >You seem to think freedom includes freedom from "racism."

    Of course freedom includes also freedom from racism

    >The "WHY" is the question you don't answer. Because if you did then you would recognize that the WHY is nothing more than adherence to your supposed ideology of modern liberalism.

    whatever you think my ideology is


    >Real racism is what it always was... Implied supremacy based on skin color.

    And just because the employees didn't shout "we are superior to you", so that an idiot like you also can see the "real racism" it becomes irrelevant to you? Do you believe that racism is only displayed by groups like the Aryan Nation etc.?

    >Now, you and those like you

    Tell me who I am

    ReplyDelete
  64. I can't stand fellas that whine when they're not being treated like individuals and then whine when they're not treated equally.

    Which do you want, homey?


    Sorry, Thordaddy. You're going to have to speak English here -- i.e. pose questions based on things actually said or done. Since I have not whined about "not being treated like [an] individual" or whined about "not [being] treated equally"... You will have to TRY AGAIN.

    I will not accommodate your gross lack of skills. Oh but I will continue to highlight how you continue to COWER when questioned about things you have actually said. Note the difference:

    YOU SAID:
    "It's meant to mean exactly what I said. Not in 35 years have I ever witnessed such a thing and (n)either has anyone else on this thread."

    Both BEFORE and AFTER you statement, I noted how the only reason why you invoked your 35 years worth of non-experience with SWB was because you were trying (LIKE A COWARD, I might add) to DENY or negate what other commenters [JC, ROXIE, THESCIENCEGIRL, etc.] have said they know exists/have experienced/witnessed. They all said it before your first post as a matter of fact. But you felt like you had to LIE anyway.

    No wonder why you keep erecting straw men arguments built on stereotypes and pre-fab scripts... You are a living example of Living A Lie. So much of what you try to 'debate' is completely FABRICATED.

    But, go ahead... quote the MY statements (not yours) where I:

    1. whined about "not being treated like [an] individual"; and

    2. whined about "not [being] treated equally"...

    Do that or STFU and take this beating like a man. I can't help it if you flat out LIED when you tried to say nobody on this thread has "ever witnessed such a thing" and continued to LIE about it throughout the thread. I can't help it if you can't deal with the fact that you individual experience or non-experience, in this case, is IRRELEVANT.

    That's the issue, Thordaddy.

    Your non-experience is IRRELEVANT. And it was made IRRELEVANT (and fraudulent -- i.e. your statement that no one on this thread has "experienced such a thing) before you even opened your mouth via the witness testimony of JC, ROXIE, THESCIENCEGIRL, etc. That's all that's needed, so my shopping experience doesn't matter. This is all about your DENIAL in the face of facts that contradict your nonsense and your signature COWARDICE:

    Tell me how relevant is a person’s statement about not personally witnessing/experiencing open heart surgery when there are people who can swear that the medical science exist and have the scars to prove it.

    There is no way around it, Thordaddy. Your experience, all 35 years worth of it, is IRRELEVANT. I've referenced the comments from JC, ROXIE and THESCIENCEGIRL in support of my argument. So you asking me about my experience is IRRELEVANT.

    My point has already been made. You have already FAILED. And this is teetering on EPIC FAIL:

    if such "racism" is alive and well why the need for highly fictionalized instances of "racism" masquerading as "entertainment?"

    "I can't stand fellas" who are so overmatched that they ask questions that have already been answered. It exposes them as 3rd rate thinkers and lends credence to problematic theories of "black supremacy", in this case.

    Thordaddy, SHUT UP before you thoroughly convince me that you, with your ever increasing display of skill-less-ness, are not in my league.

    I'll remind you the bold-face LIE you made about "no one in this thread" and another statement you made in DENIAL: "heated verbal disagreement between autonomous individuals in a liberal society."

    With those things noted, (re)read the last paragraph in my first post on this thread (March 30, 2009 5:34 AM).

    I know you're slow but I'll be damned if I give you some remedial training for free. You might be the king of the circle jerk but I am not the one *HOMEY*


    ROFLMAO!!!

    And here's a blast from the past for the road:

    THORDADDY SAID:
    "You think these liberal progressive entertainers are educatin' us intolerant, insulated folks..."

    bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Nquest,

    Why should I care if SWB exists? I live in a liberal society where your offense IS NOT my obligation.

    Again, NONE of the ladies you mention claims to have experienced the concocted instance of "racism" that passes for entertainment.

    If my experience or lack thereof is irrelevant because YOU say so then such a principle is reciprocal. Your experience of racism is irrelevant especially when said racism DOES NOTHING to thwart your freedom.

    Once again, Nquest fails to convey what experiences have led him to believe that "racism" has denied him his freedom. Therefore, we can conclude that even if Nquest "experienced" racism, it is irrelevant as it DID NOTHING to thwart his freedoms.

    I suppose this is the time I get all angry at your intellectual vagrancy and blurt out something latently racist to soothe your soul.

    Sorry Nquest, but you don't get off so easy.

    Do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally"?

    If you can't answer this then the gig is up and your jive hustle is for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Nquest,
    Why should I care if SWB exists?


    ROFLMAO!!!

    Oh you care alright. You care so much that you felt compelled to LIE!!! So your emotional investment in DENIAL is extremely high.

    NONE of the ladies you mention claims to have experienced the concocted instance of "racism" that passes for entertainment.

    ROFLMAO!!!

    It's clear you're pulling that one straight out your azz. Now you're trying to act like you've wasted all this cyber ink because you have never been on the set or ever been hired an actor in a TV show attempting to draw attention to and/or monitor people's responses to a situation where SWB racism occurs.

    WOW!!! So JC, Roxie and TheScienceGirl aren't actresses or haven't been part of the studio audience or the extras for TV show trying to depict SWB racism, etc.

    WOW!!!

    You are clearly so emotionally invested in BULLSH*T that you actually trying to run that line.

    LMAO!!!

    Note: Your exact statement had you trying to use Ma[c]on as another person who had never witnessed SWB. Macon said:

    Personally, I've never seen this kind of in-your-face racism while shopping, but I have encountered more low-key examples.

    It's clear Macon's statement didn't revolve around his experience (as an actor or audience member) with TV shows. So, when you referenced Macon's experience and said your experience was like his, it's clear you were NOT talking about a gottdamn TV show experience. You know, stuff that "passes for entertainment."

    Once again, Nquest fails to convey what experiences have led him to believe that "racism" has denied him his freedom.

    Once again you have shown how overmatched you are. You can't even keep your own BULLSH*T straight. Notice how you didn't ask me about my TV show experiences. Notice how dumb-fuck-stupid it sounds for you to invest all this time and energy into a ridiculous argument (ridiculous if this is all about TV show or "entertainment" experiences) over whether play a role in a TV show infringes on a person's freedom.

    You just shot all your "liberal society" nonsense out the water. It's clear you're the one trying to have it both ways. One minute you want to frame things in terms of said "liberal society." The next minute, you try to use the TV show setting as a way to disingenuously dismiss the real experiences real people have had with real SWB.

    As for what you care about... I don't give a flying fuck what you care about. I'm addressing the bs you've posted on this blog. I can't help it if I've dismantled your bs so much that you feel like I'm trying to get you to care about racism.

    You and what you care about will never be important to me. I just like slappin' the sh*t out of people like you online with logic that you just can't fuck with:

    Tell me how relevant is a person’s statement about not personally witnessing/experiencing open heart surgery when there are people who can swear that the medical science exist and have the scars to prove it.

    So you, what you care about, your pathetic little circle jerk argument here, etc., etc. are IRRELEVANT. I do this about "that's entertainment!!"

    :)

    Do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally"?

    Quote MY statements (not yours) where I:

    1. whined about "not being treated like [an] individual"; and

    2. whined about "not [being] treated equally"...

    Do that or STFU!


    I suppose this is the time I get all angry at your intellectual vagrancy and blurt out something latently racist to soothe your soul.

    Hahahahaha!!!!

    You've already blurted out more than enough. Plus the fact that you keep supposin' and worrying about what I think about you -- as opposed to you showing the intellectual integrity and fortitude to actually stand up and back up/substantiate your claims -- is a constant supply of soul soothing evidence that you are overmatched and your stock STEREOTYPES and pre-K tactics are all you got.

    I laugh every time you COWER and back away from addressing direct questions to THINGS YOU'VE SAID or done. Again, note the difference. Your question:

    Do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally"?

    Does NOT pertain to anything I've said or done here. Make your questions RELEVANT, Thordaddy or STFU!

    And have a nice day! :)

    ReplyDelete
  67. This is for that joke of a question you posed in the AA thread and the joke that is your not-so-clever dismissal of the witness/experience testimony of the ladies here in this thread...

    On March 31, 2009 @ 11:48 PM
    But what is does mean is that this "entertainment" was a highly fictionalized instance of concocted racism who's real world equivalent is questionably dubious.

    Emphasis on REAL WORLD EQUIVALENT

    END OF YOUR CIRCLE JERK


    Now, directly to that joke of a question you coughed up in the other thread:

    "...are highly fictionalized instances of concocted racism real?"

    Damn you're aimless with your skill-less-ness. I mean, you're so pathetic when it comes to actually addressing direct questions/challenges to your initial arguments/claims that your weakness in that area has driven you to this?!!

    Asking me if something that's FAKE (i.e. concocted) or FICTIONALIZED (dude, it was a TV show) is real? Man, you're desperate!! lol

    For some reason, you just don't want to take this beatin' like a man. But it is fun to see how you will try to pretend like you don't "care" when you've expended all this time and energy trying to DENY the REAL WORLD EQUIVALENT -- i.e. the real world instances -- when/where SWB occurs.

    If you didn't care, you wouldn't have tried to make an argument using this question to JW trying promote your DENIAL agenda:

    are you going to claim that you can't judge either and that the truth of the matter (whether this racism actually means anything significant) is purely the domain of the "victim's" perception?

    GAME OVER, Thordaddy. You lose.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Nquest,

    Clearly you're a bloviating buffoon.

    It is rather self-evident that no one on this blog has claimed to have suffered or witnessed this degree of overt and explicit racism because IT was a HIGHLY FICTIONALIZED instance of CONCOCTED "RACISM."

    And a clown like you takes this concocted "reality" and says it's real. Well, it is not real, but stuff like that really happens and my home girls on the blog have said so.

    But if stuff like this is so real and prevalent then WHY NOT film the real thing and see what white people do?

    And if stuff like this is so real and prevalent then WHY NOT have Nquest give us some personal stories of lost freedoms due to racism and then tell us how you got them back?

    Again homey, do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally?"

    ReplyDelete
  69. Thordaddy, again, why do you believe the freedom of the Black woman wasn't violated?

    Why do you fixate on your "It is rather self-evident that no one on this blog has claimed to have suffered or witnessed this degree of overt and explicit racism because IT was a HIGHLY FICTIONALIZED instance of CONCOCTED "RACISM."

    What do you truly want to say with it? Why do you become so hysterical and why don't you answer questions?

    ReplyDelete
  70. And a clown like you takes this concocted "reality" and says it's real.

    There you go LYING again. Sucks to be you = all overmatched and lacking in skills.

    ROFLMAO!!!

    What I said was that you are AIMLESS and DESPERATE asking bs questions as you try to AVOID answering direct questions to things you actually said. NOTE THE DIFFERENCE!

    Buffoon = you and the ridiculous arguments you've amused me with.

    Once again, emphasis on "REAL WORLD EQUIVALENT." That's a DIRECT QUOTE from you, Thordaddy. So obviously...

    "...But what is does mean is that this "entertainment" was a highly fictionalized instance of concocted racism who's real world equivalent is questionably dubious."

    You're the one who's on record saying it's REAL -- i.e. the scenario depicted in the TV show has a (((and I quote you))) "REAL WORLD EQUIVALENT."

    END OF YOUR CIRCLE JERK

    Thordaddy, quit affirming and reaffirming my "black supremacy" with your every post. It's beginning to go to my head. lol

    But if stuff like this is so real and prevalent then WHY NOT film the real thing and see what white people do?

    Why not? WHY would that need to be done? What purpose would that serve? WHY do you want that done? You've already shown your hand, Thordaddy. The DENIALS are so big in you, you've already called the incident depicted in the TV show a mere "heated disagreement."

    Once again, GAME OVER. You lose from over-self-exposure. You have been (self) EXPOSED.


    Again homey, do you want to be treated like an individual or do you want to be treated "equally?"

    Make your questions RELEVANT or STFU!!

    I can spell that out and say it real slow so you can catch up with the class and grasp simple concepts that obviously keep confusing you.

    That is, make sure your questions are related to something I've actually said *ahem* RELATED TO SOMETHING I ACTUALLY SAID or STFU.

    It's just that simple. Man it sucks to be you...

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anon asks,

    Thordaddy, again, why do you believe the freedom of the Black woman wasn't violated?

    Because she was actually given an opportunity to exercise her freedom as Jackson Brown so eloquently pointed out.

    You can't deny this and so you are left with the idea that she both lost her freedom and had the opportunity to exercise her freedom, simultaneously. How does this happen?

    Again, you seem unaware that the point of the show was to say that in a modern liberal society, "racism" DOES NOTHING to inhibit one's freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Thordaddy,

    Jackson Brown wrote:

    "Hence, the video doesn't depict a loss of freedom so much as it demonstrates (albeit, as you say, in a "highly fictionalized" manner) a POC's lack of freedom in a racist society.

    Because this type of situation isn't necessarily a wresting of one's freedom but a demonstration of a preexisting lack of freedom"


    you wrot:

    "Again, you seem unaware that the point of the show was to say that in a modern liberal society, "racism" DOES NOTHING to inhibit one's freedom."

    whereever your highly fictional modern liberal society might be, you clearly can't talk about America

    ReplyDelete
  73. I haven't read the comments so am just responding to the post. I agree with your reservations about this type of "experiment." In some ways I think a scene like this will underscore for many Americans that racism looks blatant like this, and will leave them oblivious to the more subtle ways it operates (as you mentioned).

    But perhaps the most striking thing to me (perhaps influenced by the fact that it was at the end of the piece) was that when those two white women DID speak up against what was happening and walked out with the Black woman, most of the other clientele followed!

    Teachers often say in classrooms "always ask a question you have because it's likely ten other people are wondering the same thing". The chain reaction of customer support struck me the same way. It's unfortunate that people would need such permission to act, that they would rely on following someone else's example instead of standing up first themselves, but it also drives home the point that it's so important for those of us who understand these dynamics to do something about them.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Have you encountered racism while shopping? If so, what did you do?
    Yes, too many to name, and the fact of the matter is when it happens there are too few allies. And I'm also going to talk about dining while black.

    I joke that I do most of my shopping online so that I don't have to deal with this crap. A particularly funny and shameful (funny, because it was so outrageous, shameful, because I was too shocked to do anything other than turn on my heel and walk out). I was in a car accident in the mid 90s and my car had to go for repairs. My insurance company covers for rental during the repair period. I called up an Enterprise rent a car, gave my name and said I would be there to give them a credit card (my accent sounds vaguely British, this will become relevant in a bit).

    I show up, make my way to the counter and give my name. I can already sense some arctic cold from the white woman behind the counter. When she asks what card I'll be putting it on I pull out my AMEX. She grabs it and asks "Where did you find this!". My jaw almost hit the floor. I took the card back, turned around and walked out (a totally stupid response, I should have raised hell).

    I've had other experiences when just plain shopping (no help, followed around, credit card scrutinized like it had 'FAKE!' printed on it in bold red letters), line jumping (this one is particularly irritating, I get to the counter and I'm ignored, a white customer walks to the same counter and the cashier who clearly knows who is next looks at the white customer expectantly and says 'next', totally ignoring the fact that I was there first.)

    A famous black author had a great way of dealing with it (I don't remember her name now). She went shopping at an upscale store and was followed around. She gathered all the things she wanted to buy, probably to the tune of $2000 , got the counter, pulled out her credit card and had the sale rang through. Then she asked for a refund because she wanted to return it all. When the now suddenly friendly cashier asked why she said

    'When I walked in, no one offered to help me. I asked for help and was treated brusquely. However, you and the security guard had no problem following me around. At that point, I had no intention of buying anything. So I'm doing this to teach you an important lesson. First, I can afford this, as you now know, second, I would like to speak to your manager and would like to let you know that I will never shop at your store again and I'll tell everyone I know about my experience.'


    Another one, when my wife (who is white) and I were in San Francisco on holiday, I can't tell you the number of times I was asked for id after handing over my credit card. It was many more times than my wife was asked, and the ironic thing is, she is paranoid, so on her credit cards rather than a signature she has "Ask for ID". Mine has my signature.

    The one time we did raise hell was at (feel free to remove the name of the restaurant if there are any issues) a restaurant called "The Middle East" in Cambridge, MA. We ordered food and our check came before the food. I, ever the pacifist, was going to pay the bill, and what also made the situation ambigious was that our server was black (Ethiopian). My wife, on the other hand, has a temper. She leans over and asks the white couple dining a couple of tables over whether they had to pay before their meal. They hadn't. She did the same with a couple further down. So even though I'd paid, we asked to speak to the manager. The server knew she was in trouble and tries to tell us the hapless white bartender was the manager (and you could tell he wanted none of it). So we asked for a refund, walked out and we told all our friends what happened. In this instance, it wasn't cut and dry, I'm black (African), my wife is white, the server was black (Ethiopian). But being black doesn't guarantee that one is immune from racist thinking.

    In the early 90s I had the same exact experience and in that case, it was a hole in the wall in a town called Everett that I had the misfortune of living in, and the owner outright said to my face that blacks had to pay before eating. I paid, and walked out in spite without eating my food (and then realized later how stupid that was).

    My wife once had a conversation about this. She used to waitress in college, and she told me in her opinion she could see why blacks wouldn't tip. She says that they always got the worst service. She would serve them and treat them with respect, and it got to the point that black patrons would come in and specifically ask for her as their server (and the ironic thing is that a lot of times the other servers wouldn't want to serve them for fear of a bad tip, a self fulfilling prophecy). She got tipped well by same black patrons. I always tip about 20% unless the service has been atrocious, but believe me there are times I know that the service I got didn't deserve a single red cent (along with constantly fighting not to be sat by the toilet or fire exit in upscale restaurants).

    I actually really liked the 'What would you do' segment and virulently hate the 'True Colors' clip in one of your later posts. I feel that the What Would you Do clip, while not perfect, does a great job of showing just how stuff like this happens and bystanders either ignore it or even actively buy into it (The guy who said she was trying to play the 'black' card was priceless. There is also a reason why blacks were more likely to step in, they've had personal experience with it. And therein lies another problem, the myth of 'blacks playing the race card' has so permeated our national consciousness that until a white person speaks it blacks concerns may not be taken seriously.

    Anonymous African

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Peter


    I doubt any IRB would have approved this, and I worry how many of the "over one hundred" customers they filmed were debriefed about the 'experiment' and given some context to understand what they witnessed and hopefully understand how better to respond in the future.


    I suspect that as a condition for letting their store be used for this experiment the store owners demanded that anyone who was part of the experiment be debriefed after the fact. Otherwise, there would be the risk of some customers actually thinking that is how the boutique is (and hey, maybe some would like it, but others wouldn't say anything but would tell their friends not to shop at such and such boutique.

    Anonymous African

    ReplyDelete
  76. Very recently, while in a department store, a lady in front of me at the cash register was protesting a price that she was charged for an item. She made the comment about what do you Blacks know about being a cashier. I jumped in by saying that she has no control over the price of the item, that it was done in another State out west on a big computer, and that she is not Black, but Haitian, and I ended the conversation by indicating that she had said enough. She left mumbling some obscenities at me, but I did not pay any attention.
    The cashier thanked me and asked me how I knew she was Haitian. J'ai dit que votre nom m'a dit, mon chere!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Just the other day, my mother and I were in a material store trying to buy something for my school project. The prices in this store were way too high ( $25 per metre) and the quality wasnt good either. I'm not a professional sewer yet, so Mum wanted to get something a bit cheaper. In the reduced section was some average looking material going for $5, so we decided to pick it up. As we approached the counter the lady in front of us was being served polietly, and she too had purchased material from the reduced section. I then realised out material that was going for $5 per metre was 2m long so when it was our turn we asked for it to be cut. (Without even greeting us)The man stared at us and exclaimed "either take it as it is, or go away" as shocking as that is- the man wouldnt even tell us the price in the end, just tapped the screen of the price..

    ReplyDelete
  78. This video is so fake. You can tell these chick's know each other. Look at the camera views and shots. Like the white chick doesn't know she's being filmed. Haha. My black people are hurting America. Let's stop all this.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I myself had conflicts with people shopping at a supermarket. For identification purposes, my family is from Puerto Rico. There was a guy of white skin color who rammed his cart against mine, almost hitting me, while walking passed me in a wide isle. He knew what he did because he quickly glanced back. I followed the guy and walked very close to him and he refused to look at me in the eye. Already pissed off, a black guy cut me off as I had "the right of way" walking a main isle towards a checkout lane. Not realizing it by how angry I was, ended up behind the same black dude in the checkout lane because a white lady previous in front of me suddenly went to another lane. I looked at him noded ( a mistake on my part ) and he looked at me like he was pissed at me. After it was my turn to approach the cashier, the guy kicked my shopping cart which hit my arm. He looked at me with this angry look on this face ( obviously ) and mad as I was told him ( expletive not included ) what his problem was. I think the both of us reacted inappropriately and after I cooled of I wanted to apologize. I've come across good and bad people of all colors in shopping situations. I once had a situation when a white guy suddenly touched my infants leg when i was distracted. I was really pissed off and almost hit the guy but I had to keep under control for the safety of my children. A black guy once cursed in front of my kids. I glanced at him and he apologized, water under the bridge. There are times when I had to stand up for myself and times when it was best to let it go. There are moments when I could have handled things better. Regardless, racism can't be ignored and my father, a black puerto rican, experienced racism in his lifetime. I experienced prejudice in Japan when a restaurant owner told me to leave seconds after I walked through the front door. In another occurrence, A Japanese guy pushed me hard as he was walking. The train station was empty at the time and the guy could have easily avoided me. There were many more situations that required me to be cool headed and bite my teeth. Racist, prejudice, and intolerant thoughts and behaviors exist and are unfortunately committed against people of any color, against each other. Most importantly, tolerance for each other as human beings is growing thin.

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.

hit counter code