Wednesday, December 23, 2009

express their racist opinions with t-shirts



This white American, who was recently caught on camera in Washington, D.C., probably doesn't realize that the opinion he's expressing with this t-shirt is racist. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he's the sort of ordinary white American who swears up and down that he's not only not a racist himself, but also that the real racists are black people, because they keep "playing the race card." And also, if he himself does happen to be a tiny bit racist, well, that's only because they make him that way, by "constantly crying 'racism!'"

I snagged this photo from Wonkette, where it's accompanied by their usual, extra-hot Snark Sauce:

Wonkette operative “Rob J.” sends us this pic of a Real American he saw at L’Enfant Plaza today, making some point about the Blacks and their long history of enslaving others. What a horrible misspelling of that one country’s name! There are two g’s, idiot.

Wonkette's writer of this post set it up as a "caption contest," and if you're into clever snark, I recommend the comments (which is not to say that I recommend all of the comments). I can't resist reprinting the proposed caption that I'd pick as the winner -- commenter Patty Dumpling wrote, "The back says: 'Mustache Rides: 25 Cents (NO COLOREDS).'” (Sorry if that offends anyone; there's no accounting for what makes different people laugh.)

So here's the main reason I reproduced this sad, infuriating, and ultimately delusional t-shirt -- it's another iteration of a concept covered most ably by Abagond (in an swpd guest post, and at his own blog), "The Arab Trader Argument." Among his blog's many other ponderings, Abagond regularly explicates common white tendencies. In addition to explaining so clearly what these tendencies are and how they work, Abagond also provides convenient labels for them, labels that I think should be used again and again, so that they acquire common currency.

As for that man in DC and his racist t-shirt, it's hard to take seriously a public message from someone who can't even be bothered to spell correctly the names of the countries he's splayed across his chest (or maybe, there just wasn't quite enough room for all the letters in "Mauritania"?). Still, this t-shirt is worth noting, because its message, or argument, is such a common white mode of derailment, and oblivion. It's basically saying, "They did it too, so stop blaming us for doing it!" It's basically, that is, childish.

It's an example of The Arab Trader Argument, which, as Abagond explained,

goes like this: if white Americans do something evil and terrible it is all right -- or at least not all that bad -- so long as they can find at least one example from world history of someone else doing the same thing. Thus the Atlantic slave trade was not so bad because Arabs traders sold slaves too!

This argument isn't just childish and silly. It's also insidious, because white people so often use it, and variations of it, to justify their people's own past and present abuses of other people. It's also a way of shrugging off collective racial responsibility for such abuses, including one's own complicity in them.

The Arab Trader argument appears in many guises. Here, for instance, is another example that I heard recently --

Well, it may be true that white people continue to benefit from white privilege. And yes, institutional racism exists too. BUT, if the tables were turned, black people wouldn't do anything about it either.

And so, the logic goes, "Since they would enjoy the perks of racial privilege and ignore oppression that they've caused, why should white people do anything about all that? Get off our case, why don'tcha? We're really no one worse than anyone else would be in our position. They'd do it too!" (And something else -- it always seems to be "the blacks," doesn't it?)

So yes, I think "The Arab Trader Argument" is a mighty useful phrase, in part because it covers so many common white modes of racial deflection. In fact, these deflections are so common that they're even showing up on t-shirts.

Have you heard other forms or examples of The Arab Trader Argument?

Also, do you know of other race-cognizant terms or phrases that have gained common currency in this here Age of the Internetz? Actually, I'd like to see "common white tendencies" get some traction (not that I think I necessarily created it, nor that I want credit for it -- I just think that white people should realize that they have common tendencies -- that they're not all the free-floating individuals they tend to think they are).

Nezua has an extensive "Glossario" of such items -- I've read other people's usages of, for instance, "The Drowning Maestro" (though the common white tendency described by that term seems to be described more often as "the tone argument").

Other examples of recent Internet race-jargon that you've seen widely used? Or, are there others, like The Arab Trader Argument, that you think deserve wider use?

135 comments:

  1. Wow, he's a bold dumb-ass, huh? What part of D.C. was he so daringly wearing this p-hole of a shirt?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dang Nab-it Macon! Stop linking to other good blogs thus making me add to my already insanely long google reader blog feed. I've had to add TWO today! AHHHRRGG

    As for this idiot, I'm thinking that he isn't from the DC metropolitan area b/c there are a whole lot of black folks and he was downtown. If he is lucky he just got the stank eye, or maybe cursed out, if he wasn't lucky, he got his butt whooped. Then again, I was able to restrain myself twice this year from going off on white racists with Obama as Hitler signs, mainly b/c I didn't want to get arrested and add to statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I also really hope someone from one of those actual countries was on the metro to discuss this issue with him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. >> "Other examples of recent Internet race-jargon that you've seen widely used? "

    -Oppression Olympics
    -Bingo cards/bingo square
    -"White liberal racism" as differentiated (um, sort of) from Racism.

    If you're taking suggestions on coining new terms for oft-seen phenomena that somehow don't have names yet, I'm thinking that we should name "question the authority of POC" after RVCBard somehow.

    (Seriously. Why is she always the target of that?)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although I have no doubt that this particular dude is a racist, I'll opt out of this one. I disagree on about 7 accounts.
    Evil is human, not White. Same goes with Slavery. If you're into Black and White (pun intended), go ahead and claim otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is like when people say stuff like "but the Irish were slaves too." Yes they were, and it was horrible, and history likes to minimize the Irish genocide, but the people who make the "and now they're fine" argument forget stuff like The Troubles and all the other problems it's still causing. But clearly racism deniers don't really care about the facts, they prefer to provide their own version of history. Admitting the terrible toll slavery and colonialism and continuing racism has taken on blacks and other peoples is just too inconvenient.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The most common iteration of the Arab Trader Argument that I came across in Australia was deflecting accusations of racism with: "Chinese people are totally racist too!"

    Whether this is true or false is irrelevant, as the logic of this argument could be demolished by a small child.

    So if someone else does something horrible that makes it okay for you to do it? What about murder? Lots of people murder other people, does that excuse it if I do it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. [no slappz, I rejected your comment because this isn't a blog about stuff Arab and black people do. Surely you've figured that out by now? ~macon]

    ReplyDelete
  9. In advertising it's very common to not hire black people and claim (and I'm not making this up) "we can't find any!" The blacks just seem to dry up and disappear from this industry that daily makes it's living off of nearly fetishizing african americans and their culture.

    I hear-by deem this: evanegress. Like; evanesce, to pass out of sight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Has no slappz ever actually had a comment published?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mauitania...the dark island of Hawaii.

    Racist, stupid & illiterate, is that some sort of trifecta?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mine would say "Repatriation Now!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The comment that really killed me over there was "I went to the Republican National Convention and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Julia asked,

    Has no slappz ever actually had a comment published?

    I don't think so, not here anyway. I just went through a bunch of recent posts and couldn't find any. I'm kind of surprised that he or she is having so much trouble writing something publishable. . .

    ReplyDelete
  15. honeybrown1976 asked,

    What part of D.C. was he so daringly wearing this p-hole of a shirt?

    The Wonkette post said he was at L’Enfant Plaza.

    ReplyDelete
  16. No slappz has had a book's worth of the very same type of mess published over at Abagond's ... my eyes are bleeding. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cosigning honeybrown1976. I think I just spent a week over at Abagond's blog. Love.

    ReplyDelete
  18. on top of all of that the first country is misspelled. it is mauritania. can folk at least do a spell check before they parade in the streets with bullshit on their shirts!

    ReplyDelete
  19. KD said,

    Evil is human, not White. Same goes with Slavery. If you're into Black and White (pun intended), go ahead and claim otherwise.

    You're not a very good reader, are you?

    So, if you ran into this guy in the photo, and he was selling these t-shirts, then I guess you'd buy one?

    ReplyDelete
  20. “KD said...

    Although I have no doubt that this particular dude is a racist, I'll opt out of this one. I disagree on about 7 accounts.
    Evil is human, not White. Same goes with Slavery. If you're into Black and White (pun intended), go ahead and claim otherwise.”

    Try telling that to the black man before he was castrated and lynched. Try telling that to the parents of the little girls who lost their lives in the 16th street Baptist Church. Try telling it to the slaves that labored from, "can see to can't see" without recompense. Speak to those who were sometimes whipped until death by the overseer, (According to Frederick Douglass.)

    Try telling that to Jews who still live with the terrible memories from concentration camps. Try explaining that to the black woman who stood on the auction block naked- and ashamed in front of a sea of white faces. To those victims, “Evil” was more than just the absence of good; it was more than just an index of abstract concepts defining the lack of morality. Evil had a face, it was tangible and identifiable. It went by many names too, such as Christian- Enlightened, Civilized and Real Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Other examples of recent Internet race-jargon that you've seen widely used?"

    Hipster Racism
    You've seen it. It's closely related to White Liberal Racism. Only more ironic!
    *sigh/nosepinch*

    The term was coined a few years ago, but I've been seeing it in use a lot lately. Probably because the phenomenon has lately become near-ubiquitous. The original post is here at Racialicious (about a quarter of the way down).
    _____

    As for this... specimen, I wonder how much he even got hassled. It's possible he got pummeled, but it also wouldn't surprise me if he didn't get much more than a whole lot of pointed contempt. Because he is clearly a troll. (As it were.) Not only are people less likely to engage "IRL," this guy's obviously a lost cause— and happy about it. It's like, why even waste your breath?
    I wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you're taking suggestions on coining new terms for oft-seen phenomena that somehow don't have names yet, I'm thinking that we should name "question the authority of POC" after RVCBard somehow.

    (Seriously. Why is she always the target of that?)


    Why meeeeeeeee?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ macon D: Well, if I am not a good reader, then I wonder why YOU only quoted the second part of my post.

    I have read your link now and I beg to differ. A friend of mine works at the Polaris Project, If I'd tell him that slavery is a thing white people do, I doubt we'd still be friends.

    And why do you believe that de-humanizing or maybe even also fetishizing PoC by turning it into a PoC=good, White=all evil thing is better than or different from what Cathie is doing?

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Macon D: Also- You forget that I'm a historian...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sidenote: It's weird how the internet and 'real' life sometimes blend into one another. I just left my laptop, walked over to the super market. I was still with the blog in my mind, annoyed and feeling depressed. I decided to stop reading, cause I have already enough other stuff to be depressed about. In the supermarket I then found many vegetables had been equipped with a racist sticker the same size as the usual origin sticker. So I'll keep reading for now.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just practicing my Derailment Detection on some of KD's comments.

    "A friend of mine works at the Polaris Project, If I'd tell him that slavery is a thing white people do, I doubt we'd still be friends."

    A hybrid of "Well I Know Another Person From Your Group Who Disagrees!" and "I have black friends."

    "You forget that I'm a historian."

    AKA "You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact"

    "And why do you believe that de-humanizing or maybe even also fetishizing PoC by turning it into a PoC=good, White=all evil thing is better than or different from what Cathie is doing?"

    AKA "You're As Bad As They Are"

    I don't think I did too badly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ mgibson:

    I think that's exactly where the crux of the argument lies:
    Two options-
    Option A: Use the fact that slavery and evil are colorblind as a BS argument on why American 99% White slavery was "okay"/ "forgivable"
    Option B: Not use this as any kind of argument like Option A, but also don't generally take away agency from PoC by assigning evil (whatever it may be) purely to Whites, even if this is both in a historically and in a contemporary perspective grossly incorrect.

    Do you see where I'm coming from?

    And I dislike the fact that you made Jews non-White in your argument (just as an aside: Indians, both from India, and Native Americans, were deemed 'White" by the Nazis; what I'm trying to say: history is complex). Inventing a pseudo history is also unnecessary for the sake of an anti-racist argument. The ACTUAL real history is bad enough.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry, one last thing: I read the Drowning Maestro definition, yet I still believe that it depends on what you're trying to achieve. If this is supposed to be a forum to vent injustices among PoC: fair enough, yell (caps), use expletives, abuse whatevs. If this is supposed to convince the as-of-what still not 100% convinced and win new allies, then that is not a good strategy.

    (And no, I would never wear such a T-shirt, but I would also never say that slavery is a White thing and therefore deny the suffering of modern day slaves and trafficked people)

    ReplyDelete
  29. KD, did you read the links in the post about the Arab trader argument? It's a common derailment tactic, and you're pretty much on the verge of it.

    The point of swpd isn't to discuss Human Evil (or the occasional Human Goodness), it's to discuss stuff white people do.

    You make a big point of being a historian, so perhaps thinking of it this way will help: when we discuss things like slavery, conquest, oppression, etc., we use a specific historical context (albeit a broadly defined one): white imperialism and its (after?)effects. This is not to say that human trafficking didn't and doesn't happen in other contexts, but rather that, because white-on-black slavery happened in the context of the global system of white supremacy over all POC that most of the posters here want to bring down, it is part of our conversation in a way that other types of slavery aren't.

    I'm guessing you have access to a university library, so maybe you could use the break to check out Ruth Frankenburg's White Women, Race Matters and bell hooks' Ain't I A Woman? (That is a serious recommendation, BTW, not snarky at all. If you have any sort of theological background in addition to history I'd say Jacquelyn Grant as well, but really, WWRM and anything by bell hooks are a good place to start).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just a note for KD in case it was in doubt:

    My blog (as well as The Glosario) is not intended to "convince the as-of-what still not 100% convinced and win new allies."

    Not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @KD - If we use gender issues to illustrate the Arab Trader tactic, it goes something like this: Women try to fight male sexism and domestic violence. Men respond by saying, "Tiger Wood's wife (female) did something that in the end caused him physical harm. She's not the first woman to do this to their male partner. Plus women can be real manipulative with their partners. So 'evil' is not a male thing. Women do it too. It's a human thing."

    Yeah, I dig that 'evil' is an all human thing. But that's not the point is it? Saying that doesn't help fight sexism nor racism. Does that help clarify things?

    ReplyDelete
  32. The most common expression I heard when I taught at University a decade ago was:
    "Well, the (fill in the blank) are just as racist in (their homeland) as white people in the USofA..."

    Which, while true, is beside the point. (The Japanese are still horribly racist, as are the Chinese, for example). The only plausible retort is of the parental sort: "If Billy jumped off the roof, would that mean you'd do it, too?"

    ReplyDelete
  33. @ Victoria: I don't know why you just made my non-Black friend Black in your mind. Cause anti-slavery activists are Black by definition? What??

    Thanks for supersnarky post that I can't take seriously- just like you did not take me serious. Nor did you bother to engage with me, so why should I.

    ReplyDelete
  34. More Internet race-jargon:
    White Women's Tears

    A term I first heard maybe two weeks ago, here, from Witchsista and RVCBard, and which barely needs any explanation. (Which of you is the one who revealed that collecting and bathing in sweet, sweet WWT is the real reason we WOC don't wrinkle, again?? Because I seriously almost died.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ fromthetropics: I get that- but that is exactly what I meant with my "Option A" and "Option B" post. I repeat: This and similar issues should never be used as an "We can, cause they do too" argument, BUT there is a difference between that and flat out denying that it exists in a "Black=good", "White=evil" argument which to me also fetishizes (esp. in a blog written by a White dude).
    I feel like most replies ignored that I have already stated repeatedly that it is not admissible to use it in a "it's okay then" argument.

    @ nezua: Is there such a blog that you are aware of? If not, when does that next step (IMO only, of course) follow?

    ReplyDelete
  36. @macon,

    I'm going to go to you for some clarification about the ground rules.. I get the tone argument.. i understand.. and I understand that my own personal communication style may not be the same as others.. which doesnt make either of us right or wrong..

    But is there are line here on what is too far? on speech that is abusive and just disrespectful? Or is everything okay as long as it is on topic because it is someone's authentic reaction to the often fucked up stuff white people do?

    I ask because I am new.. and am tryin to see if this is a place with ground rules that maintain the things I need to feel like its a safe space.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Is there such a blog that you are aware of?

    Nope. And I'm not sorry to say that.

    If not, when does that next step (IMO only, of course) follow?

    Never. I'm not sorry to say that either.

    Now, move along, baby troll. Grown people are talking.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Spiderlgs asked,

    I've been refusing overtly off-topic and racist/white supremacist recently for a long time, but I've recently been made more aware than ever that a lot of kinds of common white comments can make this space feel unsafe to non-white people. I'm less and less concerned that it feel like a safe space to white people (even though they're the ones that I think most need to read this blog). I've been working on a commenting policy, and hope to post a draft soon, so readers can suggest revisions.

    So no, I don't have any spelled-out ground rules yet, and I regret that you've been made to feel something that prompted you to write to me about this. I usually step in and stop (mostly white) people who are going too far in various ways, sometimes, as I said, by simply refusing their comments, and sometimes by answering deleted and/or published White Oblivion Brand comments in my own comments. I'm often tempted to let some borderline-obnoxious comment through, though, because so many POC here are excellent First Responders. And others have written that they enjoy and learn from such exchanges (I do too). But, yeah, that's by no means their job. So, I do plan to get a comment policy drafted soon.

    That said, I'm not sure about whose comments you're asking about? In terms of the tone argument, I will say that I'm much more lenient with comments that read as abusive from POC than I am those from WP. I think that imposing limitations on non-white comments of that sort would be an ironically white thing to do, an ironically white imposition of whitened standards (basically, yeah, the Tone Argument thingie).

    ReplyDelete
  39. Huh? @KD - Dude. When women talk about sexism, how often do they think that Men = Evil, Women = Good, period? If that was the case, why bother talking about it? So why do you assume that when we talk about racism we're premising it on Black = Good, White = Evil? FYI, we're not. If that (black = good, white = evil) was the case, then there's no need to talk about racism coz nothing is ever gonna change. We talk about it because we believe 'whiteness' = evil, but 'white person' does not necessarily = evil, therefore we're hoping things will change.

    ReplyDelete
  40. karinova said...

    More Internet race-jargon:

    White Women's Tears


    Yes, thank you, and there's a good, recent example in another swpd thread (see this comment and especially the following ones).

    ReplyDelete
  41. KD:

    >> "If not, when does that next step (IMO only, of course) follow?"

    Questions like this are where "White Women's Tears" come from.

    On the other thread, you said you read about rape tourism and cried. Yet you're not convinced that racism is a Big Bad we need to end? How is that possible?! (Honest question.)

    KD, if you are truly committed to this, I am willing to talk it out with you via e-mail, because I think there are a couple of fundamental pieces of background you are missing that will make things make a lot more sense. (This is assuming you are sincere and not a random troll). But regardless, I really really really hope you read WWRM and Ain't I A Woman.

    ~

    Now maybe we can get back to discussing white people who have bad mustaches and can't spell?

    ReplyDelete
  42. KD you may take my comment as literally as you'd like. Either way, you need DfD. And did you just hit me with the Tone Argument? Yes, I believe do - if I'd only been less snarky and taken you seriously, you would have engaged with me.

    PS I like the way you "didn't engage" with me by creating a special comment especially for me. Can you "not" send me some Christmas money too?

    Take Macon up on his offer. The things you're saying are not productive for discussing what white people do. It may be productive for discussing what everyone else does or has done, but this is Stuff *White* People Do. But just because things other people do are also real, doesn't negate the fact that this situation here is real.

    ReplyDelete
  43. KD is clearly exhibiting classic white behavior trying to make themselves the most important poster here. They're also being very ignorant of reality and even of their own racism.

    Concerning the main subject at hand though. The guy wearing this shirt now has his face all over the security cameras. I hope that in the near future, when the laws catch up in fighting injustice, he'll be taken in for a hate crime for wearing that shirt.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The problem I have with this post can be summed up with something Ta-Nehisi Coates said recently:"If you find yourself doing more paraphrasing then actual quoting, you're running the risk of strawmanning."

    So there's no actual quote from a whote person makiong the more contreversial aspect of you construiction of their argument, namely; "Thus the Atlantic slave trade was not so bad because Arabs traders sold slaves too!"

    Surely you can think of other reasons why the arab slave trade is a subject worth discussing?

    ReplyDelete
  45. So there's no actual quote from a whote person makiong the more contreversial aspect of you construiction of their argument, namely; "Thus the Atlantic slave trade was not so bad because Arabs traders sold slaves too!"

    Right, you got me -- there is no actual quote from a whote person making that, er, aspect.

    Surely you can think of other reasons why the arab slave trade is a subject worth discussing?

    Of course. I imagine they discuss it all the time on ye olde Arab Slave Trading blog. Thing is, it's an inappropriate topic on THIS blog, which is about stuff white people do. Discussing it here, you see, is a form of "derailment," a term with which I heartily recommend you familiarize yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Manju, here's a strawman for you: Are you suggesting this man had a humanitarian goal in mind while wearing this shirt? Because I sure have a hard time picturing this guy's intent being to bring attention to global human rights issues.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Manju--re:the Arab Slave Trade strawman

    I heard it often from undergraduates at both LSU and Oklahoma.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Discussing it here, you see, is a form of "derailment," a term with which I heartily recommend you familiarize yourself."

    I'm not sure it is a derailment. It provides context and helps extract the larger truth that KD reveals: "Evil is human"

    To discuss great atrocities and opressions only within the framework of what "white people do" is not only ahistoric, but risks turning antiracism into a form of racism itself.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I'm not sure it is a derailment. It provides context and helps extract the larger truth that KD reveals: "Evil is human"

    The larger truth? THAT larger truth? Gee, thanks, I hadn't realized that people other than white people do bad things! Oh, wait, I did hear that once, but you're right, I forgot! So, yes, let's do repeat that basic, simplistic, everyone-already-knows-that point every time we point out an egregious common white tendency. We're focused here on the ills and negative effects of white supremacy, but you're so right, we MUST always keep in mind, and always say -- I guess so that the white folks don't feel so bad -- that other people do evil stuff too.

    /snark

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Manju, here's a strawman for you: Are you suggesting this man had a humanitarian goal in mind while wearing this shirt?"

    I have no idea what the guys intent is. my guess is he's racist but you never know.

    but dealing with him strikes me as the moral equivalent of addressing comments on blog. the thesis that whites believe "the Atlantic slave trade was not so bad because Arabs traders sold slaves too!" can't be substantiated by citing a random white person, anymore than I can dismiss antiracism by citing some hyperbolic comment on a comment thread. What you need is some prominent writer making the argument. gravitas matters. that, or a poll.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Addendum:

    The "five civilized tribes" on the East Coast during the colonization period were called "civilized" because some of them engaged in chattel slavery.

    But this isn't a blog called "what indigenes do," either...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...
    "If Billy jumped off the roof, would that mean you'd do it, too?"

    Anonymous karinova said...

    Which of you is the one who revealed that collecting and bathing in sweet, sweet WWT is the real reason we WOC don't wrinkle, again??

    both of you stop before I die laughing

    ReplyDelete
  53. @macon,

    Thank you for the clarification. I agree with those guidelines and I hope that as your refine the ground rules, you consider not allowing people to call each other names like "Bitch" and say things like "go fuck yourself" because it is abusive.

    I ask for this because I do love this blog and 99% of the conversation and comments, because I learn, reevaluate positions, reconfirm others.. and for my own good, cause I don't want to say something someone doesn't like or deems hopelessly ignorant and find myself getting called names or demeaned.

    ReplyDelete
  54. [Dear Thought Criminal,

    Sigh. I'm not refusing to publish your snarling screed because I harbor an "oversensitivity and unwillingness to tolerate different points of view." Ugh, people with your views always say that! Look around this blog's comment threads; I publish a LOT of dissenting "points of view." I don't publish snarling screeds like yours, though, because they're off-topic, offensive, and by this point, simply boring. Do you really think I haven't heard every single point you just made well over a hundred times by now? Take it to the white nationalist blogs -- they'll eat it up.

    ~macon

    PS--"Make my day"? Really? Why do people with your views always snarl and spit like that, like bad Clint Eastwood imitators? What are you REALLY so damn angry and bitter about?]

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Spiderlgs:

    And the continued clueless concern trolling a lot of people defecate onto the comments here is not abuse.

    I love how people who are not women of color like to try to police the language of WOCs.

    Pssst - that was sarcasm.

    ReplyDelete
  56. [Thought Criminal, You seem intent on either telling me what a self-hating whitie you think I am, or, just maybe, on initiating a dialogue with me. If the latter, I'm quite willing to do so via email. Not here, though, since as I've said, most of us here have heard it all before, ad infinitum, and definitely ad nauseam:

    unmakingmacon at gmail dot com]

    ReplyDelete
  57. @RVCBard

    Got it. No language norms needed because white people have proven themselves to deserve to be called any and every name in the book. Simple enough.

    Who says brown skin doesn't have its privileges?! Yes!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Macon, I have just sent you an email. As a result, I won't bother you with anymore comments on SWPD. My previous attacks on you were a bit too personal. I actually want to have a dialogue with you where we respond to arguments, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thought Criminal,

    Cool, see you there.

    ReplyDelete
  60. *runs in with bucket to collect the impending WWT*

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mauitania...the dark island of Hawaii.
    Racist, stupid & illiterate, is that some sort of trifecta?


    @Julia: HAHAHAHAHAA here, have the Internet, you won it fair & square this round.

    @Victoria: I want one of your Derailment Detection monitors for Christmas, dagnabbit!

    @Woody: The whole "everyone's a little bit racist" argument you're touching on is not to be conflated with "if your friend jumped off a bridge blah blah blah." The former is a derailing tactic utilized by d-bags like the one photographed in this post.
    If you're going to go with a global context, you have to address issues of colonization, geopolitics and imperialism, especially in your inclusion of the Chinese (helloo, Open Door policy and the opium trade). White people had and continue to have racial hegemony over nonwhites all over the world. That certainly does not excuse the discriminatory practices of nonwhite countries, but racism is prejudice and power, and in a modern global context, white people have the power.

    I want to point out something to those who are suggesting that PoC are verging on obnoxious/abusive.

    White people are often the first to actually bring "feelings" into the mix of race debate (see Derailing 101). But no one questions the feelings of white people because their feelings are (number one) to be respected at all times, especially at the expense of people of color and (number two) their white privilege grants them a patina of rationality and benevolence, as opposed to the images of irrationality and violence that are immediately associated with PoC.

    Under the auspices of this privilege, KD can then simply command women of color to stop talking about systemic rape out of respect for her own experiences of sexual violence and feelings, EVEN WHEN WOMEN OF COLOR ARE EXPONENTIALLY MORE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN RAPED IN THE CONTEXT THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED. When WoC naturally point out the clusterfucked arrogance, cruelty and illogic of such white presumptions, this white privileged buffoon then goes to assert that SHE is the one who is not being "allowed" to have feelings.

    Because it's fine when people of color are rendered abstract and moving in some fine, statesmanlike report where it makes white people cry. We are expected to entertain, to amuse and to move, but not to educate, dissent or disapprove.

    I love how refusing to bow and scrape to obnoxious and ignorant white people qualifies as "venting," i.e. emotional, i.e. irrational screaming from poor, half-brained colored folks!

    Fact: people of color endure more violence and hatred than white people can know.
    Fact: Women of color endure more violence and hatred than white women can know. Does this mean that white men and women have never known violence or hatred? OF COURSE NOT. But having to acknowledge this painfully obvious fact over and over to them every single fucking time atrocities that specifically target PoC/WoC is soul-crushing and mind-numbing.

    Which then of course just makes the white people, who see our mounting frustration, more smug and assured that we're just an angry, irrational lot.

    @Spiderlgs: Who says brown skin doesn't have its privileges?! Yes!
    I'm not even going to waste time on you little bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I'm not even going to waste time on you little bigot.

    *pointing to Spiderlgs*

    ReplyDelete
  63. *points and laughs at Spiderlgs*

    I'm honestly starting to believe that it is a physical impossibility for Whites not to attempt to hog center stage and have PoC constantly cater to them at our expense. This shit has got to be genetic.

    ReplyDelete
  64. SWPD: Pout and stomp like hyper 6-year-olds when they can't get their way (especially with PoC) WITH a threat, veiled or overt, of non-support for PoC and our issues if we don't fall back in line and "know our place."

    I bet a lot of these PoC policers are considering withdrawing their "support" from fighting racism to animal rights because animals can't tell your arrogant ass to fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I had the impression from comments s/he made in other threads that Spiderlgs is black. I could be wrong of course, but if so, it puts a different spin on their posts. Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If the man in the photo wanted to REALLY shame black people into not talking about slavery or racism then he should have written on the back of the t-shirt:
    "...and those countries got rich off of it just like the US and Europe..."
    Or something like that.

    But the last time I checked Haiti was STILL the poorest country in the Americas, and Sudan, Niger & Mauritania aren't exactly doing that fantastic either. Anyone who thinks that talking about slavery or racism is the same as saying: "Only white people are evil or slavery is something that only white people do" is just being silly, because everyone knows that ALL mankind at some point has practiced slavery, not just white people.
    The real discussion is not who practiced slavery, but who benefitted from it and continues to benefit from it and the form of racism that subsequently sprung from it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Umala,

    I could be wrong too.

    But I'm past tired of folks of whatever color and ethnicity constantly trying to shut me up when I have a grievance. And it's always to help THEM and make THEM feel better. My feelings and well-being can go sit and spin. I'm tired of people thinking I should always privilege THEIR well-being over my own.

    ReplyDelete
  68. [Hey there, no slappz! Merry Christmas! To your latest attempt to spread (white-nationalist) joy here, I'll just respond as before -- this isn't a blog about stuff black people do.

    You know something? You should go outside and get some fresh air. Drink in the new zeitgeist. I'm sure you know something is happening. But you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Slappz? ~macon]

    ReplyDelete
  69. Other examples of recent Internet race-jargon that you've seen widely used?

    There's white liberal bingo...

    ReplyDelete
  70. Okay.. Clearly there are things I need to clarify. I am black. I am a woman. I went to an all white elementary school and colleges.

    I am a teacher. I live in the South. I teach with racist co-workers everyday, some who hate the students we teach, and some who hated me until they realized the elite schools I went to which made me okay. Hell, if we wanna go for the most marganilized prize, I'm a lesbian too. But none of that should matter based on my comments. Are we really arguing over it being okay to call someone a bitch?

    Racism makes me mad, some things people say make me angry. However, I don't want to be called a bitch or to be told to go fuck myself, and in that same vein, I don't call people bitches nor do I tell people to go fuck themselves. In my real life, I don't talk to people who do so.


    In most anti-racist/anti-oppression forum there are ground rules that prevent personal attacks, and the focus is on the idea or the comment. I asked Macon regarding the guidelines to see if this was a space where I could ensure that I wouldn't be spoken to in ways I dont want to be.

    I don't feel the need to sugar coat my anger, nor do I feel the need to feel like I have to tap dance around white people to get my point across. I dont aim to make anyone feel good by wrapping my commentary in a blanket and a bow. However, I don't say anything that is simply meant to insult someone.

    I also don't change my language based on who I'm talking to.. I have standards for how I treat everyone, regardless of how they act. One person's ignorance isn't gonna make me get stupid with them.

    I'm not going to make fun of people who make ignorant comments or curse at them in order to prove how much I hate racism.

    I've already said explicitly that I am black, but I guess standing up when someone insults a white woman overshadows that and now I am a bigot? really? I actually prefer Uncle Tom :-)

    My question to RVCBard and Witchsistah specifically...

    Do you think any comments/language do actually cross the line or do you have carte blanche to say anything you want cause you're not white?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Wow. This is strange. Usually when a troll says something, it pisses me off too and I'm glad when someone gets to it first to argue it down. But this time around the argument with KD went somewhat over my head. I understand that her not 'getting it' is annoying/angering, but the reaction which gooblyglob has described as "ganging up on her" has surprised me too. I actually felt as though I kinda got sucked into it when I said, "Huh?...Dude." thinking that maybe even that was a bit harsh considering her sensitive state. (I would not have worried about this had it been someone like no_slappz or the like.)

    And I agree with Spiderlgs that maybe there should be ground rules for both whites and pocs to refrain from using personally abusive/insulting words/phrases/pictures. That'll at least clarify what is allowed and what isn't, and no one will be able to argue that pocs are allowed to be abusive while white ppl aren't, or vice versa.

    BUT, I also looked up the White Woman Woman Syndrome and am a little unclear on something. As I said earlier, I was starting to feel bad for KD considering her sensitive state and her seemingly younger age (early 20s? - I'm easier on younger ones because that's the same age as my own students). But after I read about WWS...I'm starting to wonder - is me feeling sorry or bad for her part of the whole tactic? She probably doesn't do it consciously, but...is it part of the tactic? Did I just not notice it because I've never really encountered it personally in the context of a discussion on racism? (I've encountered it in the context of a relationship with a guy, but I have yet to come across it in terms of discussions on racism.)

    ReplyDelete
  72. So how much shit are PoC supposed to eat? Do we at least get condiments? What wine'd be served with that or would that go with WWT?

    ReplyDelete
  73. ["POC (and sense)," it sounds like you need to bone up on what's wrong with the "tone argument" that you're making -- please read this and this and this and this. They're all very brief and concise. ~macon]

    ReplyDelete
  74. None of this is new to me. (Neither is the motivation behind your white-guiltapalooza here.) I didn't even make a tone argument in my unapproved comment. I challenged the logic of calling someone white simply because they have an issue with tone. Referring to someone to the linked info is one thing. Charging them with "whiteness" for simply asking the question is something else altogether. And it is weak. And it is obvious. This one gets unapproved too?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Well, since I'm feeling some of that generous holiday spirit, I'll let that one through.

    So do tell, what do you think is the "motivation" behind the so-called "white-guiltapalooza" here?

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ FTT:

    >> "is me feeling sorry or bad for her part of the whole tactic? She probably doesn't do it consciously, but...is it part of the tactic?"

    From what I have read about WWS (White Woman Syndrome, just to be clear), it's not a consciously-deployed tactic so much as societal conditioning. White women "learn" that crying, appearing sad, etc. are ways to have people pay attention to them* and to make themselves less vulnerable to further attack. Similarly, everyone else in society "learns" (through pop culture, "politeness" norms and so forth) that white women are to be protected.

    You feeling sorry for her is simply you demonstrating that you pay attention to the racist and sexist world. (WWS is devastating from a feminist standpoint: besides the inherent harm to WOC, which is arguably primary here, 'training' WW to "play the victim" is not good for WW, either. WWS is bad for all women).

    * Yeah, "them." I'm a white woman, but WWS has never been effective for me. And yes, I have consciously tried, although not in the context of race discussions. Basically, just trying to get people to recognize that I am human and have feelings. Yet somehow, I can't pull WWS off. I think that if I ever did cry WWT, they would not be useful for WOC's anti-wrinkle magic. /vent

    ReplyDelete
  77. The "ganging up on her" sentiment is utter codswallop, an internalization of white privilege wherein the world must stop on a dime for plaintive whites at the expense of the pressing grievances and experiences of people of color.

    To clarify - as a woman of color, I strongly agree that misogynist monikers such as "bitch" have no place in our antiracist debates and discussion.

    This however is not any sort of endorsement or indulgence for the oppressive, white privileged "tone argument" derailing that KD and others have employed.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Spiderlgs, the bigotry you expressed was contained in this statement-

    Who says brown skin doesn't have its privileges?! Yes!

    - not in your call to refrain from misogynist name-calling or profanity. I am 100% with you on the former, though maybe not so much on the latter (as the moniker implies).

    ReplyDelete
  79. Do you think any comments/language do actually cross the line or do you have carte blanche to say anything you want cause you're not white?

    I will not play Good Darkie, Bad Darkie with you. How about this: Instead of cross-examining me and Witchsistah and the other Bad Darkies who don't sugarcoat our commentary for popular (read: White) consumption, you come up with more interesting questions and comments that examine and challenge common White attitudes and behaviors (y'know, what this blog is about). If you stop pretending to be more feminist than me because I quote a popular blaxploitation film, you'll find my statements less dismissive of your point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Obnoxious. Not only is this derailment in that it takes away from the suffering of slavery under white masters in the United States, but it also derails from the fact that slavery in Mauritania still exists.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I was raised in Anacostia, with some educated black people who would just LOVE to have a conversation with this motherfucker. And, despite stereotypes, not all of us would want to do it with a crowbar. I would enjoy the thought that he could come out of that conversation without all of his illusions shattered, but I highly doubt it. The resulting congitive dissonance would probably send him wandering around town in a daze until the hour of the pipe-hittin' fuckers. In other words, this man is made of high-grade radioactive fail. Superfail, in a way.

    ReplyDelete
  82. [No, no slappz, fictional eyes did not write that some blacks WOULD use crowbars on such a white person, just that some would love to. That is not, as you put it, "a promise of brutalization." No need for you to be such a white scaredy-cat. As for the rest of your comment -- this is a blog about stuff white people do, not about stuff black people do (I figure if I write that to you often enough, you might someday catch on). ~macon]

    ReplyDelete
  83. DallasDeckard said...
    [republished from here, since most of the comment is actually about this post]

    The real problem is - and this also relates to your comments vis-a-vis the "racist" t-shirt article - right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter why the person is wearing the t-shirt as it pertains to truth. Are Blacks in certain countries possessing slaves? If so then direct that haughty self-righteousness at said atrocity and leave the ingratiating sanctimonious glad-handing for children of a lesser God.

    1. Jesus wasn't White, Jesus wasn't Black, Jesus was from Israel and therefore he was (for a lack of a better word) a Middle-Eastern man. Depicting him as White or Black is of equal revulsion. One isn't worse or better, both are abhorrent.

    2. Man is not to make "graven images" of the Judeo/Christian God (or any other "gods"). So, making a nativity scene complete with the baby Jesus is breaking one of the Ten Commandments. It doesn't matter if the baby is White, Black or Middle-Eastern... it's wrong.

    3. As to the t-shirt, there is no doubt the guy is a bigot, though I don't see how you could call him a "racist" with this lacking amount of information. Too many young people today hurl the term "racist" with such ignorant, wanton abandon. This includes the prolific and currently white-hot proprietor of Stuff White People Do. A "racist" is a person who believes his or her race to be superior to any other race than one's own. A "bigot" is a person that holds certain ignorant or prejudiced viewpoints concerning members of a race other than one's own. You cannot call a person with this t-shirt a "racist" because you simply don't have enough information to do so. I understand that this distinction contains little credence for quick-to-judge, metrosexual 20-somethings, but it's the truth nonetheless.

    It is, however, repugnant for someone of which words are their stock and trade to make such foolish and purposeful mistakes. As we can observe in the comments it results in many kudos and much obsequious back-slapping, but it doesn't make it any less grotesque.. or is that the point? Is the supercilious, multiplicity of congratulatory comments the goal? Be accurate, be truthful, be real or risk exposure as yet another people-pleasing purveyor of White guilt. Change won't occur by seeking to gain the good graces of persons of color or those of like minds. It won't happen anywhere except the balance. All forms of bigotry and racism must be rejected, including the reactionary and equally absurd White guilt-y commentary of the affable and benign. Make lasting change your business, or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dallas Deckard,

    Where does this post say that the man wearing that shirt "is a racist"? I don't think it does, because I'm careful to distinguish between racist people and racist actions. I talk/write about the latter, and almost never the former. (Actually, here -- this guy explains that distinction really well.) I find a focus on racist actions, rather than racist people, a better way to, as you put it, make lasting change.

    Is the supercilious, multiplicity of congratulatory comments the goal?

    No.

    Change won't occur by seeking to gain the good graces of persons of color or those of like minds.

    That's not what I'm seeking. You're awfully presumptuous.

    Be accurate, be truthful, be real or risk exposure as yet another people-pleasing purveyor of White guilt.

    Exposure? Do you think I'm secretly trying to "purvey White guilt"? What does that even mean, anyway? And why would I do that? (Oh, right -- to gain the good graces of persons of color or those of like minds. As I said above, that's not what I seek; I seek racial justice, and the obliteration of common white delusions and egregious common white tendencies.)

    All forms of bigotry and racism must be rejected, including the reactionary and equally absurd White guilt-y commentary of the affable and benign.

    Please see above, including that which I parenthesized.

    Basically, you're not reading this blog accurately, and your apparent presumptions about the motives of its proprietor (that'd be me) are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @commie bastard..

    I think there was something lost in translation in that comment. I'll simply apologize for offending you.

    I appreciate your clarification.. and most appreciated is your reference to the comment as bigoted and not me as a little bigot. I am still on the journey, trying to learn more about me from other people's perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This thread sort of made me uncomfortable because I've realized that I probably do use White Woman's Tears in real life - mostly with friends/peers. I know the fact that I'm a "nice" girl means that if I appear vulnerable and in need of protection and frame that vulnerability correctly I'll get what I want. I don't tend to consciously use that social advantage very much, but I don't think I'd explicitly connected that trait of mine with my whiteness before now. I don't really consider my real-life use of WWT inherently problematic, as it is mostly a tactic use to get my straight white male friends to not make sexist/homophobic/racist comments around me. It's definitely a part of my white privilege I hadn't consciously considered before, though.

    Thanks for helping me to learn, everybody (especially RVCBard, Macon, and Witchsistah). I tend to lurk here a lot, and not post in the threads. I don't often have much to say beyond, "This is interesting anti-oppression stuff I didn't know or didn't think much about before. Also, there are a bunch of over-privileged people I share skin color with being entitled asshats in ways other people can articulate better than I can."

    ReplyDelete
  87. Hey, no worries Spiderlgs. I have internalized bigotry to a degree as well (is it impossible not to to some extent however small I wonder)?, and it's a constant battle to keep it from working its insidious ways inside - hard to fight an enemy with outposts in your head, right? Tis why I'm here (well, that and the comedy GOLD this place periodically brings).

    Whites cannot understand the turmoil existing in a world where one has to make maddening, invisible concessions daily to the oppressor just to keep from going crazy - which all just serves to make one more mad.

    (And I say "whites" as opposed to white people because people who happen to be white can certainly understand this profound turmoil through a lack of privilege in OTHER contexts, but not in a racial one.)

    ReplyDelete
  88. @fromthetropics

    Yes, WWT work just this way. It's one thing for KD to have actually been *that* upset about it. That's understandable. It's just not appropriate in a discussion that takes place in *text*. Furthermore, it's not anyone else's responsibility to make her tears stop and to make her feel better. It's hers. Don't come to the site that is causing the tears and read the comments once you realize they're hitting some nerves. Don't engage repeatedly in arguments with people. If she cried twice while reading - maybe she's feeling particularly hormonal and should take a break for the day or whatever. I mean, I don't think the directions the comments go in should revolve around the tears and feelings of one person.

    The problem is that she TOLD her feelings about it instead of going away and fixing her problem. She made comments about her feelings, about her crying, etc. She wanted the commenters to maker her stop crying and feeling bad. She made her feelings more important than the discussion.

    I really don't think KD started out as a "troll" at all. I think she genuinely didn't realize that her comments were derailing but that she felt like her posts were relevant and beneficial to the conversation. The part about rape being a trigger was something that she wanted commenters to know about her. She didn't HAVE to share her reaction about it in the comments, but she posted it - thus putting on the table that her feelings were more important than the discussion. And honestly, I'm not totally insensitive. Quite the opposite, in fact. I know how horrific rape is and her feelings are important about it. But in the context of this website, things like rape are discussed and compared because racism and rape are both crimes against someone's entire being. So I can see the immediate reaction would have been like OK... why are we all on KD?

    After she was told that what she was doing was derailing, then she got upset and began more derailing arguments. That was pretty much the unraveling of everything.

    ReplyDelete
  89. KD's posts are actually quite interesting in that they demonstrate the white tendency that I think underlies the Arab Trader Argument: the tendency to turn a "what you did" argument into a "what you are" argument, as Jay Smooth might put it.

    That is, when POC say "You're hurting us," a lot of white people hear "You are inherently evil." And that brings the mental defenses right up, for two reasons. First, because no one thinks they're evil and the idea invariably causes offense. Second, because we like to think of the world in terms of good vs evil, to say that white people are evil is to imply that POC are good.

    It is in that context that the ATA makes sense. And now I'm wondering exactly why that first strange miscommunication occurs. I think white people are actually trained to make that leap because they see so many other white people make it.

    In any case, I think that's the leap the man in the t-shirt and KD are both making.

    ReplyDelete
  90. In my opinion, Bluey has hit the nail on the head in the post above.

    I think it is very natural and human (though not necessarily constructive) to react defensively to perceived criticism. And although macon may carefully speak of racist opinions and racist actions and not racist people, yet not everyone in this wide world is so careful with their words or their thoughts. As a white person it is very easy to interpret a lot of the discussion about racism (and I mean everywhere, not specifically this blog) as boiling down to "white people are a bane upon the earth and the cause of all evil -- without them there would be no such thing as slavery or oppression or genocide and maybe not even crime or poverty."

    So every time you hear one more thing about racism, the gut reaction is to take it personally and try to point out that other societies have done these things too.

    I think for some the motivation is to try and focus on fixing the problem itself, wherever it is found, and not on fixing white people per se. I do think some (many?) white people have become hardened to the point that they immediately go into defensive mode as soon as racism is brought up, or, like the gentleman in the picture, they go on the offensive with poorly spelled and unproductive rants. And I am sure there are those who say such things to justify their own privilege as well.

    >Commie Bastard said...
    >(And I say "whites" as opposed to white people because people who happen to be white can certainly understand this profound turmoil through a lack of privilege in OTHER contexts, but not in a racial one.)

    Thank you for this comment -- this makes a lot of sense and it helps me to understand where you are coming from a lot better.

    Sometimes I wish we could come up with some new terms. For instance, I am pretty sure now that by "whiteness" macon means "the quality of assuming privilege for oneself" and not "the quality of having European ancestors and light skin," but I have to remind myself of that constantly.

    I suppose any new terms would soon become as loaded as the current ones.

    ReplyDelete
  91. As a white person it is very easy to interpret a lot of the discussion about racism (and I mean everywhere, not specifically this blog) as boiling down to "white people are a bane upon the earth and the cause of all evil -- without them there would be no such thing as slavery or oppression or genocide and maybe not even crime or poverty."

    Why?

    I think for some the motivation is to try and focus on fixing the problem itself, wherever it is found, and not on fixing white people per se.

    I would say that's the entire point.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I think she genuinely didn't realize that her comments were derailing but that she felt like her posts were relevant and beneficial to the conversation.

    Well, of course she did. That's exactly the point - white privilege both drives and mitigates this kind of "well-intentioned" foot-in-mouth syndrome.

    The part about rape being a trigger was something that she wanted commenters to know about her. She didn't HAVE to share her reaction about it in the comments, but she posted it - thus putting on the table that her feelings were more important than the discussion. And honestly, I'm not totally insensitive. Quite the opposite, in fact. I know how horrific rape is and her feelings are important about it. But in the context of this website, things like rape are discussed and compared because racism and rape are both crimes against someone's entire being. So I can see the immediate reaction would have been like OK... why are we all on KD?

    SIGH. Once more, with feeling!

    @KD: If you do not wish to discuss rape because it is triggering to you, I totally respect and support you in that.

    HOWEVER.

    If you come into a discussion that specifically addresses the systemic brutalization and exploitation of Native Americans and expect not to encounter the issue of rape tourism, then actually DEMAND that people not talk about it?

    Then you are being obnoxiously ignorant and you can go run off to one of the white "feminist" enclaves where you can actually get away with such sanctimonious, racist idiocy.

    Here's a world-shaking bit of news: it's not all about YOU.

    Do you go around thinking that you're the only one who's been victimized? Because you're SURE as hell acting like it. Which is funny, given that you and I and everyone else live in a world where minorities (not just Native Americans) are disproportionately targeted by sexual violence. We're actually trying to shed light on this crucial issue, and you're telling us to stop for the sake of your own psyche?

    I've learned by now NOT to share my experiences with white women who pull this kind of "me first" crap, because firstly, they completely resent having to face facts that they are NOT the sole victims and secondly, they just can't handle the sheer horror of the systemic, institutionalized violence against people of color who also happen to be young, female and orphaned.


    n the context of this website, things like rape are discussed and compared because racism and rape are both crimes against someone's entire being.

    You're omitting a crucial point of intersectionality - the fact that racism and sexual assault actually intensify against women of color specifically. I find that white people, no matter how antiracist, have an especially hard time understanding and accepting this reality.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I think it is very natural and human (though not necessarily constructive) to react defensively to perceived criticism.

    No. To attribute the defensiveness of white privileged people and racists to "natural and human" behavior is a copout. The definition of human behavior changes depending on the whims of oppressors (i.e. "it's only human to conquer and pillage other people! It's only natural for darkies to serve the white man!")...blah blah di blah.

    As a white person it is very easy to interpret a lot of the discussion about racism (and I mean everywhere, not specifically this blog) as boiling down to "white people are a bane upon the earth and the cause of all evil -- without them there would be no such thing as slavery or oppression or genocide and maybe not even crime or poverty."

    That's your entirely your baggage, which you need to work on if you wish to have an educated and enlightened approach to race and your fellow human beings.

    So every time you hear one more thing about racism, the gut reaction is to take it personally and try to point out that other societies have done these things too.

    For YOU. Such is not the case for people who lack white privilege and for SOME whites.

    I think for some the motivation is to try and focus on fixing the problem itself, wherever it is found, and not on fixing white people per se.
    You seem to be grasping for a way to oppose racism without actually addressing your privilege - a way to combat oppression that makes no demands on the oppressor.

    I do think some (many?) white people have become hardened to the point that they immediately go into defensive mode as soon as racism is brought up, or, like the gentleman in the picture, they go on the offensive with poorly spelled and unproductive rants.

    Right, with all that bubblewrapped privilege and sheltered worldviews, white people sure are hardened folks! Must be so TOUGH being white.

    And I am sure there are those who say such things to justify their own privilege as well.
    Your statement simply doesn't make any sense.

    >Commie Bastard said...
    >(And I say "whites" as opposed to white people because people who happen to be white can certainly understand this profound turmoil through a lack of privilege in OTHER contexts, but not in a racial one.)

    Thank you for this comment -- this makes a lot of sense and it helps me to understand where you are coming from a lot better.


    Why, because I addressed that there are other forms of oppression in this world, therefore allowing you to focus on something other than this racial oppression that is oh-so hardening for white people?

    I don't think you understand where I am coming from at all just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  94. On disclaimers ("some white people" "many white people"):

    Dear white people who find yourselves getting upset when disclaimers are not used,

    When you find yourself upset that a disclaimer is not used in a particular instance, it is likely that you are included in the original blanket statement. Perhaps you should work on getting your inner self to a point where statements about the racist shit that white people do no longer apply to you, instead of wasting your breath demanding disclaimers that don't make a difference in your case.

    This strategy has been a very, very effective benchmark for me in determining what I still have to work on.

    ~

    @ Commie Bastard, I'm with you on 99% of what you said, but I think defensive reactions to criticism predate Whiteness. However, I think it's important to look at how that fairly natural reaction (and c'mon, it's all over ancient lit and folklore from multiple parts of the world) plays out in oppression discussions, and not to let white people use "natural" to excuse their reactions (which I think is where you ended up? so we agree in the end?).

    ReplyDelete
  95. I guess I didn't explain myself very well -- I meant "hardened" in the sense that they had hardened their own hearts and become insensitive, not that they had it so tough! I don't think white people have it tough at all compared to people of color.

    As for the rest, I was not trying to justify anything, only explain where I think the idea of the "Arab Trader Argument" comes from. Sorry I was not able to express myself very clearly.

    And I do think it's natural for people to get defensive when they feel they are being criticized, and I really don't see what that has to do with pillaging or whatever. Not everything that is natural is good, and I did not mean to say it was.

    In any case, I feel that we are talking past each other as is so usual in blog comments everywhere, so I will not mire us any further...

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ bluey:

    >> "That is, when POC say "You're hurting us," a lot of white people hear "You are inherently evil."...And now I'm wondering exactly why that first strange miscommunication occurs."

    I was in a discussion on another blog's comments about this (um..."discussion" is the polite word for it) not very long ago. We ultimately came to the conclusion that the reason is rather simple:

    The first statement involves POC and WP. Thus, a discussion centered around "You're hurting us" will mean talking about POC. However, in the second phrasing, the only people mentioned are white people. It is yet ANOTHER way of making everything about WP.

    ReplyDelete
  97. You know what? I read this thread thoroughly and still do not understand why Witchsista and RVCBard were under attack for their responses at KD. I mean the lady's response was very typical condescending arab trader arguement that is always discussed and ridiculed in the anti-racist blogosphere. Just because RVCBard and Witchsista did not console or coddle her rude behavior does not mean they were out of line. She indeed played the White Women Syndrome card when she did not get her way. "The why are they ganging up on me" bullshit. Please! KD had to take responsibility for her actions of derailment and taking center stage on this discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  98. @Lady

    Once the "bitch" comment was made I flinched because I believed the "Angry Black Woman" stereotype was coming and the initial KD posts would be ignored. I even got a little defensive for Spiderlogs' post as she was deemed to be white before she informed the blog of being a POC.

    I think once the name-calling began, the nature of the thread changed.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Basically RVCBard and I are the Bad Darkies who are making the Good Unz look bad by association.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Honeybrown said:

    @Lady

    Once the "bitch" comment was made I flinched because I believed the "Angry Black Woman" stereotype was coming and the initial KD posts would be ignored. I even got a little defensive for Spiderlogs' post as she was deemed to be white before she informed the blog of being a POC.

    I think once the name-calling began, the nature of the thread changed.


    I figured that could've been the reason this post taken a certain turn on "ganging up on the Black women" even though the purpose of this post is to challenge typical White repsonses on racism. KD had a typical White response that made *sigh*. I feel just because Witchsista and RVCBard did not play "Good Darkie" role in consoling her feelings does not call for them to be ganged up on. You mean to tell me the word "bitch" got more people upset than the bullshit KD said in her post? C'mon Son! I agree with you that once the word "bitch" was said then the angry black women stererotype was going to appear. Although it was not said to them, it was definitely implied. If KD does not feel safe on anti-racist blogosphere because of fear of not saying whatever she wants to say without acknowleging her flaws, then she can go back to Jezebel and numerous mainstream blogs where her type of thinking is encouraged and allowed. Which is beyond me strange that spiderlogs comment on Black privilege or people of color privilege is odd. If there is such a thing let me know because I want to know where I can get it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Basically RVCBard and I are the Bad Darkies who are making the Good Unz look bad by association.

    "Stop it! White people are LOOKING AT YOU!"

    ReplyDelete
  102. @lady

    regarding brown skin privilege, i was being sarcastic.. because i dont think that should matter when it comes to name calling.

    and in my opinion, there is no context where it is appropriate to call someone a "bitch". Get as angry as you want.. as irate as you please.. i didnt say.. don't get mad.. i didnt say be rational. go for it.

    I inquired abt the ground rules cause i don't want to be called out of my name.. not a bitch not a dyke not a nigger and that doesn't have to do with good or bad anything. I didn't create the dichotomy.

    The thing I've been thinking abt personally over the last few days.. isn't my comments, but why I was assumed white for them and what that means abt others and me.

    ReplyDelete
  103. RVC and Witchsistah,

    Quit it. You can get angry without resorting to name-calling. If you want to call someone a bitch, go right ahead. But don't get mad when another poster calls you something worse. While Spiderlgs was being sarcastic about the brown skin privilege, I'm not. You can't have it both ways.

    Also, it pisses me off to no end that if one doesn't back another POC up on something, all of a sudden that b.s. meme of "Good vs. Bad PoC" comes up. It's tired. We don't think or act the same nor are we going to "back one up" if they do something we don't approve of.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Willow,

    Eh, I don't think it's precisely a case of making everything about WP, because it's also about making POC look bad. It's about regaining the moral high ground. If they hate us, why should we be particularly nice to them? Isn't it perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of them? Etc.

    Now that I think about it, it seems more like an avoidance tactic than anything. It's a cough drop for our consciences - a way to feel better without curing what ails us. Anger at someone else is much easier than anger at oneself, after all.

    Or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Honeybrown,

    It pisses ME off to no end to have people think they can actually control people via the internet. Guess what, you're not my mom.

    And it's not about "backing up a PoC." So you can quit the whole "monolith" argument. I don't need an Amen Corner. When I said what I said to KD, I said it from MY PoV. I didn't speak on behalf of anyone but Witchsistah. I sure didn't make it sound like anyone else had to or had better agree with me. I damn sure don't go around telling people what to say or how to say it either directly or passive-aggressively.

    It's not even my blog. Macon can ban me whenever he wants for any reason he wants. But until then, can't stand what I say or how I say it? The scroll bar is your friend.

    ReplyDelete
  106. @Victoria and others - thanks for the explanation and ensuing discussion. It's very informative. I really don't have much to add, but I think I get ya on the WWT issue.

    ReplyDelete
  107. spiderlgs wrote: "The thing I've been thinking abt personally over the last few days.. isn't my comments, but why I was assumed white for them and what that means abt others and me."

    I wonder about this, too.

    I also don't understand why the "brown privilege" comment was perceived as bigoted. Was it because spiderlgs was thought to be white? Or?

    ReplyDelete
  108. spiderlgs said

    regarding brown skin privilege, i was being sarcastic.. because i dont think that should matter when it comes to name calling.

    and in my opinion, there is no context where it is appropriate to call someone a "bitch". Get as angry as you want.. as irate as you please.. i didnt say.. don't get mad.. i didnt say be rational. go for it.


    Okay so your "brown privledge" comment was totally misunderstood. I didn't see it as bigoted but definitely odd to me. However, you said that it was sarcasm but what made you think RVCBard comment "bitch is your for real" comment angry and infuriating? Could she had've been snarky and sarcasstic as well? I've read most of her comments on "Stuff White People Do" and most times she is quite snarky and sarcastic when going back and forth with commenters. You have the right to feel the word "bitch" was misplaced and inappropriate in this dicussion but I do not feel she was "angry" as most of you think she was. *Kanye shrug*

    ReplyDelete
  109. @lady
    In explaining myself my comments probably made it seem as if the anger precipitating the comments was an issue.. but it wasn't. it was the name calling and abusive language in general. Bitch just crosses my line. Go fuck yourself does too.. Cause I don't want to be called names in jest or anger or anywhere in between.

    and I agree sarcasm and snark are present in many people's comments and I don't have any issue that. I'm not in the business of policing emotions, which is why i went to macon for clarification and to give my individual input on ground rules.

    RE: brown privelege
    I realized that my comment was completely misread.. and I apologized not because I felt it was egregious, but because people said they were offended and offense wasn't my intent.

    Truly, i think this whole convo escalated into something I never intended.. though I'm still curious whether name calling is acceptable on SWPD.. Macon?

    ReplyDelete
  110. I'm still curious whether name calling is acceptable on SWPD.. Macon?

    I'd prefer it not happen, but in certain cases, I'm not going to ban it. I don't think that on a blog of this sort, it should be up to me to impose my white-suburban modes of "polite" discourse on others. The examples that most raise the alarm for me are those that travel from the privileged to the subjugated -- e.g., whites calling POC various racial slurs, or a man calling a woman a "bitch." A woman calling a man a bastard or a woman calling a woman a bitch don't alarm me much -- don't seem bannable, that is -- but I know that I might be wrong about that.

    I welcome other thoughts on this issue as I continue to ponder, and write, a forthcoming draft of a Comments Policy.

    ReplyDelete
  111. @ spiderlgs

    oh okay I gotcha. I'm just saying I see both sides of the arguement. Where was the verbal abuse going on the midst of the back and forth conversation between witchsista, RVCBard, and KD comments? The only thing that spark the tension was RVCBard "bitch" comment. Everything else was just argument of disagreements and KD's white tendicies seeping through most of her comments.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Macon,

    oppression comes in many forms and in striving to be anti- any of them I dont think you can tolerate the others, internalized or otherwise. By setting up times when it is appropriate, how will you judge who is white and who is PoC.. male or female until they have announced. prejudices among PoC absolutely exist, many of which have been created because of the Stuff White People Do.. so to accept slurs among them seems counterproductive to the cause.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I just love how there's way less scrutiny over a WW's attention-seeking comments than on the actions of PoC here in response to those comments.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Sorry, but I see all of this is DEFINITELY about policing emotion via behavior. At first, it was presented as the "tone" argument. How are we supposed to get and keep White allies if us Bad Darkies refuse to coddle them and eat their copious amounts of privileged shit? We're supposed to be perpetually good, nice, patient and not have a negative, human emotion anywhere near us lest we insult the delicate sensibilities of White people and scare them away. Policing PoC's responses to racist acts is part and parcel of that. First, it's "get them to talk nice to us" (and then the message is inevitably muted) and then it's "get them to BE nice to us no matter HOW crappily we treat them" where that whole "two wrongs don't make a right" and the reservation of the right to police PoC comes from.

    Like I said before, I just love how the whole KD situation became more about how the Bad Black Gals reacted to her spew than the spew itself.

    ReplyDelete
  115. @ Spiderlgs:

    Let me make it easier for you. I will not be speaking to you or of you on this blog from now on. You can play Good Darkie to my Bad Darkie as much as you like, but I will continue not to join you. Now leave me alone.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Witchsistah,

    It's not about policing any one's behavior; but, rather learning from each other. Can you see that perhaps once you called KD "bitch" the conversation broke down and nothing came of it? I was more concerned with KD's need to eradicate her false indignation than anything else. If you want to change a behavior, hostility doesn't always work; but, rather it strengths and motivates the behavior.

    Also, you don't want anyone telling you what to do; yet, I'm supposed to ignore your postings when I disagree with them? Or, you want to offer suggestions to others; yet, I can't offers suggestions without possibly being labeled the oft-offensive "good darkie" when it doesn't match your perspective?

    Macon,

    For all of your cries of anti-whatever, you are a hypocrite. You claim to want to make things safe for POC; but, you don't want to make the blog safe for discourse among women? You're not alarmed when a women call each other terms you wouldn't a man calling your mother? What?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Holy f*cking sh*t, what kind of care bears, lolipops, and puffy clouds, bubble-wrapped fantasy world do these people live in that being called "bitch" causes DAYS worth of mental anguish? I know for a a fact that everyone who comes here has been called an ugly name before and knows they will be called one again. And really, how DARE some straight white person come here to a place full of people who've been called things like nigger, gook, chink, spic, dot-head, dyke, faggot, etc, you know, words that don't just hurt but make your LIFE feel THREATENED, and demand that everyone coddle her for shit we're expected to just accept as part of our every day lives? It's not our job to delicately remove the giant stick from her arse.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Honeybrown,

    Now you're conflating me and RVCBard. I am the Bad Darkie who told KD she could go and fuck herself. RVCBard was the evil Negress who said, "Bitch, is you for real?" Get us straight or all we all (the two of us) running together for you? Do all Bad Darkies look alike even on the internet?

    If you want to change a behavior, hostility doesn't always work; but, rather it strengths and motivates the behavior.

    Yanno, a lot of times, I've utterly given up on anything changing, especially White folks' behaviors and attitudes towards PoC. I definitely gave up on KD when she spewed WWS and WWT all over this blog.

    I honestly think all of this "be nice" crap is, well, crap obviously. You're not the first PoC to be nice to White folk in order to get them to change. This is not some revolutionary idea. It's been tried millions of times already. Seems to me all it's done is show White folks that PoC will take any crap they throw at us. You want to cater to White ego-centrism? Go right ahead. I can't stop you. But don't insist I do the same and try to make me out to be a bad guy for refusing.

    Like I said, the scroll bar is your friend.

    And with fellow evil, Black bitch (I assume it's okay to use said term in relation to onesself), RVCBard, I'm done with this exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  119. As I've said elsewhere, if the worst thing going on in your entire life is people being mean to you on the internet, you ain't got shit to complain about.

    What's funny is the number of people who take offense at that observation, as if I'm robbing them of precious bitching rights.

    ReplyDelete
  120. So I've been thinking a lot about the controversy here about the word "bitch," and this is what I've come to:

    -I understand how "bitch" is a word that carries power in our culture: it is disrespectful and it hurts to be on the receiving end of.

    HOWEVER

    -Ordinary language, devoid of swear words, also seems perfectly capable of causing equal or greater hurt, and implying equal or greater disrespect. KD, for example, caused hurt by using perfectly ordinary language.

    Therefore,

    -It seems really problematic to divide what can be said from what can't be said based on whether language is a "swear word" or a "perfectly ordinary word."

    -I agree with Witchsistah that to do so is to police language, or more particularly, to police the anger of people of color.

    -I further agree with Witchsistah that focusing on the use of a word like "bitch" without focusing on equally hurtful "ordinary language" is ludicrous.

    -Given the hurt on this thread caused by "perfectly ordinary language" to WOMEN, I have trouble understanding or agreeing with the argument that the use of the word "bitch" is particulary anti-feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Pissing someone off and feeling the sting of that anger is one of the prices you pay when you share your opinion, not just on here but in real life as well. You stand just as much of a chance at getting a well thought out response as you do getting cussed out, socked in the mouth or spit upon in real life when you make statements, especially about race and racism.

    YOU CAN'T CONTROL OR CHANGE SOMEONE'S REACTION TO THE THINGS YOU SAY OR DO. YOU CAN ONLY CONTROL YOUR RESPONSE TO THEIR REACTIONS. The choice is entirely yours and that power should not be handed over to someone else in the name of keeping peace "for" everyone. You keep your own peace.

    It's one thing to ask Macon to filter comments that are typical derailment comments and don't serve to keep the discussion going, but it's another to ask him to determine an appropriate level of anger, which is highly subjective. Where I come from being called a bitch is nothing to write home about. It's neither shocking nor abrasive to my sense of safety. Maybe that's a tragedy to some people, but it's the truth. So not everyone agrees with the level of offensiveness of certain words.

    If you don't call names when you're arguing with someone, then don't call names. No one's telling you that you have to start. But sometimes people DO call names when they argue and now you ARE asking them not to, which seems a little unfair. No one is telling you that you HAVE to engage or even acknowledge a response in which you've been called a name. You have every right to ignore that person. They learn two things when you do that: 1) That in order to actually talk to you they have to speak to you the way you want to be spoken to. 2) They can't get to you simply by calling you a name.

    What some people are failing to realize is that Witchsistah and RVCBard are not asking anyone else to join in verbally expressing anger in the same ways they do. But they're instead being asked to express their anger in ways that someone else wants them to. I don't like that.

    I get that it's not "polite" to call someone a bitch, not nice to be on the receiving end. But if you don't like it, express that and move on. You don't need to go as far as stopping people from using the word bitch ever. Either you respond to it or you don't. You have a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Victoria - that's a good point. I personally hadn't thought of it from that angle.

    ReplyDelete
  123. @Victoria - I get what you're saying. But as I said elsewhere, I don't quite get the double standard that seems to be applied here where white ppl and men can't use certain words, but pocs and women can. That makes me feel like I'm being babied and allowed certain things because I'm not mature or rational enough. I get that it's more loaded when it's coming from a white person to a poc than vice versa, but still.

    That said, I am learning a lot from the recent discussions and I do have my ears open to what those who disagree with me are saying.

    Btw macon, why "subjugated"? Is this a common term used in academia? Somehow "oppressed" seems to focus more on the negative things the oppressor does, but "subjugated" seem to carry connotations that we've been "tamed". I might be knitpicking here, I'm not sure, but thought I'd ask as it's the first time I've noticed the word being used here.

    ReplyDelete
  124. You know what I see? I see the insults of White people - however subtly cloaked - being given the benefit of the doubt over and over and over and over again, with lots of "What ifs" and "But maybes" used to excuse that bullshit. I see people bending over backwards and going way the hell out the way to understand the context that gave rise to the shitty attitudes and actions that insult POCs. Yet, as soon as a POC insults someone, people want to apply hard and fast rules. They want to ignore context because, well, I guess there must not be any when POCs (especially us Angry Black Women) start saying "bitch" and "fuck yourself." I guess what's most important is not honest reactions from POCs toward stuff White people do (Get it? Haha - that's irony! Don't White people like irony?), but filtered commentary that tell you rather than shows you that something is wrong. So if you want to talk about double standards, that's the one I'm interested in.

    Is anyone other than me seeing how fucked up this dynamic is?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Wow, the issues of contention here, across several comment threads, are getting difficult for me to keep track of. It (or some of it?) needs its own pull-all-this-together-so-we-can-see-it-better post. I'm willing to try that, but if anyone else wants to take a stab at it in a "guest post," do let me know.

    @ fromthetropics,

    Btw macon, why "subjugated"?

    Good point! I use that word and "oppressed" interchangeably, but I shouldn't -- I think you're right to point out the differing meanings and/or connotations. I don't think y0our point is nitpicking, and I appreciate your calling attention to the difference. I should be using oppressed more often, and I should maintain a sharper distinction between the two words.

    Re other words here, I'm still on the fence a bit about it all, and about how to put something about such words in a planned Comments Policy; so far, I'm still leaning towards a "double standard." Those are normally bad things, but I don't think so in this case.

    Maybe a comparison to the infamous "n-word" would help? As a white person, I feel justified -- in fact, obligated -- to tell white people not to use it, and to condemn them when they do. However, I don't think I have any business telling black people not to use it. So, I follow that "double standard," given who I am. As the Comments moderator, I'm a white guy who would not disallow that word from oppressed-to-oppressed, but I would from oppressor-to-oppressed. I feel the same about the "b-word" (and for that matter, the "c-word"). An online problem, of course, is making mistakes about who's white, and who's a man or a woman -- not sure what to do about that one.

    But then, maybe that doesn't help much, because you wrote that you already "get that it's more loaded when it's coming from a white person to a poc than vice versa," and the problem instead is that a "double standard," which I see as an allowance of differing communication mores, or "standards," makes you "feel like you're "being babied and allowed certain things because [you're] not mature or rational enough."

    I don't see refraining from name-calling (and cursing) here as more mature or rational behavior. I just see it as a different way of communicating. And so, so far, as I think Victoria explained especially well above, I think that disallowing the name-calling and other forms of communication that others use would amount to the unfair, and oppressive, imposition of one mode of communication.
    And that would be a fucked-up dynamic.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Maybe a comparison to the infamous "n-word" would help?

    Do we have to talk about that episode from "The View" again?

    Let me say something that I haven't seen talked about a million times before.

    IMO (that means "in my opinion" - not "in the opinion of Black people everywhere"), the problem with slurs is not that they are hurtful, but that people on the receiving end of it had no power to do anything about it. Once people are empowered to address and redress wrongs done to them, the need for agonizing over the proper etiquette disappears.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Do we have to talk about that episode from "The View" again?

    LOL! I was going to mention it, but decided not to go there yet again. I'm completely tired of Elizabeth H.

    ReplyDelete
  128. >Maybe a comparison to the infamous "n-word" would help?
    Not really. I’ve thought about that word too. For example, if I use the word ‘chink’ or ‘gook’ on another Asian person, well, it would sound like a joke. It carries no real meaning since I’m Asian myself. But if a white person says it, yeah, it would be condescending. But, for example, if I use the word ‘bitch’, then it would carry meaning because I would be making a personal attack at the person it's addressed to. For me it’s a pretty loaded word.

    >I just see it as a different way of communicating.
    Yeah, that’s quite possible. Alright, I’m putting the jury back out. And they'll probably stay there for awhile. Thanks guys for the response. It's been a thought-provoking week just the same. Happy New Year!

    ReplyDelete
  129. So is it true? Are black people having slaves in these countries? I'm not saying people should wear T-shirts stating this (clearly, the purpose of the T-shirt is to provoke, not to start a meaningful debate on modern slavery), but should it simply be dismissed. On what grounds? Because black people are involved? Should we only discuss and address certain crimes against humanity.

    The "Arab Trader" argument is being brought up here all the time, but it is sometimes misused to allow for hypocrisy. If WP are held acocuntable for crimes and attrocities their race did in the past, the same should apply to all other races. To suggest anything else would be hypocrisy, and this has nothing to do with the "Arab Trader".

    In other words, if WP today are being held morally responsible for crimes agains humanity conducted when WP colonized e.g. South America, Asians today (YP?!) should be held accountable for the attrocities and genocide of e.g. the imperialistic Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan. To suggest anything else would be hypocrisy.

    The guy wearing this T-shirt is obviously a jackass. However, rather than discussing where in DC he lives (as if it mattered), some people here would do well in stepping down from their imagined moral high ground, and actually address what his T-shirt states. As hard as it may be for some to imagine, attrocities, genocide and slavery are by no means prerogatives of WP.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anonymous Coward,

    In serious discussions of racism/white supremacy, if people bring up the fact that "other people do it too," they're bringing up another topic -- what they're pointing out is not racism/white supremacy. Thus, what they're doing is derailing the conversation, and they're probably doing so because they don't want to hear about racism/white supremacy.

    No one who seriously accuses others of The Arab Trader Argument is saying that the bad things other people do should be excused, nor that white people are the only ones who tend to do some bad things. They're instead saying that "this here conversation isn't about that, and your effort to make it about that is a dismissive distraction from what's being talked about here."

    Does that make sense to you?

    ReplyDelete
  131. What may be a variation on the Arab Trader Argument: "Well, Africans enslaved other Africans, so it's not like they didn't understand what was going on.

    ReplyDelete
  132. the conversation here about WWTs has been interesting. KD had her feelings hurt. OK, not good. but can i point out that the angry reactions that she got quite possibly stemmed from an extreme frustration with WP making it about themselves yet again? which has got to hurt? RVCBard, witchsistah and others are usually tough and intellectual in the way they respond (and often witty). but just cause you don't react in a whiney way, doesn't mean you haven't been hurt.

    ReplyDelete

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

hit counter code