Well that's strange. Anyway, item found the comment in question. posted by chunking express at 8:38 AM on April 18
That was a pretty lousy comment. It sure looks racist and neo-coloniophile to me. Still, there's the flag and move on option... posted by Mister_A at 8:40 AM on April 18
I fixed the link. We were talking about that thread this morning. It's really lousy when someone [or a few people] jump in to a thread early on with pretty over-the-top comments like that. By the time I saw it, a bunch of people had responded and it seemed like the thread was going okay so it seemed like a better idea to leave it in than to try to excise and ruin a decent discussion but man, yeah, really a weird thing to drop into a thread like that if you're not trying to kill discussion dead. posted by jessamyn at 8:41 AM on April 18
Racism, blah blah blah, Jared Diamond, blah blah blah.
The reason why Zim was a "success" at least initially was because Mugabe worked with the white land owners, whose farms at least powered the economy. Take away the capital, and you leave an economy without an engine. posted by KokuRyu at 8:42 AM on April 18
seemed like the thread was going okay so it seemed like a better idea to leave it in than to try to excise and ruin a decent discussion
Yeah, I Mefied* him, asking for clarification in the thread. Until then I'm on the fence about whether it should be deleted. Even if he did mean what it sounds like, still on the fence, as it's good to know who has the fucked up opinions.
yeah, failed already. frak me. posted by rtha at 8:50 AM on April 18
Yeah, it was a pretty questionable start to the thread, but the thread seemed to have gotten its legs under it by the time we saw it. posted by cortex at 8:51 AM on April 18
Am I racist? Is the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Justice Department, or the FDA racist? Does it make you feel better to think so? posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:51 AM on April 18 [4 favorites]
I keep trying to interpret TBM's comment as a breezy opening joke - like his next comment should be, "What? Am I too racist for the room?" posted by Jofus at 8:54 AM on April 18
The term "black majority" was taken directly from the post itself. TBM said that the majority came to power and did a crappy job running the country. I don't know enough about the history to say whether that's factually correct one way or the other, but I don't see how the assertion is racist. posted by brain_drain at 8:56 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Oh, and far from making me feel better, it's quite depressing. Shape up lad, it's the 21st century. posted by Abiezer at 8:59 AM on April 18
Am I racist? Is the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Justice Department, or the FDA racist? Does it make you feel better to think so?
If you're using those figures to say that all black people are like this because their race naturally makes them more criminal/diseased/inferior, the yes! You are racist! Congratulations! posted by rtha at 9:01 AM on April 18 [59 favorites]
The Jesse Helms: Are you saying that the first three things are the case because the people involved are black? Because if you are, that's racist. Just as it appears that three blind mice is asserting that the government failed because it is black.
For his comment to have the meaning brain_drain gives it, it would have been better expressed as "they fucked it up", meaning the particular set of people who came to power. Because he said "the black majority proved they couldn't do it", he's heavily implying that regardless of which set of black people came to power, they would have fucked it up. posted by bonaldi at 9:03 AM on April 18 [2 favorites]
TBM said that the majority came to power and did a crappy job running the country. ....I don't see how the assertion is racist.
When a person highlights that the majority is of a particular race and then proceeds to essentially say "that race has shown the world they can't take care of themselves", it's not surprising that the statement is seen as racist. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:04 AM on April 18 [3 favorites]
I didn't read it as "blacks can't take care of themselves," but rather "the majority that came to power in Zimbabwe can't take care of themselves." But I can see how others read it differently, so I'll let TBM defend him/herself. posted by brain_drain at 9:07 AM on April 18
If you're using those figures to say that all black people are like this because their race naturally makes them more criminal/diseased/inferior, the yes! You are racist! Congratulations!
But he doesn't say that. I think he's using those figures to provoke a reaction against something he didn't say (which is arguably what three blind mice was trying to do). posted by oaf at 9:09 AM on April 18
I think the brain_drain has it. For the sake of argument, maybe he was referring to a specific group of people, irrespective of race, and people are jumping down his throat because of the b word. For example, let's look at the following. A post observes that: France's Socialists finally won majority rule after the 1979 elections... to which someone responds: "And France's Socialists went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs".
3bm may wear a white sheet on nights and weekends for all I know, but the reaction to that specific comments seems a bit overblown. posted by psmealey at 9:09 AM on April 18
What about that other 3bm comment, that apparently got deleted. It was something to the effect of "white bitches put up with this kind of thing, but black bitches don't," after a quote from one of the journals. I think it was in this thread.
I thought 3bm was a longtime user that was pretty cool...wth? posted by cashman at 9:10 AM on April 18
Its a good topic, but the thread is kind of a trainwreck. I hope its not too much hassle to police... posted by Deep Dish at 9:14 AM on April 18
Rhodesia is renamed Zimbabwe after it is granted black majority rule.
And the black majority went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.
Can someone explain the problem to me? I honestly don't get it. From THIS thread, I'm sort of getting a vibe that some people feel the bold-face remark is racist. If so, I don't get how.
Claiming that a group is incapable of running its affairs isn't racist, unless you imply that race is the reason why the group can't function. I see no implication of that here.
The term "black majority" in the bold-face comment is surely a rhetorical device -- its purpose is to ape the same phrase in the italic-face comment -- and to throw it into an ironic, contrarian context. It's similar to this:
A: Oh, Wow! The best sci-fi show ever is on TV right now!
B: "The best sci-fi show ever" got panned by all the critics.
I didn't read it as "blacks can't take care of themselves," but rather "the majority that came to power in Zimbabwe can't take care of themselves." But I can see how others read it differently
I read it differently, because it didn't have the phrase "the majority that came to power" in it; it said "the black majority." posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:16 AM on April 18 [2 favorites]
White people are like this because their race naturally makes them more prone to racism. posted by oaf at 9:18 AM on April 18
Because it's the same as this example that psmealey uses for the other side of the argument, ironically: And France's Socialists went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs".
To me, this reads very clearly that the Socialists of France were utterly incapable, not just the set who happened to be in charge at that instant. It's tarring the entire French Socialist movement with incompetence.
Translate that same phrasing to race in Zimbabwe, and you get that all of the black people in Zimbabwe were incapable of running it. There's no reason given for why that is, and the lack of a reason leaves a very big likely-racist-shaped hole, just as the Jesse Helms did. You don't actually have to state the conclusion. posted by bonaldi at 9:21 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
that to grumblebee posted by bonaldi at 9:21 AM on April 18
While I agree that tbm comment is probably not racist it's also probably not clever.
The black majority demonstrated that they were incapable of chucking out decades of being oppressed and undereducated. Mugabe and others took advantage and they are still oppressed and undereducated.
Sad all round but to blame the black majority for the faults of dictators is really fucking ignorant. It's easy to say that they share the blame and could revolt. Generations of indoctrination and Slavery are hard to get over. Russia is another good example. posted by twistedonion at 9:23 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
The word "black" shouldn't have appeared in either the FPP or the response. Zimbabwe was granted majority rule, not black majority rule.
TBM was simply repeating the unfortunate wording. posted by rocket88 at 9:23 AM on April 18
white majorities rule like this, black majorities rule like that.
and brown majorities? their food is fantastic. posted by Stynxno at 9:26 AM on April 18 [2 favorites]
TJH--your use of the phrase "half of black men in their 20s are jobless" is intentionally misleading at best and highly inflammatory at the very least. The article you linked said that that actual statistic is that 65% of high school dropouts in their twenties are jobless. That's an important distinction, no? And so what that some drugs respond differently in some patients than others? And does it matter that the distinction is ethnic?
Your choice of links and verbiage belie your protestations that you are not a racist. There are a thousand different ways you could have responded to the callout on the blue and again, here on the grey. The way you've responded leaves little doubt that you harbor some not insignificant feelings about your own superiority. If you're going to walk around with that kind of arrogance (and hatred?) in your belly, don't get all self-righteous when you're called on it. posted by heathergirl at 9:26 AM on April 18 [4 favorites]
TBM was simply repeating the unfortunate wording.
ah, well, that clears it up. Quoting words that are then put into at best ambiguously racist contexts: S'all cool. posted by bonaldi at 9:27 AM on April 18
I can see both readings of three blind mice's comments, and I'm presuming that he was intending to address specifically the actual folks in Zimbabwe as being responsible specifically and only for the actual collapse of Zimbabwe, because that seems like a pretty reasonable argument in general.
But I think it was a kind of tonedeaf and careless way to choose to pursue that argument, and you could do a lot better for a thread opener than something as strident and ambiguous as that.
What about that other 3bm comment, that apparently got deleted. It was something to the effect of "white bitches put up with this kind of thing, but black bitches don't," after a quote from one of the journals.
It was I guess a quote from Reservoir Dogs (I don't remember the line from the movie offhand, but it's been a few years and regardless it was pretty Tarantino-on-race-disparities-esque) which makes it a lot less weird on the face of it.
It was still a pretty questionable thing to drop into the thread, and it wasn't attributed as a quote at all which pretty much left people who didn't recognize it wonder what the fuck was up, but I don't want it oversold. posted by cortex at 9:29 AM on April 18
neo-coloniophile
just...
just..
STOP IT WITH THE POST-COHERENCE CONSTRUCTIONS DAMMIT! posted by quonsar at 9:29 AM on April 18 [7 favorites]
It's because the "black majority" did not rule Zimbabwe. A subset of that majority actually ruled, was actually in power, actually made decisions. Saying "the black majority" was incapable of running things is like saying, based on GWB's tenure, that Republicans are incapable of running things. It's like that but, you know, racist.
Also, the use of "their own affairs" doubles the racism. Not only can black folks not run a country, they can't even take care of themselves! posted by wemayfreeze at 9:31 AM on April 18 [3 favorites]
It was I guess a quote from Reservoir Dogs (I don't remember the line from the movie offhand, but it's been a few years and regardless it was pretty Tarantino-on-race-disparities-esque) which makes it a lot less weird on the face of it.
Thanks - I knew there was something up. posted by cashman at 9:32 AM on April 18
Related story - my boss sent an email to a prospective client the other day, cc-ing me, (because I am Head Of Internets)
In it he reiterated what we'd said in a previous meeting that, "while we're interested in pursuing some smaller, quicker website work, currently we weren't interested in any bigger projects."
Ever notice how close the letter B and N are on the keyboard?
Right.
So the client writes back, quoting the N word. And my boss, still unaware that it was he who had started it, thinks, Christ! We're inadvertantly stumbled upon a hotbed of digital racism! I'll not work for them!"
So he's halfway through writing the rudest email ever when i burst in to explain what's happened.
Needless to say, when it became clear what had happened was an unfortunate accident, we all laughed!
True story. Do I win $10?
(Oh, and upon reading Grumblebee's interpretation: Yep. Not racist, just badly worded.) posted by Jofus at 9:34 AM on April 18 [17 favorites]
bonaldi, I still don't get it. What if the poster really believes that the "black majority" screwed things up? That doesn't necessarily mean that he things all black people screw things up or all black majorities screw things up. What if just means that that particular black majority screwed things up?
Had he been the first person to use the phrase "black majority," I might have been suspicious, too. I would have felt like, "Okay, they screwed things up, but what does their skin color have to do with it? Why not just say 'the majority'."
But he didn't coin the phrase. He was using a well-known bit of rhetoric, and he even quoted the source-phrase! He basically said, "this is where I'm getting the phrase 'black majority.' They're not my words, they're yours. I'm just twisting them to my ends." Why isn't the coiner being chastised? Shouldn't he have just said "the majority" instead of the "black majority"?
I can certainly tell you this. I'm not racist, but I can completely imagine myself -- without any racist intent -- phrasing things the same way, for reasons I've explained above: rhetoric. I would be flabbergasted if, afterwards, I was called out for racism.
A: That black guy is a great dancer!
B: That black guy is an asshole! He owes me five dollars and he never paid me back!
B is racist???? Had A said "that guy in the jeans is a great dancer," B would have said, "that guy in the jeans is an asshole..." posted by grumblebee at 9:34 AM on April 18 [2 favorites]
True story. Do I win $10?
No, but if you submit the story idea to Larry David he might give you more than that. posted by psmealey at 9:35 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Saying "the black majority" was incapable of running things is like saying, based on GWB's tenure, that Republicans are incapable of running things.
The way you've responded leaves little doubt that you harbor some not insignificant feelings about your own superiority.
Little doubt, little accuracy. posted by oaf at 9:36 AM on April 18
Jeezum crow, you need a cheat sheet to keep track of the username-to-acronym conversions here. Is it TBM or 3BM (which kind of looks like... never mind)?
Also, the use of "their own affairs" doubles the racism. Not only can black folks not run a country, they can't even take care of themselves!
SLIPPAGE! The poster wrote "the black majority." You're sliding his comment to be about "black folks." posted by grumblebee at 9:38 AM on April 18
oh, but to be on topic, yes, TBM comment and TJH follow ups are racist for all the reasons (wemayfreeze, heathergirl,bonaldi, kirth, etc) mentioned above. Content and contex matter and the labeling of an entire race for "failing" at anything smacks of White Man's burden and pretty damn ignorant. They should be axed, in my opinion. posted by Stynxno at 9:38 AM on April 18
The thing is grumblebee, the original is worded to talk about all of the black people in the country, in a neutral context. The latter is addressed to the same set of people (eg all the blacks in Zimbabwe), but is derogatory.
A: There are black guys on the dancefloor
B: Black guys are assholes. posted by bonaldi at 9:38 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
My theory is that negatively describing someone, while at the same time using "black" as an adjective to describe them, makes you sound rascist. For example: "This neighborhood was great until those black people moved in". The fact that they make the neighborhood worse, but it makes you sound like you don't want black people in general in your neighborhood.
When you point out some identifying feature of someone when you verbally attack them, that feature becomes part of the attack. So if you say "Those NASCAR-loving rednecks don't know how to read", it is in some way an attack on all NASCAR fans, because the fact that you decided to point out that they like NASCAR is significant. posted by burnmp3s at 9:38 AM on April 18 [3 favorites]
A: There are black guys on the dancefloor
B: Black guys are assholes.
That's horribly and undeniably racist. But it doesn't follow the logic of the post. The post is more like...
A: There are black guys on the dance floor.
B: THOSE black guys are assholes.
Which is much more ambiguous. To me, it looks like B is just aping A's way of labeling guys on the dance floor. (Why did A call them "black," in the first place?) posted by grumblebee at 9:41 AM on April 18
Would this wording have been non-racist?
And the black majority rulers went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs. posted by smackfu at 9:43 AM on April 18
bringing this in from the thread, to avoid further derailing what's turning into a very interesting and illuminating discussion
I said: Yes, because it's perfectly appropriate and accurate to blame the failure of a government/state on the RACE OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE!
and then oaf said: The first comment doesn't do that, but squirm all you like.
I'm not squirming, oaf. They way I read the comment left me under the impression that it was the race of the majority in power that determined how horribly they've fucked up.
If someone says, "Jeez, white people sure have fucked up the subprime situation," does that really not read differently to you than if it was "Jeez, [bankers] [greedy pigs] [regulators] really fucked up the subprime situation,"? posted by rtha at 9:44 AM on April 18
I wonder if I'm annoyed at some of the comments here because I've been called a racist in a situation like grumblebee describes above. My calling you out for being an asshole when I'm white and you're not does not make me a racist. Your saying that my calling you out is racist is itself racist. Irony of ironies. posted by oaf at 9:45 AM on April 18
My theory is that negatively describing someone, while at the same time using "black" as an adjective to describe them, makes you sound rascist. For example: "This neighborhood was great until those black people moved in". The fact that they make the neighborhood worse, but it makes you sound like you don't want black people in general in your neighborhood.
Yes, but -- again -- YOU are coining the phrase "those black people."
A: How do you like the neighborhood.
B: It was fine until those black people moved in.
Highly suspect in my mind, though not absolutely, for-sure racist. It's remotely possible that B just couldn't think of another way of indicating which people he was talking about. But I would be very suspicious.
A: How you like living next door to those black people?
B: "Those black people" knocked down my garden gnome.
I'm much less suspicious of B. (I am a little suspicious of A. I would be suspicious of him even if he'd said, "How do you like living next door to those really nice black people?") posted by grumblebee at 9:46 AM on April 18
Can someone explain the problem to me?
it's not the black majority that is utterly incapable, it's mugabe - and although his land-reform scheme has been badly executed, it's his compulsive printing up of money that's really caused zimbabwe to fail - hyperinflation is guaranteed to drive a country right into the ground
he's incompetent to run a country
tbm's statement was just dumb and the jesse helms' statement is just vile - i might remind him that our current leadership in the white house isn't exactly good either posted by pyramid termite at 9:46 AM on April 18
I see that reading, grumblebee, but to me at its most charitable it's still ambiguous whether or not he's saying THOSE black guys. If he wanted to do that, there are far clearer ways of doing it than "black majority".
Read in isolation, the comment heavily implies racism. Even read in context, it's not much better, because the original "black majority rule" can be read either as Mugabe's people or all Zimbabwe's blacks. posted by bonaldi at 9:47 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
his land-reform scheme
Nobody seems to have pointed out that his land-reform scheme is openly racist. posted by oaf at 9:48 AM on April 18
I hope 3bm comes in here to explain. posted by cashman at 9:50 AM on April 18
Oh great. As a whitey, let me just give my most heartfelt thanks to The Jesse Helms and three blind mice for bringing it down for the rest of us. Great job guys, now everybody's going to assume all of us white people are racist. posted by Kattullus at 9:50 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Many white people are way more hyper-sensitive about perceived racism than are many black people. This has been made clear to me, by, among other things, tutoring adults in urban areas such as DC and Baltimore. Maybe it's my perception, but I'll stack my perception up against yrs any day. posted by dawson at 9:51 AM on April 18
That would be very racist of them.
How preposterous. Only white people can be racist, and they can't ever be victims of racism. posted by oaf at 9:53 AM on April 18
Difficult to see how you ended up falsely accused of racist tendencies, oaf. posted by bonaldi at 9:55 AM on April 18
Your sarcasm filter is broken. posted by oaf at 9:56 AM on April 18
A: How do you like the neighborhood.
B: It was fine until those black people moved in.
Highly suspect in my mind, though not absolutely, for-sure racist. It's remotely possible that B just couldn't think of another way of indicating which people he was talking about. But I would be very suspicious.
Wrong. Option B is racist; not everything in the world is as gray as you'd like it to be.
Rather than be "supicious" to the point where everything is given a green pass and everyone is given the benefit of doubt, take a look at what is actually here. Allkindsoftime used "black majority" in his post. TBM responded with a racist comment implying that the nation f'ed up because of it's black citizens. How do I know this? Because he follows up his initial comment with others implying that he knows about Zimbabwe, its history and its current state. If that's true, then he would be well aware that the nation is under the control of a dictatorship who gained power through racial nationalism, maintains that power through racism, oppression, terror and a stranglehold on power. The "black majority" do not rule Zimbabwe. A dictator rules Zimbamwe. posted by Stynxno at 9:57 AM on April 18 [3 favorites]
Maybe, but I was going to post the same thing after "land-reform scheme is openly racist", when it was still in tickety-boo working order. Or was that sarcastic also? Cos if so, your sarcasmatron is all fucked up. posted by bonaldi at 9:58 AM on April 18
I'm repeating myself, so I'll butt out in a second, but just so I can get a temperature reading of how far apart our mindsets are, bonaldi, can you answer a question for me? (I'm not trying to catch you out. I'm honestly trying to understand where you and I lie on a spectrum.)
If we leave the original thread aside and examine one of my made-up dialogues, what would be your interpretation of B's intent?
A: That black guy over there is a cool dude!
B: That black guy over there is an asshole!
My guess is that we'd both agree that B's intent/attitude is ambiguous and could be interpreted various ways. But to me, the most likely interpretation is that he's using a bit of common rhetoric and that, after hearing it, I know nothing about whether he's racist or not.
Do you think it's more likely that he's racist?
And why isn't A under equal (or more) scrutiny? posted by grumblebee at 10:00 AM on April 18
And why isn't A under equal (or more) scrutiny?
Because people saying positive things about someone for whatever reason is low on the priority list of "Things the World Needs to Fix"? posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:06 AM on April 18 [3 favorites]
No, I completely agree with you, grumblebee on the interpretation of B. Where we differ is in how charitably we read 3bm's post, and how closely we link it to B. I didn't ever read it as saying in effect "that black guy", and have always read it as meaning "black guys", but it seems you're the opposite.
I think we'd both say that a "black guys" reading of B is much more likely to have a racist component than a "that black guy" one, no?
(As for A: in your scenario I think A is open to a degree of scrutiny, but in this post, where the poster is trying to record the point when black people took control in Zimbabwe again, it's more obvious why he had to highlight the black element) posted by bonaldi at 10:09 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Maybe, but I was going to post the same thing after "land-reform scheme is openly racist"
What's wrong with saying that it is? It is. posted by oaf at 10:13 AM on April 18
grumblebee:
Your A and B statements, in no way, relate to the TBM comment. You're giving TBM the benefit of doubt that his B could be read in any sort of extremely positive way. Your A and B are, by themselves and out of context, not racist. But throw A and B in any sort of contextual situation, then they could be racist. Taking those statements out of their context dilutes their message and that is the problem with your analogy. posted by Stynxno at 10:13 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
grumblebee, you understand that "the black majority" is not a political party in zimbabwe, right? you get that, regardless of whether the phrase was first said by the original post, tbm said that black Zimbabweans are incapable of running their own affairs? he wasn't referring to the party in power, because that party is not called the black majority. all "the black majority" means is "the black people in zimbabwe" since they are the majority of zimbabweans and they were, until 1980, prevented from running their own government.
so, since you like making these analogies, here's one that I think works better than any of yours:
A: In 1980, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe under the rule of Black Zimbabweans.
B: Black Zimbabweans went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.
I mean, what other interpretation is there except "black zimbabweans can't govern themselves?" Especially since the black zimbabweans in question ran their own affairs after an all white government? posted by shmegegge at 10:14 AM on April 18 [6 favorites]
What's wrong with saying that it is? It is.
It's also part of a set of language and themes regularly used by racists ("Why is everyone so bothered about XYZ being racist? I don't see anybody here commenting on affirmative action!")
You're either totally tone-deaf on this one, or you're knowingly playing near the fire. If the latter, you don't get to complain when you get burned. posted by bonaldi at 11:32 AM on April 18
If the original post didn't have the word black, and TBM added it, I would have no doubt that it was a racist comment. As it stands, however, I have doubt. Lacking other evidence I don't thinkwe have enough to string him up. posted by rocket88 at 11:36 AM on April 18
grumblebee, I don't think that the comment by 3BM was necessarily racist. I'll give him (?) the benefit of the doubt, but it *sounds* that way and here's why -
"the black majority" isn't the name of a political party. It refers to ALL of the black people in the country. so when you say that "they" (ALL of the black people) "are incapable of running their own affairs".... that sounds like he's saying that "black people (who live in Zimbabwe) are incapable of running their own affairs". that sounds pretty racist, right? saying that the new government was incapable - not racist. saying that black people are incapable - racist. make sense? again, I think it was just unfortunate wording in the comment, but it's not really confusing that people are upset.
This comment, though:
"I never really fully accepted Jared Diamond's reasoning for sub-Saharan Africa's complete failure. I mean, look at Washington D.C., Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Memphis."
Is unquestionably racist, and I wonder why we're focusing more on the first one. posted by moxiedoll at 11:40 AM on April 18
You're either totally tone-deaf on this one, or you're knowingly playing near the fire.
No, and no. Anyone who can't recognize that he's selecting farms to steal based on the race of the owner is really not up to participating in this discussion. posted by oaf at 11:46 AM on April 18 [1 favorite]
grumblebee, the problem is not the individual statements, it is the (sometimes presumed) context.
As others have pointed out, what is objectionable (to some) about 3bm's oringinal comment is not so much that they said that the black majority proved itself incapable of ruling, it is the assumption that they would never have said, looking at similar political failures across the world, that the white majority proved themselves utterly incapable of running their own affairs.
This is why your examples are not germane. If one person says one time "that black dude is an asshole" then yes, of course it isn't racist. The racism enters when someone inappropriately generalizes to the conclusion that all black people are assholes.
I think you and others are reacting to the fact that 3bm's statement on its own does not necessarily constitute evidence of racism. For all we know, in a thread on the Balkans or the Russian economic collapse or some such thing, 3bm made a similar statement that concluded that the white majority proved themselves incapable of running their own affairs.
Nevertheless - though it may be unfair to 3bm, and an unfair generalization based on only one statement - many people think that this is pretty unlikely, and it reminds us of a lot of similarly fallacious reasoning that we have seen repeated elsewhere. Thus the outrage. posted by googly at 11:51 AM on April 18
Tone-deaf is the one, then. I'm not saying you were wrong in what you said, just that when you add it to all your other apologist cap'n-save-a-racist posts, it's hardly surprising that some other poster elsewhere accused you of racism. Going "wha? me?" in that situation is either disingenuous or oblivious. posted by bonaldi at 11:53 AM on April 18
Well, I was all relaxed after that nice site massage, but then I had to check recent activity....
So, oaf, were you talking specifically to me here? posted by rtha at 11:58 AM on April 18
A: How do you like the neighborhood.
B: It was fine until those black people moved in.
Highly suspect in my mind, though not absolutely, for-sure racist. It's remotely possible that B just couldn't think of another way of indicating which people he was talking about. But I would be very suspicious.
Wrong. Option B is racist; not everything in the world is as gray as you'd like it to be.
Maybe we define "a racist comment" differently. To me, a comment is only UNDENIABLY racist -- with no possible shades of gray -- if racism is the only reasonable way to interpret the writer's INTENT. Example: "I hate black people." Aside from the possibility that the speaker might be making some sort of odd joke, I can't imagine a mind-set, other than a racist one, that would lead him to make such a statement.
Granted, if I were a betting man, I'd lay $1000 on B being racist. I think the odds point to that. But "the odds point to that" is very different from "he IS racist." Life is short, and we often have to content ourselves with best guesses. I don't deny that. But that doesn't mean our best guesses are right. It just means they're the best we can do given our available time and energy.
How could B say, "it was fine until those black people moved in" and not be racist? (Please remember that I think he PROBABLY is racist.) Well, when referring to a person, you have to specify who you're talking about somehow.
If I said, "the neighborhood was fine until those red-headed people moved in" or "the neighbrhood was fine until those noisy people moved in," I doubt many people would be offended. They'd understand I was just trying explain which people I was talking about.
If there are thirty people in the room and twenty-nine of them are white, what's the most economical way of clarifying that you're talking about the one black person? Say it just so happens he's an asshole. The simplest way for me to explain which asshole I'm talking about -- so that there's no ambiguity -- is to say, "it's the black guy."
Would I say that? No. Because I understand the way certain social cues are generally interpreted well enough to know that I'd be PERCEIVED as racist. In other words, I know I'm not racist. My choice of words have nothing to do with whether or not I'm racist. They have to do with a desire to not-be-considered racist. Maybe you think everyone feels this way. By that logic, no one wants to appear racist (except, possibly, a racist), so if someone doesn't go out of his way to avoid language that's likely to be perceived as racist, he must necessarily be racist.
But different people have different skill-sets when it comes to social cues. So the guy who says, "that black guy" may just be socially stunted. He may be stupidly referring to skin color in a neutral way, unaware that it's a loaded concept for many people -- or maybe he's aware of it, but he may not be practiced at thinking about what he's about to say before it comes out of his mouth. Still, his intent might not be racist.
I still think he's probably racist. I don't even have a problem with assuming that he is racist and treating him as if he is. I just don't get your "no shades of gray" argument. posted by grumblebee at 11:59 AM on April 18
Just briefly, since this seems to be the issue at hand, I'd like to address whether something has to be intentionally racist in order to be deemed harmful and/or just kind of crappy. (To be clear from the get-go, I'm talking about whether individual comments have racist overtones, and not about judging individual commenters as "racist.")
I'm going to say that intent doesn't entirely matter. Clearly, even if the first two comments in the Zimbabwe thread weren't actually intended as such, their intent and wording were ambiguous enough that many people interpreted them as racist. If a comment unintentionally had the exact same impact as an explicitly racist comment, I don't think it's unfair to take it to task, in the hope of understanding the comment's actual intent or message. Unfortunately, I'm still unclear as to the actual intent of the comments.
Part of the problem here does come from the original post, which probably should have used the term "white minority rule" instead of "black majority rule." The former was predicated on the enforcement of race-based preference; the latter was, for better or worse, supposed to be straight-up majority rule (which, over time, tends to divide over a plurality of political issues, as opposed to race alone). There could've been a way more interesting discussion in the comments, about the promise and pitfalls of democratization, and why it's been enforced as an ideal. Or about what constitutes a "free and fair" election. Or about land ownership in a post-colonial context. But I digress.
Basically, in response to TJH, you're right on one count: The individual sources you're citing aren't racist, per-se. However, you're disregarding your role in choosing, phrasing, and juxtaposing the items in your list. Clearly, the act of extracting information, rephrasing it, and arranging it has a semiotic effect; that means you have to take responsibility for the message that you, not the individual sources, composed.
Just because the implication isn't explicit doesn't mean it's okay. posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:03 PM on April 18
Saying "the black majority" was incapable of running things is like saying, based on GWB's tenure, that Republicans are incapable of running things.
grumblebee, the problem is not the individual statements, it is the (sometimes presumed) context.
I thank all of you who have made some variation of this argument. I get where you're coming from now.
To me, it's still a little odd -- a little anti-Occam. It like you see me eating a cookie, and you see a cookie jar right next to me, and yet your first assumption is that I got the cookie from another room, rather than from the jar.
The proximity of the comment TBM quoted -- with the same phrase -- and the way his aping of it fell perfectly inline with a rhetorical convention, made me feel that the most likely explanation was an attempt at wit ("I'm throwing your words back at you"), rather than racism. posted by grumblebee at 12:06 PM on April 18
evidenceofabsence, in case any of that was aimed at me, let me clarify that I don't think a statement needs to be intentionally racist to be harmful. Well-intended (or neutrally-intended) statements often cause harm. posted by grumblebee at 12:09 PM on April 18
Ever notice how white people conduct themselves in the Balkans, in Nazi Germany, in colonial Congo, in the Jim Crow South, in Pinochet's Chile, in Stalin's Russia?
It's no wonder they couldn't hold onto control in Zimbabwe-- their reputation preceded them, so they were kicked out. posted by ibmcginty at 12:11 PM on April 18
Grumblebee: It wasn't particularly aimed at you, or at anyone. I'd typed my reply up before the "massage," and just had the chance to submit it now.
Also, just for the record, I need a massage way more than Metafilter does. Especially around the neck and shoulders. Anyone know what Mathowie charges? posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:15 PM on April 18
I'm conflicted. There's so much pointless parsing of a couple of transparently fucking awful comments. And then Grumblebee has to show signs that maybe he's listening. I don't know what to think. Gak! Buncha parseholes. posted by ~ at 12:18 PM on April 18 [2 favorites]
The proximity of the comment TBM quoted -- with the same phrase -- and the way his aping of it fell perfectly inline with a rhetorical convention, made me feel that the most likely explanation was an attempt at wit ("I'm throwing your words back at you"), rather than racism.
three blind mice: And the black majority went on to demonstrate to the world - leaving no uncertaintly - that they were utterly incapable of running their own affairs.
The Jesse Helms: Am I racist? Is the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Justice Department, or the FDA racist? Does it make you feel better to think so?
The trouble, dear Jesse, is in the vague pronoun. If "they" points to "the black majority population of Zimbabwe," well, then, it's probably not racist. (Probably.) But if "they" points to "the black majority" in general, which is how he put it, or to "the black segment of the population," or some such, then, well, yes, it's racist.
And "black people are not capable of rulership" is a popular enough canard among those sots among us who like to generalize racially-- yes, we can call them 'racists'-- that the formulation of three blind mice's comment causes the reader to have a legitimate concern. posted by Viomeda at 12:21 PM on April 18
Well, grumblebee, there's also the fact that putting forth the idea that black people cannot govern themselves is a classic racist trope. Tying a statement of race to a racial stereotype is worse than calling a black guy an asshole. It'd be closer to:
A: There's a black guy on the dancefloor
B: That black guy is consumed with jungle rhythms! posted by Bookhouse at 12:23 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Anyone know what Mathowie charges?
Man, you can not afford it, let me just tell you what. posted by cortex at 12:29 PM on April 18
Cortex: Damn. I was hoping that everything cost about $5. posted by evidenceofabsence at 12:35 PM on April 18
How could B say, "it was fine until those black people moved in" and not be racist? (Please remember that I think he PROBABLY is racist.) Well, when referring to a person, you have to specify who you're talking about somehow.
Sure, I guess if you're referring to a person you need a way to refer to them. But in this case you're actually referring to an event and describing the event based upon the color of the skin of people who have moved in. So in this case you want to link the event in with the fact that things are no longer fine. So perhaps, "It was fine until those guys down the street moved in." Or better "those johnsons are bad news"
Sure, lynchings are down 10% (made up statistic, could be lower percentage, could in fact be more common today than yesterday, etc), but the other more pervasive aspect of the current state of racism is how people subtly input causality into their remarks. "Oh those black people are lazy" could, on the surface, just mean that they're describing a group of people who are lazy who just happen to be black.
Now, I believe that just about everyone is racist, the difference is merely in degree rather than kind. I happen to think that the best anyone can do is to analyize their behavior and modify it so that any internal racism is minimized. So when people say something like "those black people are lazy" that sets off a flag that that person doesn't really try and minimize that racism. I see more flags if that person further attempts to justify their response.
Furthermore, how often do you hear white people say "it was fine until those white people moved in"? posted by Green With You at 12:36 PM on April 18 [2 favorites]
This is a perfect example for why nasty, racist, sexist, and just plain stupid comments should not be deleted. It's good, very good, that there's a record of what an idiotic shit The Jesse Helms is. posted by MrMoonPie at 12:39 PM on April 18
Has anyone emailed three blind mice to let him know what he's being accused of in this thread? Seems to me he should probably have an opportunity to explain his comment, and that his explanation might be crucial to the debate. posted by pardonyou? at 12:42 PM on April 18
So, oaf, were you talking specifically to me here?
No. The situation I am talking about was in real life. Someone was being a jerk, and when I called them on it, they said "You wouldn't have said that if I were white." They wouldn't have said that if I weren't white. posted by oaf at 12:46 PM on April 18
Has anyone emailed three blind mice to let him know what he's being accused of in this thread?
And then Grumblebee has to show signs that maybe he's listening.
That's because the doctor pulled a gigantor glob of wax out of my ear. It was fascinatingly gross. It was about the size of a peanut and it had all these little hairs sticking out of it. It looked like a balding tribble.
My deepest feeling is this: racism will not be solved until the cultures involved are ready to deal with the issue as a complex one. Amongst other things, this means:
1. No one gets away with flouting "innocent until proven guilty." It's fine to suspect T's as a racist. It's fine to ask him about it, look through previous posts to see his general attitude, explain to him how he comes across, etc. But if we take the attitude of "if you say X, you ARE racist," we get further and further from a solution. We just scare people (this thread scared me) into thinking they can damn themselves by wording mistakes -- that they can damn themselves in an irreparable way! Even if T really is racist, that doesn't lesson my fear. I know I'm not racist, yet I know I could easily have written what he wrote. And then who would believe me when I protested my innocence?
2. We are allowed to chastise and punish racists, but our FIRST response should always be to educate.
3. So-called positive racism is as-bad as negative racism. It should get NO free ride. If "that black guy is an asshole" is a racist statement, then "that black guy is really cool" is an EQUALLY racist statement (unless it's the only reasonable way to point out who's being discussed). Sure, the former is more likely to hurt someone's feelings, but when we're discussing capital-R racism, the key aspect is that people are being judged (positively or negatively) on the basis of skin color. The positive is just the negative in disguise. It's like claiming that you're not sexist because you put women on a pedestal.
4. There MUST be a way for people to ask questions -- and bring up discussion points -- about race (and culture) without getting instantly labelled racist. I can't tell you how many times I've had an innocent (of racism) question about African-American culture(s) and -- just for asking it -- I've been accused of being a racist. That attitude kills any chance for education, which is the greatest weapon against racism.
5. People MUST be allowed to admit to the occasional racist thought without being permanently ostracized. As they say in drug rehab, admitting to the problem is half the battle. No one will admit anything if they're going to be cast into hell the second they do.
6. People who have been hurt by racism need a outlet for their totally reasonable anger. You can't put up with shit without getting angry. On the other hand, anger doesn't usually solve problems. On the other other hand, it's harmful to repress anger. Until racism is vanquished, we need a way to let people vent without making a bad situation worse.
In all of the above, I'm referring to racist remarks. I have a different attitude towards actions. If someone is intent on genocide (or, say, playing lower wages to a black employee), I don't advocate education or discussion as step 1. Step 1 is stopping the perpetrator in his tracks. posted by grumblebee at 12:56 PM on April 18 [4 favorites]
To me, it's still a little odd -- a little anti-Occam. It like you see me eating a cookie, and you see a cookie jar right next to me, and yet your first assumption is that I got the cookie from another room, rather than from the jar.
grumblebee, racism is the cookie jar right next to you, and me, and everybody else. I approve of giving people the benefit of the doubt, but you're acting as if racism were some strange, rare affliction that people get accused of for no discernible reason. Yes, a lot of people are "oversensitive" about racism (and sexism and homophobia and...), but there's good reason for that. It would be great if we could all assume the best of each other and hold hands and sing songs, but even at MetaFilter (Best of the Web!), I'm afraid that's just not realistic. That comment was shitty; I'm not saying the person who made it is racist, I'm saying it's deliberately toying with racism (poking the elephant in the room) while still maintaining deniability. While it's better to be the kind of jerk who gets his kicks out of making ambiguous remarks to get the PC crowed all riled up than to actually be a racist, I'm not crazy about either. posted by languagehat at 2:18 PM on April 18 [7 favorites]
The human race has demonstrated to the world - leaving no uncertainty - that we are utterly incapable of running our own affairs. Anyone know what Mathowie charges? posted by ND¢ at 2:21 PM on April 18
6,671,226,000 people on the planet, roughly. So that's about $33,356,130,000 we'd need to pay Matt. posted by oaf at 2:27 PM on April 18
Am I racist? Is the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Justice Department, or the FDA racist? Does it make you feel better to think so?
Perhaps.
There are studies that show that, for some crimes, the number of arrests of white people is equal to the number of arrests of black people. The number of convictions is strikingly different, with a lot more black men convicted.
More food for thought: here in Oklahoma the number of white females in prison is considerably higher than the number of black females or the number of native Americans.
It is very easy to jump to conclusions (sometimes wrong conclusions) by considering only the bits and pieces of statistics that support one's bias. posted by francesca too at 2:27 PM on April 18 [3 favorites]
So-called positive racism is as-bad as negative racism. It should get NO free ride. If "that black guy is an asshole" is a racist statement, then "that black guy is really cool" is an EQUALLY racist statement
I don't think you even understand the terms here, despite your ability (and desire) to parse things to a fare-the-well. posted by OmieWise at 2:33 PM on April 18 [3 favorites]
I mean, look at Washington D.C., Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Memphis.
They're all historically and economically significant and have made major contributions to what you think of as "mainstream (white) American culture," yet you have cherry-picked and lumped them together with derision because of their majority black populations?
I hope the next clue is a Daily Double. posted by Tehanu at 2:51 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Are we seriously arguing that we should pretend Zimbabwe is going well for the sake of political correctness? posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on April 18
I took the issue to be that saying the "blackness" of Zimbabwe's misrule is its most salient feature is racist. posted by Abiezer at 2:58 PM on April 18
Or, depending on how you parse the comments inspiring the discussion, the blackness of the population being misruled.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that Zimbabwe is doing so hot. posted by cortex at 2:59 PM on April 18
Grumble, the poster doesn't show any reason to support that the color or race of the people who screwed up the country has anything to do with how it was screwed up.
If I post that the country was screwed up because it's run by men, it has the same validity. Yep, men are in charge, there's yer problem. posted by theora55 at 3:00 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Artw- I think there is a difference to saying "this country is going to shit because of corrupt politicians / abject poverty / former history of colonialism / military dictatorship" than "this country is going to shit because its run by black people."
One is looking at the factual histories and causes of the current circumstance, the other is using race as a way to scapegoat any real and plausible causes of the circumstance. The former may actually help the country go forward and the latter will just dismiss and entire population and ethnic group to second class citizens only suitable for manual labor as long as there is a good strong white man at the reins. posted by mrzarquon at 3:06 PM on April 18
Are we seriously arguing that we should pretend Zimbabwe is going well for the sake of political correctness?
Artw, where the singing ends of bells did you get this from? Are you reading the words here or what? posted by bonaldi at 3:08 PM on April 18
Oh god, please don't let it be that you get this far and think everybody's taking issue with the "utterly incapable" part of the sentence. posted by bonaldi at 3:09 PM on April 18
The words of comment #1, yeah. Which I'd read as being about the black majority which, as pointed out in the post, assumed control of Zimbabwe. It’s not a very subtle or nuanced summary of events, and as someone else points out leaves out the fact that things didn’t actually go to shit till much much later, but no, I don’t get “OMG Racism!” from it.
Comment #2 I'd read as being a hell of a lot dodgier. Incredibly so, in fact. posted by Artw at 3:13 PM on April 18
Actually from three blind mices comment history I see quite a lot of dodgyness. Maybe I'm being overly charitable in my interpretation. posted by Artw at 3:16 PM on April 18
I think his failure to attend here says quite a lot. Although an accusation of racism can be an incredibly hard thing to rebut, there are a lot of posters here who've been more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it. posted by bonaldi at 3:20 PM on April 18
Anyone know what Mathowie charges?
Twenty bucks, same as in town. posted by scrump at 3:23 PM on April 18
"Dear Dracula, please come down to the village, we have a mob with burning torches and pitchforks all ready for you. PS you are a racist." posted by Artw at 3:27 PM on April 18
Twenty bucks, same as in town.
You bought your account through Amazon, didn't you? posted by oaf at 3:34 PM on April 18
How else would you have it go, Artw? Someone make a hit-and-run racist comment and we let it lie forever so we don't scare them away from explaining what the fuck they're on about? We all gonna have some sore necks and really bad sunburn, then. posted by bonaldi at 3:34 PM on April 18 [2 favorites]
I try to avoid race and racism altogether by hating everyone equally.
bonaldi - Call me weird, but chasing people out of town for what could actually be more of a semantic quibble than anything else seems really wrong.
The way this metatalk post is structure really, really rubs me up the wrong way. It comes over more as “OMG! Look at this out of context comment! Kill them! Kill them!” than a reasoned response. If it turns out the guy is unambiguously a racist from his follow up posts then, hey, the post should say that.
I’d kind of like an explanation of what the hell The Jesse Helms thinks he is saying though. posted by Artw at 3:41 PM on April 18
I think it's a by-product of the charitable explanation not being very apparent to a lot of people, including the OP I'd guess, that it's worded that way. The semantic quibbling you talk about has mostly been an attempt to bridge the two views; it's as clearly racist to some of us as it is innocuous to you. posted by bonaldi at 3:48 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
"Innocuous" is not quite how I'd put it. posted by Artw at 3:52 PM on April 18
It was performance art, intended to start a conversation about race. posted by jfuller at 3:52 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
I don't see any chasing out of town. I don't see any stringing up. I don't see any 'kill them, kill them.'
Where are these violent metaphors coming from? We're having a *conversation*. As far as I can tell, banning isn't even on the table, let alone 'stringing up.'
Demonizing people who see racism where you don't doesn't contribute to less racism. It just silences the people who are calling out racism. Thank goodness we have people calling out racism. Really. Thank goodness. And thank goodness we don't have to wait till the worst case scenario for them to do it.
I said this on the feminism threads and it applies here too... calling this stuff out IS giving the benefit of the doubt - to the poster, that they didn't fully intend the meaning or consequences of their words, and to the community, that we don't want racism going unchallenged.
Who wants a community where we have to let anything but obviously ugly, venomous, intentional bigotry stand, just in case the poster didn't quite exactly 'mean it'? posted by Salamandrous at 4:23 PM on April 18 [6 favorites]
How could B say, "it was fine until those black people moved in" and not be racist? (Please remember that I think he PROBABLY is racist.) Well, when referring to a person, you have to specify who you're talking about somehow.
That's racist.
If I said, "the neighborhood was fine until those red-headed people moved in"
That's red-headed-ist.
or "the neighbrhood was fine until those noisy people moved in,"
That's noise-ist.
As long as we're splitting hairs on implied meaning, we may as well do so on word/phrase definitions too. posted by Brak at 4:24 PM on April 18
"Dear Dracula, please come down to the village, we have a mob with burning torches and pitchforks all ready for you. PS you are a racist."
Dracula: Those filthy yellow swine!
Xander: You know, I really don't remember you being this racist. posted by Tehanu at 4:25 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Dracula is totally racist. Look how white he is! posted by Artw at 4:26 PM on April 18
Nah, Spike was paler. Dracula's the one making all the comments though. posted by Tehanu at 4:29 PM on April 18
Metafilter: racism is the cookie jar right next to you.
And so what that some drugs respond differently in some patients than others? And does it matter that the distinction is ethnic?
That was a very strange factoid for TJH to bring up. In fact, the drug was not designed for black people, rather clinical studies showed that it helped in certain types of heart disease that were more common among African Americans. There are some white people who the drug would help, and some black people that the drug would not help.
But because to the distribution, giving it to the average white person with heart disease would, statistically, not be more of a help then other drugs, but for black people it would.
Blaming that fact on political correctness or something like that would be insane.
grumblebee: You're way overparsing here. Also, I kind of have no idea what you're talking about; I don't really get how all these various A/B dialogs relate to 3BM's post really.
Are we seriously arguing that we should pretend Zimbabwe is going well for the sake of political correctness?
Are you seriously asking that question? Claiming that Iraq was poorly run under Saddam is not an indictment of all Arabs, but (a reasonable interpretation of) 3BM's comment implies that the reason Zimbabwe is doing poorly under another dictator is due to the race of the people who originally elected him (after which he started to steal elections) posted by delmoi at 4:29 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
grumblebee, racism is the cookie jar right next to you, and me, and everybody else.
I think this is very true, but it's also very easy to be completely ignorant of a lot of racial issues around us. A lot of people only see racism as the dictionary definition ("the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races"), which seems to only include people like white supremicists. By that definition, one could conclude that racism has mostly died out since the days of lynching and institutionalized oppression of racial groups.
I think most racial divisiveness these days is a lot more subtle. The term racism has become a catchall term to describe a lot of problematic things that don't actually stem from perceived superiority, such as the use of racially offensive language, the propagation of racial stereotypes, and various subtle forms of discrimination. Small things like the fact that it is difficult for black people to hail a cab may seem unimportant to people who don't experience it themselves, but all of the little kinds of discrimination can pile up into something bigger.
So, I think rather than declaring things "racist" or "not racist", it's more important to be aware of the racial implications of the things that people say and do. posted by burnmp3s at 4:39 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
3BM's comment implies that the reason Zimbabwe is doing poorly under another dictator is due to the race of the people who originally elected him (after which he started to steal elections)
Except the switch from white minority rule to black majority rule DID set in motion the events that led to the current situation in Zimbabwe. Race IS a factor, and an important one, and mentioning it does not automatically equal racism. posted by Artw at 4:51 PM on April 18
Race IS a factor, and an important one, and mentioning it does not automatically equal racism.
Correct, but that is not what the statement said. Not all mentions of race are racist, but stating that a black majority is utterly incapable of handling their own affairs after a period of white rule does very strongly suggest that a black majority is, simply by nature of being black, unable to self-govern. posted by Tehanu at 5:01 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
stating that a black majority is utterly incapable of handling their own affairs after a period of white rule does very strongly suggest that a black majority is, simply by nature of being black, unable to self-govern.
Except to get to the racism you've had to insert "simply by nature of being black". I mean, yes, if it actually said that it would be unambiguosly racist, but it doesn't. You can say it’s “suggested” but unless there’s actually any evidence you’re resorting to mind reading. posted by Artw at 5:08 PM on April 18
So if it's not innocuous, how would you characterise it, Artw?
It's as has been said upthread, that kind of statement is one of many racist statements like that, it doesn't need to be explicit for the required suggestion to be there. posted by bonaldi at 5:11 PM on April 18
Ya'll sure can overthink a plate of black beans.
posted by Brandon Blatcher
Ssshhh! I'm overthinking a plate of red beans right now. posted by nola at 5:13 PM on April 18
I’d go with ambiguous in intent, though not actually in itself racist. posted by Artw at 5:15 PM on April 18
(It’s a lot more suspect if you skim 3brs posting history, but that can be pretty dodgy as a way of getting a sense of someone… for instance bonaldi comes over as a stroppy fucker who likes fighting for the sake of it. I’d hate to think how I come over, probably even worse than that. ) posted by Artw at 5:19 PM on April 18
Heh, see the thing about trying to cut down on yr posting is that then you only post when something really gets you going ... but, no, that's probably a fair characterisation of my Mefi jones.
And since we're at this one anyway now, if even you'll characterise his post as ambiguous in intent, why are you so much on the case of those who aren't prepared to assess his intent in isolation, sans posting history, sans catalogues of similar racist tropes, merely in some spirit of pure charity to 3bm? posted by bonaldi at 5:31 PM on April 18
Yeah, Artw, I'm all for fairness and generosity of spirit, but you've got to pick your fights, and since even you don't seem convinced what you're defending is worth it, maybe you should let 3bm speak for himself, if he has anything to say. posted by languagehat at 5:42 PM on April 18
I saw 3BM's comment as being likely racist, and Helm's as certainly so, but this extended discussion will not settle the issue. I can certainly see an interpretation for 3BM's comment that is about the particular people and not their race. I'm with LH, I think only 3BM can speak for his state of mind here. Since he has been on the site since the controversy arose and since he has refused to enter the fray here I am not sure what to think. However, there was not much of an overlap; perhaps he just missed this. Aren't his ears on fire though, with all this talk behind his back? ;) posted by caddis at 5:57 PM on April 18
I’d go with ambiguous in intent, though not actually in itself racist.
In order to grant the comment ambiguity, one has to forget the standard racist trope of suggesting that Africa is such a mess because blacks cannot govern themselves. Even without reading into posting history, there is a cultural history to comments like that. It's unclear why we should dismiss the years and years of history informing comments like this. posted by OmieWise at 6:33 PM on April 18 [5 favorites]
Tell ya what I'll settle this for you, it was a racist comment. There; now you bunch of blue staters can all take a break from this fascinating topic and run along to your trendy bars and have a few dozen banana daiquiris. posted by nola at 6:47 PM on April 18
I think his failure to attend here says quite a lot.
Yeah, that he's smart enough to know that defending yourself is the best way to keep this thing alive. Callouts die unless there's someone to play the other side... this one is only still going because there are people defending him. posted by smackfu at 6:56 PM on April 18
Brandon, did you mefimail him about the post in general, or this MetaTalk in particular? The post you cite only says that you mefimailed tbm after his post in that thread. I still think he deserves a heads-up that people are in here debating the meaning of his words, and opining on whether he's racist or not. The fact that he hasn't shown up here suggests that he's not aware. posted by pardonyou? at 7:03 PM on April 18
The fact that he hasn't shown up here suggests that he's not aware.
Yeah, it's only been 14 hours, sheesh, give him time. No way he could have guessed there would be a MetaTalk post about this. Can somebody give him a heads up please? He's kinda new here. posted by cashman at 7:27 PM on April 18 [1 favorite]
Do three blind mice and The Jesse Helms care if we conclude that they're racist? If so, why?
saying that black people are incapable (of running the country) - racist.
Is that so?
Well, for starters, he didn't say 'black people', he said 'the black majority' (of Zimbabwe). The average IQ of the black population in Zimbabwe is 70. That's about two standard deviations lower than the whites. So, if it's racist, and therefore groundless, to claim that the race of the majority in power has been a significant factor in Zimbabwe's change of fortune, then I guess that gap in IQ must be irrelevant as well...
Still a racist statement? Or was it just the absence of an accompanying argument? posted by BigSky at 7:38 PM on April 18
I still think he deserves a heads-up
Feel free to send him another message. If he wants to, he'll eventually find his way here, but I'm guessing he was trolling. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:48 PM on April 18
Maybe it was a stupid thing to say, and maybe an even stupider thing to dwell on. Unless you think maybe his remarks might spark a race war here at Mefi, in which case I guess this isn't just a big wank fest. posted by nola at 7:51 PM on April 18
The average IQ of the black population in Zimbabwe is 70.
Every single black person is running the country? Also, a cite would be nice, complete with cultural bias controls, historical inequalities, et cetera, but really, this thread is becoming a cluster, and while back in the day I would have spent my entire weekend arguing down this point, I'm not going to do it this time.
Maybe next we can argue how women are truly inferior to men! This is gonna be awesome. Pony please - a section all to itself where we can segment the population into the smart and strong and the weak and dumb, and then make decisions. castes.metafilter.com maybe. posted by cashman at 7:51 PM on April 18
Every single black person is running the country?
No, dude.
Also, a cite would be nice, complete with cultural bias controls, historical inequalities, et cetera
Look it up yourself. I suspect that you and I would differ with respect to what 'controls' and adjustments were necessary. Doing a search on "Fred Zindi" is a good start. posted by BigSky at 8:02 PM on April 18
Bigsky: oh my Jesus fucking a pogo stick god please stop. You're dirtying up my Metafilter. I mean, what Cashman said. But also: (1) who cares if this was a broad generalization about all black people in Zimbabwe vs. all black people (in Africa? On Earth?). Both racist! And (2) you're backing up a statement suggesting black people don't have the capacity for self government with a bullshit appeal to their mental inferiority?
This whole conversation is a total shock to me. Mr. Bigsky, are you from the past? posted by ~ at 8:08 PM on April 18
I suspect that you and I would differ with respect to what 'controls' and adjustments were necessary.
Well good that we can agree to disagree from the start, and not have to waste days and space arguing back and forth. It sure would be nice if 3bm explained himself so that this endless speculation could be done with. posted by cashman at 8:13 PM on April 18
Look it up yourself.
When you make a claim like that, it's you that has to back it up. It's not up to anyone else to prove you're wrong. posted by puke & cry at 8:19 PM on April 18 [
Subscribe
posted by lilac girl at 8:32 AM on April 18