Is This Racist… Against Whites?
by Racialicious guest contributor Jennifer Fang, originally published at Reappropriate
Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown is causing a stir. A constituent of his saw this diversity video and thought it was racist – against Whites — and Councilman Brown agrees.
(The full video is 8 minutes long and available for download here)
Brown thinks that the video attacks blue-collar workers in Denver, because it “implies that it is only White, blue-collar workers who commit these kinds of statements”.
On a segment aired on CNN during Primetime with Erica Hill (linked above), Councilman Brown and Stephen Viscusi, a radio host of a show called “On the Job” discuss the video. Both Brown and Viscusi argue that the segment perpetuates an antiquated interpretation of racism by not showing joksters of different colours and creeds. However, Brown further argues that even showing the kinds of jokes highlighted in this video is embarassing and anachronistic, and that nobody even talks like that anymore — which is so out-of-touch with reality that it’s hard to imagine that this guy ever got elected to anything.
The message seems to be from the discussion that diversity training will embarass Whites unless they see that minorities can be racist, too.
I’m sorry, but I call bullshit. While it’s true that the video is kind of kitschy, it shows one White person — in an office where the only person of colour is the Black narrator whom no one else can see — making offensive jokes while the other White co-workers look on disapprovingly. So to argue that the video sends the message that all White blue-collar workers are racist is, I think, not looking at the video in its entirety.
Second, I’m strongly against the idea that racist jokes perpetuated by Whites against people of colour (or other minorities) is the same — and should be treated the same — as jokes spoken by a person of colour against someone else. They are all racist (and probably un-funny) and should not be tolerated, but let’s not forget the whole concept of oppression and power.
But, hey, this is a post dashed off in ten minutes, so my thoughts might still not be fully formed (or at least not well articulated). What do you all think?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
dnA wrote:
“More fairies than a Shakespeare Play”?
Yeah. Can’t say I’ve heard that one before. In fact it sounds like they made it up for this stupid ass video.
I love that not only is the “blue collar worker” the only one who can be racist, but the white woman at her desk actually SPEAKS SPANISH, just to make her more sympathetic.
Most of these videos I’ve watched (and i’ve had alot of low paying jobs, so i’ve seen my share) usually break it up alot more, and show white people and people of color, women and men all acting ignorant at some point. This one is particularly bad.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 8:50 am ¶
TC wrote:
I think the video format is a problem in part because while it may not imply that all blue-collar workers are racist, it does reinforce the stereotype that prejudice is primarily a blue-collar problem. The whole point of a training video like this is to get people to ask if their own behavior is appropriate – not to make them say “Yeah, guys like that are out of line” while continuing to make offensive statements themselves.
And why shouldn’t there be diversity among the people making offensive comments? It’s a general diversity-training video which also discusses homophobic remarks, religious-based jokes, and the like. If it were specifically about racism, I could see your arguments about how racist remarks by POC are different from racist remarks by whites. But I just don’t think that argument is applicable when it comes to issues like homophobia or mocking someone’s religion.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 10:04 am ¶
Gregory A. Butler wrote:
I have to agree – this video does present the idea that it’s only blue collar White men who are racist/sexist/homophobic.
Admittedly (and I say this as a Black blue collar worker who frequently works with White men) there are quite a few White men who are like that.
But, the video ignores the more important problem – racism/sexism/homophobia by people who are IN POSITIONS OF POWER.
For instance, why is it that the Latino worker is out at a remote location, which is apparently so far from the main office that they have to send him food supplies, while the two White workers are still hanging out at the main office in the middle of the day?
Who made that decision?
That never even gets touched, because that’s the kind of decisions that are made by bosses – who are the same folks who buy these videos in the first place.
I’m a union carpenter in New York City, and I had to attend a 4 hour long Sexual Harassment Awareness seminar when I was an apprentice. Later on, when my union made me a shop steward, I had to attend a 4 hour long Sexual Harassment Prevention class.
Those classes mainly consisted of watching videos not unlike this one.
Over an over, the main theme was presented that sexual harassment in construction happens because individual male construction workers are sexist assholes.
And admittedly there is some truth to that – there ARE a LOT of male chauvinist men in the trades (ask any woman who’s ever walked past a construction site in Midtown Manhattan at lunchtime – the stares, the comments, the whistles ect)
But, there is an institutional sexism that never got addressed, in either one of those classes.
Most contractors are men, and many of them come from “traditional” familes.
So they assume that a woman should either be home cooking and cleaning for her husband, or she should have a “woman’s job” (secretary, nurse, elementary school teacher, waitress ect).
They are very uncomfortable hiring a woman for a $ 41/hr job where she is going to be performing highly skilled work, and making decisions about how to install material that costs hundreds of even thousands fo dollars. To them, that’s “a man’s job”.
Also, there is the added expense of having to have a women’s bathroom on the jobsite, or having to pay a tenant on an occupied floor so the women can have access to the restroom. Back when the business was all male, they only had to have a men’s room – or no bathroom at all, just a bucket or a slop sink that served as an improvised urinal.
That’s the background for a lot of the sexism in construction, but I’ve NEVER seen any sexual harassment prevention videos or pamphlets in our industry that even mention that reality.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 10:46 am ¶
CulLug wrote:
Specific behaviors assigned to specifc “types” in any video (however good or bad) leads to more assumptions, not fewer, without clear explanations of intent everyone believes and buys into.
So while everyone might’ve known the point of this, that doesn’t mean they were all engaged on the same level or in the same way or for the same reasons… because of their assumptions and biases and baggage. And power/oppresion exclusive to race in the workplace is kinda BS all the time in every situation though it’s still prevalent. Male still trumps female (unless the woman owns the company). Age beats youth (unless you’re a young manager). The mix of Indian, Chinese, Russian (and other eastern european), and Brasilian (among other south american) talent brought a lot of opinions and prejudices into our workforces, so many people don’t like women leaders, don’t respect blacks (or like them *too* much), can’t stand white Americans (but like white Europeans), or don’t like each other. Then there is religion, gays, etc. But the more international, the more likely they at least respect structure than Americans and will sit through these videos which is why it is important to get the content right.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 10:55 am ¶
frances wrote:
I think the video is problematic in that it does lump ‘uncomfortable remarks’ or ‘racist language’ or whatever into the obvious category and many white people think they’re not racist precisely because they avoid this sort of thing and would never tell a racist joke, but they’re probably doing/saying other more subtle things that are offenisive to people of color they work with. And they’re doing these things unknowingly, so a video that instead showed people THESE sorts of behaviours instead, and made them stop to think ‘gosh, that thing I said could actually be sort of racist or offensive?’ would be more effective. Having the construction-worker type saying these outlandish things just helps educated and white-collar people further confirm that they’re not racist, ‘because I’m nothing like that’.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 10:58 am ¶
Ailurophile wrote:
I agree with the other posters here that the problem isn’t that the video is “racist against whites,” but rather that it perpetuates the tired old chestnut that racist remarks are the province of blue-collar types, not educated whites in positions of corporate power. The latter are going to go home smug in the knowledge that THEY would never say such a thing, unlike the yahoo in the video.
And as Gregory pointed out it’s institutionalized racism and sexism that is the real problem, not one guy popping off his mouth.
(BTW, I saw the name “Charlie Brown” and thought “The Peanuts character is claiming reverse racism? Is Lucy really black and it’s reverse racism that she won’t let Charlie Brown ever kick the football?”)
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 11:37 am ¶
Cynthia wrote:
Most racist people? Often minorities themselves. Probably because many feel that it’s okay to be more open rather than keeping their mouths shut. Do you know how often non-white people ask me why I don’t use my “ethnic” name? Or why I play golf (they probably don’t know too many Hong Kong Chinese people!)? Or why I’m involved in organizations that are historically WASPy?
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 11:48 am ¶
Brakeline wrote:
Reading Jennifer’s post before seeing the video, I was expecting something from the Village People. (-:
This dustup now makes it looks like a “white” fix to a “color” problem when it’s something less about something more.
Frances’ comments especially made me think here, because while I normally do not pay the attention to these things when the new trainers and consultants come in (I’m bad, I know), I just realized now that all the attention we ever had is on the crazy white people and their issues, instead of the harassment or acceptable workplace behavior or how to build a better work environment that embraces (if we can’t celebrate) diversity everyone else actually needed.
No one was ever allowed to say what they honestly felt to each other because we had to address the “trainer” (all types) through “role playing” and stuff. What was worse, more offensive stuff was said by everyone about everyone than what was on the tapes we watched, while leadership looked the other way– because they were “just being honest”.
The reason it’s all unfair is that “white” people wind up getting all the attention while “people of color” look like an interchangeable block of interests who do nothing but complain. It ignores that there is a diverse workplace (with some jerks that won’t or can’t be avoided) but many good people who don’t know when they cross the line.
With all the other strange things that go unreported or cause complaints and offenses in an office, no one comes out looking good and nothing gets solved by only focusing on the funniest stuff of the obvious targets– and there’s always a backlash after the “training” in terms of escalation.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 12:02 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
I can’t call it an out right assault on white blue collar men, but it could of been done better with at least a more diverse cast of offenders.
The intent was good the execution just poor. I’ll blame the director for that.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 11:02 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
Even if the video wasn’t really saying it’s whites’ fault, whites and some non-whites seemingly desirous to shift the blame for racism on someone, anyone else’s doorstep, would definitely be given ammo to go into defensive mode without even a token “racist” of color. (I do not believe an oppressed racial group can be ‘racist’ unless parroting the stereotypes and narratives of the powerwielders)
Basically, it’s a damned if you do, REALLY damned if you don’t situation. Hearkening back to earlier conversations, based on a post by LaToya I believe about relating to gamers as race activists, I think it would probably engage a few more whites to have that prejudiced POC on screen as another example, though I think having most examples being of white people would make the most sense, pragmatically. I think we’re on the same page in a utilitarian sense, that having more diverse examples of prejudice and prejudiced people would be quite helpful.
Now, in a more deontological sense, I’d definitely try to explain that race, hatred, violence, politics, economics and modern day society, among other concepts and factors, do not exist in a vacuum or some nice, neat little “Everybody’s a racist!” fashion. How to show American prejudice as a historical U.S. institution, a tool or wedge used most often and brutally at the expense of blacks, Latinos, Asians, indigenous Americans, and multiracial peoples all for the amusement and political, economic, legal, and social benefit of a willfully ignorant white majority, well how to talk about that in an eight-minute video is beyond my meager talents.
Posted 05 Dec 2007 at 11:07 pm ¶
bdsista wrote:
Being someone who conducts diversity training for a large school system and has done governmental trainings as well. I agree with many of the previous postings. Biggest problem is having the offender be a stereotypical blue collar white guy which gives the impression that corporate employees do not engage in such behavior. What I did like was the part at the end where they showed ways he could have used humor and not been offensive. Most of the complaints I get from participants is that diversity training tends to dwell on the problems and not on any solutions. The section showing solutions was pretty good and the other aspect of that section which no one has addressed, is that the offensive guy’s intent was not to hurt anyone. This video came off the model of people who do ignorant things but are not malicious racists. Never mind to the persons being hurt it feels the same, but I think that is an important point. There are people who say and do things who really don’t know how hurtful it is and typically when called on it get hostile because their INTENT was not to hurt and we were supposed to read their minds and now they are all embarrassed.
What would improve this video would be showing different workers being insensitive, (but please don’t have the Black guy hitting on the woman at the snack machine-another stereotype-maybe an Asian guy since the Asian male stereotype is that they are asexual nerds), show corporate workers being insensitive, show women being insensitive to other women (which happens a lot-I call it the meow factor) and then do the same kinds of endings where people reflect on how they could have responded differently. That would make it much more balanced. It’s not horrible, but it is classist and somewhat inaccurate. The actor is good and does come off as likable and being honest, as a trainer, I would rather work with someone whose intent is to get along with people, than the sneaky smiling racist who covertly undermines the advancement of others. The hard ones are the people who give good face, deny their stuff (we all have stuff), say all the right things but do not promote diversity when they have the power to do so-now that would be an interesting video!
Posted 06 Dec 2007 at 12:49 pm ¶
TheLostGirl wrote:
I agree the film does not deliberately seek to be racist, I think they just missed the irony of going *that* far given the purpose of the video. At best they should reshoot, at worst they should scrap it, but definately not worth the effort of suing over I don’t think.
Posted 06 Dec 2007 at 4:33 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Actually, the claim was that the video treats white, blue-collar workers as the only ones who say such things. That’s not the same thing as taking all whites to say such things. It’s rather claiming that no one besides white, blue-collar workers say such things. That claim is actually false, so if the video did portray such a thing it would be bad.
Of course the video doesn’t portray that. It just portrays one person saying something and others disapproving. And even if the video did portray it, it wouldn’t be racism against whites per se. It would be a slam against blue-collar whites, not whites as a race (which is what it would take for it to be racist against whites).
So the claim doesn’t stand up but not exactly for the reasons given.
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 11:13 pm ¶