May I Be Offended on Your Behalf?

by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said

All of us who suffer inequalities related to race hope that one day the mainstream will “get it.” We want them to get institutional bias. We want them to get the nuances between funny and offensive. We want them to get their own privilege. We want them to get our cultural differences, while also getting that we are individuals apart from cultural markers.We want them to understand these things, but there is a fine line between developing an awareness of bias and arrogantly believing that you are so enlightened that you “get” all there is to know about being a person of color. If I am honest, I want white people to “get it,” but I don’t want them thinking they “get it” better than me–a black woman who actually lives with race bias.

A little over a year ago, I was discussing with a white woman a portrait of a famous black figure, painted by a black artist. Now, this woman is a vocal progressive who views herself as a champion of equality. She sniffed at the image, which I was quite fond of. She said she found the artist’s portrayal stereotypical, that the subject’s features were exaggerated and–this is the part that really got me–that any black person who saw it would be offended. Except that I am a black person and saw nothing offensive. I bristled at the woman’s privileged arrogance–that she would presume to lecture me on what black people think.

I was even more annoyed recently when, on “The View,” Elizabeth Hasselbeck started blubbering over the “N word” as two black women looked on in consternation. I thought: “How dare you co-opt the pain of black people? How dare you make this issue about your feelings and not those of the people who have been demeaned by racism? How dare you attempt to “school” two people of color on the perils of racism?”

But am I being fair? As white people learn to recognize racial prejudice, don’t we want them to call out these injustices when they see them? I mean, that’s the point, right? And what about me? As a black woman who understands how race affects my people, what latitude do I have to speak on what is or isn’t offensive to Japanese or Native American or Puerto Rican people?

Late last year, when I was writing more pop culture/race stuff, I was tempted to write a post about the Korean American comedian Bobby Lee, who is a cast member on Fox’s “MADTV.” I have long found Lee’s shtick on the show offensive. The way he consistently plays female characters…the running gag that has him pining for his white, female co-stars (never the lone black woman) who treat him with disgust…it seems like the actor is participating in the typical Western emasculation of Asian males (All this aside from his cavalcade of other stereotypical Asian characters). I never wrote that post, though.

See, I don’t know how Lee is received in the Korean or larger Asian community. I may be missing some cultural nuance that makes the comedian’s work satirical or brave or something. I mean, as much as I am not a fan of Tyler Perry’s “Madea” plays and films, it bothers me that white film critics review Perry’s work through the lens of majority culture, not understanding the cultural touches that attract so many African Americans to the work. I may agree with the critics that, say, “Madea Goes to Jail,” is an abysmal film, but they get the cultural reasons why it is crap all wrong. And that offends me as much as Perry’s poor portrayals of black women. With this in mind, I don’t even know if I am right to be offended by Bobby Lee.

There is also maybe a less rational reason I have avoided pontificating too much on offenses against other people of color. I recall a middle-aged white guy, who in an attempt to make conversation with me, brought up how he hates that “the black movies” always portray African Americans as loud and ghetto…and fat. WTF? Actually, once he went on to name some recent movies of the time (”Norbit” and some other stuff), I sort of understood and agreed with his point, but coming from this guy (Who, by the way, isn’t known for his racial tact.), the message felt icky. (Never mind that this conversation had fuck all to do with anything. It was one of those “Hey, you’re a black person. Let me search for something ‘black’ to talk about” things.) I felt instinctively on some level that I, as a black person, have the right to critique these things, but his criticism made me want to defend…my people…black actors…something.

It’s complicated, no?

I recall every time a non-black editor has changed my use of “black” to African American, “because ‘black’ is offensive”…I recall every time I have been challenged, overruled and lectured about the feelings of my own community in particular and people of color in general…and I don’t want to be the person who does that. About the Bobby Lee post: In the end, I decided that I don’t have enough information to dissect Asian stereotypes in popular culture, and I certainly have no right to discuss how a Korean man’s acting choices affect his cultural community. I left the topic alone.

It’s just too easy to move from being aware to being offensively presumptuous. And, I have to say, as someone who runs in liberal circles, progressives do offensively presumptuous like no one else. There has been a rash of the problem of late. In discussions of sexism vs. racism, the Michelle Obama lynching illustration on Daily Kos and the scandalous New Yorker cover, a lot of progressives have been eager to explain to black people why they should or should not be offended about a thing. My most jaw-clinching encounters have been with white liberals who have done anti-racist work or academic work on a group of non-white people. (African studies, Asian studies, Native American studies, etc.) Sometimes I want to shake these folks–allies who generally mean well–and explain that studying a people, visiting message boards or really admiring a cultural group, isn’t the same as being a member of that group.

I guess what we all want is that allies will be sensitive and intolerant of race bias, but that they will keep their privilege in check and remember that the voices of the marginalized should be the loudest ones. The victims of an “ism” must take the lead.

Am I right? Or, can I be offended on someone else’s behalf?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Who can speak? « Mangled Guts Pretending on 11 Aug 2008 at 10:09 am

    [...] my white privilege while causing people to question their own privileges.  Yet articles like this one from Tami, a guest contributor to Racialicious, make me rethink how I approach race [...]

  2. Who has the right to speak about racism? « Restructure! on 14 Aug 2008 at 12:16 am

    [...] two recent, thought-provoking posts on Racialicious about who is allowed to speak about racism. In May I Be Offended on Your Behalf? Tami of What Tami Said, who is black, recalls some negative experiences with non-black people [...]

Comments

  1. TierList E wrote:

    I completely agree with Tami’s sentiments.

    Now I don’t think people outside of a particular ‘ism’ should never share opinions and/or information about the ‘ism’, because a perceptive man/white person/heterosexual
    /what have you can shed light on things that were overlooked, but I would think common courtesy would dictate that you realize your opinion will never trump those who are a part of that ‘ism’.

    I will never put my two cents on Asian American discrimination or other issues above an actual Asian American perspective. Same goes for other groups I am not directly a part of. I would like the same courtesy returned.

  2. Liza wrote:

    Wow, Tami – reading my mind over the past few days! I think that ally work is some of the toughest work out there because it’s a delicate, delicate balance between being an advocate and being privileged. When working with my students (mostly white, but the issue goes beyond that), I remind them that we must take our cues from the group being objectified and offended. And, certainly, not everyone in that group will agree — what offends me as an Asian American woman may not be offensive to another Asian American woman. But, the tool is in developing the awareness (which, lots of people lack) that those messages could even be offensive. As allies, we have to take our cues from others and carefully walk the line between being an advocate and being overly privileged.

    The fact that you even did think twice about the Bobby Lee bit means that you were thinking about it — which likely means you were writing your post with that in mind. Would LOVE to read it someday! For me, it’s refreshing to see a non-Asian dismanteling Asian stereotypes because it doesn’t happen that often!

    I think we can definitely be offended on someone’s behalf, as long as we (as your person in your post demonstrated) don’t take the position where we tell that group how to act, behave, or think about something (like the case of the painting you saw).

    Great post, Tami — would love to read more conversation about this!

  3. The Voice of Reason wrote:

    “My most jaw-clinching encounters have been with white liberals who have done anti-racist work or academic work on a group of non-white people. (African studies, Asian studies, Native American studies, etc.) Sometimes I want to shake these folks–allies who generally mean well–and explain that studying a people, visiting message boards or really admiring a cultural group, isn’t the same as being a member of that group.”

    Wow, we must be living parallel lives. My most recent encounters with academia left me eyeball deep with a lot of this. As a HipHop generation black male, quite possibly the most maligned group in recent memory (I have no facts to back that up, it’s just how I feel) being told about blackness andwhat it means to be black in America by a middle-aged white lady, regardless of what or how long she has studied makes me want to vomit! (holy run-on sentence Batman!)

    I feel you though about being offended for other groups. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, but as soon as you start speaking for them, especially without knowing how someone of that group feels about an issue, is a bit presumptious.

  4. Mandy B. wrote:

    Tami, I often ask myself the questions you have posed in this post– good job! Interesting, because you have perfectly described a dilemma that I have the responsibility to confront as a white person. I hate hate hate hearing a white public health student explain to me why X thing has to happen to save Y population, and I see that as an offshoot of this same dilemma. It’s a boundary and privilege issue– I have to give up what I could see as my ‘right to my own opinion’ in order to hear what the actual oppressed person’s view is of the matter. That doesn’t mean I can’t be offended, exactly, it just means that I can’t accidentally act as the voicebox for somebody just because I think something is offensive. The other day I ran into this with the Beyoncé post. I was talking to a black friend of mine about it, and she didn’t really see the problem with the photo-chopped bleaching. I just gotta be okay with that, just because a friend of mine happens to be black, doesn’t mean she has to share all of the same opinions that I hold about what is racist and what isn’t.

  5. PerceptiveReality wrote:

    GREAT Write and excellent read. I really enjoyed the way you paralleled your analogies, to voice a likely opinion of how others may view a situation.

    Are you Right? There is no yes or no answer that. If you think you are right, then that is that. If you are questioning it, Who are you questioning it for? The argument you bring up falls on the lines of a “do what I say not what I do” kind of ideal, but with good reason.

    You break down the three groups ALWAYS at play when it comes to talking about race. The groups are the outsiders, the Family, and “Congregation” (the term makes sense for my point). The outsiders are just that, or those who are portrayed by the white folks in your stories, but that doesnt make all white folks outsiders. These are the people who have no actual connection to or with those who going through the struggle or event or situation. And therefore can only try to sympathize with what they deem is a necessary outlook for those within the event. Which empowers their “feel good” senses about themsleves to all them to feel as though they have the right or obligation or whatever to step in and say or preach what they think is right, with no true grounds to base their statements justexcept for that of their own opinions.

    The Family group are the people with direct connection and involvement with the struggle, event, or situation that can empathize with whats going on and give a true account of feeling thoughts and emotions that only those close enough, will be able to fully understand and appreciate. Think of it as if someone in your family was considered a “loser”. You being a part of that family can say whatever it is you like, but that doesnt give the right of even a close friend to say anything.

    The Congregation, are those who have great basis for understanding with an ability to empathize based on their own experiences which are very comparable to ours.

    So do you have the Right? Yeah we all have the right to feel what we want the things we want, but you also have good reason for refraining from voicing your opinion in the Bobby Lee case because in that situation you are part of the congregation but not quite family.

    (sorry for being so “blah” and unorganized. Not used to this, putting thoughts to paper thing yet)

  6. merq wrote:

    Tami,

    That was a fantastic post — and something we should always keep in mind.

    I personally try to be very vocal on behalf of other marginalized groups only when there is nobody from said group present to defend him/herself.

    I remember a few years ago, the agency I was with at the time counted a major West Coast apparel retailer as a client. Their brand identity was very “California, All-American lifestyle brand,” but in fairness to them, while they used models of color somewhat sparingly (and often sticking to the “TV-Black,” corkscrew-curled representation of black women), at least one model of color was present in 3 out of every 5 shoots they produced. Not great, but trust me when I say working in advertising lets me see far worse.

    At one point, we were working on a brand manifesto that would end up (among other places) on their site. It was a 60-second spot, using a myriad of shots, each intended to represent a slice of Americana — from beach parties to county fairs– and accompanied by an adjective intended to show the brand’s encouragement of individuality in its target demo of 14-21.

    Anyway, I remember watching it as it neared completion and bristling at the shot of the bespectacled, pocket-protectored East Asian guy, with the value “Geeky” attached to him. Being that there was no East Asian male (or female, actually) in that meeting, I voiced my disapproval.

    A Desi woman who worked on the spot responded “But come on, look at him. He is geeky,” seeming to completely miss the point I was trying to make.

    Eventually, after walking half the room through what I’m sure was a cringe-inducing explanation that while the model did in fact look geeky, it probably wasn’t by accident that an East-Asian male was chosen for that shot, and styled in such a manner, he was removed from the spot.

    Sure, it meant one less minority face out there, but it also meant one less reason for minorities/allies to pull their hair out.

  7. atlasien wrote:

    Great topic… it’s always a difficult balance between two wrong extremes:

    1) being a member of a racial group makes you the ultimate authority, even if you happen to be a complete ignoramus or slimeball (e.g. Michelle Malkin).

    2) Lived experience always conforms to logic and common sense, therefore anyone can tell anyone else how they should think and feel. Even if your “logic” is really based on arrogant paternalism.

    I’d be interested in reading your take on Bobby Lee!

    In line with your example of irritating “offended bys”… some people think they have a unique gift for telling Asians apart just by looking at them. I find it irritating when white people claim this gift, and then claim to be offended by other white people who can’t tell all Asians apart, as if that’s a sign of horrible racism.

    It’s actually almost impossible to tell people of Korean, Japanese and North Chinese ancestry apart just by looking at their faces. It’s like claiming I can tell Danish people apart from French people with 100% accuracy…

    I think the avoidance of paternalism and puffery is one standard to go by. When you’re offended as an ally, are you harmonizing your voice with the majority of theirs… or drowning out their voice?

  8. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Tami–
    As always, brilliant!

  9. Sarah wrote:

    As a progressive white woman, I do find it difficult to ascertain my position in almost all race-related conversations. The desire to empathize in order to legitimatize my point of view does sometimes (and most unfortunately) override the “other” lessons that i have been taught, such as privilege. It does become a difficult line to walk when you spend your time trying to understand, to realize you can only become intimate with ideas at a distance. It seems that my position has been to remain largely quiet, and if i do speak, to immediately look for affirmation in my opinion. While I do not entirely expect it, is it wrong for me to seek credibility despite my privilege?

  10. browne wrote:

    I think you have a right to be offended about anything offensive one person does to another that is rude, unthinking, sexist or racist.

    All pain is human. I regularly discuss issues of people “outside” my demographic.

    But there is a problem though, it seems that only white people are allowed to do that.

    It seems within the media only white people are allowed to discuss racism and sexism in a universal way. People of color academic, writers, feminists are put into a sort of ghetto where we are only allowed to discuss what we are exactly whereas white people are thought to be able to see the world through a more universal objective lens and that’s the problem.

    I love South Park, love it. I think it discusses race and class (though it has a tendency to be sexist) on a level never seen before in pop culture (yes it’s base and vulgar, but did you see the N word episode, classic), but a black satirical cartoonist wouldn’t be allowed to do that, you know Aaron McCruder of the Boondocks. He can only talk about issues within his circle. He’s not allowed to take a broad brush, because the corporate entities don’t allow that.

    I think this also can apply to women of all ethnicities, we’re put into a sort of box where we can only talk about “woman” issues, but you know all issues are human issues and we should all get the same chance to voice our concerns and that doesn’t seem to be happening.

    Browne

  11. waxghost wrote:

    I think it’s possible to both be offended for others and leave room for them to contradict you if they feel differently about it.

    For instance, personally, I feel like I have a pretty good offense-detector when it comes to Native Americans for a white person but I also have one particular friend who IS Native American and doesn’t seem to be bothered by any of it. When we talk about issues like that, I might ask a few questions along the lines of, “but isn’t that an offensively stereotypical view?” and whether he agrees with me that it is or not, my only response is to nod my head because I know I don’t get to determine for HIM what HE feels about it. But I would never assume that I knew better than any individual Native American him/herself what is offensive to him/her.

  12. Cynthia wrote:

    I’ve found it most insulting when people who aren’t of the same ancestry as me tell me that I’m subscribing to colonist behaviour and thought because I prefer some things over others. For example, they have criticized me for using “Cynthia” rather than my Chinese name (only older family members call me by my Chinese name.) Worst, they don’t believe me when I tell them it’s a legal, official name, found on my driver’s license, passport, etc! Another thing that bugs me is how some people believe that because Culture A does things a certain way, ALL PEOPLE from Culture A would do it that way. For example, clocks as gifts are considered bad in traditional Chinese culture (one can buy themselves clocks and watches, however) because it sounds like one’s life is ticking away (at least to my understanding…in any case, it has to do with death). However, etiquette books, even those written by Chinese people, make it sound like ALL CHINESE PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS. Honestly, most CBCs I know don’t care if they get clocks as presents. Many don’t even know of this old wives’ tale!

  13. hope wrote:

    First I enjoyed the picture for this post, I have seen this picture before and I like that it was in use for this post.
    Second the part:
    The victims of an “ism” must take the lead.
    reminded me of a book called “The Miner’s Canary” by Lani Guinier & Gerald Torres. It speaks about the way POC need to lead, and it uses terms like racial group consciousness and political race to discuss that. It is an interesting book.
    I don’t think you have the right to be offended on someone’s behalf, but you can certainly be offended on you own, without being a POC. I am of a mixed racial background and can be offended by some things that another POC may not be offended by, but I think the best thing to do would be talk to the other person and find out those nuances, listen and understand and then I would decide if I was foolish to be offended and would be able to take cues from someone that knew something I didn’t or decide that while that person was not offended, I still don’t agree with whatever we were discussing.
    I think white allies are important, but I don’t think their views should ever be used to “explain” to POC about things. That keeps us in the cycle of privilege and power and I think its time that it stops.

  14. Dan wrote:

    Great writeup Tami!

    As a white guy and vehement anti-racist, when engaging in this type of work and dialogue I had to constantly remind myself that while my sentiments were good, I had,and more importantly will ALWAYS have, more to learn than to teach in this matter, especially in regards to black folks and other minorities. I’ve learned that when engaging in discussion with other whites who may not have the eduction on such matters as I, it’s okay to guide the discussion, however when engaging in such discussions with PoC, I take a back seat and only offer up observations and references to statistics and books and such. I will never ever know what it’s like to be black and while I may have my own form of blues, it does not mean I can feel or relate to, say, my black wife’s blues. I just need to shut up and learn and participate only if asked. And even then I can only participate with sympathy such as, “That’s fucked up that you had to go through that.”, and not “Well if I were in that situation, here’s what I would have done…” because the very fact that I’m white and have been raised as a member of the dominant group in this country, my very psyche and mentality and how I handle situations is COMPLETELY different from a black man who has been raised with the legacy of slavery, oppression, and gets taught things growing up like how to behave around policemen, around whites, and other such things that needed to be learned because it could have spelled the difference between life and death. Such an upbringing results in a VASTLY different form of behavior than say, little old white me who is full of piss and vinegar and who speaks out and yells at all forms of injustice because I never had to fear any sort of reprisal such as police batons, or fire hoses, or police K-9 units…

    There’s a great book I am currently reading, “White Men Challenging Racism: 35 Stories”. http://www.danbouchard.com/index.php?now_reading_author=unknown&now_reading_title=white-men-challenging-racism-35-personal-stories

    In it, one of the stories relates to a white gentleman in Colorado who was elected to head a diversity council for a town whose local government was engaging in some blatantly racial housing policies. The man stepped down, remaining on the council, but insisted that a PoC become the head because after all, what is the point in having a white man head an organization whose sole purpose is to ensure fair practices to those who are not white? I over-abbreviated the story but you get the gist.

    One question I have to those readers who are white and who pride themselves on ‘fighting the good fight’. What do you do when PoC aren’t around?

    Because after all, throughout history there were plenty of white allies and of course many whites felt that racism and slavery and such were wrong and evil. However a big part of why racism perpetuated was because these folks remained silence when witnessing other white folks partaking in racism.

    It makes me laugh whenever I hear someone white who claims not to be racist, criticize Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. What I say to them is that if they are sick of seeing Al and Jesse on television, there’s an easy solution; that we whites need to stand up and speak out. If we were doing more anti-racist work and speaking out against it, Al and Jesse wouldn’t need to come out of the woodwork to stand up when black folks are marginalized and treated like second class citizens.

    And that’s the problem with whites who claim not to be racist around non-whites. They don’t speak up, don’t talk back, don’t challenge family, friends, colleagues, or anyone else when they engage is racist actions or tell racist jokes. They sit back and remain silent. So is it any wonder when Al and Jesse are always on the news? Seld proclaimed anti-racist whites certainly aren’t showing up at all, so what are they supposed to do?

    It’s white silence and collaboration that has always made racism possible. If whites had in larger numbers, joined with PoC to challenge white supremacy there is no way that such a system could have been maintained. There is no way that racist persons would be able to spew their venom without fear of reprisal. They would know that such language or racist actions would be met forcefully, and that those engaging in such things would be ostracized. But white silence and inaction has given strength to the racists, whether it’s Don Imus on the radio or our co-workers in corporate offices, or folks in government positions, or police uniforms; it has emboldened them to act out since they have long had little reason to believe anything would happen. Slaveowners would have been powerless had the whites who didn’t own slaves stood up to them. So too with segregationists, those who lynched blacks, and those who engage in discrimination today. The silent and passive collaborators with injustice are just as bad as those who do the deed, and have always been such. And too often, those folks have been us.

    Time to create an alternative reality for us white folks. Instead of standing on the sidelines, let’s grow a fucking backbone and get involved. If not for yourself, then for your children to live in a better place, or simply to combat the evilness of the whole damned thing. Because if this history is allowed to persist, this country is going to implode.

  15. queerhapa wrote:

    Man, that photo CRACKS ME UP! Perfect.

    This article is very thoughtful and thought-provoking. While I agree with a lot of Tami’s points, I do worry that it might let some people off the hook from speaking out when they are witness to injustice or just plain old fucked up behavior. It is especially worrisome when the group being targeted is not present (as in Merq’s example), or when a group member does not feel they are in a safe enough position to speak up or have enough allies who have got their back.

    Also, one of the last lines of this article (”The victims of an “ism” must take the lead.”) sits with me in a weird way. You know, sometimes I get downright TIRED of always having to take the lead, of pointing out and explaining why things are offensive, of coming up with solutions. Why is it my burden to be the one who’s got to point out racism, homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism? And shouldn’t it also be my responsibility as an ally to call out transphobia, Islamophobia, ableism? Hmmm… I’ve got to think about this some more…

  16. Antonio wrote:

    Never mind that this conversation had fuck all to do with anything. It was one of those “Hey, you’re a black person. Let me search for something ‘black’ to talk about” things

    I HATE that.

    Great post. I think it puts white people in a tricky position when discussing potentially offensive material. On the one hand, if they disagree that something is offensive, they might be viewed as insensitive. On the other, if they think something is offensive, it comes across as patronizing. I think it makes racial discussions difficult to participate in.

  17. dave wrote:

    Hmm. The difference is, I think, between calling out racism/bigotry and telling someone they should be offended.

    Regarding the painting that Tami was fond of and the white woman told her was offensive, it probably could have been saved by saying “The [stereotypically offensive traits] could be perceived badly by some black folks because of [whatever].” And maybe its something you didn’t think of, because that hat is just like a hat that plantation slaves wore, but you didn’t notice because you have a hat just like it. Personal experience eclipsing “your blackness.”

    Just as not every woman takes offense at being called sweetie or a spoken assumption that she’ll want to have kids, I can chime in and point that out even if one woman doesn’t. Because its not about that one woman not being offended, its about challenging notions that its okay to say certain things. Especially since maybe the woman IS bothered by an assumption that she’ll give up her career to have kids but doesn’t want to say it.

    Or if Tami’s friend was there and DID find it offensive but didn’t want to say anything because he knew that Tami really liked the painting.

    Just as if someone starts talking shit about fags and I’m too busy being hurt to get the first word in and someone else says something before I have to. And that’s different than bandying about politically correct “respect” like with Elizabeth Hasselbeck (especially when we know she’s a bigot).

    …Really good topic. Thanks for bringing it up. I think about this stuff all the time. I know some of the examples I used are easier to deal with than the ones you brought up. But I think you CAN get into the discussion of whether or not that comedian is racist, just as if I see that the one black character on a TV show is a complete caricature I’m gonna say “Really? That’s your black character?” even if I’m in a room with Barack Obama or bell hooks or someone who’s anti-racist-chops are better than mine.

    @Browne: I’d actually disagree with your white vs. PoC “limitations” of anti-racist talk … I think the great thing about many PoC groups is how open they are. Boston has a queer women of colour and allies group (QWOC+) that really gets that … I wonder, say with Aaron M of the Boondocks, if there’s a lot to get into of the source material, so he doesn’t need to stray. And I think that spot that Carmen was given in the news recently also shows how a PoC can speak persuasively on behalf of a non-white group other than her own. So I dunno, I have a gut disagreement with what you say, but I’m hard-pressed to find loads of examples, so maybe you’re on to something.

  18. Lyonside wrote:

    Browne: >I think you have a right to be offended about anything offensive one person does to another that is rude, unthinking, sexist or racist.

    I agree, but too often someone’s prejudices, biases, or just misinformation are revealed WHEN they are trying to speak up for another group (whether they are a member or not, although it’s MORE likely to happen if they are not a member of the group).

    For example, a lot of people in the US THINK that they know enough about black history, slavery, etc. to speak out in favor of black people. But too often the conversation falls into a weird form of pity, along the lines of “of course the community is struggling, the poor dears can’t help themselves without our help, look at what they’ve gone through, WE/the Union/the US had to save them from slavery” – when of course black people have always fought to maintain and build business communities, local economies, etc. in the face of severe institution and daily racism and exclusion.

    I freely admit to falling into this trap, despite being a member – I’d always assumed my grandmother’s family, the ones that moved north from Virginia, were the stereotypical poor black farmers with no land of their own… it turns out, our family owned 150 acres, purchased in the 1870s. I knew intellectually that some black families in rural areas were landowners. But it surprised me (and it shouldn’t have) that one of them was mine.

  19. shah8 wrote:

    Just in case anyone needed a fresh reminder of this paradigm, check out Jim Sleeper for TMC Cafe…

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/08/is_obama_as_brave_as_his_black/#comments

    I swear, sometimes I’d rather have a stereotypical Bubba as a wingman than “allies” like Sleeper.

  20. fredMS wrote:

    regarding bobby lee, i remember a monlogue he had on mad tv when he was talking about how he was tired of perpetrating asian stereotypes, i don’t remember a bunch of it though.

  21. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I don’t completely agree with Tami’s sentiments.

    As a white liberal male, I spend most of my time working on Native American issues with Native American people. Going by the number of words written or the number of minutes spent, I’m probably one of the leading analysts of Native stereotypes in the country. I don’t have any academic credentials to justify this position, but I think Native people know of and accept my work.

    I try not to tell Natives how to think or feel. I try not to tell them when they should be upset or offended. But I see calling a stereotype a stereotype as a different issue.

    A stereotype is an inaccurate description or depiction of a minority that doesn’t match the reality. For instance, all American Indians = Plains chiefs (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/chief.htm). If you look at the numbers, this simply isn’t true. Most Indians aren’t Plains chiefs, so portraying them as such is wrong. Objectively speaking, it’s a stereotype and I can prove it.

    I won’t tell Indians they should be offended by a stereotype. I will tell them it’s wrong. If they don’t see it, I’ll point them to the facts and evidence on the harm of stereotyping (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stharm.htm). Let them read what their fellow Natives have to say on the subject.

    I don’t necessarily hold off when the person doing the stereotyping is Native, either. For instance, The American statue sculpted by a Native artist (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/06/thoughts-on-american.html), or Redskin magazine published by a Native staff (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/redskins.htm#magazine). Sorry, but most Indians aren’t half-naked savages, so the statue is stereotypical. No Indian has red skin, so the magazine’s title is stereotypical.

    Many Indians do find “redskin” offensive; some don’t. I’ll be happy to point these things out: that “redskin” wrongly stereotypes Indians as red-skinned savages, and that many Indians find “redskin” offensive. If anyone disagrees, they’re free to dispute the facts. Since I’ve examined the evidence in detail, I stand behind my claims.

    Does this make me a typical bastion of white privilege and arrogance? Maybe, but I don’t think so. I don’t see many Indians doing what I’m doing, and I don’t see many telling me I’m wrong. If they did tell me I was wrong, I’d listen, but that isn’t what they’re saying.

    In fact, most of them are glad to see what I’ve written. Here’s an outsider, they think, who “gets” what they’ve been telling themselves. Here’s some validation that they aren’t just “professional victims” who form a self-centered “grievance industry.” That has to be gratifying to them, and it is.

    As I always say, stereotypes aren’t just “politically incorrect,” they’re historically and factually incorrect. They’re incorrect, period. And I have the evidence to prove it.

  22. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    So if Al Campanis says blacks can’t swim, Charles Murray says blacks have lower IQs, or Don Imus says black women are nappy-headed hos, we should wait for black people to take the lead before we chime in? I don’t think so. How about if we all point out what’s wrong first and worry about who’s first second?

  23. Monie wrote:

    Hi Tami,

    I understand the points you are making but I disagree with the premise of your post. I know that it can be annoying/ weird when a White person explains why they think something is racially offensive, however I think that these less than expert attempts are the road they we all must take to reach racial/ ethnic understanding.

    Look at it in terms of a friend that tries to understand why their friend is upset about something. Yes they may initially get it wrong if they have never experienced the particular issue, but in attempting to understand eventually understanding may actually happen.

    I think that it’s important to engage people and explain your point of view on these issues (as an African American or POC) but to shut down someone because they are White or are of a ethnic group that wasn’t on the receiving end of the offence is counterproductive.

    If you feel that the portrayals on MadTv of Asians is offensive then why not explore that? Also I for one wanted to cry along with Elizabeth Hassleback of The View; I couldn’t believe that I was seeing two Black women defending the use of the N word. It was disgusting.

  24. Ike wrote:

    Tami, I agree with you that Bobby Lee’s characters on MadTV are sometimes very stereotypical, but I know other Asian Americans who don’t mind or don’t care.

    For me, it’s kind of refreshing to hear that someone outside of the Asian American community thinks those skits are stereotypical, because it provides a sort of “I’m not crazy” check.

    It probably comes down to not presupposing what others should be thinking about a particular subject. Race aside, it’s generally pretty offensive when other people think I “should” have a certain opinion.

  25. Alyssa wrote:

    We have got to stop this us or them type of thinking. First, this type of thinking puts those of us who are of mixed race in a really awkward position. But more importantly, all of those “isms” are not issues that belong solely to the minority group. Racism is an issue for all races (including whites), just as feminism is an issue for both females and males. These “isms” destroy all parties involved (albeit in different ways).

    If you see something that is offensive to you, you should be able to state your feelings about it, even if you are one of “them”. However, you should always remember that you are just one voice. You do not speak for the whole group regardless if you are part of that group or not.

    I think the problem isn’t who is speaking; it is more they way they speak. It’s a problem when someone assumes you agree with them because of your color. It’s a problem when someone assumes that you are ignorant because you don’t agree with them. It is not a problem that someone points out that gee, maybe that’s stereotypical and someone is likely to be offended. Every minority is a vast group, and most likely there will be people who agree with the person pointing out the offense, and there will be people who don’t.

    After all, isn’t it this blog that posted just last week, “many African Americans reject the idea of having one person speak for them on issues of race. (no duh)” If this is true, why would you want to limit the voices speaking on any particular “ism”?

    I’m sorry if this is a little rambling, but I am posting very quickly, not giving the thought time to congeal in my head. I hope this all makes sense.

  26. RJG wrote:

    I recall every time a non-black editor has changed my use of “black” to African American, “because ‘black’ is offensive”…I recall every time I have been challenged, overruled and lectured about the feelings of my own community in particular and people of color in general…and I don’t want to be the person who does that.

    I always find this stuff tricky when it comes to editorial stuff. There might be some pre-set policy of “we refer to group X as Y because saying they’re Z always gets us negative letters but no one complains when we say Y,” or it may [and probably is] just done for consistency’s sake (and that may be based on the former or by some other kind of logic).

    I’m a bit curious if the same editorial guide would say to use Caucasian instead of white, or what logic was used to determine that African American was to be used over black.

    Buuuuut, for the article as a whole, I recently had to deal with that whole topic anyway.

    Some people in a web community elsewhere were discussing about how it’s easy [for poor people] to stop being poor, how gentrification was a positive thing, how poor people can very easily move/find new jobs if forced/priced out of a community, and that it’s insulting to the poor people/people of color/displaced people/etc to get all offended at that viewpoint, because clearly that implies they can’t take care of themselves if you (= me, white guy #1) had to step in to defend them against what was being said.

    It’s tricky. On one hand, it’s clearly bad to end up coming off as “hey, you can all relax, the white guy is here to say why something is a bit fucked up,” but then again if someone is going on about something in a clearly racist/classist/sexist/*ist manner, why the hell shouldn’t I say something is fucked up?

    If I’m not comfortable saying that I feel something is wrong until it happens to someone white, I feel like I’d be helping reinforce the “our problem” vs “their problem” situation — which is probably how a good number of the situations where I’d be calling something a bit fucked up happened in the first place.

    I think the [safest?] path to take is to just not come off as authoritative/definitive unless you really know what you’re going on about. Say you feel it comes off as racist, not that it is, that way you at least help stress the point that you’re talking about your own view on it, instead of giving some official stance on how it should be seen by everyone.

  27. Fatemeh wrote:

    Tami, GREAT POST. You bring up wonderful points here, points that I have often bristled at myself when being “educated” about Muslim women by white non-Muslim feminists.

    I agree with browne that “I think you have a right to be offended about anything offensive one person does to another that is rude, unthinking, sexist or racist.” It’s what we do with this offense that counts: I think it’s best to support those of the group in their endeavors against an action.

  28. Eva wrote:

    This is a wonderful piece. I see it like this, a person who is abled, going up to a person in a wheelchair saying, “I know just how you feel, because I learned about people like you in grad school.” Great that you learn, but learning and experiencing are worlds apart.

  29. Mike wrote:

    The white man, when unable to empathize with another group, tends to break things down to a set of rules or manners. Say “African-American” instead of black. Never say the N-word. Hire based on the resume and references, and not the interview. Etc. If we are ‘offended’ on behalf of another group, it means that we see something that violates the rules as we understand them, since we don’t really empathize and can’t feel our way around the issue.

    A “rules-based” understanding will be clunky at times.

  30. tybris wrote:

    I dont think its a bad thing to be offended on someone elses behalf. If they are showing you that they are offended by such things, there is the possibility that they do this with their white friends that dont have such an empathic point of view to minorities. I would be offended if they only do it to the minorities they meet but dont open their mouths around other whites who openly insult us.

  31. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    I agree Tami, it’s a tricky and I can’t say I know what the solution is. I suppose it’s for White people to try AS HARD AS POSSIBLE not to come off as arrogant or paternalistic when they really do mean well. Or accept that they can’t be a part of every conversation. I’ve certainly had the experience of a well-meaning White liberal trying to tell me how offended I should feel something.

    Definitely agree with Fatemah about the White women trying to “educate” me about Muslim women. UGH!

  32. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Alyssa –

    After all, isn’t it this blog that posted just last week, “many African Americans reject the idea of having one person speak for them on issues of race. (no duh)” If this is true, why would you want to limit the voices speaking on any particular “ism”?

    Because all voices speaking are not necessarily qualified. That is what is the most difficult thing to determine, what makes these conversations so complicated, and when we see the most accurate manifestation of “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    What Tami was getting at in her post was not necessarily people speaking in good faith and making honest mistakes, but people who are *not* speaking in good faith and are too invested in their theories to understand reality.

    I see this often in two realms: in discussing the digital divide and in discussing how poverty impacts the understanding of social justice.

    I had a long conversation with a well meaning white person about bridging the digital divide which was very frustrating to me, because her reasoning was this:

    Minorities don’t post a lot on DailyKos or MyDD or Firedoglake

    THEREFORE

    Minorities are not on the internet

    BECAUSE

    Minorities are poor.

    This assumption was so large that it was blocking what I was trying to convey to her. Which is:

    1. Just because people do not identify themselves as nonwhite online does not mean they are automatically white.

    2. Just because there are not many self identified nonwhites in places *you* visit it does not mean that we aren’t discussing these very same issues somewhere else.

    3. Please do not assume that the people who visit Bossip would not be remotely interested in your issues because most of us have diverse and varied interests. I get tip emails from Bossip all the time. Two different blogs, two different focuses, but there is a reader overlap.

    4. Please don’t assume that all minorities are poor with no knowledge of the internet. I cannot speak to rural areas and I understand that there are other issues at play there – but in urban areas, free internet access is available and most people have enough knowledge of the internet to have at least one email account and one social networking account. Again, just because we aren’t where you are, it doesn’t mean we suddenly ceased to exist.

    5. A lot of people without financial privilege still find a way to run a blog and/or offer commentary even with spotty connections and fucked up machines.

    But, since this woman does not seem to have examined any of her underlying assumptions, her reasoning followed those lines – and she couldn’t wrap her head around other possibilities.

    I get that same feeling when people discuss the problems of the poor – without really understanding what it is like. So, when you toss out a comment to attempt to fix a problem, sometimes you reveal how little you know.

    Like why people use check cashing places. I was reading somewhere, and someone tripped me out by going off about the stupidity of poor people for using check cashing places because all they have to do is open a savings account with a bank.

    And I wanted to say Ever heard of Chex Systems? Ever heard of banking hours? What if you need cash on a Sunday? What if you can’t wait five days for a check to clear? Ever heard of a mandatory minimum balance? Or the fees banks slam you with if you don’t meet that? Or have you ever ended up on the wrong side of a banking error?

    There are so many considerations the commenter was blind to because they had never been in that situation. But, because they were so sure that what they knew was so right and so sensible, they became blind to everything else.

    It is kind of like what Mike says in comment #29 – people try to create rules to fit situations and that is totally natural. The problem is when people try to twist reality to fit their idea of what the rules are. That’s when your good intentions become offensive.

  33. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Oops, ableist turn of phrase.

    Change “was blind to” to “could not conceive of” in my comment at 31.

  34. LM wrote:

    Tami,

    Nice piece. Completely know what you mean. But in my opinion a lot of this is actually simpler that you’ve portrayed. (Let me give a preemptive hat tip to Rob Schmidt’s comment upthread.)

    My bias is that more dialogue is better than less. Having said that, I think way too many people talk to hear themselves talk, and silence is sometimes excellent filler.

    The woman in the museum? Counter her argument with the fact that you’re not offended and then the modest idea that even yourself aside, perhaps not ALL black people will feel the same. Regardless of where she’s coming from, regardless of her “presumption,” she’s way off base with those assertions. As a human being, she has a right to her own reaction. But what she added wouldn’t have been cool from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Billy Dee Williams, bell hooks, Barack Obama, Lena Horne… forgive the silliness. That’s factual. Her assertion was racist and you don’t even need to spell it out.

    That conversation on “The View”? My opinion of Elizabeth Hasselback is almost as dim as she is. But I’m not mad at her for expressing how she felt or for crying — however much I rolled my eyes at her when I saw that clip, I don’t doubt that she was speaking honestly. Whatever you think about her feelings, it’s not that they aren’t legitimate — they’re reflective of her limited experience and general ignorance. What’s not legitimate is her placing them above the feelings of others. She’s the one who got schooled and I’m glad that happens more often in the public eye these days. (She may have to repeat class a time or six.)

    That piece on Bobby Lee? You’ve already stated some key thesis points. Go ahead and write/publish the piece is you’d like. My preference is that whatever someone like be thoughtful and reflect knowledge. If you don’t know something, don’t write as if you do. So if you don’t know about “how Lee is received in the Korean or larger Asian community,” don’t write about his impact on them. If it’s important for you to include that aspect in your piece, I’m sure you’ll do the work beforehand. But separate from that, you could be part of those same communities and miss a “cultural nuance.” And what no one should ever expect is that what they opine is the last word on a subject. Even if there’s nothing to counter, there’s always something to add, a path left unexplored.

    Your point on “Madea” is one I’ve noted also. Again, though, it’s quite possible for someone utterly unfamiliar with the Tyler Perry milieu to correctly criticize his movies on other grounds. It’s OK to agree something sucked for different reasons. If you disagree on the reasons, it’s OK to go in on that. That Perry’s movies are selling enough tickets to get mainstream reviews is great; that the mainstream reviews are often tone-deaf, not so great. But that’ll change with time and some dialogue about what’s missing will help.

    That white guy talking about “Norbit” and movies of that ilk? Two points — one, if he’s bringing up something out of leftfield because you’re black, to me it’s cool to deftly change the subject to any other damn thing. Second, if you agree with his point on the facts but feel his subtext goes further, broaden the subject matter. Get him in over his head, so to speak. That’ll learn him. For what it’s worth, as with the woman in the museum, your man had his facts wrong — “the black movies” go well beyond “Norbit.” My discomfort with him would have been in thinking that he didn’t know so, and that’s why I’d broaden the conversation. If he keeps up, good for him. If not, he’ll know not to bring up “black” stuff just to make conversation with a black person.

    As to “offensively presumptious” progressives, again, I feel you. Anyone can have an opinion… they’re like ______. There are some people who are inclined to pontificate, and yes, this is often a symptom of “whiteness.” But again, put aside from where someone is coming. If they’re spouting bullshit, put up the rhetorical shield so it flies back on them. True, this is easier said than done — I’m speaking to those individual encounters most of us have on occasion, and not to the structural issue of who controls the means of communications and who is seen as having “authority.”

    To your last question — can you be offended on someone’s behalf? No. You can be offended yourself. You can advocate for what you think is right. If you’re really interested in doing so — and this applies to all “good-hearted” but over-stepping white people, not just you, Tami — then you’ll assess whether there’s a collective around you, where you fit in that particular struggle and how you can best contribute.

  35. FranSky wrote:

    This is a post that needs to really be taken in & thought over before a fully meaningful response can be delivered. Tami, you brought up some key points I relate to & your thought provoking premise is one that has lingered in my heart for years. Here are some of the questions your post brought up for a discussion I’d like to have someday.

    Who has the right to speak up & speak out about a variety of oppressions? Or is it really a matter of how & why someone is speaking out? You know, what exactly thier intentions are in the situation? What they’re looking to get from speaking up.

    Should allies or folks who think they are allies, as part of their work, learn when to step in or out of a situation that calls for action. And just how & when do they know to do that? Who decides for them?

    Can we trust that someone who experiences the same oppression we do really gets it? If they don’t, wouldn’t it be better for an ally to speak out then someone who may help to “keep us down?”

    On a side note I remember a few years back seeing Tim Wise speak & he talked about whites being the ones who will ultimately get the anti-racism work done because whites will listen better to other whites. As much as I like his work I remember having the feeling that I was just told by a white guy that my anti-oppression work doesn’t count as much as a whites anti-oppression work. That my work & the work of other POC’s doesn’t make as much of a difference.

    Is he right though? That same will make sense to same and whites really do have to do the backbone of this work among their “own” for things to really change? Or is he partly right & partly wrong? That we all are the backbone and that if we all regardless of race sit & hope someone else will do this very annoying & sometimes deeply awkward work, nothing will get done & no one will be free?

    More thoughts later. Thanks Tami!
    ~F

  36. Rosa wrote:

    As an ally, this is always a hard line to tow, and all we can really do is keep thinking about it, and listening the people we’re trying to be allies of, and hopefully improving all the time.

    But there’s a difference between calling out something and speaking for another person. If I’m around someone who drops some racist bullshit, it’s damaging the environment I’m in, too – it’s not an act of charity for me to speak up about it. I can say “I don’t want to watch that, it seems racist to me.” without speaking for anybody else – and then if someone else doesn’t feel the same way, they’re free to say so.

  37. WYSIWYG14 wrote:

    Great topic.

    In response, I think that we should differentiate between individuals that take offense to discrimination that they cannot self-identity with vs. those individuals that tell others how to feel about a certain subject.

    Pain is pain and by saying that one group might never understand the complexities of racism as well as another group just works to resolidify racial boundaries and leads to the essentialization of race. That’s bad.

    While our everyday experiences might systematically be differentiated by our colors, I think that different experiences can converge to parallel emotions.

    Hence, I find it cool that others take the time to unseat themselves from complicity and work to empathize with situations that they may personally never experience. I’m glad that my straight friends realize how the word “fag” may elicit a particular history that makes it inappropriate to use.

    In that same context, as a person who is not black, I feel it’s cool and clearcut to be offended by the “n” word and it’s tainted history because while the histories may be different, the feelings that the “n” word elicit are quite parallel to feelings elicited by the word “fag.”

    In contrast, I would get annoyed by an individual who told me how to feel because of the way they interpretted a particular race, gender, etc. related event.

    The key difference is the first individual is a participant in the ongoing dialogue while the 2nd individual is an imposer.

    To end, while I found the overall article quite informative, I found this last section to be bleh:

    “I guess what we all want is that allies will be sensitive and intolerant of race bias, but that they will keep their privilege in check and remember that the voices of the marginalized should be the loudest ones. The victims of an “ism” must take the lead.”

    I think this is a very heirarchical view of liberation work and ineffective. Not all marginalized individuals are able to verbalize their experiences so eloquently or even realize how they are systematically kept down. If a friend can deconstruct an event, phrase, etc. and it’s discriminatory meaning more eloquently at the time than I can, why should I be denying his/her voice? While I understand interpretations for the most part are the responsibility of the receiver, there will always be THE dominant interpretation. It might very well take an “outsider” to articulate that interpretation.

    Whose voice gets to qualify and why?

  38. Thea wrote:

    I think it’s totally different when people of colour (as opposed to white folks) get offended “on the behalf” of other communities of colour – b/c what is offending you is racism, which is something that, as a person of colour, does deeply and directly effect you. Even if it’s racism that’s directed at an ethnic group you’re not a part of.

    I also think that white folks (or folks with any kind of privilege) can be offended by forms of hatred that don’t directly impact them, b/c it sucks to live in a society where that kind of hatred exists, and it’s upsetting for anyone who’s exposed to it.

    BUT it depends how that person chooses to display their outrage, right? Too often I hear white people talking about how they cannot believe how racist something was. That kind of “OMG that was racist” approach irritates me because our culture is so racist, that when someone is surprised by racism I just feel like they haven’t been paying attention.

    And often a display of shock and horror is simply a way to distance the speaker from those wrong kind of bad white people who were racist. It ignores the fact that all white folks benefit from racial privilege ie all white folks are complicit in racism even if they don’t want to be. It makes racism seem like an isolated event instead of an institutionalised force.

    It’s never very hard for me to tell the difference between a genuine ally being upset about something racist they witnessed, and a person who is just jumping on the chance to show how enlightened and un-racist they are.

    Just last night my friend was talking about “horizontal appropriation.” He’s Chinese and he was talking about the Wu Tang Clan, how their name comes from kung fu movies, and how the references they drop to kung fu movies made him feel included. I asked him if it would be the same if they were white folks and he said, no not at all, and that there’s a difference between cultural appropriation, and horizontal appropriation, where communities of colour learn from each other.

    I thought that was a neat idea. In the same way we can show solidarity for each other (and similarly I think anti-racist activists can be sympathetic to and interested in movements for queer rights or disability rights or…) that is rooted in having dealt with similar situations, and the understanding that we should be in this struggle together.

    I guess that’s why the term people of colour exists in the first place: it indicates a commonality that’s shared by folks who are not white, but live in a predominantly white culture – despite the fact that we may come from really different backgrounds and experiences.

  39. LM wrote:

    Damn typos…

    Tami, forgot to say — I REALLY felt you when you mentioned the “black” to “African-American” switch by non-black editors. I hope you made your case assertively. That scenario is so easy to envision and editors and writers clash so often that my best hope is that the back-and-forth was intelligent. If you were in a similar position and someone complained about a change you’ve made, somehow I don’t doubt that you’d actually pay heed to the actual point being made. Still doesn’t mean if you were the editor you’d necessarily make the writer happy — such is the professional dynamic, for better or worse.

    Latoya — you bring up some great examples in #32. I don’t know the nature of your relationship with the woman with whom you discussed minority posting on Daily Kos et al., but what struck me is that she’s not going to get what you’re trying to convey in one sitting, period.

    You wrote, “this assumption was so large” about her taking one misperception (minorities don’t comment on political Web sites) and supporting it with another (minorities aren’t on the Internet) that was supported with another (minorities are poor).

    So really is was several assumptions, likely with a lot of deep background stereotypes and prejudices that she couldn’t have possibly articulated (or that she “knew better” than to voice).

    To me, better to knock down one assumption at a time if you’re engaged at that level. It’s fairly easy to argue on the single point of participation on political sites — as you did. Assuming there’s going to be a next time, you can knock down another one, etc. Again, I don’t know the nature of the relationship or how the conversation sprang up, but I’m concerned about weariness on both sides.

    And this is where the facts alone fall short. The organization of them, knowing when to pull them out and when to hold back for a later date, is to me extremely important.

    I hope I’m not misunderstanding the incident you mentioned. Sharp summation of two issue dialogues I often see as well.

  40. Crystal wrote:

    I really appreciate Tami’s article and a lot of the comments for helping me think through a conversation that’s been on my mind. I was with a crowd of non-black friends who view me as black (though I’m mixed). After I had been arguing that a local incident had been unfairly racialized, my non-black friend said to me, “Well, if I were a black person, I’d be really offended.”

    My feeling is, if you want to be offended, then be offended as a human. As a human being, that’s your prerogative, and everyone should speak out against injustice where they see it. Maybe you have some reliable information I don’t know about. And even within a community of color, there can exist a range of perspectives.

    But before you presume to tell me how I should feel about it, you ought to reconsider. Because while you might disagree with my perspective on its merits, you don’t get to tell me that my perspective (versus yours!) isn’t black enough. That’s racist! Your white intellect is so superior to my limited, non-white capacity for critical thinking that you should be able to speak for me? Come on. That, I find offensive.

    There is an important difference between sharing your perspective on a racialized situation, and suggesting that your opinion represents the best thinking from an experience you haven’t had and thus cannot really understand.

  41. Alyssa wrote:

    @Latoya
    First let me start by saying thank you for responding to my comment. I absolutely love when moderators reply to my comments. I feel like I’m actually being listened to.
    I completely understand when you say that some voices are not qualified to speak. But what makes a voice a qualified one? Can one only speak for their own group? I think this does not work as a rule. I’ve seen women make terrible statements about women as a whole. I’ve seen minorities make terrible statements about the minority group that they are a part of. Just because you are one of “us” does not necessarily mean that you will speak without prejudice. On the same point, I’ve heard people who are part of the “them” group who are quite qualified to speak. I’ve had people who do not share my racial makeup articulate perfectly what I’m feeling. Race does not equal qualification to speak for a group without prejudice. And if it does, where does that leave me- a person of mixed descent? Must I never be allowed to speak since I am neither accepted by the white or brown goup?
    I also agree with you when you say “when you toss out a comment to attempt to fix a problem, sometimes you reveal how little you know.” But this isn’t necessarily a problem. Sometimes it takes hearing yourself aloud to understand your own biases and misinformation. I know I’ve been in that situation myself. In this case, an open dialogue is helpful- even if it didn’t seem to be at the time- sometimes it takes a little while to sink in.
    The only problem here is when there isn’t an open dialogue. The problem is when, as you put it, someone is “so sure that what they knew was so right and so sensible, they could not conceive of anything else.” Yes these people exist in droves. And yes I do think there is a higher concentration in the white, heterosexual, male population because they don’t understand what it is like to have people see your race first and you as a person second. For example, my white father doesn’t understand that parading by brown butt around the neighborhood to prove he is not racist, actually makes me feel like crap, and I’ve never said anything to him because I’m quite sure he will never get it. If you know the person well enough, you know if you can write them off and just not talk to them anymore. But here’s the thing: if it is a stranger in the street, you can’t tell if you are really talking to a brick wall, or if you are talking to someone who will eventually get it. As I said before, there are people who will realize your point a day, a week, a month later. And if you close the door on these people completely, they will never get it.

  42. jvansteppes wrote:

    Yes Tami you’ve reminded me of the perils of speaking for other people.
    This is a tricky balance because sometimes there are depictions of people of color that make me uncomfortable. Around fellow whites I tend to voice that while trying to emphasize that its not my job to waltz up to POC friends or strangers and tell them they need to be offended by various images. This would be wrong on so many levels even if I did it within the queer community, which I am a part of, because it precludes dialogue and assumes we all need to react in the same way to everything.

    I find myself pretty disgusted with Sex and the City [an ex overexposed me to this series] and one of those reasons is that POC are represented pretty abysmally on the show, but when women of color tell me they like it I don’t feel the need to lecture them on why they shouldn’t be into it because it’s racist; that would be pretty presumptuous and invasive.

  43. jstele wrote:

    Well, I agree that Elizabeth Hasselback made the n-word discussion too much about her, but I think it’s her own self-centeredness that was the reason. I do believe her tears were genuine and that she does feel bad about the racial inequality. However, she is not well-versed on racism, so she does not know how to handle those kinds of issues.

    Atlasien,

    I don’t think it’s racist for people not to be able to distinguish between Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese. However, it is possible to do so if one has been around a lot of Asians.

  44. Reiter wrote:

    I get annoyed when overzealous allies use the “I have fill-in-the-blank-with-POC friends” card. This also applies to when they happen to be dating a POC. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen some white guy get all uppity and thinks he totally understands a POC’s perspective simply because he’s dating someone who happens to be non-white. I see this happening often among military circles, particularly when overseas. Then again, I suppose that beats the alternative, where said white guy makes fun or puts down his S.O.’s race or ethnicity (whether behind her back or in front of her face, even around company). I’ve seen this all too often as well.

  45. em wrote:

    @monie–i know it’s way back on the comments list, but i really agreed with what you wrote. i do think that misunderstanding is inevitable on the road to inter/intra racial dialogue. and though i usually can’t stand elizabeth hasselbeck and didn’t see the clip, i probably would have agreed with her condemnation of the n word.

    i don’t think you have to be black to have an opinion about the n word. as a white person, i find it offensive for many personal reasons. mainly because i have a lot of family in texas, and i know that when they think (of) the word, they’re not thinking of it any differently than people thought of it during the 50s. and that’s a painful thing to be aware of in your family.

    does that mean i condemn the use of the n word by non-whites? no. all i can say is that no matter who uses it, when i hear the word, it makes me upset. and i think we all have a right to say, this upsets and hurts me for reasons x, y, and z. if nothing else, it starts a dialogue from a place of personal truth, experience, and sincerity.

    and latoya, i think you’re right that the conversation starts going to hell in a handbasket on a road of good intentions, so to speak, when people of privilege with little to no experience of discrimination first hand start speaking theoretically. i think that dialogue about race only works if it rings sincere. and that’s one of the reasons i do so appreciate this blog, and many of the comments.

    thanks!

  46. Jaye wrote:

    The Bobby Lee thing has always bothered me, I never watch him. But some Asian friends love him, and it is difficult for me to tell if it’s because he’s practically the only well-known Asian male on television, or if there’s something genuinely funny about him. The only clip I liked out of the 10 madtv skits they showed me was the one parodying Korean soap operas…I like to think that I know what I’m talking about, but I also don’t argue with them about it because I don’t watch enough of him to say for sure, and because he is being offensive towards his OWN race, not other people’s, so…who am I to say?

    I was offended by Hasselback’s crying on so many levels…when Whoopi tried to explain the seriousness of the situation to her, that her own mother had not been allowed to vote in the country where she was born, that this was not about a word, but about the actions and effects on people’s lives that the word symbolized, and therefore, that the way out of that pain was not simple and straightforward…and Hasselback started crying, god, I wanted to just punch her in the face. Tami articulated why, “How dare you make this issue about your feelings and not those of the people who have been demeaned by racism?” Exactly, and especially since we don’t live in a society where the people that have perpetuated racism have accepted responsibility for what they have done, but continue to deny, dismiss and avoid blame, so to think YOU know better how to deal with this on-going racism better than the intelligent, informed and aware people who have lived and suffered through it, and CONTINUE to live and suffer through it, she is either being disingenuous or she is stupid. I honestly don’t think she is stupid. She is manipulative and insincere, she cries because she knows that is a way to get pity and to take attention away from the topic at hand, and instead to draw attention to her “hurt” feelings and to change the dynamic of the group…it is a power-play.

  47. waxghost wrote:

    Rob Schmidt, way back at #21, I have to disagree with you. It offends ME that you think you have to explain to a Native American person why a stereotype of Native Americans is offensive. The friend I mentioned above claims not to find “redskin” and “chief” sports mascots offensive, but if you conversed with him for a lot longer (as I have), you would discover that it isn’t that he thinks they aren’t offensive at all but that he’s decided that there are other things that are far more offensive that he prefers to get upset over and try to change. And that’s a perfectly reasonable reaction to the wealth of stereotypes that any POC faces, so why would you feel entitled to lecture him (or anyone who was effected by a particular stereotype) on it? Why would you assume that he doesn’t recognize or understand it? I think that’s just the kind of presumption that Tami was talking about.

  48. Torontonian wrote:

    Another example of Macon D’s white presumptuousness is his post shake hands our way, in which he says the business/professional handshake is the ‘white’ handshake, and that African American men don’t really shake hands like that, but they only do it because of cultural repression. Here he refers to the handshaking preference of non-whites:

    What’s more interesting, though, about differences in handshaking techniques [between whites and non-whites] is that if a white and a non-white person encounter each other in a casual setting and decide to clasp hands, there may be uncertainty about which handshaking method to use–the white one or a non-white one. When there is uncertainty about which to use, the fall-back is usually the standard handshake, that is, the method more likely to be used by the white person than by the non-white one. The non-white person often represses a preferred method of contact, and the white person feels little if any discomfort about being the enforcer of a standard.

    (emphasis mine)

    In a comment in a different blog/post referring to this, Macon D commented:

    Nquest, if you can’t even remember if the post is only talking about Black people, go back and read it again. Why all the confusion? It’s about the default way that white and black men tend to shake hands when they meet each other. It’s not about how all members of one group shake hands one way and all of another group shake hands another way, and it doesn’t say that they don’t sometimes shake hands within their groups in various ways. And it’s not something I pulled straight out my azz either. It comes from watching hundreds of people shake hands. Get a grip, dude.

    (emphasis mine)

    Nquest is black, by the way.

    But I guess Macon D’s white rationality on what black (and non-white) people think trumps Nquest’s black emotionality. (sarcasm)

  49. NancyP wrote:

    I figure that allies are supposed to work in their own circles. When family member make boneheaded racist comments, counter the comments with facts! They are being rude/immature, or ignorant /unfair – why let them stay that way? (memorable argument about Katrina issues in mind..). Ditto the allies’ social crowds.

    BTW, I never did understand “black” vs “African-American” – I understood that most AAs/blacks thought that both terms were inoffensive. I am not an editor, though.

    As for the white public health student saying “X has to happen to save population Y” – I guess I’d have to see the specifics to comment. I do this stuff all the time when talking about health disparities in population “Y”, “X” more often than not represented by some aspect of universal health access, or by improved education and reduced stigma.

  50. Pheagan wrote:

    I have a question kind of along the same lines. What if you’re with a friend, and they’re a POC, and someone says something racist? And the POC kind of uncomfortably doesn’t say anything? I had this situation– it was a bit complicated. I’m white, I was working in Korea, and I was having drinks with a black female coworker, and we were with three Korean friends. And, not to make generalizations, I feel after a year I can say: wow, Korea, there’s a lot of racism there (I don’t know how much it has to do with the general insularity). So my friend is just SO OVER it at this point, and one of the girls just was on this never-ending skin conversation, how I was so nice because I was white, and she wished she was whiter, and she actually giggled and said she was lucky not to have skin like my friend. And I was growing, like, gradually more furious. But my friend was just tired, and I knew she was tired, so we cut out as soon as we could and avoided that group of friends. But I was like, you know, isn’t that an opportunity to teach? Not that it’s my friend’s responsibility, and I did talk to her (the Korean girl) afterwards, but she didn’t get it, and I think public embarrassment might have made her think twice before insulting another black English teacher. And I didn’t ask my friend about this because she was weary of the subject and was weary about talking about race– it came up in conversation among expats a lot, and she would roll her eyes and end the conversation. Which I totally get, because that’s how I deal with sexism, I have no freaking energy to call these guys out, and I would hate to have a guy “protect”me. But if I was walking along with a woman I’d feel happy if she stood up for me. OK, I guess I just kind of answered my own question.

  51. SamJ wrote:

    I really agree with what’s been posted here, but I feel like people often take these sentiments and apply them inappropriately. There is a significant difference between a man saying he believes something is sexist and a man telling a woman something is sexist and that she should be offended. Same with race, there’s a difference between whites finding something racially offensive and whites telling blacks or asians or latinos or what have you that something is racially offensive to them.

    It’s the lecturing part that seems the most irksome. It’s just another vehicle of oppression. A man that tells a woman who wants to get married that she shouldn’t want to get married because marriage is a flawed construct used only to exploit women is basically telling the woman that she cannot think on her own. That she is incapable of escaping her own supposed oppressors without HIS help.

    On the other hand, I don’t find any issue with a man telling a woman what he thinks of marriage. He’s entitled to an opinion just as much as the woman. And she can disagree, or agree, or do whatever she wants. Her opinion doesn’t render the man’s opinion invalid, obviously, the two opinions can exist in parallel without the world coming to an end. The important part is that the man doesn’t use feminism, in this case, as a lever to strong arm the woman.

    That’s how I feel about this. Anyone can have an opinion about anything, and they can express those opinions as much as they want, but there is never an excuse to tell someone else how to feel. The privileged have no place telling the oppressed how to be oppressed, especially not in the name of progress, like so many do.

    @browne: I love your point about whites being the only ones who can express their opinions about race, sex, etc in media. I have absolutely never thought about it like that and it’s a really interesting point.

    @Pheagan: You could have expressed your opinion about what your Korean friend said without solely doing so to “protect” your black friend. Obviously somewhat touchy though, as whether or not you meant to protect your black friend, she might have taken it as you trying to protect her, but I think that’d be more of a personal issue than a racial issue. Still sensitive, though.

  52. dave wrote:

    @waxghost: i felt like rob s was giving an example of discrepancy within a group where some might feel something wasn’t offensive to them as a individual, but he would take the time to discuss how it fostered racist attitudes towards the group. so even though your friend doesn’t think the redskin chief is that big a deal, the encouragement of that stereotype is still harmful and rob s would like to act against that. and since this is a “media image” thing, maybe your friend doesn’t think its a big deal, but other people do take things like a cultural response to media seriously…. that’s what i took from it anyway.

    @pheagan: i think that’s a good thing you did. just like some women are uninterested or opposed even to feminist ideals (say, equal pay or opportunity), that doesn’t mean i’m going to shut up about it. and even though your friend didn’t have the energy to get into it, its definitely okay to have a word with that girl, especially since it seems like you did so when your friend wouldn’t be bothered by it.

    @NancyP: “I figure that allies are supposed to work in their own circles” … you presume that allies exist in circles only of “their own” which may be true of your personal circle but often not of other people.

    thanks for this conversation folks, its a good one.

  53. lakelandalice wrote:

    Tami’s piece is great, touches on probs I have with white libs too, subtle problems. Thank you for it.

    Torontonian, thanks for the links to macon d’s blog, but I think you’re not summarizing what he said accurately. His post is not about how Af Am men do or “don’t really shake hands.” He’s not generalizing presumptuously to the extent or in the way that you say he is–it doesn’t work as an example of what Tami’s talking about. I read it as he’s talking about another one of those standards that’s mostly white that most whites don’t realize, and the power that whites often have, even in those kinds of moments. There’s power in being or embodying the default. I also read the exchange you linked to with mquest, and again, it doesn’t work. Given what mquest wrote, I think macon’s response was/is fair, and certainly not a presumption on his part of black emotionality.

    Anyway, he says he’s trained as white, as he puts it (I read his blog sometimes, and it’s usually great) and that he does make mistakes, but I don’t see the “presumptuousness” here that you’re blaming him for.

  54. Marbles wrote:

    I’m white.
    All I know is, I am an extremely confused person at this stage in my life right now. I no longer know what I think or feel about anything.
    In all situations, racial or not, I act on the assumption that someone will take issue with something I say, so I try to cover myself by putting in as many qualifiers or “on the other hand’s” as I can think of. Insurance, in other words. I try to think everything through until I’ve bled it dry, to avoid falling into the “presumptuous white liberal” trap.
    The thing is, I’ve also got some opinions that are downright conservative, and they bug the hell out of me because they’re new and scary. The conservative stuff comes from a part of me that I never really knew existed until recently, and I don’t understand it or know how to process it.

    I don’t want to be mistaken for a bigot, nor do I want to be an arrogant liberal.
    In other words, I’m lost and lonely. All I want in life, really, is to understand. Understand as many people as possible, because I’m sick to death of NOT understanding. There’s so much “not understanding” out there that it makes me sick.
    My main thing is that I cannot stand tribalism. No matter WHO’s doing it or where it’s coming from, I regard it as pure poison. Getting right down to it, it’s really the only real reason that problems persist in the world. And seeing so many ordinary schmoes—black, white, you name it—wallowing in it online in anonymous cowardice is so depressing to me that I really think I’m losing my mind.

    I want to understand people, and I want them to understand me, too. And I don’t really know how to go about making that happen, because there are so many emotional landmines laid out everywhere. I’m afraid I’ll either step on one myself or trigger one to blow up under someone else.

  55. Elainenator wrote:

    @ waxghost

    I think you’ve said something really smart — really, in the face of institutional racism and a whole landfill of stereotypes to choose from, who is any white liberal to tell any POC what they should or shouldn’t be offended by?

  56. superchunk12 wrote:

    I grappled with this also and came to the conclusion that human suffering and being treated with indignity is something that needs to be addressed by everyone in order to come to some sort of understanding. I think that white privilege has a hard time distinguishing people of color, as the patriarchy has a hard time distinguishing women. As a result of this, many white anti- racists who haven’t really looked at their white privilege or the histories of the people they are advocating for. It reminds me of the time before i started braiding my hair when one of my friends informed me that i should stop getting relaxers because i was giving in to white ideals of beauty. I laughed so hard I cried. We had a consciousness raising that day.

  57. browne wrote:

    I don’t think that you should tell anyone else that they should be offended by something, but I think you should be free to say you are offended. I think when you go into the “you should be offended by this representation of you,” that’s when it starts to get, to put it lightly, annoying.

    I regularly point out things I don’t like about the portrayal of Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, white women, African-Americans, I don’t care. I think every prick on any minority is a prick on all of us. If someone is making jokes about a “purple” person and you’re “green” don’t you know when you leave the room that person is going to make fun of “green” people next. I think about the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller and his poem that starts:

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.

    So my defense for people doesn’t come from the same patronzing vein that it does for some people, mine is all about me being selfish :) which gives me alot of enthusiasm in saying anything about anyone who is done wrong, becaause heck, that could be me and I’d want someone to say something.

    I wouldn’t want someone to let me die or my culture die or my dignity die, because they were having a conflict in their head about offending me, that’s silly. If you speak out, yeah you might do it wrong, but that’s better than not saying anything.

    Browne

  58. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Waxghost, I spend most of my time explaining Native stereotypes to non-Natives, not to Natives. Natives pretty much understand their own stereotype issues. Obviously.

    The two exceptions I listed–The American statue and Redskin magazine–were just that, exceptions. I believe it was Carmen who brought the magazine to my attention, and a Native correspondent who mentioned that I hadn’t addressed the statue yet. So it’s not as if I sought these “opportunities” to lecture Indians about their own stereotypes.

    I thought I explained the difference between saying something is wrong and saying it’s offensive. I do presume to say when a depiction factually misrepresents Indian history or culture. I try not to presume to tell people whether they should be offended by it. Reread my previous comment to refresh your understanding of the difference between “wrong” and “offensive.”

  59. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I know many Indians dismiss the importance of dealing with racism and stereotyping. So do many non-Indians. I think we’ve all heard the rejoinders before. “Why do you bother with these things? Stop being politically correct. Quit living in the past. Don’t you have anything better to do? They’re just words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”

    On my Harm of Native Stereotyping page (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stharm.htm), I’ve quoted some leading Indians who discuss the critical nature of the subject. People such as Vine Deloria Jr., Wilma Mankiller, Chris Eyre, Cornel Pewewardy, and Rennard Strickland. I find their arguments persuasive.

    For instance:

    Children are being harmed by these mascots, and not just the Native American children. Once the stereotype is established in a student’s mind, it makes it very difficult for children of any race to learn about present day Native Americans. For instance, I have been asked by school children if I still live in a TiPi, and I have been told by a young school aged child that I can’t possible be an Indian, because Indians were all killed a long time ago, and that’s why the school mascot is an “Indian”—so Indians can be remembered.

    –Mike Wicks, “MASCOTS–Racism in Schools by State”

    “Don’t you have more important things to worry about?” This statement often is posed by non-Native students at UND to Native students taking part in Fighting Sioux logo discussions.

    As a Native educator of 30 years, I can say I have nothing more important to worry about.

    I have committed my life to dealing with harmful and negative stereotypes and educating students on my reservation of their culture, traditions, ceremonies and spirituality. As Native people, we experience layer upon layer of stereotypes and images that dehumanize. Eurocentric curriculum and children’s literature reinforce stereotypes of the “vanishing Indian,” “romantic Indian,” “militant Indian” or “drunken Indian.” I have seen firsthand how these images, along with poverty or low socioeconomic status, generational trauma and other issues of reservation life contribute to low self-esteem in Native students.

    Denise K. Lajimodiere, “VIEWPOINT: Racism at Protest Shames UND,” Grand Forks Herald, 4/12/06

    The question of mascots is significant for Native Americans. It transcends sports and entertainment. It influences law. It dominates resource management. It profoundly impacts every aspect of contemporary American Indian policy and shapes both the general cultural view of the Indian as well as Indian self-image. No groups other than the Indian face the legal situation in which their land, as well as their economic, political and cultural fate, is so completely in the hands of others. That is so because of the way in which substantial tribal resources are held “in trust,” with the management and regulation, if not always operation, resting with the federal government as “trustee.” The result is that the non-Indian in the U.S. Congress and in the executive branch control the fate of Indian peoples and their resources when they legislate and administer practices and policies.

    The Indian image is, therefore, an especially crucial and controlling one because it is that image (often reflected in mascots like the Redman) which looms large as non-Indians decide the fate of Indian people. If the non-Indian decision makers continue to view native people as dinosaurs, as redskins or warriors, as happy hunter on the way to extinction, the policy will be different from what it would be if the decision-makers saw beyond the mascot and the stereotype.

    –Rennard Strickland, “Changing Mascots Doesn’t Signal Failure, Lack of Honor,” Muskogee Phoenix, 9/14/06

  60. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    If your friend disagrees with these Natives, that’s his right. But let’s not pretend that I’m making up these claims out of thin air. What I’m doing is repeating what some of the leading Native authorities (tribal leaders, educators, and authors) have said on the subject. They’re the experts, not me.

    If your friend doesn’t like this, he can take it up with them. I’d enjoy hearing him explain how he’s thought more deeply about racism and stereotyping than Deloria, Mankiller, and the others. Maybe he can convince them (and me) that these factors have nothing to do with Indians’ misfortune. But I doubt it.

  61. Pheagan wrote:

    @ Sam J– well, I was actually getting furious on my own behalf during that conversation; the reason I held back as much as I did was specifically because I didn’t want my friend to have to get into a racial conversation because I knew she was tired of it. And also the whole skin thing in Korea isn’t just about black and white, there was the issue of the Korean girl who didn’t like her own skin. And, actually, being in the position of being white in Asian countries puts you in exactly the situation Tami describes. Especially Korea, where people frequently get plastic surgery to get white characteristics. Because you know, you see these preferences causing a lot of damage among these girls, my students, so how to raise their awareness of these issues when you are who they are trying to look like (because there seems to be very little awareness of the damage these standards have)? It’s weird. The best I could ever do was point out over and over again that white Americans want golden skin and smaller noses and Asian girls are considered quite beautiful in America.

  62. Flo wrote:

    I see your point, and it is certainly true that white allies should not be talking for people of color or pretending they can understand that struggle, but as someone who tries to be a white ally, my question is then, how do I call something out without stepping on the toes of people of color? I know I can never understand what it is like to be a person of color in our society because I’m not one. and I don’t pretend to understand it. However, that doesn’t mean that comments or actions I see as racist do not make me personally uncomfortable, because they do. How do I as a white person express my discomfort with certain statements or actions without being part of the problem? Do I only call people out if there are no people of color around to do it? that doesn’t make sense to me, partially because that feels tokinizing and partially because I don’t think it should be the responsibility of people of color to fix the racism in our society. So I guess in short, I worry that I might be guilty of this and would like to know how to go about calling out racist remarks without seeming like I’m claiming to understand the experience of people of color?

  63. Allison Farnum wrote:

    What a great entry- thank you! What I hear in some of your frustrations is the eagerness in the white folks to prove themselves worthy as allies. Would that super-progressive ally white lady have spoken about the painting in such a way if she did not have something to prove to you, in particular?

    As a white woman I find myself walking this line- like I have to prove to people of color that I am an ally. I will catch myself wanting to somehow reveal that I know about our white supremacist culture. It is a real struggle- b/c I do want folks to know I am an ally. But I think the best way to do it is to “out” myself to the white communities (and my family) as an ally, which is much more challenging than vying for a gold star of righteousness from a person of color who is sick of me trying too hard. I have been working on this for five years now, and it’s hard. Ebb and flow and lots of humility, that is how I roll as best I can.

    Thanks for your reflections and thinking around the many facets- so very valuable!

  64. waxghost wrote:

    Rob Schmidt, I will fully acknowledge if I misunderstood your comment but underneath your words, I am still getting the sense that you feel you can tell a Native person how they should feel about something. I never said that my friend doesn’t think these stereotypes are damaging; we’ve never gotten into a very deep discussion about them so I really don’t know how he feels about them exactly. But I do know that he does his best to fight against them while denying OUT LOUD that they have any power, which suggests to me not that he thinks they don’t have power but that that is another way he personally has of fighting against them.

    You don’t need to lecture me on the damage caused by Native American stereotypes either. I am fully aware of it, far more than most white people in my experience.

    It is, in fact, not your words that are bothering me but that you seem to think that you need to persuade me, my friend through me, and possibly everyone else here when you don’t know us personally and don’t know how we face issues like this in our everyday life. If you had stopped before the Rennard Strickland quote, I might have believed that you weren’t trying to tell anyone how to feel or believe, but that plus statements like, “I’d enjoy hearing him explain how he’s thought more deeply about racism and stereotyping than Deloria, Mankiller, and the others” are doubly insulting for their presumption that his personal beliefs, life experiences, and own techniques of dealing with the hostilities of whites should be overridden by people YOU deem to be experts. Deloria, Mankiller, etc. do not get to decide for my friend how he, as an individual, should feel or what he should think.

  65. NancyP wrote:

    I meant to indicate that an ally’s important job is to gently educate/ correct (or, occasionally, rip a new one) those people who make blatantly racist statements because “we’re all white here, heh heh, don’t have to watch our mouths”. I grew up in an exceedingly white and financially privileged environment, and many relatives and former schoolmates are clueless.

  66. dave wrote:

    @NancyP: thanks for the clarification, i hear you.

  67. Jaye wrote:

    I’m sure the point Pheagan brings up has been discussed here at Racialicious, but I don’t recall it. What do you do when you’re a POC, and another POC says something racist and stupid? Or Pheagan’s point, which is that she is an anti-racist white, and she’s dealing with a racist POC? I usually know how to handle a white person saying racist things, I’m always slightly stunned when a POC says racist things, and I often feel awkward and slightly amazed as I try and deal with it.

    I think most discussions tend to be about aware POC dealing with unaware white society, but I definitely have some white friends who are way more anti-racist and aware than a lot of friends (and family) that are POC.

  68. Darcy wrote:

    Great and interesting post, Tami!

    I wonder, as for the people you encounter, if this behavior is particular to their opinions on issues of race, or if it characterizes their personalities in general. I’ve encountered my fair share of “academics” who, in conversation, will listen to your argument but always profess that their opinions are better. It’s not too detrimental if the conversation is about art, creative writing, etc. but if it is about race (not their own) I wonder if they are so used to thinking that they are right that their brain doesn’t chime in with, “nuh uh, don’t go there.”

  69. Roger Hicks wrote:

    What one needs to understand, I think, is that most white people (ethnic Europeans) were put into a state of shock by the horrors caused by Nazi racial ideology (the Germans being stereotypically “white” and “one of us”), in response to which they (we) adopted an exact, but equally extreme, racial ideology of “Race doesn’t Matter”, at all (or even exist), of “Colourblindness”. When race DOES matter, as Tami makes quite clear, when she speaks of “her people”; it matters profoundly, when allowed to and not suppressed, as is currently demanded of white people, for most individuals’ sense of personal and group identity.

    All western states have embraced this “Ideology of Colourblindness”, initially in response and overreaction, not just to Nazi racial ideology, but also to the other extreme rightwing racial ideologies of Jim Crow and Apartheid. And having done so, political opportunism has consolidated it: anyone wanting to get on, especially in politics or the media has no choice but to embrace this ideology of colourblindness, which those who are particularly ambitious and ruthless, like to emphasis and display to their own advantage.

    Most so-called progressives who loudly demonstrate their own colourblindness and lack of racial prejudice, taking offense on behalf others, less capable (so they obviously assume) than themselves, are really just laying claim to the “moral high ground”, enshrined in state racial ideology, and all the advantages (political, social and?or economic) that go with it.

    In their defence, however, I would say that most mean well. It is not only others they deceive with their feigned colourblindness and lack of racial prejudice, but themselves as well.

    What we need is a lot more honesty about the importance of race, so that we can start to restructure society, not from above (which is how the rightwing racial ideologies of the 20th Century were imposed) but grassroots democratically from below, to accommodate it in humane and civilized fashion.

  70. b wrote:

    This is a topic I’ve thought about many times before, and for the most part I agree with Tami and most of the above statements — being offended individually and telling other groups how to react to something are entirely different. As a straight woman, I’ve found myself to be very quick in countering homophobic statements (or what I find to be homophobic) even when my queer friends don’t take offense at all. It always makes me feel a little awkward afterwards..

    That being said, I think a key point that needs to be emphasized is that within groups there is a lot of dissenting opinion on the offensiveness of things. The Bobby Lee example is great. I’m an Asian American woman, and I love Bobby Lee, but I can definitely see how he can be problematic. I know plenty of other Asians who are offended by him. I think rather than wonder what his impact on the “Asian American community” is, I’d rather people just straight out discuss the merits and drawbacks of his comedy with regard to stereotype and visibility in showbiz, keeping in mind that within groups there are a wide range of opinions. I feel like the best approach is just, as someone above said, keep the dialogue going. To assume that everyone of a particular group has a similar opinion about something to me is a far bigger mistake than being offended on their behalf.

  71. little mixed girl wrote:

    i guess i don’t see what the problem is if the person in question is
    a. spot on

    and

    b. not being pretentious.

    i think that people want to be the total authority on something, and race is one of the things they can be the authority on, so they hold onto that to block out others.

    it’s a waste to say that we should fight for equality, but that anything a minority teaches a majority cannot be used by the majority to teach ignorant majority members.

  72. Torontonian wrote:

    (The following comment was supposed to precede my comment, #48. This is my third time trying to post this, and I had to remove links because there were too many before and my comment didn’t go through.)

    I’m having the same problem as you with Macon D, the author of Stuff White People Do who is a white guy. He tries to be antiracist, but when I or other people point out how his posts are problematic or racist, instead of dealing with the specific criticism, he defends his antiracist identity. For example, in refuse to listen to black anger, Macon D wrote:

    As they do so, over these and other racial disagreements, these white people often say something like, “If you’re going to get emotional, then I can’t discuss this with you.” For white people, anger is a dangerous force that blows out the light of reason. They may not realize it (middle-class ones, especially), but white people often insist that discussions be conducted in their way, and not in someone else’s way. Their calm, rational way, that is, and not another group or culture’s more emotionally engaged way. (And guess who’s automatically at an advantage in calm, rational discussions?)

    (emphasis mine)

    I found this very problematic and I criticized it, but his answer was (my comment in italics):

    Why would white people be at an advantage in calm and rational discussions? Are you suggesting that white people are more rational?

    No, I’m not. As with all of my posts, what I’m talking about here is how, in America, some (perhaps most) white people have been trained to dicsuss serious issues in an emotionally disengaged way, especially when discussing serious and/or contentious issues with people they’re not intimately familiar with.

    Some white people are not at that advantage in calm, subdued, “rational” discussions because they come from lower-class backgrounds where getting emotionally demonstrative and shouting and so on are expected. So it’s a class thing as well as a race thing. The person at an advantage in a calm, rational discussion is one who’s been subtly and thoroughly trained to discuss things that way, be they white or black. So what the post is saying, though not in a way that’s quite fine-tuned enough, is that more white Americans are trained in that mode than are African Americans. [...]

    When commenter jw (white) challenged the original paragraph in another post, Macon D responded (jw’s comment in italics):

    Already your claim of “civil discussions in a calm and rational way” you think would be typical for whites, indicates, that you didn’t have many talks with whites when it comes to race.

    Oh but I have, middle-class whites especially, from the ones among that group willing to even discuss racism. “Civilized” and “rational” is the way they almost always want to talk about race–passion and hysterics are an exception to a general rule. [...] Yes, I’ve seen individual whites get hysterical, but that’s been to the frowning consternation of the other whites in the room, who usually do all they can to calm that person down. I’m talking about a general white consensus for discussion of race; certainly individuals act as exceptions to the rule, as with any general rule or tendency.

    Macon D’s assertion about white versus non-white styles of communication were also criticized in “refuse to listen to black anger” and “hide their feelings about race behind a calm white mask”. However, Macon D dismissed these criticisms by missing the point and responding with irrelevant arguments.

    Another example is “sit quietly in movie theaters, and shush those who don’t (part one)”, where Macon D responds to a comment with (the person’s comment in italics):

    That sounds like I’ve just been stereotyped.

    It may well be that you’ve stereotyped yourself, by reading something into the post that isn’t there. [...]

    In a comment in a follow-up post, “sit quietly in movie theaters (part two)”, Macon D pseudo-apologizes:

    Restructure, I didn’t mean for that response to 911 to be dismissive, and 911, if you’re still reading, I apologize for wording my response in such a way that it could be interpreted as a dismissal. My point there was just to underline what I deal with more fully in this post–that nothing in the first post says anything at all about non-white people.

    These are just two examples, but I and commenters jw and Nquest made a blog called Stuff White People Say which has more examples of Macon D’s messed up quotes in the beginning posts. We made this blog in part because Macon D began censoring moderating comments on his blog that he feels are personal attacks.

  73. Bagel wrote:

    this is my first time on this website,directed here from jezebel.
    the reason i found the hasselback thing appalling is b/c she sentimentalized and thereby made the possibility of talking (and arguing) about a difficult topic impossible.
    by crying, she turned a serious issue into a therapy session (for her!), and also into an opportunity to be congratulated for her sensitivity and feelings.
    which is simply selfish and insanely offensive.

  74. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Flo –

    Calling out something that seems racist is fine. In the online world, this works a bit better than in real life. If I am unsure of something, or something hits me wrong, I can normally shoot an email to one of my friends who can join the conversations.

    In real life, it is harder. I can make the issue about myself (”look, it is not cool with me at all if you make racial slurs about Asians. I don’t care if you think it’s funny. I don’t. Yeah, your Asian friends might say it was fine, but I wouldn’t be able to face *my* Asian friends if I let that racist shit slide.”) or I can just state my case and let it stand (”Fine – you don’t think it’s racist, I do, we will have to agree to disagree.”)

    However, what I can NEVER do is tell another person of color how to feel about some of their own in-group stuff. (Then again, I hang out with racially aware people who may not necessarily get angry about racist representations, but won’t act like it isn’t there.)

    @Jaye –

    Actually, we didn’t cover it. Is the person saying racist bullshit in your group or out of your group?

    @Marbles –

    I want to understand people, and I want them to understand me, too. And I don’t really know how to go about making that happen, because there are so many emotional landmines laid out everywhere.

    These things become easier when you build trust. I am discussing that in post for “The Things We Do to Each Other” series.

    @Alyssa –

    I’ve seen minorities make terrible statements about the minority group that they are a part of. Just because you are one of “us” does not necessarily mean that you will speak without prejudice. On the same point, I’ve heard people who are part of the “them” group who are quite qualified to speak. I’ve had people who do not share my racial makeup articulate perfectly what I’m feeling.

    Yes, that is why I said it was complicated.

    I also understand your points about making mistakes, but I believe there is a difference between fucking up in good faith and bludgeoning someone to death with your opinions and trying to force them to explain why you are wrong, just so you could keep spouting the same bullshit back at them.

    Now, I am fairly hard-headed myself, and sometimes I need to sleep on things to come to a conclusion. But I am still very cautious when I step into someone else’s space. For example, being transsexual/intersexed. I read about three blogs that are about being
    trans/intersex but I generally don’t comment. Why? Because if I have a question, it’s probably been answered somewhere (like Holly’s trans101 thread on Feministe) and I’m probably rehashing old territory. If I have a real question I want an honest question to, that is one thing.

    But I notice people tend to use questions to make statements. So I could ask:

    “So, what is the problem with having two genders? Do we need to abolish gender entirely or are their other solutions being proposed?”

    Or I could ask:

    “What is the problem with having two genders? I think you people just want to take over and have a society full of weirdos and you’re oppressing *me* because I like to wear skirts and be girly and you’re trying to force me to do what I don’t want to do!”

    One is a good faith question, the other is a way to get in a dig at the host. (I get the second kind of question all the time.)

    So, asking questions and learning is important, but you don’t have the right to inflict your ignorance on someone else and try to force them to deal with it. Does that make sense?

    @LM –

    Oh, we don’t have a relationship. She asked for advice, described scenarios, and started getting frustrated because she was making these giant jumps in logic. She made those leaps with other things too – like if you approach a site for a cross-post, and they say no, that is it for infinity. Or those ideas of bridging the digital divide, without understanding that public libraries are a key place where the low-income people you are trying to reach come to use the internet. Stuff like that. And I don’t think this person has the patience to try to understand. Ah well.

  75. Silke wrote:

    I really have to disagree with this post. Coming from a ‘marginalized’ racial group still does not make you any more qualified to represent the sentiments of an entire group of people any more than these white commentators.

    Furthermore, I actually think it’s positive that people from a different racial group denounce what they see as racism. Race has been such an awkward and taboo subject in this society for so long. Is it really so negative that someone is trying to keep racism out of society? By labeling it as “presumptious”, you’re implying that they have no right to comment on the issue and thereby just creating more racial differences, paradoxically. It sounds like these commentators have gotten to a point where they no longer see that kind of difference and feel like they have every right, as people, to point out what they view as unfair treatment of other people. This post seems only to strive to redraw racial differences and reinforces an insider/outsider mentality.

  76. x0x wrote:

    Every time I read a blog like this, I want to write an essay on white privilege and how unwilling so many white people are to admit it exists.

  77. sdg1844 wrote:

    Great post by Tami and my first at Racialicious. I just wanted to chime in and say that while I can be outraged for others, I can not define the outrage for them. I can be offended, but I can’t tell them it should be offensive to them.

    I think this is how folks get confused. I think active listening is extremely important. In the case of Bobby Lee, I could check him out and say this dude is just not correct and have a discussion w/a Korean friend and ask Hey what’s your take on this guy?

  78. Jaye wrote:

    Wow, am I the only who goes through this? I definitely had a lot of friends growing up who were never outright racist, but would suggest certain things. A group of close friends were two Asian girls, a Filipino girl, and then another two girls who were WOC…the two Asian girls would often crack jokes about the Filipino girl’s dark complexion. They weren’t outright mean or racist, they were just little “friendly” digs here and there, and it wasn’t like the Filipino girl couldn’t stand up for herself, she definitely had a very forceful personality, but she wouldn’t say anything about these comments, I don’t know why. As I got older, I stopped hanging around those 3, and became closer to the other 2 WOC who would never dream of making comments like that…

    But it’s always been around me, maybe not my closest friends, but at least people I knew and saw regularly. No one even had to say it, 80% of my friends who are either men or women of color, if they date outside of their own race, it tends to be with white people, even though we all know a lot of people of other races. my closest friends don’t think that way, but in a group, eventually you’ll have someone make a casual comment they think is “funny” or they might even think it’s true. POC who are born here talk like that, POC from other countries talk like that…I’ve experienced this my entire life.

  79. Torontonian wrote:

    Torontonian, thanks for the links to macon d’s blog, but I think you’re not summarizing what he said accurately. His post is not about how Af Am men do or “don’t really shake hands.” He’s not generalizing presumptuously to the extent or in the way that you say he is–it doesn’t work as an example of what Tami’s talking about. I read it as he’s talking about another one of those standards that’s mostly white that most whites don’t realize, and the power that whites often have, even in those kinds of moments. There’s power in being or embodying the default.

    Yes, I know that his intention was to criticize whites enforcing a standard, but he’s making a leap from his personal observation (maybe he doesn’t see many non-white people in business contexts?) to what non-white people are thinking and preferring. First of all, his personal observation may reflect the racial segregation in his area, or the racism in his area that has few people of colour in professional positions. Secondly, you can’t find out people’s preferences without taking a survey or otherwise asking them. Thirdly, he’s generalizing from African American men to all non-white people. There’s just so many things wrong with how he gathers information about the world and draws conclusions. It’s just very bad empiricism, but he’s pretentious enough to think of his personal observation as racial knowledge to impart onto others.

    I also read the exchange you linked to with mquest, and again, it doesn’t work. Given what mquest wrote, I think macon’s response was/is fair, and certainly not a presumption on his part of black emotionality.

    How is it fair? Macon D’s claim about non-whites’ handshaking preference is based on nothing of substance except Macon D’s subjective opinion. Nquest, who is black, says that he does not think this way, and Nquest apparently does not think that black people in general think this way either. Macon D thinks that Nquest is wrong, because Macon D has watched hundreds of people shake hands, unlike Nquest and everyone else in the world, apparently.

    Anyway, he says he’s trained as white, as he puts it (I read his blog sometimes, and it’s usually great) and that he does make mistakes, but I don’t see the “presumptuousness” here that you’re blaming him for.

    Are you white? If you are not white, are you confused about which handshake to use when greeting white people, and do you feel repressed by the standard handshake?

  80. Bob Simpson wrote:

    This was one of those articles that I came back to several times because of the many complex and perplexing questions it raises.

    There are white people who are angered and offended by racist trash talk partly because they think it reflects badly on all white people which of course includes them . So if they don’t speak up, this puts them in the position of being silent enablers. Is this an extension of being offended on behalf of people of color also?

    Racial dynamics can so confusing.

  81. Kwan Hong Teoh wrote:

    The thing that drives me nuts about most all racial discussions is that preemptive need to justify one’s position. Explaining the incorrectness of what was said or done is not the hard part, it is the suggestion of a lack of sensitivity or accusation of disinterest in the offended person and/or race that is the touchy part.

    People should not be preempting a conversation with a listing of all the ethnic folks they know. Instead, they would find that the conversation would be more productive, and genuine, if it began with the bridging of their experiences to the other party’s. For example, i think your understanding of Bobby Lee’s stereotyped role to be negative for Asian male self imagine was right on. However, it would be awkward for you to explain how Asian males are emasculated in media to me. More importantly, I believe you wouldn’t ever feel that need to. The people who do such things, the ones who you are speaking about in this article aren’t actually speaking about race anyway. Rather it has to do with personal ego and that criticism of self importance through charity. The White Man’s Burden.

    Ironically I often think some people think I am the offender when I speak about issues affecting American, white, farmers. This is going to be an increasing problem for me as I pursue a career in that field, so it was insightful for me to have read and contemplated your article.

  82. Davita Cuttita wrote:

    Firstly, lemme say that I am so relieved you wrote this. I feel like a weight has dropped from my shoulders.

    Last week on my blog, I detailed how some White people (emphasis on “some”) in the fat acceptance movement use the Black experience (or other Coloured experiences) to bolster their cause. I tried to explain why I, as a Black girl find it offensive and why other POC may also find it offensive or hurtful as well: not because of their weight but because of how these comparisons tend to belittle and oversimplify the effects of racism.

    A real shitstorm started; lemme tell ya. A few people got the point but at times it was unbearable watching the White privilege and ignorance surface. People just wanting me to shut up and sit down because I mentioned the very topic you wrote about.

    I felt like I was going crazy. I felt…small.

    Thank you for posting this. Really…I feel like crying because someone finally understands.

    My comment probably seems really stupid but…

    ..for five minutes, I feel like the battle of wits and experiences is over. I know you’re a POC just like me but it’s just good to know that someone else sees this issue and is not afraid to discuss it.