willful and not-so-willful ignorance

[novapsyche]

3 in 10 Americans admit to racial bias | comments attached to article

---

I ended up going to the party (I wanted to promote my poetry, but I never ended up doing so, although I did show my chapbook to J., the host).

T., a gentleman in his 50s, took an immediate interest in me, and we got to talking about various things. However, he kept bringing up assumptions. For example, when I told him I grew up in Belleville, he asked if my father had worked in the auto factories. T. let it be known that he grew up on the south side of Chicago (I immediately thought of that clip I just talked about this week).

When we were downstairs listening to music (something contemporary was on), he went out of his way to get J. to change the music to James Brown. The three of us were talking, so at one point I asked them this question (with the caveat that I didn't mean anything bad about this, I just wanted to ask the question):

Why is it, when a black person is involved in a conversation in a majority of white people, that certain white people will mention a black person of status?

I went on to say that this was a phenomenon that may be more prevalent now since Barack Obama has won the Democratic ticket. Yet, I'd seen this behavior often for the last two years. (T. said, "Two?" and I nodded.)

Then they both said that they liked the music of the 70s, and I said I love jazz and funk music, too. It was a synthesis of sound. J. said, "Well, I could talk about the Beatles." (I didn't mention at that point that the Beatles themselves had acknowledged that they had taken the style of black music of that era and sold it back to middle-class Americans.) I brought up the fact that I'd dated someone from Iowa who sincerely felt that funk music was a joke. Where he had come from, it was something to ridicule.

T. said that he really liked Stevie Wonder. Then he said, "It's not like he's a Mozart," and then chastised himself for saying what he did.

For the rest of the night, J. kept asking me about George Washington Carver, Prince, Marcus Garvey, just for kicks. (I truly hope he doesn't keep up that joke. If he does, I will have to find out how to get him back.)

It is something I've noticed lately, though. I spoke about this with yellowmouser to some extent. Once, when we were at Tios, people were talking about tennis, and someone really had to reach to include Venus and Serena Williams. We were talking about a completely different era of tennis (Pete Sampras, Steffi Graf).

I don't know how to address those situations, where there are people who seem to want to "include" me (or other non-majority persons) in the conversation. They perhaps are well-intentioned. But really it is another way that their racism is showing.

I think the only way to address it is to use the pointed question, as I did last night.

Comments

[laureth.livejournal.com]

If I were to have a conversation with someone I know to be a sports fan, I might include references to anything sportsy I'd heard recently. (How about those Wings?) Or, if someone was wearing a hand knit sweater, I might mention that I spin yarn.

However, if I didn't know anything about a person, yet I wanted to converse with them or be friendly, there is not as much to go on. Sometimes, all there is to know (especially for the less observant) is the painfully obvious stuff.

You could always ask them about Richard Nixon, Sting, or or Aldous Huxley.

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

There are women who try to strike up conversations with me by talking about sports -- which I'm mostly not interested in. Because, of course, all men are interested in sports.

At one time, Marxist-Leninists who knew I was interested in science fiction but who themselves weren't would bring up Jack London's sf. (For the past couple of decades, the Marxist-Leninists I've known outside my family have been sf readers.)

My thoughts: Don't take for granted that someone who belongs to a particular group is "of course" interested in certain things.

Tangent: Something from a conversation a while ago: -"People told me that the Baptist church near the University of Minnesota was liberal; but I figured yeah, how liberal could a Baptist church be? That was before I found out the pastor was a lesbian."

[laureth.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree about not making automatic assumptions like that. I think what I was trying to say, although it didn't sound as clear as I'd hoped, was that it may just be generally-friendly yet clueless people who are doing the best they can. It doesn't make them right. It's just sad that the one thing they can pick out is the race thing, because that makes them racist - instead of just well-meaning.

Since the same thing happened to you with sports, would that be sexism? If someone, looking at me and noting I was in the neighborhood of 30-something, asked me about 80's music, is that ageism? Again, I don't think so - it's just people looking for something to talk about, and starting with something that previous experience (or presumption) has led them to believe is true, instead of saying, "Hi, what do you like, so we can talk about it?"

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Since the same thing happened to you with sports, would that be sexism?

That's absolutely sexism. However, that is not to be confused with misandry, which is a hatred of men. Prejudging someone does not mean that you hate them. Hate comes from fear; prejudice comes from ignorance.

If someone, looking at me and noting I was in the neighborhood of 30-something, asked me about 80's music, is that ageism?

To an extent, yes. Who would assume that anyone of any age likes a particular strain of music? However, it would not be presumptuous to believe that someone likes music. So instead of coming up to someone in their 30s and saying "So, remember Cyndi Lauper?", a new acquaintance might say "So, what music do you like?" and progress from there. Some people like pop, some reggae, some Celtic, etc., and it is ridiculous to try to peg someone's musical tastes based on their appearance.

[vaxjedi]

Racism has weird expressions. I think that there is a sister to white guilt: white paranoia. Specifically the paranoia that we white people might unknowingly be racist or say some racist thing.

That comes with a feeling that every minority is looking at you like you are the enemy. "I have might have White Privilege! Oh no, that makes me a Bad Person(tm)! Get it off! Get it off!"

So it's overcompensation. "If I talk about cool black people, I can show that I'm not racist! I've got to prove that I'm not a Bad Person(tm)!"

It's really not all that dissimilar to, whenever a feminist argument comes up, a bunch of men respond with "Hey, some of us are nice guys!" There are a lot of people who just want to prove that they are not jerks. And, unfortunately, awkwardness leads them to doing racist things.

It seems to me there are two types of racism - one based in hatred and one based in ignorance. I think the latter is more common.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

You make very good points.

It just seems to me that the overcompensation of which you speak may lend more awkwardness to a situation than relieve it.

It's the difference (to go with your sexism analogy) between a guy saying, "You know, one thing that always has bothered me about Western culture is the power imbalance between men and women," and another going, "You're a woman--what do you think about feminism?" The latter implies that men don't talk about feminism unless there is a woman present--that it's not an issue until the "problem" inserts itself into a situation (i.e., that difference is made visible).

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

I can think of times when I have done this. It was well intentioned, but I was trying to show off my liberality.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

But instead of doing that, why not talk about the ideas that liberals share, instead of picking out token representatives?

[brendand.livejournal.com]

I understand your point, but I think a good way to show one is current with news is to use a current example. Now, James Brown is not a good example, but Obama is... although I'm sure there are all kinds of people who have become (in)famous more recently than Obama.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I think a good way to show one is current with news is to use a current example.

I understand that. I'm not saying, if one talks about this year's election, that one go out of one's way to talk around Obama's statuses, of which race is one. However, it is another thing entirely to be speaking about a current issue in politics with someone of a different status (in this instance, race) than oneself for one to then deliberately bring up someone of that status as a topic of conversation if that someone does not bear upon the original subject in a pertinent way.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

Well, that is complex. And some of it may be perception-oriented. Honestly, Barack comes up in conversations I am in almost every day, so I am not at all surprised he comes up in yours, regardless of your race.

But I realize you were just using him for an example. Depending on how they go about it (admiringly, for example), it may be like my mentioning that my grandmother is/was gay.

It is, in a sense, a 'cludgey' technique, but it is still an effective method of saying, "I believe I think well of something you identify as." Now, my grandma had a huge role in shaping me, so it isn't a contrivance that she comes up a lot. Even so, I have seen new friends who are gay visibly relax when they realize that I have family that I admire that is gay.

So perhaps the white folk are just trying to say, "I'm no racist." (Which may or may not be true in fact, I realize).

If it is the other way, challenging a black person in power, it could be passive-aggressive needling.

We have no control over our initial circumstances, including our race. As such, I think there is no doubt that you will run into people who, in a sense, want to apologize for their position, or point out that they respect yours.

I'm curious as to how conscious these things usually are (unlike T, who seemed to grill you about all of black-kind), and whether they apply to other minority states, or even to other aspects, like redheads.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I understand what you mean, that relating certain stories reveals that one is an ally towards another's causes. At the same time, there are appropriate times when certain subjects are discussed as well as inappropriate ones. For example, today I went to the post office and I noticed that someone in a wheelchair was entering. I believe (although I hesitated) that it was appropriate for me to hold the door for her. It would have been inappropriate for me to have blurted out, "My grandmother was an amputee."

Or, say you're talking with friends, one of whom happens to be homosexual. Would you out of the blue turn to that person and say, "So, I think Ellen Degeneres' marriage is groundbreaking" or "Cheney is a fuck for not supporting gay rights, considering his daughter"? And would you continue to point out certain famous gay people, even when the subject matter changed? That is the behavior I'm calling out.

We have no control over our initial circumstances, including our race. As such, I think there is no doubt that you will run into people who, in a sense, want to apologize for their position, or point out that they respect yours.

I understand, and of course in certain contexts and circumstances would welcome that sentiment. It is the expression of such, however, that signifies sensitivity, and it is the sensitivity of certain subjects that is paramount.

One may be well-meaning and still be a clod.

[atdt1991.livejournal.com]

*giggle* Erm, no, neither of those would be appropriate. I know you asked a question and then gave the context that made you ask it, but I was more or less just answering the question as it pertained to me.

I think it can be universally applied, in the sense that upon meeting someone, I rarely wish to discuss my sexuality outright, nor do I want to have my sexuality constantly pointed out to me. I would also feel very awkward and uncomfortable if someone were repeatedly pointing out my race, directly or indirectly.

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

you should just tell everyone you are a poet. That way they can make references to poems they don't know anything about instead of black people they have no clue about.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Heh. I'd love to discuss poetry seriously with anyone who was interested. (Although, if they only brought up Langston Hughes, Wendell Berry, Lucille Clifton, Maya Angelou, Nikki Giovanni and Rita Dove [among others], I'd be in the same position as I was in the first place.)

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

I always make it a point to bring up O.J. Simpson in any conversation with people who have murdered their spouse and gotten away with it. I want them to know I feel comfortable discussing this touchy subject. ;)

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I know you're trying to make a joke, dear, but I don't feel your analogy is accurate.

For example, you have two people--let's say for the same of discussion, they are Americans of the same class, educational, and religious backgrounds. One happens to be white, one black. If they were speaking about child molestation, and then the white person brings up Michael Jackson, that is an instance of bringing up race in a conversation where race need not have been highlighted. Surely, in this day and age, the troubles of the Catholic church have had a more widespread cultural influence than the exploits (true or not) of one token representative of that group. It is the choice of tangent that operates as a signal. It is a matter of pigeonholing; it is a method of demarcation.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

That's why I picked O.J., though he's really a default spouse killer in my mind. My co-worker said Steven Grant popped into mind first, apparently a Michigan murderer, don't recall his name.

I suspect part of the effect you're noticing is subconscious, at least for some people. I know other people do this for the reason you state, pigeonholing.

This fits into the wider discussion of prejudice. We're prejudiced towards things and people who are like us, at least in certain ways. People try to use this concept to influence others. I've noted that "phony" people will use obvious ploys. I can't tell you the number of times people have asked me for a cigarette. I guess long hair must equal smoker.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Well, there are stereotypes, prejudices, and biases. I would say that people tend to be biased towards people who are like themselves. A person may or may not have prejudices about people who are not like hirself.

Bias can go either toward or against things. Prejudice is almost always against something. Bias and prejudice, while they have similar roots, mean very different things. You can have a double-blind study to reduce bias in an experiment, but even the question that leads to the null hypothesis comes from bias. Bias you cannot completely get rid of, although you may mitigate it.

Prejudice is another thing altogether. Many people are prejudiced against garter snakes, because they were taught that all snakes are dangerous. When you explain to the person in question that garter snakes have neither poison nor constricting muscles, that may completely eliminate the prejudice.

The people who ask you for cigarettes are stereotyping you. Long hair (on men) in our society is seen as anti-establishment. Your long hair may often be seen as a signal (or a symbol) to others.

And O.J. as the default spouse killer? Why not any of the other huge contemporary cases (Peterson) we've had in the last decade? Or, the ultimate American criminal that caused uproar in this country, Lizzie Borden?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Err, scratch that. Peterson was caught (however, he too was a spouse murderer). Borden didn't kill a spouse.

Phil Hartman was murdered by his spouse (although that was a murder-suicide).

The O.J. trial should be classified under "famous people who escaped criminal penalty despite much evidence to the contrary". There are many more in that category.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

I think his case was burned into memory by association. Sarah and I were on our great Western adventure. We were tent camping and staying with relatives in Kansas, and New Mexico. I still remember seeing O.J.'s Bronco on the news at a bar we went to with my brother in Kansas. We had no clue what was going on at the time.