05.26.05
Posted in politics, life at 9:02 pm by
It’s taken me a few days to calm down enough to craft a response to my latest troll. He wrote in response to my Blockbuster/racism post. Here are his thoughts:
Um yeah, actually you ARE making a mountain out of a molehill. I can imagine your giddy self righteous glee as you sherlock holmesed this travesty of the American melting pot. its a stupid sign about the safe. It certainly wasn’t printed by anyone at that Blockbuster so why hassle them?
Furthmore,when contacting them, be sure to mention what a hypocrite you are, in that you are opposed to doing business with them, except that you love CSI: Miami (BIG TIME), and are more than will to ignore your convictions to get ahold of crappy crime show spinoffs.
At first, the unadultered rage I felt was so acute, all I could muster was this (albeit appropriate, I feel) response:
Dear Pete,
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
That is all.
Still, his thoughts require, no, demand even more deconstruction than I offered above.
First, as Kari mentioned in her comment in the previous post, racism isn’t essentially intentional. That is, the intentionality of racist acts is not a necessary condition of a person being a racist. She’s right, of course. It’s one of my pet peeves when I hear white folk say, “I’m not a racist or anything.” Or, “I’m not being racist, but…” Invariably, these are things that white people say around other white people, because they know they’re going to say something that’s racist.
My other pet peeve is when white folk talk about not being racists at all. As if there’s some card carrying club of white racists and as long as you’re not a Nazi or some other form of skin-head, well, then you’re fine. I think that’s bullshit.
I am a racist. I hate it, of course. I hate the racist parts of me, and I will continue to hate those parts of me. Those racist parts of myself, are, of course, worth hating. I’ve been raised in a culture (namely, American white culture) where racism is a part of the very fabric of the way things work. I suppose it might be possible for a white person not to be a racist–I just haven’t met many. When many white folks talk about not ‘being racists’ they’re merely trying to express the fact that they want to pay lip service to equality.
It’s the right answer, of course. Kind of like answering, “Jesus” when you were 5 years old in Sunday school. The right thing to say is that you’re not a racist, that you think equality is important. I imagine if you ask the commenter from above, Pete, if he was a racist–he’d probably say no.
In saying no, many white folks simply mean that they aren’t agents of blatantly bigoted racial attitudes. In short, they don’t want to be associated with Hitler. The problem is, they’re right. There are very few Hitler-esque Klanspeople running around any longer. However, these type of people aren’t the problem.
Unintentional racism is a powerful force today. Those types of actions, procedures, and policies that go un-checked, un-questioned, and un-thought about. Everyone has stereo-types. If we think the end of racism is the end of all stereo-typing, I’m afraid we’re looking the wrong direction.
Anyway, back to the point. I’d like to take Pete’s comment, at least for a while, at face value. I propose that y’all ask any friends you have about the photo. I figure that if Pete is right, if I was making a mountain out of a molehill, no-one should care about the multi-lingual sign.
So, while this little investigation is the farthest thing from an empirical investigation free from all bias, I still think it’s an interesting little excercize. Feel free to pass the above photo around to friends, explain the situation, and ask, “mountain or molehill.”
Feel free to post your replies. Of course, I realize few minds will change from such an excercize. If you think molehill before, you’ll likely think ‘molehill’ after. Nonetheless, I’m willing to submit my theory to some rudimentary form of verification.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/26/on_racism/trackback/
Posted in politics, life at 9:02 pm by
It’s taken me a few days to calm down enough to craft a response to my latest troll. He wrote in response to my Blockbuster/racism post. Here are his thoughts:
Um yeah, actually you ARE making a mountain out of a molehill. I can imagine your giddy self righteous glee as you sherlock holmesed this travesty of the American melting pot. its a stupid sign about the safe. It certainly wasn’t printed by anyone at that Blockbuster so why hassle them?
Furthmore,when contacting them, be sure to mention what a hypocrite you are, in that you are opposed to doing business with them, except that you love CSI: Miami (BIG TIME), and are more than will to ignore your convictions to get ahold of crappy crime show spinoffs.
At first, the unadultered rage I felt was so acute, all I could muster was this (albeit appropriate, I feel) response:
Dear Pete,
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
That is all.
Still, his thoughts require, no, demand even more deconstruction than I offered above.
First, as Kari mentioned in her comment in the previous post, racism isn’t essentially intentional. That is, the intentionality of racist acts is not a necessary condition of a person being a racist. She’s right, of course. It’s one of my pet peeves when I hear white folk say, “I’m not a racist or anything.” Or, “I’m not being racist, but…” Invariably, these are things that white people say around other white people, because they know they’re going to say something that’s racist.
My other pet peeve is when white folk talk about not being racists at all. As if there’s some card carrying club of white racists and as long as you’re not a Nazi or some other form of skin-head, well, then you’re fine. I think that’s bullshit.
I am a racist. I hate it, of course. I hate the racist parts of me, and I will continue to hate those parts of me. Those racist parts of myself, are, of course, worth hating. I’ve been raised in a culture (namely, American white culture) where racism is a part of the very fabric of the way things work. I suppose it might be possible for a white person not to be a racist–I just haven’t met many. When many white folks talk about not ‘being racists’ they’re merely trying to express the fact that they want to pay lip service to equality.
It’s the right answer, of course. Kind of like answering, “Jesus” when you were 5 years old in Sunday school. The right thing to say is that you’re not a racist, that you think equality is important. I imagine if you ask the commenter from above, Pete, if he was a racist–he’d probably say no.
In saying no, many white folks simply mean that they aren’t agents of blatantly bigoted racial attitudes. In short, they don’t want to be associated with Hitler. The problem is, they’re right. There are very few Hitler-esque Klanspeople running around any longer. However, these type of people aren’t the problem.
Unintentional racism is a powerful force today. Those types of actions, procedures, and policies that go un-checked, un-questioned, and un-thought about. Everyone has stereo-types. If we think the end of racism is the end of all stereo-typing, I’m afraid we’re looking the wrong direction.
Anyway, back to the point. I’d like to take Pete’s comment, at least for a while, at face value. I propose that y’all ask any friends you have about the photo. I figure that if Pete is right, if I was making a mountain out of a molehill, no-one should care about the multi-lingual sign.
So, while this little investigation is the farthest thing from an empirical investigation free from all bias, I still think it’s an interesting little excercize. Feel free to pass the above photo around to friends, explain the situation, and ask, “mountain or molehill.”
Feel free to post your replies. Of course, I realize few minds will change from such an excercize. If you think molehill before, you’ll likely think ‘molehill’ after. Nonetheless, I’m willing to submit my theory to some rudimentary form of verification.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/26/on_racism/trackback/
Chris said,
May 27, 2005 at 12:13 am
Some people are afraid to confront minutae.
Racism isn’t always experienced in blunt, obvious ways. The blunt, obvious racism is, of course, the easiest to
hide. I hate it when I find myself having a racist thought, but it is never about anything major or is it ever communicated explicitly and verbally. It is usually a petty incident here, a miscommunication there, a hidden prejudice that comes to the surface.
Power isn’t always forthwright in it’s application. It is often so subsumed under the banner of “manners” and “precaution” that it is hard to isolate as a feeling. But it is there.
ty said,
May 27, 2005 at 12:32 am
nice comeback, b. excellent usage of verbage.
skillz…
Audrey said,
May 27, 2005 at 12:51 am
Actually, Brandon that sign alone doesn’t do it, because it’s the context that clarifies the xenophobic nature of the sign.
The only bilingual sign in the store is the one on the door announcing that the safe is controlled on a time-delay device. That is a critical piece of information not provided by the image.
Audrey
rick said,
May 27, 2005 at 1:30 am
Nice post. Have you seen CRASH yet? It is a powerful movie that I suspect you will love. It proves your point. Oh, please, never lose you edge. It inspires me.
Peace,
Rick
Jacob said,
May 27, 2005 at 4:04 am
A couple of years ago, I noticed that Continental Airlines had different ticket jackets for coach and first class. Coach showed a Latino man wearing the headphones and coveralls of a guy working on the tarmac. First class showed a patronly, white-haired, white pilot in his uniform. Do I think Continental Airlines is intentionall y or actively racist? I do not. I also don’t think Blockbuster is actively or maliciously racist. Clearly though, Blockbuster and Continental use their corporate media to send a message, and they are not paying enough attention to the message they’re sending. The important thing is not to ask for or expect a serious corporate response, but to instead deal with the thing at a micro level. That’s what you’re doing here, by telling other people about it, so we can all discuss it, then we can tell people, etc., etc. You must be the change, small group of committed people, and all that.
Brandon said,
May 27, 2005 at 8:37 am
You’re correct, Audrey. In order to clarify the photo, it is important to specify that this sign was the ONLY bi-lingual sign.
zalm said,
May 27, 2005 at 4:57 pm
As a graphic designer, I have to make photo decisions like the one Jacob describes. And let me tell you, it can be hard. Because the photos are there to communicate something. Sometimes it’s a more abstract characteristic or value that the client wants to associate themselves with. Sometimes it’s more clearly aimed at attracting a particular kind of customer. And having spent hours on end searching for the right stock photo, I can tell you that choices can be limited by budget and usage rights and a host of other factors.
I’d love to be able to use photos that anyone could identify with. But most of the time, you don’t have the luxury of showing a melting pot. Sometimes you can only show one person.
When a client says, “I don’t like this photograph,” it’s partly my job to unpack that statement so that I can suggest one that might work better. Usually, I can only go so far in determining motivation. Occasionally, I’ve had clients who I’m pretty certain force me to choose certain photos based on race. But most often, we’re choosing one photo over another because the expression on the person’s face is more positive or the photo is more striking in the composition of the brochure.
Like Brandon says, I’m sure I bring my own racial biases to play in my work, as hard as I try not to. I wish I could just pick photos of people and not have to worry about how people respond to race.
Anyhow, since someone brought it up, I thought I’d share the perspective of someone who is charged with creating these materials.
Streak said,
May 28, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Good post. I think that this is even more about language than you suggested. I think it has to do with the way we have defined certain “sins” that everyone assumes are bad. Racism has become mostly defined as open hatred for other races, yet as you clearly say, racism is often a lot of small things. And we are all capable of it.
That kind of definition creep has happened with greed as well. It now is only greed when someone is a Howard Hughes type, or Monty Burns from the Simpsons. Because if we were to talk about greed in all its guises, it would be a constant discussion about advertising and modern consumption.
Anyway, good post and good response to the troll. I liked the first draft as well!
christine said,
May 29, 2005 at 3:25 pm
lovely post. you’ve probably already read peggy mcintosh’s article “white privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack,” but in case you haven’t, check it out on my
saturday, march 12th entry. I think you’ll like it.
LAmom said,
May 30, 2005 at 12:24 am
I don’t think that a person necessarily needs to call themselves a racist just because they have not completely broken free from the influences of our racist culture. To me, being an “-ist” means that you are devoted to an “-ism”. That would mean that you don’t see anything wrong with those racist ideas. The people you refer to who say “I’m not a racist, but . . .” are trying to justify their feelings. If you’re trying shake off those feelings, I don’t think you’re a racist.
Also, I agree with Rick about CRASH. Great movie.
lee said,
May 31, 2005 at 11:53 am
brandon,
i had already run this one by my wife after your first post for her thoughts. once i pointed out that it was the only bilingual sign in the store, she quickly agreed that it was suspicious at best and pointed to a subtle (or not-so) institutional rascism.
so there’s my empirical data for your poll,
-lee
Liz said,
June 2, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Hi Brandon. I’m from LA, where things are increasingly multi-lingual and multi-cultural. My question is, is the sign new? I’ve noticed that as Americans are more aware of our international make-up, our communication styles are changing (although sometimes it’s more of a PR trick than an attempt to be genuinely helpful). Maybe the other areas of the store just haven’t been updated yet.
Jack said,
June 9, 2005 at 5:08 pm
I think that you really are looking for an issue where there isn’t one. I’m British, and have a different outlook on things. The way I see things here is that it really pisses me off that people come to live in England, and then don’t speak English!!! However that is the case with a lot of people here, especially in London. Such is the extent of foreigners living here and not integrating that an ex-soldier was told that he couldn’t be a police officer because the Tattoo of the Union Jack on his arm could lead to racial issues!!! Now if an ex-American soldier was told he couldn’t join the police because he had a stars and stripes on his arm then the public of the USA would go absolutely mad, and rightly so.
Getting back to the point though, if a blockbuster’s here has its signs in different languages inside then that would bug me. I live in an English speaking country the language should be written in English. However I am happy to accept that on any form of warning and safety signs, having more than one language is appropriate. Would you have complained if it was a fire safety notice?
The simple issue is if there were one hundred English speaking people that read that sign and were deterred from attacking an employee, and only one Hispanic deterred from attacking an employee then having the bilingual sign is wholly appropriate, because it has served its purpose.
Jack
Sean said,
June 10, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Come on guys. With all due respect, are we really getting worked up over a sign most of us can’t even read? In case you missed it, our general population has more pressing issues to deal with than a sign at Blockbuster. How about you all do YOUR part and find a recruiter. CNN says 5 marines died today…..I think five of you might just about make up for that huh? The clock is ticking. Make a difference.
Brandon said,
June 12, 2005 at 8:33 am
More pressing issues…hmmm…what’s more pressing than racism? And why must we relegate ourselves to tackling just one at a time?
Kent said,
June 13, 2005 at 12:09 am
I think the observation that this is the only bi-lingual sign in the store is the key. Otherwise it is just another sign, with no meaning beyond the obvious literal text.
Even with this key fact in mind, is it a mountain or a molehill? Perhaps a molehill, but still the conversation it prompts is one critical to our nation and to each of us as individuals.
Even after years of living in a multi-cultural world, and sharing my life and home with people of various races and ethnic backroungs; I find in myself subtle (and sometimes, not so subtle, racism). I find it to be a spiritual struggle, calling on God to more and more transform my mind, to view all people through God’s eyes.
Beyond the spiritual struggle, I’ve made the most progress, viewing personal, institutional and national racism thorugh the eyes of people of color. Understanding the animosity of a young black man to police, based upon his experience. Fighting to remove the asian student from an ESL program, in which he has been placed entirely based upon racial grounds, not language skills. Empathizing with my niece who faces the “friendly” racism of unreturned calls after a job application.
It is all infuriating, and we must as individuals and as a nation find ways to have an open dialogue and seek reconciliation and healing.
Enough for a first post!
David said,
June 17, 2005 at 5:47 pm
I’ll put on a racist hat for this post. I’ll assume that the sign was racist. So, the next question is why. Businesses are driven by economics. Not morality. Individuals within a business have moral responsibility and some of that may cary over over to the responsibility of the business itself (which might be an interesting question by itself). But, I suggest that in a truely capitolist sense, a business is driven purely economic drive.
If a sign that costs X dollars prevents Y dollars worth of theft (including money lost to reputation), then the sign is worth it if X is less than Y. If it costs A to have signs all over the store for PigLatin speakers (readers?), and they make B dollars from PigLatin speakers, then it is only worthwhile if A less than B. So if it can be demonstrated that given the number of hispanic speakers in the area, it is not economically beneficial to advertise (have spanish signs) for hispanics, then it it not worthwhile. However, someone interested in robbing a store may not go to the closest and most convenient store (likely a store they do not regularly attend). Therefore, if there are hispanics (even if we assume every race has the same mix of people willing to hold up the store) in the larger region, it may be beneficial to have the sign.
The question may really be how to encourage businesses to avoid racist actions when it is not econimically beneficial. Talking to the manager is just one small part. How can you avoid such actions in the future? I appoligise for my directness, but I find phrases like “open dialogue”, “reconciliation and healing” to be rather vague and rhetorical.
How much money can morality buy? How much morality can money buy?
– not so much of a badass son of a preacher man.
Melinda Zappone said,
July 16, 2005 at 12:11 pm
In response to the comment, “are we really getting worked up over a sign most of us can’t even read?” I have to wonder what country you are living in? Spanish is the second most common language in the United States. In 2000, about 27.8 million people (or 10.5% of the population) over the age of five spoke Spanish at home, and just under half could not speak English very well. In addition to that, Spanish speakers make up about 63 percent of people in the U.S. who do not speak English very well.
Clearly for the “general population” it is a “pressing issue”, especially when taking into consideration that in 2000, Hispanics were the largest minority group, numbering 35.3 million individuals, slightly larger than the African American population (34.7 million). I hope you are around in 20 years because, by the year 2025, Hispanic Americans will account for 18 percent of the U.S. population, then we will see what issues are pressing for YOU, you may just be in the minority in your state or community! By 2050, if current demographic trends continue, the Hispanic population will almost triple; and one out of every four “Americans” will be classified as Hispanic.
How dare you criticize someone elses clear feeling that this issue is pressing for them, would you appreciate that response to your concern in regard to the death of Marines? People of another race, gender, age, sexual orientation, culture, socioeconomic status, etc., do not CHOOSE to take that role, and that is important to emphasize. So while this may not be a “pressing issue” to you, please do not invalidate the feelings of others, you never know when you could be in the minority and need people who care enough to ask the questions that make multicultural society possible.
cadre said,
July 31, 2005 at 9:01 pm
The question is - Are all whites racist and if so what can be done to remedy it? Embrace your disease…it’s only natural.
http://www.nsm88radio.com
Ty said,
March 17, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Is that racist too? English is the nation’s official language and the 2nd most poular language is Spanish. I’m not sure what pamphlets/signage you were looking at but they almsot all have Spanish on them because people thought it was racist not to have it on. Whatever stuff doesn’t have it, there are alternates for Spanish speakers.
benjamin said,
March 17, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Apparently, St. Patrick’s Day is a Holy Day Of Obligation in the troll religion.
Brandon said,
March 18, 2006 at 12:08 am
he he he. Evidently. I had a two-fer today!