As an example: let’s say I comment to someone that I assume that they like fried chicken. If they are black, it is possibly racist. If they are Korean, it is probably not racist. If I make that assumption BECAUSE they are black, it’s probably racist. If I make that assumption because I think fried chicken is awesome and I figure that everyone likes fried chicken, then it might be perceived as racist when in fact it is not (bearing in mind that a lot of people have no idea that a “black people like fried chicken” stereotype even exists).

So if one *chooses* to refuse the definition of Racism (or Sexism or Able-ism or Cis-genderism, etc), then the discussion over whether something or someone is racist, etc. is f*cked from the get-go. Because the person not honoring *the* definition is, *by* definition, a bigot. 

Aren’t ands, if, or buts about it.

My point is that while there are some areas that are *obviously* racism, there are many areas that are debatable, and need to be defined as racist by social consensus. Even more than that, there are facts and statistics that can be used for racist ends, but are not themselves racist, and we need to be able to distinguish which someone is doing when they discuss them. Initially, saying that a view is racist needs to be a statement of opinion on that view, not a hard indisputable fact declared by the accuser, and not a deeper judgment on the accused’s character.

Because if that model is achieved, it is much *less* hostile to label something racist, and therefore much *easier* to correct people on their actual racism.

If you say “I think that statement is racist, and why” and I say “I think it isn’t, and why” – we can come to an understanding, and I may change my mind. If you say “your argument is invalid because you are racist” I’m going to say “screw you, I’m going home.” And if you’re right, I don’t learn anything. And if you’re wrong, you drove me away needlessly by calling names.

One thought I would add to his commentary is that someone can be racist,
but that doesn’t mean they are a “bad” person. I can understand not
wanting to outright call someone racist for the sake of trying to have
meaningful dialogue regarding racism and prejudice, yet at the same time
I feel we then reach the conundrum of there being lots of people saying
and doing racist things but there being no named racists. When there
are no “racists” people seem to believe racism is not a problem anymore
(“I’m not racist but…”). I’ve come across many white people who seem
to think being called a racist is worse than actually doing racist
things. We need to redefine the word from the extreme and limited
definition it has had in recent years.

Jay Smooth is a very articulate & personable speaker. I agree with him that the “tonsillectomy” concept about removing racism isn’t valid. Racism isn’t something that is totally removed at one given point in time. 

I believe that the dental hygiene analogy is more valid , except for the burden that Jay Smooth seems to put on someone else telling the person that she (or he) needs to brush her (or his) teeth, or the burden that Jay Smooth seems to put on someone else telling the person that she (or he) has something caught in her (or his) teeth. Continuing with that dental hygiene analogy, people should know when their teeth need brushing just because of how their teeth feel. And, continuing with that analogy, most of the time, people know when they have something caught in their teeth because they can feel it, and it doesn’t feel comfortable. I’d love for people to take more responsibility for their own dental hygiene.

However, when people say or do or write something racist, they may not be aware of it. So then, the burden does fall on someone else to point out to them that what thy have said, or done, or wrote is racist. Often, given the way the world is, that burden falls most heavily on members of the race or ethnic group which has been directly targeted by that racism. (Of course, we could substitute sexual orientation, gender, class, religion, nationality, etc for race). 

But-on this blog for example- when a person points out to the moderators that “you have something caught in your teeth” almost always there is NO response from those moderators.

Or some other bloggers will jump to the defense of those moderators (for one reason or another)  and (continuing the dental hygiene analogy) will write that “No they don’t have anything stuck in their teeth” and/or No one else noticed that the person has something in her (or his) teeth so you must be imagining things. Other reactions on this blog and elsewhere are “Aren’t you rude to suggest that a person has something stuck in her teeth!” , and/or “No there’s nothing wrong with her teeth. You’re the one who has dirty teeth.”  Furthermore, on this blog and elsewhere-still continuing with the “you have something stuck in your teeth analogy”, another response to someone pointing that out is to say “You’re obsessed with the topic of clean teeth (because) you’re  always telling people that they need to do a better job of cleaning their teeth.” 

It seems to me that often people either really don’t see “the food stuck in another person’s teeth” or they think the food is supposed to be stuck in that person’s teeth, because their teeth also has food stuck in them. After all, it’s usually part of appropriate societal behavior to act like you don’t see the food stuck in another person’s (or your own) teeth. This reaction might be similar to seeing a man you don’t know whose pants zipper is down. The usual societal reaction wouldn’t be to go up to him and tell him “Zip up your pants”. This is particularly true if it’s a female who notices that a male’s zipper is down. You just pretend that you don’t see it. Maybe a male can accept another male telling him that his fly is open, but a woman telling him that? That puts him in an awkward and embarrassing situation. In the same sense, maybe people of the same race are more accepting of someone from their race telling them that what they said or did is racist than people from other races telling them the same thing. 

My bottom line is that I would be more inclined to believe that the moderators of this blog really were interested in open discussions about race & racism if they engaged in  discussions with bloggers here rather than just published post after post about race and racism.