Point, Counter Fucking Point, you idiots
Published by R. Mildred June 20th, 2006 in RacismI made this comment over at Pandagon:
You are not allowed to feel.
Not allowed to care.
Not allowed to react.
Not allowed to have an opinion.Unless it’s first vetted by someone with privelage.
They know what’s discriminatory or not, after all, they’re the ones dishing it out in the first place.
one of the many racist apologists, called Chris, then said this:
did you ever stop to consider how much of your post applies to the people you’re arguing with on this thread?
My reply ballooned like a fad diet on a super model, here it is:
I did actually, I thought “hmm, white people are trying to tell nubian that she’s only allowed to be offended by sheet wearing KKKers burning crosses on her lawn, and nothing less because then it’s just “insensitive” and not as bad as being defined primarily by her skin color, and having this dehumanizing act shoved into her face against her will.”
I know I know, you meant “but aren’t white people the real victims here, for having to actually take into account the 300+ years of society wide, deeply ingrained, racism that still permeates, as nubian has clearly shown us, modern society, in our everyday interactions with POC?” but that’s bullshit, I give a fuck about the feelings of other people, this means that I better have a better reason than “It wouldn’t offend me if something comparable was said to me” before I tell anyone that they don’t know what is or isn’t oppressive to them, because you know what? If something like that is said to me it suddenly becomes free and untainted by the context of 300+ years of dehumanizing racism. And oddly enough, the same thing happens to your pasty white ass too.
You don’t know the context of what you’re speaking, because you’re white, and by your (and everyone else’s) rather obviously fake attempts to assert that this po’ (of brain) white woman was merely making a highly rational and scientific question regarding the theoretical variable heat absorbant qualities of human flesh with differing melanine concentrations, you show yourselves to be uninteresting in finding out why, precisely, nubian is saying that this bullshit enquiry was racist, and much more interesting in finding some sneaky ass and deeply disengenuous way to pretend that racism isn’t still so widely ingrained into white conciousness that it actually does enter into even casual interactions between whites and POC, which just happens to involve the deeply dehumanizing poo-pooing of valid feelings and opinions held by a black person in the bargain.
If it wasn’t racist before, it is now, and it was racist before btw, being compared to a coat, and being called a non-mammalian skin tone (because stupid ass white woman forgot that human beings self regulate their body temperature, which is the first reason why it’s a stupid question) in the process IS racist, even if it wasn’t a concious act with the intention to oppress, it was still an act of oppression, worse even because it was so casual and made the racism involved seem almost passably normative to an ignorant fool who was unaware of how bad racism is and has been in modern society.
Being deconstructed by the patriarchy down to my genitalia can ruin an overwise wonderful day, which is no doubt similar to what happened to Nubian, and that dehumanizing sensation is horrible, and it cannot be denied so readily by a member of the oppressive class involved.
It’s really fucking amazing what the racial equivalent to masculine homosocial bonding can lead people to defend. Really fucking amazing.
In case anyone is still unclear of the difference between racist and not racist questions, “Are black people warm blooded?” and “Do black people have to eat live animals or else they’re unable to digest the food?” are racist. In fact any question that begins with “do/are black people…” and is about physiology, and not culture or upbringing, is generally racist in nature. You can tell because such questions imply that black people are not quite human like Us light skinned folk.
Not that there weren’t morons on that thread, but, please, people evaluate whether others are right to be offended all the damn time.
Remember those dickweeds who were offended that gay people showed up at the White House Easter Egg roll?
Oh Shit! I just judged whether somebody had the right to be offended! I’m so sorry, they were offended, and that’s all that matters. I’ll send them a message of support right away.
(BTW - I understand why Nubian was offended and she was right to be. But the fact that you characterised questioning offense to be a racist thing that we never do with anybody else pissed me off.)
But the fact that you characterised questioning offense to be a racist thing that we never do with anybody else pissed me off.
Oh give me strength, you’re going to cling to the word “never”, aren’t you? “how dare you say we NEVER do something! Whine whine”, no, the point is not that we never do it to whites, because like in the homobigots case, they some times actually deserve it, the point is that white folk feel free and willing to engage in entirely vacuous and nonsensical defenses of racism, and in fact play pretend that the question wasn’t racist, because it was a serious academic question with real scientific merit and bullshit like that.
Would that have happened to a white person, would several dozen black people have presumed to tell a white person that, oh no, they’re just too sensitive about it, and that there’s really nothing wrong with it? No. Why? Because we still live in a racist society, and in a racist society, the majority feels compelled to tell the minorities and oppressed groups how they feel and think and how they should react and what it’s okay to react to.
The whole deconstruction of the homobigots feelings of offense tended amount to nothing more complex than “fuck off and leave the homosexuals alone to raise their kids”. Complex deconstuctions were some what lacking in fact, as were logically stupid defenses of the homosexuals feelings. And of course, many people in freeper land did defend the homobigots’ right to tell homosexuals they should die, and did in fact presume to be able to disallow the homosexuals any actual ability to lvoe their chldren like parents, going so far as to call the parents pedophiles actually.
So even your stupid example provides an excellent example of an oppressive majority oppressing minorities by denying they are allowed to feel what they feel.
Boy, Christopher. Anything but give up an ounce of privilege.
I get how the original question was racist on two levels. However, I do have a question about how, as you said:
In fact any question that begins with “do/are black people…” and is about physiology, and not culture or upbringing, is generally racist in nature. You can tell because such questions imply that black people are not quite human like Us light skinned folk.
Just to clarify, you’re saying “Are black people more likely than white people to develop keloids from the same type of scarring?” is a racist question, and that “Does a particular combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine have a more significant effect on black people with congestive heart failure than on non-black people with congestive heart failure?” is a racist question?
Is it less racist to say, “Are white people less likely than black people to develop keloids from the same type of scarring?”, or to say “Does a particular combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine have a less significant effect on non-black people with congestive heart failure than on black people with congestive heart failure?”
Don’t questions about “culture and upbringing” have the potential to assume a great deal more? Wouldn’t statements like, “Hey, you! You’re black, evaluate the musical merits of Emimem as a rap artist for me.” fall into that category? (Actually, this point is pretty much a red herring, as you didn’t say that “culture and upbringing” questions were inherently nonracist. I’d still like to know what you think, though.)
Or am I reading this entirely wrongly, and you’re not claiming it’s racist to ask these questions, only to pick some random black person off the street and say, “You! Represent everybody who, to me, resembles you!”?
Just to clarify, you’re saying “Are black people more likely than white people to develop keloids from the same type of scarring?” is a racist question, and that “Does a particular combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine have a more significant effect on black people with congestive heart failure than on non-black people with congestive heart failure?” is a racist question?
Yes, actually.
You’ve lumped everyone on earth who has the same skin tone as an african-american into a single group which is NOT homogenous (even the skin tone isn’t), the congestive heart failure treatment does work better for some africans and african-americans who take the treatment, however it is not a treatment that is equally effective across all the genetic groups represented by people with high melanine concentrations in their skin. Even just the ones found in the americas, let alone africa.
So it’s okay to tell people whether it’s all right to be offended, but only if they’re in the majority, like the Christian bigots?
So if the KKK tells the rest of us we have no right to be offended by them that’s a completely resonable thing?
Or is it just that whenever YOU decide somebody is wrong to be offended, it’s automatically right?
I don’t disagree with what you said in your response here, but look at the post you quote up there, as well as your first response to the thread; have absolutely fuck all to do with the fact that the attempts to justify the offensive remark were imbecilic; You’re calling people racists simply because they try to determine whether other people are right to be offended at something.
And that’s stupid and hypocritical. At least 40% of Punkassblog and Pandagon is devoted to telling fundies, MRAs and other assorted morons that their feelings don’t matter and that they’re idiots for being offended.
Look, were the defenses of that remark stupid? Yes.
And that’s the problem; the fact that the criticisms were idiotic. The simple fact that people criticised her isn’t the problem.
At least 40% of Punkassblog and Pandagon is devoted to telling fundies, MRAs and other assorted morons that their feelings don’t matter and that they’re idiots for being offended.
Very interesting observation. However, I submit that there is a monumental chasm of difference between someone being offended by the very existence of another human being (up to and including the denial of said other’s very humanity), and someone being offended by such reactionary emotions.
From what I’ve seen, Punkassblog and Pandagon don’t tell the bigots that their feelings “don’t matter” as much as they criticize the ignorance, intolerance, and general wrongheadedness from which those feelings emanate. While they use some grade-A snark and a heapin’ helpin’ of vitriol in the process, the important thing is that they aren’t just whining about harmless name-calling: the kind of ‘feelings’ they rail against have a way of working their way into our nation’s laws (thereby relegating some of us to 2nd-class citizenship, and so forth).
If R. Mildred errs angrily on the side of caution while lashing out at perceived apologists for racism, I can hardly fault her. Jim Crow wouldn’t have lasted so long if not for the decent ‘non-racists’ who were slow to anger in the face of their more belligerent countrymen’s more overt bigotry.