Everyone's a little bit racist

[neonchameleon]

A recent musing on sexism caused me to remember one part of my experience in South America I was ashamed of at the time. Whenever in Brazil or Argentina an indigenous American approached me and started a conversation, I knew he was going to ask me for money. If it was a Latin American who started the conversation, I knew he was going to ask for money if and only if he had started out by calling me "Amigo". Therefore I found myself hoping that the indigenous Americans would not speak to me because I knew he was going to ask me for money. This, in the time I was in those countries was 100% accurate. But it meant that I found myself hoping that I would not be talked to by people of a certain ethnic group.


[Poll #766747]

[Part 1 of a 2 part post]

Comments

[shreena.livejournal.com]

I think some of it depends on what that behaviour is. When an Indian man whom I don't know approaches me, pretty much 100% of the time he's about to be very sleazy and around 50% of the time (if I'm alone) he will start to follow me/stalk me/annoy me. Especially if it's late at night, I think it's perfectly justifiable for my own safety that I avoid eye contact with Indian men/don't sit near them on public transport/etc. Another question you might want to ask is: is it racist if this is done towards members of your own race? ;)

is it racist to...?

[(Anonymous)]

The closing question is fairly stupid; a 'no-brainer'. Does your post do anything other than enhance any reader's nominal conception of asian males as sleazy? I'm not arguing for silence on the issue. But for anyone interested in understanding how such behaviour came about, it will be obvious that propogating the notion simplistically in the way you do adds its own dynamic in making it far worse. It's pretty sad to explain this to someone who has not the excuse of being isolated from the objects of their casual disdain. Even for someone so lacking in introspection, has it ocurred to you how the asians you DO know act in your absence? Is it your wondrous presence that renders them unsleazy? Or do you simply happen to already be acquainted with the great majority of non-sleazy asians?

[glamwhorebunni.livejournal.com]

Ah, it's the big question, isn't it? I had similar thoughts when I was in China, where people all tended to hold similar views on certain topics. Was it then racist to predict that future discussions would follow a similar path? Yes. Of course. Was it sensible? Quite possibly. But then where do you draw the line? And so on. It's all confusing.

My approach is not to worry about it.

[pyesetz]

It is "racist" to expect behavior based on genetics.  It is "morally wrong" to refuse to accept evidence that an individual is not behaving as expected.

Another distinction: did everyone who asked you for money actually hope that you would give them some?  In my interactions with American Blacks, a significant number of them eventually ask me for money, but at least in some cases they clearly don't really expect me to give them any—it's just something you say to a person who has already decided he doesn't want to talk to you.  I almost never get this from white people I've decided not to talk to, so sometimes I wonder whether it's some kind of racial epithet that I ought to be offended by.

If a Brazilian Indian asks you for money *because you're white*, rather than *because you're so obviously richer than he*, then it is the Indian who is the racist.

[midnightmelody.livejournal.com]

I think the Race Relations Act (1976) covers most immoral racism: "to treat someone less favourably because of the colour of their skin, their race, their nationality or their ethnic or national origin."

"Treating someone less favourably" is obviously a horrible thing to define, hence my difficulties with the poll, but it does make it slightly easier to judge whether any particular incident is morally wrong.

Pragmatically*, I think it's OK to use prior experience to judge certain situations, which may include use of stereotypes that 'discriminate' between (though not against) certain races, sexes etc. I think that becomes morally wrong when there is neglect in (1) using the available evidence about an individual (2) collecting evidence where reasonable. That means that our moral duty is in testing our assumptions wherever that's reasonably possible.

Eg I might plan a forces lesson for a new tutee based on an assumption that 'boys tend to know more than girls about cars, and be more interested in them'. I think that I have a duty to assess the tutee at the beginning of the lesson, and make changes if he cares naught for cars. If I were planning worship for a particular ethnic group of 200 people, and couldn't reasonably contact them in advance, I would draw from their cultural tradition despite not knowing whether they would appreciate this. In both cases, a mismatch based on racist assumptions would be 'treating them less favourably' because of their race/sex. I can't see any way to get around this without treating everyone exactly the same, which seems both silly and impractical.

*Yes, I do *know* the word. I just don't like it.