Think of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and you'll understand the problem with throwing around phrases like "everyone's a racist,"

If we use JC's definition in #94, this analogy works on some level. I think it fails completely if we use mine. Again, we all understand each other, so I'm not going to argue the semantics.

So let me change my statement to say this: I don't think it does. I think acknowledging (should you think it is true) that everyone has some sort of prejudice or what-have-you and that no one is truly "color blind", (EDIT) does not greatly enough mitigate your ability to censure "real" racism to offset the benefit received from the acknowledgment.

Concisely: To me, the acknowledgment is a net positive thing.

In real life, Jeff, do you want to blur the distinction between an obvious racist (a Jesse Helms) and the garden variety human being who isn't completely color blind? Is that sort of nuanced view helpful in 99% of public discussions?

I suppose it's useful in a way to acknowledge that we're all affected by the racist air that we breathe, but again, think of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The effect of pursuing this argument outside of an academic setting is that you're going to quickly be lumped with the Sharptons, and just as quickly dismissed out of hand.

But in practice what this means is that E-X has to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining that he has a far different definition of "racist" than most everyone else. I find his actual thoughts on the subject of race quite reasonable and nuanced, but in many cases it takes about a dozen back-and-forths before it's all that clear what he really does think. This is often a particular problem if you're reading his posts for the first time.

I'd rather avoid this, but since my views are being discussed at length without me, I'd toss in a few words.

At the risk of starting another 2000 post flame war on race, I'd like to point out that this is only a risk in certain circles. It's a problem I run into when I cross cultural-ethnic communities. It's well worth it to do so, but that's why it happens. There's plenty of settings where my definition is the accepted one and yours would not be.

These are the same circles in which we discuss the problems with the OED definition and why it sucks, and then look at the myriad definitions that others have come up with.

You might disagree with that, and that's fine. We've all had this discussion about 12 times, and my only objection is that people continue to bring this up like anyone who doesn't agree with their definition and views on race is a complete moron. You know, like implying that I'm a shitty teacher because I don't agree with exactly what they say. What do you call it when someone who has very little experience in a challenging setting attacks the integrity of those who bust their asses for others? I don't know, but it seems a step down from comparing SAT scores.

Personally, I'll judge only on the contributions people make to address issues of race in the society. And I mean that--whether they agree with me or are on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. Demonization accomplishes nothing.

The only problem with that is that in many, many cases you're making either/or judgments of people based on incomplete information. Not to mention that there are many competing definitions of the term.

I don't think there are many definitions of the term so much as, and maybe this is what you mean, there are many different interpretations of the behaviors that count one as a racist.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Sorry if it wasn't clear. And again, I think that the problem with E-X's approach is not so much that's it's strictly "incorrect"; it's that it leads to so many discussions getting bogged down in semantics.

Jeff: I accept that there are "worse" racists than others, but to me that's more like saying there are worse rabid dogs than others than saying "all dogs are kinda rabid, it's on a continuum."

This is a total side point, but, if you do agree that there are "worse" racists, then you agree that it is not binary. The lightbulb analogy is not perfect here, but it's pretty damn close: One bulb cannot be "more on" than another. There are two states, on and off, with no shading in between.

This means nothing in the bigger scheme, I just wanted to hash that out.

If you think, for instance, Obama's mom is racist b/c she crossed the street upon seeing a large black man, I submit you are misusing the term.

I acknowledge your submission, but I would submit that that would not be misusing the term, assuming that: she doesn't do this for large white men in general, and she did this solely because of the skin color/race of that man.

person, iow, must be shown to be a racist, and I think this is one of the significant differences in looking at it the way the definition requires and looking at it in the "continuum everyone's a racist sorta" way.

That's true. This sort of goes along with a lot of what I see here in race threads--the idea that racism, or race-based attitudes, or remarks that some may see as racially insensitive, are a "crime" of sorts, so we have to see "proof" of it before we can talk about it in relation to an individual. I disagree with the concept of racism being a sort of "crime" (unless of course one commits an actual crime based on it), but I understand it in practice, given the societal attitude towards racially-charged actions and utterances.

In real life, Jeff, do you want to blur the distinction between an obvious racist (a Jesse Helms) and the garden variety human being who isn't completely color blind? Is that sort of nuanced view helpful in 99% of public discussions?

Yeah, I think it is. Almost every time I have had to bust up fights between students (adults as well--I have taught some rough dudes) of different races, in the heat of the moment, the epithets started flying. So, are those guys "racists" or not? Now, the obvious answer is "Well, it depends." So, I think acknowledging that there is a continuum, both in terms of feeling/attitude, and in terms of how much damage one can and does do, is important.

This sort of goes along with a lot of what I see here in race threads--the idea that racism, or race-based attitudes, or remarks that some may see as racially insensitive, are a "crime" of sorts, so we have to see "proof" of it before we can talk about it in relation to an individual. I disagree with the concept of racism being a sort of "crime" (unless of course one commits an actual crime based on it), but I understand it in practice, given the societal attitude towards racially-charged actions and utterances.

A very good insight, and what you're describing fits in with the whole "gotcha" mentality, where every discussion becomes a schoolyard fight, and where everyone gets put into little categories. I'd rather leave that sort of approach to the political and ideological websites.

In real life, Jeff, do you want to blur the distinction between an obvious racist (a Jesse Helms) and the garden variety human being who isn't completely color blind? Is that sort of nuanced view helpful in 99% of public discussions?

Yeah, I think it is. Almost every time I have had to bust up fights between students (adults as well--I have taught some rough dudes) of different races, in the heat of the moment, the epithets started flying. So, are those guys "racists" or not? Now, the obvious answer is "Well, it depends." So, I think acknowledging that there is a contiuum, both in terms of feeling/attitude, and in terms of how much damage one can and does do, is important.

But as a teacher, robin, you (and E-X) are talking about specific contexts that don't relate to the other 99% of public discussions about race. Okay, maybe only 90%. But most of the time it's just the dittoheads against the Sharptons, two groups trying to "win" a debate by buying bigger batteries for their megaphones. It's just noise.

In real life, Jeff, do you want to blur the distinction between an obvious racist (a Jesse Helms) and the garden variety human being who isn't completely color blind? Is that sort of nuanced view helpful in 99% of public discussions?

I believe that it is. I believe that it's more helpful to realize that everyone has some sort of prejudice (again, which meets my definition of the term racism) than it is harmful to introduce the nuance. For any number of reasons, one (not necessarily the most important) being that I believe it is nigh impossible to treat the problem of prejudice if you don't fully acknowledge its scope.

The effect of pursuing this argument outside of an academic setting is that you're going to quickly be lumped with the Sharptons, and just as quickly dismissed out of hand.

I only discuss politics, religion, and race with people that I feel capable of communicating effectively with. This encompasses my ability to understand their nuance, and their ability to understand mine, at least enough to have the discussion. Someone who would dismiss me out of hand because I delved into nuance is not someone I would discuss this with, nor would their dismissal of me mean anything to me. As, to be perfectly honest, none of those (politics somewhat excepted) are all *that* important to me, this does not really affect me. I can live with only being able to discuss them with a small subset of people.

I think that the problem with E-X's approach is not so much that's it's strictly "incorrect"; it's that it leads to so many discussions getting bogged down in semantics.

You can acknowledge and recognize semantic differences and still have a functional discussion. We couldn't if either of our goals was to convince the other we were right and "convert" them to our side, but that's certainly not my goal, and I highly doubt it's yours, either.

I think the more nuanced definition helps a great deal when dealing with analyzing Cobb and historical situations:

1. It's obviously not true to say "Everyone was racist in such-and-such time". That assumes a really high level of ethnocentrism.

2. That being said, people are on the conscious level, individuals of complete agency.

3. On the subconscious level, people are usual rules by the mores and cultural context of their society.

So Cobb could have woken up any day and seen a different way of looking at things--there's no essential nature of race, people are equal, etc. It seems like sometimes he did something close to that. However, he was still a product of his society.

So he holds some responsibility for not attempting to rise to complete agency and respecting everyone else on that level.

How many people succeed at that? Jesus? Buddha?

So when I say that everyone's racist on some level, I mean that we have the same tunnel vision that prevents absolute empathy when we don't exert ourselves to love and respect others and their perspectives.

Is that horrible? No, not really. Do we have a responsibility to strive to improve? Absolutely. Do I blame people when they don't succeed at that all the time? No.

I do get frustrated when people say stuff like, "You can't hold people responsible for things they don't intend" on issues of race. After all, we do so in nearly every other area. We spend most of our life learning to control and tame various unintentional behaviors of ours. We don't say, "Well, he doesn't WANT to be an alcoholic! That's good enough for me!" We don't demonize, but we help treat, and nurture.

But as a teacher, robin, you (and E-X) are talking about specific contexts that don't relate to the other 99% of public discussions about race. Okay, maybe only 90%. But most of the time it's just the dittoheads against the Sharptons, two groups trying to "win" a debate by buying bigger batteries for their megaphones. It's just noise.

And I'd argue that our view holds more utility for a large majority of the people in the country. There are certainly more people raised in the environments I teach in than in the environment I went to high school in.

The problem is not that with our style of discussion--it's that the societal elite have no use for our discourse. I don't mean people like JC--who is just sincerely convinced that I'm an idiot, and I respect sincerity.

The people running the political and media arenas gain nothing from fostering real discussions on issues of race.

The strict definition encourages the type of shouting over each other that only the super-privileged--whatever their ethnic background are likely to feel good about. After all, Al Sharpton doesn't actually need any real racial progress to succeed at what he does. That's why on any substantive issue of race, he's usually damaging his own communities (see charter schools and gentrification).

The people running the political and media arenas gain nothing from fostering real discussions on issues of race.

Take the words "of race" off the end of that sentence.

Which is why I have zero interest in how increased nuance affect Limbaugh or Sharpton's ability to discuss an issue. If it helps them, great. If it hurts them, couldn't care less. I may be very socially liberal, but I don't listen to Sharpton any more than I do Limbaugh.

Right now my problem isn't with either of you (E-X or Jeff). Right now my problem is the Eastern Time Zone. I'll be glad to continue this tomorrow.

I don't mean people like JC--who is just sincerely convinced that I'm an idiot

No, to me being an idiot is a lot like being a racist, and the jury's still out on that.

I think you continue to misuse terms. If you want to say, in plain common English, that people are knowingly and unknowingly influenced by racism, I'll say, "Absolutely!" If you then say, "Well, then, those people are racist on some level" or, worse, and what you've said in the past, "Everyone's a racist to some extent", I'll say, "No, they're not."

And, for even more precision, if you say, "ALL people are knowingly and unknowingly influenced by racism by which I mean discriminating based on race to the disadvantage of those whom they believe of inferior races" I'll say, "No, that's not true, either."

Finally: Will there be some point in your posting career where you drop the presumptions about others' experiences and the chest-beating about your own, b/c I find ironic and off-putting your constant reference to your superior epistemological P.O.V. ("I've busted my ass in challenging settings and you never have!!")?

Hey, wow, a great thread accidentally broke out here. I honestly didn't expect that (I was thinking it would run off the rails into the typical BTF political hackery). Props to Wesley Fricks for showing up to participate, too.

And I think Mr. Fricks is also owed an apology by those who accused him of plagiarism.

"ALL people are knowingly and unknowingly influenced by racism by which I mean discriminating based on race to the disadvantage of those whom they believe of inferior races" I'll say, "No, that's not true, either."

I would say that's not true, as well, because of the belief of inferior races. However, I (and I think E-X, though I won't speak for him) don't feel that's an inherent part of the definition of the term "racist". You can characterize that as "misuse" of the term, I would simply say that we disagree on the definition.

Finally: Will there be some point in your posting career where you drop the presumptions about others' experiences and the chest-beating about your own, b/c I find ironic and off-putting your constant reference to your superior epistemological P.O.V. ("I've busted my ass in challenging settings and you never have!!")?

Simply a miscommunication: I don't believe that you've busted your ass in the same situations that I have. I'm quite sure that you've busted your ass in other situations that I haven't, and I respect that. I don't talk about how you must be a shitty lawyer, father, or friend because you don't agree with me. I'd hope that you would grant me the same respect.

I would say that's not true, as well, because of the belief of inferior races. However, I (and I think E-X, though I won't speak for him) don't feel that's an inherent part of the definition of the term "racist". You can characterize that as "misuse" of the term, I would simply say that we disagree on the definition.

Yes. I agree entirely.

When I call you a shitty teacher, or imply that you are, please do correct me.

I would say that's not true, as well, because of the belief of inferior races. However, I (and I think E-X, though I won't speak for him) don't feel that's an inherent part of the definition of the term "racist". You can characterize that as "misuse" of the term, I would simply say that we disagree on the definition.


Yes. I agree entirely.

I don't understand this. A racist doesn't believe in the superiority of (almost always, I assume) his race?

Just to be clear, rr et al: 2Alous statement is as stupid and false as it was when Eraser said it. Not everyone is a racist.

I love you too.

Does "racism" not mean something like the belief that (a) there are races, and (b) that race determines certain characteristics and (c) that one of these races is superior to others? Is not a racist therefore someone who subscribes to these beliefs?

Yes, it means that. And by that definition not everyone is racist, far from it, and it's a binary thing. But racism has more than one meaning, at least in common parlance. Racism at times is used to mean (1) racism as an ideology, (2) behaviour that intentionally discriminates on the grounds of race, (3) behaviour that unintentionally discriminates on the grounds of race, and (4) prejudice on the grounds of race. I think we all have certain prejudices, some stronger than others. But prejudices which aren't acted on are totally harmless, and I don't think that everyone - or indeed most people - act on these prejudices. If you want you can say that only "strong" prejudices count as racism in sense (4), and I'd probably agree, which is why I used the weasel words "to some extent."

If we bring this back to the matter at hand, it is by no means clear that Cobb was a racist in sense (1). Indeed the 1952 AP story quoted would say quite the opposite. Nor do I think he's being accused of being a racist in sense (2) - it's not that Cobb was attacking people for being black, or only attacking black people, or whatever. To the extent that people are calling Cobb racist, it's that he was (4) racist leading to (3) racism. Look at the incidents being mentioned against Cobb. They are all basically Cobb feeling that his honour has been slighted - the chambermaid "sassing" him, the shopkeeper questioning his wife's word, the worker insulting him when he stepped into the freshly poured asphalt, etc. And so Cobb gets angry and responds with violence. The reason we're calling this racist as opposed to merely thuggish is because there's a pattern here where Cobb appears to have a shorter fuse with black people than with white. i.e. his prejudice is what turned these incidents into violence instead of being laughed off as a misunderstanding. And that's why I said what I said (perhaps sloppily) - sure Cobb was prejudiced, but there's enough prejudice to go around.

The guy has an argument as the greatest player of all time. That ought to weigh far more, in a baseball sense, than if he got in some fights.

I don't understand this. A racist doesn't believe in the superiority of (almost always, I assume) his race?

To my mind? He may or may not. Certainly if someone believes their race to be superior, I believe they are a racist. But I don't think believing their race is superior (or any race is inherently superior or inferior) is necessary to be racist.

Got to line up with JC again. Of course, as residents of the US, we're influenced by our racist history, those of us of European descent both ethnically and culturally are going to have swallowed some 'superiorist' views, and nearly all of us are going to have bumped up against overt racism to some extent if we've lived in any multiracial context.

But holding up '100% race/color-blind' as some sort of non-racist ideal is absurd. It's like pretending that both the sky and the grass are the same color, or coming up with some treatment to neutralize the color-sensitivity of our eyes. Recognizing difference and then living with it should be the goal, not some pretend liberalism that only affects social mores and buries real perception.

Having said all that, some xenophobia may be biologically inherent in homo sapiens. I have no problem recognizing that as a reality, but racism is a historical, cultural construct developed to justify the subjugation of the brown-skinned peoples of the planet.

I don't think leveling these distinctions does anything more than confuse the issue.

A racist doesn't believe in the superiority of (almost always, I assume) his race?

"A racist" probably does. But in the way Jeff K and E-X are using the term "racist (adj/adv)", it refers to any kind of discriminatory action, conscious or subconscious, that's based on the perception of race, regardless of intent or moral values.

In other words, while Jeff K and E-X certainly believe "racist = bad", they are not using the term in the popular "racist = evil" way.

But holding up '100% race/color-blind' as some sort of non-racist ideal is absurd.

I'm not holding that up as an attainable ideal. If society reaches a point where the only kind of racism left is that people recognize that there are differences between the races, such as hair type or whatever, then the term racism can lose its negative connotation. Until then, in my opinion, it does more good to use the expansive definition that includes those observations (without remotely saying that we need to anything about them) than the more restrictive definition that JC and Andy prefer. As a result of that, I don't think it's wrong to say that "everyone is a little bit racist, and there are degrees (or E-X's continuum)". JC's preferred definition and belief leads him to believe that that is a wrong statement. I don't even disagree that, using his definition, it's wrong.

racist... refers to any kind of discriminatory action, conscious or subconscious, that's based on the perception of race, regardless of intent or moral values.

The rightwing has found much value in this kind of ahistorical definition, using it to argue against remedies of past discrimination, and to level charges of racism against people who distinguish between human prejudice and a historic white racism that has had devastating cultural and economic impact upon people of color in the world.

I'm sure this is neither the intent nor the desired outcome of either Jeff or Eraser, but I think its a very real result of reducing social/political reality to the merely personal.

Until then, in my opinion, it does more good to use the expansive definition that includes those observations (without remotely saying that we need to anything about them) than the more restrictive definition that JC and Andy prefer.

That's exactly my problem -- that definition accepts racism as the status quo and offers no challenge to its historical fact, offers no political action to alter the social terrain.

I've got to retire tonight; by the time I return, I'm afraid this point may be lost in hundreds of posts. Still, I'll look forward to Eraser's response.

Well, then I guess I do disagree. I believe a person either is, or is not, a racist. Much as I believe a person is, or is not, an anti-semite.

JC, I'm virulently opposed to E-X's version of reality in which he defines racism such that it encompasses everyone, then hurls around the word just to get a reaction, and then smirks and says, "Who, me?" when people call him on it, but you don't really believe what you just wrote, do you?

I mean, the stereotypical guy who would freak out if his daughter wanted to marry one -- is he a racist? Even if he's okay with casual friendships with black people? What about the guy who would hire the black guy from Harvard, but given two similar mediocre candidates will hire the white guy every time, on the grounds that blacks are usually not up to snuff? What about the guy who joins Aryan Nation or a similar organization? Are they all racist? How about the guy who thinks black people are clearly inferior but still deserving of the same legal rights as everyone else? (I speak, of course, of Abraham Lincoln.) Regardless of what word one uses for them, is it really helpful to refuse to distinguish between them?

This is a total side point, but, if you do agree that there are "worse" racists, then you agree that it is not binary. The lightbulb analogy is not perfect here, but it's pretty damn close: One bulb cannot be "more on" than another. There are two states, on and off, with no shading in between.

You don't have dimmer switches where you live?

Until then, in my opinion, it does more good to use the expansive definition that includes those observations (without remotely saying that we need to anything about them) than the more restrictive definition that JC and Andy prefer.

That's exactly my problem -- that definition accepts racism as the status quo and offers no challenge to its historical fact, offers no political action to alter the social terrain.

I've got to retire tonight; by the time I return, I'm afraid this point may be lost in hundreds of posts. Still, I'll look forward to Eraser's response.

I agree entirely, and wouldn't have included the bolded section. We'd have to ask Jeff, though--I don't think he was arguing against anti-racist action, it seems more likely he was arguing against the type of snap judgment of others based on those observations as they tend to alienate rather than lead to real change.

In other words, I think he was arguing that we must understand how the typical observations of race can easily synergize with subconscious stereotypes that populate our society. However, it does nothing to scare people into pretending that they do not nothing race whatsoever.

So you are not that far apart.

In terms of comparing and contrasting our perspectives, I'd just say that nurturing your ability to control your responses to both your conscious and subconscious conceptions of race can be a goal without accepting some color blind ideal.

In fact, it's quite the opposite--one must acknowledge race in order to actual observe and address one's own subconscious decision making on these issues. I cannot understand all of my responses to interacting with an African American person, or Mormon, or art welder, without first understanding how I categorize people as I interact in our society.

So I'm not arguing against anti-racist action--quite the opposite, I think any action must include self-critique and growth as well as societal action and change. That's why I find quasi-liberals who see race as a struggle to out the evil in everyone else except themselves to be pompous and not very helpful at making things better. I merely see it as a healthy part of learning, growing and living in the society.

I also apologize if it seems like I am being self-congratulatory in these threads. I merely state the work I'm doing, and expect that others are doing their own work. I am not smug, not self-satisfied on these issues, and if that's the why it comes across, I blame my own communicative inadequacies.

I merely will state that I am extremely active at addressing the issues of race in the society on a whole mess of levels, and see concrete success in these pursuits, and I am not really interested in comparing the level of those successes with others in a competitive way.

I am interested in exchanging those successes so I can learn and teach and we can all get better at what we are doing.

JC, I'm virulently opposed to E-X's version of reality in which he defines racism such that it encompasses everyone, then hurls around the word just to get a reaction, and then smirks and says, "Who, me?" when people call him on it, but you don't really believe what you just wrote, do you?

Yup. I don't do that. Oh well. Enjoy your shadowboxing. The last dozen or so times this has come up, I haven't used the term at all before somebody just enters me into the thread and says what they think I believe. You certainly get pissy (and rightly so) when people do the same to you.

There seems to be an acceptance in this article that Cobb should be memorialised, especially if it can be proven he's not a racist.

Why? There's plenty of evidence he wasn't a nice person. Do we memorialise people just because they were very good at something, even if they had no redeeming character features? I do not believe, for example, that we need the Mike Tyson Sports Center, the Ike Turner Arena and the Roman Polanski Film School.

Cobb was a true sporting great, but he wasn't a great human being, regardless of whether he was racist or not. And if you are a "bad person" (however we define that), you probably don't need memorialised. It might still happen, but it probably isn't worth fighting for, especially if it's just based on how good he was at his job.

Until then, in my opinion, it does more good to use the expansive definition that includes those observations (without remotely saying that we need to anything about them) than the more restrictive definition that JC and Andy prefer.

That's exactly my problem -- that definition accepts racism as the status quo and offers no challenge to its historical fact, offers no political action to alter the social terrain.

I'm going to bed, but please read the sentence right before the one which starts your quote of me. "Them" refers to observations that there *are* differences between races, completely benign observations, like one race typically has a different hair type than another. Under my definition, that still counts as racism, and I recognize that. As I said, if we get to a point where those are the only things that happen that qualify, we can remove the negative connotation of the word racism and just accept that unless we lie to ourselves and say every race and ethinicity is blonde and blue-eyed, there are racial differences. It's a bit silly to label that racism, but again as I said, I see more benefit in the expansive definition that includes those, which we don't have to deal with, rather than the restrictive definition that leaves things out.

The rightwing has found much value in this kind of ahistorical definition, using it to argue against remedies of past discrimination, and to level charges of racism against people who distinguish between human prejudice and a historic white racism that has had devastating cultural and economic impact upon people of color in the world.

I'm sure this is neither the intent nor the desired outcome of either Jeff or Eraser, but I think its a very real result of reducing social/political reality to the merely personal.

Certainly not an intent or desired outcome of mine, but I can't help if others take the same position that I do in order to misuse and obfuscate, of course. Fostering true, intelligent discussion of race, regardless of which definition you choose, would go most of the way to eradicating these sorts of things.

You don't have dimmer switches where you live?

Damn you, DMN. That's why I said the analogy wasn't perfect, of course. But it's easy to understand, and I couldn't think of a better one.

In other words, I think he was arguing that we must understand how the typical observations of race can easily synergize with subconscious stereotypes that populate our society.

In part. I'm also saying that on one level, there's no difference between an objective observation (hey, that guy has different hair...wait, most black people have a different type of hair than me) and "white power", and I do think it's important to note that, if only to recognize potential problems with remedies and to note that I see and acknowledge potential flaws in my own argument.

There seems to be an acceptance in this article that Cobb should be memorialised, especially if it can be proven he's not a racist.

Why? There's plenty of evidence he wasn't a nice person. Do we memorialise people just because they were very good at something, even if they had no redeeming character features? I do not believe, for example, that we need the Mike Tyson Sports Center, the Ike Turner Arena and the Roman Polanski Film School.

A patently reasonable argument. It does open the door of "How not nice a person does it take", of course.

Just wanted to jump in and say that, in all my readings of the Negro Leagues, I've never seen or heard mention of Ty Cobb playing against blacks after the Cuban trip. His reason for not doing so can be debtated, but I'd be surprised if evidence of his competing against black teams after Cuba were to pop up all of a sudden.

In part. I'm also saying that on one level, there's no difference between an objective observation (hey, that guy has different hair...wait, most black people have a different type of hair than me) and "white power", and I do think it's important to note that, if only to recognize potential problems with remedies and to note that I see and acknowledge potential flaws in my own argument.

I must confess that I can't see any "level" on which there's "no difference" between "black people have darker skin than white people" and "white power."

It does open the door of "How not nice a person does it take", of course.

That crack in the door is what this is all about, right?

Just wanted to jump in and say that, in all my readings of the Negro Leagues, I've never seen or heard mention of Ty Cobb playing against blacks after the Cuban trip. His reason for not doing so can be debtated, but I'd be surprised if evidence of his competing against black teams after Cuba were to pop up all of a sudden.

Neither Holway nor the Reach or Spalding Guides make any mention of Cobb playing in any series against the Cubans other than 1910. The Tigers as a team played a postseason series there in 1909 (and lost 8 of 12), but without Cobb or Crawford. And in 1922 and 1923, when Cobb was a playing manager, the Tigers played again, but Cobb ducked the challenge.

You might even infer from the circumstances of the 1910 series that Cobb wasn't exactly thrilled about playing in it. It was only after the Tigers had played seven games that he finally showed up. And though he hit well (.368), he apparently only tried to steal one base.

Holway writes:

One report says Cobb was so angry that he stomped off the field, vowing never to play blacks again. He never did. But [John Henry] Lloyd insisted that "Cobb was a good fellow, on and off the field."

A contemporary Cobb story:

Baltimore Afro-American, June 6, 1919:

Detroit - Ty Cobb, famous baseball player, known by some as the "Georgia Peach", but proving himself worthier of the name "Georgia Cracker", has been sued by Miss Ada Morris, a colored maid in one of the hotels, for $10,000.

Miss Morris alleges that on April 25th, Cobb knocked her down and kicked her, breaking a rib and otherwise injuring her, so she has been in the hospital since.

I must confess that I can't see any "level" on which there's "no difference" between "black people have darker skin than white people" and "white power."

Perhaps level isn't the right word, but under a strict definition as per my posts at the end of the first page, as far as defining whether they meet the standard of racism, there isn't a difference between "black people have darker skin" and "white power". They both qualify equally as racism. There are of course differences in the impact, and a hundred other things.

Why? There's plenty of evidence he wasn't a nice person. Do we memorialise people just because they were very good at something, even if they had no redeeming character features? I do not believe, for example, that we need the Mike Tyson Sports Center, the Ike Turner Arena and the Roman Polanski Film School.

Why? I'll tell you why. Because the current cultural barometer (which we all are a part of, and we all subconsciously accept, even if under protest) holds that it is better to be an evil, violent, nasty SOB than a racist (or an anti-Semite). I won't lie, I buy into it as well: on a personal level I can make excuses for pretty much any human failing except virulent racism or bigotry. It's just the way I was raised, the values that were imprinted on me as a small child. THAT's why it "matters."

Perhaps level isn't the right word, but under a strict definition as per my posts at the end of the first page, as far as defining whether they meet the standard of racism, there isn't a difference between "black people have darker skin" and "white power". They both qualify equally as racism.

Yeah, Jeff, I understand that you claim this, but I find it absurd. It confounds logic and human experience. A child will notice color differences among people but to call that "racist" or "racism" and thus of a kind with making harmful discriminations based on skin differences makes no sense and, again, is in my opinion harmful.

A contemporary Cobb story:

Baltimore Afro-American, June 6, 1919:

Detroit - Ty Cobb, famous baseball player, known by some as the "Georgia Peach", but proving himself worthier of the name "Georgia Cracker", has been sued by Miss Ada Morris, a colored maid in one of the hotels, for $10,000.

Miss Morris alleges that on April 25th, Cobb knocked her down and kicked her, breaking a rib and otherwise injuring her, so she has been in the hospital since.

Discussed in the article linked in #2.

Why? I'll tell you why. Because the current cultural barometer ... holds that it is better to be an evil, violent, nasty SOB than a racist.

QFT.

Whereas in reality it must be better to be a harmless racist than a colourblind psychopath.

I must confess that I can't see any "level" on which there's "no difference" between "black people have darker skin than white people" and "white power."

Perhaps level isn't the right word, but under a strict definition as per my posts at the end of the first page, as far as defining whether they meet the standard of racism, there isn't a difference between "black people have darker skin" and "white power". They both qualify equally as racism. There are of course differences in the impact, and a hundred other things.

Which suggests that you might want to consider re-thinking your choice of definition. As JC points out, a child might notice color differences, but that scarcely makes him a racial nationalist.

And once you acknowledge that distinction, it seems rather silly to hold to a definition which would lump the child with the Klansman, no matter how many qualifications you add on in your mind. It doesn't get you anywhere at all outside of a linguistics class.

And from last night, Jeff K again:

I'm not holding that up as an attainable ideal. If society reaches a point where the only kind of racism left is that people recognize that there are differences between the races, such as hair type or whatever, then the term racism can lose its negative connotation. Until then, in my opinion, it does more good to use the expansive definition that includes those observations (without remotely saying that we need to anything about them) than the more restrictive definition that JC and Andy prefer. As a result of that, I don't think it's wrong to say that "everyone is a little bit racist, and there are degrees (or E-X's continuum)".

But again, this only works in an academic discussion, or a discussion where the other person isn't free to walk away once the first thing he "hears" from you is "you're a racist."

A teacher can command the attention of a student to explain what he means by that. And here on BTF, most of us (or some of us, anyway) will listen to the elaboration, and perhaps even agree with it. This is essentially what's happened between myself and E-X.

But consider what would happen in a real world political campaign where a Democrat tried this gambit. It'd be too painful even to think about the consequences, unless of course you're a Republican. Obama's Philadelphia speech didn't even come close to this, and yet look at all the phony posturing that resulted along the lines of "he threw his white grandmother under the bus"---imagine what would have happened if he'd really done that!

The point is, once again, that we are not now, and we likely never will, get to an honest public discussion of race if we begin with what is essentially a broad accusation against an entire class of people---in this case everybody. Academic definitions aside, we are obviously NOT all "racists," by the common understanding of the word. And if you start by throwing that term around in public in such a broad manner, you're going to get absolutely nowhere. It's just not very smart.

Perhaps level isn't the right word, but under a strict definition as per my posts at the end of the first page, as far as defining whether they meet the standard of racism, there isn't a difference between "black people have darker skin" and "white power". They both qualify equally as racism.

Yes, I know what you posted -- but doesn't that suggest that the "strict definition" is really dumb?

What purpose would such a definition serve?

Jeff -- no use piling on further. JC and Andy summed our objections up well.

Eraser -- I don't think you can control your response, only recognize it. But it doesn't mean legitimate rational judgment and criticism should be dismissed because the observer is of another race.

For instance, when I was in the public library yesterday looking up a book on the computer, someone had opened a window and written a lot of gang nonsense there. Immediately, I thought the Black girls working on the other computers probably wrote it, and there was some linkage in my mind between stupidity and race. But pretty quickly I just chalked it up to youth and ignorance and teenage boasting. It's not like I haven't been witness to that before many times where race was no factor at all.

Then today, someone at work left the local Black newspaper on the table questioning the commitment of the local state senator's support despite her scoring 100 percent on the NAACP's legislative scorecard. Her sins? Supposedly using '######' in personal conversations, not going to bat for the local Black house member now imprisoned for embezzling campaign funds, and not pushing hard to pass symbolic legislation condemning the local race riot at the turn of the 20th century. In the article, it states that Black voters couldn't do any worse with anyone else.

Unfortunately, the piece plays right into racial stereotypes in a way that's unavoidable. I can understand the feelings of mistrust given past history, or not falling over themselves in support of her, but they are holding her to an impossible standard and cutting off their noses if they think they can't do worse than 100 percent. A good example of racial irrationality, unfortunately.

So even though I see your point, I don't see the benefit in confusing racism with xenophobia, or in looking too far into my own navel for subconscious racial reactions in recognizing ignorance where I see it.

QFT = Quoted For Truth. I learn something new here every day.

Apologies if this has been stated upthread, but I think the "is everyone racist or not" discussion is kind of a dead end. I think both sides have made valid points, but it falls into the common trap as seeing racism as primarily a 'feeling.' Hollywood does this all the time when it does movies about racism: people have racist feelings, then the minority character teaches them to overcome their prejudice, etc.

The underlying message here is that if we could change everyone's feelings, racism would cease to exist. This ignores the fact that racism is built into the structures of North American society - for example, look at the poverty, disease, homicide, substance abuse rates of African Americans or First Nations people. These are the byproducts of systemic poverty and racism, not so much the attitudes of the Ty Cobbs of the world.

I don't think that too many people would disagree with that, Walewander.

And at the time of the debate on the 1964 civil rights bill (the public accommodations section), it was a common sentiment expressed by black people: We don't give a shlt whether that restaurant owner loves us or hates us; we just want to be able to order a goddam hamburger.

I don't think that too many people would disagree with that, Walewander.

Well, I would.

never mind - childish

never mind - childish

Too late, Lassus. I already saw it. How could you?

:-)

This ignores the fact that racism is built into the structures of North American society

More pertinent (and perhaps part of Jeff K's point) is the fact that racism (and a host of other discriminatory behaviors) is built into the structures of the human mind.

Too late, Lassus. I already saw it. How could you?

Too easy. Like a Harang fastball. Where's the fun in that?