Is this racist?

[infection]

Read the freaking post.



Yawn. It's difficult to take this seriously. I'm sure you're smarter than this.

What I'm saying is that, given the cultural context, equating a black man with a non-human primate carries with it the meaning of that association in generations past, inextricably including its usage to depict people as subhuman, regardless of the intent of the speaker. Favors using such imagery does not remove the cultural baggage. Pretending that this baggage does not exist, or that it applies equally to white and black people, is an great example of white privilege. It's not racist to say any given white person looks like a monkey, because white people as a group have never had the term "monkey" used to deny their humanity. It's racist to say any given black person looks like a monkey, because black people as a group have had the term "monkey" used to deny their humanity.

What I find offensive is the idea that if Favors says it, then it's racist, because these events must be interpreted through your lens, which states that comparisons to primates is reserved for the black man. You must feel pretty strongly that an inappropriate idea must be applied on the situation because you can't seem to desynonymize primates with black men. It is ironic that you invoke white privilege as it is conveniently what's kept you from having any insight into your own feelings on black people and primate comparison, despite your professed distaste for it.

If anything, this should support many of your conclusions as evidence that the most advanced thinker on race among us still suffers from deeply embedded thoughts of dehumanization of the black people. The lack of insight should be quietly reassuring to the cause.

tl;dr One black man likening another to a primate must be a statement on race because it would be unacceptable to desynonymize blacks from primates. It is apparently the black man's station in life to be always associated with primates.

 

[fishonjazz]

Anything and everything said about black people can and is deemed racist
/thread

 

[One Brow]

What I find offensive is the idea that if Favors says it, then it's racist, because these events must be interpreted through your lens, which states that comparisons to primates is reserved for the black man.

Favors or any other American. What does "reserved for the black man" mean here? I was talking about actual usage, not reservations.

You must feel pretty strongly that an inappropriate idea must be applied on the situation because you can't seem to desynonymize primates with black men. It is ironic that you invoke white privilege as it is conveniently what's kept you from having any insight into your own feelings on black people and primate comparison, despite your professed distaste for it.

Again, the only way I can see this is as some sort of trolling.

If anything, this should support many of your conclusions as evidence that the most advanced thinker on race among us still suffers from deeply embedded thoughts of dehumanization of the black people. The lack of insight should be quietly reassuring to the cause.

tl;dr One black man likening another to a primate must be a statement on race because it would be unacceptable to desynonymize blacks from primates. It is apparently the black man's station in life to be always associated with primates.

tl;dr Infection thinks that statements can exist in vacuums, devoid of cultural contexts, and also has problems reading English.

 

[infection]

tl;dr Infection thinks that statements can exist in vacuums, devoid of cultural contexts, and also has problems reading English.

Statements have cultural context, which is not a point I've challenged or disputed. Jokes about black people being likened unto primates is another point I have not disputed. The idea I've disputed is at which point an arbitrary cultural context enters into, or rather is superimposed upon, a given situation. There are many reasons someone could be likened unto a primate, with the cultural context of black people being demeaningly labeled as such being among some of those reasons. What you're suggesting is that this being a racial slur is inescapable, regardless of intent of the communicating party and regardless of interpretation of the receiving party. You are suggesting, in essence, the inescapability of the comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such. Your demand, rather, is to continue to persist -- nay, insist -- that the demeaning cultural context continue to prevail as the predominate cultural context. Of this, you are absolutely oblivious. This is racism.

 

[♪alt13]

The Daughter Of Oklahoma’s Governor Caused An Uproar After She Posed In A Headdress For Her Indie Band
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/daughter-of-governor-of-oklahoma-causes-an-uproar-after-she

 

[One Brow]

What you're suggesting is that this being a racial slur is inescapable, regardless of intent of the communicating party and regardless of interpretation of the receiving party. You are suggesting, in essence, the inescapability of the comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such. Your demand, rather, is to continue to persist -- nay, insist -- that the demeaning cultural context continue to prevail as the predominate cultural context. Of this, you are absolutely oblivious. This is racism.

That's an interesting perspective, considering that in the first post you quoted, I specifically said that I didn't know if Gobert's comparison would qualify as racism or not. That should have made clear that I do think, in the appropriate cultural context, such a comparison would not be racism. Can you harmonize your statement that I think such comparisons are inescapable in general, with my statement that I had no idea if a given instance was actually racist or not? Until you can explain this to some degree, what reason would I have to think you might be accurate?

Now, I did say that had an American, like Favors, made the same tweet that Gobert did, that would be racism. Note that in response to the tweet from Gobert, the American used an image of an alien, not another non-human primate. Consciously or not, deliberately or not, he responded in a different manner.

Is it a "racial slur"? I think we agree it is a slur. Therefore, you seem to be implying that an American could make such a slur, and not have it be a racial slur. If by that, you mean it's not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person, of course that's possible. Racism does not require intent. However, regardless of intention, this effect is nonetheless to further the demeaning of a group of people.

I am supporting, in essence, the inescapability of the segregation and differentiation being enhanced comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such, due to the current state of American culture. My demand is to continue to insist that the demeaning cultural context can not be ignored in the USA while it prevails as the predominate cultural context in the USA.

 

[Stoked]

That's an interesting perspective, considering that in the first post you quoted, I specifically said that I didn't know if Gobert's comparison would qualify as racism or not. That should have made clear that I do think, in the appropriate cultural context, such a comparison would not be racism. Can you harmonize your statement that I think such comparisons are inescapable in general, with my statement that I had no idea if a given instance was actually racist or not? Until you can explain this to some degree, what reason would I have to think you might be accurate?

Now, I did say that had an American, like Favors, made the same tweet that Gobert did, that would be racism. Note that in response to the tweet from Gobert, the American used an image of an alien, not another non-human primate. Consciously or not, deliberately or not, he responded in a different manner.

Is it a "racial slur"? I think we agree it is a slur. Therefore, you seem to be implying that an American could make such a slur, and not have it be a racial slur. If by that, you mean it's not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person, of course that's possible. Racism does not require intent. However, regardless of intention, this effect is nonetheless to further the demeaning of a group of people.

I am supporting, in essence, the inescapability of the segregation and differentiation being enhanced comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such, due to the current state of American culture. My demand is to continue to insist that the demeaning cultural context can not be ignored in the USA while it prevails as the predominate cultural context in the USA.

It can be. I call my oldest daughter Monkey all the time. I do this as she tends to hang on me like a monkey. So while phrases and terms do have context they can be used outside that context. Calling someone a monkey/ape/chimp...can clearly be racist but it is not always racist.

 

[One Brow]

It can be. I call my oldest daughter Monkey all the time. I do this as she tends to hang on me like a monkey. So while phrases and terms do have context they can be used outside that context. Calling someone a monkey/ape/chimp...can clearly be racist but it is not always racist.

Exactly. It's a bit selective, but still a decent partial summary.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

...let's put it this way, if he had posted this here at Jazzfanz....he would have been dinged with an "infraction".....which doesn't go away for 6 months! I've been dinged twice for just mentioning the white, soft, fuzzy stuff that use to be picked in the fields in the deep South!

No, you've been dinged cause you're a dyed-in the cotton racist with a long history here of racially charged posts, though you try to hide your racism by using code words. Understandably, obvious racists like you are not extended the benefit of the doubt that others without such well-established racist bonafides might be granted.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

. The idea I've disputed is at which point an arbitrary cultural context enters into, or rather is superimposed upon, a given situation.

You are suggesting, in essence, the inescapability of the comparison of the black man to a primate -- a reminder, if you will -- despite neither party apparently intending it as such. Your demand, rather, is to continue to persist -- nay, insist -- that the demeaning cultural context continue to prevail as the predominate cultural context. Of this, you are absolutely oblivious. This is racism.

Please quote where this "point" you are arguing against was made. Once. In this thread.

You're making ******** up to prop up your argument. Don't.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Magic Spray]

Not racist: Gobert is French. He is unable to be racist. Ask any critical race theorist.

And by any critical race theorist I mean do not be a dumbass. Of course it's racist but who gives a ****.

 

[infection]

Please quote where this "point" you are arguing against was made. Once. In this thread.

You're making ******** up to prop up your argument. Don't.

Which point? This one?

The idea I've disputed is at which point an arbitrary cultural context enters into, or rather is superimposed upon, a given situation.

If this is what you mean, then I'm somewhat baffled that you're asking me to quote where this point was made as it is self-evident to anyone who's read the thread to realize we're talking about whether or not it is racism for an interaction like this to happen between Gobert/Favors and Rush. Even One Brow would concede that. If you're stating that the conclusions I'm arguing haven't been mentioned in this thread, then you've missed the point I'm actually making. And that's precisely why I'm making the argument.

That's an interesting perspective, considering that in the first post you quoted, I specifically said that I didn't know if Gobert's comparison would qualify as racism or not. That should have made clear that I do think, in the appropriate cultural context, such a comparison would not be racism. Can you harmonize your statement that I think such comparisons are inescapable in general, with my statement that I had no idea if a given instance was actually racist or not? Until you can explain this to some degree, what reason would I have to think you might be accurate?

I understand you qualified your statement dependent on French social customs. The statement and idea I more challenge is the bolded which has no qualifiers:

In answer to the original question: I'm not sure. I don't know enough about the French culture to say whether being compared to non-human primates was a common way to depict black people as sub-human. Had that been a post by Favors, the answer would be yes.

Is it a "racial slur"? I think we agree it is a slur. Therefore, you seem to be implying that an American could make such a slur, and not have it be a racial slur. If by that, you mean it's not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person, of course that's possible. Racism does not require intent. However, regardless of intention, this effect is nonetheless to further the demeaning of a group of people.

Your wording suggests either overt attempts to demean the race of the person or "not a conscious attempt to demean the race of the person". Every possibility demands tying demeaning mental imagery to the interaction. This is a false dichotomy. You contend that as being part of their culture, this race issue is, or at least should be, most salient. In essence, they should be inextricably bound to the imagery of blacks likened unto primates. They are unable to possess their own independent context and are unable to be unfettered from the demeaning cultural context that you're insisting they perpetuate. They must not explore their freedom of thought or interaction but must return swiftly to the mental shackles from which they came.

Of course, I'd presume you would not find this a reasonable conclusion, but that's not unreasonable for you to feel that way with how deeply imbedded into this culture these biases are and the generations of white privilege that have allowed arguments, such as yours, to unknowingly presume that one can tell black individuals how to think. A form of contemporary slavery, if you will, perpetuated by those without any insight into their own prejudiced thoughts.