Kevin Durant - Racist Remarks on Hayward....surprised...

[NUMBERICA]

Sadly, alot of comments reflect the usual double standard.
He says it, its a joke. We all should know that.
A white guy says something, its insensitive.
Such an obvious double standard, but the best part is the denial of it.

I could care less, it doesn't offend me in the least. What does bother me is how this tiny example is played out daily in our society now. Not debatable. But "they" will anyway.

There's this thing called context. I'll tell you about it. The athleticism of a race, any race, isn't a topic to be offended about. At all. I could write a terrible and long thing about it, but it's self-evident. A dumb thing to get hung up on because it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, let's say someone "jokes" about the intelligence (the defining trait of our species) of black people; an assertion that has been used in some form or another to justify the beginnings and continuance of the slave trade, segregation, racially-driven social stratification, and enforcement of that inferiority by show of force through assault, rape, torture, and murder, in addition to systemic pressures that don't have as obvious a physical affect and aren't even conscious behaviors being exhibited by their perpetrators (and thus are harder to address in simple and concrete terms).

Those are different. So there's that.







Also, it's "could NOT care less" that you're trying to say.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Anyway, yeah, bunch of (mostly) cis straight white dudes talking about being on the wrong-side of bigotry (explicitly or implicity) belongs in GD according to the rules of the site. Or it might as well.

 

[fishonjazz]

There's this thing called context. I'll tell you about it. The athleticism of a race, any race, isn't a topic to be offended about. At all. I could write a terrible and long thing about it, but it's self-evident. A dumb thing to get hung up on because it doesn't matter.

On the other hand, let's say someone "jokes" about the intelligence (the defining trait of our specioes) of black people; an assertion that has been used in some form or another to justify the beginnings and continuance of the slave trade, segregation, racially-driven social stratification, and enforcement of that superiority by show of force through assault, rape, torture, and murder, in addition to systemic pressures that don't have as obvious a physical affect and aren't even conscious behaviors being exhibited by their perpetrators (and thus are harder to address in simple and concrete terms).

Those are different. So there's that.







Also, it's "could NOT care less" that you're trying to say.

So I get what you are saying about saying blacks are dumb would be negative and definately something to be offended about.

And I guess I can see how saying whites are unathletic is not that negative (though it is at least a little negative imo) and not something worthy of being offended over.

So what about saying black people like fried chicken?
Seems like a dumb thing to get hung up over because it doesn't matter. I don't see that as a negative thing and don't see it as worthy of being offended over. But don't you think if a white dude mentions something about a black dude liking fried chicken that there would be lots of offended folks making a fuss about it?

 

[NUMBERICA]

So I get what you are saying about saying blacks are dumb would be negative and definately something to be offended about.

And I guess I can see how saying whites are unathletic is not that negative (though it is at least a little negative imo) and not something worthy of being offended over.

So what about saying black people like fried chicken?
Seems like a dumb thing to get hung up over because it doesn't matter. I don't see that as a negative thing and don't see it as worthy of being offended over. But don't you think if a white dude mentions something about a black dude liking fried chicken that there would be lots of offended folks making a fuss about it?

I can't speak for anyone else. Stereotypes (good or bad) are (or at least can be) a path to actual racism, so I try to avoid thinking and speaking in such terms as much as a flawed person that loves awful humor can. I also try not to live my life being offended because that is usually miserable and often counter-productive or unproductive.

But yeah, I'll comfortably say certain stereotypes are better/less harmful than others.

Humor as it relates to marginalizing/making fun of people that are disadvantaged is something I think about a lot. Because my nature is not above it, but I want to be better than that.

 

[fishonjazz]

I can't speak for anything else. Stereotypes (good or bad) are (or at least can be) a path to actual racism, so I try to avoid thinking and speaking in such terms as much as a flawed person that loves awful humor can. I also try not to live my life being offended because that is usually miserable and often counter-productive or unproductive.

But yeah, I'll comfortably say certain stereotypes are better/less harmful than others.

Humor as it relates to marginalizing/making fun of people that are disadvantaged is something I think about a lot. Because my nature is not above it, but I want to be better than that.

Good response

 

[tleikheen]

Im an Alaska Native guy,I hated seeing that crack from a guy using a Alaska name to talk about a black guys smarts ,but sadly he shows what we understand up here...

 

[Siro]

Im an Alaska Native guy,I hated seeing that crack from a guy using a Alaska name to talk about a black guys smarts ,but sadly he shows what we understand up here...

Alaska Native as in Inuit? Or simply born in Alaska?

 

[fishonjazz]

Alaska Native as in Inuit? Or simply born in Alaska?

I believe the correct term is "eskimo"

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Durant's first hand white boy experiences are Nick Collison, Kyle Singler, Enes Kanter, Mitch McGary, Steve Novak, and Steven Adams. Gordon Hayward probably looks like the Usain Bolt of white people to Durant.

 

[Ron Mexico]

This thread is embarrassing for all Jazz fans. No wonder Jazz fans get made fun of so much by other fan bases.

 

[idiot]

Against my better judgment of not getting involved here:

(In my view) there's a number of principles that should be taken into account in situations involving racial/cultural stereotyping (which this very clearly is). To automatically prioritize one over the others is foolish. We need to take into account as much as much of the context as we can obtain and weigh the principles against the particular situation. There may be additional relevant principles, but here's some key ones:

1. Stereotyping of any kind can be a problem, even if it seems positive on the face of it. Because:

1a. It's lazy thinking. If it becomes a habit it becomes harder for the speaker to have real relationships with those who are stereotyped.

1b. Stereotypes often come in pairs or groups. "Such and such a race is good at x, but not so good at y or z." The speaker often doesn't need to refer directly to the negative aspect for the listener to think of it since the grouping is often deeply embedded in culture/history.

1c. If believed (by either speaker or listener), stereotypes generally work over the long run to limit options and opportunities for those who are stereotyped: "I am/we are/they are capable of x, but not y."


2. Not all stereotyping is created equal. While I'd claim that virtually all stereotyping creates problems, some of these problems are far worse than others.

2a. Stereotyping by those who belong to powerful groups usually produces far more damage than stereotyping by those who belong to less powerful groups. (And inability to see or be sensitive to the fact that one is in a powerful group is a particular problem.)

2b. History and socio-economic factors are highly relevant in deciding whether someone is part of a powerful group or a less powerful group. The US racial history that worked very much to the advantage of some "races" over others cannot be overlooked.

2c. As important as historical and socio-economic context is, the relevant context in any particular situation is more than just that single issue. Those who can claim less power in relation to another group in one situation might not be able to claim it in another. (If you can't see this through looking at life in Utah, I don't know how you'll ever see it.)

2d. Some topics of stereotyping are far more damaging than others. Those related to intelligence are among those particularly so (along with propensity to violence and a few others), since they specifically involve the capacity to earn a livelihood. Where stereotyping doesn't involve intelligence, but still touches on the capacity to earn a living, it may still be dangerous.

2e. The personal context is always important. Backhanded compliments, social bonding, or light-hearted "turning the tables" on someone from a more powerful group often occur through stereotyping. This doesn't eliminate the problems involved with stereotyping (particularly when the message gets broadcast beyond the personal relationship), but it can be an ameliorating factor.


3. "Racism" is a powerful and contested term. In our society, "racism" seems quite a bit worse than such terms as "stereotyping" or "racial thinking." While some people try to control its meaning based on issues such as power and history (and for at least partially good reasons in my view--since power and history add great potential for damage), nobody has a patent on the term. "Racism" typically conveys a powerful value judgment of the worst race-related thoughts and actions, but as a society we continue to struggle over where the boundary into it lies. To be able to call something "racist" confers great potential rhetorical power, which is why we continue to argue about the use/misuse of the term. (It's much like the term "cult." Sociologists may have a specialized "objective" definition for it, but as long as society continues to give it meaning involving value judgments far beyond that specialized definition, we're not going to have much success pointing to the "real" meaning of racism.)

 

[Deleted member 848]

I highly doubt you can illustrate the superiority of your position. After all, you mentioned it a few months ago, but back then you added that "many scholars believe this, but I don't necessarily agree with it". As astoundingly self-assured as you have recently become, I doubt a few months of experience equipped you to so easily dismantle the opposing argument.

For the record I said in regards to cultural appropriation, not racism. Now that's one iffy area of discussion that I wish I had a better handle on. Completely in the middle with that discussion. I'll have to read more into it.

Again, doubtful. I am thoroughly familiar with your position. You're completely close minded on the subject. In fact, your perspective on the issue is as narrow as Archie's is on Islam.

Maybe it is. I don't know. I think using my definition of racism as being prejudice + power properly conveys the difference between a black person saying prejudiced things, and a white person saying prejudiced things. It simply is different, and using the word racism for both situations really ignores the whole context of power and the impact it has in both situations. That's why I look to define racism the way I do. I suppose you can still use 'racism' for both situations, but then it would lead one to believe that black people saying prejudiced things = white people saying prejudiced things. To me, I don't find this particularly true. But again, that's just my opinion.

Incidentally, your perspective on Islam is fantastic, and you managed to completely turn me around on the subject. Now apply the same logic you have on Islam and the forces of history that got us here to "white people", and you'll be set. Because as it stands, the arguments you use are not very different from the fascist perspectives of the far-right on non-whites.

Edit: Blunted the edge a bit since I actually like you.

Thank you, and I'll keep fleshing out my stance on the subject. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle between me and you.