"The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations"
The soft bigotry of a bad law
This has nothing directly to do with the article, but this phrase, which apparently came from a George W. Bush speech on the dreaded "No Child Left Behind" program, is something I've been searching for, for many years. I've usually expressed it as paternalistic notions of government treating non-whites as children in the way that government seems to express the goals and methods of programs. I often hear just as much racism in these supposedly altruistic goals as anything else short of a Klan member.
Think of Joe Biden talking about Indians working at the 7-11. Never mind how many doctors, programmers, engineers, and other professionals living in this country have Indian ancestry. This is the type of bigotry that comes from whites who have lowered expectations of non-whites and therefore think we need to help them overcome what Hunter Thompson called their "racial handicap".
These are absolutely horrible sentiments that only make the problem worse since it often appears that some members of these groups start to buy into other people's sense of low expectations. It becomes a social construct after a while. Like your Irish friends who pride themselves on having drinking and fighting problems. They think it is part of their identity.
I've been trying to think of ways to classify different types of racism, since people cry foul over racism all the time in this country. We have a gut reaction some times as to whether something is or is not an example of racism and I believe our varying notions of what constitutes racism in a given instance is usually determined by our subconscious notions about what type of racism is being exercised.
A. There is outright racism. The kind where people want someone killed or otherwise physically hurt because of their race. This is obviously the worst kind. It can be completely irrational drive against everyone encountered of a particular race or (perhaps worse) a methodical, albeit insane, notion that the elimination of an entire race will somehow be a benefit. Call this Hitler racism.
B. There is what I call "petty" racism. This is when a person has a notion that is or might be considered racist, but does not otherwise act on it in any discernible (or at least aggressive) way. This is the sort of racism where people outright believe and think that a particular race is inferior to their own and/or others in one or more particular areas for whatever reason. People may even be able to point to some basis in fact for arriving at their conclusions whether or not they are correct. People who have these particular beliefs can usually function with the race that they find inferior. In fact, I have noticed that they are often much better at social interaction with the races they believe inferior than those in category C or D. Call this Dog the Bounty Hunter racism.
C. The "low expectations" racism. This is the notion that special exceptions need to be made in order to help members of a particular race because "they don't have it as well as we do" or some other false pretense that brushes everyone of a particular race with as broad a stroke as any real racist. It usually practiced by those who like to cry racism where none exists - often as a way to alleviate their own self-doubt about their beliefs. This is the quintessential "white guilt" that really accomplishes nothing. This type of racism, to me, is more detestable than that in B above, because it is contrary to the notion that people are and should be treated as individuals and also since it helps enable the beliefs of people with type-B racist tendencies. When you say group X, where X is defined by a particular racial or cultural characteristic, needs special treatment different than the rest of us, you are ultimately saying group X is inferior on some level. The problem is that if you are giving away money or other benefits, you may have no trouble finding a large number of members of group X willing to play the part of the needy inferior. Only a fool would reject free money. The problem is when it starts to infect people's individual pride or translates into a social construct that members of X are ALL inferior. Hence the phrase, the "soft bigotry of low expectations" - you're inferior, but it's not your fault. This is how you treat an infant or a young child - never an adult. Call this Joe Biden racism.
A final note is that I almost called category C "Michael Richards" racism. I believe that people who fall into category C are really people who are in category B but feel that since racism is wrong they have to make up for it somehow. They cannot get past the idea of judging people by categories. The idea of making individual assessments never enters their minds because they have never done it. When they have pent up these thoughts long enough, they sometimes come out in outbursts like the Michael Richards' rant. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he a category A racist? No. Chances are he has followed the rest of Hollywood by calling everyone else in the world racist and saying we need to give money to people of a particular race because they are less fortunate than us. Then two black hecklers come along and instead of treating them as hecklers, he treats them as black people, you know, the ones he has been helping in order to sooth his white guilt and show what a non-racist person he is.
D. Post-modern "other" racism. This is another bad form of racism and I will have to say that I likely suffered from it from time to time. This is the notion that members of another racial group are somehow "superior" to our own in some manner. This is where you have white kids pretending to be black. This is where Mrs. Costanza completely throws away someone's advice because she thought she was Chinese, but wasn't. The idea that the "other" somehow has more wisdom and knowledge than you because they are a different race is still racism - not judging individuals as individuals. I view this type of racism as just a different stage of B and C. You believe that all members of a particular race are inferior, so you compensate by convincing yourself that they are superior in some other way whether in music, fashion, language, or some other sense.
I probably have the start of a good doctoral thesis here although I'm sure someone has already come up with these notions. Something to be explored later perhaps.
Showing posts with label race relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race relations. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Black on Black Image Portrayal
Protesting Demeaning Images in Media
Normally I dismiss many cries of racism that involve perception rather than overt acts against people or individuals as being without any substance, but I found some interesting points that the protesters here bring up with which I agree:
(1) America is a segregated country.
(2) Media portrayals of one segment of the population can affect they way a group as a whole is perceived by groups that have little or no contact with that group.
I think I agree with both of these statements, however, I do not ultimately side with the protesters on this for a number of reasons. This is primarily because of my moral convictions that bright line rules are often the best for society to use not because they necessarily always yield the best outcome in every situation, but because they make it a lot easier for everyone to make decisions. It's saves time when we know the rules and they are easy to apply to reality. That way we don't spend years and years fighting over minutiae building toward some amorphous ideal or sentiment that is not easily quantifiable and subject to abuse through subjective and selective interpretation. In this case, my bright line rule is against censorship of any kind by adults free to make their own decisions.
While I agree with the protesters that they are likely right as to the result and affect of these negative portrayals having a negative effect on black people as a whole, I abhor the idea of censorship. The simple argument when the media is playing this type of crap is, of course "turn it off", however, their argument is they can turn it off, but that won't prevent other people from watching and getting the wrong message. Absolutely true. In this case, of course, it is even more ironic because the protest is against a black run and owned network who employs black actors to play roles that other black people find demeaning to all black people as a whole. Not being a minority in this country, I cannot really relate exactly to the concerns, but I do understand and do believe it is problem. However, my moral guidelines that speak out against censorship tells me that telling the network "thou shalt not do anything which offends" is not the way to go. I do not have the solution just yet though.
As far as the US being a segregated country, yes. It is segregated racially, religiously, and any other number of ways depending on the criteria you select. Racial segregation, however, is obviously something that we have struggled with in this country for a long time. We have not needed laws to keep Lutherans and Methodists from fighting with each other, but we have needed laws and the force of arms to keep places from being segregated. We are probably more obsessed with racial equality in this country than any other country in the world. In Belgium the two native populations are at each other's throats figuratively. In the rest of the world, when there are two or more distinct races, one usually dominates the others through force of law. In those countries, racism is the official undeclared policy, but often the issue does not get a lot of attention until it breaks into full scale war or genocide (e.g. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc.). In this country the official policy is to oppose racism and we almost seem to celebrate it the way we overdo it by finding it where it doesn't exist or exaggerating what I would call petty racism into a major crisis. These episodes wind up taking away from the real fight against racial equality because it is something that already exists under law and can only be won in people's minds. Turning a flip, unscripted remark from Imus into a showcase for why America is a racist country just convinces many people that there is no struggle left if the country goes DEF-CON 1 on a one-time idiotic remark.
The problem is, however, that this nation will always be segregated racially one way or another because this nation will likely have a steady stream of immigrants from one part of the world or another for the foreseeable future. Right now, we are seeing areas that are essentially segregated Mexican areas. There are stories of some basically acted as independent enclaves and those stories are only likely to increase. So do we take the complicate route of constantly emerging standards to fight different prejudices or stereotypes as they arise, or do we draw the bright line of saying censorship is never the answer? I say the latter of course because I believe in the long run it is the most sustainable and easiest to administer.
So in my mind, using segregation as an issue, while valid, only further complicates the formula for determining how and when the media is allowed to portray members of one group of another (even if only collectively as a by-product of a trend). Would there ever be a time where a white portrayal in the media is viewed as being so negative and wide-spread that it should be censored? It is, of course, always argued that because whites are the majority of the population in this country, the problem isn't the same. I think that is valid, but let me ask what is more damaging to society as a whole: (a) negative fictitious portrayals of black youth in the media or (b) the seeming glorification of the actual lives of young white females such as Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears (not to mention the Girls Gone Wild genre).
I can tell you which will more likely have a negative impact on my family. I have black neighbors and friends that my family will come into contact with on a regular basis, so there is likely no risk of my children assuming that Snoop Dogg or Flavor Flav are representative of black people as whole. There is, however, a huge risk that my daughters will grow up thinking that being sexualized at a young age is OK. But, I will not protest the networks. I will shut off the TV. I will have to deal with the fact that the rest of the world likely has the media-warped perception of young white girls as glorified, out-of-control hedonists.
Normally I dismiss many cries of racism that involve perception rather than overt acts against people or individuals as being without any substance, but I found some interesting points that the protesters here bring up with which I agree:
(1) America is a segregated country.
(2) Media portrayals of one segment of the population can affect they way a group as a whole is perceived by groups that have little or no contact with that group.
I think I agree with both of these statements, however, I do not ultimately side with the protesters on this for a number of reasons. This is primarily because of my moral convictions that bright line rules are often the best for society to use not because they necessarily always yield the best outcome in every situation, but because they make it a lot easier for everyone to make decisions. It's saves time when we know the rules and they are easy to apply to reality. That way we don't spend years and years fighting over minutiae building toward some amorphous ideal or sentiment that is not easily quantifiable and subject to abuse through subjective and selective interpretation. In this case, my bright line rule is against censorship of any kind by adults free to make their own decisions.
While I agree with the protesters that they are likely right as to the result and affect of these negative portrayals having a negative effect on black people as a whole, I abhor the idea of censorship. The simple argument when the media is playing this type of crap is, of course "turn it off", however, their argument is they can turn it off, but that won't prevent other people from watching and getting the wrong message. Absolutely true. In this case, of course, it is even more ironic because the protest is against a black run and owned network who employs black actors to play roles that other black people find demeaning to all black people as a whole. Not being a minority in this country, I cannot really relate exactly to the concerns, but I do understand and do believe it is problem. However, my moral guidelines that speak out against censorship tells me that telling the network "thou shalt not do anything which offends" is not the way to go. I do not have the solution just yet though.
As far as the US being a segregated country, yes. It is segregated racially, religiously, and any other number of ways depending on the criteria you select. Racial segregation, however, is obviously something that we have struggled with in this country for a long time. We have not needed laws to keep Lutherans and Methodists from fighting with each other, but we have needed laws and the force of arms to keep places from being segregated. We are probably more obsessed with racial equality in this country than any other country in the world. In Belgium the two native populations are at each other's throats figuratively. In the rest of the world, when there are two or more distinct races, one usually dominates the others through force of law. In those countries, racism is the official undeclared policy, but often the issue does not get a lot of attention until it breaks into full scale war or genocide (e.g. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc.). In this country the official policy is to oppose racism and we almost seem to celebrate it the way we overdo it by finding it where it doesn't exist or exaggerating what I would call petty racism into a major crisis. These episodes wind up taking away from the real fight against racial equality because it is something that already exists under law and can only be won in people's minds. Turning a flip, unscripted remark from Imus into a showcase for why America is a racist country just convinces many people that there is no struggle left if the country goes DEF-CON 1 on a one-time idiotic remark.
The problem is, however, that this nation will always be segregated racially one way or another because this nation will likely have a steady stream of immigrants from one part of the world or another for the foreseeable future. Right now, we are seeing areas that are essentially segregated Mexican areas. There are stories of some basically acted as independent enclaves and those stories are only likely to increase. So do we take the complicate route of constantly emerging standards to fight different prejudices or stereotypes as they arise, or do we draw the bright line of saying censorship is never the answer? I say the latter of course because I believe in the long run it is the most sustainable and easiest to administer.
So in my mind, using segregation as an issue, while valid, only further complicates the formula for determining how and when the media is allowed to portray members of one group of another (even if only collectively as a by-product of a trend). Would there ever be a time where a white portrayal in the media is viewed as being so negative and wide-spread that it should be censored? It is, of course, always argued that because whites are the majority of the population in this country, the problem isn't the same. I think that is valid, but let me ask what is more damaging to society as a whole: (a) negative fictitious portrayals of black youth in the media or (b) the seeming glorification of the actual lives of young white females such as Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and Britney Spears (not to mention the Girls Gone Wild genre).
I can tell you which will more likely have a negative impact on my family. I have black neighbors and friends that my family will come into contact with on a regular basis, so there is likely no risk of my children assuming that Snoop Dogg or Flavor Flav are representative of black people as whole. There is, however, a huge risk that my daughters will grow up thinking that being sexualized at a young age is OK. But, I will not protest the networks. I will shut off the TV. I will have to deal with the fact that the rest of the world likely has the media-warped perception of young white girls as glorified, out-of-control hedonists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)