Look at the previous thread, which is primarily about unconscious bias and subtly pernicious effects of racism. Buried in the middle of it are two paragraphs about the Ellen/Usain Bolt controversy, because my accuser made a big deal about it, and because I swear half my email right now is all about defending Ellen Degeneres.
Then read the comments. Most of them are about Ellen, Ellen, Ellen. She’s not racist, people insist! That photo had no racist implications! I know a black person who was not offended by it!
I even pointed out the weird inappropriateness of this obsession about Ellen in the thread. No one cares. Everyone keeps arguing about Ellen. I’m going to have to call this Ellen’s Rule: any thread about racism will become all about defending white people from accusations of racism.
So here, this is just for you. The only topic allowed in this post is Ellen. Talk all you want about Ellen. Get it out of your system. Please purge yourself completely. I kind of like Ellen myself, but she is not the central figure in American racism at all.
Watch this thread go nowhere.
But I will say… watching people defend Ellen in the other thread was a bit sickening. Sure, maybe Ellen’s intentions were pure, but it was still racist as all hell, and why it’s racist should be patently obvious.
I like that haircut.
She reminds me a bit of Amanda Tapping as Sam Carter. I can’t imagine Teal’c giving her a piggyback ride, though, unless she was injured and he was getting her out of danger or something.
PZ:
Informally, I’m ahead of you, because that’s my rule for anything Indian (Native, Indigenous): any thread about Indians will be full of oblivious people defending white people, white-washed history, and the founding daddies.
Yes Ellen is not a racist, yet the tweet she posted was itself racist. Easily resulting from unconscious implicit racism. The tweet can be racist while the tweeter is not… asking as she acknowledges it was a mistake.
While being a premier LGBT person is no panacea, since this about her, let’s acknowledge the stand she took, risking her show, to declare her identity.
Autocorrected “as long as” to “asking” please de-autocorrect.
This thread is supposed to be about Ellen, but I don’t know anything about this person except what I see in internet memes.
In my experience, the first principle for understanding and responding to racism is that racist intentions are always pure: They (we) always have ‘reasons’ and ‘habits’ that cannot be helped.
The committed, overt racist is a rare type. Most racists, I think, require an environment that gives permission for particular behaviors, jokes, expressions. One’s own reasons and habits align with those many societally granted permissions.
Well, there are obviously things that are blatantly racist. Then there are things that could be open to interpretation. Isn’t there a fundamental difference between these two?
For instance, there is the classical image of blacks being fond of water melons. Like this one:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/I%27se_so_happy_-_postcard.jpg
Few would argue that this wasn’t racist. But does that mean that any image depicting a black person eating water melon has to be racist? And if so, is the act of eating water melons in it self racist?
I also think there is a difference between saying “that’s racist” and “that could be viewed as racist”. Being called a racist is offensive, even racists object to that.
Or would the act of eating watermelons be considered cannibalism, by extension of racism and Ellen?
Since this thread is dedicated to Ellen or something.
Regardless, I really do need to pick up a watermelon. While I’m the only one in the house to eat watermelon, dad and I had a fine tradition of demolishing watermelons in the summer. Besides, I need to increase my fruit intake.
Alas, most of the supermarkets only carry those tiny “personal” melons, what a waste!
Would it have been racist if Ellen had photoshopped Oprah doing her errands on Usain’s back?
@ wzrd1 #9
You talk about demolishing fruit in the same post mentioning Ellen. Are you subconsciously a homophobe ? (sarcasm)
It seems not too difficult to understand. In the context of racism in the USA, DeGeneres’ photoshop is racist. She may or may not have meant it to be racist; she herself may or may not be any degree of racist one cares to define. But the pic itself is racist, therefore she should apologise for not considering the racist implications. It would be the polite thing to do.
Never mind the rationalisations for the action, never mind getting into arguments on the internet and other media, she should just apologise for the offence she inadvertently caused. Because that’s what the polite person does when they make a mistake.
“She can’t be racist, she’s a lesbian.” /sarcasm
gijoel #13
Exactly.
NelC #12
I don’t think she should apologise for “the offence she inadvertently caused”, she should apologise for being offensive.
And she and her entire staff should take a refresher course in race relations.
and history.
Didn’t she have like some woo or a psychic on her show or something? Yes, here’s one of the top results from my Google search!
She’s not very funny.
Chigau @15: Yes, you’re probably right; that should read “apologise for the offence”.
chris61 #10
You really don’t understand the whole racism in America thing.
at all
Listen to Hillary explain it all. We are alt right racist hate mongers unless we vote Democrat.
Mark Bolton #20
uhm wut?
Cue the theme music to the Twilight Zone.
*The denial is strong in this one Luke*
Now now. No one says that if you vote Republican you’re a white supremacist and neo-Nazi… “Alt-right” as they call themselves now. If you vote Republican you’re simply supporting their beloved candidate and giving political support to their world view. That doesn’t make you one of them. It just makes you their useful idiot.
Now this thread is going to get derailed to being about Hillary Clinton instead of Ellen Degeneres?
#1, Nathan
#12, NelC
#19, chigau
Well, these aren’t arguments.
Personally I wouldn’t really like this tweet even if the runner had been white. It’s kind of objectifying. But I’m not sure it’s also racist…
I’m not convinced there’s any way to portray a black person as a pack mule for a white woman that wouldn’t be automatically at least partially racist.
Really, do we have to go through the whole “intent isn’t magic” thing again?
Ellen’s a white woman who grew up in the USA. She surely has seen historical pictures of black people being used by white people, and the thousands upon thousands of reproductions in culture (both in productions that criticise slavery as well in those that glorify it). Since she’s white those images don’t impact her the way they impact black people.
Her failure is not to think. She most likely didn’t think “hey, I’ll consciously reproduce an image of slavery”, but she also didn’t think “this image would reproduce imagery of slavery, I’d better come up with a different idea”.
Intent matters when dealing with the person who did something. Then the fact that she just didn’t think deeply matters.
Okay, back to basics here.
Intent (with regards to present or past actions) is of (limited) moral relevance because it has predictive value with regards to future actions.
Intent, with regards to present or past actions, is of limited moral relevance because it has no bearing on the objective consequences of those actions.
@Vivec #26:
Perhaps not, but that raises another question. Can a white person ride piggy back on a black person without being racist? If the image in question was inherently and fundamentally racist, wouldn’t the act of riding piggy back be even worse?
I find it hard to look beyond things like color/ethnicity/gender/whatever while at the same time avoiding anything that could be considered offensive due to historic abuse.
I get that you can’t ignore history, and that sometimes special treatment is needed to counter the effects of systemic abuse. The idea of seeing everyone as equals only applies when they in fact are equals, and sadly we’re not there yet. But when interacting with single individuals I find it hard to see them as both individuals and representatives of a larger group.
Erlend Meyer
This doesn’t seem like a particularly important question to raise. I mean, really, how often does this come up in your life?
@5 slithey tove:
Well, that depends on how you define “a racist.” The common definition in the US seems to be that “a racist” is “someone who is significantly more blatantly racist than I am,” which isn’t a particularly useful definition, as it never allows anyone to confront the fact that they might be racist. I prefer to look at it that everyone is at least a little racist, based on the tropes and associations absorbed from exposure to human society. There are differences in how racist someone is, and also in how much they’re willing to confront racism in themselves and others.
So, is Ellen racist? Yes. Show me a non-racist and I’ll show you a newborn. I can’t say how racist she is, though. I can say that she doesn’t seem to be willing to confront the possibility that she might have some latent racism, which loses her points in my book.
On another note, I don’t see it as being useful to ask if an individual act is racist so much as to ask whether it plays into racist stereotypes. If I publish a photo that shows eg. a black person eating watermelon, it’s impossible to say whether that act alone is racist. If I’d gone out that day with the intention of shooting a photo of someone eating something, and that was the first instance of it I saw that day, then there was no racist intent. But intent isn’t magic, and that picture does play into a racist stereotype. But even that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with that picture – it’s the pattern that’s wrong, not the individual instance, which might well just be a coincidence. On the other hand, if I’d asked a black person to pose while eating watermelon so I could take that picture, then the instance could well have been contributing to the pattern, rather than just aligning by chance as in the other case.
So, here, we have a case of a black man being posed as a beast of burden. It wasn’t a fluke that a photographer just happened to catch Ellen playing a game of piggyback with the fastest man alive. It was a deliberate choice. It could have been that Ellen would have done this if the fastest man alive were white instead, but we can look at the racist history in America and judge that it’s less likely she (or anyone else) would have done so with a white person than with a black person.
Or, look at it this way: Some things will get you in trouble based on how they affect other people. If you’re a professional cook and add a sprinkling of ground peanuts to a dish, and someone has an allergic reaction, you don’t get out of trouble by asking, “Well, would it have been a problem if they weren’t allergic to peanuts?” That’s not the point. Many people are allergic to peanuts, and you should know this. And many people are affected by systematically-different portrayals of them in media, and you should know this as well.
Brian Pansky @ #25:
No one alive should need a crash course on the US’s racial history and racist present.
The image was racist because it showed a black man being used as a pack mule by a white US-American woman; she lives in a country that historically and currently oppresses black people (and all people of color, really), see them as less than human, and does not value their lives (see: cops murdering innocent black people and getting away with it). Is that what Ellen intended? No. I’m absolutely sure it wasn’t. In fact, I’ll bet that the thinking behind it was “he is ridiculously fast; let me honor his speed and talent with a joke”. I am absolutely sure that her intent was entirely innocent.
That doesn’t change the racist nature of the pic itself. It just doesn’t. Regardless of what Ellen was thinking, the picture is racist.
re infofile@31:
gotme. I may be irrational to distinguish “active racism” from “passive racism” or, uhh to be even more vague ugh
some one who is consciously, actively, (Rush comes to mind) hateful of races other than their own, versus someone who is unconsciously racist in valuing other races less, just because, for no actual reason, of which they aren’t aware. That first statement describing Ellen I used was using the “active” version. She clearly is not actively hateful of POCs nor any other race, given her strong advocacy of minorities of all types. I then tried to explain how even that could still make her symptomatic of the “passive” form of racism.
I hope that made me more clear *fingers crossing*
@32, Nathan
Thanks for the response.
Like I said, it does seem to be a bit objectifying. Because it showed someone being used as “a pack mule” to serve someone else.
And I think the races involved can reasonably cause discomfort (and thus complaints), like triggering a bad memory.
Your view seems to be that it is automatically racist to depict a black person serving a white person in the present USA context?
So, I guess my question is: how does that work? How does this context make this racist?
If you can’t see why it might be racist to depict a black person as a pack mule for a white person in a society that literally kept black people as living farm equipment, I’m not sure any argument could sway you.
@jefrir #30: It was intended as a general example (like depicting a black person serving a white or eating a water melon). And I’m sure all of these things happens every minute somewhere around the world. So it’s not an hypothetical situation.
@Vivec #35: I completely agree that it might be racist depending on the situation, and that it’s not the best idea for a joke. But I’m not so sure that it must be. If it was a random black person I would agree, but in this case he was most likely chosen simply because he’s the fastest human ever. A similar gag could have been made on Lance Armstrong giving her a ride to work.
I also agree with Infophile #31 in that everybody is racist to some degree. In this world it’s virtually impossible to avoid it, we’re surrounded by it every waking hour, some of it is bound to rub off.
And said joke would indeed be racist, if we lived in a culture founded in using white people as chattel slaves and farm equipment.
What does Usain Bolt think about the image or do we not care about what he thinks?
I’m not sure the individual’s opinion on the matter is particularly relevant to the question at hand. I let my friends get away with a certain degree of gay jokes at my expense, but my not being particularly offended doesn’t make the jokes not homophobic.
I agree. If a joke is being told in private it’s between the teller and the recipient. This was a public joke, it changes everything.
I disagree wih that though. If a friend of mine tells me a gay joke that I tolerate or even laugh at in private, it’s still a homophobic joke.
True, but a friendship allows for much more nuances. If that isn’t the case we’re in a territory where normal interaction becomes taboo. Where offering a friend water melon becomes an offense simply because he’s black.
If you can’t consider the context communication becomes impossible, or at least completely absurd.
And please, please don’t think I’m trying to be contrarian here. But all I see is a grey area where only the “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it”-rule applies. Almost any action can be extremely racist (or sexist) depending on the context and setting. Being helpful can be an act of common decency, a sign of respect or an attempt to belittle someone. If there is a simple rule for distinguishing these I don’t know them.
@39 Vivec
Surely the individual actually depicted’s opinion matters more than random people on the internet’s opinion?
No, not really. I think whether or not something is racist is a quality something has irrespective of opinion, like color or temperature.
Even if I laugh and enjoy a hypothetical gay joke made to me in private, it’s still a homophobic joke. If I went out and told everyone that I felt literally zero offense from the joke, it’d still be a homophobic joke.
If an artist paints a red apple and then swears up and down that he thinks it’s actually blue, it doesn’t therefore become blue.
Surely? How?
I’m sure that Bolt is better than me at recognizing that it is a photoshopped picture of himself (instead of some other person), for instance. And he might say it’s an especially good picture of himself or especially bad, maybe an unusual one in some way. Who knows? He may have formed all sorts of impressions of it on the basis of a very large number of experiences seeing himself in many other photos, in mirrors, perhaps depictions in other media, and so on. And of course he knows things about his own life, what part of it this picture depicts, what is significant to him about it — all things which I certainly don’t know, since like I said I’m not even sure I could accurately and reliably name him if shown one of his pictures.
But I’m not at all sure that it would make him any more (or less) capable of understanding what racist impacts it may or may not have. That sort of thing certainly doesn’t affect only him as an individual, and he doesn’t have anything like private access to that information. So why couldn’t some “random people on the internet” know about that stuff just as well or better? How does being in the picture do anything to make a person more informed and/or more reasonable about the subject?
Not a terribly ridiculous or unrealistic example, believe it or not. This happens a surprising amount in music. I’ve come across quite a few situations where a composer would describe (and sometimes title) a piece of music based on some garbage analysis. People will say “look, Beethoven called this thing a ‘blah,’ so we should believe he’s right, because he made it.” The obvious response is no we shouldn’t conclude that, and that just sounds like a shitty excuse for not doing any analysis of your own. If it’s not the shape of a blah and is the shape of a glob, since these terms have definite meanings about the shape that the thing has, then actually the thing is a glob. And if you want, you can add that your infallible hero Beethoven gave it a stupid title or described it the wrong way (perhaps intentionally). Maybe you add that he made a very nice glob, and he simply wasn’t very great at recognizing its globbiness. But in any case, it’s a glob.
@33 slithey tove:
Gotcha. I still don’t think the “active racist” formulation is useful though, as even Rush Limbaugh would deny he’s a racist, and then the conversation would shift to whether or not he’s a racist, which isn’t going to go anywhere or convince anyone. I think it’s better to keep to analysing actions, and to make sure it’s clear that just because a person has committed one (or more) racist action doesn’t make them irredeemable – if you give that impression, you’ll discourage them from even trying in the future, as they’ll see it as impossible to satisfy you.
So… Ellen did something racist. But I’m pretty damn sure she didn’t intend it to be. I hope that she’ll be more careful about this in the future.
Bolt may have been the target of the joke, but he wasn’t the (only) recipient. A joke doesn’t exist solely inside the tellers head. He might not have been offended, but others can still be.
But I still don’t buy that everything can be divided into racist or not, irrespective of intent or context.
I also think the image is racist. If this joke was made in a world where white supremacy wasn’t a cornerstone of American public affairs and American culture, then the joke wouldn’t have been racist.
And I think this is a case of someone who isn’t deliberately racist making a racist joke due to white privilege (not feeling like there’s a need to stop and think how a joke involving a black person comes across).
But what’s really annoying me, having a family member who’s literally written the book on mules, is how everyone’s characterizing her as using him as a pack mule. You PACK pack mules, you don’t ride them.
But what’s really annoying me, having a family member who’s literally written the book on mules, is how everyone’s characterizing her as using him as a pack mule. You PACK pack mules, you don’t ride them.
I’m glad that you’re really annoyed by semantic trivialities and not like, the racist joke comparing him to a beast of burden or anything.
That’s a very interesting analogy given the philosophy of color.
Brian Pansky @34, it’s not just the present US context. There’s a very long history of oppressed people being forced to carry privileged members of society. In some cultures, it’s been a class thing, but in the Western Hemisphere, it was racial. See e.g.
Carrying a Sedan Chair (Palanquin), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, ca. 1770s. Like Infophile said, it’s somewhat of a meaningless question to ask whether the picture is “racist” as a binary question. Ellen created an image which resembled historical acts of oppression.
@35, Vivec
I think you’ve got it backwards. If asserting (but not saying why) isn’t working, then clearly-reasoned arguments are precisely the thing that will be more likely to work. Right?
I’ll also point out that I frequently correct my own mistakes (or accept the correction of other people) in the comment section here on Pharyngula. I’m sway-able. I sway so often, sometimes I wonder what a “flip-flop” I look like to other people. Yes, that’s something I think about.
@49, Saad
How is that so?
@53, qwints
You’ve basically repeated the same thing, “the context makes it racist”, without really saying how, besides something to do with resemblance.
Brian Pansky
Would you give an example of something you do consider racist?
Brian Pansky, #54
Just like a Japanese person riding on the back of a Dutch person isn’t racist.
@ Brian Pansky, my point is that modern images that evoke historical oppression can be painful. Some of the best commentary I saw on the subject pointed out the very fact that Ellen didn’t realize there were racial implications to the picture was the best evidence of her white privilege.
Looks like some good old-fashioned HR training is in order around here:
https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/786655684809274/
First off, I think it’s fair to say that this isn’t a completely clear-cut case. It might not be that important either, but the level of attention it has attracted can indicate that there is something here to think about.
An image cannot be inherently *anything*. The details of it, it’s distribution of light or ink is in itself not important, it’s the thoughts or feelings we experience as a result that matters. So it comes town to both the context, the deliverer and the audience/recipients. And in this case it was a public statement, in a society with a huge divide around color. There is a long and recent history of unimaginable suffering, a suffering that still continues today. That is a context you cannot deny.
I get it, and I’ll try to remember that for the future. But I sure hope people are a little more forgiving towards me the next time I put my foot in my mouth.
@55, chigau
Seeing a kid driving a nice car and assuming, since the kid is black, that he must have stolen it, and handcuffing him.
In real life it might not always be easy to definitively tell that it was because of the kid’s race, but it’s a hypothesis. We can evaluate how well that hypothesis compares to others. We might find that it’s most likely true.
Ellen’s joke could be the same. Some of the best evidence for that might be seemingly unrelated to this tweet, such as her long history of wearing costumes that are racial stereotypes, and that sort of thing.
@56, Saad
Well of course, that’s entailed by what you said before (maybe you’re joking by not answering “how”?). I meant to ask basically the same thing I asked Nathan. You are saying the context does make this racist. So how does this context make this racist?
@57, qwints
Yes, I just said that in my post #34. That’s a good reason to say “Ellen, don’t do that”, even if that might not mean it’s racist.
Another thing Giliell brought up, which I missed, is disproportionate impact. Given the other things I already say about the problems with the tweet, it could be right to call such a tweet racist merely for this uneven distribution.
Even in cases where context and history isn’t what is causing the hurt, proceeding to cause an impact to be distributed differently from one race to another, that’s a racial inequality we shouldn’t cause. That could be a different form of racism than the example I gave to chigau, but it’s similar in important ways, it can be undesirable to people for the same reasons racist thinking/views can be.