Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
Say I say to you, "I'm a bit nervous to go to the Apollo Theater because it is in Harlem, and I know that's not safe." You then walk me through the root of that belief and I realize that I had believed stuff people had told based upon what the racial make up of Harlem was 20 years ago. I said something racist inadvertently. I can admit that I was wrong and have some growing to do. And maybe a lot of white people would say, "you know I didn't mean something racist," and refuse to look at themselves. I can't say why that is done.
But contrast to you hear me saying "I don't want to go to the Apollo because it is in a N--- neighborhood." There is no course there. Nothing to explain. Other than Tourette's? You might yell at me, or walk away in disgust, but we likely won't talk about my motivation?
But now make it not a private interaction, and I have a microphone in my face. I have to say something. I think that is the point with public exposure and why it goes that way.
|
I think you're on level 1 of this analysis. I'm not saying I'm on some kind of next level. But I am saying that I understand that they want to get rid of any immediate, meaningful discussion of their own racism.
But the next question is: Why does (i) the offender choose an outright denial over an admission and taking a course on racial insensitivity (contrast with a public figure getting caught cheating or abusing drugs and their immediate admission and enrollment in sex addiction or drug treatment) and (ii) when caught red-handed, why does a complete denial
work to get rid of the issue? What else does this work with?
Is it because most white people have gone through this and are empathetic enough to say, "Yeah, I've said racist shit and I'm not racist, so this will blow over." Is it something else? Given the fact that I've seen non-public people just outright deny any racism after doing racist shit, is it deeper than that?
TM
Threaded Mode