Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

helgrenze wrote:Dogma, Are you telling me:
That it is only racism if it is done to one specific race, i.e. blacks?
That it is not possible to be racist toward either your own race or everyone that is not your race?
That racism can only be directed towards a minority?
That stating that an entire race is insulted by something because a small portion of that race found it offensive does not fall into the definition of racism?

this is where you lose me. Are you saying the NAACP is racist because they claim to speak for all blacks? I get that what the NAACP did in the incident was incorrect, wrong, bad, stupid, and simply a quest for the limelight, but I simply fail to see how a group saying "we find this offensive because we think it's a slur against black people" is racist. I'm not able to connect those dots.

Racism is at its base racial prejudice. Prejudice is defined as, amonge other things,

an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

The racial prejudice in this case is that the LA NAACP had "an irrational attitude of hostility" to the supposed characteristics of white opinion they felt the card conveyed.
They further showed their own prejudice toward their own race by going on the news and telling them that they should be offended, not by what the card actually said, but by what THEY claimed it said.

I think you have to stretch here to find that they're either hostile (the video I saw showed them to be pretty calm) or irrational. They're wrong, but it's because they are basing their arguments on faulty assumptions and facts, not on poor reasoning. I'm also not sure they're really attacking "white" opinion, and even if they were, it's not because the opinion was white.

If you (or anybody else in this thread) had a conflict with a black person in which you misunderstood what they said, and demanded an apology, even though you were wrong, does that make you racist? Or just wrong? Particularly since many of the people arguing that the NAACP are race baiting, you seem to be hasty in ignoring the possibility of a color blind issue. The issue wasn't that a "white corporation" allegedly used a slur, but that a slur was allegedly used at all.

I also don't see them making any assertions about white opinion. They're making assertions about a recording. They're not even saying anybody is racist. They're simply saying they heard a word that sounded like a slur. You seem to be saying that they're implying that hallmark is racist, because they're white and white people are racist; except that's not in any way what's happening.

The last sentence makes no sense at all. People are always telling others when they should be offended/shocked/outraged, based partially on what they claim to see. Is every person that ever advocated a position racist towards his own group? Are people that claim to speak for any group racist?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Over reacting to something one has misheard is irrational. Further coloring that mishear as racism is also irrational. They made that leap. Considering the card was available for 3 years and no-one else made that connection says more about this group than anything they may have done in the past.

I responded a bit earlier, but there are few things. First, there is something to be said for the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that the cards, in person, sound different than in a you-tube clip of a local news broadcast. There are facts available that you're not availing yourself of, and so while it seems likely that this is trumped up, immediately assuming it is could be hasty.

Second, you keep stating that they're alleging racism. I don't think they are. They're alleging a racial slur, which is different from racism. Racism requires a certain intent (as all moral acts do), while racial slurs are simply words that the NAACP wants removed from the lexicon, regardless of intent.

Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP(possibly misidentified in either the video or the print version of the story) states ""It sounds like a group of children laughing and joking about blackness, again,"

This statement is not about a slur they misheard. This is a statement that brings the concept of racism into the conversation. If you watch the video you can hear the woman pausing before the word "Again" for emphasis and adopting a look of disgust at the thought.

If this was simply about a slur, real or imagined, then she would not have felt the need to make such an inflamatory statement.

So long as blacks are stuck in a lower economic position, the NAACP is necessary.

Story made me lol though...

helgrenze wrote:

Minnie Hatley of the Los Angeles NAACP(possibly misidentified in either the video or the print version of the story) states ""It sounds like a group of children laughing and joking about blackness, again,"

This statement is not about a slur they misheard. This is a statement that brings the concept of racism into the conversation. If you watch the video you can hear the woman pausing before the word "Again" for emphasis and adopting a look of disgust at the thought.

If this was simply about a slur, real or imagined, then she would not have felt the need to make such an inflamatory statement.

You consider that an inflammatory statement? She's explaining how it's a racial slur. She's also saying "it sounds like," which is less final than "It is."

And yes, they are bringing the concept of racism into the conversation. That is the job of the NAACP: to remind white America that there is racism, that it hurts blacks (and many others), and that we shouldn't be content with the progress we've made. In the end, that's why so many here are bothered by this: because we don't want to think about how racism, even today, can exist.

Racism isn't just in the cracks and corners, not everything the NAACP says or does is about petty or non-existent racism, and even if they made the whole thing up and are calling the card an instance of racism, that in itself isn't racist! It can't be. They're not saying "white people are racist," or "this card is racist because it was made by honkies." They're saying "saying this is racist. It mocks black people and offends us." How is that racist? How is it different from white people arguing against rap, or ebonics, or any other aspect of black culture? I don't think I'm racist for thinking pants sagging is stupid, and I don't think a school is racist for not allowing it. So, when the NAACP says "this aspect of your culture offends us," how exactly is that racist?

helgrenze wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Why was the NAACP attitude irrational?

You do not think it was irrational that they were not only hearing a single phantom letter while at the same time ignoring three whole words?

What the characters on the card said:

Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice. Yeah. And you black holes, you are so ominous. oooo, hahahaha. And you planets, watch your backs.

The audio provided by the link in the op is clear enough to hear everything in the quote above. You can hear it on crappy underpowered speakers quite clearly.
Yet the NAACP members state that they hear an "r" in the word "holes" and jump right past the words "And you planets" to the phrase "watch your backs".
They are convinced that this is what the voices say and have called the media to make their complaint known without further review.

A somewhat similar situation was played out in the Wolverine movie, when Wolverine says the word "Bub" the Fred Dukes character hears "Blob" and throws Wolverine into a wall.

Over reacting to something one has misheard is irrational. Further coloring that mishear as racism is also irrational. They made that leap. Considering the card was available for 3 years and no-one else made that connection says more about this group than anything they may have done in the past.

If you mishear something you by definition do not know what it 'actually' says, and you must react to your perception of it. This group is primed to perceive racist comments from the racist many jibes that have often been used against black people. In that light their complaints were rational.

Alternatively you have to suppose that the NAACP knew exactly what this card said and decided to lodge a complaint knowing it would not have any chance of being upheld.

In fact the complaint has been upheld, so from that viewpoint their actions were not irrational.

Polonius, it was not "an aspect of your culture", it was a misheard recording on a card. They reacted by calling a press conference to air their complaint publically. They did seem to have called Hallmark with their complaint first.

Kilkrazy, In calling this press conference, they removed the opportunity for Hallmark to act in any other manner than to remove the card from sale. Their claim was not "upheld". Hallmark took the only action that was left to them as a result of the press conference.

The act of pre-emtively calling a press conference, and airing their complaint can be viewed as them trying to create an atmosphere of racial insensitivity around Hallmark.

Of course, WE do not know whether this branch of the NAACP called Hallmark or not. We DO know that the news service did call them and recieved a statement from them on the subject, as well as a transcript of the contents of the card.

This group thought they heard something, took the contents of the recording out of context and decided to make a statement where they called it "racist". It wasn't motivated by anything other than a desire to get a headline to further their agenda.

I doubt that any member of the NAACP, including those that made this claim, go out and actively look for things like this. It was trivial and could have been dealt with quietly by simply calling Hallmark and requesting the removal of the card.

They chose to make it a larger issue. By calling a press conference, they acted to promote their own racial views over the opinions and views of other people.
They effectivly said, "This is a black issue."
And in doing so, established a preferance over people of other races.
They acted in a racist manner.

So, calling something a black issue is racist?

Does that mean that heart medications designed to work better for black people are the products of racism?

Are groups that speak of "christian issues" religious bigots?

The problem I have is the way you attribute their actions to racism. Some issues are more meaningful to people in the groups that target them. By saying "this is a black issue" they're saying, "this is something that is improtant to blacks, and something we want to have discussed and stopped."

And no, there really aren't a lot of "white" issues. Whites are far less homogeneous than blacks in this country, and black Americans aren't monolithic by any means. Black Americans (aside from recent african immigrants) share a massive collective history. They have a far more profound racial identity, seperate from mainstream culture.

Not that there aren't white issues. Osteoporosis is generally only seen in white and asian women. It's not racist to target white women with ads, is it? What about discussing Tay-sachs among jews? If the news recommends sunscreen if you're light skinned, is that racist?

Also, they're not arguing for special treatment. They want to not have words they find offensive used. Nearly every group does that. There's a pretty clear line between asking to be treated with respect, and asking for special treatment because your racist.

And, well, they're the NAACP. They want to, pretty much by definition, advance colored people. Are they saying they want to help blacks and not whites? Yes. Is that racist? No, because they're not trying to advance blacks ahead of whites, but to make them equal.

If hallmark had created a card that white folk found offensive (unlikely given their demographic), somebody woudl complain, it would get pulled, and nobody would care about race.

here's an example of a christian offended by a card:

http://www.planetfeedback.com/hallmark+cards+inc/other/religiously+offensive+holiday+card+at+hallmark/322456

Is she an anti-semite? Is she a bigot because she thinks Hallmark is anti-christian?

Religious groups have been offended by hallmark making cards for same sex marriages. Are they homophobes?

A simple google search shows that many people are offended by many different kinds of Hallmark cards, often for reasons as dumb as this NAACP case. Are they are fueled by racism?

Here's an example of they mayor of topeka finding a card offensive:

http://cjonline.com/stories/093005/loc_card.shtml

What form of bigotry fueled him?

In both those cases, there is no misinterpretation of the card in question. The offense taken was due to the questionable humor presented.
In both your cases its a matter of injured pride... one, in the city and the other, in that persons religious beliefs.

As I claim neither association, I saw the humor as intended.

In the case with the LA NAACP, it isnt't a question of missed humor or pride. It is a question of seeing an insult that is clearly not there.
They heard "Black" followed by another word they misunderstood that was subsequently followed by three words they summarily dismissed, which in turn were followed by "Watch your backs".
In effect, they stopped listening after the word "Black" and chose to call a press conference where they made what amounts to false claims in an effort to exert pressure on the company.
The only reason they appear to have for all of this is racism.

A white supremist that never says anything against any other race is still considered to be a racist for no other reason than promoting his own race.

How is this episode any different?

If you really cannot see the difference despite all the very clear explanations that have been made there is no point continuing this thread.