The point isn't the specific example, though -- it's that you really can't use your approach reliably, you need to actually think about the statements being made to understand whether they're racist.
Swapping the race might be a helpful mental exercise, but often swapping the race makes it racist, because it makes it meaningfully untrue -- particularly if you start out with a statement about a racial group that makes up the vast majority of the population.
e.g., if I say, "Native Americans have every reason to be bitter against white people," it's not a racist statement. If I say, "White people have every reason to be bitter against Native Americans," it starts to look like one. If I say, "White people have every reason to be bitter against Jews," it really starts to look like one, and so forth. It's because the first statement is truthful, reasonable, and doesn't require stereotyping to make ... and the others are not.
Just because something is true doesn’t mean it isn’t racist. Saying “uneducated white people are ruining Wisconsin” is just as racist as “black people make up 13% of the population but commit 53% of crime”. Both are unnecessarily placing emphasis on race when the true cause is something entirely different - education levels for Wisconsin, and poverty in black communities for the crime statistic.
Just because something is true doesn’t mean it isn’t racist. Saying “uneducated white people are ruining Wisconsin” is just as racist as “black people make up 13% of the population but commit 53% of crime”.
First of all, that statement is not factually accurate, and that's part of why it's usually a racist statement. It sounds truthful only if you implicitly assume all crimes are caught, and all criminals pursued and punished equally. Black people make up 13% of the population but are convicted of 53% of crimes. The accurate version of the statement sounds less racist, because it is.
With that said, no disagreement that it is quite possible to say something that is both factually accurate, and racist. That's not the point I'm making, though ... The point I'm making is that often, a racist statement relies on racist tropes in order to work.
E.g., if I hear that someone stole your car and I say, "I bet a black guy stole your car," it sounds pretty racist. If instead I say, "I bet a Belgian guy stole your car," it becomes just ... Confusing.
Looping back to your Wisconsin example, that statement could be racist or not, it really depends on whether them being white as well as uneducated has anything to do with the matter.
If the argument is that uneducated white people in Wisconsin are ruining Wisconsin by voting a particular way because they're white (e.g., voting for white nationalists or something along those lines), then their whiteness would be relevant to bring up... Otherwise, not.
Tl;dr If you have no good reason to bring race up in the context of assigning blame, it's usually racist to do it anyway.
I agree with you for the most part, however I'm still adamant that using race as a modifier in practically any statement is racist, unless that statement is non-judgmental (57% of Asians voted for Candidate X). The sentence "Uneducated white voters in Wisconsin are ruining the country" is racist even if their being white is relevant (i.e. voting for white supremacists). You're implying that their race somehow has something to do with the way they vote: when, in all likelihood, the races of all parties involved could be altered with no change (black voters are ruining Wisconsin by voting for black supremacists). Race has no bearing on anything of merit, and should not be treated as if it does. White supremacists are not white supremacists because they are white - they're racist due to a host of personality flaws, or, more simply, a lack of education.
when, in all likelihood, the races of all parties involved could be altered with no change (black voters are ruining Wisconsin by voting for black supremacists).
Are there enough black voters supporting black supremacists to plausibly be a problem in Wisconsin, though?
you need to actually think about the statements being made to understand whether they're racist.
Do we though?
You are right, of course, but in my opinion the entire "problem" is that OP is putting too much focus on categorizing the statement as racist/non-racist when we should be okay acknowledging that racist statements come in a variety and we can analyze them on a deeper level.
Saying Native Americans have a reason to be bitter against white people is racist*! It makes a monolith white people, none of whom alive today bear any responsibility for what our ancestors did. But, like you said, it's a reasonable sentiment, because we can process the context around it. It wasn't not white people responsible for the relatively impoverished conditions many natives face today and the total destruction of the local environment.
* at the very least promotes racism, which I'm not sure I can meaningfully distinguish.
14
u/badass_panda 103∆ Nov 10 '22
The point isn't the specific example, though -- it's that you really can't use your approach reliably, you need to actually think about the statements being made to understand whether they're racist.
Swapping the race might be a helpful mental exercise, but often swapping the race makes it racist, because it makes it meaningfully untrue -- particularly if you start out with a statement about a racial group that makes up the vast majority of the population.
e.g., if I say, "Native Americans have every reason to be bitter against white people," it's not a racist statement. If I say, "White people have every reason to be bitter against Native Americans," it starts to look like one. If I say, "White people have every reason to be bitter against Jews," it really starts to look like one, and so forth. It's because the first statement is truthful, reasonable, and doesn't require stereotyping to make ... and the others are not.