|
For whatever it's worth, here are my 2 cents. The feeling I've had is that "racism" has evolved over the years from intent to perception. It used to be, (and unfortunately in some cases still today), that racism involved one race feeling they were superior to another and putting and keeping that second race down, intellectually or physically. There was obvious intent. However, it now appears that racism is perception; one race feeling that they are inferior to another due to actions and words, no matter the intent. A particular word uttered by one person could have a different meaning to the person on the receiving end due to their own experiences. But who is at fault if the word is taken the wrong way? If I use the word "thug" to describe John Chaney, and my intent was to use it as a "code word" that means "a black, gang-banger, low-class indiviual", then I think most people would agree I was in the wrong and should be considered a racist. But what if that's not what I meant? What if my only intent was to imply a large, muscular individual with a bad complexion, wearing sunglasses, and who knows the Godfather's cell phone number by heart? Am I just as much a racist now? Most people I know would say no. But there are some people who would take offense due to their own personal experiences with the use of that word. So, who's at fault - the person who used the term without taking into account how the other person feels about it, or the person who is offended by the use without taking into account the intent?
I have watched with interest a local (and somewhat nationwide) issue of whether or not Chief Illiniwek is racist. One side of the issue is that it most certainly is racist, because the people it portrays are ashamed of the use, and it demeans their race by someone else using that likeness. It is their perception of the symbol. The other side of the issue is that it is most certainly not racist, but in fact just the opposite - the symbol is used to honor that race. It is their intent for that symbol. So, who's right? Perhaps both sides, to some extent - that's why it is such a devisive issue and there is no apparent compromise. But how do you reconcile the difference between "intent" and "perception"?
|