Stuff White People Say

July 17, 2008

“I’m a spokesperson for black people”

Nquest sees me as inconsistent and as a faulty spokesperson for black people

(where the problem for Macon is the characterization of him as ‘inconsistent’ and ‘faulty’)
(by Macon D in ask for suggestions comments at Stuff White People Do)

Follow up comment by Macon D in the same comment thread:

right jw, bad phrasing. What I meant was more like, “bad summarizer of black observation and opinion and black reportage of personal experience.”

Advertisements

38 Comments »

  1. So I guess Macon wanted to dispute that he is/was a “bad summarizer of black observation and opinion and black reportage of personal experience” as if to say that he is a “good” one. Well, where is the proof?

    That is, in what threads/posts where I suggested that he is a “faulty spokesperson for black people” was he accurately “summarizing” the observations and opinions of Black people and reflections on their experiences?

    Then you really have to question Macon wants to “summarize” Black observations, etc. and what he’s going to use it for. It’s clear he wanted to use his bogus summary of Black observations for dubious intent. His attitude was that the ENDS justified the MEANS which is neither an informed or responsible way to do things.

    And Macon already rationalized his incoherence by way of his inconsistencies away. So, by his own admission, me seeing him as “inconsistent” is accurate. I guess it’s just not a nice to say or whatever Macon’s issue is.

    Comment by Nquest — July 17, 2008 @ 4:25 pm | Reply

  2. Messed up, misleading post title again. Be responsible. Be accountable. Quotation marks are used for direct quotations–not for paraphrasing, and in this case, again, not for inaccurate paraphrasing. (And to think Restructure, and Nquest, keep throwing the term “intellectual rigor” at me–how am I supposed to take that seriously when neither of you calls out this sort of intellectually lazy sloppiness?)

    Again Nquest mysteriously mutters about my “clear” “dubious intent.” If it’s so “clear” to you, why don’t you just say what you think this dubious intent is? But beyond that, why do you keep claiming you can read my mind? Wake up, my good interlocutor–you can’t. My “intent” on my blog is always to get white people thinking about their whiteness. Is that “dubious”? If you’re so sure I have some other intent, just say what you think it is. Otherwise, your ungrounded presumptuousness is seriously undercutting your rhetorical foundations.

    Proof, you ask? Many posts on my blog effectively summarize black observation and opinion and black reportage of personal experience–perhaps beginning with the one on how whites often “pet” black people.

    Comment by macon d — July 18, 2008 @ 6:33 am | Reply

  3. Proof, you ask?

    BWAHHAAHAAA!!!!

    Hey, with the fake outrage you keep raising about Restructure’s thread titles (a complaint made because you obviously can’t say you’re misquoted in the all important content… Well, you might as well have a fake conversation with yourself.

    Proof, you ask? …perhaps beginning with the one on how whites often “pet” black people.

    Hmmm… (I’m still trying to figure out why Macon keeps acting like he doesn’t understand ENGLISH!!!)

    And I quote:
    Well, where is the proof?

    That is, in what threads/posts where I suggested that he is a “faulty spokesperson for black people” was he accurately “summarizing” the observations and opinions of Black people and reflections on their experiences?

    I repeat: “IN WHAT THREADS/POSTS WHERE I SUGGESTED…” (Note: I hadn’t posted on your blog at all back in April when the ‘Pet Black People’ first appeared.)

    Seriously, dude… You need to get that stuff checked out.

    Comment by Nquest — July 18, 2008 @ 9:10 am | Reply

  4. Macon D,

    Can you explain why it’s an inaccurate paraphrasing?

    Comment by Restructure! — July 18, 2008 @ 12:15 pm | Reply

  5. […] Macon D in “I’m a spokesperson for black people” comments at Stuff White People […]

    Pingback by “I’m a good summarizer of black opinion.” « Stuff White People Say — July 18, 2008 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  6. I’d be glad to, Restructure. If you’re referring to the title, it’s a bad paraphrasing, first of all, because it has quotation marks around it–which a paraphrase shouldn’t. Quotation marks tell any reader that you’re, you know, QUOTING someone. Claiming in the comments somewhere that you mean something different with your quotation marks is irresponsible, given the way the vast majority of readers will receive post titles with quotation marks around them, especially at a blog entitled “Stuff White People SAY.” And quoting me inaccurately is hurtful to me, as it would be to anyone. Remember what you pointed out to me about stopping something when it’s hurting someone? Or does that only apply to me, because I’m the oppressor? (These aren’t rhetorical questions [and there’s no sarcasm intended in them either], so you have no justification for pulling them out and posting them as another thing “white people say”–perhaps in a post implying that white people fail to see the hierarchy that puts them on top? or maybe how white people equate any hurt they feel in conversations on race with that of non-white people? If you’re tempted, I don’t think you should go there, because the topic here is not race–it’s responsible quoting practices.)

    The other reason the title is inaccurate, even as a paraphrase, is that in the two snippets in the post that actually are quotations from my writing, I did not write that I’m a good summarizer of black opinion–I wrote about how it seemed to me that Nquest saw me. The few words of your own that you added to the post don’t do enough to convert those statements into a claim on my part that “I’m a good summarizer of black opinion.” (Oh dear–I wrote those words! Are you now going to pull that sentence just before this parenthetical pair of sentences out of this comment and put it in a post as something “white people say”? If you do, I won’t be surprised, given the surprisingly shoddy quoting practices on display in this blog.)

    By the way, speaking of accuracy–given that image of a pen on your blog, and the fact that there is a difference between how people write and how they talk, shouldn’t the blog’s title be “stuff white people write”?

    Comment by macon d — July 18, 2008 @ 9:28 am | Reply

  7. [whoa, weird things happening here . . . looks like Restructure’s comments just disappeared?]

    Comment by macon d — July 18, 2008 @ 9:32 am | Reply

  8. Nquest, thanks for pointing out what I need to check out. I wrote what I wrote about your comment because I read it way past my bedtime, and blearily missed that you were referring specifically to threads in which you wrote etc. My bad. I’m glad that my mistake invoked more healthfulness in you, provoking you into laughing like a stock Hollywood villain. (Do you honestly bray like that when you’re sitting at your computer, when you feel compelled to tell us that you’re laughing out loud and so on?)

    I have a question for you. You’ve written at my blog (and I’m paraphrasing here [notice the lack of quotation marks] because who has time to comb through your 1001 comments there?) that I run into trouble with you when I attempt to summarize black experience. So, I’m wondering what you think of my handling of black experience in that post that I mentioned, the one about how white people often “pet black people.” You seem very interested in where my ideas come from in the first place–I wrote that post after reading and hearing black people complain about this common and nasty form of white behavior. I then generalized those complaints into a “common complaint that black people make about white people,” and wrote a post about how white people often do that, in the hopes that some white people would wake the hell up and stop doing that shit. (I’m also wondering, do you detect some other “dubious intent” lurking behind that post? Or do you detect my dubious intent lurking behind only certain posts?)

    If I’m reading things right at this blog (and please forgive me if I’m not reading them right–as Restructure has written, I’m a slow learner–thanks for your patience, y’all–no sarcasm or snark intended), I’m being told that white people should never generalize in any way about any group of non-white people. It also appears that a white person should not summarize black reportage of black experience (or maybe it’s, if he or she does, he or she shouldn’t claim they’re any good at it? or maybe, claim that someone else says they’re bad at it?).

    So if those are criteria for proper white anti-racist writing, then do those problems also exist in the post about white people petting black people?

    And by the way, I’m not trying to say something here like, “Look! You’re wrong! Here’s an effective summary on my part of black reportage of black experience! So STFU!” Instead, I’m trying to do what this here blog seems intent on doing, which is to fine-tune the anti-racist practices at “Stuff White People Do.”

    Comment by macon d — July 18, 2008 @ 10:04 am | Reply

  9. [restructure, it looks like your comment has moved? I answered the question that you’re now asking in Comment 7 above it in Comment 4 . . . ]

    And Nquest, you haven’t answered my questions regarding what you mean by “dubious intent.” If you’re certain enough that such an intent lurks within me that you would write those words, you should also be an effective enough conversation partner to explain what you mean by that.

    Comment by macon d — July 18, 2008 @ 10:09 am | Reply

  10. Nquest, thanks for pointing out what I need to check out.

    Macon, surely you’ve realized by now that trying to appear agreeable to me when you know you’re going to work your way around to saying the same bs is not going to work with me. Neither will rephrasing the same rejected bs work no matter how clever you think your appeals for me are.

    I’m wondering what you think of my handling of black experience in that post that I mentioned

    And I’m wondering why you think this approach and appeal will work. You get the same response you got last night:

    Well, where is the proof?

    That is, in what threads/posts where I suggested that he is a “faulty spokesperson for black people” was he accurately “summarizing” the observations and opinions of Black people and reflections on their experiences?

    You seem very interested in proving your case that you are “summarizer of black observation and opinion and black reportage of personal experience”, so show your interest and your skills on the relevant thread(s) beginning with express amazement when non-white people see them as “white” and the thread you linked to for support, believe others consider them trustworthy. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with these see through tactics of yours.

    Seriously, the very fact that you wanted to make an issue out of the title here but, ironically, are trying your best to stake/defend your reputation as a “good summarizer of black opinion” just shows a huge disconnect. You don’t even realize how problematic this whole drive of yours is.

    You claim you’re focusing on Whiteness but it doesn’t occur to you that your statements/behavior here says something else about what your focus is and what deem important; what you value. For someone reason, the question of why do you want… strike that… need to be a “good summarizer of black opinion” (when black people can summarize their own opinions quite well on their own) just doesn’t occur to you.

    Comment by Nquest — July 18, 2008 @ 7:08 pm | Reply

  11. Macon, surely you’ve realized by now that trying to appear agreeable to me when you know you’re going to work your way around to saying the same bs is not going to work with me.

    What appeal? Now you’re telling me I shouldn’t talk to you in the manner I talk to others on the Internet? By thanking you for this or that? And you see this as an appeal? What, you think I should be just as disagreeable and pugnacious as you? That’s just, bizarre. Especially given your talk elsewhere about how people shouldn’t complain about your own communicative style.

    As for my working my way around to the same old “bs”–what? You want to communicate with someone who states something as his belief, or his position, or his claim, and then you just dismiss it as “bs”? What the hell? And something is only “proof” if you say it is? And I’m supposed to continue communicating with you after that kind of dismissal of what I’ve had to say? How about seeing what I state instead, after working through an issue with you, as a “difference of opinion,” or “of interpretation,” instead of insisting that no one could possibly be right but you, and everyone who has a difference of opinion with you is instead spouting “bs”?

    Me: I’m wondering what you think of my handling of black experience in that post that I mentioned

    Nquest: And I’m wondering why you think this approach and appeal will work.

    What “appeal”? “Will work” to do what? What I’m trying to do is work with you on how to summarize black opinion well. What are you trying to work on with me? Simply proving that I did that wrong somewhere? We’ve already finished discussing the issues you raised on my blog about the posts you’re mentioning here again. I’ve stated that I believe those posts do show that many non-white people do distrust white people, and you disagree, etc. etc. ad nauseum. If you think my claims there are “bs,” fine, I disagree. I don’t want to rehash here the hours we spent there on that topic. So let’s drop it, and move on to issues being discussed on this blog. Otherwise, “stop wasting my time,” as you put it.

    What I’m trying to make “work” here in asking about the post on “petting black people” is to discuss it in relation to your claim that black people can summarize their opinions quite well on their own–as if white people shouldn’t do that at all. Are you telling me, “never summarize black opinions because you’re not black”? If so, I think that’s ridiculous.

    Here’s an example of why I think that’s ridiculous. In that post I’m asking you to revisit, I summarized claims that a lot of black people don’t like to be petted by white people. I’m referring you to it because I think it’s a more clearcut example than the posts you want to drag us back to. If I’m to tell white people about why they should stop petting black people (do you agree that white people should stop doing that?), then wouldn’t my argument be pretty weak if I didn’t report a summarized, more or less collective opinion, that a lot of black people don’t like that? I’m being called out on this blog for summarizing non-white experiences and opinions, and I’m here to answer that charge, but more importantly to work out ways to better do that. But if all you’re going to tell me is, “Don’t EVER do that,” then fine, we’ll have to disagree again (and if you then tell me that my opinion is “bs,” you’ll be making an ass of yourself).

    So yes, the question of why I need to be a good summarizer of black opinion certainly does occur to me, contrary to what you just wrote (on 7/8 at 7:08 p.m.–in case the order of the comments here gets screwed up again). It’s sometimes effective to do that within an explanation to white people about why they should stop doing this or that to black people. If you don’t think so, please tell me why.

    Also, you haven’t answered, or even acknowledged, my question–what particular “dubious intent” do you detect lurking behind any or all of my posts?

    I have a similar question about your most recent comment: what does this mean? “it doesn’t occur to you that your statements/behavior here says something else about what your focus is and what [you] deem important; what you value.” Here you go again, with another murky implication–what is this “something” that I’m supposedly saying about what I value? Is it supposed to be my pride, or ego, which I protect by not admitting you’re right and I’m wrong? If so, that’s ridiculous, for reasons I just stated above about why I’m here. Out with it, please–stop being such an ineffective communicator.

    If you won’t answer my questions, then “stop wasting my time” with yours. Communication in which only one person’s questions get answered is not effective communication, and indeed, a waste of time.

    Comment by macon d — July 19, 2008 @ 5:22 am | Reply

  12. Macon, when you’re not being genuine, you should know that I’m not obliged to play the “pretend” game with you and treat what you say as genuine when the very next thing that comes out of your virtual mouth reflects on how have no regards for what I asked you to check out.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 5:35 am | Reply

  13. And something is only “proof” if you say it is?

    You should also know that rhetorical questions don’t work. Don’t try to frame my position. Defend yours.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 5:36 am | Reply

  14. How about seeing what I state instead, after working through an issue with you, as a “difference of opinion,” or “of interpretation,” instead of insisting that no one could possibly be right but you, and everyone who has a difference of opinion with you is instead spouting “bs”?

    How about finally producing the quotes or material where hooks, McCall, etc. say what you suggested they did via your claim that you drew your contested idea from them? No distractions or detours to your head petting thread granted.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 5:38 am | Reply

  15. What I’m trying to do is work with you on how to summarize black opinion well.

    Work with me? You done fell and bumped your damn head. I already told you, since you’re so damn clueless that you have to ask… My best advice for you, because of your particular issues, is for you to leave it alone.

    I don’t want to rehash here the hours we spent there on that topic. So let’s drop it…

    Who cares what you do and don’t want to rehash? This is not your blog and you don’t set the agenda here. When you act like you want to respond to something I say then that’s what you’re going to do. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your issues; your dishonesty issues in particular.

    Otherwise, “stop wasting my time,” as you put it.

    Dude, you called yourself responding to what I said. See… post #1 is by Nquest. You followed it and acted like you wanted to engage me on what I said. Do that or stop wasting my time. It’s as simple as that.

    What I’m trying to make “work” here in asking about the post on “petting black people” is to discuss it in relation to your claim that black people can summarize their opinions quite well on their own–as if white people shouldn’t do that at all.

    My claim is as specific as it always was:
    Well, where is the proof?

    That is, in what threads/posts where I suggested that he is a “faulty spokesperson for black people” was he accurately “summarizing” the observations and opinions of Black people and reflections on their experiences?

    Deal with that or stop wasting my time.

    Are you telling me, “never summarize black opinions because you’re not black”? If so, I think that’s ridiculous.

    I did not stutter and I was very clear. No need to try to “summarize” (read: bastardize) my statement (via the lamest straw man tactics) when what I said stands on its own and remains as specific as it ever was.

    That aside, what’s ridiculous about noting that black people can summarize their opinions quite well?
    And what makes that a “claim”, Macon? What? You’re saying black people can’t sum up their own opinions?

    Is that something you really want to say?

    In that post I’m asking you to revisit…

    Macon, I wasn’t posting on your blog when you made that thread. I can’t revisit something I’ve haven’t visited before. Until you can get your sh*t straight… Stop wasting my time. And, actually, until you deal with the specific thing I said in Post #1 in the specific context in which I said it (see Post #10)….

    That’s it. You have no conversation for me.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 6:13 am | Reply

  16. That’s it. You have no conversation for me.

    Ah, we’re finally in agreement. I too no longer see a point in conversing with you.

    Comment by macon d — July 19, 2008 @ 6:35 am | Reply

  17. Communication in which only one person’s questions get answered is not effective communication, and indeed, a waste of time.

    Macon, you can cut that bs out right now. You tried to play that game on your blog on the thread you want no parts of. The question you asked me there under this same bs pretense… I answered but you continued to make excuses and never, EVER answered my LONG STANDING QUESTION about where you got your stereotype laden idea about what PoC think in terms of viewing any random “new” White as possibly/probably racist.

    And, no, we didn’t have a “difference of opinion.” That bs won’t work either. You can’t have your own opinion about what other people think when you have no foundation for it other than some bs fabricated in your own mind. Also, you are not entitled to your own facts. You made a claim and the burden of proof is on you to do the very basic thing and show where you got that stuff from — i.e. what solid information supports the whole of what you said and (falsely) attributed to other people.

    You need to learn to stop lying and playing rhetorical games… You look stupid trying to say “we have a difference of opinion” when you’ve admitted in so many not-so-subtle ways that you f-cked up.

    You know you f-cked up that’s why you want this head petting post to redeem you. You know you f-cked up that’s why you said “Many posts on my blog effectively summarize black observation” instead of talking about the one I clearly alluded to and ones where you know I posted and the ones where I suggested you were a “faulty spokesperson for black people” or a “bad summarizer.”

    You know you f-cked up, that’s why pretended like you knew I wanted your post changed or erased when I never suggested anything to you to that effect. Then, knowing you f-cked up again, you tried to play the “anti-racism labor” card and the ever popular “what good would it do?” card.

    Yep! That’s the question I answered and, being the unscrupulous one in this communication exchange, you kept trying to avoid the question you faked like you were going to answer, if I only answered yours, without batting an eye.

    Now you got all kinds of excuses.

    I’m being called out on this blog for summarizing non-white experiences and opinions, and I’m here to answer that charge

    When you’re addressing me, unless you’re answering my specific question (Post #1) about the specific topic I alluded to (Post #10), you’re not do a damn thing but coming up with excuses and distractions.

    if all you’re going to tell me is, “Don’t EVER do that,” then fine

    It’s good advice for someone who is as clueless or thickheaded (because you don’t listen… except for what you want to hear) as you make yourself out to be.

    if you then tell me that my opinion is “bs,” you’ll be making an ass of yourself

    lmao!

    Also, you haven’t answered, or even acknowledged, my question–what particular “dubious intent”

    Macon, you are in arrears. Your tab runneth over. Don’t you ever act like I don’t answer your questions when you’re the one who has that problem. (scroll up)

    Further, don’t hold out privileges and excuses that you only think applies to you. My post #3 came a few hours after yours. That means I was up later than you and I actually have an answer for you little question; had it at the time I post #3 but I cut the post down because I was too tired to finish it.

    Now I’ve already spotted you that “what good would it do?”… and that’s all you’re getting….
    But wait, I’m an obliger. I’ll gladly let you use me to make an ass out of yourself:

    “Your dubious intent was clear when you figured you could use PoC (in the pejorative sense) in your quest to dignify the stupid idea you say Whites have (their belief that they’re automatically trustworthy) to “increase White self-awareness.” So with your ENDS justify the MEANS mentality, it didn’t matter to you that you stereotyped PoC, made the unfounded claim that they(we) PRE-JUDGE Whites figuring any random “new” White is probably/possibly racist or bound to “enact common forms of white racism”… SOMETHING HOOKS, MCCALL, ETC. NEVER SAID!!”

    Now answer my LONG STANDING QUESTION about where you got your idea from or stop wasting my time.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 6:48 am | Reply

  18. Note how I had already posted about your DUBIOUS INTENT on your blog when I noted how you took an ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS attitude. (JW did too.)

    So as long as you want to act like you stupid, Macon… that’s how I’m going to talk to you.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 6:55 am | Reply

  19. Here’s an example of not respecting and recognizing people as INDIVIDUALS:

    MACON: I’m being called out on this blog for summarizing non-white experiences and opinions, and I’m here to answer that charge

    NQUEST: When you’re addressing me, unless you’re answering my specific question (Post #1) about the specific topic I alluded to (Post #10), you’re not do a damn thing but coming up with excuses and distractions.

    Note: Nquest is not “this blog” and “this blog” is not Nquest.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 7:03 am | Reply

  20. No Nquest. I told you, that old conversation is over.

    Comment by macon d — July 19, 2008 @ 7:07 am | Reply

  21. Nquest at July 19, 2008 @ 7:03 am: Look at the post above these comments–the post on “this blog.” You might try getting over yourself while you’re at it.

    Comment by macon d — July 19, 2008 @ 7:09 am | Reply

  22. Macon making excuses again. I answered your question. That’s two times you played that game and I called your bluff. Now I’m calling you own some more of your bs in the post #19 from July 19, 2008 @ 7:03 am.

    I charged you with having no proof of your claims and not accurately summarizing what McCall, e.g., had to say about trusting Whites, particularly the reasons. You know you are wrong so that’s why you don’t want to “REVISIT” that old conversation from a thread of yours that’s newer than the one you to use as subterfuge.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 7:46 am | Reply

  23. So yes, the question of why I need to be a good summarizer of black opinion certainly does occur to me

    It went right over your head.

    When Black people can and do summarize their own opinions quite well… really? What is this all about for you? Why do you need to be “a good summarizer” especially when the f-cked up filters you used in your summarizing process in the thread(s) in question had you stereotyping Black/non-people, misappropriating what they said and then falsely attributing something you came up with to them?

    Your desire to be right or to reserve your ‘right’ to maintain your uninformed, unsupported opinion when you know you were wrong (again, you wouldn’t pretend to ask me for revision suggestions if you were not) is nothing but an expression of your fragile ego, if not some sense of your own presumed White Supremacy shining through.

    Then there’s this disconnect. Restructure quotes you as saying: “Hmm. If enough black people complain about this, then it might be a bad thing for white people to treat black people like pets and touch their bodies without permission … as it will cause racial tension, and antiracism is about making sure black people don’t get mad at whites.”

    ………………………………….. Wait a minute.

    “…antiracism is about making sure black people don’t get mad at whites…”

    No wonder… That explains it all.

    ……. (back to the disconnect) ……….

    Notice how your quote never assumed you had to summarize anything other than reporting that “enough” Black people don’t like X.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 8:44 am | Reply

  24. CORRECTION:

    When Black people can and do summarize their own opinions quite well… really? What is this all about for you? Why do you need to be “a good summarizer” especially when the f-cked up filters you used in your summarizing process in the thread(s) in question had you stereotyping Black/non-[white] people, misappropriating what they said and then falsely attributing something you came up with to them?

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 9:00 am | Reply

  25. Macon, your ‘white amazement thing’ is already flawed because it is based on the wrong assumption that whites consider other whites automatically as trustworthy, when you are also there not able which kind of trust you are talking about.
    And with this weird assumption you come to the conclusion that bell hooks is talking about “Blacks don’t trust whites, just so”. You read into bell hooks writing what you wanted to read into it.

    So no, up to now you didn’t answer the question, where you got this stuff from, because you were looking for a confirmation of your biases, and your biases let you think that bell hooks is exactly talking about the stereotypes you have about Black people.
    and because you probably know that your statement is wrong you want to distract from the amazement-thread. And you show all signs of white denial

    Comment by jwbe — July 19, 2008 @ 11:31 am | Reply

  26. Restructure, notice in July 19, 2008 @ 9:00 am, Nq assumes that your artless paraphrasing of my supposed thoughts IN QUOTATION MARKS led Nq to think it actually was a direct quotation from me. (He writes, “Restructure quotes you as saying” in regards to something I never actually said, nor wrote.)

    Are you getting my point yet, that your use of quoted-material-that’s-not-actually-a-quote is inaccurate, misleading, and downright pernicious (and who knows–maybe even legally actionable? what if I decide to publish some of the material that I’ve written on my blog?).

    jw: Macon, your ‘white amazement thing’ is already flawed because it is based on the wrong assumption that whites consider other whites automatically as trustworthy, when you are also there not able [to identify?] which kind of trust you are talking about.

    No, it’s not based on that. The basis in that regard instead is that whites don’t usually see another white person’s racial status as a reason to reserve their extension of trust in racial terms, while many non-white people do. If you can’t see the difference on this point from what you’re claiming I said (in an inaccurate paraphrase), then there’s nothing more I can say. We disagree on how to interpret what I’ve written.

    Also, my writings on these issues do not express “stereotypes” that I supposedly have about black people. What a shallow reading of my writings that is. In another way, though, stereotypes are an issue here. As I’ve said on my blog (and to address your claim that I’m not able to identify what kind of trust I’m talking about), one reason non-whites often have for withholding trust from new white folks is because they don’t trust them yet not to enact common white stereotypes about black people.

    Again, for me to say that is not an instance of me “talking about the stereotypes [I] have about Black people.” It’s instead crediting Black people with awareness of and insight into common white tendencies, in a way that could also be said about other non-white people’s awareness of common white tendencies in regards to THEIR group. Consider Asian American women meeting new white men, for instance, who could turn out to be lusty, racist “rice kings.” Asian American women by and large do not of course assume that all white men ARE rice kings (that would be stereotyping), but if they’re in a social situation, especially, and they meet a new white guy, they often withhold this kind of trust (if they care about such things and do not want to be sexually objectified in a racist manner) until the new white guy demonstrates that he’s not a racist rice king.

    Overall, this is NOT a claim that all or even many black or other non-white people assume that all whites ARE going to enact such tendencies, which would indeed be stereotyping on their part (and if I were to make such a claim about non-white people, that would probably be stereotyping on my part too).

    Anyway, so here we are, repeating parts of a discussion that we’ve already conducted at length elsewhere, especially in my blog’s “amazement” thread. The rest of your and Nq’s comments on this matter here are also already addressed ad nauseum in the comments threads on my blog. If y’all didn’t get what I was saying there, or if you disagreed with it, nothing different from that is going to happen here.

    So as I told Nq, that conversation is over. My refusal to rehash all that here, and my request that we discuss the issue of white summarization of non-white opinion and experience in another way, is not my attempt to “distract” from anything. Quite to the contrary, it’s a response to this blog’s charge that I have held myself up in writing as a good summarizer of non-white opinions and experience, and the claim here, as I read it, that white people should never summarize non-white opinion, experience, and insight (which, if you’re a non-white person, is sort of like shooting yourself in the foot, because again, what I do in summarizing non-white opinion about common white tendencies is a) CREDIT non-white people with acute insight and knowledge, and b) educate white people in the process about stupid things they shouldn’t be thinking and/or doing in regards to non-white people).

    But y’all don’t wanna talk about the topic this way, leaving me to wonder–just who is doing the “distracting” here?

    Comment by macon d — July 19, 2008 @ 12:51 pm | Reply

  27. Consider Asian American women meeting new white men, for instance, who could turn out to be lusty, racist “rice kings.” Asian American women by and large do not of course assume that all white men ARE rice kings (that would be stereotyping), but if they’re in a social situation, especially, and they meet a new white guy, they often withhold this kind of trust (if they care about such things and do not want to be sexually objectified in a racist manner) until the new white guy demonstrates that he’s not a racist rice king.

    Consider women meeting new men, for instance, who could turn out to be the lusty rapist. Women by and large do not of course assume that all men ARE rapists, but if they’re in a social situation, especially, and they meet a new guy, they often withhold trust.

    Comment by jwbe — July 19, 2008 @ 1:22 pm | Reply

  28. Nquest,

    You wrote:

    When Black people can and do summarize their own opinions quite well… really? What is this all about for you? Why do you need to be “a good summarizer” especially when the f-cked up filters you used in your summarizing process in the thread(s) in question had you stereotyping Black/non-[white] people, misappropriating what they said and then falsely attributing something you came up with to them?

    When you put quotation marks around “a good summarizer”, were they to indicate a direct quotation, or were they scare quotes?

    Macon D,

    You wrote:

    Asian American women by and large do not of course assume that all white men ARE rice kings (that would be stereotyping), but if they’re in a social situation, especially, and they meet a new white guy, they often withhold this kind of trust (if they care about such things and do not want to be sexually objectified in a racist manner) until the new white guy demonstrates that he’s not a racist rice king.

    Where is the proof?

    Comment by Restructure! — July 19, 2008 @ 1:53 pm | Reply

  29. When you put quotation marks around “a good summarizer”, were they to indicate a direct quotation, or were they scare quotes?

    They are ‘scare quotes’ (first time I’ve heard the term) which Macon via his rephrasing (What I meant was more like, “bad summarizer…”) — the opposite of “bad” is “good” — and his own statements here, “What I’m trying to do is work with you on how to summarize black opinion well” (well = good) AND “So yes, the question of why I need to be a good summarizer of black opinion certainly does occur to me” obviously intend on establishing.

    Note: I use quotes a lot to highlight or place emphasis on words for various reasons

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

  30. Some basic grammar here:

    Use quotation marks to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 2:56 pm | Reply

  31. Macon, you are dealing in stereotypes you have of non-white people. First, JW is right. You NEVER identified what kind of trust you’re talking about (you couldn’t even keep figure out whether you wanted to say pre-judging DISTRUST, MISTRUST or the decision not to extend trust). NEVER accounted for the fact that human beings don’t just up and extend trust to any “new”, STRANGE and UNFAMILIAR person — which is the reason NOT to even dignify the ignorant idea Whites have that they are “automatically trustworthy” — no matter what their racial/ethnic background and when it comes to stereotypes… when you said:

    Just as white folks tend to size up new black individuals in racial terms, waiting for the black person to prove herself better than “other black people”… black people often do the same thing to white people.

    You were stereotyping ALL NON-WHITE PEOPLE based on what you thought you drew from what Black supposedly do and stereotyping Black people based on what White people do. You simply have no support that whatever Black people do that Black people “often do the same thing to white people.” You have no support for the idea that Black people “size up new White people IN RACIAL TERMS” (what does that mean?) and decide whether or not they extend trust based on PRE-JUDGING Whites as probably/possibly being racist or probably/possibly “enacting common forms of white racism.”

    From the very beginning you had cannon sized holes in your idea then you lied and said you got that sh*t from Black people.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 3:10 pm | Reply

  32. Restructure, Macon the great protester of people (me, in particular) not saying things that they would have to be in his head, read his mind to know is endowed by the anti-racist labor powers vested in him to read the minds of non-white people and know… he just knows the reasons why non-white people do.

    Not only does he know when Black people and Asian women “withhold [that] kind of trust” but he knows the reason why they “withhold that kind of trust” and it’s all because PoC can and do, in Macon’s mind, PRE-JUDGE Whites figuring those Whites, just because their White, to probably/possibly be enacters of “common forms of white racism.”

    Macon has no foundation for this.

    ___________________________________________________

    MACON: “Overall, this is NOT a claim that all or even many black or other non-white people assume that all whites ARE going to enact such tendencies, which would indeed be stereotyping on their part…”

    Then what is left of your claim? At first you said “many” and “most.” You were forced to drop the “most” now you look like you’re dropping the “many.” And it doesn’t matter whether the assumption is that ALL white people “ARE” going to enact such tendencies. You certainly wasn’t making that point when you, in a fit of desperation, questioned if I could trust my white co-workers to NEVER enact common forms of white racism.

    You could only make that statement, could only raise that question under the idea that ALL whites are racist (a point you thought you had to make to me) and PoC are justified in treating/viewing ALL Whites that way. After all, the only point in you responding to me saying I can trust my white co-workers when it comes to job task we depend on each other for was to make the argument that ALL whites are racist and that my co-workers just couldn’t be that progressive (whatever you thought that comment of yours meant).

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 3:51 pm | Reply

  33. what I do… is a) CREDIT non-white people with acute insight and knowledge

    Hmmm… I’m not white. Restructure is not white. When and where have you credited us with acute insight and knowledge on this subject where we have questioned you about where you came up with this idea of yours?

    I demonstrated, using your own source (McCall), that you were not accurate in filing his observations/opinions into your notion that non-white people PRE-JUDGE Whites (because that’s what you asserted) as probably/possibly racist. Whether it’s with acute insight/knowledge or whatever is immaterial to the idea that you were wrong in saying that non-whites make their decision on whether or not to extend trust based on PRE-JUDGING Whites… I showed you 4 or 5 ways, from McCall’s own words, in which decisions on whether to extend trust were based on observations or opinions formed AFTER THE FACT which means your idea that there is some PRE-JUDGING going on, even informed “acute” and knowledge driven PRE-JUDGING, has no basis in what you quoted from McCall and, as such, no basis in fact.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 4:06 pm | Reply

  34. @ Macon
    I tried to figure out what you mean with that

    but if they’re in a social situation, especially, and they meet a new white guy, they often withhold this kind of trust* (if they care about such things and do not want to be sexually objectified in a racist manner)**

    *what kind of trust is “this kind” ?

    ** If they care about which things they withold what kind of trust?

    and most of all, this: “(if they care about such things and do not want to be sexually objectified in a racist manner)”

    as long as you don’t clarify this it reads that in this case it would be Asian American women’s fault if they became a victim of being ‘sexually objectified in a racist manner’

    Comment by jwbe — July 19, 2008 @ 4:07 pm | Reply

  35. Consider women meeting new men, for instance, who could turn out to be the lusty rapist. Women by and large do not of course assume that all men ARE rapists, but if they’re in a social situation, especially, and they meet a new guy, they often withhold trust.

    And that should be the way Macon goes about increasing white self-awareness. Using PoC, saying things about them he has no proof of, claiming PoC PRE-JUDGE Whites just because they are White (a point he first tried to protest until his own words came back and kicked his azz), first of all, isn’t necessary…

    Instead of FOCUSING ON WHITENESS… instead of Macon focusing on what it is about Whites that make them think they are automatically trustworthy… Macon chose to spout unsubstantiated bs about PoC. And I’m like? What’s a White to think beside Macon is trying to excuse anti-white PREJUDICE in the name of “non-whites know more” which is something he preaches but find it all too hard to practice.

    Macon, when it comes to Black people, I know more than you. PERIOD. I also know that your idea doesn’t fit what Black people do and, more importantly, the reason why they do what they do. Because I’ve been Black all my life and because I’ve been focusing on these issues way longer than you have, I am aware of all kinds of nuances and know when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

    Comment by nquest2xl — July 19, 2008 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

  36. […] talked about a lot of those things here and Macon has a well established pattern-practice of trying to deflect specific criticism about specific statements he has made by referring to the self-… and/or the goodness of a different instance where he perceived his intent and effect to be good.  […]

    Pingback by “We don’t intend to be racist” « Stuff White People Say — November 1, 2008 @ 5:03 pm | Reply

  37. […] for Whites who are or claim to be anti-racist in one form or another to self-appoint themselves as “summarizers” and/or “spokespersons” for POC.  In their minds, they are a necessary liason between POC and the White people who are too touchy, […]

    Pingback by “I’ve seen that happen too…” (said with no self-awareness) « Stuff White People Say — November 17, 2008 @ 4:01 pm | Reply

  38. […] the racial experiences of people of colour; you once believed that it was your duty to be a spokesperson for black people; and later on you wrote, “Many posts on my blog effectively summarize black observation and […]

    Pingback by “I see no reason to bog things down here like that” « Stuff White People Say — March 19, 2009 @ 4:16 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: