The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this blog. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.
In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.
Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.
Side note: On this blog, unless it is otherwise clear, “white” mostly means just White Americans, though most of what I say seems to apply to English-speaking whites in general.
Since the “all whites” thing is not in any grammar book I wonder where it comes from. The best reason I have heard so far is that many White Americans use dichotomous thinking, seeing things as either-or. That means it is easy for them to think of whites as either being all the same or all Unique Individuals Unaffected by Race or Culture, leaving little middle ground between the two extremes.
So if I say “whites are racist” it is taken to mean that all whites are racist and racist in the same way. As if I said, “All whites are skinhead racists.” But what is in my head is a range:
- from skinhead racists
- to Jim Crow racists
- to scientific racists
- to “The Bell Curve” sorts
- to black pathologists
- to white Republicans
- to ordinary colour-blind racists
- to white liberal racists
- to white anti-racist racists
- to those souls who are not racist at all
- to those who fought against the slave trade
- to the white Freedom Riders
- to John Brown
– and much more besides.
I know whites are individuals. I live in a country that is mostly white. I have to deal with whites at work. I watch American film and television where whites are given whole story lines complete with a love life, where they are almost never reduced to stereotypes as whites.
So I expect them to be individuals. Which makes it all the more surprising and interesting to me when they do seem to act from a hive mind.
See also:
When you just say “Whites are racist” then yes, the “all” is implied, whether you think so or not. We can just as easily say that “Blacks are gangsters” and you too would assume that we are saying that all blacks are gangsters and would defend yourself accordingly. You may as well have said “Germans are Nazis” Do not blame whites for assuming that you are referring to all whites when you would do the same thing in the same circumstance.
LikeLike
What percentage of free black men in the United States owned slaves?
You say only 2 percent of white were slave owners; that seems a few
percentage points low. But the phenomena of black slave-ownership
highlights the argument you’re making about the misappropriation of
the adverbs some, most, all, etc. Good blog.
Glenn
LikeLike
Hive mind? As in drones?
LikeLike
As Kanna-Chan says, and also you are making these statements while in the middle of applying a generalized crime of racism to all white people.
LikeLike
My reading of this entry is that whites should not be so ego-centric: Just because you’re white doesn’t mean that when he refers to whites Abagond is referring to YOU (unless you fit the description). So step down from the soap box and take a breather.
That being said, I think i already expressed my disagreement with blanket statements about whites. But then maybe that was my own ego-centrism coming into play.
By the way, Abagond, I never heard back from the email i sent you. Could you read it and let me know what you think.
JT
LikeLike
Free blacks owned slaves.
LikeLike
I always say this, when whites lump all blacks into one group, usually a group considered as degenerates, most of them would agree. Now, say something about white people that’s true. Say anything that is unflattering, but holds some weight, and soon it’s a problem.
Also, why is it that whites want to be seen as individuals, but the ones, for example, that pop up in this blog think any topic about white people is about them being lumped into the general white population? And some of those same whites will go to blogs that see black people as a dysfunctional monolith, and transmit their disdain here. Now, object to their statements and watch those white people defend themselves in a heartbeat. SMH.
Seriously, white people have a major problem, and when I say white people, yes, I mean most white people including the ones that show up here and to defend their insanity. So, to the white folks who are offended, go ahead and call me a racist if that makes you feel better than I.
LikeLike
Kanna-Chan
Let me ask you a question, what is your purpose for coming here? If this blog is racist as you said in another post, why did you bother to show up?
LikeLike
@brothawolf:
Excellent comment. I can say the same about Asians. I read comments on here from time to time about Asians being racist or being suck-ups to whites, but I don’t let it get to me. You want to know why? I know it doesn’t pertain to me. I don’t get worked up over something because I know firsthand SOME/MOST Asians are racist and suck-up to white people.
LikeLike
I usually don’t agree with the people who post here in disagreement with Abagond, but I think the person named Kanna Chan is right in this case. JT makes a good point regarding what Abagond may actually be getting at, but I also think it’s natural for a reader to look at a statement like “whites are this or that” and go with their first, and emotional, reaction, which of course is to perceive that the writer means to be understood as saying something like “enough whites think such and such as to make it fair to say the group itself tends to think this way.” For example, if something like 55% of the country votes to reelect the president next year, it will become natural for writers to say”America decided to reelect the president even despite GOP efforts to blame him for the economy.” Clearly that will not mean “all Americans,” in fact, in such a case we’d be talking about barely more than half of them, but because of the way we use language we won’t really object to the way the idea is phrased.
I’m not sure how important this point is, even if I’m right– to me, the value of this blog has been in the way it’s made me look at myself as a white person who would like to be part of a movement to bring about an hones view of U.S. history and an eventual reconciliation between all Americans and our actual history. I can honestly say I’ve learned more about race and about my own racism from this blog than I think I did from all the previous reading and education I’ve done and had over the last twenty or so years. Still, it seems like there could be value in trying to be as precise as possible on this blog and as many other such places as we can– seems like that’s going to be more and more necessary as things go forward in this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A good post to have handy for pointing such defensive white folks to. I think this argument is mostly a psychological and emotional reaction, and that it has several causes, some or all of which vary from person to person.
A big reason whites almost reflexively whip out the Not All Whites Argument is because they’ve been taught not to think of blacks or Asians or whomever in monolithic terms. Most of them still do, but they’ve especially been taught not to TALK about other racial groups in monolithic terms, cuz that’s stereotyping, we’re all the same underneath, people are supposed to be colorblind, and so on. Whites are told from kindergarten or sooner that they’re supposed to TREAT other people like individuals, even if society often doesn’t, even if they themselves often don’t. Kanna-Chan’s response, then, is a typical white one, basically, “I’m not supposed to say ‘blacks are gangstas,’ so why is it okay for you to say ‘whites claim to be colorblind when they’re not’?”
I think another basic reason is that whites think of themselves as individuals too; they don’t think that their being white has much of anything to do with who and what they are. They think it’s just something coincidental about themselves, like having red hair or hazel eyes or a birthmark. They don’t see that being in that racial group has a lot to do with their life chances, their psychology, their emotions, their reactions to others, and more. And so if someone even suggests that their being white MIGHT have some relevance in their lives and thinking and behavior by pointing out that white people do this or that, they’re not used to thinking about themselves that way, and so they reject observations about “white people.” “Hey, I’M not like that!” they’re thinking, or feeling, “I’m a good person! Okay, I’m white, but just because I’m white doesn’t mean I do any of the bad things you’re claiming white people do. Look at me, I’m white, and I don’t do that!” And so on.
Does that makes sense?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@aspergum:
It makes perfectly good sense. 🙂
LikeLike
“I think another basic reason is that whites think of themselves as individuals too; they don’t think that their being white has much of anything to do with who and what they are. They think it’s just something coincidental about themselves, like having red hair or hazel eyes or a birthmark. They don’t see that being in that racial group has a lot to do with their life chances, their psychology, their emotions, their reactions to others, and more. And so if someone even suggests that their being white MIGHT have some relevance in their lives and thinking and behavior by pointing out that white people do this or that, they’re not used to thinking about themselves that way, and so they reject observations about “white people.” “Hey, I’M not like that!” they’re thinking, or feeling, “I’m a good person! Okay, I’m white, but just because I’m white doesn’t mean I do any of the bad things you’re claiming white people do. Look at me, I’m white, and I don’t do that!” And so on.”
Does that makes sense?
******************************
@ Aspergum,
Are YOU a white person?
LikeLike
It is funny up in here. I am certain that Abagond is correct in his assessment, by some of the very post made in this blog.
Most people have a difficult time seeing themselves as they really are. Most don’t even want to really take a good look at themselves. Therefore it is near impossible for white folks to get it. I mean really, why fix something when they don’t think anythings broken? And I am talking about all white folks.
LikeLike
I think this is a good post and I AM WHITE. When people are using stereotypes about other ethnic groups it seems to be ok, but lo behold, when somebody turns the tables. I think some whites should grow up here.
I do not agree everything said here in this blog and usually say so, I am not a racist nor I am a nazi etc. but if someone here on this blog writes how whites are this and that and I know that some whites are like that, but I am not, then why get upset? Not all whites were nazis but nazis were all white. Why get mad about it? Why get angry about facts or opinions?
And in the end of the day, this is abagodns blog. He can say anything he wants here and you can argue, state your opinion about it, but you can not do squat about it. So either contribute to the discussions or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@dmerrin1000:
I can honestly say I’ve learned more about race and about my own racism from this blog than I think I did from all the previous reading and education I’ve done and had over the last twenty or so years.
—-
That’s encouraging.
LikeLike
@Matari:
…they don’t think that their being white has much of anything to do with who and what they are. They think it’s just something coincidental about themselves, like having red hair or hazel eyes or a birthmark. They don’t see that being in that racial group has a lot to do with their life chances, their psychology, their emotions, their reactions to others, and more. And so if someone even suggests that their being white MIGHT have some relevance in their lives and thinking and behavior by pointing out that white people do this or that, they’re not used to thinking about themselves that way, and so they reject observations about “white people.” “Hey, I’m not like that!” they’re thinking, or feeling, “I’m a good person! Okay, I’m white, but just because I’m white doesn’t mean I do any of the bad things you’re claiming white people do.
—
I think you nailed it.
LikeLike
@ Nom De Plume
“I think you nailed it.”
********************’
@ Aspergum,
Are YOU a white person?
So, why did I ask this??
Sometimes knowing a poster’s ethnicity helps me to better understand what/why/how they write. Nonetheless, I’m beginning to get that Aspergum doesn’t wish to divulge that “information” for whatever reason(s) … That’s alright with me.
I have no issues with Aspergum .. except perhaps his/her view re there’s more a wealth/class problem than there is a race (whites vs blacks) problem. That might have been the beginning of when my curiosity about Aspergum’s background or origin, began. Otherwise, I’m usually a fan of Aspergum’s posts.
LikeLike
Yeah, sorry I haven’t replied to that question, Matari (and hey, I’m a big fan of your posts too!). I’m just not comfortable anymore with divulging anything about myself online, except I guess that I live in the U.S. I know that one’s raced, gendered, classed etc. positionalities matter in regards to what one says, but then, when people do say they’re black or white or male or female or whatever, but they’re in a comment section under a pseudonym, who really knows if they’re even telling the truth, except that person?
I would address the class/race nexus/conundrum again, but yeah, we disagree on that, which is cool, and it’s not related to this posts’s topic, so that sleeping dog can go on sleeping.
LikeLike
When i see white ppl say/type, “blacks are…” I usually assume that they are either ignorant or racist and take offense to what they are saying. I don’t believe I am in the wrong for thinking that way. Most ppl do
LikeLike
@ Aspergum
“but then, when people do say they’re black or white or male or female or whatever, but they’re in a comment section under a pseudonym, who really knows if they’re even telling the truth, except that person?”
***********************
..except that person – and their Maker. : )
I tend/try to take people at “face value” until I have reason to do otherwise.
I think that most of the folks who comment here regularly are honest in that regard. It’s not easy pretending to be someone you aren’t – all the time. And to what end, what agenda ..? Unless that individual has multiple personalities that crosses racial lines (it happens) or they’re just a chronic liar …
But anyhow, when it comes to trolls, “the only thing I believe about them” is that they ALWAYS have some sort of nefarious or oblique agenda! That of course would be ALL TROLLS, without exception. : ))
LikeLike
aspergum
That isn’t what I was implying. The way you phrased it, you made it sound like I DO think all blacks are “gangstas” but I was conditioned not to say that I do. That couldn’t be further from the truth.What my post was getting at, is that you don’t like people generalizing someone because of their skin color. I don’t believe all blacks are gangstas, nor do I believe all whites are racist or all Germans are Nazi’s or any number of the various stereotypes that abound.
LikeLike
@ Ankhesen Mié
Yes!
LikeLike
Sam, JT and Leigh have it right: I am talking in general terms. If it does not apply to you personally why are you getting so upset? Do thin, well-read Americans get upset when people say, “Americans are fat” or “Americans don’t read?” Why not?
White people make statements about blacks all the time. Blacks are lazy. Blacks expect hand-outs. Blacks lack intelligence. Black women are loud. Etc. I know they are making general statements and do not mean ALL blacks. For example, I doubt any of them would regard Angela Bassett or Michelle Obama as loud, lazy, lacking in intelligence or expecting a hand-out. And I know that bringing up those examples would hardly disprove their statements to them. Because the issue was never about SOME, MOST, MANY or ALL.
So when white commenters bring up the NOT ALL thing it strikes me as odd, as a derailment. Sure, NOT ALL whites are racist, but so what? More than enough of them are. That is what matters, not whether it is ALL of them.
LikeLike
i think it’s just human nature to assume that you are implying that all of a group (or at least the vast majority) act a certain way if you don’t specify. and we all know that it can be very inaccurate and potentially damaging for people to generalise. if anything, i’d agree that using a prefix like ‘some’ every time you talk about a certain group would get tiresome – and especially on a racial blog like this.
LikeLike
‘Sam, JT and Leigh have it right: I am talking in general terms. If it does not apply to you personally why are you getting so upset? Do thin, well-read Americans get upset when people say, “Americans are fat” or “Americans don’t read?” Why not?
White people make statements about blacks all the time. Blacks are lazy. Blacks expect hand-outs. Blacks lack intelligence. Black women are loud. Etc. I know they are making general statements and do not mean ALL blacks. For example, I doubt any of them would regard Angela Bassett or Michelle Obama as loud, lazy, lacking in intelligence or expecting a hand-out. And I know that bringing up those examples would hardly disprove their statements to them. Because the issue was never about SOME, MOST, MANY or ALL.’
This all sounds very reasonable but i hate reading generalised statements, especially about black women! it doesn’t matter if they pertain to me specifically. i just don’t want to hear that black women are (loud/fat/ugly) because it hurts, even if i consider myself to have none of the mentioned traits. in fact that extends to generalisations about women as a whole too. i think we should be careful about how we put things. you know the saying ‘treat people like how you’d like to be treated..’
LikeLike
Abagond has said many times on this blog that when he says, “Whites…” he doesn’t mean all Whites. I can’t believe he has to keep repeating this.
When I hear people saying, “Blacks are lazy, Black women are loud, Blacks aren’t as intelligent as Whites”, I can’ ever recall them clarifying and saying that they don’t mean all Blacks.
LikeLike
‘The “not all whites” argument’ is nothing new. It’s akin to “the slaves were happier before you came along” (that Frederick Douglass heard) or the new “Liberals are your friends” (that we hear.)
I part with the wisdom of Steve Biko, bless him eternally:
Steve Biko on “White Racism”
“This description of “metaphysical guilt” explains adequately that WHITE RACISM is only possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty meted out to the black man. Instead of involving themselves in an all-out attempt to stamp out racism from their white society, liberals waste lots of time trying to prove to as many blacks as they can find that they are liberal. This arises out of the false belief that we are faced with a black problem. There is nothing the matter with blacks. The problem is WHITE RACISM. The sooner liberals realize this the better for us blacks. Their presence amongst us is irksome and of nuisance value. It removes the focus of attention from essentials and shifts it to ill-defined philosophical concepts that are both irrelevant to the black man and merely a red herring across the track. White liberals must leave blacks to take care of their own business while they concern themselves with the real evil in our society–white racism.”
LikeLike
“White liberals must leave blacks to take care of their own business while they concern themselves with the real evil in our society–white racism.”
So true! White liberals want to get that cookie when we should be out working to stop, intercept or interfere with our own racism, in ourselves, friends or family, in our daily lives.
LikeLike
@ Onitaset
Great Steve Biko quote. Thanks.
LikeLike
I was reading about this whole NOT ALL WHITES thing on another blog. They said it was driven by white allies seeking cookies (validation). They want black people to tell them they are not racist. I have certainly had commenters like that! But not all whites who use the “not all whites” argument strike me as allies. However it does make sense of the Tim Wise Cookie Factory,
LikeLike
Abagond:
All whites didn’t partake in slavery and colonialism, but, all whites benefit from what was done to native-americans and africans. All whites are not racist, but, all whites benefit from racist policies and institutions that set up roadblocks for black success. It doesn’t matter how noble one white person may be in relation to black people. They commit the same crime as one of us, they get probation and time served. They get pulled over by the cops, they’re not accidentally shot and killed by a nervous black cop. They get into college because of family, religous, and personal ties…The only way a lot of us get into college is thru sports, WTF?
Tyrone
Black Eros Movement
LikeLike
Abagond, I have been following this blog for a while now and I have learned a a lot. Thank you very much.
LikeLike
@ Tyrone
Excellent points.
LikeLike
My ethnic group was oppressed by the English for 800 years. They attempted genocide on us twice. We didn’t get independence until 1921 and by that time my family had long before fled to America. Jews have been persecuted right on up until the present day. Pol Pot attempted genocide on Cambodians 30 years ago. Albanians were massacred in Kosovo in NINETEEN-NINETY-FRIGGIN-NINE. The way folks around here carry on you’d think slavery in America ended last Thursday.
LikeLike
So, Abagond, basically what your saying is that any time Whites object to being grouped together in a negative way it’s a staw man argument to avoid being found guilty of racism. Right? You also respond to Ankhesen Mie’s clarification of your term “hive mind” as being an example of White’s being “drones” in the affimative. I guess by objecting to that term being used against Whites I would be guilty of hoisting a straw man. It seems to me that what’s going on here is you just object to any resistance to your Black racism. It just shows that unless White people maintain their demographic majority Klan with a Tan commissars like you will begin shoving us in to the gas chambers every chance you get.
LikeLike
Oh Jay, I think your point is well taken but I have one crtiticism. By your ethnic group I take you to mean the Irish. Well the British would never have gone into Ireland in the first place had the Irish people not been willing poarticipant in the Counter-Reformation and it’s attempt to impose the Bishop of Rome on a Protestant people in Great Britain by force of arms. I guess one man’s “oppression” is another man’s “self defense”. Which I think is the whole point of this blog. I just wish people of color would stop being liars and hypocrites on this issue.
LikeLike
@Mitchell Day, If only the colorless would give the example.
LikeLike
@ Mitchell Day
Disagreeing that many whites seem to act like drones, say, is not a straw man. Because it is something I argue:
But to put words in my mouth and say that I think ALL whites are like that IS a straw man because it is an argument I never made.
LikeLike
@mitchell day:
“Well the British would never have gone into Ireland in the first place had the Irish people not been willing poarticipant in the Counter-Reformation and it’s attempt to impose the Bishop of Rome on a Protestant people in Great Britain by force of arms.”
Well, they actually did. Normans were the first, then some vikings and them some english and then again some english and then again some more. You may be referring to the time when an catholic ENGLISH KING tried to organise a campaing to get his power back and failed which resulted the new attack by Olvier Cromwells protestant army.
LikeLike
I have a black brother in law and two half-black nieces. I love them both, and think they’re awesome. I’m very fond of ym brother in law and like to spend time with him; he’s the supposedly non-existent stereotypically geeky black guy who shouldn’t exist and only appears as the computer programmer in Hollywood movies. And yet, there he is. He’s one of his company’s star branch managers (a financial institution).
His sister is charming and, tragically, in her early 30’s and unmarried, involuntarily, and desperately looking. Educated and smart and classy. So fits another stereotype.
His brothers are well-spoken is less educated businessmen who live very comfortable lives fraught with hard work and diligence. They have comfortable nuclear families.
I’m told this is rare in America. And yet, their friends are similar.
Still; Even with this family connection, when I sit on a subway with a dozen young black men being rude and a few young black women are edging and taunting them on, being raucus and really disturbing everyone else, I don’t think:
“There go a bunch of asshole jerks. Humans can really suck.”
Despite my family connections, the nieces I love, my extremely cool and funny brother in law, this is what I think:
“What a bunch of asshole black kids.”
When my GF and I were attacked by three obviously strung out black youth on a street in summer, and I had to pulverize one guy and ended up badly injured myself, I didn’t think:
Attacked by a jerk.
I thought:
Attacked by some black guy who thought he could target white people with impunity.
I vote this:
It’s virtually impossible not to be racist on some level. It goes for black and white people.
I honestly have no idea how to move forward. I must entertain the possibility that this is nearly impossible.
I worry for my nieces. The oldest one is well into the age where she’s starting to notice it.
Both the black kids and the white kids are very hard on her. In different ways, but both bad.
LikeLike
I suspect a big part of the problem is that there are subtleties that not only are expected to be understood, but *must* be understood in order for communication to work.
“Whites owned slaves” seems to me an obviously more reasonable statement than “blacks owned slaves”, because it was the general rule of slavery. Regardless of the percentage of whites who owned slaves, the people who did own slaves were generally white. There was not, to my knowledge (which *may* be incomplete, anyone feel free to correct me), a significant portion of the slave population that was owned by slaves.
Take the statement, for some location, “It rains in the rainy season.” Now, this would seem almost a tautology. If there were a say or two, or five, of the rainy season in which it did NOT rain, and/or a day, or two, or five, in the otherwise dry rest of the year on which it DID rain, this would not in a reasonable world cause one to interrupt the statement with “No, it ALSO rained 5 days of the dry season!” or such. because, what the hell, it’s just rain, and probably not coming down anyplace where anyone involved in the discussion lives, anyway.
But when you apply it to whites and slaves, you are suddenly bringing in group identities, and guilt, and this naturally (which is not to say correctly, or reasonably) morphs in the defensive mind into accusation. Andpeople get all weird and irrational.
LikeLike
Arg, sorry, 2am cut and paste error. that should hae read,
“There was not, to my knowledge (which *may* be incomplete, anyone feel free to correct me), a significant portion of the slave population that was owned by free blacks.”
LikeLike
Here’s where the rubber meets the road. Look at all the media, how many times are issues that mostly impact people of color talked about and compare that to all the other things that are talked about. For every blog run by somebody obviously White its about anything but the continued oppression of “others”, that its wrong and we should be working to eliminate it.
One person mentioned “Road Blocks” which there are many. For every Obama there are ten brothers in jail because nobody wanted to give them an opportunity, never mind that Obama went to school in a very white middle class area much like myself. So I know nothing about the object poverty and police brutality that some of my relatives have experienced living in largely all Black areas of Los Angeles.
This is an intentional road block that nobody is seemingly wanting to fix. Why is that? Millions of people will stand in line for the latest Iphone, why is that more important than racial harmony????
That’s because fixing problematic long difficult to solve social problems are just not important anymore.
LikeLike
I think it would be better to use a term like “white racists”.
I doubt when white people use the “not all whites” argument as you call it they really think you don’t know that many white people have nothing to do with racism.
I think it’s more likely that many white people are mortified of being lumped in with white racists (which is a good thing) and feel that not specifying unfairly undermines the white people who never were racist.
LikeLike
“I think it would be better to use a term like “white racists”.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And I think it would be better for you to read a myriad of posts the author of this blog has written about (WHITE people and RACISM) – before you comment again.
You might learn WHY whites are not the ones who are oppressed, mistreated, marginalized, undermined by racism/white supremacy.
LikeLike
@Saadiyah
Sure you don’t hear them saying that but they don’t do it for the same reason Abagond doesn’t feel the need most of the time when he intially makes these kinds of statements.
To the hardcore racist who says blacks are lazy, violent, unintelligent etc….they don’t literally mean all, just many or most blacks are that way they acknowledge that genius blacks exist, athletic blacks exists, hardworking blacks exist….
They just feel that it doesn’t need to be pointed out, obviously some black people like that do exist from their perspective, but not enough to matter as an aspect of debate or conversation.
They are “X” factors, not generalizations.
@CaptainScorpio
Over the entire US 1-2 percent of whites owned slaves, 4-5% of southern white people.
Of the free black population I believe 25-28% owned slaves.
LikeLike
How many free blacks were there during slavery? Does the large percentage reflect the fact that they were part of a much smaller group? By the way, where do these percentages of white and free black slave owners come from?
Does this number account for free blacks who bought family members to keep them from being separated?
Most importantly……what does this have to do with the post? The initial reference to slavery was made as an example of how a statement should not be taken as a generalization. Does the percentage of free black slave owners have any real bearing on that? To me, it sounds like the comment about the larger percentage of black slave owners is meant to somehow counter act the generalization about white slave owners. But logically, it seems that if you take a 2% from 90% of the population and compare it to 25% of the remaining 10%(of which maybe 2% were free), you get a significantly smaller number.
LikeLike
I’m shocked that so much credibility is given to this blog post. Regarding abagond’s assertion that white people have a hive mind (note the obvious implied “all” for that statement) and interpret “white people are racist” as equivalent to “all white people are racist”, of course that association happens, or at the very least it is implied that “most” are racist. That is a natural association in our communication when you use vague and imprecise language.
Kanna-chan is correct with the counter argument regarding the statement “blacks are gangstas”. The speaker could mean that there are “some” blacks who are gangstas (just as “some” whites owned slaves as abagond pointed out) which would be a true statement, but I would be surprised if many blacks reading that statement would not perceive the statement as “all” (or “most”) blacks are gangstas and be slightly upset by the comment.
Someone else said that (paraphrasing) “if you are white and not a racist, why would you be offended by someone saying that whites are racist?” The obvious answer is that this is a natural emotional reaction when someone applies a negative attribute to a group you belong to. Your race is part of your identity, so there is a natural emotional impact when someone says something positive or negative about your group. This holds true for other identity classes such as sexuality, gender, age, etc
Frankly, abagond’s post is largely an excuse for people who choose to talk about sensitive issues using vague and/or imprecise language and get upset when there are misinterpretations on the receiving end. There are times when it is fair to make generalizations, for instance “whites are privileged in American society”. This would be a fair statement since the implied “all” or “most” that people (usually whites since they members of the mentioned group) naturally perceive would be accurate. Anyone arguing that not “all” whites are privileged would be wrong since there is overwhelming evidence proving that there are institutional advantages. However, saying “whites are racist” is just laziness on the part of the speaker unless you can defend the perceived “all” that will be perceived with it. The speaker may mean that “some” are racist, or that they are racist to varying degrees, but this is not reasonably conveyed to the receiver of the message so the receiver cannot be faulted for making a reasonable interpretation of the vague statement.
The easy fix to this problem is to be clear when you speak/write and not overreact when people misinterpret some of your generalizations, it is to be expected. Retorting with “[white people] seem to act from a hive mind” is an unnecessary comparison of a race of people to way of thinking found in insects that could very easily be interpreted as insulting.
LikeLike
“I’m shocked that so much credibility is given to this blog post.”
*********
Jake-
I’M AMAZED that (extraordinarily wordy) members of the Borg Collective are still given a free reign to come here and spew their ideas and suggestions regarding how this blog’s owner and commenters should SPECIFICALLY conduct their writing styles! But hey, it’s A’s blog..
Most of us do not gather or write (precisely) HERE for the benefit of white people.
If you feel insulted by the so-called “impreciseness” of what you read here then perhaps it is YOU, you should examine more closely, looking inward instead of outward, hoping to discover the real cause of your upset. I seriously doubt it is about “impreciseness.”
Introspection can be a wonderful soul/spirit healing experience. But only if members of the insidious Borg Collective will dare to look.. and receive!
I hope that advice was precise enough for you.
LikeLike
If criticizing style or content is an expression if white privelege, then there’s no way a white person could even participate in the discussion. Fine- but ad hominems always derail discussions.
I
LikeLike
@ Jake
Matari is right: I am not writing for a white audience, so it is tiresome and somewhat galling for so MANY of them to swoop in here and police my words (not on this thread, of course, where it is on topic, but in general). In front of no other noun does anyone ask me to always put a quantifier. I think the unease is not grammatical but moral: they do not like WHAT I say, so they jump on HOW I say it.
After all, MANY Americans LOVE to make statements like “Americans eat too much much,” “Americans do not get enough exercise”, etc. and yet no one gets their grammatical panties in a bunch. Why is that?
LikeLike
@ Jake
1. It is not a matter of my imprecision: as noted in the post, even when I put the quantifier in, MANY whites will STILL use the “not all whites” argument. It is like MANY of them cannot help themselves.
2. I made it super clear in the post that I do not believe whites have a hive mind.
LikeLike
OMG, I started laughing when I saw the turn this thread took again, but I suspect that the commenter is serious.
The original post said
So, whites are expected to be individuals (and NOT to have a hind mind) and the blogger is SURPRISED when they act as if they do.
Then Jake says
which is the opposite of what he actually said.
In essence, that very statement confirmed that
I think the blog post above was written at a primary school level with respect to vocabulary, grammatical structure and concept complexity, yet it was again, completely misunderstood. It is difficult to give too much credibility to commenters who pontificate about the correct use of language yet who appear unable to read at a 5th grade level.
LikeLike
@Matari
You’re illustrating my point. I think it’s ironic that you’re making this a joke by calling me a member of the “borg collective” while also claiming that I should be introspective. Your post was unnecessary and not helpful to the discussion.
The point is that preciseness would aid in relieving some tensions or at the very least would leave the speaker in a defensible position. It’s not advisable to make broad generalizations about another group, whether they are implied (by not specifier a quantifier) or stated (saying “all”) unless you have solid proof to back up the likely association. If more precise language was used, on sensitive topics such as this, then some people may not react. And for the people who do react, the speaker can very easily say that they only meant “some/many/whatever” as they stated originally.
I realize that this A’s blog, but if its being shared on the internet then there are going to be critiques which can be used to fine tune arguments. Stop overreacting.
@abagond
You’re right that some people will still react to “some” or “many” whites, that doesn’t mean that you drop the quantifier and just declare “whites do blank” since that only worsens the issue. Why not always take the extra 2 seconds to say “some” or “many” whites so that you are speaking from a defensible position? Everyone should fight sweeping generalizations, regardless of which race its directed at, I’m not posting as a crusade for white people as some people are pretending. I hate generalizations, they make me uncomfortable and make people in those groups that are being spoken about uncomfortable.
I don’t know what you are writing for then? Is this a blog that’s not supposed to start a discussion? I don’t know if you realize that people refer others to this blog who aren’t exclusively black. If you choose to write for an exclusively black audience, it shouldn’t be surprising that some people will misinterpret what you are saying since the internet isn’t exclusive (and the people who will misinterpret are likely the people whose thinking you would like to change). Unless the goal was just to comment to a black audience about what white people tend to do without trying to make an impact outside the group who already understands? If that’s the case then the post seems unnecessary since the issue should already be well understood and a solution doesn’t seem to be desired.
I’m confused by what you’re trying to accomplish. You don’t owe me an explanation though so no need to respond.
@jefe
You’re right for calling me out on that, but you got a little overzealous there. Rather than “Regarding abagond’s assertion that white people have a hive mind” I really should have said “abagond’s implication that white people act as if they have a hive mind” (whether or not he is “surprised” by it is irrelevant to the comparison). The second version is in line with abagond’s explanation and was what I originally intended. If anything, you’ve illustrated why precise language is important… so thanks.
Later on in my post I correctly quoted abagond, but you probably didn’t make it that far. No need for the insult slinging.
LikeLike
Btw, I think its hilarious that one comment (mine) to the contrary of the blog post could start such a wildfire of comments haha. It really wasn’t meant to call everyone to arms but that seems to have been the effect. Criticism doesn’t mean that I don’t respect your opinion FYI.
LikeLike
“You’re illustrating my point. I think it’s ironic that you’re making this a joke by calling me a member of the “borg collective” while also claiming that I should be introspective.”
********
Jake. Sometimes things that are amusing or ironic are not jokes.
Personally, I think broad sweeping generalizations regarding “Borg” like behaviors (from people who call themselves WHITE) are usually dead on the money!
That’s not to say there aren’t a precious few exceptions to the rule, yet thus far the exception to the rule isn’t you.
Stevie Wonder, Jose Feliciano and Ray Charles would all recognize your HIVE-SPEAK instantly upon “seeing” your words, and (Borgish) attitude.
LikeLike
@Matari
Another pointless post that doesn’t express anything of value about this topic. I really don’t know what you are trying to prove. You can call names all you want if it makes you feel better.
LikeLike
This is what I am talking about:
and then
I am not sure if the person is trying to comment to the blogger, the other commenters, or if it should simply be directed towards himself. It is like castigating people for littering while they are strewing rubbish all over the place.
The more and more the person comments, it is as if he is actually “proving” the premise of the original blog post.
Abagond did a post on that also. He called it the “Roissy Syndrome”.
LikeLike
It’s a statement about why precise language is good for discussions involving sensitive topics. That is what I just said and why you were right to point out my error, despite the fact that you got overly giddy about catching it. Not sure what you’re trying to illustrate with those quotes since I already addressed that? I guess more dancing on a grave? Not constructive.
LikeLike
OK, I will give it one more shot, then throw in the towel.
It seems like you misunderstood, so I will simplify the language.
– Abagond wrote a post using language that is very clear and precise enough to understand for the vast majority of his readers. (Occasionally, he does use unclear language or posts incorrect information, but he usually will correct it after a commenter points it out.) Many of those readers are black Americans in the USA, but many are not.
– After reading it, you interpreted it as meaning something else. It does make one wonder if your reading skills are up to the level of the blog (which I think is usually targeted at a 6th grade level).
– You used unclear, imprecise language to express this misinterpretation. It is as if your commenting confirmed the premise of the original post (rather than offering the counterargument).
The point is: you are trying to point out Abagond is wrong, but in doing so, you are actually confirming that his original premise is right. That is why at first, I found it to be a bit funny, but now I am starting to find it a bit sad.
Abagond does not write for me either – I am certainly not representative of his target audience at all. So I did not get your point about the audience of his blog. I get what he says about 95% of the time (although I don’t always agree with him). I really don’t think he has selected an exclusive audience for his blog and excluded others. It is a matter of him writing what is on his mind.
That is why I think the following point is completely off the mark:
because, obviously, despite however one simplifies the message, you apparently did not “already understand”. Instead of condemning the message of the blogger, maybe you can try to understand 1) what the message is in the first place, and 2) why people might feel that way.
OK, I throw in the towel now.
LikeLike
@Jake:
“You can call names all you want if it makes you feel better.”
Buddy, you don’t know what name calling is!
LikeLike
@ Jake
Putting in the correct quantifiers does not work. I used to be very careful about that, but it does not make much of a difference. So I doubt that is the underlying issue.
What DOES work is if I talk about “white racists” rather than “whites”. That means it is not the lack of quantifiers that is at fault but the unwillingness of MOST whites to see themselves as racists.
LikeLike
@ Jake
The “not all whites” argument is a way for a white person to buy themselves an exception from what I am saying.
The issue is not even that I am overly generalizing or misrepresenting whites. After all, blacks are stereotyped all the time, but they, for some curious reason, do not use the “not all blacks” argument. Because that would mean, in effect, “most blacks but not me” are like the stereotype in question. I have heard only whitewashed blacks talk that way.
LikeLike
@jefe
Look, you’re totally misunderstanding what I’m saying. You are also impossibly convinced that I thought abagond was saying that whites literally have a hive mind, which is ridiculous beyond belief. My first statement had a typo in it (it was a long post and I wrote it quickly at night), which you accurately pointed out, but you also ignored the fact that I correctly referred to his statement later in the same post (probably since you didn’t bother to read carefully). Now you continue to cling to that point desperately and write condescendingly to try to pretend you are making a good point. You’re not, throw in the towel since you’re just misunderstanding the same thing repeatedly. I’m sorry you’re having difficulties comprehending this.
@abagond
Yeah I could see how “white racists” would be a better way to present it than just quantifiers. I’m still skeptical that quantifiers don’t help though. Again, not saying their usage eliminates the “all whites” argument, since it obviously hasn’t, but I would suspect it would ease it compared to just “whites”. But the “white racist” qualification is probably most effective overall for the reason you gave.
LikeLike
As far as the hive mind thing, though I still don’t like the comparison or wording, I get what you’re (abagond) saying. I would guess it’s since most people who are white in America are brought up through a similar socialization that leads them to think in a similar way regarding the topic of racism. However, I don’t think that is exclusive to white people (not a defense, but an observation of a general trend). I think different paths of socialization for different groups lead to different areas of “groupthink” (more sensitive phrasing?) that are apparent in certain instances. Racism, or the idea of defending yourself from accusations of racism, is a groupthink that is likely apparent in white people for historical reasons (when I say historical I mean occurring over a long period of history, not that it is only something that occurred in the past).
Hopefully now my points are clearer? I feel like I got jumped on really quick lol, I’m mainly advocating for generally more sensitive/precise phrasing to ease tensions. My main argument being that you can’t decry people overreacting to stuff if you’re saying things that may be baiting them from their perspective (based on their socialization). Not saying the “all whites” response doesn’t exist, it certainly does, but there are ways to mitigate it or avoid inflaming it unnecessarily that weren’t being expressed very thoroughly. The same can be said for other groups as well (doesn’t have to be race specific, could be age, gender, etc)
LikeLike
^ I can get your point now in your first paragraph. Indeed maybe it helps to rephrase. People might misunderstand you as you might misunderstand others.
However, defending oneself from accusations of racism seems to be a trend that started from the 60s-70s. Before that, people did not have to defend themselves so much (as it was, so many would believe, “fact” – even the Bible said so). In the past 40 years it has turned into an “R-word”.
But, I strongly suspect, Abagond might not be affected by your second paragraph. As he said many times, he does not write the post for white people.
LikeLike
The particular phrase in question doesn’t warrant this much discussion.
At the same time tit for tat arguments are weak. Just because some racist white overly generalizes doesn’t excuse someone else doing so, even though that wasn’t a big deal in this instance, in my opinion. That’d be like excusing American slavery because Portuguese purchased slaves from black Africans.
LikeLike
I found you quite hypocritical on this one Abagond (or very bad at grammar, as generalizations in English imply “no” article) and will co-sign with Kanna Chan.
“White” is a concept, not a man or a woman. That is what we need to keep in mind with “race”. In the US, it sounds like a biological reality, not even a social one. It’s been absorbed by most people as a truth.
I would invite everyone to listen to Malcom X’s speech here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4bcz5Q9Xqw)
His use of “the White man” and other varied terms says exactly what he means. And I understand it perfectly. Plus he explains it. And he refers to the “not all whites” thing. And he reminds people of context. Constantly. (He was so brilliantly lucid and so lucidly brilliant – but humble and dedicated.)
LikeLike
Here’s some sage advice from an insightful white guy, blogger MaconD, to WHITE people at large:
Different people communicate in different ways, some of which you may object to. I do not consider it my place as a middle-class, white resident of the United States to impose … one particular set of communication standards and rules.
Very few if any of the posts … are about stuff ALL white people do. If you’re white and you don’t do it, then it’s not about you.
Many white people have a tendency to shift discussions of racism to their own concerns. Since the topic here is racism, please do not derail discussions by comparing the experiences of people of color to your own, supposedly similar experiences; or by offering your own ill-informed diagnoses of what they’re feeling or thinking; or by … offering in response to their experiences nothing more than your own shock, regret, or sympathy, however deeply heartfelt. If you’re white, please remember that people of color usually know more about racism, and about your own whiteness, then you do.
If you have questions for people of color here about racism, remember that Google is your friend; finding information that you can find on your own is not their job. – – *Eco, do you get this?*
If you mess up in a comment and feel you should apologize, please do, but don’t make the apology all about you. White people sometimes apologize in ways that are more about saving face, and less about demonstrating that they really understand and regret the effects of their mistakes.
This blog is not about claiming that “white people are bad.” Instead, it’s about the effects of racism, especially the habits induced in white people by being socially categorized as “white.” Despite what white individuals tend to think, being classified that way does matter in white people’s lives …
(End of excerpts of MaconD’s advice to WHITE readers)
From his blog:
http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2010/02/commenting-guidelines.html
*****************
BONUS TIP for clueless whites:
http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/privilege.htm
LikeLike
Malcolm X in 1964:
LikeLike
@abagond that man could speak so well in public… the only one i saw in person that could speak like that was ex-governor christie whitman for some reason it is a real skill i don’t know why that is or anything maybe because his dad was in the movement too i guess
LikeLike
idk this blog has allowed me to exhibit more patience and become more tolerant to other viewpoints like that and so forth more like being a little more thick-skinned sometimes
LikeLike
Malcolm X deserves better treatment in our history books.
LikeLike
Black people are monkeys.
Oh, wait. Going by your logic, I actually only meant “some” black people. So that’s okay, right?
LikeLike
Zhaz,
How about this? All racist trolls are low-lifes. In this case, I DO mean all of them.
LikeLike
Brothawulf,
your inability to create a rebuttal to my argument short of immaturely insulting me demonstrates that I’m right.
LikeLike
Men are also famous for this when the subject of sexism or feminism come up – The “not all men” is a common card pulled to debunk the issue of sexism. A whole bunch of “not all men” meme’s have been created because of this (I suggest a Google search – they are great!). I found myself reading asshole responses to racism posts on Facebook and low an behold – 3 out of 3 of the assholes used the same phrase “not all whites” “not all white people”. I looked for a meme for this & nothing came up in a search — then I needed it again on a Lee Camp post. Thank you for finding the perfect photo for a meme – I grabbed this off of you site & used Paintshop to type “NOT ALL WHITES” across it — and replied to someone’s “not all whites” post with it!! ha! Thank you so much for this 🙂
LikeLike
The common perception, a stereotype, held by non Americans of Americans is that they are fat and stupid. That is pretty much shared by every country in the world I have visited. Many Americans are indeed fat, more so than any other nation in percentage terms. I have seen many fat Americans. Many Americans are also stupid. I have no statistics but have met many stupid Americans.
If I said ‘Americans are fat and stupid’ do you think some Americans, particularly those who were neither, might get offended? Mr Abagond says not. I am less sure. Would it not be better to qualify my statement and say that not all Americans are fat and stupid because there are demonstrably plenty of thin and intelligent ones? Would it not be less offensive to say ‘some Americans’ or even ‘too many Americans’? Such a statement would be a little less likely to be interpreted as a crude lumping together of all Americans, whether that was intended or not.
If I read a statement that starts ‘blacks are….’ or ‘English people are…’ and then it makes some disparaging comment, I do tend to get offended however hard I try not to, as it is hard not to take it as an insult, even if it has some basis of truth for some sectors of black or English society. Possibly I am being too thin skinned, but I definitely would prefer some form of qualifier. If white people who are not racist (or who at least think they are not) would like to be distinguished from vague statements such as ‘whites are racist’ I don’t think it very unreasonable.
Not-All-Women brings up the point in feminist terms. As a man I do find radical feminist statements about men being rapists as aggressive and in need of qualification, particularly as feminists rarely point out that women also rape, both men and other women. Statistically speaking mothers are more likely to abuse their children than fathers are. I am sure most feminists would be upset if fathers’ rights groups said that ‘mothers are abusive’ (particularly as courts are hopelessly biased in favour of women in custody cases in most, probably all, Western countries). It is factually correct but (consciously or unconsciously) implies that all mothers, not some mothers, are abusive, which is incorrect. Even if it is linguistically correct it will still be perceived as offensive by many mothers, and again I can hardly blame them.
Men are rapists, not all. Mothers are abusive, not all. Blacks are criminals, not all. Americans are ignorant, not all. English people are snobbish and have bad teeth, not all. Whites are racist, not all. The list is endless. I think it is less important to be right in terms of the rules of logic and language and more important to communicate precisely who you mean by any statement.
There is an English phrase, ‘a gentleman is never unknowingly offensive.’ I would say these vague statements, ‘whites are…blacks are….etc.’ are unknowingly offensive.
LikeLike
You are just repeating the “not all”. Not getting it at all.
LikeLike
I get it. It isn’t difficult to understand. I just don’t agree with it and stated why.
LikeLike
I can understand that, ally. But the “you don’t get it”-argument is a very easy answer in discusions.
If you say “you don’t get it” to someone, then you suggest that
a) you are better than the other,
b) the other has no valid points,
c) the other needs to redo his homework.
Therefore you cannot be blamed for not elaborating your argument any further, or discussing the arguments the other brought in.
In fact, saying the other doesn’t get it is just saying that you are lazy.
LikeLike
@Abagond
White people make statements about blacks all the time. Blacks are lazy. Blacks expect hand-outs. Blacks lack intelligence. Black women are loud. Etc. I know they are making general statements and do not mean ALL blacks. For example, I doubt any of them would regard Angela Bassett or Michelle Obama as loud, lazy, lacking in intelligence or expecting a hand-out. And I know that bringing up those examples would hardly disprove their statements to them. Because the issue was never about SOME, MOST, MANY or ALL.
Do you mean: “Because SOME white people make statements about blacks all the time”?
And therefore you like to mirror your way of talking to SOME whites who are obviously wrong?
I don’t like that.
But if you mean “ALL white people make statements about blacks all the time”: then I’m glad I’m not living between American whites. And good luck to you.
LikeLike
@ Jeff
Yes, I mean SOME. That is the whole point of the post.
LikeLike
@ Abagond
Thanks for your answer. I guess that will somewhat limit my contributions here, since I would prefer to use “SOME” before a statement about a group (as long as you can assign special traits to groups of people). That would lead to misunderstandings, and we might get heated arguments based on these misunderstandings. And that is a waste of energy for both of us.
But one thing: if you let your vocabulary depend on what SOME white people do, I think that you are not on the right way. But off course, I may be wrong.
LikeLike
I really would like to know why people insert “ALL” when they read sentences containing plural or collective nouns.
I know it is just a plural noun meaning more than one, ie, some or many, not necessarily most, and most likely not all.
LikeLike
[…] Not all whites are what you say. Whites are individuals! […]
LikeLike
@jefe
Because of the risk of making generalisations.
Like the sentence “In 2000, Americans preferred George W. Bush above Al Gore” suggests that Bush was chosen with a large majority. And that is wrong.
Another example: while I just read Abagond’s excellent piece on debunking the water melon-myth, I still could, in your logic, say that “blacks love water melons.” In fact, this is an under-generalisation: everybody loves melons. But by using a plural noun and linking it to a particular skin color, I could suggest different things.
In conclusion, since “it is just a plural noun meaning more than one,” I could, with that logic, get away with ALL racist prejudices. Just as long as at least two individuals fit in that prejudice, I don’t have to apologize for being racist.
And I do not like that.
LikeLike
@Jeff Elberfeld
No it does not suggest that at all. If a reader were to interpret it in that way, then what it does suggest is that the reader has some problem in his English reading comprehension skills.
There is nothing wrong or incorrect with saying that Blacks like watermelon or even Blacks love watermelons. Blacks do like watermelon. So do whites. So do Asians. That was not at all the point of the post. It in no way means that all blacks love watermelons or that only blacks love watermelons (and non-blacks do not). To interpret it that way indicates poor reading comprehension skills. And it also indicates that the reader missed the point of that post.
Likewise, the following are all true statements about the time before the Civil war:
– Whites owned slaves
– Blacks owned slaves
– Asians (ie, Asian Americans) owned slaves
– Native Americans owned slaves.
They are all true and correct statements. In no way do they mean all or even most, or suggest that one should make that generalization about the whole group. To perform that kind of generalization from those statements is an error in logic.
That is completely NOT the point of this post. For example, the statements above are simple declarative statements and a competent and informed reader would never interpret it to mean all, or even most.
OK, let’s look at a statement that is interpreted as racist.
“Asians have language problems”
We can’t say that that statement in and of itself is false. Some do. Many do not. Whites also have language problems. So do blacks.
However, it becomes a false, untrue and possibly racist statement when it is changed to something like
“Asians experience discrimination in the workplace because they have language problems.”
The first statement is true some of the time. The second statement is true some of the time. So the following statements are true:
“Asians experience discrimination in the workplace.”
“Asians have language problems”
But linking the first statement with the second statement with a “because” conjunction is now inaccurate, and may even be racist. If language competency were a job requirement, and the employee met the competency requirement, yet was still still discriminated against, then the cause and effect is invalid. And if some persons do not have the language competency, and enjoy less job opportunities, then it is not a discrimination if they cannot take advantage of a job opportunity if language competency at a certain level were indeed a requirement of the job.
Either way, it becomes an statement reflecting poor logic, even if we can find an instance when both of the clauses are true.
So, I will have to completely disagree with you that dropping the article “all” is an excuse to make false generalizations and to get away with “all racial prejudices” (I have duly noted that you added “all” to that sentence.)
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
This issue has nothing to do with my wording. It comes up even when I saw “some Whites” or “many Whites”. What it boils down to is that Whites do not like being called out on their racism.
LikeLike
@abagond
Well, in the case when you did say “SOME whites” then those offended whites were quite self-centered.
As John Cleese said in “How to irritate People:” This ruthless concentration on one’s self is a successful irritant widely practiced by women. A friend of mine once demonstrated this to me at a large party. He stood in the middle of the room and said very loudly, “The trouble with women is that they always take things personally.” Four women immediately replied, “Well I don’t.”
Likewise, it is an irritant that could be used by men, whites, blacks, LGBTs, conservatives… oh, whatever.
Anyway, my guess is that political correctness in the North-West of Europe (where I live) demands other wordings than it does in the USA.
LikeLike
When I hear “X are Y” I usually interpret that as “X are generally Y”. I think it would help clarify things if you included the word ‘generally’ when making statements like that.
LikeLike
@Abagond
As I saw last week in https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/what-if-it-was-reversed-and-blacks-had-guns-and-ocean-going-ships-before-whites-did/#comments , the ““not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument”-argument is, in my view, abused a lot.
For example, when I said that the French revolutionists at the end of the eighteenth century cannot be equaled with the French imperialists a century later, I was accused of using the “not all”-argument. As if arguing that it is wrong to see the French culture as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change (just like islamophobes see Islam, by the way) means I am strawmanning.
So again, and unlike Jefe argues, people can accuse others of using the “not all”-argument as an easy method to get away with their own stereotypes and/or prejudices.
LikeLike
Jeff Elberfeld
I don’t think you get it at all which is why you are pushing the “not all” argument as reasonable.
You are assuming saying French means ALL. It really is as simple as that. You have no idea if they mean all, some, those over there etc., but you created what they meant based on what you believe and argued it. You created a prejudice they may not even have and argued it. Because you are the one creating the assumption you are thus the one creating the straw man.
No one said they were a monolithic bloc, but you decided that is what they said and meant. Get the picture?
LikeLike
Sorry sharinalr, but what part of “@Abagond” was beyond your comprehension?
LikeLike
“So again, and unlike Jefe argues, people can accuse others of using the “not all”-argument as an easy method to get away with their own stereotypes and/or prejudices.”—–But in your case it was not an accusation as it often times is not in other cases. It is an argument that one chooses to use mainly when they have nothing else. It is easier to say it is not all than to acknowledge that what was said is true. Or throw out some other fallacy such as argument from ignorance.
For example the Islamicphobic rants. Muslims kill more. Are more violent. The Quran tells them so. Yet in the US Muslims are not attacking them they are being attacked, They are not having public conference about their Christian problem, and the Quran teaches about the same stuff as the bible. Those that do kill usually do it for political means or because they are abusing power.
In that the “not all” argument was not used. I acknowledged the inaccuries from the Islamicphobe. I acknowledged those that kill. On the flip side it is an easy method for those that use it to silence those that point out the wrongs.
LikeLike
Jeff Elberfeld
You can say @ Santa Claus but last I checked this was a public forum. I respond to what I see fit. 🙂
LikeLike
But Origin does see Europe as a cultural monolith. I think the comparison to anti-Islam sentiment is spot on.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
And what brought you to that conclusion?
You can’t in good faith make the determination what a person means all based on saying terms such as Europeans, the French, Africans etc. Once you place what you believe or think they mean, then you are making a perfectly packaged assumption. You are not really arguing or refuting what they saying.
That is the danger of presenting the “not all” argument. You believe it is perfectly reasonable, yet you are never addressing the issue and allowing it to stand unchallenged all the while thinking you have. It could also be called deflection in a sense. Reason being is because the person is putting focus on what “not all” do rather than remotely going to task on the possible false or true information the opponent is presenting. It is a lose lose.
LikeLike
Another thing to point out here is people who engage in “not all” arguments are more willing to accept and engage in other fallacies. As well as practice intellectual dishonest habits.
Saying “people do it against islamophobes” is as good as saying “they did it too” or as it would be displayed on Abagond’s blog “Africans sold their own” or “Arab slave trader” argument.
I am not saying everyone is perfect and people do not end up using them, but I am saying that people need to stop acting like it is a valid argument. It simply is not. Filler argument maybe.
LikeLike
@ sharinalr
“And what brought you to that conclusion? ”
If I recall correctly he said something along the lines of: “That is just what Europeans are about” after his elaboration on the “What if”-thread. But I can’t find the exact quote anymore.
I actually agree with much of his analysis (while drawing very different moral and political conclusions). And if he framed it only as a common theme of European mentality and culture, the “not all”- argument wouldn’t hold up. But he seems to think that his assertions are not just general phenomenons and aspects of European culture limited by context, but what inescapably defines every European person. And against that the “not all”-argument does hold up.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
I believe this may be the quote you are referring to, though I could be wrong.
“but there are other books that have suggested that the manner in which Europeans/Euro-Americans behave towars others is driven by factors at the core of the culture. In other words, it is the way they are and it’s what they are abouy culturally. ”
Even in this I see it as a stretch to claim it as ALL Europeans. You still do not know if he means all, some, generally, or what. It then becomes assumed and then the assumption here is applied. It still makes the “not all” argument invalid, because you are applying the standard of what he means. You are deciding that he must mean XYZ and are thus putting words in his mouth. In short it does not change what I said and what makes the argument invalid.
At best you have that Origin was sly enough to not use all, making it where all you have is a straw man such as “not all” to counter it.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
If I made the argument that Europeans have better hygiene. That is simply the way they are and what their culture is about. Would you use the “not all” argument? Do you see all in this statement?
LikeLike
That was the quote I was referring to and I admit, it does read different from what I remembered. You’re right.
LikeLike
@Kartoffel
I stand corrected on one issue. You are correct to say there are times when the argument is appropriate to use. I can only think of one and it is when a person says all etc. If you have more I think it would be nice to elaborate for the sake of other readers getting an idea of when to use it.
LikeLike
Why do you care?
LikeLike
@ Herneith
Because he found a thread he hadn’t derailed yet….
LikeLike
train, train, going round that bend….
LikeLike
Lord of Mirkwood
“BUT the thing is, most English speakers will interpret this as “all blacks.”—Then most English speakers must be paranoid or dumb. It is common sense that no two people of the same group do the same thing or look the same way.
To say whites, blacks, or Asian is in a general sense, but to equate it to all is ridiculous. Especially when those race terms encompass a mass amount of groups.
As to your eamples, they really elicit no response from me. Mainly because there are people in those groups who are but more.importantly the amount does not match a general standard.
LikeLike
Lord of Mirkwood
What you are describing is not the mindset of someone with common sense.
If I say black men have big penises, then no one with common sense believesince all black men have big penises.
LikeLike
Believes*
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
Trains run on rails, son, and when a train comes round a bend, it just might derail.
Hence, it’s your theme song.
LikeLike
LOM
Then most people you know are dumbing you down and I advise you to get a new circle.
LikeLike
@LOM
I get what you’re saying. However, the post is about “ALL Whites”. I think that inferring “ALL” is just as silly as inferring “FEW” in front of statements of stereotype. I interpret the speaker/writer’s statement to reflect that they have basically accepted their assertion as the default. I accept that they can allow for exceptions to their “rule”, but that they generally take the stereotype at face value. If a person really walks around making statements like, “Buicks have flat tires” when they really mean just their car, then, well, good luck with that. If they make a statement like “Pitbulls are violent”, then I’m assuming they believe, for the most part, that many of the pitbulls they meet will be violent and they would be extra cautious or outright afraid when being introduced to one for the first time. I do think it’s reasonable to assume that’s where the person is coming from even though they didn’t quantify it by adding “all”, “most”, “some”, “twelve” or whatever.
So, if you want to infer anything in front of the statement, try inferring “Many…” or “Enough to be statistically significant if not a clear majority of…” If someone is making the statement that “Whites don’t value Black lives as much as their own.”, I don’t think they’d make that statement if they believe only a handful of Whites have that outlook. However, I’m usually not offended by it either because I think it’s the rare person that truly would not allow for an exception to their statement. Getting caught up in an argument over semantics does not negate what was really meant by the original statement nor does it work to bridge the divide that allows for such stereotypes to exist in the first place.
LikeLike
For once LOM is on topic.
LikeLike
Lord of Mirkwood
That is by your logic not mine. To say pigeons can’t fly does not require a defense of “but some can etc.” Because common sense should kick in to allow one to know that some can as well as some can’t.
A number simply was not asserted, but to assert one is a strawman.
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
“And you have yet to explain why or how I am derailing this thread”
I never said you had . . . so far.
I’m just sitting here waiting for that ol’ train to hit the bend.
(gets popcorn)
LikeLike
@ Lord of Mirkwood
No mention of Bernie Sanders? LoM, you disappoint me!
Also, how is it your ancestors were white but you’re not?
Or are they only white when it’s convenient for your narrative?
(refills popcorn)
LikeLike
And here I thought he would actually avoid going off topic. Smh
@LOM
No one said all or most. You apply those things.
LikeLike
Why does the Civil War not get more coverage? It is a slap in the face to the heroes of the North!
Folks, I have to agree with Mirkwood on this. But why stop at the Civil War? I would like to see hundreds of posts, not just one, on the following historical wars. The Crusades, the battles and love life of Genghis Khan, for example, there are countless other ones. I heard Tamerlane was one hot so and so, etc., etc.. How about some posts on historic hunks? I would also like thousands of posts on church doctrines starting with but not limited to the Council of Nicea(anno domni 323). But most of all, I would like millions of posts written about handbags and footwear!
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Not all Whites are what you say. […]
LikeLike