To think racism is should not be excused based on intent?

[soph7777]

My DH honestly thinks that the basis for assessing racism is purely ones intent as opposed to what they actually said or their actions. And if they didn't intend to be racist then they should be let off the hook.

This concerns me deeply. If this was everyone's attitude, that means we could all go around saying whatever we like about whoever we like and never take responsibility for our actions. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I guess we can apply the same principle to sexism etc but I mention race purely because we we having a conversation about race that lead to this debate.

What do people think? He has me doubting myself thinking I am going mental.

Simon: I get called coloured sometimes, I always correct them, it’s easy to tell who is simply a bit ignorant (as I was with due/jew) and who is racist.

It takes some people quite a while to realise that what they has learnt growing up (Black=rude / Coloured= Polite) is not appropriate.

Some older people are slow to catch on sometimes. I know people now who still say 'coloured' thinking they are being polite. It's absolutely right to correct them but agree that causing offence is definitely not their objective!

Why don't you tell us what he said?

I agree with the OP. The 'I didn't mean to offend' is a classic excuse, the same as someone who bullies but claims they did not intend to.

What did he say and in what situation?
Both of these are really important imo

I get called coloured sometimes, I always correct them

I am an english as a second language speaker I was actually taught by someone in UK that black is impolite and I should say coloured Luckily I very quickly found out it's the other way around... This was less than a decade ago. They were not racists, someone taught them this as well.

I witnessed someone recently refer to a person as nitty gritty, I genuinely don’t think they realised how racist they were being.

The theory that nitty gritty refers to the debris left behind in slave ships has been comprehensively debunked. In any case, how could a person be described as nitty gritty?

What did he say and in what situation?
Both of these are really important imo

Because I didn't want the thread to be a debate about whether or not what he said was inappropriate I wanted to know
If people felt his viewpoint was valid about intent.

He agreed what he said was not appropriate, but still preceded to argue his case based on intent.

It wasn't majorly inappropriate I can think or worse, but was still not something he would/should say particularly to the minority group he was referring to.

This is ridiculous. Can’t we just know what he actually said?

I only know what's racist because of the conversations I hear/read. Ie I hadn't twigged that having a paddy was racist. When someone says it's got links to Irish racism then I don't use it. We all live and learn and hopefully apologise if we've offended someone.

Then it’s impossible to say whether he is reasonable, OP. In theory he’s right.

Some people say things with a negative intent. That is sexist/bigoted/racist.

Others say things in passing, with no negative intent. That offers the opportunity for a conversation. After that conversation you may decide they are bigoted and act accordingly. You can explain that the language leads to discrimination, or upsets people and if you do a good job they will change. It's their language though.

'if you say that you're being racist'- is usually untrue and never helpful, it just makes people defensive.

I'm not keen on making things unquestionable, as that leads to other problems.

It's more complex than intent - we are all racist to a degree, but the different between a "super evil horrible racist" and a well meaning person is whether upon being told they have done/said something racist, do they learn from it, or do they assume they are in the right, and it's someone else's problem.

YABU- sometimes people use language in good faith without realising it is racist/sexist/ableist etc because they haven't been made aware. They should be pulled up on it, but provided they are genuinely ignorant of the connotation and are apologetic when they are informed then I wouldn't start to label them a racist.

My gran grew up in a time when "black" was an offensive term and "coloured" was the acceptable term to use. Now it is the other way around but she has Dementia and we could tell her till we are blue in the face that she shouldnt call her care worker "the coloured lass" when she cant remember her name but she just cannot retain the information.

The first time I heard her say it I apologised to the care worker later but she told me not to worry about it because she knew that my gran was actually trying not to be racist by using what she remembered to be the correct term and knew there was no malice intended so took my gran's use of the word "coloured" in the non-offensive way it was intended.

If, however, my grandfather who didn't have dementia had ever used the term then I would have pulled him up on it the first time (as he may not have been aware of the linguistic development) but then future uses would be a conscious choice and therefore have intent. He would never have done that as he was one if the nicest people you could meet and would have made an effort to not be offensive so that first incident I would be happy to write off as ignorance without any ill intent.

Sure, absolutely. The first time. If the person using the offensive term is under 10 years old.

After that, people’s intentions are rather less important than the effect of their use of offensive terminology. The correct response to “Actually that word is racist” is “Oh shit, sorry, I didn’t know, and I won’t use it again.” Followed by not using it again.

YABU- sometimes people use language in good faith without realising it is racist/sexist/ableist etc because they haven't been made aware. They should be pulled up on it, but provided they are genuinely ignorant of the connotation and are apologetic when they are informed then I wouldn't start to label them a racist.

I agree with you, but this wasn't my DH reaction and this is what I started the thread to see if it's me or him that has the issue.

Would you accept anything someone said to you as being correct, though?
The nitty gritty example down below, for instance? Two people disagree on whether it's a problematic phrase or not.

Bear in mind many here would object to using female pronouns for a trans woman, while others would consider it offensive not to.

I'd say to your DH- say what you like, but some people will consider you racist if you use that term. It's his choice. You know him, do you think he's racist?

You know him, do you think he's racist?

I don't think he's racist, but I think he holds views and biased opinions that I think are unhealthy. Also, if I call out other people's unhealthy views or comments he defends them which makes me angry.

I also feel he is not invested in issues or any issues that disadvantage minority groups. He doesn't seem to care.

"I also feel he is not invested in issues or any issues that disadvantage minority groups. He doesn't seem to care."

Not everyone is- it's not their issue/argument/fight/business. Sometimes when it doesn't directly affect them, people find it hard to feel invested.

It's clearly really important to you. Is there anything really important to him that you are less interested in? Maybe he's more about law and order, or environment?

Your husband makes a fair point, but these things need to be taken on a case by case basis. People often make genuine mistakes because they don’t know what is or isn’t acceptable language to use. It can be confusing, I saw a programme on catch up tv earlier today where a black man referred to a black community as coloured, and I was surprised because I thought that was a word that wasn’t supposed to be used anymore. But if it was allowed to be on a reputable programme then perhaps I was wrong and it’s ok? I genuinely don’t know, so I wouldn’t use the word, but I don’t like the feeling of having to tread on eggshells either when I know I’d never intentionally say anything racist.

I think as well, we need to be careful that we don't turn it into 'woke hoops'. Sometimes there is a feeling of language changing so fast in an attempt to catch people out.

Legally, it's not the intent but the effect, and I tend to agree with that for both racism and sexism. To say that it should be whether or not you intend to hurt someone is pretty dismissive of the person to whom it was directed. You're basically saying, I don't care if what I said offended you, it's not what I meant and you have to take it the way I meant it.
If they really didn't mean it, they would apologise and find a way of saying what they wanted without causing offence. They wouldn't be trying to tell the other person how to feel.

What do people think? He has me doubting myself thinking I am going mental.
Thats usually called 'gaslighting'

Narcissists don't like being challenged, and they don't like to admit they were wrong, or apologise. Do any of these red flags ring a bell?
psychcentral.com/lib/5-red-flags-and-blind-spots-in-dating-a-narcissist/

www.psychopathfree.com/articles/30-red-flags-of-manipulative-people.212/

I am in my late 60s and my husband is over 70. He is not at all racist and takes everyone as he finds them. He does however use dated language (coloured lad etc.) even after I have pointed it out. I have had to train myself to say black, it sounds rude to my ears. I do think attitude is the most important thing, the language "rules" keep changing.

Mental isn't a particularly pleasant word to use either if you wish to avoid giving offence, but I don't think you meant any offence.