Accused of racism by client

[stample]

I work and deal with clients daily, I spoke to a regular client being polite and civil, and they too were civil back only to get home and email my manager saying I had implied a racist remark towards them. My manager knows this was not the case and responded back. For reference I am white with black children and the client was black (they wouldn’t know anything about my personal life)
AIBU to mention this when I next see them, obviously apologise if they thought what I said was racist and then to say my family are black…

So is your problem that you don't want to be thought of as a racist when you make an ignorant comment?

Maybe you just think of the comment as racist, and not yourself as A racist?

Again men commonly say the same thing, that they refuse to back down and admit they were or ever could be wrong because they don't want to be A sexist. It really stunts progress.

The ops 3 posts are vague you don't know who she's talking to whether it's family or the client herself. There are more questions than answers but the op knew that and probably knew how this thread would turn out. Which is why she hasn't returned.

You have indeed assumed that. As it’s not clear. And context is everything. It depends how the reference to watermelon was made (the exact words said and the tone) and none of us know that, as OP hasn’t clarified. All she’s said is she mentioned (presumably to the client in person) they had eaten watermelon and the client smiled and said nothing. It may have been said in a patronising tone and watermelon may have been specifically singled out for reference, rather than any other foods.

As for why the client didn’t say anything at the time, as anyone who’s had discriminatory remarks made to them will know, it’s very difficult to challenge things at the time because:

• you’re shocked and need time to process
• you’re not sure if it’s said out of ignorance or intention (still wrong either way)
• you’re worried you’ll get a dismissive or defensive reaction, as the client has indeed received from some on this thread (e.g. what’s the problem, playing the race card, taking unnecessary offence, causing trouble)
• you don’t want it to get heated when it’s in person and the person is working - and (presumably) in your home
• there’s a power imbalance when it’s a carer-client relationship - it can be hard to challenge professionals
• you initially think you should let it slide, then feel it’s important to say something.

You only have to look at how women reportedly reacted to Greg Wallace’s alleged sexual and sexist remarks. Most said nothing at the time but complained afterwards.

I call BS I don't think it happened the op is vague and she hasn't returned. Since Thursday a lot of Reform voters are getting strong.

These women may be more likely to labour "like a trooper", challenge the staff less frequently and not show the fear and pain they experience for more complex cultural reasons.

For example, a woman from Nigeria would not want a c section. I keep pushing her to have one which causes her distress. I’m ignorant to the fact that in her culture it carries a stigma. I get pulled up on it for causing distress and offending her. I would probably be called out for racism. Next time do I alter my approach because I’m worried of causing offence and being racist? I would hope not.

Unfortunately there is no line between a low level ignorant and considered racist comment and an actual offensive, meant to upset racist comment. In your opinion are they are both as bad as each other?

(I’m not a midwife, this is an example I’ve picked from your comment)

Nigerian women have no issue with caesareans that they need. In fact, most cultures do not and the more likely someone is to have come from a place where caesareans are hard to obtain, the more likely they are to accept one when advised by medical staff.

The issue was that staff were not acting on fetal distress in the belief that the woman would go on to deliver vaginally if they were given more time. That was the whole problem in the Unit.

There is a way that you present options, especially in a dire situation, and then a way you document what you spoke about ans what the person chose to do. If you've explained to someone that they need a cesarean because they or their baby is at risk and they decline, you just write that down and maybe escalate to the shift coordinator and/or doctors. They may then do the same talk and also document that the person declined.

If you keep insisting that they do what you say, then it could be coercion, but you also have to check they understand what you are saying. They don't need to have a rational reason for declining though. If someone thinks they shouldn't have a cesarean because it will rot their teeth, that doesn't necessarily show that they lack competency unless they have other signs of mental illness or cognitive injury.

But my point is that this scenario where you're accused of racism for suggesting someone needs a cesarean when they do just isn't at all realistic in any sense. Just would never happen unless you were acting inappropriately by coercing consent when a woman has refused recommended care.

Probably not, but it's a good talking point and I think its exposed some users to their similarities to sexist men.

It’s the notion that racism encompasses a huge range of words and phrases which are seemingly innocent but which have obscure racist connotations

Context is everything when it comes to common tropes.

For example, the 2023 incident of Greta Thunberg with the blue octopus in the ‘Stand with Gaza’ photo. A blue octopus is an antisemitic trope, used in Nazi propaganda imagery, as well as elsewhere.

When people complained, Greta Thunberg said she was ‘completely unaware’ of this, apologised and cropped the octopus out of the photo. She explained the blue octopus is a toy used by people with autism to communicate feelings. She emphasised she condemned antisemitism in all forms and shapes. And this was non-negotiable.

This was the correct response. She didn’t double down and say no offence was intended. Or blue octopuses are everywhere, seen everyday, are innocent and have only obscure racist connotations. She accepted offence would have been taken, owned her ignorance and apologised.

Context is everything. The photo was showing solidarity for Gaza at a time of heightened antisemitism. Greta Thunberg is very high profile and influential. She likely has access to PR advisers. The obvious placement of the blue octopus in a photo she’d chosen to publish could clearly be perceived as veiled racism or (at least) uncaring ignorance of antisemitism.

In a different context (e.g. a member of the public holding a blue octopus autism toy in everyday life or a blue octopus in a kids cartoon, it wouldn’t be seen as antisemitic. As the context wouldn’t be a a photo taken and published to make a statement about Gaza.

In the OP’s context, if watermelon was singled out for a specific mention to a Black client, it could certainly be offensive. Only last October, at a Trump election rally in New York, Tony Hinchcliffe ‘joked’ about black people carving watermelons for Halloween in a speech littered with racist tropes. In previous US elections, there’ve been mocking images and remarks about Obama and watermelon. In the UK, PM Johnson was criticised for using it as a racist slur. It’s a very current and heated trope. It doesn’t mean you should never refer to ‘watermelon’. It means a professional, anti-racist service must be consciously mindful of how it’s referenced in relation to Black clients.

Yes exactly. So why has she referred to them as black when they aren't. They are mixed race.

Wasn't that the same argument before Brexit. Accusing people for not supporting their country if they didn't believe in Brexit. Giving people incorrect information. It didn't go well in the end once Brexit was triggered and it won't this time.

As previous PP have pointed out, she may not be their biological mother.

She hasn’t mentioned whether she has a partner or, if so, what ethnicity he is. Or if he’s the children’s biological father. White couples adopt or foster Black children.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

Thats literally why I asked if they were adopted. If they don't want to say, that's fine. However pp have asked why I'm asking.

Accountable for what ? Telling the client that the person in care ate a piece of watermelon ? When part of her job was to report back on food consumption ? How is that insensitive ? If the person ate a certain food then they ate a certain food. If you start attaching covert racist connotations in this way it will end up compromising care because important elements of that care won’t be reported back for fear of causing offence.

Why are you tying yourself up in knots trying to turn this into something it clearly isn’t ? OP said simply that she is white and her family are black. The straightforward and sensible take away from that is that her partner is black, therefore her children are too - mixed race.

OP will know why she has referred to them as black - perhaps she emphasised it to make her point. Who knows. Perhaps she’ll be back to explain. But l doubt it given the tone of the replies and the picking apart of the factual detail because it’s getting in the way of accusing her of covert racism.

Nooooo this is just not of true.

Not in anyway saying OP is racist but the lost causally and overtly racist rubbish I’ve heard is from a women with mixed race kids.

Op is it you?

You mean since Thursday, a lot of Reform voters are happy bunnies. I wonder if you called BS on the "this country is going to shit" thread. Err, no chance.

Interesting that you haven’t highlighted the whole sentence from my post, but only the first two lines, rendering it completely out of context to what l actually said. You’ve then replied to it out of context. And your first sentence states that context is everything. Well done.

What l actually said was that it’s the notion that racism encompasses a huge range of words and phrases which are seemingly innocent, but which have obscure racist connotations. And that even when the perceived racism is so obscure as to be a phrase or word in everyday use, and used within the context of the modern meaning the fact that it has caused offence is paramount, and makes the person who used the term a racist by default. It’s designed to force people to apologise even though there was no intent to offend and they have done nothing wrong.

ln Greta Thunbergs’ case, when people complained they made her aware of why it was offensive. She explained that she hadn’t previously been aware of the connotation and apologised for any offence caused. There was no intent to offend. And that’s my whole point. If someone has been offended because they have inferred covert racism, ableism, or any other ‘ism’ from something said, then it’s on them to explain why they were hurt by it - not simply to demand an apology for the hurt caused, however unknowingly. The ‘ism’ becomes a stick to beat with, and it’s bullying. And that’s what causes people to double down as you describe.

Unlike Thunberg, OP wasn’t afforded the respect of an explanation. The client didn’t complain directly to her, they didn’t make her aware of what it was she said or did that caused offence. They went above her head and made a complaint, and in the process their actual cause for complaint wasn’t fed back to OP, so she was left in the position of feeling she had done something wrong but had no idea what it was, except that the inference was that she is a racist. So she’s looking for something to demonstrate that that isn’t the case, and being accused of doubling down and further racism as a result.

It’s massively disrespectful, and it’s counter productive because it results in resentment from both parties towards each other. You talk about owning the ignorance. How are you supposed to do that if you don’t know the offence ?

Nope. OP won’t be back, and l don’t blame her. In every single one of your posts, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you haven’t the slightest grasp on what the actual issue is. You didn’t even realise that the client was not the one being cared for, but the guardian of the person in care, to who whom OP reports back as part of her job. Several posters, including myself had to explain it to you.

If you had any understanding of what l was actually saying in the post you’ve just responded to, you’d realise that your response is not nearly as clever as you think it is.

I think that poster is making a fair point actually. If OP’s partner is black, and her kids are mixed race then OP is likely to have experienced both the racism directed at them, and at herself for simply being a white woman in a relationship with a black man - the latter will not only be from white people either. While it can’t give her the experience of actually living as a black person and experiencing it first hand, it can give a kind of informed insight.

And l don’t think it’s irrelevant to the racism OP has been accused of. The client didn’t accuse her directly. They went to her boss, who has clearly not fed back what she actually said or did to warrant the accusation. So OP basically doesn’t know what caused the offence, doesn’t consider herself a racist and is looking for something to prove that in the absence of a tangible accusation against which she can defend herself.

The ops posts are vague there's nothing to talk about you're looking for an argument. Please don't tag me.

I hope you get everything you deserve and more. Good luck