Someone commented I was propogating a negative stereotype in a prior post because I mentioned the groper was Latino.
That struck me as a strange comment. I meant nothing by it, other than I thought it to be a pretty good way of describing what the dude looked like. I mean, he had no distinguishing marks on him; no beard or tatoo or lightning bolt shaped scar on his cheek (that would’ve been tight though). What was I supposed to say, “sort of tall-ish, middle aged, not fat but not thin, man?”
Oh yeah. Helpful.
I talked to two girlfriends about it, and both said they would have left his race out. Why, I asked. Well, I wouldn’t have mentioned his race if he were white, one of my friends responded.
Wow. I totally would of. I would have mentioned his race if he were white, or African American, or Hawaiian, or Asian, or Columbian. Is it naieve of me to use race as a descriptor? Should I have ignored it? Should we live in a world where everyone goes around talking about hair color, or eye color, or height, anything to avoid bringing up race? Is nationality something we just don’t even mention anymore?
I was watching Tyra at the gym the other day, and she had a show where guests were asked to say the first thing they thought about a person upon hearing a first name. Turns out people associate first names, not just last names, with certain races, and the show got pretty heated. I thought the topic was overplayed and obvious. But, now I see why talk show hosts love to talk about race issues: a) it gets people fired up, 2) people are very emotionally vested in the topic and want to discuss it and c) maybe discussion is the best thing—maybe it’s the only thing that truly prevents bigots from being bigots just for the sake of being a bigot.
But honestly, the only reason I did so was to prevent this one guy, who is not a reflection of his race or gender but rather a truly weird individual, to leave people’s crotches alone. That’s all.
Posted by Erin E
