White Men Can't Jump – But, Boy, Can They Wince by Josh

 

Riley Cooper: In the dog house

Editor's Note: The following post was submitted by one of HGP's readers. The views expressed are the authors. As expressed previously, we here at HGP welcome all respectful views. No one has a monopoly on truth, hence, respectful dialogue is healthy.

This particular post is on the topic of Philadelphia Eagle Riley Cooper and his use of nigger. The author's perspective is that of a white man that struggles (my opinion) with the double standard applied to the word based on race. 

 

 

A criminal offense is not usually judged based on the level of emotional grievance felt by the victim(s). That is typically saved for sentencing or in civil cases – emotional distress, pain and suffering. But we as a society have long attempted to change that by attaching special classifications to crimes, so that even the initial charge takes into account a victim's mental anguish.

It is a horrendously gross thing to physically harm someone. A man assaulting another man is liable for his actions, subject to charges such as assault and battery and malicious wounding. However, if the man in question is a different race, religion or a different sexual orientation than his victim, that man, committing the same crime, may be subject to a much harsher punishment due to the “hate crime” category.

This is an example of special classifications working to the benefit of special interests. If man A stabbed man B because man B was hitting on man A's girlfriend, then the crime may be aggravated assault, attempted murder, or something similar. Though if man A's reasons for stabbing man B were that man B were a different race, then man A is, in the eyes of the continuously-tweaked justice system, a worse offender. Man A is more deserving of punishment for the same crime due to motivations. Man B is more deserving of justice for being different than man A.

Maybe this is warranted, maybe it's not. But one thing's a glaring certainty here: This type of attitude about worse offenders and victims more deserving of justice has created an atmosphere where an offense resulting in a subjective emotional effect, such as a racial slur, is catapulted well beyond some other offenses resulting in physical effects – drunken club altercations, spousal abuse, etc. – in terms of media outrage and overall societal backlash.  

Not every state has hate crime laws. Not every hate crime law is the same. But the attitude is the same around the nation. If you're of a protected class (race, religion, gender, orientation, nationality) you deserve more justice when assaulted physically or emotionally. A historical context for justification, maybe, but the attitude creates a call for instant, harsh, ongoing punishment not based on the crime itself but based on the classifications given to victim and perpetrator.

Riley Cooper's crime wasn't that he said what he said. It wasn't even entirely due to the way it was said. His main crime was that he is a white man who used a racial slur – a word you can hear every minute of every day, though said by someone whose race bars its usage. It goes from being something stupid and offensive to being a hate crime. It goes from being a foolish, mean-spirited choice to a potentially-career-ending, inexorable mistake. And not a mistake as in an aberration or a slip, but a mistake as in “This is a racist who finally got caught.”

One person cannot tell another person how to feel or the limits to which those feelings extend. What affects us is personal and no one's business.  It is completely logical to believe that a white man using a racial slur in an obviously negative context does cause emotional distress and anger within the black community. Amongst all of a race? Not necessarily, as some people simply let things like that roll off their backs. Of only the targeted race? Not necessarily, as some people truly do loathe hateful speech and are affected personally and emotionally by hate, even if they are not of the targeted race.

As a society, however, we stumble over ourselves and stomp all over thoughtful discourse in favor of placating the people we believe emotionally disturbed with metaphoric back pats and soft, condescending whispers of, “There, there. I understand.”

The white person uncomfortably qualifying their position to the black person in lengthy, painful fashion wants to make it abundantly clear that, while the pain cannot possibly be the same, because we're all apparently so incredibly different, this person understands what fresh hell it must feel like to be treated so brutally, to have such an egregious offense thrown down upon already-weighted shoulders. Though this person, through constant admission, cannot possibly begin to imagine what it  would be like to go through life with such a burden, this person understands and sympathizes and wants to set right all previous wrongs with a puppy-dog look and an open-hearted smile.

It is a side effect of years of being led to believe that a protected class hurts more when offended, and that the offending class is collectively responsible, if only indirectly. It encourages many of those sharing the offender's race to step outside of honesty and logic and to concede that they are not worthy of offering a valid opinion on the subject. A feeling they must help atone for the actions of others.

We all have valid opinions on this subject. We should all speak freely without needing to present a cringing preamble. Being black does not necessarily mean you are offended. Being white does not necessarily mean you aren't. Spoken language belongs to human beings, to those who speak it. Segregated language accepted so widely by a nation with a history of segregation is the definition of illogical.

Being people, we can all “understand” how it feels to be insulted, to be emotionally perturbed due to something someone else has said. Most of us have been insulted. Most of us have been ridiculed for something topical: Race, weight, hair color, complexion, eye-wear, height, and on it goes. But we instantly, without question, throw a racial slur – white to black – in with crimes far more egregious than nasty, embittered, hurtful, pointless speech.

Why?

History? Guilt? Fear of repercussions? Why do we so quickly force a racial slur into the category of damn near unforgivable?

People do hurt over hurtful things said. Such has always been the case, such will always be the case. And people will always say hurtful things. People will always be victims of hurtful things said.

But for us to elevate a racial slur so incredibly high on the crime-o-meter causes us all to lose perspective. It creates an environment where honest discussions about how people really feel turn into the perpetrating race by happenstance trying to simultaneously beg forgiveness while acting as mere observers in the conversation. And this perpetuates the impression that the party the insult was levied against should be offended. As if one need be angry and hurt if they happen to be of a certain race. A sense of duty to react. A sense of duty for the other party to feel shame.

Be careful, people. We can't willingly segregate ourselves in these matters and expect to ever help the issue. Some people may be honestly hurt and offended. That is the typical consequence of an insult. Though to treat people purposefully unique for the sake of not offending or pandering or making up for past wrongs just further drives the divide. Classifying someone as prone to more hurt, and thus an offender deserving of harsher justice, is a form of bigotry in itself.