Cautious Racial Discourse

8/13/2019 Cautious Racial Discourse

1/7

Park 1

Joshua Park

Professor Osborne

Writing 1404 December 2013

Essay 5

Cautious Racial Discourse

Responses to racially charged incidents in the past have caused uproar and unending

debates. Individuals consistently make rash and inappropriate comments, disregarding other

perspectives. People ignore the potential one little comment holds; this in turn causes groups of

people to feel racially discriminated. In order to create a more rhetorically proper discussion,

changes in the way people respond and think to racial incidents must be in play. Although it

produces a limited response, careful responses and consideration of public reaction generate a

more rhetorically ethical discussion on race. Drawing a more precise and careful delineation of

terms, categories, and responses help honor different perspectives and encourage communal

reconciliation.

People participating in racially charged discussions respond in a problematic way.

Individuals tend be very swift to judge, which make their responses in conversations very blunt

and rude. Because of these inappropriate remarks, people are failing to respect others by

assuming negative things about one another. The Race Card Project, founded by Michelle Norris,

is an online idea that was created to start conversation on race. Although she was trying to

promote fruitful and positive discussions on racial themes, people generated argument and strife

by attacking one another. One participant in the Race Card Project posted how she acknowledges

her racial ethnicity and how she finds nothing interesting that about her white heritage. Days

after the post was submitted, an individual replied back to her post saying, you are way too


2/7

Park 2

politically-correct in your thinking. You give it away by saying I'm a sociology major. You are

being brainwashed by your militant politically correct professors. Don't take what they say as

gospel, be a critical thinker, be a contrarian (The Race Card Project). His rash response clearly

attacked the way the original poster believed. He evidently disapproved of her political thoughts,

and was quick to assume that she is being brainwashed by her politically correct professors. The

approach towards the post displayed his lack of respect towards people who possess different

beliefs. Individuals like this blunt responder create racial conflicts within discussions. People are

either unaware that their comments. The many ways the public react and respond to different

racial topics initiate challenging and conflicting discussions.

In order to achieve a more encouraging conversation on race, individuals must garner

awareness on the contrasting views of what is truly racist and what is not. Racism is defined as

actions, beliefs, and exercises that display signs hatred from one racially ethnic person to

another. Practices of racism are generally formed because people of one race believe in their

superiority to other racial groups. Despite the fact that a majority of people believe to

comprehend the idea of racism, there are many in stances where people incorrectly utilize the

term. In response, the commonly used phrase, playing the race card, is used when people

wrongfully implement race to gain an advantage over their opponent. Individuals believe that

playing the race card is a valid optiontheir belief is that it is not racist. It is difficult for

individuals to acknowledge and recognize that pulling the race card is discrimination towards a

racial ethnicity. To help visualize a general situation, if one person were to lose a cellular device

in a confined room with a fixed group of people, without any evidence, no clear accusations of

who stole the phone would be available. But by playing the race card, people would observe the

group racially and pull out any suspects just because of their racial background. Jonathan


3/7

Park 3

Capehart, an American journalist, discusses pitiful claims, made by liberals, regarding the life of

Barack Obama, states, spotlighting his elite education is tantamount to racial bigotry because it

insinuates that he took the place of someone else through affirmative actions, that someone else

being someone white (Hawkins).The liberals making this assertion determined this statement

using Barack Obamas race; they used his skin color as an example of evidence for the claim.

The playing of the race card will not allow the conversation to move in an ethical direction, as

the remarks are based on wrongful generalizations. Generally speaking, people consciously and

unconsciously use race for determining certain situations. This is indeed an example of racism.

As well as the race card phrase, many situations occur where people label something as

racist in an incorrect manner. In the Trayvon Martin case, many citizens and large groups of

communities agree with the verdict of the case, favoring George Zimmermans innocence. There

have been multiple instances where people who agree that Zimmerman is not guilty are called

racists. In an online article of the outcome of the Trayvon Martin case, someone posted in a

comment, I've been watching this forum since the trial started and have yet to see a reasoned,

logical argument from a George Zimmerman supporter. The trial may not be about race, but

these boards are all about racist bigots (Tienabeso). This user wrongfully labeled and called

many Zimmerman supporters racist, basing everything off of illogical arguments. By calling

many people racist, the conversation loses rhetoric value and transforms into an argumentative

based discussion. People involved in racially charged incidents need to acquire the skills to label

what is racist and what is not racist. Incorrectly recognizing someone as a racist will ultimately

corrupt the chance of honoring perspectives of others and creating a moment of reconciliation.

Possessing the ability to determine what is racist and not racist will help encourage edifying

conversations on the topic of race.


4/7

Park 4

In addition to the awareness of racism, the public must gain the ability to recognize the

difference between anger and outrage, in order to establish a more ethical racial conversation.

Because racially charged incidents influence a wide variety of emotions, people in discussion

must be able to distinguish the distinction between anger and outrage. Anger is an emotion that is

obtained through annoyance and frustration, while outrage is a step above anger and is a

response or act on the feelings of anger. The benefit of being able to classify the two terms will

help establish a passage of reconciliation and a sense of understanding. Undoubtedly, people will

feel the need to turn to anger when discussing with others on such a sensitive topic, such as racial

cases. If a person has anger because of a certain situation, people should be able to respond with

reason. People need to be more understanding with anger, because everyone is emotional and

everyone possesses the feelings of anger. Even if someone is angered, an ethical agreement to

disagree on a topic can be made if one side acknowledges anger. Outrage, on the other hand, is

something more uncontrollable and difficult to contain. If people come into contact with

someone that is outraged, the utilization of reasoning will ultimately be more difficult because of

their overwhelming emotions. Knowing the difference of anger and outrage, citizens engaged in

public racial discourse will encourage a more rhetorically ethic conversation.

As well as the ability to understand the emotions of others, people need to be self-

conscious that strong responses may hurt and negatively impact systems of discussion, in part

leading to the development of a more morally impacting racial conversation. Rash and blunt

remarks on a racially charged incident can affect others in a harmful way. Another post on the

Race Card Project stated that white girls should marry white boys. In response, a person

commented, white women that marry black are 11 times more likely to be murdered by their

husbands than if they married a white man. Too bad your mother couldnt give you that little


5/7

Park 5

factoid (The Race Card Project).The person who posted that response clearly was inconsiderate

of how the other person would feel, ultimately impacting the entire discussion. He was quick to

respond with an unnecessary comment that possessed no clear purpose, besides attacking the

publisher. He also introduced the very sensitive and brutal topic of murder; his inconsiderate

thoughts and actions in response to the original post eventually led to the halt of the discourse.

Unless people garner sensible thoughts to respond with reasonable words, racially ethical

conversations will be absent. In order to have successful and redeeming discussions on racially

charged incidents, people need to compose and present thoughtful and appropriate responses in

the public sphere.

Although precise definitions, responses, and practices will in full lead to moral

discussions on racial occurrences, cautious and careful responses will produce a more limited

conversation. Because people will limit themselves in reaction, true and complete responses will

not be evident; the intentions of the response may be altered because of the difficulty in

understanding limited replies. However with correctly worded phrases and replies, individuals

should possess the ability to express, in complete dialogue, their opinions and stances on any

argument.

Albeit it creates a restricted response, cautious responses and concern of communal

reaction produce a greater rhetorically ethical discussion on race. Illustrating a clearer and

cautious delineation of terms, categories, and responses assist in honoring different viewpoints

and inspire public reconciliation. Individuals partaking in racially charged conversations react in

a problematic way. People must generate awareness on the opposing views of what is racist and

what is not. The public sphere must inhibit the skill to acknowledge the difference between anger


6/7

Park 6

and outrage. With the integration of all these different alterations, the fulfillment of rhetorically

ethical discussion is plausible within racially charged incidents.


7/7

Park 7

Works Cited

Hawkins, John. "15 Moronic Things Liberals Call Racism Since Obama Was Elected."Free

Republic. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013. .

"The Race Card Project!." The Race Card Project. Michelle Norris, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.

.

Tienabeso, Seni, Matt Gutman, and Stephanie Wash. "George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

and Goes Free."ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.

.
http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/

Documents

Cautious Racial Discourse