January 24, 2005

9:40 AM

I don't judge people according to their race, but when I see someone of another race acting like a stereotypical member of that race, I do judge them and want nothing to do with them. Am I a racist asshole who thinks everyone should act white, or is it just unfortunate that certain behaviors I find unpleasant happen to be associated with race?
posted by anonymous to (49 comments total)

Well, how do you feel about white teenagers aping "inner city" "urban" modes of dress, speech, etc.? That could be your answer right there. ... and when you say "acting white," I presume you mean comporting oneself with courteousness, intelligence, and dignity? Ha. You should meet my in-laws, who live in a trailer in Mississippi.
posted by scratch at 9:55 AM on January 24, 2005

My in laws are white as milk, btw, as am I.
posted by scratch at 9:55 AM on January 24, 2005

I vote for racist asshole, because good people are distributed equally across all races, as are annoying habits. Things that are not generally annoying, but annoy you, can probably be beaten if you take the time to understand them.
posted by chaz at 9:59 AM on January 24, 2005

If you haven't already done so, you might be interested in reading this thread here, from an anonymous poster who finds him/herself automatically thinking that cheap WASPs look cheap, but cheap Jews are...so typical.

What's white, what's black, and what's latino, what's Asian, when it comes to behavior? Bad behaviors don't just "happen" to be associated with race--you're (subconsciously or not) buying into stereotypes that are based on historical and social baggage instead of fact, and then reinforcing those stereotypes in your own mind with a kind of confirmation bias. Why do you associate not-unpleasant behaviors to be "acting white"? I'm not going to label you a "racist asshole"--the human brain is designed to impose generalized patterns and categories even when none exist--but you might want to ask yourself some tough questions about your thinking patterns.
posted by availablelight at 10:00 AM on January 24, 2005

Wow, that's kind of a loaded question, but I think assigning specific behaviors to a race is racist.

Many people dress and act in the same ways that hip-hop performers dress and act, or but I wouldn't assign that style to a race. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "act white"... do you want everyone in Izod and pastels? (this is me being stereotypical)
posted by splatta at 10:03 AM on January 24, 2005

Test Yourself for Hidden Bias.

OK, so your biases aren't very hidden -- I suggest spending some time exploring this, and the rest of this site, anyway.
posted by Miko at 10:10 AM on January 24, 2005

>>Well, how do you feel about white teenagers *aping* "inner city" "urban" modes of dress, speech, etc.?

OMG, that's a poor choice of words given the "urban" posture of your statement.

And the phenomenon of White kids affecting hip-hop culture isn't necessarily a racial diversion. It can be an emulation of the music, lifestyle, fashion, etc. I think it's particularly narrow to hypothesize that any White/Latino/Asian kid is "acting Black" as opposed to "street", which embraces and combines many, many cultures...

I think the issue is your very limited and polarizing reasoning...pegging a certain behavior into a narrow little space. So you certainly aren't inherently a racist...but your method of conclusion designates you as one.
posted by naxosaxur at 10:16 AM on January 24, 2005

Well, I understand what you mean, because it can be a shake-your-head moment to see anyone exemplify a stereotype. But it sounds like you're not irritated by seeing white people act stereotypically white. So yeah, if all your irritation focuses on people of other races, I'd have to say you're in dangerous territory and should take a long look in the mirror.

That moment when we shake our head over the person exemplifying a stereotype is only inches away from the thought "stupid fucking niggers." Tread carefully.

And kudos for caring enough to ask the question.
posted by scarabic at 10:18 AM on January 24, 2005

When you say "act white" do you mean act like you? If so, I'm not sure it's racist. Maybe not particularly open or tolerant of different behaviours and attitudes, but it doesn't sound very different from hating lawyers, hicks, nerds, jocks or any other group of people that acts differently than what you are accustomed to, and presumably prefer.

It seems that you're not "prejudging" people before you interact with them, which would, I suppose, be "racist". Judging people based on their actions and behaviour, regardless of culture or race may make you a bit of a jerk, but I wouldn't call you racist.

Of course, if depends on what we're talking about here. If we're talking about how you hate bad asian drivers and stingy jews and just can't stop thinking about everyone in terms of race, you might have a bigger problem. If, on the other hand, you don't like hip-hop culture and you don't want to have anything to do with proponents of it, I'd say that's a fair position (again, presuming that your position is based on the actions of others, not their skin colour or religion or whatever).
posted by loquax at 10:24 AM on January 24, 2005

I don't think this makes you a "racist" at all. It makes you a "behaviorist" maybe, but what's wrong with that?

Why should any of us feel badly if we prefer to be around people who behave in some ways rather than others? Even if a particular way of behaving happens to be the "way" that many people of a particular race behave that doesn't make you racist for not liking that behavior -assuming you base your feelings on observed behavior only and not prejudge based on appearances.

I personally don't like being around people who have "urban" or "inner city" modes of behavior - regardless of their race. Likewise I can't stand being with people who behave like "rednecks" "hillbillies" or whatever name you'd like to place on the stereotype of white folks that often seem to live in trailer parks.

Don't let anybody guilt you into thinking you're a racist just because you don't care for behavior that may be stereotypically ascribed to a particular race. Like it or not, stereotypes often exist for valid reasons and you're not obligated to accept any behavior that you're not comfortable with.
posted by Local Hero at 10:37 AM on January 24, 2005

On preview-- what Local Hero said. Well put.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:43 AM on January 24, 2005

Yes you are a jerk if the stereotype you are thinking of is made up of neutral or good things, for example, black people eating Fried Chicken.

No, you're fine if the stereotype you are thinking of is made up of bad things, like, for example, stealing your TV set.

Perahaps you are applying the word stereotype because you don't want to just come out and say "I don't like black people who do bad things." That's perfectly fine, and it isn't hate of a group. It's just displeasure towards those that would hurt you.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with judging people based on the behaviour you witness. There is a problem if you take that judgement and make it a problem when you are required to deal with that person, but if someone performs an activity you dislike and because of that you choose not to deal with them outside a professional aspect, that is perfectly normal.

Anyone who tells you that you should, or even could, like everyone is lying to you and themselves. We all dislike certain things about different people, and it would be a crappy world if everyone acted like a care bear.
posted by shepd at 10:45 AM on January 24, 2005

Why should any of us feel badly if we prefer to be around people who behave in some ways rather than others? Even if a particular way of behaving happens to be the "way" that many people of a particular race behave that doesn't make you racist for not liking that behavior -assuming you base your feelings on observed behavior only and not prejudge based on appearances.

1) sure, you can like whatever you want in people
2) since you can't "observe" the entire race, any connections you draw between a way of being and a race are going to be based on appearances, and constitute prejudice.

It would be nice if what you say about simple obervation could be true, but you're fooling yourself. Any such judgments are called "generalizing," and that's racism.
posted by scarabic at 10:49 AM on January 24, 2005

None of the above. It makes you a hero defending European-American values from the brown tide. Oh, wait, that's just what I read at NationalVanguard.org. Never mind.

Look, 90 percent of all people suck. That's just Sturgeon's Law. But I think you may be talking about cultural traits, rather than racial ones.

Every culture has its embarrassing habits. You can't have unrealistic expectations that some people won't be walking stereotypes. But you also shouldn't be hung up on connecting sucky people to broader racial causes, that's the kind of obsession that spills you down the slippery slope to reading The Rise Of The Coloured Empires and wanting to "exterminate all the brutes."
posted by inksyndicate at 10:50 AM on January 24, 2005

Anyone who tells you that you should, or even could, like everyone is lying to you and themselves.

The opposite of racism is not 'liking everyone.' No one is suggesting that we like everyone. Liking is quite different from respecting or tolerating, which I believe is a basic necessity for humans living together in a free and civil society.
posted by Miko at 10:53 AM on January 24, 2005

That Harvard test is a bunch of bunk, by the way, and I'm a dirty leftist when it comes to race. The "test" offers no statistics, no score, no comparative numbers. Just a pronouncement that you "favor" one group or the other. Speaking as a former liberal arts student, it's just another desperate attempt for liberal arts academics to add false repute to their field (and sow the seeds of race guilt, no doubt) by making a "test" with "stastics" so the innumerate masses will be impressed.

To the OP, the only thing I can say is to do your very, very best to treat everyone you know with dignity. Do your best to see every person as an individual. Then demand the same for yourself. Follow this advice and you won't be a racist ass, but you won't be a mealy-mouthed guilty liberal either (again, speaking as someone on the left).
posted by socratic at 11:01 AM on January 24, 2005

Well, on one hand, I think it is OK to hate people who do annoying things, e.g. people who are very loud in inappropriate situations.

However, when you make a point of connecting someone's wrong actions with his/her race in your mind, that just reinforces the stereotype in your mind. Keep in mind that you generally don't remember people who don't annoy you, and you really never remember people who just go about their own business unobtrusively.

A friend of mine, for example, got mad at some black high-school students for being loud during a movie, and totally blamed their actions on their race, rather than either a.) realizing some people are loud during movies or b.) realizing high school kids are especially loud during movies.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is that one's race should never be used as an excuse for doing things that are wrong, but assuming that people do things that are wrong solely on account of their race isn't a good way of thinking, either.
posted by dagnyscott at 11:04 AM on January 24, 2005

Everyone's a little bit racist...
posted by achmorrison at 11:28 AM on January 24, 2005

(>>Well, how do you feel about white teenagers *aping* "inner city" "urban" modes of dress, speech, etc.?

OMG, that's a poor choice of words given the "urban" posture of your statement.)

No pun intended. I prefer to think that this is you inferring rather than me implying, naxo. Next time I'll write "parrotting."
posted by scratch at 11:28 AM on January 24, 2005

Funny story. I was sitting around talking with some folks, and a black friend of mine said to me, Jon Stewart-style, "I won't be your monkey." Apparently I went white(r than normal) because, God bless him, he said, "It's ok, you can laugh."
posted by socratic at 11:59 AM on January 24, 2005

I've been wondering about this. Considering how much overlap there is between blacks and street culture, can you really dislike street culture without being a bit racist?
posted by squidlarkin at 12:14 PM on January 24, 2005

I have more or less this same thing and I'm not ashamed of it - basically, it's just people acting stupid in a way that's mostly typical to their own subculture. You have the right to feel sick.
posted by abcde at 12:40 PM on January 24, 2005

Just as long as no one calls anyone wh*te trash, I'm happy.
posted by Specklet at 12:46 PM on January 24, 2005

've been wondering about this. Considering how much overlap there is between blacks and street culture, can you really dislike street culture without being a bit racist?

Considering how much overlap there is between Chinese people and Chinese food, can you really dislike Chinese food without being a bit racist?
posted by kindall at 12:51 PM on January 24, 2005

shepd, I think I understand what you are saying and I don't know you or your attitudes at all, but the statement " I don't like black people who do bad things. " is a bit misleading. We would all think a person was a bit off if she said " I don't like people who wear hats and do bad things. " I would wonder, at least, well, what's the correlation between wearing a hat and doing something bad? Why is the hypothetical person combining those things? I think the same applies to the statement you mention.

I DO think racist thoughts and reactions crop up even if one's general mental makeup is anti-racist. I just check myself: " well that's an overreaction on my part, or a bad relation I have drawn." and move on. For those who say they don't like "street" or "urban" culture, that's fine - however, this is also a very broad brush which includes a variety of music, image and culture. What was "street" in previous times has changed radically now... Basketball and comic books, for instance, two of my favorite cultures, were once both the province of urban Jews, and were considered "dirty" "undignified" etc. In fact, these links describe the early days of pro basketball which were dominated by Jewish teams from New York and Philadelphia. Link 1 Link 2

Excerpts from second link show how the ways we describe races as having an advantage in a sport have changed dramatically (and remained the same) - "The reason, I suspect, that basketball appeals to the Hebrew with his Oriental background," wrote Paul Gallico, sports editor of the New York Daily News in the 1930s, "is that the game places a premium on an alert, scheming mind, flashy trickiness, artful dodging and general smart aleckness."

Writers opined that Jews had an advantage in basketball because short men have better balance and more foot speed. They were also thought to have sharper eyes, which of course cut against the stereotype that Jewish men were myopic and had to wear glasses. But who says stereotypes have to be consistent? "
posted by Slothrop at 1:13 PM on January 24, 2005

I don't think you are racist. I think you come from a culture that exhibits traits with which you have a familiarity. Encountering people from other races frequently means being exposed to a culture (and behaviors) that you are not comfortable with. This inevitably causes some friction.

Racism creeps in when you assume that your ways are automatically superior to others. However, I think it is perfectly natural to gravitate toward people who share your culture.

Be confident with your culture but give yourself a chance to find some commonality with other types of people. You might be surprised at how much you're alike.
posted by quadog at 1:27 PM on January 24, 2005

Socratic:

Psychology is not my field, so I will not defend the implicit association test. But I don't think it's fair to critique it based on the absence of statistics on a web site aimed at the general public.

If you want their justification for why you should take this test seriously and you want the information to judge whether or not the test measures anything you need to look for it in the peer-reviewed articles on the topic.

I would imagine that most of these people have no interest at all in speaking to the public (as in becoming a part of the public discourse), so I can't imagine this is some attempt to spread guilt.
posted by duck at 1:32 PM on January 24, 2005

when I see someone of another race acting like a stereotypical member of that race, I do judge them and want nothing to do with them.

everyone should act white

You're making the assumption that any culturally-linked behavior will be bad, especially in non-white groups. So, yeah, I'd call that somewhat racist. There could be race-associated traits that are positive, like close-knit families or great musical ability. As long as you're recognizing that there are culturally-linked traits, maybe you could start looking for positive traits in non-white groups, and recognize some negative traits in whites. Or you could dislike unpleasant behaviors without linking the behavior so closely to race.

Meanwhile, asking the question, albeit anonymously, takes guts, and shows that you're questioning your own assumptions. Ask.MeFites, how does someone change racist attitudes?
posted by theora55 at 1:36 PM on January 24, 2005

duck -- With all due respect to people who are smarter than I am, it is possible to abuse "peer review." Aside from any unwillingness of peer groups to accept anything that disagrees with their collective worldview, it's simply too easy to throw some jargon words around, make some pretty graphs and charts, and call it science. While the folks at Harvard may not draw any conclusions from my data (or shouldn't, because it's not a controlled test), the bald statement that "You have a strong preference for African-Americans" could be misleading to the public viewer. The only purpose I can see to making such a statement without some minor supporting comparative statistics ("Strong Euro-preference subjects associated good words with Euro images on averate 0.5s faster than you."), it's possible, even likely, that someone would see that and think "Oh crap, Harvard says I'm a racist!"

Anyway, not to threadjack... the point is that if the OP is worried about being a racist, we can't really tell him (her), if only because there's such a nuanced difference between "many black people act like gangstas" and "all black people act like gangstas." (Factually, neither is true, btw.)

By asking if the feeling is racist, I'd bet good money that the OP isn't even remotely racist, in the sense of a belief in the irredeemable badness of someone simply because of their race. He _may_ be asking us whether it is "offensive" to equate behavior with groups to a greater or lesser degree, but that's a different question. Are all white Southerners racists? No. Are many? No. Are a few? Yes, but so are a few Northerners. Is it still fair to call white racists a Southern stereotype? Maybe, because that's where the image persisted the longest.

If nothing else, though, I hope this discussion has shown the OP that 1) he's brave for asking us, 2) he's even braver for asking himself, and 3) there are many, many answers.
posted by socratic at 1:55 PM on January 24, 2005

How to tell if you're a racist:

1) Have you ever started a sentence with "I'm not a racist, but..." or any reasonable variation (e.g.:" I don't judge people according to their race, but..")?

Add points, if > 1, you're a racist.
posted by signal at 2:15 PM on January 24, 2005

Interesting how many commenters assumed anonymous is white, and has issues with blacks or jews.
posted by grateful at 2:18 PM on January 24, 2005

Well, it's not a giant leap, given this:
Am I a racist asshole who thinks everyone should act white, . . .
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:33 PM on January 24, 2005

maybe anonymous is an African American person who likes to ape stereotypical rural white mannerisms, like a black Kid Rock or something.

it could be, there's plenty of people who like to do that
posted by matteo at 2:38 PM on January 24, 2005

All interesting comments. My $.03:

I grew up in the South. My family is full of people I consider racist. I consider myself a knee-jerk anti-racist. That's possibly just as useless, but to me it feels more honorable.

In any case, here's my observation, which comes from years of enduring uncomfortable anecdotes from extended family members who are otherwise perfectly nice people.

If you're telling a story about the "screaming crazy man on the corner," tell a story about the "screaming crazy man on the corner." The fact that he is a "screaming crazy black man on the corner" is wholly irrelevant to the facts of him being a) screaming and b) crazy. That you feel compelled to point out his race automatically infuses your story with a racist element that I will automatically discount.

You may be telling a great story. You can digress with irrelevant details about the weather, and that's okay. But if you digress about irrelevant details regarding race, that's insensitive.

I can't explain why. I just think we should all know this by now.
posted by mudpuppie at 2:44 PM on January 24, 2005

mudpuppie - Unless there are two screaming crazy men on the corner, which often happens down here. If one of them is black, and one of them is white, then it should be perfectly appropriate to point out which is which... unless, of course, one of them is weaing a cravat or a codpiece or is missing an ear.
posted by socratic at 2:59 PM on January 24, 2005

mudpuppie - by the way, why should you point out that they're "men"? Hmmmm? Are you sexist? Why must you point out that they're crazy? That's awfully judgmental.... I mean, they could be making a heartfelt plea! Reductio ad absurdum... :) (I'm not picking on you, dude/tte, I'm just sayin' there are two sides to even the best of intentions. But I do, for the most part, agree with what you're saying.)
posted by socratic at 3:01 PM on January 24, 2005

I've been wondering about this. Considering how much overlap there is between blacks and street culture, can you really dislike street culture without being a bit racist?

As someone who lives in a country where there are virtually no African Americans, but where 'street' and hip-hop culture is, if anything, even more all-pervasive than it is in the States, I think you can make this disjunction.

Indeed, I think you could argue that it's the white kids aping 'inner city' attitudes, and the media industry that pushes the culture at them, who are the true racists, especially at this cultural and geographic distance. To me, the hip hop pose is based upon a set of media-generated racial equivocations -- black=physical, rather than intellectual; black=thug; black=materialistic; black=confrontational; black=overtly sexual; black=criminal -- that are no less stereotypical (and racist) than, say, the whole Norman Mailer 'White Nigger' thing.

Hip-hop culture, as packaged and marketed through radio and music video, deals in stereotypical and essentialised images of blackness, rather than 'blackness' itself (whatever that might be), and thus gives young, white meat-heads the cultural authority they need to indulge a particular set of behaviours -- misogyny; egomaniacal aggression, and rampant materialism, for starters. What this has to do with 'blackness' (rather than 'mTV blackness') I really don't know.
posted by Sonny Jim at 3:01 PM on January 24, 2005

by the way, why should you point out that they're "men"? Hmmmm? Are you sexist?

I could claim that you're picking on me, but I know what you mean. The very simple reason for why one is okay and the other isn't is that our pronouns -- necessary, everyday parts of speech -- are gender specific. Should it be this way? I dunno. But the gender is incorporated into the structure of the story by use of the pronoun. The race? Superfluous.

Why must you point out that they're crazy?

Again, I acknowledge that you're not picking on me. "Crazy" was my example for why you might be telling the story. It could the that subject of the story was dancing, or singing, or drooling, or whatever.

My point -- which I think you get -- is that in most cases the race of the person is irrelevant. Mentioning it only serves to stir up feelings people might have about that race.

Got it? Any other nits to pick?
posted by mudpuppie at 3:13 PM on January 24, 2005

>Why should any of us feel badly if we prefer to be around people who behave in some ways rather than others?

It's not bad, it's just a little boring.

To answer the question, I think -or believe- that you've become more than a little self-absorbed. That's OK, but the narcissism can have racist qualities.
posted by gsb at 3:31 PM on January 24, 2005

My point -- which I think you get -- is that in most cases the race of the person is irrelevant. Mentioning it only serves to stir up feelings people might have about that race.

Well, if you talk about "the screaming crazy man on the corner," I will naturally assume he's white -- you know, like me, and probably you. If you don't mention his race, you're subtly reinforcing an assumption that screaming crazy men tend to be white.

I mean, tomayto, tomahto. No matter what you say, it's wrong and racist, so just do your best.
posted by kindall at 3:31 PM on January 24, 2005

mudpuppie - consider the nits picked, bandaged, and healing. :)
posted by socratic at 3:32 PM on January 24, 2005

Well, if you talk about "the screaming crazy man on the corner," I will naturally assume he's white -- you know, like me, and probably you. If you don't mention his race, you're subtly reinforcing an assumption that screaming crazy men tend to be white.

But why do you assume anything? You form an image in your head of a white guy. Why? And why is that image negated if you replace it with an image of a black guy? It's all totally irrelevant.

It's the assumption you refer to that's interesting to me. when we hear a story about a stranger, why do we assume this stranger looks like us? And why are we threatened when we learn that the stranger doesn't look like us?
posted by mudpuppie at 4:16 PM on January 24, 2005

You form an image in your head of a white guy. Why?

An excellent question! It isn't as if one has to form a race-specific image in one's mind, after all; I at least never bother to do so unless some explicit marker forces me to, so I know it isn't a psychological necessity.
posted by Goedel at 6:55 PM on January 24, 2005

The fact that he is a "screaming crazy black man on the corner" is wholly irrelevant to the facts of him being a) screaming and b) crazy.

I dunno, if you're telling a story about a screaming crazy man, generally the point of the story is to offer a characterization, and the race would likely be relevant to that characterization. There are different associated vocal patterns, for example.

The real problem is one of where you place the emphasis. If you try and say this crazy black dude is representative of all blacks, that's unfair. If you emphasize that he's crazy, his race just becomes part of the characterization/visualization, like his sex.
posted by dagnyscott at 11:17 PM on January 24, 2005

the race would likely be relevant to that characterization

Why? America seems to be so racialized a country that the subject carries an importance with people out of all reasonable proportion; would you be so insistent on mentioning the man's eye color or religion? Why is this particular incidental feature more important than those?

If you emphasize that he's crazy, his race just becomes part of the characterization/visualization, like his sex.

Even by insisting on mentioning the "black" along with the "crazy" you're already helping to perpetuate stereotypes. If his race has no role to play in his behavior, then it is utterly frivolous to mention it, and I stand by the same position even if the point of the story is to praise the person in question: there are few things I find quite as patronizing as "the nice black man", the "eloquent black professor" or some other such nonsense.
posted by Goedel at 6:37 AM on January 25, 2005

Ask.MeFites, how does someone change racist attitudes?

Challenge them. Examine them. Rethink them. Try new attitudes. Want to. Make an effort to spend more time outside of your community comfort zone.

As a Texas native who grew up Northeastern, I fully back what mudpuppie and Goedal are saying. I believe it is not only proper, but even necessary, to examine motives for making assumptions about the race of a person mentioned, or for mentioning a person's race where it is not relevant to the point of your statement.

My father grew up in a very traditionally white racist fundamentalist Christian environment in East Texas. He remained a racist until the age of 21, when he was sent to the Viet Nam war. His sergeant was black, as were many members of his company. The grueling experience of war, or knowing and caring for people as individuals, and of relying utterly for his life and safety on people he had been taught were inferior, and vice versa, were enough to change his mind. He became a staunch anti-racist and brought us up that way. This transformation is one of the things that I most admire about him.

People often like to say that white people oppose racism out of white guilt. Perhaps that's partly true, but the emotions I feel when I consider racism aren't ones of guilt. They come from a direct and horrified observation of events such as this (in the town where my granparents lived). I would characterize them as feelings of anger, exasperation, and sadness, that of all the time we have existed on this earth, we persist in believing that there's something more special (normal, proper, standard, respectable) about our group than the other guy's. That some people persist in acting out that belief. And that many others silently comply by not challenging racist thinking wherever it appears, even in themselves.
posted by Miko at 7:05 AM on January 25, 2005

It isn't as if one has to form a race-specific image in one's mind

I don't see how you'd stop yourself from doing so. A person has a race. You're forming an image of a person. If you don't specify a race, it's going to default to your own race or perhaps that of the speaker. That's just normal. Your mind's eye needs some value for that parameter, so it's going to supply one if you don't.
posted by kindall at 9:07 AM on January 25, 2005

That's exactly what the challenge becomes: knowing that you have developed a tendency to code the words "human" "man" "woman" or "person" with your own race in your mental image, and then learning that this image was chosen partially because of a preference for images that remind you of yourself. Whether that tendency is innate or learned is a subject for another debate. But it is not actually necessary to do so, and you can learn not to. If you can't imagine a human figure standing for man without coding it for race, that's worth examining.
posted by Miko at 9:33 AM on January 25, 2005

If you can't imagine a human figure standing for man without coding it for race, that's worth examining.

I don't see why, as the reason people do this is perfectly obvious and natural.
posted by kindall at 4:29 PM on January 31, 2005