Bell's Rules of Racial Standing - Page 2
Author: Mac Diva — Published: Sep 06, 2003 at 4:24 pm 72 comments

FOURTH RULE
When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community or vocal components thereof deem "outrageous," the latter will actively recruit blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.

FIFTH RULE
True awareness requires an understanding of the Rules of Racial Standing. As an individuals understanding of these rules increases, there will be more and more instances where one can discern their workings. Using this knowledge, one gains the gift of prophesy about racism, its essence, its goals, even its remedies. The price of this knowledge is the frustration that follows recognition that no amount of public prophesy, no matter its accuracy, can either repeal the Rules of Racial Standing nor prevent their or prevent their operation.

The controlling rule of the rules is, to state it explicitly: White privilege must prevail. That means the perspective of the white person or persons attacking the person of color must be shored up and treated as reasonable no matter how ludicrous it is on its face. It isn't that many of the people who are supporting the attack don't know they are wrong, it is that they perceive themselves as having a vested interest in prevailing in their wrong. They will lose something if they don't get their way — their feeling of superiority as white people.

I have experienced the playing out of each or the rules as an observer or an object many times and have some insights to share about them.

I first noticed the operation of Rule No. 1 here in the blogosophere in regard to blogger Oliver Willis. Despite considerable sycophancy, Willis often found himself frustrated when I began observing blogs 10 months ago. The white, usually conservative bloggers and commenters he had cultivated would turn on him at the drop of a hat if he said anything about having endured racial abuse. In one episode, an outraged Willis described being stopped and questioned by the police without probable cause while walking in his neighborhood. His audience denied there could have been any racial bias involved and mocked his experience. Their message? 'Watch yourself, boy. Your popularity is contingent on pleasing us and you displease us when you tell the truth about your experiences as a black person. Shut up!' He did. Willis had been denied standing to describe aspects of his own life because he is African-American.

Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2 — Page 3 — Page 4

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found

Article comments

— go to most recent comments

  • 1 - Brian Flemming

    Sep 06, 2003 at 8:37 pm

    Great post, MD.

    Bell's rules are extremely well articulated. At first glance they're shocking and seemingly outrageous, but then...well, the examples I've personally seen of those rules in action are legion.

    They're really not that shocking. And a little awareness of them would go a long way toward easing tension, I think.

    Of course, now I would guess the response here will be that because one can find exceptions to the rules, they must not exist at all.

  • 2 - Al Barger

    Sep 07, 2003 at 2:13 am

    Yeah, yeah, whitey's out to get ya.

    What, exactly, would you have to live for if you didn't have this scorching paranoid racial animosity to drive you?

    One thing for sure, YOU could never be on a jury dealing with any form of a racial issue. The white man might just as well blow his own brains out, and save the lawyer fees.

    Not appreciating being called vicious names by a dark hued person does not, in fact, constitute evidence of hate crimes against dark folk. Therefore, I plead INNOCENT.

    On the other hand, you flatter me by suggesting that I have "followers." Thank you.

  • 3 - Al Barger

    Sep 07, 2003 at 3:05 am

    Your little slap at Eric Olsen at the end was, typically, utterly baseless and gratuitous. Eric didn't agree with a couple of particular comments from Cobb. You jumped ALL the way from that to just saying for NO other reason that Eric objected to being criticized by any black guy. That's just silly. Eric would not have like the same sentiment coming out of a white guy, or a green frickin' Martian.

  • 4 - Al Barger

    Sep 07, 2003 at 3:17 am

    This Bell's Rules stuff is SO self-supporting. It is OBVIOUSLY true. There is plenty of evidence to support it. Just look around.

    Everytime a blogger of caucasian ancestry criticizes a dark hued blogger, then that is evidence of racial suppression.

    In fact, there are web authors of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. You can find lots of instances of white authors agreeing with black authors. Those don't count. You can find lots of instances of white authors arguing with other white authors, or men arguing with women, straights arguing with gays, and Freddy arguing with Jason.

    All you have to do is pick out the data that will support the lame point you're trying to make, and let it fly.

    Any dark hued blogger, by the way, who has anything nice to say about any melanin challenged bloggers is "Uncle Tom."

  • 5 - Mac Diva

    Sep 07, 2003 at 3:23 pm

    I would encourage readers to read benighted Barger's comments here and elsewhere and apply Bell's Rules of Racial Standing to them. He is pretty close to 100 percent in being a specimen who supports Bell's rules.

    Also of note is how the tobacco spewing goat devotee elevates himself above Bell, a person who has proven both his superior intellect and qualifications to discuss the topic of race relations for more than 40 years. But then, Bell is just 'some black guy who don't know his place' to the Bargers of the world.

  • 6 - Jim Carruthers

    Sep 07, 2003 at 4:05 pm

    It somewhat appalls me how USAians have internalized the artificial social artifact you call "race".

    The most horrendous example is in Rwanda and the Congo where a 19th century construct of "race" led to horrific slaughter.

    There is no biological determination in "race", it doesn't exist. The only biological determination is can you produce fertile offspring. If you can't, then you are different animals.

    You might as well be arguing about whether you are a heathen or heretic.

    Buncha silly humans. Give your head a shake and be ashamed of how stupid you are behaving.

  • 7 - Mac Diva

    Sep 07, 2003 at 4:37 pm

    Jim, it is not that Bell or I are ignorant of the speciousness of the concept of 'race.' We both agree with what you've said. However, we also live in a society where we are mistreated because of the color of our skins day to day. Bell has been a target of racial discrimination for nearly 80 years -- legally for most of that period. He has endured abuses, including not being able to drink from the closest water fountain or use a bathroom when he needed to, and possibly violence, that no white person ever has because of his 'race.'

    Reality is, in philosopher Cornell West's words, "race matters." With elderly people like Bell soon to pass on, it is a good thing that younger scholars of race relations, such as Cobb, are keeping analysis of the topic alive.

  • 8 - Jim Carruthers

    Sep 07, 2003 at 5:02 pm


    Bell has been a target of racial discrimination for nearly 80 years -- legally for most of that period. He has endured abuses, including not being able to drink from the closest water fountain or use a bathroom when he needed to, and possibly violence, that no white person ever has because of his 'race.'


    Well, perhaps the best thing is to move on to the future instead of keeping alive old battles.

    My family is part Irish, my grandfather was a lodge master in the Loyal Orange Order. None of that means anything to me. What do I gain by keeping old wars alive, it has no relevance to me? Do I go out and march on the Glorious 12th of July? Hell, no, and neither does anybody else, and this from the capital of Orange America the city of Toronto. Does keeping the battle against apartheid in South Africa help that nation? No, they set up a process to heal and move forward. Why can't the States do that?

    If you watch the movie "Gangs of New York", you'll discover the Irish were considered worse than ex-slaves.

    The situation of the Irish in America changed (if it wasn't for the Fenian raids from the States, Canada might not have made Confederation into the wonderful Dominion it is, full of loyal subjects to our Majesty, the Queen ... erm, sorry got carried away).

  • 9 - Brian Flemming

    Sep 07, 2003 at 5:13 pm

    I would guess that anyone who has participated in a multi-racial group has seen some of Bell's Rules in action.

    I'm a member of a multi-racial social justice group here in L.A. that is roughly 90% Latino. Still, at meetings where there are five white-skinned persons and 50 brown- and black-skinned persons, the speaking time for the whites can be 50% or more.

    They're not bad people. They're clearly not racists--they're donating time to a group that is proudly multi-racial and whose mission statement specifically condemns racism. (I'm saying "they" just to de-personalize this--I'm one of the white-skinned folks.)

    Still, that roughly-50% figure is still there, a fact. What does it mean? One could ignore that question, which is to say, ignore that plain fact. The group decided not to ignore it.

    However, the group did NOT decide it meant any of the white people had to grovel and apologize. The group did NOT ask any of the white people to be ashamed of their participation in some kind of racist plot.

    The group decided it meant the group should BE AWARE of the phenomenon--to see it for what it was, a cultural phenomenon, and try to remedy the gap.

    Nobody groveled. Nobody apologized. No discourse was stifled by "PC cops." Every now and then a meeting begins with a reminder that the group has previously noticed the phenomenon, and the white speakers simply remain AWARE that it's possible for a white person in our society to presume the privilege of holding the floor for more than his or her fair share--and that it's possible for minorities (especially, in this case, many recent immigrants, who often maintain an attitude of humility with regard to their "hosts") to let it happen. And that our attempts to communicate with each other could be limited--or even poisoned--if we let such a thing happen as a matter of course.

    That's it. Nobody yelled at anybody else. Nobody called anybody else (or, I would guess, even thought anybody else to be) a "racist."

    Just awareness.

    It is possible to note a cultural phenomenon without condemning any group of people as evil or racist.

    And it's possible to be white and acknowledge the phenomenon without groveling or apologizing for it.

  • 10 - Jim Carruthers

    Sep 07, 2003 at 5:38 pm

    So, Brian, if I interpret this properly, what you are trying to say is that the creation and maintainance of a victim hierarchy is more important than trying to solve problems?

    I experienced these sorts of bullshit sub-culture power politics at university, and know several people who've made successful careers out of being professional victims. But they've not accomplished much else, and nobdy really wants to be friends with them beause they are just no fun. But within their little circle -- they rule!

    Group and identity politics are a bore, grinding and tiresome and prevent real progression and change.

    What are you going to do when we become trans-human?

  • 11 - Brian Flemming

    Sep 07, 2003 at 5:46 pm

    Jim,

    In Comment 9 I discuss how we noticed a phenomenon and addressed it.

    Please tell me how we should have addressed it differently.

    Be specific please.

  • 12 - Al Barger

    Sep 07, 2003 at 7:19 pm

    Again, Diva, you are simply LYING.

    But then, Bell is just 'some black guy who don't know his place' to the Bargers of the world.

    Again Diva, you're just MAKING QUOTES UP WHOLECLOTH. I never said anything near like what you have attributed to me here, in quote marks no less.

    I know you speak from a Higher Truth that doesn't require trivial points like HONESTY. Here in reality, though, such things DO matter.

    Nor am I much impressed by you fellow travelers (Flemming and Carruthers, I'm looking your way), as they nod their heads and go quietly right along repeatedly with your direct SLANDEROUS FABRICATION of facts. If someone of a rightward persuasion was speaking anything HALF this maliciously and dishonestly even of YOU, I'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.

  • 13 - Mac Diva

    Sep 07, 2003 at 10:18 pm

    (Stopping the snickering I can't help when I read someting utterly wack.) Barger's latest sally is even more silly than his usual remarks. As those of us remotely conversant with grammar know, double quotes are used when citing someone's precise words. Single quotes are used when referring to something generally or often thought or said. Suffice it to say that despite his great self-regard, Barger is 'not the sharpest pencil in the box.'

    To add to Brian's point, I don't believe being aware of discrimination is something to discourage at all. How are we going to solve a problem that is blighting millions of lives if we ignore it? Will ignoring discrimination reduce the poverty rate for blacks, Hispanics and Indians? Will it reform dismal educational opportunites? Will it end the day to day slights and abuses people of color are regulary demoralized by? Of course not. What ignoring discrimination does is help it continue to be the unofficial law of the land.

    I come away from Blogcritics today with two ideas for future entries. I need to write more about the real world effects of Bell's rule, making it clear that racial discrimination against blacks and Hispanics is not comparable to the history of Irish and Italian immigrants to the U.S. in most ways, for one thing. Second, I need to write an entry about grammar and writing skills. I stopped short of commenting on two entries at Blogcritics today because they were so poorly written. Then along comes Barger with his blooper above. Concern about poor writing is usually Eric Olsen's turf, but I shall be poaching on it soon.

  • 14 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 08, 2003 at 9:23 am

    Mac Diva, I am extremely disappointed to see the comments on this post, and this post in general. Personally, I see little difference between the combination of this post and your comment #5, above and Al's ridiculous post after you first quit. A "tobacco spewing goat devotee?" Please.

    If you're as tired of the personal attacks here at Blogcritics as you've claimed to be, if you truly want to elevate the discourse at Blogcritics, this isn't the way to go about it.

    If this was an oligarchy of some kind, rather than a community of equals, I think I'd be inclined to make a no-names rule, so that no fellow Blogcritics could be named within a post. I cannot impose such a rule, but I strongly suggest that everybody, and that means you, Al, as well as you, Mac Diva, consider the effects this kind of calling-out has.

    When will the cycle of rudeness end?

  • 15 - Eric Olsen

    Sep 08, 2003 at 10:27 am

    I see elements of truth in Bell's theory but I also see that it can be used to shut down any substantive discussion involving race.

    I am unclear as to the manifestation of my "disconbobulation" referred to above.

    I don't believe we can have much of a conversation if we are not allowed to use names, but it certainly would improve the situation if the names ere used only regarding points of view, not personal attacks.

  • 16 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 08, 2003 at 10:43 am

    My ideal rule would state simply that no names of fellow Blogcritics should be used within posts, at least not without their permission. In truth, positive references would undoubtedly be welcome, so perhaps the rules should state that no negative references to fellow Blogcritics should be allowed, even if you're quoting them directly. Save that for comments, not posts.

    Then, for comments, it would be really, really nice if people would just show some respect for each other, but I'm not seeing it, even from people who claim to want respect paid to them.

    That's how it works in this life, you show respect to earn respect. Respectable people are respected, others are often not. It would be nice if we were all respected, even those of us that don't deserve it, but that just isn't how life works.

    And of course there are always people who will disrespect you no matter how respectable of a person you've been. Miss Manners says to ignore such uncouth people and let their disrespect demonstrate their character to the world in silence. To respond simply lowers your estimation to the level of their own.

  • 17 - RW

    Sep 08, 2003 at 11:17 am

    Same stuff, different site. Here's some history, folks. Go check things out:

    http://pla.blogspot.com/#95597062


    http://www.ruminatethis.com/archives/001432.html


    http://rittenhouse.blogspot.com/#200419322
    http://rittenhouse.blogspot.com/#200419542



    Look, when folks like Jesse Taylor and Greg Greene (two people who have agreed with me only in the sense that it's good to breathe oxygen & water is necessary to live) are accused of kow-towing to some mythical "man", I gotta do something other than just guffaw. And yes, I can name that "I'm about to be called a racist" tune in two notes, Alex. Even though I see that personal vendettas are now being carried out in a new venue because the previous one was relegated to oblivion (read the links to find out why), those two personal attacks can't stand unchallenged. I stopped reading Jesse months ago, partly because he kept attacking me personally, so I surely have no reason to give him some backup - except I couldn't consider myself a decent human being when I see someone wrongly attacked and their character demeaned. Trust me, Jesse Taylor rolls over for (any) whitey about as readily as someone would volunteer for a prostate checkup and Greg Greene (whom I have a congenial cyber-relationship with) is far to classy to stoop to your level.

    Grow up & write on interesting topic, "Mac/J/JG/JadeGold/whoever" and please stop attacking other bloggers personally. It always comes back to bite you, so one would think that you'd finally learn the lesson (or, is this another case of whitey trying to take down the upstanding minority who is 'daring' to speak out?).

    It's not daring to be mean. It's not daring to be hurtful and it's not daring to attack people anonymously....it's cowardly. You're talented - use those skills for something positive & please stop trying to bring people down. It's unbecoming.

    And sadly, predictable.

  • 18 - Mac Diva

    Sep 08, 2003 at 1:32 pm

    How ya doing, Lil' Dick West? I will continue to write whatever I want despite ignorant, bigoted white folks ordering me not to. And, if I were going to take advice from anyone I would definitely not do so from a rednecked racist like you. Thanks for the links. They further prove Bell's Rules of Racial Standing. In fact, I was preparing a post using some of them anyhow. I also would not be surprised if they crop up in a book to demonstrate racism in the blogosphere. That is the advantage I have as a real writer, not just someone playing around in the blogosphere. Feel free to provide me with more material.

    I see the idiot at PLA has moved on. Perhaps you should too.

  • 19 - Mac Diva

    Sep 08, 2003 at 1:44 pm

    What personal attack, Eric? Go back and read your exchange with Cobb. You got pretty testy. All I did was describe your response to his posts.

    Considering Barger recently referred to me as watermelon eating, I find Phil's blindness rather appalling. So much for any attempt at evenhandedness. More Bell's Rules, perhaps? As for 'goat devotee,' he is the one who posted saying he liked goats. Are people now forbidden to cite a person's own assertion?

    I have stood up to much bigger blowhards than Barger on and off the Web and I am not about to stop doing so well into my 30s . Get used to it.

  • 20 - Brian Flemming

    Sep 08, 2003 at 1:58 pm

    Racism: When people from other groups analyze my group's biases.

    Plain talk: When I analyze other groups' biases.

    "Can't we all just get along?": Can't we stop talking about my group and exclusively talk about yours?

    "Race doesn't exist": As a member of the dominant racial group, it benefits me to avoid facts about my group's privileged position and the institutions that maintain it.

  • 21 - Eric Olsen

    Sep 08, 2003 at 2:05 pm

    MD, I wasn't describing your mention of me as a personal attack, just speaking in general in response to Phillip's comment. I am certainly not upset at being described as "disconbobulated" - I have been called far worse.

    But if I was testy, it was in response to Cobb's seeming eagerness to absolutely ignore the specifics of the original issue, or dispute, or whatever the hell it was, and cast it as just another stereotypical racial confrontation, which from my personal perspective, it was not.

    You and Al can fight on the site if you want, but I see it as diminishing returns. When you focus on the facts and the issues you accomplish much more, as I have previously stated. I believe you came out ahead on the Lincoln wars because you did just that, although tarring Al with the neo-
    Confederate label was neither helpful nor based on one piece of evidence I have seen.

    I neither want, nor expect you to back down, go away, recant or otherwise compromise your principles, but surely your readers the world over will be more responsive to honey than vinegar.

  • 22 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 08, 2003 at 2:12 pm

    MacDiva (#19), This post was brought to my attention, the one to which you refer was not, and so I have not seen it. My point remains regardless of Al's offense - you are guilty of exactly that which you accuse Al. I don't care what race anyone here on BC is, but I'm tired of the personal animosity and attacks.

    I'll hunt down the Al Barger post, though I've already called him up short on other, less-offensive, things he's written.

    Perhaps you ought to ask yourself why it is that you are not responding to any of the points I made, but instead personally attacking me?

    Please, treat people the way you want to be treated, and ignore those who don't play well with others. I see plenty of juvenile and offensive behavior on both side of the political aisle, and I note that those who claim to support others along apolitical lines betray themselves by their chosen friends.

    MacDiva: Comments apparently don't show up in search results. Do you have a link to Al's racist comment?

  • 23 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 08, 2003 at 2:17 pm

    Thank you, Eric, you raise an excellent example.

    MacDiva, I thought your series on the Civil War was excellent, truly the output of someone who has spent plenty of time on it. I sent you my views on that war in a private email, and I won't rehash them here except to say that though I was born south of the Mason-Dixon line and count among my family those who still refer to that war as the "War of Northern Agression," I believe would-be apologists for the Confederate States are wrong.

    However, instead of making that statement clearly, letting opponents' ignorance or bigotry stand on its own, you peppered them with personal references. Now instead of having something to which I can link as a general answer, I have only threads of a personal argument between strong-willed people. I believe that you do disservice to yourself when you lower yourself to the level of your critics.

    If nothing else, please keep the personal references out of the posts, saving them for the comments. Please!

  • 24 - Mac Diva

    Sep 08, 2003 at 2:30 pm

    Phil, he may have erased it. It was on the thread he set up for the sole purpose of attacking Brian Flemming. You know, the one where he does this routine about Brian being his 'ho.' (Which, interestingly, I don't recall you objecting to, though the entry exists only for the purpose of abusing a member of Blogcritics in the most crude of ways.) I defended Brian and Barger shifted to abusing me.

    And, I must disagree with you that there is anything wrong with this entry or my comments on it, excluding the tongue-in-cheek phrase you jumped on while ignoring the rest of a very good post. The entry makes a sociological phenomenon understandable in layman's terms. It only mentions Barger's well-documented neo-Confederate sympathies briefly. The bulk of it applies to society in general. If you really think this is a bad blog entry, it boggles the mind. I expect a bigot like Ricky West to attack any entry that addresses racial discrimination, which he has been doing for the entire time I've been in the blogosphere, getting disinvited from some liberal blogs in the process. According to folks like him, the only race problem is caused by 'the blacks.' However, I am surprised to see you showing just as little judgment.

  • 25 - Phillip Winn

    Sep 08, 2003 at 2:42 pm

    MD (#24) Comments may not be erased by anyone, even the people who post them. On the post in question, I was the very first commentor, and I asked everybody to stay away from the obvious plea for attention, on the theory that ignoring bad behavior removes the reward that attention-seekers desire. I'm not sure how you missed my comment the first time you posted, or just now how you missed mine or Al's (which is still there, though it does not say exactly what you said it did), but your information isn't correct.

    Your comments on that thread were offensive, both personally and stereotypically. Al's responses was equally (perhaps more) offensive, and now that I've seen those comments, I posted my opinion on that as well. Does that equal treatment serve anybody well? Not really. The truth is that each of you is behaving poorly, and both of you will have no end of excuses for your bad behavior, going back in time forever.

    If there was no mention of Barger or any other Blogcritics by name, I would like your posts, as I've said. Your first post in the series, however, was specifically titled "Blogosphere hosts new attack on Lincoln" and focused on Al. In and of itself, that was still an improvement on prior behavior, staying on track with factual statements. Further posts, however, more deeply dug into Al, sometimes to the disservice (in my opinion) of the facts at hand.

    Much better, in my view, was this post, which avoided personal attacks on BlogCritics, reserving scorn and derision for public officials. That's a post to which I can email the link without having to explain a squabble. That's the kind of post I like to read, and the kind of post I wish you would focus on more than the others. I just don't think that they serve your ability and passion as well.

    Please, MD, I don't know why you can't see what I'm saying. I'm asking you to ignore Al. That's all. If you think he's an ignorant racist pig, then pretend his posts and comments don't exist and let the world see him for the ignorant racist pig that he is.

    Or not, if he shapes up as well.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for Feb 14, 2012

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for January

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs

Politics Highlights