Racist Acts And Racist Hummor Philips Summary

In “Racist Acts and Racist Humor”, Michael Philips details three theories regarding how and why racist humor is representative of immorality. Philips states that he concurs with the act-centered theory, and identifies flaws in the other two theories, agent-based and belief-centered, to explain why he believes the act-centered theory is the most plausible. According to the act-centered theory, Philips believes that ‘Basic Racist Acts’ are what set the guidelines concerning which expressions and manifestations of humor are labelled as racist, and therefore immoral. In this essay, I argue in favor of Philips’ interpretation of ‘Basic Racist Acts’ as the guiding framework which establishes powerful social beliefs about what constitutes moral objectionability.

The act-centered theory focuses on what Philips calls ‘Basic Racist Acts.’ According to Phillips, ‘Basic Racist Acts’ are those which satisfy either or both of these requirements: 1. A person does an act with the intention of hurting another member of an ethnic group or 2. A person’s act can be expected to hurt the other person because they are a member of an ethnic group. This theory focuses on the effect on the victim to determine whether or not an act was racist rather than the intention of the person who completed such an act. For example, if you refer to someone as a ‘stupid spic’, I am offended because I am Mexican. It does not matter whether your intention was to hurt me. Philips clarifies that an act “[does not have to] succeed in mistreating someone in order to be racist” (Philips 1984, pp. 79). He gives the example of an attempted robbery. Even if a robber leaves with nothing, we condemn the act because we know it may have potentially hurt someone. To elaborate, if someone jokes about black people having big lips with their black friend who does not take offense to said joke, the joke is still classified as racist because we know it has the potential to hurt

My main reason for this is that, within the current political climate, I often find people justifying their actions with excuses that align most with the agent-centered theory. Being Mexican and from a majority-Mexican town, finding people who supported Trump was nearly impossible. However, those who did were adamant in their belief that any undocumented person should be deported regardless of their situation. When confronted about how their views may be detrimental to a multitude of American families, many Trump supporters respond by saying they harbor no ill feelings towards Mexicans, they only are concerned with those that are undocumented. Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, Mexicans have somewhat become a scapegoat for many of America’s issues and simultaneously become the butt of many jokes regarding such issues, especially the wall proposed by Trump. The most common joke I have heard is “What is a Mexican’s favorite sport? Cross country.” Most people who recite this joke claim to do so light heartedly and, abiding by the agent-centered theory, these people are not racist because they do not believe their actions are racist. I believe this to be the agent-centered theory’s largest flaw because, although they may not necessarily be racist, they are directly contributing to an environment that made Trump’s presidency possible in the first