man (the resident of the home he was suspected of breaking into) to be confronted with police officers. Even when he showed identification that confirmed he was the legal resident of the home, Crowley persisted in asking Gates to step out of the house and onto the porch.
2 The second point is that both men are operating from different racial realities. For Gates, his life has probably been filled with many incidents of racial microaggressions (suspected of being a criminal, less trustworthy, likely to be dangerous, etc.). To be considered a criminal in his own home was the ultimate indignity and insult. It is possible that Gates's reluctance to step out of his home as requested by Crowley may have been due to countless examples of law enforcement officers' mistreatment of African Americans, such as in the shooting of Amadou Diallo. In that event, police officers rushed toward an entryway to question a man whom they believed to be acting suspiciously. When Diallo reached into his pocket and pulled out his wallet, he was shot and killed because the officers thought he was reaching for a weapon. Even if unstated, Gates's belief that he was viewed more suspiciously than a White resident would not be unfounded or without merit. Yet Crowley probably believed that he acted within legal guidelines, that his actions were free of racial bias, and that he was not racially profiling. His White racial reality and inability to understand the reality of people of color represent major barriers to racial harmony.
3 The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident represents an opportunity to dialogue about race in the United States. As some have said, it represents a teachable moment. How do we begin to understand the racial realities of one another? The fact that many White Americans are unable to bridge their worldviews with those of people of color represents a major challenge to our society. The subtext to this incident involves the observation that a national dialogue on race is much needed, but it brings on so many fears, defenses, and antagonisms that even President Obama retreated from taking it on.
As long as microaggressions remain hidden, invisible, unspoken, and excused as innocent slights with minimal harm, we will continue to insult, demean, alienate, and oppress members of marginalized groups. In the realm of racial microaggressions, for example, studies indicate that racial microaggressions often are triggers to difficult dialogues on race in the classroom (D. W. Sue, Lin, Torino, et al., 2009). White students and professors, for example, experience anxiety and a confusing array of emotions when race issues are brought to their attention. Researchers have identified common reasons that might hinder White individuals' exploration of race and racism:
1 White students and professors are confused and uncertain about what is transpiring (D. W. Sue, Torino, Capodilupo, Rivera, & Lin, 2009).
2 White students and professors are very “hung up” (defensive and anxious) about clarifying these racial interactions for fear of appearing racist (Apfelbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008).
When critical consciousness and awareness are lacking, when one is fearful about clarifying the meaning of tension‐filled interactions, and when one actively avoids pursuing an understanding of these dynamics, the offenses remain invisible (Goodman, 1995; Henry et al., 2007). Indeed, avoidance of race topics has been likened to “a conspiracy of silence” (D. W. Sue, 2005).
Making the “invisible” visible is the first step toward combating unconscious and unintentional racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of bigotry. Thus, the primary purposes of this book build upon the efforts in the first edition to:
describe and make visible microaggressions
explain the dynamic psychological interplay between perpetrators and targets
depict the individual and societal consequences of microaggressions and macroaggressions
reveal how microaggressions create maximal harm
recommend individual, institutional, and societal strategies—microinterventions—that will ameliorate the harms aimed toward members of marginalized groups in the United States and beyond.
Note
1 1 Although most people likely prefer their tribal names (e.g., Blackhorse, 2016; Yellow Bird, 1999), “American Indian” and “Native American” remain the most widely used labels in the United States. An analysis of a U.S. Census survey found that 49% of people who self‐identified as such preferred the term “Indian,” 37% preferred “Native American,” and 3.6% preferred “some other name.” About 5% expressed no preference (Tucker, Kojetin, & Harrison, 1996). While “American Indian” and “Native American” may be used interchangeably, separately, or not at all, “Native American” also is used more expansively. According to the Native American Rights Fund (n.d.), Native Americans include “all Native people of the United States and its territories, including Native Hawaiians and American Samoans.” Thus, we use “Native American” throughout the book and at the same time acknowledge the controversy inherent in the term.
CHAPTER TWO Taxonomy of Microaggressions
During an episode with Nebraska senator Republican Ben Hasse, HBO talk show host Bill Maher used the N‐word in the “banter of a live moment.” Senator Hasse invited Maher to Nebraska to “work in the fields” with fellow Nebraskans. Maher replied, “Work in the fields? Senator, I'm a house n*****.” After calls to fire Maher the next day, he and the network apologized, and HBO removed the remark from subsequent airings.
In a social media example, TV personality Rosanne Barr, referring to President Obama's former aide Valerie Jarrett, tweeted, “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj.” Shortly thereafter, the ABC network canceled Barr's show. She attributed her reckless comments to being on the sedative Ambien. Several weeks later, in an interview with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Barr reflected on her racist tweet. She remarked, “And what can I do now except say of course, I'm not a racist, I'm an idiot. And I might have done something that comes across as bigoted and ignorant, and I know that's how it came across. And you know, I asked for forgiveness ‘cause I do love all people, I really do.”
Former world champion boxer Manny Pacquiao, during a successful run for senate in the Philippines, claimed that gay and lesbian individuals are “worse than animals … It's just common sense. Do you see any animals of the same sex mating?” Drawing on his Christian faith and the Bible, he remarked that same‐sex behavior is “detestable” and confirmed he was speaking his true feelings. Nike swiftly cut all ties with Pacquiao, terminating his contract.
In 2016, the media released a recorded conversation from 2005 with television personality Billy Bush and Donald J. Trump, in which Trump made lewd remarks about women: “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her … I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And, when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” When called out by Anderson Cooper during a presidential debate, Trump apologized and said this was “locker room talk,” implying that all men speak this way behind closed doors. Actor Scott Baio jumped to Trump's defense: “I like Trump because Trump is not a politician. He talks like a guy. And, ladies out there this is what guys talk about when you are not around. So if you are offended by it, ‘Grow up!’ … This is the way the world works.”