Thursday, November 5, 2009

take racism more seriously when white people discuss it

This is a guest post by Jennifer, who blogs at Mixed Race America. Jennifer describes herself as a "30-something professor of contemporary American literature and Asian American literature interested in issues of social justice and specifically how to create spaces to talk comfortably (and sometimes uncomfortably) about race."


The White Spokesperson

When I was in grad school I once told a white friend from Alabama (also a fellow grad student) that there were days when I felt tired just walking into the English Department at our New England University because I knew I'd be the only person of color I'd see the whole day (at the time we were in grad school there was one black Caribbean professor who taught Creative writing and one half-Japanese, half-Jewish professor who taught Literature -- there were five students of color, all of whom were either Asian or Asian American, not all of whom were still in coursework and so may have been off-campus someplace finishing their dissertations). I was trying to express to my friend the loneliness and psychic drain of being one of less than eight people of color amidst a department and grad student population numbering over sixty to eighty (give or take the vagaries of MA and MFA acceptances each year).

My Alabama friend grew quite defensive, demanding to know if I had experienced bad treatment due to race, if I had ever been a victim of racist remarks, and, quite frankly, disputing how I could feel in any way, shape, or form uncomfortable, especially since I wasn't black, but Asian and an Asian American woman at that, which means that I was not only not reviled but revered in terms of being from a valued minority group.

You can imagine my anger and frustration and deep level of hurt. This was a close friend -- someone I had had numerous conversations with about race -- someone who expressed, or seemed to express, a real understanding of race and racial politics, especially black-white relations, especially in the South. We argued, at length, but it was only when another friend, a white male friend, rephrased my words and explained to the Alabama friend my feelings of alienation due to race, that the Alabama friend got it.

And that made me even angrier -- that it took my white male friend to reinterpret for my white Alabama friend what I was saying -- that only through having a white spokesperson was I understood.

I have been thinking about this lately as I've been immersed in reading books about racial passing -- especially because this is something that Black Like Me (by John Howard Griffin) does. Griffin, a white man wanting to understand real race relations between blacks and whites in the South in the late 1950s, took a drug that turned his skin dark, tanned himself, and also added vegetable dye to his skin, and traveled throughout the deep South, passing as a black man. The book charts his growing evolution from being a participant-observer to understanding his own racism as a white liberal. And although the book/Griffin does act in this "spokesman" role, in the epilogue, Griffin is also aware of the role he is playing for other whites about a black experience:

[I]t was my embarrassing task to sit in on meetings of whites and blacks, to serve one ridiculous but necessary function. I knew, and every black man there knew, that I, as a man now white again, could say the things that neeed saying but would be rejected if black men said them.

Unfortunately, this still goes on today -- sexism is taken more seriously when men talk about it; racism more seriously when whites discuss it; homophobia when straight people take on queer issues. And don't get me wrong -- I think we all need allies -- we need to stand up for one another as well as ourselves, or perhaps to see that gaybashing is a form of discrimination that hurts all people and sexism hurts men as much as women, and racism impacts all of us. But it'd also be nice not to need white spokespeople to interpret the very painful experiences of racism that people of color experience.

36 comments:

  1. I'm curious - did he just repeat what you said, or did he rephrase it?

    That is, I figure a large part of the whole racial communication problem is due to differing points of view, and it helps to have a more empathetic person take something that someone else is saying and translate it into terms you understand. But maybe it was just purely about putting a white face on the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When white people condemn racism, perhaps other white people think - "Gee, so it's not just something those whacky coloured folks dreamed up!"

    Consider the numerous movies made in the West about the struggles of nonwhite peoples - from "Cry Freedom", to "The Last King of Scotland" to "Mississipi Burning" to "The Last Samurai" - all told through the eyes of white protagonists.

    Btw, Macon, I don't mean this as any disrespect whatsoever, but I find that there is a strange irony to the titles of many of your posts. For example, "take racism more seriously when white people discuss it" - in a blog by a white person discussing racism.
    Or "homogenize people from over fifty different countries into one group: "africans" on a blog which homogenizes people from lots of different ethnicities into one group: "white people".
    I'm not saying these are bad things, just interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm just curious where this leaves the translator. Though I don't self-identify as white, I've been white enough in numerous situations to act in that capacity. I hate doing it, because I believe that the person has usually made all the necessary cogent points, but when I reiterate them, suddenly there's an epiphany. I've experienced this more as a cisgendered straight man speaking for women and the LGBT community than in racial contexts, but the dynamic is largely the same. I prefer to stand back and defer when a person from the group is talking, though sometimes I can't resist jumping in to add some good points I think are not going to be addressed otherwise.

    I used to think (read: delude myself) people listened to me on these issues because I'm well read (it's established in my circle that I'm the bookworm). However, I realized that I lose all of my ability and eloquence to articulate these issues when bringing up race issues vis-a-vis my own background. Then I've found myself on the other side of the dynamic, explaining something at length, only to have someone white make a very casual comment to bring that person to where I've been pulling the whole time. I honestly believe that part of it is a brand of defensiveness, where the person feels the need to present an opposing view for whatever reason.

    I know that part of me is grateful for the help, but another part of me is more than a little disappointed that my own statement wasn't as effective. It's like baking a beautifully moist cake, but the only thing my guests comment on is store-brought icing.

    (Now, I feel the need to bake a nice marble cake- if you'll excuse me.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. This taps right back into the "question the authority and experience of POC" theme.

    With a side order of "any time a POC says something about race it's (a) biased and (b) a personal attack at ME." Whereas white people, according to this mindset, are (a) rational/able to be objective and (b) On Your Side.

    I want to pull out something Lxy said on an earlier thread:
    >> "In other words, the White oppressor psychologically projects his own oppressive instincts onto those beneath him--fearing that he (horror) just might get a taste of his own medicine someday."

    THIS is what is going on here (as well as the more straightforward authority-questioning).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm so glad I live in Califonia. Yesterday, I saw a black teen and a white teen holding hands; they sat down at a bus stop, and then kissed.

    All of you guys can have as many conversations about race as you want. My toddler son is bi-racial and he's going to grow up in a world where all the kids are 1/2 of something, 1/2 of something else. Race will CEASE to be an issue. My teenager doesn't describe people in terms of race at all-- when I ask what race a friend is, she looks puzzled. It seems like a weird question to her.

    In fact, I think that Obesity is the new flavor-of-the-decade. Obama (bless him) made it okay for people to be black. It's not okay for people to be fat. And it's getting worse.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's that common myth that causes racist whites to perceive black people speaking of racism with respect to their own experiences as delusional and paranoid. It's incredibly offensive to have one's experience denied and pushed aside. As if the negative treatment in one's life is not to be taken seriously. It's negating the importance of a person's existence, subhumanising them and that is coarsely racist. Yet, if one whose voice is valued in society speaks of the same despite his obvious limitation in the matter, they're listened to because of what the assumed privilege their skin dictates.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Out of curiosity, would the author accept criticism of asian-americans more gracefully from an asian-american than from an anglo-? In my personal experience of similar situations, yes.

    Conversely, who is a black man more likely to believe on the issue of racism, a black or a white (all other things being equal)?

    The problem isn't "whitey", it's just that people innately consider opinions from others like themselves as being more valid. Yes, the end result is much worse when you're not in the majority, no doubt about that. But it's not something limited to whites. Discussing it as such can only lead to a malformed solution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. EPT wrote,

    The problem isn't "whitey", it's just that people innately consider opinions from others like themselves as being more valid. Yes, the end result is much worse when you're not in the majority, no doubt about that. But it's not something limited to whites. Discussing it as such can only lead to a malformed solution.

    Hi EPT! You must be a newbie here. You know how I can tell? For one thing, the only people who use the word "whitey" are white people who accuse non-white people of using it (to "cry" racism, to "play the race card") and so on.

    For another thing, you're expressing ignorance of the fact that when it comes to race, things ain't all equal yet. Whites are still in power, and they're still taken (partly unconsciously) as smarter, more authoritative, and more knowledgeable than non-whites. that's what this post by Jennifer is all about, and yet you managed to completely overlook it's central point.

    Also, to answer a newbie question of yours, a black person sometimes does take a white person's perspective over that of a black person. When that happens, it's example of something you should learn about: Internalized Racism.

    As for "malformed solutions," I think it's you who's offering them, by suggesting that we ignore the ongoing reality of de facto white supremacy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. EPT

    How about when one minority group deals with other minorities versus a minority dealing with whites? There is certainly going to be a disparity in this scenario.

    Also, yes ironic article is very ironic. I notice far more posts that begin with "As a white xxxx" here than anywhere else. I believe Restructure had a relevant article about white people being only comfortable with talking about race in an environment safe for them, and relative to other blogs, SFWD is a safe place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Someone once told me that black people were too close to the issue to be able to talk objectively about race relations and racism.

    I think that perception is part of it - most white people see themselves as neutral and removed for racial issues. Racism is what skinheads and Klan members do to people of color - ordinary white people have nothing to do with it. So when the message comes from an ordinary white person that they can relate to, all of a sudden it is relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi AE!

    I am a newbie here, but in discussions on race I've always used the term 'whitey' in the same way I use the term 'gummint' to refer to arguments of people who don't look in more detail at the issue and just claim a giant globular conspiracy. I happily accept that it may not be the convention of this site, if you'll accept you've been overly patronising with your response.

    For another thing, you're expressing ignorance of the fact that when it comes to race, things ain't all equal yet. ...

    Read my third last sentence again. You even quoted it. I never suggested otherwise.

    I also understand the idea of internalised racism, which was what I was hoping to avoid with the caveat 'all other things being equal'. Probably not that clear in hindsight.

    As for "malformed solutions," I think it's you who's offering them, by suggesting that we ignore the ongoing reality of de facto white supremacy.

    I never suggested a solution, nor that whites weren't the holders of majority power. I was suggesting looking at a human behaviour problem instead of a sub-group of human behaviour.

    Thanks for putting my round peg in a square hole, though! It's helped me understand how people get frustrated when what they're actually saying is ignored in favour of stereotypes.


    Hi Safety,

    How about when one minority group deals with other minorities versus a minority dealing with whites?

    I've had limited experience of the situation (all second-hand, obviously) of when two minorities discuss between themselves, but the idea appears consistent there - an Indian takes the word of an Indian more readily than a black.

    But would an Indian take a white or a black person's word first? I don't know personally, I haven't been in a position to find out, but I would say that here that internalised racism that AE mentioned would have a greater effect.

    I had written a bit more but snipped it since it's already getting to tl;dr status.

    cheers

    ReplyDelete
  12. >> "The problem isn't "whitey", it's just that people innately consider opinions from others like themselves as being more valid."

    You are getting close to something I have been wanting to bring up but haven't been able to articulate yet. Here's a try.

    A lot of this--meaning, WP being more comfortable hearing about racism from other WP--has to do with a reinforcement of us versus them, a "you are On My Side so by default you cannot be attacking me." How is it that race is constructed to be a/the primary marker with which we choose whom we identify? Like, when we read a book or watch a movie, how is it that Race becomes a/the foremost factor when we choose our personal point-of-view character?

    Obviously I'm not saying "let's just stop seeing race"; I'm just curious as to why it seems to be such a fundamental thing. Like Eurasian Sensation noted about the need to have a white protagonist (or a White Male Savior) in "mainstream" movies about the experiences of POC--*why* is it that WP feel a need for a white "in"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would be very interested in any insight about how you felt towards the white male that helped this woman understand how she was being racist. Do you wish he did not say anything? As a white male who is trying to rid myself of as much of my internalized racism as possible, I am often not sure when to step in and speak up for people. I believe in standing up for what I believe in, but at the same time do not want to reestablish a need for the white male to aide the disenfranchised. Any and all insight would be very much appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Willow, yes, of course people treat members of their group better than they treat members of other groups. That's human group dynamics for you.

    If you take a pre-school class and give half the kids blue shirts and the other half red shirts, and then ask the kids who they like better, what do you think they say? Kids with blue shirts like other kids with blue shirts, and kids with red shirts like other kids with red shirts. There have been lots of studies about this kind of thing.

    That's how arbitrary it is, how finely tuned our ability to categorize and enforce conformity. Explains a few things about human history, no?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'd like to re-iterate issues brought up by Eurasian Sensation and The Chemist regarding what today's phenomenon implies regarding the responsibility of WP to speak out. In situations, in the presence of POC, where racism is particularly blatant and needs to be addressed, what is the most empowering/least condescending course of action for a third party WP? I think everyone has agreed that, for example, in Simone's Halloween experience from the Nov. 3 post, Simone should not have been left alone to argue the racism of a situation against someone who disagreed with her in the presence of her friend. On the other hand, a WP would not want to assert that he/she has more authority to explain racism than a POC. Clearly, the responsibility of the listener/arguer (2nd party?) is to believe the position of the POC without support of the 3rd party WP but, given that this is not happening, what is the role of the 3rd party WP (and what is the role of macon d in writing this blog)? What if the 3rd person white male had intervened sooner with the Alabama friend in this post?

    Finally, I would like to point out that it's not okay for an inquisitive WP to ask a POC to explain racism issues if that person is not already doing so. In fact, my understanding is that listening is the most respectful/empowering thing for a WP to do when a POC has taken the risk of explaining a racisim issue. Thus, I think that a blog written by a WP should be a "safe place" (or, at least, a less offensive place) for a WP to sincerely ask for clarification regarding an issue of racism if that clarification will help said WP cement the issue in his/her head (learning by inquiry). So, my question here is, (for those of you who have spent more time on these issues than I have), should I continue with my paradigm of reading without commenting on blogs from people of color and, thus, should I have held this particular question until macon d had written his own post (If so, I sincerely apologize for my disrespect toward Jennifer)? Additionally, what does this imply about sincere inquiries/comments by "newbies?" Is this the forum to gently educate them? Does the answer to this question depend on the racial identity of the contributor?

    ReplyDelete
  16. bluey wrote,

    Willow, yes, of course people treat members of their group better than they treat members of other groups. That's human group dynamics for you. . . .

    That's how arbitrary it is, how finely tuned our ability to categorize and enforce conformity. Explains a few things about human history, no?


    Ugh. Why is this kind of derailment sooooo common, even on this blog? "Okay, maybe white people do that, but ya know, other people do it too. In fact, don'tcha know, other people have been doing it for a long time!"

    Well no shit, Sherlocks. But this is a blog about stuff white people do, and THAT is what's worth pointing out, because white people often don't realize that they do so many of the common white things they do, and because the U.S. is still a white supremacist country. And because POC continue to suffer at the often unwitting hands of white people, which is something else--the most important something else--that these "other people do it too! it's only natural! etc." comments distract from.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Sara:

    There's a way to go about asking questions, though. Newbies (as in new to unlearning racism) tend to ask questions in a way that privileges the White view of things and undermines the POV of POCs. It's very subtle, but I see it all the time. There's a difference between asking a clarifying question as a way of truly trying to understand someone's experience and asking a question as a way of trying to prove a point. Open-ended, non-rhetorical questions tend to work a lot better than yes/no or rhetorical questions. But even that rule of thumb is meaningless unless the White person asking questions of POCs does so with the absolute conviction that POCs are capable of perceiving, understanding, analyzing, and interpreting their own experiences with racism and their own interactions with White people. Without ample evidence to prove that this is the case, everything any White person asks of a POC with regards to race will always be suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AE, I was just replying to someone who was replying to someone else who in fact originally brought up the "it's not just white people, it's all people" point. So I don't know why you're picking on my post.

    However, I do think it's a good point. And I'm not denying that white people do it. White people do it, and so do all other kinds of people, and I think that's worth noting - not to shift or deflect blame, but to identify the problem.

    You know, one aspect of this blog that I find objectionable is that the discussion is always about common white behaviors and rarely about the common human tendencies that are at the root of common white behaviors. I find there's a tendency to say things like, "when white people are racist, it stunts their humanity" or whatever.

    Well, you know what? Racism is human. It didn't just come out of nowhere. Whites aren't aberrant - there's nothing unique about us that makes us discriminate against POC. White racism does have some elements that are not common to all cultures, which arise from our particular history and culture. But the root of our behavior is human nature.

    So: the problem is racism. And I agree that it's a problem! But if you can't understand the factors that contribute to racism, how can you come up with effective solutions?

    For example: it seemed to me that Willow was pretty close to making the connection that, "Gosh, if we just stopped seeing color, we wouldn't be divided anymore and race wouldn't matter!" Which is a very appealing idea if your only observation is that the basis of conflict is division.

    But if you accept that human beings see divisions everywhere based on all kinds of things and can't be trained not to, you start to see that "Let's all be colorblind!" cannot be the solution. Instead, you might propose solutions like raising awareness among whites of their own tendency to give more weight to other white people's opinions. Because if they're aware of it, perhaps they can try to combat it.

    Which is why I was trying to explain human group dynamics.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This reminds me of the whole uproar with Sonya Sotomayor, when it seemed clear that "white" was a neutral condition, and therefore POC are not to be taken seriously about issues of racism, because they're just overly sensitive and have clouded judgment. However, regular people (read: white) are to be taken seriously, because they are more levelheaded, because they're the real people who don't need special consideration.

    I remember reading a comment by someone once that said Tim Wise benefits from racism, because she, as a black woman can say something and be branded an "angry black woman", but Tim Wise can say the same thing and it's seen as absolute wisdom. She was absolutely right, but it's kind of a catch-22. Because of racism, we POC aren't taken seriously as experts on issues of race, but whites are. Therefore, whites need to say the SAME DAMN THINGS that we say in order for them to be taken as true.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @RVCBard,

    I appreciate your response to my question. I firmly agree/believe that it is not the responsibility of a POC to educate a WP about his/her racism and it's something I struggle with. Thus, I try to remember to be touched and sort of honored when someone trusts me enough to do this (e.g., you, right now, you when you guest-post, other guest posters).

    I'm not totally sure that, based on my life history (white person born and raised by subtle-y more-than-average enlightened white people in the south), I trust my instincts on asking questions. I think that is why I think it's a good rule of thumb not to do it. Do you personally think that this attitude is insulting to you? That it implies that I somehow don't trust you (personally) to not be somehow "hyper-sensitive"? I hope that this isn't how my comments sounded to you or anyone else and I wonder if I should change my policy. Or maybe you're saying that I should wait until the POC and I are close enough that he/she can trust me?

    To bring myself back around to the post of the day: We're all agreed that the Alabama friend should have listened and not questioned Jennifer. I think that, based on the spirit of what RVCBard has said to me, maybe what the third party white person should have done, as an ally, was: (a) not try to speak on behalf of Jennifer and "clarify" her point as if he knows better but, instead, (b) point out to the Alabama friend her unwillingness to hear Jennifer. Perhaps, "It sounds to me like you don't believe that Jennifer knows what she's perceiving." or something like that. Because, as soon as the friend failed to hear Jennifer's POV, the issue changed from Jennifer's feelings of isolation to Jennifer's friend's racism. Thus, what the 3rd party friend should have done was to address the new issue. To continue on talking about the initial issue was a little bit like derailment, in that he was ignoring what had become the dominant issue.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Sara:

    Do you personally think that this attitude is insulting to you? That it implies that I somehow don't trust you (personally) to not be somehow "hyper-sensitive"? I hope that this isn't how my comments sounded to you or anyone else and I wonder if I should change my policy. Or maybe you're saying that I should wait until the POC and I are close enough that he/she can trust me?

    Let me answer with an analogy.

    Most White people in a discussion about racism with POCs are like 4th-grade math students at a panel discussion about string theory. In that environment, asking questions about how they reach their conclusions is fine, but blurting out questions in the middle of the dialogue, demanding an answer on the spot, or challenging the math behind the panelists' conclusions is presumptuous at best.

    Basically, be a kid (as opposed to a brat). Ask if it's OK to ask that kind of question, admit the limitations of your understanding, and assume the person answering knows what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Portuguese where in California do you live that race isn't an issue? Puh-leese. Obama made people okay to be black? WTF? I didn't know I needed him to feel okay with myself.

    Anyway, Macon D., despite the irony of the post, it ticks me off to no end that white skin makes you an expert on all things infinite. I'm straight; yet, I can't begin to know what it's like to encounter homophobia. Why is the opposite applied to racism?

    ReplyDelete
  23. >> "it seemed to me that Willow was pretty close to making the connection that, "Gosh, if we just stopped seeing color, we wouldn't be divided anymore and race wouldn't matter!"

    Hehe, Willow was actually trying very hard NOT to make that assertion (and, evidently, failing).

    What I mean is, why is race the "trump" identifier, so to speak? Like, a person has race, gender, sex, dis/ability, sexual orientation, clique, etc.; it seems to me that race is usually cast as the one that subsumes the others. (There is a fair amount of talk among disability theorists about disability as a trump category, and I absolutely agree that it subsumes many others...but Race, for some reason, is usually portrayed as topping even that).

    I mean, the language we use "white woman" "Asian-American man" would suggest that sex/gender has priority (it being the noun), but people often act like it's the other way around. Or, alternately, "why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria"?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Willow - have you ever noticed that wars (excepting some civil wars) are usually between populations? Each having men, women, children, classes, people of differing abilities, etc? This is usually true whether the populations in question are tribes, clans, or nations. The whole concept of race is that each racial group is a kind of super-population, right? Which is sort of silly, but at the same time, we're highly visual creatures, so it's a notion that probably appeals greatly to the more primitive bits of our brains. That's my guess, anyway.

    I assume it all has something to do with evolution.

    In any case, personally, I will try to override my own idiot lizard brain and not be the kind of person who doesn't listen to POC on race issues.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anyway, Macon D., despite the irony of the post, it ticks me off to no end that white skin makes you an expert on all things infinite. I'm straight; yet, I can't begin to know what it's like to encounter homophobia. Why is the opposite applied to racism?

    honeybrown1976 (and Eurasian Sensation), I was aware of that meta-level irony when I made that swpd-like title for Jennifer's guest post, and I hoped some commenters would pick up on it.

    I don't know if honeybrown1976's question is sincere or rhetorical; also, I don't want to say or imply anything that I think I know anything about this issue that she doesn't.

    It does really suck, though, that a byproduct or effect of white supremacy/hegemony is that at least some white readers take what I write about whiteness and racism more seriously, just because I'm white (and probably because I'm male too) -- even when apparently non-white people write or say the same damn things. It sometimes makes me wonder if by maintaining this blog I'm reinforcing that bad dynamic, or dialectic, and if I am, whether that damage is really outweighed by any good this blog might be doing.

    Maybe one thing I could do is more posts like this one, in which I directly acknowledged that whatever I have to say here about whiteness and racism has pretty much already been said before by non-white people, who have often developed, by necessity, a racial expertise, an understanding of white power, that white people have never had to develop.

    I did add a subtitle to the blog that nods directly to a well-known black writer's expertise on common white ways, but I don't know how many white readers actually pick up on that. Also, maybe I should somehow do more of what I've seem Tim Wise do at the beginning of his lectures -- he tells the audience that everything he's about to say has been said before, and better, by people who aren't white like him, and that he recognizes that his white audience members will probably take what he has to say more seriously than they would if he were not white.

    Since Jennifer's post raises the issue of white spokespeople, who whites often turned to instead of to actual non-white experts, I welcome any other thoughts about this blog itself in that sense. Commenter Lxy also had some blunt things to say about white anti-racists recently, citing Kil Ja Kim's argument that white people should just stay out of discussions of racism, because their efforts cause more harm than good.

    It all comes back to the topic of Jennifer's post, really, and that of a discussion going on in these comments. Should white people say anything at all about racism? If so, when? Where? How?

    And, I do recognize one more irony -- here I am, doing what white anti-racists tend to do and shouldn't do, by going on and on like this. I hope it doesn't amount to derailment, and so far trust that it doesn't, since the topic at hand is, as I understand it, how whites could/should fit into discussions of race.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Macon, my question was rhetorical : )

    But, no matter the number of degrees I rack up in my lifetime, it's a question that boggles my mind. While I enjoy reading Tim Wise, he gets enormous credit for "discovering" aspects of racism and its effects on POC. I'm sorry - but whaaaat?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Clark

    I would say ignore race when you make your decision. If you see two people talking and getting nowhere and you think you can rephrase what one of them is saying so the other understands without escalating the situation, then go for it.

    Read the article again. The problem is not about the 'interpreter', but at the person who needs it. She specifically says: And don't get me wrong -- I think we all need allies -- we need to stand up for one another as well as ourselves


    @AE

    It's not derailment, it's trying to look more at where the root of the problem lies. The solution is "defeat this human problem, of which white society is the most salient aspect where we live", not "defeat this white problem".

    I also think it's unfair that you railed at another commenter because I didn't fit your preconceived notions.

    @macon

    Surely if we're striving towards a merit-based society we should be listening to what someone says for the value of the content and the context in which it is said. Relegating whites to the back seat in the discussion is like have peace talks missing a nation.

    Letting whites speak doesn't mean that POC experiences count for nothing, but blanket rules like Sara's one about WP not asking POC to explain racism experiences are bandaid at best. It depends heavily on the individual and the context as to whether it's appropriate to discuss racism (or any topic). There's also a difference between enquiring and harrassing someone about an issue.

    I used to work in a company with about 25 countries represented in its 60 staff. One of the anglos would ask the non-anglos about their original cultures and experiences with food and racism and the like. Of course, myself and the other lefty-brigade members would say "you can't ask that", but almost universally, the minority member would happily respond to his enquiries, engaging and continuing the conversation. Here was a white guy initiating the conversation and the end result was everyone's benefit. If someone didn't want to discuss it, he'd back off. The content and context were appropriate to the individuals.

    Rules based on skin colour can't help but be tainted themselves. Take in content and context and then find merit wherever it lies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge, that as a white person, a white woman, some of the racist people I meet DO seem to have a harder time dismissing me when issues of racism arise. They easily dismiss me as a woman, don't get me wrong, but that's because as a woman, I am perceived as unobjective, emotional and too close to the issue of sexism. I think often times the same is true with race. I've been dismissed as a "stupid white woman" countless times.

    White folks do have a responsibility to get their privileged heads out of their asses. But so does anyone who engages in racism. And I hear racist comments from people all around me. Most often, it's from the mouths of black and South Asian males, and it's often directed at other "people of color".

    I think what's so problematic though, is the narrow way POC and whites are being defined for this debate. If someone were making sweeping statements about blacks, or Asians, it would/could be offensive. White people are not all the same. Instead of alienating more of them, and casting them aside as "the problem", try to EDUCATE them as to the subtle ways they engage in racism. Alot of them simply DO NOT KNOW. And if someone if willing to listen, don't turn them off by generalizing about their ethnic group.

    Yes. MANY white people are racist. I know this firsthand because as a white person, ignorant people are more to likely to spit racist spit in front of me. But can we PLEASE stop lumping us all together? The same way ANYONE doesn't want to be generalized. It just makes some people defensive and unwilling to ever listen. And, as people aware of and against racism, we should and can do better.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thus spake EPT,

    It's not derailment, it's trying to look more at where the root of the problem lies. The solution is "defeat this human problem, of which white society is the most salient aspect where we live", not "defeat this white problem".

    "Groups have been dominating each other throughout history"? That's supposed to be some kind of significant insight, some kind of information missing from the conversation? No, it's not, it's a given, and it's such an obvious point that it doesn't need saying. And the problem with saying it in this context is that it dilutes an energized focus on specific ways taht de facto white supremacy operates right now, and it does that by using the Arab Trader Argument (pointing to other peoples in other times doing the same bad thing, "so ya know, waddya gonna do?" *throws up hands*), and it converts a workable problem into unsolvable one ("don't focus on white supremacy and 'whitey,' focus on the deep-rooted, seemingly permanent tendency for humanity to be inhumane to humanity --cuz hey, we're gonna manage to do what no one's ever managed to do before by cracking that tough nut to crack.").

    I also think it's unfair that you railed at another commenter because I didn't fit your preconceived notions.

    I don't have any preconceived notions of "you," another acronym who popped up in the Interwebs. I railed instead at words you wrote.

    And btw, I sure hope Clarke doesn't take your advice to ignore race. He's already ahead of that colorblind gambit, by being aware of how his specifically white self is commonly perceived (that is, as superior) by others, and by hoping to avoid acting obnoxiously in response.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Madame LaPutain wrote,

    I think what's so problematic though, is the narrow way POC and whites are being defined for this debate. If someone were making sweeping statements about blacks, or Asians, it would/could be offensive. White people are not all the same. Instead of alienating more of them, and casting them aside as "the problem", try to EDUCATE them as to the subtle ways they engage in racism. Alot of them simply DO NOT KNOW. And if someone if willing to listen, don't turn them off by generalizing about their ethnic group.

    I'm aware that white people get defensive when common white tendencies are being discussed. For one thing, they've been taught not to stereotype others, and so they can feel that they're being stereotyped themselves. But the common white tendencies being discussed here are just that -- common tendencies, and not things that ALL white people do. They're also not "stereotypes" in the usual sense of that word; they're instead observable, common tendencies. Basically, if you're white and something being discussed here is not something that you do, then there's no need to make it about you. Also, please take note of the subtitle at the top of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  31. AE, I get the feeling you're confusing me with EPT. Just so you know, we actually are different people.

    "it's such an obvious point that it doesn't need saying. And the problem with saying it in this context is that it dilutes an energized focus on specific ways taht de facto white supremacy operates right now... and it converts a workable problem into unsolvable one"

    Well, I just provided an example of a situation in which focusing on the root human behavior can make a problem more solvable, not less. What do you think is the benefit of using a framework of white supremacy rather than one of how elements of human nature manifest as racism? Because I figure understanding how we work can be a lot of help in changing our behavior.

    As for this discussion of whether a third-party WP should step in, well, my inclination is to say yes. It sucks to need allies, but if you do, it's better to have them than not have them, right? So I guess the third-party WP should determine, in a given situation, if their intervention would help, and if the POC wants help or not.

    And what is the role of SWPD? For me, it provides a space where I (usually) don't have to worry that I'm automatically oppressing the OP by virtue of having a white point of view, and therefore am able to speak up and discuss race in a substantive fashion rather than just listen. And it is pretty valuable to me personally to be able to speak instead of just listen, because if you can't ask questions and engage with the issues through discussion, all you do is sit around being indignant that POC think so little of you just because of your skin color. Or similar.

    Speaking of which, thank you for providing this forum, Macon. I have articulated criticisms, but overall I think what you're doing is very worthwhile.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @RVCBard

    Thank you. Your analogy helps a lot. Again, I really appreciate your time on this.

    ReplyDelete
  33. AE

    Wow, you have serious issues.

    so ya know, waddya gonna do?

    That is patently not what I said. That you continue to put words in my mouth when called out on it once already just beggars belief.

    And btw, I sure hope Clarke doesn't take your advice to ignore race.

    So you disagree with the author of the article who specifically said she rather not be without the 'spokesperson'? I even quoted the relevant part of the article. Insert trite point here about you ignoring the experiences and observations of a POC, implying ignorance and unwitting oppression.

    AE, you need to stop being so tied up in yourself. You've already twice attributed to me arguments I simply don't hold in an effort to debase me. If you're this unable to read words for what they're actually saying, then I question the quality of any solutions you propose. Admit that you were wrong, at least to yourself, and move on.

    @macon

    Basically, if you're white and something being discussed here is not something that you do, then there's no need to make it about you.

    I understand this and this is all fine... except that when I get told I can't contribute to a discussion because of the colour of my skin, it does become about me personally. It's the difference between merely discussing general trends versus formulating actions on them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It does really suck, though, that a byproduct or effect of white supremacy/hegemony is that at least some white readers take what I write about whiteness and racism more seriously, just because I'm white

    You think an awful lot about how seriously people take your writing, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm probably coming into this discussion far too late--I've only now had a chance to read through some of the comments that my guest post (or Macon's reposting of a later post of mine) generated (chalk it up to being a diligent professor with student papers and midterms).

    At any rate, to answer the first poster's question and/or flesh out the scenario a bit more, my white male friend, seeing how frustrated and upset I was getting, intervened and essentially repeated much of what I said but in a simpler and calmer way (I am not someone who hides her emotions so I was visibly upset). I don't think my friend simply parroted back what I had been trying to explain for the last 20-30 minutes, but he did somehow manage, in about 5 minutes to get my Alabama friend to recognize that I wasn't calling him a racist or accusing anyone else of racism.

    And this is probably one of the other reasons that white spokesmen work so well in discussions of racism, esp. male white spokesmen. They are seen as more *rational*--I had a double strike against me as a woman who was expressing my emotions and as a person-of-color talking about racism. And because a white person talking to another white person doesn't seem to inspire as much guilt or the fear of the "R" word popping up.

    I also want to be clear--I was glad that my friend was my ally--that he understood my frustration and wanted to get through to my Alabama friend. After my Alabama friend left, I processed with my white male friend, expressing my anger not at him but at the situation--that I was really angry that the Alabama friend needed a white face and voice in order to understand all the things I'd been saying for 30 minutes. My white male friend (who I really do see as an ally) totally understood and also wanted to make sure that he didn't think he was speaking on my behalf but that he also, as a white ally, wanted very much for our friend to see the point I was making.

    Of course maybe what we both should have done was to continue talking about white privilege and about this whole scenario, but you only gain such perspective in hindsight.

    And many of you have already said this so I'm only going to repeat it for effect in terms of explaining where I am coming from. I do value white allies--I just wish I didn't always NEED to have a white friend step in during a tense conversation to "explain" the perspective of the person-of-color--not that this happens all the time, but in many subtle ways I've found that this dynamic operates in our day to day lives. And it makes me tired and mad, even while I am glad that there are white people who care about ending racism and who are aware of their white privilege (like Macon and this site).

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.

hit counter code