This is a guest post for swpd by thesciencegirl, a 20something medical and graduate student living in Chicago, IL. She describes herself as biracial, having both black and Italian-American heritage. Although her professional focus is in science and medicine, she has a long-held personal interest in understanding and combating racism and other forms of prejudice.
Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is in the news (again) for saying something wildly inappropriate. In an Esquire interview, he was quoted as saying,
I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up.
It’s clear what Blago’s conception of blackness is: poor, shoe-shinin’, not whatever Barack Obama is. So often the only view of blackness that whites have is only reflective of one segment of the black population, and even that segment has been reduced to a stereotype: poor, uneducated, inner-city, inarticulate, from broken families, criminal, etc. Rarely is there open white acknowledgment of the black middle class, of healthy black families, or of a wider range of interests and styles beyond hip-hop culture. And then there are all of the character traits (or lack thereof) assigned to blackness, and this is most telling in how white people react to black individuals who counteract their ideas of blackness. “You’re so articulate/clean/intelligent/pretty/educated/etc for a black person.” Or “you’re not really black.”
Remember VP Joe Biden’s comment during the 2008 presidential election about Obama?
I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
It often seems as though whites are heavily invested in the idea of a black monolith. They can easily conceive of diversity within their own ranks, but not amongst black people.
So, my preliminary questions are these:
How is blackness defined by whites? By blacks? By others?
Why do you think that this narrow definition exists?
How is a limited definition of blackness damaging to black people?
How do you define blackness?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
run when the going gets tough
This is a guest post for swpd by A. Smith, who writes of herself, "I write a blog that is hard to explain except to say I write what's on my mind. In the real world, I'm a recent college graduate who's had enough of DC and its politics and is ready to go back to school, for a different, albeit familiar, kind of politics. I'm also a black woman with 23 years of experience in this race thing..."
I don’t know if any of you frequent other blogs run by a white person that attempt to do what swpd attempts to do, but I don’t. I don't because I haven't found many. Any that I have run across are run by a PoC (or, at least, a person pretending to be a PoC). Blogs like these take on a whole different spin when they are run by a white person. However, I’ve also noticed that such places don't tend to stick around very long.
When Macon developed a list of rules for commenters, the comment section, as usual, lit itself on fire. One comment in particular from Randy caught my eye. Randy said here:
how is this blog, this whole thing, not just yet another example of a WP being in charge of a space for and about PoCs? however deferential, reverent, polite, well-intentioned, well-informed macon d may be; it's still a WHITE MAN'S place. because he owns it. he controls it. it's HIS own weblog. and he-not any black person-can pull the plug whenever it suits him.
how can all you razor-sharp fanon's out there have faild to confront and critique this (sic)? sorry folks, but it appears that we whites just can't damn help ourselves from taking over, from dominating, from setting the terms, from RUNNING THE SHOW-however benignly.
you all are constantly in a blither about ambient white supremacy...yet you don't see it RIGHT HERE.
I actually had been doing a lot of thinking about swpd and how the commenters interact on this blog. I appreciate the work macon puts into it, and Randy’s comment made me ponder other well-meaning, well-intended “spaces” (we’ll use “spaces” to refer to any place, online or real-world, where race relations is the primary topic) that don’t ever quite pan out. The most prevalent sort of spaces are blogs/websites that discuss interracial dating. Many such blog authors quickly find they spend more time defending their opinions than discussing anything of relevancy and ultimately shut down their blogs.
There seems to me to be a presumption white people make that they can singlehandedly change people’s minds, while never really being ready for pushback, and never being ready or prepared to create a space that offers PoCs and white people the opportunity to honestly and openly express their opinions.
It’s a shame this is the case, because as much as I wish that I, a black woman in America, could create a successful space, it would take a lot of work and a lot of passivity (that I’m not prepared to give) on my part.
Why, you ask? Because white people are scared to talk about race with PoCs. Some of that fear is understandable, while a lot of it is absurd. We can’t talk about or come up with ways to combat the problem without white people being honest and open, but above all else present, in the conversation. Unfortunately, the history in our country has led to a situation where more often than not, race conversations begun by PoCs in a PoC space do not attract white people who don’t already at least “get” the problem and will simply echo what we say (and never follow the echos with action).
One thing that was established early on at swpd is that white people are a necessary part of this conversation. In fact, commenter Jara said here:
The responsibility for improving race relations in the U.S., for example, falls on white people's shoulders because they are the privileged group.
It’s become my opinion that we need more spaces created by white people where we can have these open and honest race conversations so that one day we make enough progress where who creates and controls the space doesn’t matter. Some of us may consider this a necessary evil, while others of us take it at face value and go. Either way, there aren’t a lot of white people who are ready to take the flack (some deserved, some not) they receive for attempting such a thing. Wonder what type of flack I’m talking about? Most swpd comment sections will show you.
Anyone who is a part of a real race conversation, especially with people from different perspectives, and actively searches for ways to lessen racism's effects and to ultimately eradicate it altogether, is helping to blaze new trails. To do so via the internet with relative strangers is an area that has yet to be fully examined, and so it takes a lot of trial and error.
It’s easy to want to be a part of the solution, to feel like you do things that others might benefit from knowing about; it’s harder than it looks, however, to share those things about such a contentious topic. Too often well-meaning white people set out to help, but end up with their feelings hurt and their tails between their legs. I hope that as we all have a hand in writing the how-to book on handling race relations, more people step up and are willing to create more spaces for these conversations to happen.
There seems to be an assumption that if white folks would simply do as they’re told, everything would be fine. I see such sentiments expressed on this blog regularly; however, the fact is this is a learning experience for all of us. White people need to be ready to use the privilege they’ve enjoyed for hundreds of years to fix the problems it has created. I firmly believe that it is the job of the PoC community to point out the cracks, and that it's the white community’s job to fill them in, even if that means losing things they’ve become accustomed to (I use a crude analogy, but I think simple and crude is better than complicated and palatable).
Randy made some valid points (that he later expounded upon). One of them is the irony that swpd may in fact be everything we all say we don't want. A space like swpd isn’t perfect, but it is a good example of what I mean when I say the white people fix the cracks PoCs point out. In almost every post, there’s one commenter who trips the wire and the alarms start blaring, and someone lets them know that they are exemplifying exactly what shouldn’t be done. More white people need to be willing to “be that kid” (as I like to say). More white people need to be willing to take the criticism to not only learn from themselves, but also to teach others.
There are things PoCs should do, but this blog isn’t called “stuff people of color do.”
A few questions:
1) What about spaces created/run by PoCs scares away potential white contributors?
2) Despite a white and male moderater/blog owner, swpd lacks a strong (or even noticeable) white male presence. What might be the reasons for that?
3) Swpd also lacks a significant black male presence. Might the reason(s) for that be the same as the lack of a white male presence?
4) Every blog has its lurkers, and every lurker has his or her reason; however, it’s hard to imagine that there haven’t been any posts that draw a few lurkers from the crowd (aside from the post that specifically asked lurkers to comment). It’s also fair to assume that there’s something specific about swpd and its topic that keeps people in the shadows. What might those things be?
I don’t know if any of you frequent other blogs run by a white person that attempt to do what swpd attempts to do, but I don’t. I don't because I haven't found many. Any that I have run across are run by a PoC (or, at least, a person pretending to be a PoC). Blogs like these take on a whole different spin when they are run by a white person. However, I’ve also noticed that such places don't tend to stick around very long.
When Macon developed a list of rules for commenters, the comment section, as usual, lit itself on fire. One comment in particular from Randy caught my eye. Randy said here:
how is this blog, this whole thing, not just yet another example of a WP being in charge of a space for and about PoCs? however deferential, reverent, polite, well-intentioned, well-informed macon d may be; it's still a WHITE MAN'S place. because he owns it. he controls it. it's HIS own weblog. and he-not any black person-can pull the plug whenever it suits him.
how can all you razor-sharp fanon's out there have faild to confront and critique this (sic)? sorry folks, but it appears that we whites just can't damn help ourselves from taking over, from dominating, from setting the terms, from RUNNING THE SHOW-however benignly.
you all are constantly in a blither about ambient white supremacy...yet you don't see it RIGHT HERE.
I actually had been doing a lot of thinking about swpd and how the commenters interact on this blog. I appreciate the work macon puts into it, and Randy’s comment made me ponder other well-meaning, well-intended “spaces” (we’ll use “spaces” to refer to any place, online or real-world, where race relations is the primary topic) that don’t ever quite pan out. The most prevalent sort of spaces are blogs/websites that discuss interracial dating. Many such blog authors quickly find they spend more time defending their opinions than discussing anything of relevancy and ultimately shut down their blogs.
There seems to me to be a presumption white people make that they can singlehandedly change people’s minds, while never really being ready for pushback, and never being ready or prepared to create a space that offers PoCs and white people the opportunity to honestly and openly express their opinions.
It’s a shame this is the case, because as much as I wish that I, a black woman in America, could create a successful space, it would take a lot of work and a lot of passivity (that I’m not prepared to give) on my part.
Why, you ask? Because white people are scared to talk about race with PoCs. Some of that fear is understandable, while a lot of it is absurd. We can’t talk about or come up with ways to combat the problem without white people being honest and open, but above all else present, in the conversation. Unfortunately, the history in our country has led to a situation where more often than not, race conversations begun by PoCs in a PoC space do not attract white people who don’t already at least “get” the problem and will simply echo what we say (and never follow the echos with action).
One thing that was established early on at swpd is that white people are a necessary part of this conversation. In fact, commenter Jara said here:
The responsibility for improving race relations in the U.S., for example, falls on white people's shoulders because they are the privileged group.
It’s become my opinion that we need more spaces created by white people where we can have these open and honest race conversations so that one day we make enough progress where who creates and controls the space doesn’t matter. Some of us may consider this a necessary evil, while others of us take it at face value and go. Either way, there aren’t a lot of white people who are ready to take the flack (some deserved, some not) they receive for attempting such a thing. Wonder what type of flack I’m talking about? Most swpd comment sections will show you.
Anyone who is a part of a real race conversation, especially with people from different perspectives, and actively searches for ways to lessen racism's effects and to ultimately eradicate it altogether, is helping to blaze new trails. To do so via the internet with relative strangers is an area that has yet to be fully examined, and so it takes a lot of trial and error.
It’s easy to want to be a part of the solution, to feel like you do things that others might benefit from knowing about; it’s harder than it looks, however, to share those things about such a contentious topic. Too often well-meaning white people set out to help, but end up with their feelings hurt and their tails between their legs. I hope that as we all have a hand in writing the how-to book on handling race relations, more people step up and are willing to create more spaces for these conversations to happen.
There seems to be an assumption that if white folks would simply do as they’re told, everything would be fine. I see such sentiments expressed on this blog regularly; however, the fact is this is a learning experience for all of us. White people need to be ready to use the privilege they’ve enjoyed for hundreds of years to fix the problems it has created. I firmly believe that it is the job of the PoC community to point out the cracks, and that it's the white community’s job to fill them in, even if that means losing things they’ve become accustomed to (I use a crude analogy, but I think simple and crude is better than complicated and palatable).
Randy made some valid points (that he later expounded upon). One of them is the irony that swpd may in fact be everything we all say we don't want. A space like swpd isn’t perfect, but it is a good example of what I mean when I say the white people fix the cracks PoCs point out. In almost every post, there’s one commenter who trips the wire and the alarms start blaring, and someone lets them know that they are exemplifying exactly what shouldn’t be done. More white people need to be willing to “be that kid” (as I like to say). More white people need to be willing to take the criticism to not only learn from themselves, but also to teach others.
There are things PoCs should do, but this blog isn’t called “stuff people of color do.”
A few questions:
1) What about spaces created/run by PoCs scares away potential white contributors?
2) Despite a white and male moderater/blog owner, swpd lacks a strong (or even noticeable) white male presence. What might be the reasons for that?
3) Swpd also lacks a significant black male presence. Might the reason(s) for that be the same as the lack of a white male presence?
4) Every blog has its lurkers, and every lurker has his or her reason; however, it’s hard to imagine that there haven’t been any posts that draw a few lurkers from the crowd (aside from the post that specifically asked lurkers to comment). It’s also fair to assume that there’s something specific about swpd and its topic that keeps people in the shadows. What might those things be?
Monday, January 11, 2010
minimize black heroism
This is a guest post for swpd by Michael Gibson, an artist and humorist who lives in Youngstown, Ohio. He describes himself as a "Short Fat black Guy and Fledgling Writer of sorts, and a married father of four." (You can read more about him below this post.)
Very rarely do our local, white-framed media report on the fact that black people are doing good, charitable deeds in their communities, just as white people are. When they do report on a black person's good work, they frame the piece as if it were the exception to the rule. There’s always a negative taint about the report.
The mindset of the local news media is located where our news anchors hail from—the suburbs. You can easily perceive who the news is targeted to when it airs at 6:00 p.m. every day. Black people clearly don't matter much to the people who write and produce the news, and when we experience tragedy, there is very little sympathy or empathy expressed from whites.
We are portrayed as thugs and criminals, unworthy of equal consideration as people. For the most part, whites frame and report news about blacks in ways that fit their narrow definition of blacks. We are mere stereotypes, bits of statistical data whereby whites judge our worthiness to be amongst them. We are judged on our appearance -- Doo Rags, Saggy pants, Black Male Swagger -- and on our speech, whether we be safe Negro or no. (This in light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid commenting that, Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.")
However, if the perpetrator is white, then the story is that there must be something wrong with him mentally, because good white people just don’t do things like that. The lawbreaker suffers for his crime as an individual, hence the totality of the white race is not blamed for his misdeeds. This is why I don't watch the local news anymore, for it has little to offer in the way of content for a community that’s 40 percent black.
You would think sometimes when you watch the news that black people are invisible. However, whites sometimes remind other whites that we are indeed visible, especially when we do something wrong. Then our picture is splattered on the front page of every local newspaper, with the local reporter using our image as the lead-in. We become relevant either when we offend white sensibilities or violate white decorum.
I really hope white people can come to understand why black people are mad so often. I also hope whites can come to understand (and I know it’s hard) during those times when black anger is turned inward, and we inexorably take that frustration out on ourselves or others. I hope that we can be given the same leeway -- the same consideration that privilege bestows upon them -- to search for the historical and other mitigating factors as to why a person, any person, acts the way they do.
A friend of mine who is an esteemed Pastor and Professor at the local college spoke to me of her experience. She’s been married to a white man (my Pastor) for over 33 years now. Their 23-year-old son was involved in an incident where he rescued four children from a burning house that ultimately burned to the ground; in the process, he sustained 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns to his upper back, the side of his face, and his neck, ear, and arms. The only reason the local news covered the event was because they bowed to pressure from family and friends and those who know them in the community. These were people who wondered why it took so long for anything related to the incident to appear on the local news.
When one station finally got around to reporting this young man’s heroism (4 days after the fact), they made it their last segment. Another station didn't even appear to be interested in this story of a black hero until after the first stations aired it, and the local paper reported it (5 days after the fact). The station that had been pressured into being interested reported first on local taxes, charitable things some whites were doing, local political fights, etc. They waited until the last minute (and that’s how long the segment took, about a minute) to air it.
This heroic deed happened on the south side, in the inner city. This gallant, selfless act took place where the “bad” black people live, so I'm sure it raised a few flags with the white news director. Aside from Will Smith, there aren't too many black action heroes in the media. So it’s hard for whites to see black men as anything other than thugs, rappers or athletes.
It’s to the point where black people aren't noticed until we do something that fits the stereotypical view whites have about us. Then it gives them a framework to fashion their story around. When Michael Vick was busted for his participation in a dog-fighting ring, whites looked to examine the black mindset that motivates some black men (if not all, in their view) who do terrible things like this. White media outlets held panel discussions; experts on human behavior were interviewed at length. Consequently, when black men commit acts as in the case of Michael Vick, some whites respond with a, “well there you go,” and “well what did you expect?”
I remember a young black female news reporter who was hired by one of the local stations; there was a piece about her in the paper. While explaining how excited she was to be working in Youngstown, she lamented that as a black journalist, she was not allowed to tell the stories from the community that she knew the viewers there would be interested in. She would have to toe the party line so to speak, and do stories that appealed to a broader audience. Namely — but not explicitly — whites.
It used to amaze me how white reporters could brave the dark and dangerous streets of the inner city to give white viewers a feel of the gritty underbelly of mainstream society. But then, why couldn’t they just as easily scour the streets to bring us positive representations of blacks as well? Why is it so hard for these same news outlets to view us through the same non-discriminatory lens as they view their own? You can really get ticked off when the news anchor looks you in the eye and says something like, “Bringing you the news that affects our valley! Fair and objective news reporting!” You want to put your foot through the television, because you know that’s a lie.
---
About himself, author Michael Gibson writes,
I was always considered shy and withdrawn as a child. I was drawn to Art at a very early age, owing the spark of my obsession to two young artists in my school named Al Lewis and Bobby Crochet. Both took me under their wings and showed me all they knew. I made my home at the school library, always coming home with a bounty of knowledge under my arms, seldom playing outside with the other children, opting instead to feed from the likes of Michelangelo and Raphael. My gift gave me a sense of purpose, doing a lot to lift my esteem.
Considered eccentric by some, and a loner by others, I was cursed with a young face that didn't help matters much. Being black you are expected to look like you just got out of prison. People always think they have me figured out, sometimes even talking down to me, for they think me to be their junior, rather than their peer or senior. I worked in mental Health for over 19 yrs before going on disability.
I have garnered a host of prestigious awards in such notable shows as the 60th Artist Annual at The Butler Institute of American Art, where I was awarded the Inaugural Margaret Kaulback Best in Show award, for my piece entitled, Dancer at Dusk. I was subsequently awarded a One Man Show in the follow-up event, the 61rst Artist Annual. I have been married to a wonderful woman Karen for 29 yrs now, being the Father of 4 grown children; 3 daughters and a son. I am also the grandfather of 4 beautiful girls.
Very rarely do our local, white-framed media report on the fact that black people are doing good, charitable deeds in their communities, just as white people are. When they do report on a black person's good work, they frame the piece as if it were the exception to the rule. There’s always a negative taint about the report.
The mindset of the local news media is located where our news anchors hail from—the suburbs. You can easily perceive who the news is targeted to when it airs at 6:00 p.m. every day. Black people clearly don't matter much to the people who write and produce the news, and when we experience tragedy, there is very little sympathy or empathy expressed from whites.
We are portrayed as thugs and criminals, unworthy of equal consideration as people. For the most part, whites frame and report news about blacks in ways that fit their narrow definition of blacks. We are mere stereotypes, bits of statistical data whereby whites judge our worthiness to be amongst them. We are judged on our appearance -- Doo Rags, Saggy pants, Black Male Swagger -- and on our speech, whether we be safe Negro or no. (This in light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid commenting that, Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.")
However, if the perpetrator is white, then the story is that there must be something wrong with him mentally, because good white people just don’t do things like that. The lawbreaker suffers for his crime as an individual, hence the totality of the white race is not blamed for his misdeeds. This is why I don't watch the local news anymore, for it has little to offer in the way of content for a community that’s 40 percent black.
You would think sometimes when you watch the news that black people are invisible. However, whites sometimes remind other whites that we are indeed visible, especially when we do something wrong. Then our picture is splattered on the front page of every local newspaper, with the local reporter using our image as the lead-in. We become relevant either when we offend white sensibilities or violate white decorum.
I really hope white people can come to understand why black people are mad so often. I also hope whites can come to understand (and I know it’s hard) during those times when black anger is turned inward, and we inexorably take that frustration out on ourselves or others. I hope that we can be given the same leeway -- the same consideration that privilege bestows upon them -- to search for the historical and other mitigating factors as to why a person, any person, acts the way they do.
A friend of mine who is an esteemed Pastor and Professor at the local college spoke to me of her experience. She’s been married to a white man (my Pastor) for over 33 years now. Their 23-year-old son was involved in an incident where he rescued four children from a burning house that ultimately burned to the ground; in the process, he sustained 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree burns to his upper back, the side of his face, and his neck, ear, and arms. The only reason the local news covered the event was because they bowed to pressure from family and friends and those who know them in the community. These were people who wondered why it took so long for anything related to the incident to appear on the local news.
When one station finally got around to reporting this young man’s heroism (4 days after the fact), they made it their last segment. Another station didn't even appear to be interested in this story of a black hero until after the first stations aired it, and the local paper reported it (5 days after the fact). The station that had been pressured into being interested reported first on local taxes, charitable things some whites were doing, local political fights, etc. They waited until the last minute (and that’s how long the segment took, about a minute) to air it.
This heroic deed happened on the south side, in the inner city. This gallant, selfless act took place where the “bad” black people live, so I'm sure it raised a few flags with the white news director. Aside from Will Smith, there aren't too many black action heroes in the media. So it’s hard for whites to see black men as anything other than thugs, rappers or athletes.
It’s to the point where black people aren't noticed until we do something that fits the stereotypical view whites have about us. Then it gives them a framework to fashion their story around. When Michael Vick was busted for his participation in a dog-fighting ring, whites looked to examine the black mindset that motivates some black men (if not all, in their view) who do terrible things like this. White media outlets held panel discussions; experts on human behavior were interviewed at length. Consequently, when black men commit acts as in the case of Michael Vick, some whites respond with a, “well there you go,” and “well what did you expect?”
I remember a young black female news reporter who was hired by one of the local stations; there was a piece about her in the paper. While explaining how excited she was to be working in Youngstown, she lamented that as a black journalist, she was not allowed to tell the stories from the community that she knew the viewers there would be interested in. She would have to toe the party line so to speak, and do stories that appealed to a broader audience. Namely — but not explicitly — whites.
It used to amaze me how white reporters could brave the dark and dangerous streets of the inner city to give white viewers a feel of the gritty underbelly of mainstream society. But then, why couldn’t they just as easily scour the streets to bring us positive representations of blacks as well? Why is it so hard for these same news outlets to view us through the same non-discriminatory lens as they view their own? You can really get ticked off when the news anchor looks you in the eye and says something like, “Bringing you the news that affects our valley! Fair and objective news reporting!” You want to put your foot through the television, because you know that’s a lie.
---
About himself, author Michael Gibson writes,
I was always considered shy and withdrawn as a child. I was drawn to Art at a very early age, owing the spark of my obsession to two young artists in my school named Al Lewis and Bobby Crochet. Both took me under their wings and showed me all they knew. I made my home at the school library, always coming home with a bounty of knowledge under my arms, seldom playing outside with the other children, opting instead to feed from the likes of Michelangelo and Raphael. My gift gave me a sense of purpose, doing a lot to lift my esteem.
Considered eccentric by some, and a loner by others, I was cursed with a young face that didn't help matters much. Being black you are expected to look like you just got out of prison. People always think they have me figured out, sometimes even talking down to me, for they think me to be their junior, rather than their peer or senior. I worked in mental Health for over 19 yrs before going on disability.
I have garnered a host of prestigious awards in such notable shows as the 60th Artist Annual at The Butler Institute of American Art, where I was awarded the Inaugural Margaret Kaulback Best in Show award, for my piece entitled, Dancer at Dusk. I was subsequently awarded a One Man Show in the follow-up event, the 61rst Artist Annual. I have been married to a wonderful woman Karen for 29 yrs now, being the Father of 4 grown children; 3 daughters and a son. I am also the grandfather of 4 beautiful girls.
Friday, January 8, 2010
forget that black women are more than just strong
This is a guest post by RVCBard, a Black woman and HBCU graduate too close to thirtysomething for her own comfort. Playwright, web marketing strategist, and sometime film and theater reviewer, RVCBard identifies as a lot of things: queer, Black, Jewish, woman, and more. Born and raised in Richmond, Virginia, she now lives in Brooklyn.
One of the most persistent (yet damaging) "modes" of Black womanhood that's inflicted upon us is the Strong Black Woman. You know who I mean. No matter what life throws at her, it doesn't get to her. No matter how much is put on her body and mind, she won't (can't?) break. When life hands her a lemon, she starts a lemonade stand. She goes for what she wants, and she don't take no mess. Yet she's always there to lend a helping hand and a shoulder to lean on. And she never complains. Ever. She never demands anything from the people in her life. After all, that's what Angry Black Women do.
Don't act like you don't know her. And don't act like you don't see her when a Black woman says or does anything that does not flatter White people's opinions of themselves. Where do you think that tone argument comes from anyway? But she has her uses. She can be very amusing when set loose on someone you want to see properly charred or skewered. She's also good for reminding people how reasonable and benevolent they are and for convincing White people that there's no point to unlearning racism because there's no way Black women will ever be satisfied.
But the Strong Black Woman and the Angry Black Woman are conjoined twins when it comes to expectations from and assumptions about Black women. When coming from White people, though, there is something deep and ugly going on.
For instance, when examining why no one chose to speak up against some of the ironically demonstrative comments toward Black women, Witchsistah notes:
This constant non-defending of BW comes directly from the stereotype of BW not being "real" women as in not being seen as delicate, feminine, worthy of care, affection and protection. We are seen as "mules uh duh worl'" and as rhino-hided, she-beasts utterly incapable of delicate, complex feelings or thoughts. Basically no one defends us because we can "take it." It also leads to the idea that BW cannot ever be harmed (from this comes the view that BW are un-rapeable).
Although a few White posters chimed in to express their belief that many of the Black women commenting at SWPD seemed more than able to stand up for ourselves, Lady Dani Mo says:
It's quite obvious that Witchsista can handle herself, but sometime it does not hurt to have someone's back. I mean come on some of you guys didn't hesitate to defend KD or thought she could handle herself after she made her bullshit comments did y'all? She was bold as hell coming on an anti-racist blog saying that shit.
Witchsistah digs deeper:
Even capable people need assistance and care every now and then. And capable people are able to assess when they need them and are able to request them if needed. If others see those capable people as deserving they offer said assistance and care.
Not so with BW. BW are often just left to fend for ourselves while others psychoanalyze, pick apart and pass judgment over how we do that. The whole Strong Black Woman motif is just an excuse to do that, neglect us. It rationalizes that neglect. BW don't really need anyone's help. We're tough. We can take it. We can make a way out of no way. No asking us if that's what we WANT to do, especially since it seems that's what we're always OBLIGATED to do.
And to make it even worse, this pattern Witchsistah describes sets it up so that Black women are not acknowledged as anything but strong, as if strength alone is all that can define us. So hung up on being strong makes it seem like Black women can't be sensitive, intelligent, mystical, creative, vulnerable, or a myriad other things real human beings can be. It creates a dynamic where Black women are, psychologically speaking, beasts of burden who must bear the weight of racism and sexism but receive no recognition of the toll it takes on our psyches. Not to mention, the connotations of strength, as applied to Black women, further perpetuates the bestial, subhuman nature often associated with Black people in general. Mules of the world indeed.
Finally understanding the nature of the dynamics over on another thread, fromthetropics states:
I think I finally get it now. Yes, when I had my knee jerk reaction to the choice of words, I did see KD as a "fragile" being/woman in need of rescue. I thought, "Oh shit, she's gonna cry and cry and be in a wreck if someone doesn't rescue her." Meanwhile, yes, I did start to see the Angry Black Woman or Strong Black Woman stereotype overlap with RVCBard & Witchsistah's reactions. It did not occur to me at all that they might be hurt by the exchange that was occurring because, well, they seemed tough judging from all the comments and posts they've made before. And I can now totally see this actually is part of stereotyping or racism based on the notion that Black Women (or any women who don't burst into tears and seem obviously fragile) do not need to be treated as feminine. (Note: Being treated as feminine with respect as a human being, I believe, is very different from being treated in sexist ways.)
Consider the discussion of the treatment of Black women on this thread then compare and contrast to the thread about Asian women here.
The focus of much of the commentary on the "Asian fetish" thread was to better understand this particular experience of Asian women. The questions and commentary were more fully focused on gaining a deeper and more nuanced understanding of that. Contrast that to the thread about the treatment of Black women. Notice any striking differences? I most certainly do. The starkness of the difference is astounding.
Despite the fact that many Black women shared some harrowing, heartbreaking stories from their personal lives to drive the initial point home, many White people couldn't get beyond their disbelief and pity long enough to try to better understand this particular experience Black women face and/or how they unwittingly contribute to it. There weren't so many questions seeking to clarify the context of this behavior but there was plenty of general derailing as well as predictable outpourings of White sympathy, with the occasional "Thank you" thrown in.
There was a lot of posturing going on, a lot of attempts by White people to seem so benevolent and enlightened and/or so much the anti-racism authorities, that they "forgot" that they were supposed to be trying to understand Black women as we understand ourselves. They were so focused on what they gained from the discussion that they "forgot" the cost of that benefit - and who paid for it.
Rather than repeat the disturbing dynamics of the previous post about Black women, I want to try something different, something less taxing for Black women and more constructive overall. Let's take a cue from the thread about the Asian woman fetich and focus on refining your understanding of an experience shared by many Black women.
While I am loathe to present a one-size-fits-all approach to discussion, and it's certainly not my responsibility to teach White people how to treat Black women like human beings, for the sake of my own sanity, I'm laying it out as simply as I can. It's OK to be confused. It's not OK to hide confusion behind a pseudo-intellectual authoritative stance. It's OK to be shocked and saddened. It's not OK to make your shock and sadness the focus of everything you say. And stop trying to so hard to prove how progressive, insightful, and unique you are. In fact, feel free to reskin some of the questions and comments on other threads if you feel they ask or say what you want better than you could.
One of the most persistent (yet damaging) "modes" of Black womanhood that's inflicted upon us is the Strong Black Woman. You know who I mean. No matter what life throws at her, it doesn't get to her. No matter how much is put on her body and mind, she won't (can't?) break. When life hands her a lemon, she starts a lemonade stand. She goes for what she wants, and she don't take no mess. Yet she's always there to lend a helping hand and a shoulder to lean on. And she never complains. Ever. She never demands anything from the people in her life. After all, that's what Angry Black Women do.
Don't act like you don't know her. And don't act like you don't see her when a Black woman says or does anything that does not flatter White people's opinions of themselves. Where do you think that tone argument comes from anyway? But she has her uses. She can be very amusing when set loose on someone you want to see properly charred or skewered. She's also good for reminding people how reasonable and benevolent they are and for convincing White people that there's no point to unlearning racism because there's no way Black women will ever be satisfied.
But the Strong Black Woman and the Angry Black Woman are conjoined twins when it comes to expectations from and assumptions about Black women. When coming from White people, though, there is something deep and ugly going on.
For instance, when examining why no one chose to speak up against some of the ironically demonstrative comments toward Black women, Witchsistah notes:
This constant non-defending of BW comes directly from the stereotype of BW not being "real" women as in not being seen as delicate, feminine, worthy of care, affection and protection. We are seen as "mules uh duh worl'" and as rhino-hided, she-beasts utterly incapable of delicate, complex feelings or thoughts. Basically no one defends us because we can "take it." It also leads to the idea that BW cannot ever be harmed (from this comes the view that BW are un-rapeable).
Although a few White posters chimed in to express their belief that many of the Black women commenting at SWPD seemed more than able to stand up for ourselves, Lady Dani Mo says:
It's quite obvious that Witchsista can handle herself, but sometime it does not hurt to have someone's back. I mean come on some of you guys didn't hesitate to defend KD or thought she could handle herself after she made her bullshit comments did y'all? She was bold as hell coming on an anti-racist blog saying that shit.
Witchsistah digs deeper:
Even capable people need assistance and care every now and then. And capable people are able to assess when they need them and are able to request them if needed. If others see those capable people as deserving they offer said assistance and care.
Not so with BW. BW are often just left to fend for ourselves while others psychoanalyze, pick apart and pass judgment over how we do that. The whole Strong Black Woman motif is just an excuse to do that, neglect us. It rationalizes that neglect. BW don't really need anyone's help. We're tough. We can take it. We can make a way out of no way. No asking us if that's what we WANT to do, especially since it seems that's what we're always OBLIGATED to do.
And to make it even worse, this pattern Witchsistah describes sets it up so that Black women are not acknowledged as anything but strong, as if strength alone is all that can define us. So hung up on being strong makes it seem like Black women can't be sensitive, intelligent, mystical, creative, vulnerable, or a myriad other things real human beings can be. It creates a dynamic where Black women are, psychologically speaking, beasts of burden who must bear the weight of racism and sexism but receive no recognition of the toll it takes on our psyches. Not to mention, the connotations of strength, as applied to Black women, further perpetuates the bestial, subhuman nature often associated with Black people in general. Mules of the world indeed.
Finally understanding the nature of the dynamics over on another thread, fromthetropics states:
I think I finally get it now. Yes, when I had my knee jerk reaction to the choice of words, I did see KD as a "fragile" being/woman in need of rescue. I thought, "Oh shit, she's gonna cry and cry and be in a wreck if someone doesn't rescue her." Meanwhile, yes, I did start to see the Angry Black Woman or Strong Black Woman stereotype overlap with RVCBard & Witchsistah's reactions. It did not occur to me at all that they might be hurt by the exchange that was occurring because, well, they seemed tough judging from all the comments and posts they've made before. And I can now totally see this actually is part of stereotyping or racism based on the notion that Black Women (or any women who don't burst into tears and seem obviously fragile) do not need to be treated as feminine. (Note: Being treated as feminine with respect as a human being, I believe, is very different from being treated in sexist ways.)
Consider the discussion of the treatment of Black women on this thread then compare and contrast to the thread about Asian women here.
The focus of much of the commentary on the "Asian fetish" thread was to better understand this particular experience of Asian women. The questions and commentary were more fully focused on gaining a deeper and more nuanced understanding of that. Contrast that to the thread about the treatment of Black women. Notice any striking differences? I most certainly do. The starkness of the difference is astounding.
Despite the fact that many Black women shared some harrowing, heartbreaking stories from their personal lives to drive the initial point home, many White people couldn't get beyond their disbelief and pity long enough to try to better understand this particular experience Black women face and/or how they unwittingly contribute to it. There weren't so many questions seeking to clarify the context of this behavior but there was plenty of general derailing as well as predictable outpourings of White sympathy, with the occasional "Thank you" thrown in.
There was a lot of posturing going on, a lot of attempts by White people to seem so benevolent and enlightened and/or so much the anti-racism authorities, that they "forgot" that they were supposed to be trying to understand Black women as we understand ourselves. They were so focused on what they gained from the discussion that they "forgot" the cost of that benefit - and who paid for it.
Rather than repeat the disturbing dynamics of the previous post about Black women, I want to try something different, something less taxing for Black women and more constructive overall. Let's take a cue from the thread about the Asian woman fetich and focus on refining your understanding of an experience shared by many Black women.
While I am loathe to present a one-size-fits-all approach to discussion, and it's certainly not my responsibility to teach White people how to treat Black women like human beings, for the sake of my own sanity, I'm laying it out as simply as I can. It's OK to be confused. It's not OK to hide confusion behind a pseudo-intellectual authoritative stance. It's OK to be shocked and saddened. It's not OK to make your shock and sadness the focus of everything you say. And stop trying to so hard to prove how progressive, insightful, and unique you are. In fact, feel free to reskin some of the questions and comments on other threads if you feel they ask or say what you want better than you could.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Comments Policy
[This is a draft -- please let me know if you think I left anything out. I'll leave it like it is now for a day or two, and then revise it in response to comments and suggested changes. As noted below, it will be subject to continual revision afterward when that seems called for. ~macon]
Comments on this blog are moderated by the blog's proprietor, macon d (that would be me). Differences of opinion are welcome here, but comments that break any of the following rules may not be published, or they may be deleted after being published. Comments that don't seem to break any of the rules below may also not be published (when that happens, I will consider writing a new rule to cover them).
The following rules for commenting are subject to change; if you have suggestions for changes in these rules, or in other features of this blog, please write them in a comment here. If you have questions about these rules, do not write them below; please send them to me via email (suggestions of any sort are always welcome that way too): unmakingmacon at gmail dot com
I've made these rules as clear as I can. Nevertheless, whether particular comments fail to follow them is sometimes subject to interpretation; in those cases, I'm the interpreter. Sometimes I explain in a posted comment of my own [in brackets] why I rejected a comment (or why I redacted just part of it), and sometimes I don't. If you submit a comment and wonder why it was rejected, you're welcome to write me an email, and I'm likely (but not guaranteed) to respond.
Anyone can comment here, but any comment can also receive criticism, especially if its writer is new to discussions of racism (and even if they're not).
Finally, if you are new to thinking seriously about racism, whiteness, de facto white supremacy, and common white tendencies, you've got some catching up to do -- please consult the list of online resources at the bottom of this page before commenting here.
1. Please do not choose the "Anonymous" function for your name. If you do, I will assign your comment a name. If you then comment after that happens to you, stick with that new name, or else chose another and stick with that one.
2. Do not ask why I or others here "hate white people" (we don't). Do not ask why I "hate myself" (I don't). This blog is not about claiming that "white people are bad." Instead, it's about the effects of racism, especially the habits induced in white people by being socially categorized as "white." Despite what white individuals tend to think, being classified that way does matter in white people's lives; if you're white and you read around in this blog's archives with an open mind, you're likely to realize that.
3. Keep in mind the subtitle of this blog ("The ways of white folks, I mean, some white folks . . ."), and don't complain about what you see as "white-bashing" here. Very few if any of the posts here are about stuff ALL white people do. If you're white and you don't do it, then it's not about you. If I, or other guest writers or other commenters say "white people" do this or that, we almost never mean ALL white people do it, and it's a repetitious annoyance to continually modify "white people" with "some" and other qualifiers. Do not complain either about the past sufferings at the hands of whiteness of your immigrant Irish, Italian, etc. ancestors -- yes, they may have suffered what amounts to racism at one time for not being classified as white yet, but their currently white descendants don't.
4. Address the topic in the post. Comments that are overly distracting or derailing do not get published here. (This does not mean, however, that comment sections do not sometimes take a productive tangent away from the topic at hand.)
5. If you express disagreement with anything here, including other comments, do us all a favor by also explaining why.
6. Try to be concise. Keep in mind that long, long comments tend to get skimmed over, and just as often, skipped entirely.
7. Focus on what people say, instead of whoever you think they are. Avoid ad hominem attacks, and do not call anyone else here names or terms other than those they identify themselves with. If you refer to another commenter here, please do your best to retype their online name correctly.
8. Do not threaten anyone with violence (even if you think you're joking).
9. Try not to repeat something that's already been said in the comment thread. Some "co-signing" and affirmations of "what she said" are okay, but please at least skim through a post's comments to see if anyone's already said what you're about to write.
10. Race is understood to be a social construction here, a categorical fiction (but also, one that nevertheless continues to have major real-world effects). Do not espouse racial essentialism, by which I mean, do not suggest or claim that members of any race are inherently anything other than that which members of any other races are as well.
11. Do not complain about the ways that other commenters here communicate. Different people communicate in different ways, some of which you may object to. I do not consider it my place as a middle-class, white resident of the United States to impose here one particular set of communication standards and rules. One exception: although I despise "English Only" demands in the U.S., I must impose that rule here because I moderate the comments, and can do so most effectively in English.
12. Do not bother to point out that other people also do the things that white people are described here as doing. If you're ever tempted to do that, and wonder why you shouldn't, read this post on "The Arab Trader Argument." In a similar vein, avoid dismissing the matter of racism in favor of sexism, classism, ablism, and so on. These factors do of course affect and intersect with racism, but the latter, racism, is the focus here.
13. If you're white and you want to interact here with people of color, stop and consider first that the way you're about to act may actually be a common white way to act. When you do interact here with people of color, practice expressing instead those human qualities that your culture and racial upbringing subtly discourage you from expressing in such interactions. These qualities include respect, humility, open-mindedness, compassion, and an understanding that in terms of the topic at hand, their experience of, and understanding of, racism is probably much greater than yours. Since the topic is racism, listen to their experiences. Since the topic is racism, do not distract from their experiences with it by comparing them to your own, supposedly similar experiences (which are not about racism, right?); or by offering your own, necessarily ill-informed diagnoses of what they're feeling or thinking (after all, how would you know?); or by sincerely offering in response your own shock, regret, or sympathy, however deeply heartfelt (because after all, what would that really do in the struggle against racism, except to help convince yourself that you're not racist?).
14. Along with that, do not ask people of color here to do work for you. If you have questions for people of color here about their experiences, try to find answers elsewhere first (and if they do provide you with answers, or if they otherwise express their views or describe their experiences, do not take those as views or experiences that represent those of other members of their group). For one thing, finding information that you can find on your own is not their job; for another, remember that this is a blog about stuff white people do, not stuff people of color do (unless what they do has something to do with racism). That said, if you are a person of color or a white person, feel welcome to relate, analyze, and otherwise share your own experiences with white racism, as long as what you're writing is more or less related to the topic at hand.
15. In general, avoid lengthy, multi-comment, thread-hijacking, and/or nitpicking discussions with another commenter or two. These kinds of discussions tend to drive away other commenters and distract from the topic at hand.
16.If trolling commenters do get through, ignore them. If I delete your bait-taking comment but didn't delete theirs, or if I delete your comment but didn't delete another that was similar to yours, don't get too pissed at me for letting things occasionally slip through the cracks. In these cases, as in all others here, please remember that I'm a human being, and not a comment-moderation robot.
SUGGESTED NEWBIE RESOURCES
Racism 101 for Clueless White People, Written by a Slightly Less Clueless White Person
Racism 101
Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF)
teach their children to act white
Talking about the Hard Stuff (Racism 101)
How to Suppress Discussions of Racism
White Liberal Bingo
The Glosario
Comments Policy
Comments on this blog are moderated by the blog's proprietor, macon d (that would be me). Differences of opinion are welcome here, but comments that break any of the following rules may not be published, or they may be deleted after being published. Comments that don't seem to break any of the rules below may also not be published (when that happens, I will consider writing a new rule to cover them).
The following rules for commenting are subject to change; if you have suggestions for changes in these rules, or in other features of this blog, please write them in a comment here. If you have questions about these rules, do not write them below; please send them to me via email (suggestions of any sort are always welcome that way too): unmakingmacon at gmail dot com
I've made these rules as clear as I can. Nevertheless, whether particular comments fail to follow them is sometimes subject to interpretation; in those cases, I'm the interpreter. Sometimes I explain in a posted comment of my own [in brackets] why I rejected a comment (or why I redacted just part of it), and sometimes I don't. If you submit a comment and wonder why it was rejected, you're welcome to write me an email, and I'm likely (but not guaranteed) to respond.
Anyone can comment here, but any comment can also receive criticism, especially if its writer is new to discussions of racism (and even if they're not).
Finally, if you are new to thinking seriously about racism, whiteness, de facto white supremacy, and common white tendencies, you've got some catching up to do -- please consult the list of online resources at the bottom of this page before commenting here.
1. Please do not choose the "Anonymous" function for your name. If you do, I will assign your comment a name. If you then comment after that happens to you, stick with that new name, or else chose another and stick with that one.
2. Do not ask why I or others here "hate white people" (we don't). Do not ask why I "hate myself" (I don't). This blog is not about claiming that "white people are bad." Instead, it's about the effects of racism, especially the habits induced in white people by being socially categorized as "white." Despite what white individuals tend to think, being classified that way does matter in white people's lives; if you're white and you read around in this blog's archives with an open mind, you're likely to realize that.
3. Keep in mind the subtitle of this blog ("The ways of white folks, I mean, some white folks . . ."), and don't complain about what you see as "white-bashing" here. Very few if any of the posts here are about stuff ALL white people do. If you're white and you don't do it, then it's not about you. If I, or other guest writers or other commenters say "white people" do this or that, we almost never mean ALL white people do it, and it's a repetitious annoyance to continually modify "white people" with "some" and other qualifiers. Do not complain either about the past sufferings at the hands of whiteness of your immigrant Irish, Italian, etc. ancestors -- yes, they may have suffered what amounts to racism at one time for not being classified as white yet, but their currently white descendants don't.
4. Address the topic in the post. Comments that are overly distracting or derailing do not get published here. (This does not mean, however, that comment sections do not sometimes take a productive tangent away from the topic at hand.)
5. If you express disagreement with anything here, including other comments, do us all a favor by also explaining why.
6. Try to be concise. Keep in mind that long, long comments tend to get skimmed over, and just as often, skipped entirely.
7. Focus on what people say, instead of whoever you think they are. Avoid ad hominem attacks, and do not call anyone else here names or terms other than those they identify themselves with. If you refer to another commenter here, please do your best to retype their online name correctly.
8. Do not threaten anyone with violence (even if you think you're joking).
9. Try not to repeat something that's already been said in the comment thread. Some "co-signing" and affirmations of "what she said" are okay, but please at least skim through a post's comments to see if anyone's already said what you're about to write.
10. Race is understood to be a social construction here, a categorical fiction (but also, one that nevertheless continues to have major real-world effects). Do not espouse racial essentialism, by which I mean, do not suggest or claim that members of any race are inherently anything other than that which members of any other races are as well.
11. Do not complain about the ways that other commenters here communicate. Different people communicate in different ways, some of which you may object to. I do not consider it my place as a middle-class, white resident of the United States to impose here one particular set of communication standards and rules. One exception: although I despise "English Only" demands in the U.S., I must impose that rule here because I moderate the comments, and can do so most effectively in English.
12. Do not bother to point out that other people also do the things that white people are described here as doing. If you're ever tempted to do that, and wonder why you shouldn't, read this post on "The Arab Trader Argument." In a similar vein, avoid dismissing the matter of racism in favor of sexism, classism, ablism, and so on. These factors do of course affect and intersect with racism, but the latter, racism, is the focus here.
13. If you're white and you want to interact here with people of color, stop and consider first that the way you're about to act may actually be a common white way to act. When you do interact here with people of color, practice expressing instead those human qualities that your culture and racial upbringing subtly discourage you from expressing in such interactions. These qualities include respect, humility, open-mindedness, compassion, and an understanding that in terms of the topic at hand, their experience of, and understanding of, racism is probably much greater than yours. Since the topic is racism, listen to their experiences. Since the topic is racism, do not distract from their experiences with it by comparing them to your own, supposedly similar experiences (which are not about racism, right?); or by offering your own, necessarily ill-informed diagnoses of what they're feeling or thinking (after all, how would you know?); or by sincerely offering in response your own shock, regret, or sympathy, however deeply heartfelt (because after all, what would that really do in the struggle against racism, except to help convince yourself that you're not racist?).
14. Along with that, do not ask people of color here to do work for you. If you have questions for people of color here about their experiences, try to find answers elsewhere first (and if they do provide you with answers, or if they otherwise express their views or describe their experiences, do not take those as views or experiences that represent those of other members of their group). For one thing, finding information that you can find on your own is not their job; for another, remember that this is a blog about stuff white people do, not stuff people of color do (unless what they do has something to do with racism). That said, if you are a person of color or a white person, feel welcome to relate, analyze, and otherwise share your own experiences with white racism, as long as what you're writing is more or less related to the topic at hand.
15. In general, avoid lengthy, multi-comment, thread-hijacking, and/or nitpicking discussions with another commenter or two. These kinds of discussions tend to drive away other commenters and distract from the topic at hand.
16.If trolling commenters do get through, ignore them. If I delete your bait-taking comment but didn't delete theirs, or if I delete your comment but didn't delete another that was similar to yours, don't get too pissed at me for letting things occasionally slip through the cracks. In these cases, as in all others here, please remember that I'm a human being, and not a comment-moderation robot.
SUGGESTED NEWBIE RESOURCES
Racism 101 for Clueless White People, Written by a Slightly Less Clueless White Person
Racism 101
Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (PDF)
teach their children to act white
Talking about the Hard Stuff (Racism 101)
How to Suppress Discussions of Racism
White Liberal Bingo
The Glosario
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
fetishize asian women
In the collective white Western mindset, an extensive set of stereotypes about Asian women continues to fester. Many of these stereotypes stew most feverishly in the minds of certain white men -- quite a few of them, apparently -- who obsess about Asian women in sexual terms. There is of course a lengthy historical context for this racial fetish, as well as a term for what amounts to a common white male illness -- "Yellow Fever" (I also used to hear the men afflicted with it referred to as "rice kings," but I don't hear that term anymore; has it fallen out of use?).
The Online Era has served to agitate Yellow Fever, especially in the proliferation of "Asian Bride" sites (which don't seem to fully merit anti-racist and feminist disapproval) and "Asian Porn" sites (which are, I think, much more difficult to defend). The latest mutation seems to be Asian-women iPhone apps.
What would you do if you were sitting, say, in a subway or a classroom, and a man next to you started blowing (feverishly, as it were) into his iPhone, and it turned out that he's trying to blow aside the skirt of a tiny, simulated Japanese woman?
As for me, I would move away, fast, but not before telling the hyperventilator that he's acting like a racist weirdo. Sadly enough, there actually is such an app -- it's called "Puff!" -- and it's one of many that invite iPhone users to ogle, caress, drool over, and yes, even blow on, images of Asian women.
As Iris Chung recently wrote for the NY Daily News, "this app-etite is sickening." By solidifying the reductive, sexualized conceptions of Asian women that already exist in the collective white psyche, these pervy Asian-women apps perpetuate demeaning and ultimately dehumanizing stereotypes. I also believe that such interactive images can encourage abuse that specifically targets Asian women (and so far, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that such simulation instead offers some sort of harmless release, for aggression that would otherwise target women).
Chung's opinion piece on these apps is worth quoting at length:
I was walking near the Port Authority Bus Terminal recently when a balding guy smoking a joint yells "Sexy Asian girl!" I give him a dirty look; he smiles.
As a 26-year-old Korean-American woman, I am wary of men whose attraction to Asian women leads to exaggerated gestures. I still remember Sam, the "Asiaphile" in my freshman dorm who majored in East Asian studies, practiced t'ai chi and presented handmade origami paper cranes to his love interests. Then there was Matt, whom I met at a wedding. When he mentioned that he was "really into Asian girls," I wasn't sure what he meant. I wondered if he had some perverse "Oriental" fantasy to satisfy. When I showed no interest, Matt moved on to Grace, the only other Asian girl in a reception of 150.
Asian women are everywhere. We rank No. 11 on the blog "Stuff White People Like" and star in a host of iPhone apps: "Cute Asian Girls" promised; "If you have yellow fever, this app is the cure!" "Asian Boobs," which heralds our modest-sized racks, was a top seller for the App Store in October.
Now, we're playing peek-a-boo in "Puff!" In this app, the user selects a photo from a scrolling selection of Japanese women, then blows into the iPhone microphone to lift the woman's skirt and reveal her undergarments. The more vigorously the user blows and rubs the screen, the higher the skirt flies. Shyly attempting to cover herself, the woman yelps delightedly, wearing an inviting smile. "If the girls don't react, try changing breath length," instructions advise. "Winning a special bonus is all up to you!"
I'm infuriated at the thought of sitting next to some pervert on the subway furiously blowing and touching a woman who giggles adorably in response. But what I hate most about this app is that it feeds into an old and tired stereotype. The image of the voiceless, passive Asian woman is a common form of racism in visual media. She's the "Puff!" woman - cutesy and obedient, she'd never kick a creep to the curb. She's not too different from that saccharine Hello Kitty, the infantilized mail-order bride who promises to "love you long time" or the hypersexualized character in anime porn.
Passing off sexual stereotypes that reduce women as objects of so-called harmless fetishes is socially irresponsible. And it's not harmless. By fostering a culture of behavior that denigrates one group of women, all women are denigrated. And that is unacceptable . . . .
You can read the rest of Iris Chung's piece here.
Angry Asian Man has also been tracking this obnoxious app trend in a series of posts:
"yellow fever in the iphone age"
"another dumbass iphone app: meet a chinese girl"
"pervy iphone upskirt app"
"yellow fever for your pocket"
"a geisha for your pocket"
The Online Era has served to agitate Yellow Fever, especially in the proliferation of "Asian Bride" sites (which don't seem to fully merit anti-racist and feminist disapproval) and "Asian Porn" sites (which are, I think, much more difficult to defend). The latest mutation seems to be Asian-women iPhone apps.
What would you do if you were sitting, say, in a subway or a classroom, and a man next to you started blowing (feverishly, as it were) into his iPhone, and it turned out that he's trying to blow aside the skirt of a tiny, simulated Japanese woman?
As for me, I would move away, fast, but not before telling the hyperventilator that he's acting like a racist weirdo. Sadly enough, there actually is such an app -- it's called "Puff!" -- and it's one of many that invite iPhone users to ogle, caress, drool over, and yes, even blow on, images of Asian women.
As Iris Chung recently wrote for the NY Daily News, "this app-etite is sickening." By solidifying the reductive, sexualized conceptions of Asian women that already exist in the collective white psyche, these pervy Asian-women apps perpetuate demeaning and ultimately dehumanizing stereotypes. I also believe that such interactive images can encourage abuse that specifically targets Asian women (and so far, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that such simulation instead offers some sort of harmless release, for aggression that would otherwise target women).
Chung's opinion piece on these apps is worth quoting at length:
I was walking near the Port Authority Bus Terminal recently when a balding guy smoking a joint yells "Sexy Asian girl!" I give him a dirty look; he smiles.
As a 26-year-old Korean-American woman, I am wary of men whose attraction to Asian women leads to exaggerated gestures. I still remember Sam, the "Asiaphile" in my freshman dorm who majored in East Asian studies, practiced t'ai chi and presented handmade origami paper cranes to his love interests. Then there was Matt, whom I met at a wedding. When he mentioned that he was "really into Asian girls," I wasn't sure what he meant. I wondered if he had some perverse "Oriental" fantasy to satisfy. When I showed no interest, Matt moved on to Grace, the only other Asian girl in a reception of 150.
Asian women are everywhere. We rank No. 11 on the blog "Stuff White People Like" and star in a host of iPhone apps: "Cute Asian Girls" promised; "If you have yellow fever, this app is the cure!" "Asian Boobs," which heralds our modest-sized racks, was a top seller for the App Store in October.
Now, we're playing peek-a-boo in "Puff!" In this app, the user selects a photo from a scrolling selection of Japanese women, then blows into the iPhone microphone to lift the woman's skirt and reveal her undergarments. The more vigorously the user blows and rubs the screen, the higher the skirt flies. Shyly attempting to cover herself, the woman yelps delightedly, wearing an inviting smile. "If the girls don't react, try changing breath length," instructions advise. "Winning a special bonus is all up to you!"
I'm infuriated at the thought of sitting next to some pervert on the subway furiously blowing and touching a woman who giggles adorably in response. But what I hate most about this app is that it feeds into an old and tired stereotype. The image of the voiceless, passive Asian woman is a common form of racism in visual media. She's the "Puff!" woman - cutesy and obedient, she'd never kick a creep to the curb. She's not too different from that saccharine Hello Kitty, the infantilized mail-order bride who promises to "love you long time" or the hypersexualized character in anime porn.
Passing off sexual stereotypes that reduce women as objects of so-called harmless fetishes is socially irresponsible. And it's not harmless. By fostering a culture of behavior that denigrates one group of women, all women are denigrated. And that is unacceptable . . . .
You can read the rest of Iris Chung's piece here.
Angry Asian Man has also been tracking this obnoxious app trend in a series of posts:
"yellow fever in the iphone age"
"another dumbass iphone app: meet a chinese girl"
"pervy iphone upskirt app"
"yellow fever for your pocket"
"a geisha for your pocket"
Monday, January 4, 2010
treat black women like they're made of teflon and adamantium
As the new year begins, I'm delighted to see that this blog has attracted a crowd of very smart commenters lately (actually, many of them are "scary smart," as a friend used to say -- though not about me). Complicated, multifarious conversations have recently ensued here, some of them across several comment threads. I sometimes have trouble keeping track of it all, and participating, let alone moderating every comment.
I'm writing this post at the request of several commenters, who thought that this particular comment thread contained enough riches to merit a separate post. It actually merits several. I'll do my best to summarize what seems to me most worth highlighting there, as well as the parts that I learned the most from (which means that this post is just my limited take on it -- do please point out if you can whatever I'm missing that was significant, and whatever I'm misstating).* I encourage you to read the entire thread, especially because I simply can't summarize its many qualities here.
The post that prompted the discussion is about the common white tendency to offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness, often as a way of derailing a discussion of racism (which is also, more or less, the topic of fromthetropics' recent post here). Early in the ensuing comments, self-identified black woman Witchsistah pointed out that while I'd been driven to write the post because "everyone and their momma" had jumped on me for offering my own amateur diagnosis of potential mental illness in a white man, no one had jumped on other commenters (in earlier threads) for in effect diagnosing her with mental illness:
All I know is people have been head-shrinking ME here without credentials and no one but me and RVCBard have said BOO to them. But when it happens to a White man everyone goes apeshit. Yeah, it may be because they don't want to give racists excuses and passes for their racism or soften up racist acts, but very few outside of the aforementioned and Imhotep who wondered why folks were trying to take our heads off, have even bothered to question the headshrinking into Angry Black Bitch diagnosis and dismissal that has happened to me.
On a blog about racism, this was a great and sad irony. A "group fail," as described by Willow, who went on to write,
Witchsistah's point is that there was also a very concrete situation of a black woman being pathologized very *explicitly* to delegitimize her experiences, and nobody else spoke out. . . . this was a concrete chance for WP in particular, but also non-BW as a whole, to show online that they are in the fight against racism for the benefit of black women** . . . And at this, we failed.
That seems to me like a teachable moment already, one lesson being that white people need to step in when black women, and any POC, are getting mentally and emotionally (mis)diagnosed by other white people, and to even see that the (mis)diagnosis is happening. They should also realize that they're more likely to step in when white people are being (mis)diagnosed, and otherwise mistreated (cf. "missing white woman syndrome"), than they are when that's happening to non-white people, and that they're doing so because, honestly, at some deep, unexamined level, they value black women, and other people of color, less than they do white people.
So yes, a teachable moment indeed. But the conversation soon got even more revealing, at least for me, when I found myself doing that kind of thing too. Thefunny sad and ultimately oppressive thing is, I thought I was doing the opposite.
This next level of revelation (again, for white folks -- I gather that none of this is anything new to a lot of people of color) began when Sheila, a self-identified white woman, announced her support of Witchsista, along with -- crucially -- an explanation of why she hadn't offered it before:
As for 'defending' or 'not defending' Witchsistah, all I have to say on my own behalf is she seems fully capable of defending herself here and there would be nothing left for me to do but plant a 'me, too' flag on whatever smoking crater is left when she's done.
Sheila's comment struck a chord with me, especially because I thought that image captured well what I too see left behind after some of Witchsistah's replies to other commenters. And so, I wrote in a comment,
Ha -- EXACTLY. I've been thinking the same thing here. So, although it's belated -- I hereby plant my "ME TOO!" flags of solidarity in Witchsistah's smoking craters.
I won't speak for Sheila, but I felt good about finally expressing my support for this black woman's oft-derided efforts here.
Little did I realize.
When a white (male?) commenter named Lutsen asked Witchsistah what she thought of those two responses, she called them "disingenuous," and then went on to explain,
This constant non-defending of BW comes directly from the stereotype of BW not being "real" women as in not being seen as delicate, feminine, worthy of care, affection and protection. We are seen as "mules uh duh worl'" and as rhino-hided, she-beasts utterly incapable of delicate, complex feelings or thoughts. Basically no one defends us because we can "take it." It also leads to the idea that BW cannot ever be harmed (from this comes the view that BW are un-rapeable).
It's interesting. Treatment that would be seen as retrograde for other women is really radical for BW. Being seen and treated as valued, feminine, womanly and ladylike would be progressive when applied to BW.
That seems clear enough, but, white guy that I am (and whatever else I am), I still wasn't getting it. I responded defensively to the "disingenuous" label, and again later in the thread. I don't mean to make this post all about me and what I did and didn't do in that thread; I also don't want to go on and on here summarizing that thread, because I sense that I'm losing readers of an overly lengthy post already. I want to summarize something worthwhile from that thread for well-meaning white people.
So, I'll just say that what I came to realize, especially with the patient help of Witchsistah, RVCBard, Commie Bastard, Lady Dani Mo and others, was that while I thought I was expressing solidarity with Witchsistah, and with black women and POC more generally, by seconding Sheila's comment, what I was actually (or, maybe, also) doing was reducing her to the stereotype of an aggressive, loud, and angry black woman. In that sense, then, I was acting "white."
The thing is -- well, one thing is -- Witchsistah is clearly more than that. She's written more than enough here for me to gather that she's scary-smart, too. And so, among other current commenters, is another black woman, RVCBard, who has pointed out how she gets received here (and elsewhere) when she instead writes in a calm, rational, seemingly smart (instead of seemingly angry or aggressive) way -- she often gets ignored. And she certainly doesn't get the kind of attention that Witchsistah does when she writes in ways that seem to trigger common conceptions of the "Angry Black Bitch."
So what I'm seeing here, in what I'm sure is a rudimentary way, is a reductive, paradoxical set of conceptions and expectations that gets imposed on black women by well-meaning white people (like me). When they express themselves with any sort of conviction or passion or vehemence, or sometimes even humor, we typically see them as either "angry" (when we disagree with them) or as "feisty" and "strong" and "perfectly capable of defending themselves" (when we agree with them). In both cases, we reduce black women to a simple, non-rational, purely emotive caricature, which blots out the rest of their humanity. Also, I think our tendency to deny their full humanity, especially their intelligence, has been further demonstrated here by the relative lack of attention received by RVCBard's . . . shall we say, less demonstrative? approach. Even when she uses that approach to point out precisely what I'm trying to summarize here.
So, as the title of this post says, white people tend to treat black women like they're made of teflon and adamantium (thank you for suggesting even that title, RVCBard -- I recognize, though, that I haven't even addressed the "teflon" part). We also tend to pay them less attention when they don't act that way. And so . . . well, I hate this feeling I've had writing while writing this entire post, that I'm speaking too much about what black women, and other people of color, have to go through. Who am I to say?
So I'm just going to leave off with words by RVCBard, and then a few more by Witchsistah:
When Black women talk about their experiences as Black women here at SWPD, people (particularly White people, but at times other WoC as well), tend to respond with knee-jerk contradictions (typically betraying a lack of true engagement with the content) or remain silent.
For me, personally, it would be nice to see more comments make a more proactive attempt to engage with Black women in a more constructive way.
How about treating Black women as if we are, first of all, human? Yeah, it goes without saying, but from how we're treated, I'm not always sure people truly assume that from jump street. How about treating Black women like women and not disobedient children? Again, it goes without saying, but from what I've seen, I'm not sure if a lot of you really grasp that. How about treating Black women as though our lives are important to us? Once more, it goes without saying, but the things I've seen make me question whether you genuinely understand that.
IMO, there will be less explosive fireworks and fewer ruffled feathers if more people started showing us that they are operating from these very basic foundational concepts.
And finally, some words that Witchsistah wrote elsewhere, directly to me, words that I appreciate, like all those above and elsewhere, and words that I'm doing my best to take to heart, and mind, and actions:
We're actual people. You seem to encounter a huge stumbling block regarding seeing me and RVCBard AS people. You definitely need to examine the hell out of that.
* I also recognize now -- again from comments in that same thread -- that the very way I'm restating in this post some insights uttered by people of color is a common, and probably egregious, white way of taking part in discussions of racism. As Cloudy wrote in that comment thread, "you know what gets old really quickly? When white people parrot back exactly what was said to them but preface it with an 'It sounds like...' as if they were the ones who observed everything and came to this conclusion. Never 'Am I correct in understanding...?'" I hope I've registered in the way I wrote this post that I'm not sure I'm correctly understanding the conversation that I'm writing about. I started out writing the entire post in the form of "Am I correct?"-like questions, but I decided it was becoming difficult and tedious to read.
** Willow's footnote says, "all POC, but Witchsistah is right in that BW and, I think, Native American women get treated particularly callously"
I'm writing this post at the request of several commenters, who thought that this particular comment thread contained enough riches to merit a separate post. It actually merits several. I'll do my best to summarize what seems to me most worth highlighting there, as well as the parts that I learned the most from (which means that this post is just my limited take on it -- do please point out if you can whatever I'm missing that was significant, and whatever I'm misstating).* I encourage you to read the entire thread, especially because I simply can't summarize its many qualities here.
The post that prompted the discussion is about the common white tendency to offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness, often as a way of derailing a discussion of racism (which is also, more or less, the topic of fromthetropics' recent post here). Early in the ensuing comments, self-identified black woman Witchsistah pointed out that while I'd been driven to write the post because "everyone and their momma" had jumped on me for offering my own amateur diagnosis of potential mental illness in a white man, no one had jumped on other commenters (in earlier threads) for in effect diagnosing her with mental illness:
All I know is people have been head-shrinking ME here without credentials and no one but me and RVCBard have said BOO to them. But when it happens to a White man everyone goes apeshit. Yeah, it may be because they don't want to give racists excuses and passes for their racism or soften up racist acts, but very few outside of the aforementioned and Imhotep who wondered why folks were trying to take our heads off, have even bothered to question the headshrinking into Angry Black Bitch diagnosis and dismissal that has happened to me.
On a blog about racism, this was a great and sad irony. A "group fail," as described by Willow, who went on to write,
Witchsistah's point is that there was also a very concrete situation of a black woman being pathologized very *explicitly* to delegitimize her experiences, and nobody else spoke out. . . . this was a concrete chance for WP in particular, but also non-BW as a whole, to show online that they are in the fight against racism for the benefit of black women** . . . And at this, we failed.
That seems to me like a teachable moment already, one lesson being that white people need to step in when black women, and any POC, are getting mentally and emotionally (mis)diagnosed by other white people, and to even see that the (mis)diagnosis is happening. They should also realize that they're more likely to step in when white people are being (mis)diagnosed, and otherwise mistreated (cf. "missing white woman syndrome"), than they are when that's happening to non-white people, and that they're doing so because, honestly, at some deep, unexamined level, they value black women, and other people of color, less than they do white people.
So yes, a teachable moment indeed. But the conversation soon got even more revealing, at least for me, when I found myself doing that kind of thing too. The
This next level of revelation (again, for white folks -- I gather that none of this is anything new to a lot of people of color) began when Sheila, a self-identified white woman, announced her support of Witchsista, along with -- crucially -- an explanation of why she hadn't offered it before:
As for 'defending' or 'not defending' Witchsistah, all I have to say on my own behalf is she seems fully capable of defending herself here and there would be nothing left for me to do but plant a 'me, too' flag on whatever smoking crater is left when she's done.
Sheila's comment struck a chord with me, especially because I thought that image captured well what I too see left behind after some of Witchsistah's replies to other commenters. And so, I wrote in a comment,
Ha -- EXACTLY. I've been thinking the same thing here. So, although it's belated -- I hereby plant my "ME TOO!" flags of solidarity in Witchsistah's smoking craters.
I won't speak for Sheila, but I felt good about finally expressing my support for this black woman's oft-derided efforts here.
Little did I realize.
When a white (male?) commenter named Lutsen asked Witchsistah what she thought of those two responses, she called them "disingenuous," and then went on to explain,
This constant non-defending of BW comes directly from the stereotype of BW not being "real" women as in not being seen as delicate, feminine, worthy of care, affection and protection. We are seen as "mules uh duh worl'" and as rhino-hided, she-beasts utterly incapable of delicate, complex feelings or thoughts. Basically no one defends us because we can "take it." It also leads to the idea that BW cannot ever be harmed (from this comes the view that BW are un-rapeable).
It's interesting. Treatment that would be seen as retrograde for other women is really radical for BW. Being seen and treated as valued, feminine, womanly and ladylike would be progressive when applied to BW.
That seems clear enough, but, white guy that I am (and whatever else I am), I still wasn't getting it. I responded defensively to the "disingenuous" label, and again later in the thread. I don't mean to make this post all about me and what I did and didn't do in that thread; I also don't want to go on and on here summarizing that thread, because I sense that I'm losing readers of an overly lengthy post already. I want to summarize something worthwhile from that thread for well-meaning white people.
So, I'll just say that what I came to realize, especially with the patient help of Witchsistah, RVCBard, Commie Bastard, Lady Dani Mo and others, was that while I thought I was expressing solidarity with Witchsistah, and with black women and POC more generally, by seconding Sheila's comment, what I was actually (or, maybe, also) doing was reducing her to the stereotype of an aggressive, loud, and angry black woman. In that sense, then, I was acting "white."
The thing is -- well, one thing is -- Witchsistah is clearly more than that. She's written more than enough here for me to gather that she's scary-smart, too. And so, among other current commenters, is another black woman, RVCBard, who has pointed out how she gets received here (and elsewhere) when she instead writes in a calm, rational, seemingly smart (instead of seemingly angry or aggressive) way -- she often gets ignored. And she certainly doesn't get the kind of attention that Witchsistah does when she writes in ways that seem to trigger common conceptions of the "Angry Black Bitch."
So what I'm seeing here, in what I'm sure is a rudimentary way, is a reductive, paradoxical set of conceptions and expectations that gets imposed on black women by well-meaning white people (like me). When they express themselves with any sort of conviction or passion or vehemence, or sometimes even humor, we typically see them as either "angry" (when we disagree with them) or as "feisty" and "strong" and "perfectly capable of defending themselves" (when we agree with them). In both cases, we reduce black women to a simple, non-rational, purely emotive caricature, which blots out the rest of their humanity. Also, I think our tendency to deny their full humanity, especially their intelligence, has been further demonstrated here by the relative lack of attention received by RVCBard's . . . shall we say, less demonstrative? approach. Even when she uses that approach to point out precisely what I'm trying to summarize here.
So, as the title of this post says, white people tend to treat black women like they're made of teflon and adamantium (thank you for suggesting even that title, RVCBard -- I recognize, though, that I haven't even addressed the "teflon" part). We also tend to pay them less attention when they don't act that way. And so . . . well, I hate this feeling I've had writing while writing this entire post, that I'm speaking too much about what black women, and other people of color, have to go through. Who am I to say?
So I'm just going to leave off with words by RVCBard, and then a few more by Witchsistah:
When Black women talk about their experiences as Black women here at SWPD, people (particularly White people, but at times other WoC as well), tend to respond with knee-jerk contradictions (typically betraying a lack of true engagement with the content) or remain silent.
For me, personally, it would be nice to see more comments make a more proactive attempt to engage with Black women in a more constructive way.
How about treating Black women as if we are, first of all, human? Yeah, it goes without saying, but from how we're treated, I'm not always sure people truly assume that from jump street. How about treating Black women like women and not disobedient children? Again, it goes without saying, but from what I've seen, I'm not sure if a lot of you really grasp that. How about treating Black women as though our lives are important to us? Once more, it goes without saying, but the things I've seen make me question whether you genuinely understand that.
IMO, there will be less explosive fireworks and fewer ruffled feathers if more people started showing us that they are operating from these very basic foundational concepts.
And finally, some words that Witchsistah wrote elsewhere, directly to me, words that I appreciate, like all those above and elsewhere, and words that I'm doing my best to take to heart, and mind, and actions:
We're actual people. You seem to encounter a huge stumbling block regarding seeing me and RVCBard AS people. You definitely need to examine the hell out of that.
* I also recognize now -- again from comments in that same thread -- that the very way I'm restating in this post some insights uttered by people of color is a common, and probably egregious, white way of taking part in discussions of racism. As Cloudy wrote in that comment thread, "you know what gets old really quickly? When white people parrot back exactly what was said to them but preface it with an 'It sounds like...' as if they were the ones who observed everything and came to this conclusion. Never 'Am I correct in understanding...?'" I hope I've registered in the way I wrote this post that I'm not sure I'm correctly understanding the conversation that I'm writing about. I started out writing the entire post in the form of "Am I correct?"-like questions, but I decided it was becoming difficult and tedious to read.
** Willow's footnote says, "all POC, but Witchsistah is right in that BW and, I think, Native American women get treated particularly callously"
technical question
This post is just a technical query. I switched the commenting function here, from requiring readers to go to a separate, white page to fill out a commenting box, to providing the box right at the bottom of each post.
I thought this other way would make it easier to comment (especially if readers land directly on separate posts, rather than the main page), and also easier to refer to the post itself while commenting, because it still appears in its original form above the comments. I also like how the blog's appearance is maintained while commenting, rather than having it replaced by a blank whiteness (come to think of it, maybe that's appropriate).
However, several commenters have pointed out that they can no longer cut-and-paste into the comment box in this new format. Oddly enough, I can do that, whether I'm signed into Blogger or not (and whether I try it in Firefox or Explorer).
Any suggestions for how to get cut-and-paste working for everyone?
If anyone knows of a quick, easy way to get cut-and-paste working in this new format, I could write a description of that above the comment box.
Is the old, go-to-this-new-blank-page-to-comment system better? Do you think I should I just switch back to that way, so everyone can easily cut-and-paste again?
I thought this other way would make it easier to comment (especially if readers land directly on separate posts, rather than the main page), and also easier to refer to the post itself while commenting, because it still appears in its original form above the comments. I also like how the blog's appearance is maintained while commenting, rather than having it replaced by a blank whiteness (come to think of it, maybe that's appropriate).
However, several commenters have pointed out that they can no longer cut-and-paste into the comment box in this new format. Oddly enough, I can do that, whether I'm signed into Blogger or not (and whether I try it in Firefox or Explorer).
Any suggestions for how to get cut-and-paste working for everyone?
If anyone knows of a quick, easy way to get cut-and-paste working in this new format, I could write a description of that above the comment box.
Is the old, go-to-this-new-blank-page-to-comment system better? Do you think I should I just switch back to that way, so everyone can easily cut-and-paste again?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
dismiss non-white explanations of racism as irrational
This is a guest post for swpd by fromthetropics:
A white friend and I recently had an argument about racism in Australia. We were in a restaurant, and it started off with us talking about whether Barack Obama is black or white or both. One thing led to another, and I was soon trying to explain how subtle racism works.
She and her other white friend of course thought racism was only limited to a select few idiots. I tried to suggest that it was widespread and systemic, but I didn’t have the right vocab. She and her white friend were offended, and she started pulling out all the derailment tactics you can think of. (My mouth fell wide open the first time I read Derailing for Dummies.) She started pushing my buttons real bad. When I tried to describe various racist incidents, she bombarded me with questions like: “Maybe it was about gender? Maybe they had a bad day? How do you know it wasn’t you? Maybe they’re just jerks.” Etc , etc, etc.
This went on till things got quite . . . very tense. I was visibly upset (or so I thought). The ultimate point was when she said, ‘I like your skin. Your skin is beautiful. Look at mine, it’s ugly.’
I was furious when she said this. ‘I KNOW MY SKIN IS NICE! I DON’T NEED YOU TO TELL ME!’
I was almost yelling. I nearly stood up to go, but then I realized that I had to drive them home. I don’t remember ever being so angry with a friend.
The next day, I visited her as I usually do on the weekends. I was desperate to talk over what happened the night before. I felt like there was a knot in my heart and in our friendship, and I wanted to unknot it. We began talking about our earlier discussion, and with the help of her poc husband, she soon managed to ‘tame’ me. She then tried to convince me that 'perhaps I was perceiving things wrongly’.
It didn’t matter how many times I asked (at times with tears visibly rolling down my cheeks), ‘So are you saying that I’m imagining racism?’ She would respond, ‘No, I’m just saying that the way you’re perceiving things might be wrong.’
She tried to make it about ‘perception’. To this day I really can’t see the difference between ‘imagining racism’ and ‘perceiving things wrongly’.
Several times we argued about various issues and examples. At one point she tried to suggest that I was racist towards aboriginal Australians because I didn’t have any Aboriginal friends (note: Aboriginal people make up about 2.5% of the population, hint, hint), and the time I refused to watch an aboriginal Australian ritual dance that was being dished out as a performance dance for tourists. I said to her, “I have yet to even cross paths with an Aboriginal person.” (i.e., I have seen some pass me by on the streets on rare occasions, but I have not met any Aboriginal person. Not surprising when they are only 2.5% of the population.)
She responded, “But why don’t you have any Aboriginal friends?”
What, did she not hear me? I reiterated, “I said I have not crossed paths with any.”
She said, “But, why don’t you have an Aboriginal friends?”
Uh, what? I don’t get it. How the hell am I supposed to be friends with people I’ve never met??? Why does she not understand that? I said, “Well, I once passed by a small group of Aboriginal students outside the Aboriginal Studies department at the university having a barbeque, and yeah, I suppose I could have approached them, but. . . ”
Luckily, her husband butted in and said, “But wouldn’t it be weird if you wanted to be their friend simply because they’re Aboriginal?”
“Uh, yeah,” I responded.
As for the dance, the reason I showed a lack of interest in watching it was mainly because I didn’t like the way what seemed like a ritual dance had been turned into a performance catering for tourists. Most members of the audience were white. I looked at the audience and felt as though many were watching this aboriginal performance in order to feel unracist and more tolerant. I hated this exoticization and essentializing of the Other, and how the exoticization and essentializing was being used as a badge to 'prove' their open-mindedness.
The other reason I didn’t enjoy it is because I don’t enjoy any kind of traditional dances, period. I don’t care even if they’re from ‘my own country,’ I still find them boring for the most part. But obviously, instead of asking me why I didn’t want to watch it, my friend just assumed that she knew what was going on inside my head, and that I didn’t want to watch it because I was prejudiced towards Aboriginal Australians. Nice going.
There are more examples, but I’ll spare you the details. Suffice it to say, since reading swpd, I’ve been simply amazed at how this one incident contained so many of what the posts here describe. The most recent is making amateur psychological diagnoses.
So back to that day -- for every issue that we talked about, whenever I’d try to explain things, she would never let me finish. She’d just keep cutting me off. Her husband is more softspoken, so he managed to play the broker and calm things down. At the end of the discussion (and this was what I thought might be helpful here, but I kinda felt like telling all the other parts of the story first, for context), she pulled out a bunch of papers from her bag.
She said, ‘Please don’t be shocked by how extreme the list might seem. Just take it to mean that we all have some of this, to a degree. And can you just go through the list and see how many of those apply to you, and how strongly, you know? But be honest. Just go by your first reaction.’
She handed me the paper. It was a psychological questionnaire that she got from her ‘counselor’. A list of stuff relating to pretty hardcore insecurities. And sure, I’ve experienced some of them to a degree in the past, but for the most part, I’ve dealt with them already. I don’t think she believed me when I said so. More importantly, I could not see how this had anything to do with my experience of racism. I told her so.
She suggested several more times that I should go see a counselor (i.e., psychiatrist). I disagreed. But she had me ‘tamed’ by the time she said this. So I didn’t really argue much. I thanked her and her husband for the discussion, and went home. I thought I was ‘cool’ about it all. As I drove home, I thought I ‘felt better’.
But the minute I entered my home, suddenly the rage just all came out. I was so very, extremely angry that she had tried to ‘tame’ me, by trying to make me see things from a more ‘rational’ point of view. Basically, she was suggesting that I was imagining things, and that if I did experience racism, it was because I had some sort of psychological issue. Her diagnosis was very, deeply hurtful.
I tried to tell her so in an email the following day. She hadn’t shown any willingness to listen when I spoke to her in person.
That said, I think I’ve done the same things myself with other people, though I’ve of course never done so in the context of racism. Recent posts and discussions on swpd reminded me of that incident, and made me realize that I really shouldn’t do it to others either.
A white friend and I recently had an argument about racism in Australia. We were in a restaurant, and it started off with us talking about whether Barack Obama is black or white or both. One thing led to another, and I was soon trying to explain how subtle racism works.
She and her other white friend of course thought racism was only limited to a select few idiots. I tried to suggest that it was widespread and systemic, but I didn’t have the right vocab. She and her white friend were offended, and she started pulling out all the derailment tactics you can think of. (My mouth fell wide open the first time I read Derailing for Dummies.) She started pushing my buttons real bad. When I tried to describe various racist incidents, she bombarded me with questions like: “Maybe it was about gender? Maybe they had a bad day? How do you know it wasn’t you? Maybe they’re just jerks.” Etc , etc, etc.
This went on till things got quite . . . very tense. I was visibly upset (or so I thought). The ultimate point was when she said, ‘I like your skin. Your skin is beautiful. Look at mine, it’s ugly.’
I was furious when she said this. ‘I KNOW MY SKIN IS NICE! I DON’T NEED YOU TO TELL ME!’
I was almost yelling. I nearly stood up to go, but then I realized that I had to drive them home. I don’t remember ever being so angry with a friend.
The next day, I visited her as I usually do on the weekends. I was desperate to talk over what happened the night before. I felt like there was a knot in my heart and in our friendship, and I wanted to unknot it. We began talking about our earlier discussion, and with the help of her poc husband, she soon managed to ‘tame’ me. She then tried to convince me that 'perhaps I was perceiving things wrongly’.
It didn’t matter how many times I asked (at times with tears visibly rolling down my cheeks), ‘So are you saying that I’m imagining racism?’ She would respond, ‘No, I’m just saying that the way you’re perceiving things might be wrong.’
She tried to make it about ‘perception’. To this day I really can’t see the difference between ‘imagining racism’ and ‘perceiving things wrongly’.
Several times we argued about various issues and examples. At one point she tried to suggest that I was racist towards aboriginal Australians because I didn’t have any Aboriginal friends (note: Aboriginal people make up about 2.5% of the population, hint, hint), and the time I refused to watch an aboriginal Australian ritual dance that was being dished out as a performance dance for tourists. I said to her, “I have yet to even cross paths with an Aboriginal person.” (i.e., I have seen some pass me by on the streets on rare occasions, but I have not met any Aboriginal person. Not surprising when they are only 2.5% of the population.)
She responded, “But why don’t you have any Aboriginal friends?”
What, did she not hear me? I reiterated, “I said I have not crossed paths with any.”
She said, “But, why don’t you have an Aboriginal friends?”
Uh, what? I don’t get it. How the hell am I supposed to be friends with people I’ve never met??? Why does she not understand that? I said, “Well, I once passed by a small group of Aboriginal students outside the Aboriginal Studies department at the university having a barbeque, and yeah, I suppose I could have approached them, but. . . ”
Luckily, her husband butted in and said, “But wouldn’t it be weird if you wanted to be their friend simply because they’re Aboriginal?”
“Uh, yeah,” I responded.
As for the dance, the reason I showed a lack of interest in watching it was mainly because I didn’t like the way what seemed like a ritual dance had been turned into a performance catering for tourists. Most members of the audience were white. I looked at the audience and felt as though many were watching this aboriginal performance in order to feel unracist and more tolerant. I hated this exoticization and essentializing of the Other, and how the exoticization and essentializing was being used as a badge to 'prove' their open-mindedness.
The other reason I didn’t enjoy it is because I don’t enjoy any kind of traditional dances, period. I don’t care even if they’re from ‘my own country,’ I still find them boring for the most part. But obviously, instead of asking me why I didn’t want to watch it, my friend just assumed that she knew what was going on inside my head, and that I didn’t want to watch it because I was prejudiced towards Aboriginal Australians. Nice going.
There are more examples, but I’ll spare you the details. Suffice it to say, since reading swpd, I’ve been simply amazed at how this one incident contained so many of what the posts here describe. The most recent is making amateur psychological diagnoses.
So back to that day -- for every issue that we talked about, whenever I’d try to explain things, she would never let me finish. She’d just keep cutting me off. Her husband is more softspoken, so he managed to play the broker and calm things down. At the end of the discussion (and this was what I thought might be helpful here, but I kinda felt like telling all the other parts of the story first, for context), she pulled out a bunch of papers from her bag.
She said, ‘Please don’t be shocked by how extreme the list might seem. Just take it to mean that we all have some of this, to a degree. And can you just go through the list and see how many of those apply to you, and how strongly, you know? But be honest. Just go by your first reaction.’
She handed me the paper. It was a psychological questionnaire that she got from her ‘counselor’. A list of stuff relating to pretty hardcore insecurities. And sure, I’ve experienced some of them to a degree in the past, but for the most part, I’ve dealt with them already. I don’t think she believed me when I said so. More importantly, I could not see how this had anything to do with my experience of racism. I told her so.
She suggested several more times that I should go see a counselor (i.e., psychiatrist). I disagreed. But she had me ‘tamed’ by the time she said this. So I didn’t really argue much. I thanked her and her husband for the discussion, and went home. I thought I was ‘cool’ about it all. As I drove home, I thought I ‘felt better’.
But the minute I entered my home, suddenly the rage just all came out. I was so very, extremely angry that she had tried to ‘tame’ me, by trying to make me see things from a more ‘rational’ point of view. Basically, she was suggesting that I was imagining things, and that if I did experience racism, it was because I had some sort of psychological issue. Her diagnosis was very, deeply hurtful.
I tried to tell her so in an email the following day. She hadn’t shown any willingness to listen when I spoke to her in person.
That said, I think I’ve done the same things myself with other people, though I’ve of course never done so in the context of racism. Recent posts and discussions on swpd reminded me of that incident, and made me realize that I really shouldn’t do it to others either.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness
During the course of writing this blog about common white tendencies, I sometimes discover as I do so that I myself am unwittingly enacting a common white tendency. In my previous post, for example, I responded to an email from "L," a reader of this blog, about a white man who only dates non-white women. I thought I was writing about this man as a white person, but I also ended up writing a lot about a particular personality disorder that I thought he might have.
As many commenters soon pointed out, writing about a personality disorder, and suggesting that this interracial dater might have it, was not a good idea, primarily because I'm not a medical professional. The offending post provoked such a strong reaction that I deleted it (I've reposted that response, for the record, in the comments to that post, here). My response implied that I was diagnosing this man with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and yet, I don't know him; again, even if I did, I'm not qualified to diagnose him with anything like that.
My gratitude goes out to that post's commenters for diagnosing my demonstration of this common white tendency, and for their thoughts on that tendency, especially Commie Bastard, RVCBard, Ana Paula da Silva, Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette, Kit,IzumiBayani, Lady Dani Mo, Cloudy, Restructure!, Victoria, honeybrown1976, Spiderlgs, Sheila, Doreen, Kinsley, bluey512, Julia, and Jillian (please let me know if I've missed anyone). These observers taught me something that I hadn't realized about my whitened self -- white people often offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness. Apparently, non-white people rarely do that (further comments on these provisional claims are of course welcome here).
In response to complaints about my response to L, I tried to point out in the comments that the post was really about whiteness itself as a sort of narcissism, but that didn't go over well either. Explaining what one meant to do after a screwup -- instead of simply acknowledging and apologizing for what one did -- is also a common white tendency (one that also deserves its own swpd post). As Kinsley wrote in that comment thread, "More and more it seems to me that with whiteness, the impulse to explain and the act of derailing/taking center stage/etc do sit awfully close together."
I'm more aware of that common white tendency than the tendency to diagnose mental illness without professional training, but I still do it sometimes (and hey, I'm writing and running a blog -- it's all about explaining things! just kidding). I won't do it here; that is, I won't explain anything else about my messed-up response to L's query. I acknowledge it, I apologize, I appreciate the chance to learn about another common white tendency, and I promise to do my best to never do it again.
Finally, there's this question: if white people do tend to offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness more often than non-white people do, why do they do so? When they offer such diagnoses of non-white beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and so on, I think it's more clearly a racist tendency. What is it that's happening differently when, as in my case, a white person offers an amateur diagnosis of mental illness in another white person?
Since I just learned about this tendency in myself, I don't have answers to these questions, so I'll simply offer them to you.
As many commenters soon pointed out, writing about a personality disorder, and suggesting that this interracial dater might have it, was not a good idea, primarily because I'm not a medical professional. The offending post provoked such a strong reaction that I deleted it (I've reposted that response, for the record, in the comments to that post, here). My response implied that I was diagnosing this man with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and yet, I don't know him; again, even if I did, I'm not qualified to diagnose him with anything like that.
My gratitude goes out to that post's commenters for diagnosing my demonstration of this common white tendency, and for their thoughts on that tendency, especially Commie Bastard, RVCBard, Ana Paula da Silva, Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette, Kit,IzumiBayani, Lady Dani Mo, Cloudy, Restructure!, Victoria, honeybrown1976, Spiderlgs, Sheila, Doreen, Kinsley, bluey512, Julia, and Jillian (please let me know if I've missed anyone). These observers taught me something that I hadn't realized about my whitened self -- white people often offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness. Apparently, non-white people rarely do that (further comments on these provisional claims are of course welcome here).
In response to complaints about my response to L, I tried to point out in the comments that the post was really about whiteness itself as a sort of narcissism, but that didn't go over well either. Explaining what one meant to do after a screwup -- instead of simply acknowledging and apologizing for what one did -- is also a common white tendency (one that also deserves its own swpd post). As Kinsley wrote in that comment thread, "More and more it seems to me that with whiteness, the impulse to explain and the act of derailing/taking center stage/etc do sit awfully close together."
I'm more aware of that common white tendency than the tendency to diagnose mental illness without professional training, but I still do it sometimes (and hey, I'm writing and running a blog -- it's all about explaining things! just kidding). I won't do it here; that is, I won't explain anything else about my messed-up response to L's query. I acknowledge it, I apologize, I appreciate the chance to learn about another common white tendency, and I promise to do my best to never do it again.
Finally, there's this question: if white people do tend to offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness more often than non-white people do, why do they do so? When they offer such diagnoses of non-white beliefs, attitudes, behaviors and so on, I think it's more clearly a racist tendency. What is it that's happening differently when, as in my case, a white person offers an amateur diagnosis of mental illness in another white person?
Since I just learned about this tendency in myself, I don't have answers to these questions, so I'll simply offer them to you.
Monday, December 28, 2009
only date non-white people
A reader who prefers to remain anonymous sent the following email; for the sake of convenience, let's call her L. I added my response below, and we both welcome yours in the Comments. (I gave the post a different title from the one that L suggests below, because I think her situation exemplifies a broader phenomenon.)
I enjoying reading your blog over here in the UK. I think your approach to the discourses on race and white privilege is necessary, interesting and relevant. Anyway, the reason I'm contacting you is because of a recent experience I've had. I was wondering if you could do a post on your blog entitled "Date a black girl and expect her to be grateful." Or perhaps just post my email, I'd be curious to hear what your thoughts are on this.
I'm a black woman in my mid twenties in London, and recently I was involved with a white guy also in his twenties. I'm pretty open minded about who I date, having dated black, asian and white men.
To cut a long story short, this guy and I were friends first, but he pursued me pretty doggedly for about two years. . . . I think this guy suffered from a white superiority complex and a white saviour complex. He seems to exclusively prefer women of colour. Now there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but when he started making comments like "I hate white women," alarm bells went off. Also, he was forever rushing to the aid of black damsels in distress (usually only good looking ones), always through the guise of the magazine, but then lamenting over how much he helps black people.
Our relationship was tempestuous. He claims that I hate white people and was constantly finding racism in everything. Not true, I hate racism and oppression and I was very vocal about it. I thought it was positive that I felt comfortable enough with him to talk about this, but his interpretation was that I made him feel bad, guilty about his race and privilege, and that it was all so "draining."
He was like a jekyl and hyde character, very nice when he wanted to be but verbally and emotionally abusive if things were't going his way. He was capable of saying anything in an argument, racially loaded and offensive comments, but whenever I'd pull him up on it, after the red mist had cleared he would pretend as though he never said those things.
It was absolutely shocking, the response would be "How can you accuse me of that? Didn't I tell you that I hired that PR girl from the Carribbean, and one of our picture editors is from Cambodia for God's sake! Look how I champion the plights of people of colour! I could have an easy life and just care about the cash, but I put myself on the line!" I lost count of the number of times this was said, as though he got some sort of validation out of it.
Also, he often acted as if he knew more about the black experience than I did. I found this completely patronizing. He would say things like "you really should get hold of Franz Fanon's Black Skin White Masks" (even though he already knew I owned a copy). He would nauseatingly try to behave as if he was some sort of expert, as if he had experienced what it was like to be black in a Eurocentric society, when in fact he was clueless.
Also, if we were out and happened to see other interracial couples made up of a white male and black woman, I noticed something interesting. He didn't like it and would say things like, "That guy's only doing it to be rebellious, everyone's mixing it up these days." He would always discredit the motives of the men, as if he was the only white guy in the world that had genuinely honourable interests in black women. It was almost as though he thought he was unique somehow, and when confronted with the reality that he wasn't, he didn't like it. Those other white guys were somehow stealing his shine.
Things came to a head when he asked me out one weekend and I turned him down. He later bumped into me with a male friend of mine who happens to be asian. Now I repeat, this guy was just a friend, but he went completely nuts. He bombarded me with some of the most vitriolic, shocking emails, voice messages and texts I've seen, including telling me that my friend was "fucking ugly," and how dare I be seen out with an asian guy, that most black women would laugh at me for it, and at least with him being white, people would take me more seriously. I'm not kidding, he actually said that.
Now bear in mind that I've been selective about what I've told you, but there were other hideous, shocking things that were said. Suffice to say this guy and I are no longer involved.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this Macon, thanks for taking the time to read this.
----
[UPDATE: Please see the comments for this post regarding problems with my response below; I may soon edit the response below accordingly, and/or do a follow-up post about what seems to be a common white tendency that I wasn't aware of, something like "administer amateur psychiatric diagnoses" ~macon]
[UPDATE II: My response to L's email has been deemed so ineffective and full of fail by a series of commenters that I've come to admire and trust that I've followed suggestions and deleted it. I'll decide soon whether to repost it in a revised version, or to discuss what was wrong with it in a followup post, or to just leave it deleted. If you'd like a sense of what went wrong, you could probably gather that from the comments. ~macon]
[UPDATE III: If you'd like an even better sense of what went wrong, I re-posted for the record my original response to L in the comment section for this post, beginning here. I also address more fully the common white tendency that I unwittingly displayed in that response -- the tendency to offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness -- in this blog's next post. ~macon]
I enjoying reading your blog over here in the UK. I think your approach to the discourses on race and white privilege is necessary, interesting and relevant. Anyway, the reason I'm contacting you is because of a recent experience I've had. I was wondering if you could do a post on your blog entitled "Date a black girl and expect her to be grateful." Or perhaps just post my email, I'd be curious to hear what your thoughts are on this.
I'm a black woman in my mid twenties in London, and recently I was involved with a white guy also in his twenties. I'm pretty open minded about who I date, having dated black, asian and white men.
To cut a long story short, this guy and I were friends first, but he pursued me pretty doggedly for about two years. . . . I think this guy suffered from a white superiority complex and a white saviour complex. He seems to exclusively prefer women of colour. Now there is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but when he started making comments like "I hate white women," alarm bells went off. Also, he was forever rushing to the aid of black damsels in distress (usually only good looking ones), always through the guise of the magazine, but then lamenting over how much he helps black people.
Our relationship was tempestuous. He claims that I hate white people and was constantly finding racism in everything. Not true, I hate racism and oppression and I was very vocal about it. I thought it was positive that I felt comfortable enough with him to talk about this, but his interpretation was that I made him feel bad, guilty about his race and privilege, and that it was all so "draining."
He was like a jekyl and hyde character, very nice when he wanted to be but verbally and emotionally abusive if things were't going his way. He was capable of saying anything in an argument, racially loaded and offensive comments, but whenever I'd pull him up on it, after the red mist had cleared he would pretend as though he never said those things.
It was absolutely shocking, the response would be "How can you accuse me of that? Didn't I tell you that I hired that PR girl from the Carribbean, and one of our picture editors is from Cambodia for God's sake! Look how I champion the plights of people of colour! I could have an easy life and just care about the cash, but I put myself on the line!" I lost count of the number of times this was said, as though he got some sort of validation out of it.
Also, he often acted as if he knew more about the black experience than I did. I found this completely patronizing. He would say things like "you really should get hold of Franz Fanon's Black Skin White Masks" (even though he already knew I owned a copy). He would nauseatingly try to behave as if he was some sort of expert, as if he had experienced what it was like to be black in a Eurocentric society, when in fact he was clueless.
Also, if we were out and happened to see other interracial couples made up of a white male and black woman, I noticed something interesting. He didn't like it and would say things like, "That guy's only doing it to be rebellious, everyone's mixing it up these days." He would always discredit the motives of the men, as if he was the only white guy in the world that had genuinely honourable interests in black women. It was almost as though he thought he was unique somehow, and when confronted with the reality that he wasn't, he didn't like it. Those other white guys were somehow stealing his shine.
Things came to a head when he asked me out one weekend and I turned him down. He later bumped into me with a male friend of mine who happens to be asian. Now I repeat, this guy was just a friend, but he went completely nuts. He bombarded me with some of the most vitriolic, shocking emails, voice messages and texts I've seen, including telling me that my friend was "fucking ugly," and how dare I be seen out with an asian guy, that most black women would laugh at me for it, and at least with him being white, people would take me more seriously. I'm not kidding, he actually said that.
Now bear in mind that I've been selective about what I've told you, but there were other hideous, shocking things that were said. Suffice to say this guy and I are no longer involved.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this Macon, thanks for taking the time to read this.
----
[UPDATE: Please see the comments for this post regarding problems with my response below; I may soon edit the response below accordingly, and/or do a follow-up post about what seems to be a common white tendency that I wasn't aware of, something like "administer amateur psychiatric diagnoses" ~macon]
[UPDATE II: My response to L's email has been deemed so ineffective and full of fail by a series of commenters that I've come to admire and trust that I've followed suggestions and deleted it. I'll decide soon whether to repost it in a revised version, or to discuss what was wrong with it in a followup post, or to just leave it deleted. If you'd like a sense of what went wrong, you could probably gather that from the comments. ~macon]
[UPDATE III: If you'd like an even better sense of what went wrong, I re-posted for the record my original response to L in the comment section for this post, beginning here. I also address more fully the common white tendency that I unwittingly displayed in that response -- the tendency to offer amateur diagnoses of mental illness -- in this blog's next post. ~macon]
Thursday, December 24, 2009
idealize jesus christ
For those with Jesus Christ on their minds (and maybe even more for those who don't), here's a clip I posted this past summer. I certainly hope the implication here -- that Jesus Christ was a racist -- doesn't curdle anyone's eggnog. (The original swpd post currently has 39 comments, many of which have a go at the possibility that Jesus had it out for a certain group of people.)
In a more serious vein, those of you with Jesus on your minds might also ponder this post from awhile back on the white/Western whitening of him/Him: "recreate jesus in their own image."
And speaking of Jesus' own racial status -- why is it that nativity scenes with very likely inaccurate white characters pop up all over the place, and no one seems to consider that a problem, but when someone puts together a nativity scene with more accurate black characters, white people issue a call to arms? (Well, okay, the white complainers in that story are members of Italy's rabidly anti-immigration Northern League Party; I certainly hope that if someone in my own neighborhood ever decides to get a bit more real by adorning their front yard with a black nativity scene, none of my white neighbors would sneak over and desecrate it, or otherwise complain. Maybe most of them wouldn't even mind.)
And finally, what's up with this relatively new annual tradition, the wounded cries about some fictitious "War on Christmas"? Is that a "white" thing too? Why IS it that the people I see busting their blood vessels over that are always white people?
Anyway, all the best to your and yours, every one and all of you! Thanks for all the reading, the comments, the emails, the guest posts, the support, the challenges, and so much more. I'll probably be posting lightly for the next week or so, and then I'll be back in the saddle for the new year.
In a more serious vein, those of you with Jesus on your minds might also ponder this post from awhile back on the white/Western whitening of him/Him: "recreate jesus in their own image."
And speaking of Jesus' own racial status -- why is it that nativity scenes with very likely inaccurate white characters pop up all over the place, and no one seems to consider that a problem, but when someone puts together a nativity scene with more accurate black characters, white people issue a call to arms? (Well, okay, the white complainers in that story are members of Italy's rabidly anti-immigration Northern League Party; I certainly hope that if someone in my own neighborhood ever decides to get a bit more real by adorning their front yard with a black nativity scene, none of my white neighbors would sneak over and desecrate it, or otherwise complain. Maybe most of them wouldn't even mind.)
And finally, what's up with this relatively new annual tradition, the wounded cries about some fictitious "War on Christmas"? Is that a "white" thing too? Why IS it that the people I see busting their blood vessels over that are always white people?
Anyway, all the best to your and yours, every one and all of you! Thanks for all the reading, the comments, the emails, the guest posts, the support, the challenges, and so much more. I'll probably be posting lightly for the next week or so, and then I'll be back in the saddle for the new year.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
express their racist opinions with t-shirts
This white American, who was recently caught on camera in Washington, D.C., probably doesn't realize that the opinion he's expressing with this t-shirt is racist. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he's the sort of ordinary white American who swears up and down that he's not only not a racist himself, but also that the real racists are black people, because they keep "playing the race card." And also, if he himself does happen to be a tiny bit racist, well, that's only because they make him that way, by "constantly crying 'racism!'"
I snagged this photo from Wonkette, where it's accompanied by their usual, extra-hot Snark Sauce:
Wonkette operative “Rob J.” sends us this pic of a Real American he saw at L’Enfant Plaza today, making some point about the Blacks and their long history of enslaving others. What a horrible misspelling of that one country’s name! There are two g’s, idiot.
Wonkette's writer of this post set it up as a "caption contest," and if you're into clever snark, I recommend the comments (which is not to say that I recommend all of the comments). I can't resist reprinting the proposed caption that I'd pick as the winner -- commenter Patty Dumpling wrote, "The back says: 'Mustache Rides: 25 Cents (NO COLOREDS).'” (Sorry if that offends anyone; there's no accounting for what makes different people laugh.)
So here's the main reason I reproduced this sad, infuriating, and ultimately delusional t-shirt -- it's another iteration of a concept covered most ably by Abagond (in an swpd guest post, and at his own blog), "The Arab Trader Argument." Among his blog's many other ponderings, Abagond regularly explicates common white tendencies. In addition to explaining so clearly what these tendencies are and how they work, Abagond also provides convenient labels for them, labels that I think should be used again and again, so that they acquire common currency.
As for that man in DC and his racist t-shirt, it's hard to take seriously a public message from someone who can't even be bothered to spell correctly the names of the countries he's splayed across his chest (or maybe, there just wasn't quite enough room for all the letters in "Mauritania"?). Still, this t-shirt is worth noting, because its message, or argument, is such a common white mode of derailment, and oblivion. It's basically saying, "They did it too, so stop blaming us for doing it!" It's basically, that is, childish.
It's an example of The Arab Trader Argument, which, as Abagond explained,
goes like this: if white Americans do something evil and terrible it is all right -- or at least not all that bad -- so long as they can find at least one example from world history of someone else doing the same thing. Thus the Atlantic slave trade was not so bad because Arabs traders sold slaves too!
This argument isn't just childish and silly. It's also insidious, because white people so often use it, and variations of it, to justify their people's own past and present abuses of other people. It's also a way of shrugging off collective racial responsibility for such abuses, including one's own complicity in them.
The Arab Trader argument appears in many guises. Here, for instance, is another example that I heard recently --
Well, it may be true that white people continue to benefit from white privilege. And yes, institutional racism exists too. BUT, if the tables were turned, black people wouldn't do anything about it either.
And so, the logic goes, "Since they would enjoy the perks of racial privilege and ignore oppression that they've caused, why should white people do anything about all that? Get off our case, why don'tcha? We're really no one worse than anyone else would be in our position. They'd do it too!" (And something else -- it always seems to be "the blacks," doesn't it?)
So yes, I think "The Arab Trader Argument" is a mighty useful phrase, in part because it covers so many common white modes of racial deflection. In fact, these deflections are so common that they're even showing up on t-shirts.
Have you heard other forms or examples of The Arab Trader Argument?
Also, do you know of other race-cognizant terms or phrases that have gained common currency in this here Age of the Internetz? Actually, I'd like to see "common white tendencies" get some traction (not that I think I necessarily created it, nor that I want credit for it -- I just think that white people should realize that they have common tendencies -- that they're not all the free-floating individuals they tend to think they are).
Nezua has an extensive "Glossario" of such items -- I've read other people's usages of, for instance, "The Drowning Maestro" (though the common white tendency described by that term seems to be described more often as "the tone argument").
Other examples of recent Internet race-jargon that you've seen widely used? Or, are there others, like The Arab Trader Argument, that you think deserve wider use?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
fetishize native americans in aspic
I came across your blog by accident this morning and read it with interest. Don't now why I'm writing to you, but I have this strange feeling inside that tells me to write. This all sounds very weird I know, and no, I haven't had too much Xmas eggnog or drunk all the brandy that was meant for the Xmas cake.
Anyway -- I live in New Zealand and I am white, but I have this absolute passion for Native American people, their history and their culture. I have had it since I was young and it still burns inside of me. I have photos all over my office walls of chiefs, warriors and just beautiful Native American people. I collect artifacts and paintings -- anything I can that is remotely Native American -- through the internet, and I have a bookcase full of books on and about everything Native American. I have done history papers extramurally through a university in the States and I still can't quench my desire to know more.
Anyway -- I live in New Zealand and I am white, but I have this absolute passion for Native American people, their history and their culture. I have had it since I was young and it still burns inside of me. I have photos all over my office walls of chiefs, warriors and just beautiful Native American people. I collect artifacts and paintings -- anything I can that is remotely Native American -- through the internet, and I have a bookcase full of books on and about everything Native American. I have done history papers extramurally through a university in the States and I still can't quench my desire to know more.
Why is it that I have such a passion for this race of people? Why do I feel so at peace when I gaze at pictues of them? Why is it that their wisdom and beliefs seem so natural and right to me? How is it that I feel them in my soul?
I will give you one other piece of info and that is that as a baby, I was adpoted into the family I am in. And a very loving family, to say the least. My natural father I know is a Dutchman, and who is to say that generations ago ,somewhere way back in history, someone on my father's side did not end up in early America. And as we say -- the rest is history.
Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking on my part.
I know you can't answer these questions and I don't even expect you to reply. It just seemed right to put it all down in an email.
Thanks for listening, kind regards,
Cathie
Thank you for writing, Cathie, and for letting me present your questions to this blog's many racially cognizant readers -- it's actually a great follow-up to yesterday's post. I don't know if many readers here, or even any, self-identify as Native Americans, but I do think you'll still get some thought-provoking responses in the comment section here.
Since you asked me what I think about your Native American fetish -- and I do think your extreme interest qualifies as a "fetish"-- I'll try to respond too. I don't know you, of course, so I can't know much about your motivations. I can say, though, that what I'm primarily trying to do with this blog is identify and analyze what I call "common white tendencies." Your extreme interest in Native Americans is an example of a common white interest, or tendency -- not only in the U.S., but elsewhere in the world. And like many other common white tendencies, it's widely considered problematic, at best.
As a reporter for a German newspaper notes, the extent of German interest in the "Wild West," and especially in its "Indians," is "a little astonishing":
And on and on. The writer of this article attributes the German phenomenon to one person, "a writer named Karl May (1842-1912), virtually unknown in the United States but the most popular author in German history." May wrote dozens of enormously popular books about a fictional Apache chief named Winnetou:
A con man and Walter Mitty-like homebody who spent eight years in jail dreaming of Wild West adventures, May (the name is pronounced My) wrote dozens of tall-tale books that have sold more than 100 million copies, maybe twice that many if you count translations from the German. Kaiser Wilhelm II, like May a fantasist who loved to dress up in exotic costumes, adored May’s books. So did Einstein and Albert Schweitzer, Kafka and Fritz Lang. Hitler did too.
In New Zealand, has there been someone like May, or some other form of popular culture, that romanticized and/or sensationalized "cowboys and Indians" for you?
It's interesting that while New Zealand obviously has its own indigenous population, the Māori, you're instead fascinated with the more distant Native Americans. Also, your particular fascination is "distant" not only in geographical terms, but also historically. Native Americans still abound today, as do the Māori, and in very different guises, or modes of living, than the ones that you're fascinated with.
So, another good question arises -- why the distance? Why not instead be fascinated with indigenous people less distant, in both geographic and temporal terms?
If you do some poking around on the Net, you'll find that there's a lot of discussion out there -- and frankly, much of it is disdainful -- of white people who are fascinated with what amounts to Native Americans in aspic. I choose that gastronomic metaphor because different kinds of food -- dead food -- are suspended in aspic in such a way that eaters can still see them. The metaphor also works here because it echoes a well-known American cultural critic's analysis of the common white tendency that's exemplified by your Native American fetish.
In her essay "Eating the Other," bell hooks points out that seemingly "exotic" cultures and ethnicities often intrigue white people as a kind of escape from the norms or conventions of mainstream (that is, white) society. As hooks writes, "ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture."
There's clearly more to your longing of sorts, for bygone and dubious conceptions of Native American life, than a mere desire to spice up your life. Still, hooks does point a way here toward a probable motivation for you -- an escape from what you see as a problematic modern (and, perhaps, "white") existence. I would guess that you imagine that the ways "those people" supposedly lived are better than the ways your people currently live?
But then, as hooks points out in her essay (which I highly recommend), your desire for a fantasized, primitive, and romanticized "Other" is situated within, and influenced by, a white supremacist framework and culture. Idealized, airbrushed, and ultimately "self"-serving images, like those that adorn your walls and so on, have been handed down to you, made available by a mainstream culture that feels remorse for its theft, displacement, and genocidal treatment of indigenous peoples. Adoring those people, especially a lost and really unrealistic version of those people, is a way to emotionally and psychologically atone for that loss. You may well feel that kind of remorse yourself. (For more on why white people romanticize "Indians," you could also start here.)
Some -- actually, a lot -- of these love-struck white people even go so far as to proudly proclaim that they themselves have Native American blood. Again, this claim is based on a romanticized and unrealistic conception of what Native Americans were supposedly like; the white "wannabe" of this sort is rarely thinking about today's actual, living Native Americans when they embrace this blood (also revealing -- how very rarely whites make the same claim about something that's more likely to be swimming around inside themselves, that is, black blood).
Such "atonement" rarely has much real effect for the injured, damaged people in question (who, again, are still here). This fetishizing mode of "eating" a primitive Other is a common white tendency in that its really about, and for, the white person doing it. It's almost never instead about or for the Other; if it were, the white people reaching out to Native American-ness would be reaching out to actual, living Native American people. Or in your case, actual, living Māori people.
So that's my tentative guess for some possible motivations for your passion for "anything," as you put it, "that is remotely Native American." Does your passion extend as remotely, or actually as nearby, as actual indigenous people? If not, why not? Also, how much of this passion about an Other is instead a set of feelings and/or emotions about yourself, and about your own people? Again, I don't know you, but I'm guessing the answer is, "a lot." If so, is it really fair, or appropriate, to basically use another people this way?
Thanks for writing, Cathie, and good luck rethinking your fascination. I welcome your response, either in comments here or over email -- please let me know, especially, if you think I guessed anything wrong about you here. And as I said, I also hope that other readers of this blog will have further input for you.
Monday, December 21, 2009
wish they were "ethnic"
This is a guest post for swpd by Izumi Bayani, who writes of himself, "I identify as a straight male who is 100% Japanese and 100% White and I am 25% deaf. Izumi is my middle name and Bayani is a word in Tagalog and Persian for 'Heroes of the people' and 'the Word' respectively."
The other day at work, one of my co-workers who identifies as a white woman (and implicitly straight and able) asks me "what are you?" I fend this question off, but eventually I reveal that my father is a white guy who was born and raised in Illinois and my mother was born and raised in Japan. As I fend off more predictable qualifying questions that focus on what makes me different ("yes I can speak it, yes we eat sushi at home sometimes," etc.), questions that consequentially ignore my whiteness, my co-worker finally ends her line of questioning with, "I wish I was ethnic."
This wasn't the first or the last time I've heard someone say this, and I don't think I have ever experienced anyone other than a white person say it. Most people of color don't have any reason to say it.
I remember when I first heard someone wish they were ethnic as a kid, and I was blown away. Based on my experiences, I couldn't understand why anyone who had it so good being normal, blending in, would want to give that away and become singled out, picked on, and labeled an Other.
I think what most white people mean when they say they want to be "ethnic" is that they want culture. In turn, this implies that white people think they don't have culture. So I started to try and identify what white culture is, and it is really, really difficult to even begin. I think that’s because I'm a victim of its invisibility. Although I live in America and see, feel, and experience white culture on a daily basis, I still can't define it. At the same time, I don't feel like I'm included in this culture because I am of mixed race.
This invisibility of culture in America leaves some white people feeling empty. And many conclude that since their family doesn't eat with chopsticks or take their shoes off at the door, it's a boring family. But the fact that they don't specify, "I wish I was Japanese," and instead say "ethnic," tells me that really it's "I wish I was anything but white."
I think what really puts me off when I hear this common white wish is how it's loaded with privilege. White people don't have the first damn clue what people from "other" cultures go through in the United States. They just want the "cool stuff" without recognizing the daily strain of being an Other. Statements such as "I wish I was ethnic" make it painfully obvious how unaware this culture is to the experiences of those who don't fit.
"I wish I was ethnic" makes me feel like I'm at a museum, where people walk by and go, "How cool is that? Can you imagine getting A's in school all the time?" "I wish I was ethnic" has such a voyeuristic feel to it.
In addition, I think it's reflective of white people's relative freedom to define themselves as individuals, to come up with their own identity. When I reveal that I am Japanese (read: Asian), I feel like who I am to other people are the stereotypes associated with it. When I see a Black man on campus, I have to fight off the assumption that he plays football or basketball. When I see a Latina, I fight off the assumption that she's a mother. When I see a white person, I don't think twice, which gives them the opportunity to be who they are, since there aren't any assumptions that I make right off the bat. So really, only white people can say "I wish I was ethnic" and have it make sense.
I was just wondering, am I way off base here? Am I looking too much into this? It'd be great to have some outside input.
The other day at work, one of my co-workers who identifies as a white woman (and implicitly straight and able) asks me "what are you?" I fend this question off, but eventually I reveal that my father is a white guy who was born and raised in Illinois and my mother was born and raised in Japan. As I fend off more predictable qualifying questions that focus on what makes me different ("yes I can speak it, yes we eat sushi at home sometimes," etc.), questions that consequentially ignore my whiteness, my co-worker finally ends her line of questioning with, "I wish I was ethnic."
This wasn't the first or the last time I've heard someone say this, and I don't think I have ever experienced anyone other than a white person say it. Most people of color don't have any reason to say it.
I remember when I first heard someone wish they were ethnic as a kid, and I was blown away. Based on my experiences, I couldn't understand why anyone who had it so good being normal, blending in, would want to give that away and become singled out, picked on, and labeled an Other.
I think what most white people mean when they say they want to be "ethnic" is that they want culture. In turn, this implies that white people think they don't have culture. So I started to try and identify what white culture is, and it is really, really difficult to even begin. I think that’s because I'm a victim of its invisibility. Although I live in America and see, feel, and experience white culture on a daily basis, I still can't define it. At the same time, I don't feel like I'm included in this culture because I am of mixed race.
This invisibility of culture in America leaves some white people feeling empty. And many conclude that since their family doesn't eat with chopsticks or take their shoes off at the door, it's a boring family. But the fact that they don't specify, "I wish I was Japanese," and instead say "ethnic," tells me that really it's "I wish I was anything but white."
I think what really puts me off when I hear this common white wish is how it's loaded with privilege. White people don't have the first damn clue what people from "other" cultures go through in the United States. They just want the "cool stuff" without recognizing the daily strain of being an Other. Statements such as "I wish I was ethnic" make it painfully obvious how unaware this culture is to the experiences of those who don't fit.
"I wish I was ethnic" makes me feel like I'm at a museum, where people walk by and go, "How cool is that? Can you imagine getting A's in school all the time?" "I wish I was ethnic" has such a voyeuristic feel to it.
In addition, I think it's reflective of white people's relative freedom to define themselves as individuals, to come up with their own identity. When I reveal that I am Japanese (read: Asian), I feel like who I am to other people are the stereotypes associated with it. When I see a Black man on campus, I have to fight off the assumption that he plays football or basketball. When I see a Latina, I fight off the assumption that she's a mother. When I see a white person, I don't think twice, which gives them the opportunity to be who they are, since there aren't any assumptions that I make right off the bat. So really, only white people can say "I wish I was ethnic" and have it make sense.
I was just wondering, am I way off base here? Am I looking too much into this? It'd be great to have some outside input.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
