Beyond White Guilt

I like Pharyngula most of the time.But this crap right here? Is why there are times when I've simply got to stay away from many a privileged white atheist. Look at them especially the comments, condescension and sometimes outright racism dripping from every pore. Most pay no attention to the problematic pattern of whites appropriating other people's cultures and cheapening their context so that whites can partake with no problem. They just pay attention to the part where the academic says that it could make girls infertile. This bit? Flies right over their logical atheist heads:

Dr Rose fears the inclusion of the didgeridoo lesson in the book sends out a "tokenistic" message about Aboriginal culture.

"That's the issue that perturbs me the greatest," he said.

Harper Collins has defended the book, saying it is not convinced it will offend all Australian Aborigines.

But Dr Rose says the issue should be taken more seriously.

"That would be, I guess, the words of a publisher that wants to protect its bottom line," he said.

"In fact I would say it is a cultural indiscretion and I'm perturbed that they are taking the matter so flippantly."

But many of them take up teh whole, that's your religion I don't have to respect it crap. And somehow it completely escapes them that there is one HELL of a power difference between privileged white atheists goijng up against culturally privileged white relgionists, and white people moving with Aborginal culture for the 20,000th time, and hiding behind the whole "not all Australian Aborigines will be offended." What? I mean, WHAT THE FUCK!!! And this is the problem, as sanguinity pointed out in an earlier post. Insectionality, history, CONTEXT is many times missing from these white atheistic critiques of religion as it is practiced by non-white people. Mix in some unexamined privileged, and downright contempt and racism, and you got a poisonous cocktail that makes me want to vomit. Who are these people and why am I supposed to join them?

x-posted to atheismandrace

Today in the Atlanta Journal Constitution of all places, an interesting piece about the civil war. Historian David Williams of Valdosta State University just ppublished a book in which he shows how many of the southerners actually were not in support of secession. This is a serious challenge to the view so commonly held around these part ( when arguing that the confederate flag is not a racist emblem) of a civil war in which the southerners fought bravely for their heritage and slavery was only an afterthought.

http://www.ajc.com/living/content/living/stories/2008/08/24/south_confederacy_civil.html

I apologize if this has been brought up, but I don't remember seeing anything.


You know how Barack Obama is always criticized with the redundant "Is He Ready To Lead?" ad? Obviously on the surface, this is about his "short time" spent in the Senate and "lack of political experience". But I was thinking about another question/phrase that often gets kicked around: " Is America is ready for a black president?" and I sort of gasped. I hadn't fully come to realize until now that this is a very coy way of exploiting Obama for being black. I mean, I feel really dumb for not getting it before, although I know it's *meant* to operate on the subconscious. And I knew that the racism was a big factor in it, I just didn't realize how directly exploitative to race that ad/phrase is, because it resonates with those who are insecure with having a black president in a "subtle" way to drive home the message and exacerbate fear. 

I'm frustrated as I  suspect a lot of people (outside of here) will accuse me of reading too much into this, but there are no coincidences in political campaigns. Especially about things that run so deeply, and are so vital, controversial, and fragile right now. Oh well, I'll talk about it anyway.

I don't really have anything else to say. Blah.

 

Getting this down while it is fresh. Work in progress.

Here is a debunking of a White culturally normative thing I do. I use race and conversations about race and racism to get the upper hand.

I have a lot of knowledge about racism and anti-racism at this point in my life. I even am able a lot of the time (though far from always) to examine my own behavior, shut up and listen, and all manner of good things.

But what I still do, and have been doing since I was 12 years old, is use race and racism to get the upper hand. I learned when I was 12 that race is a very powerful thing. I invited the only Black girl in my middle school to my slumber party. I waited until the day of the party to tell my parents, and I told them in front of an outsider (my sister's boyfriend.) They told me to uninvite this girl, and I refused. I won. She came to the sleepover, and I was not punished. This was the first (only?) contest I ever completely won with my parents. What I said should happen happened, and was not punished for defying them. As life lessons go, this was on the order of an earthquake. Race is very powerful.

The part of this lesson that I did not even begin to see until about 7 years ago, though, is: all of this was about me and my parents. It was never about the little black girl in my middle school or about benefiting her at all. It was about me, winning. Winning the novelty and coolness of one of the prettiest, best-dressed, coolest girls at school coming to my party. But most of all, it was about me winning the battle of wills with my parents.

And so it still is, 31 years later.

Not that the racist behavior and words I confront in friends and random LJers isn't real. But the confrontation is almost always bullshit. I've allowed myself to adopt the "I'm not going to hold your hand, put on your big girl panties" posture I've read from people of color. But you know, the problem is I don't have any legitimate claim to that posture. I am not a woman of color, I am not constantly barraged with demands that I educate. I am not harangued to prove to privilege-blind White people why my claims of racism are real and not just me creating a problem where there is none. All of these insults are continually offered to people of color, but not to me.

So I don't get to adopt the posture of snark and impatience to other White people's privilege blindness. Because here is the thing: if I am doing that, I am using the topic and problem of racism to satisfy my own agenda. I am making myself feel better at their expense. And by doing that, I am making it less likely that people will hear me. And the truth is I don't care, because if I did care I would adopt a posture of patience and humility and partnering and education.

But snarking? That's for dominance and to get my argument rocks off.

I figured this out in a recent spat on my eljay about Michelle Obama's speech at the convention. You can't read it unless you're friended, but trust me when I say that the racism from my White (former) friends was real, and my snarkiness was right there.

But the thing is? All I accomplished was making myself feel superior and making it less likely that they will examine their racism and/or vote for Obama. And since I actually care a LOT about electing Obama, this time I finally paid attention.

So that's it. Either I discipline myself to a tone and posture of education and patience and humility in discussing racism with other White people, or I say nothing at all. Because this other crap? Is just more White privilege, twisting its way out as pseudo anti-racist militancy.

Any other White people else recognize this in their own behavior? Any people of color recognize it from your supposedly anti-racist friends/acquaintances/colleagues?

And, of course: anyone smell some bullshit I need to be called on here?

[crossposted to my LJ]

It struck me that some of you would have been understandably put off by the tl;dr of my last post and not gotten to the tasty links at the end, all of which are much more interesting than my own vague meanderings.

So, here's a post with just the links about feminism, race, and australia. You can scroll past the australian section if you're not interested, though many of the essays etc are really well written and general enough to appeal to an international audience.

(Apologies to those of you on my flist who have been hit with like 6 posts on this topic by now. I do plan to shut up about it for a bit :D It's just that I spent so long unable to find ANYTHING about race in Australia that when I do find good essays etc I want to share them as widely as possible)

Via anti_feminism, the launch of RushmoreDrive, a search engine billed as "the black Google":

Is Google too white? No, we're not talking about the white home page that's so bright it motivates some people to change its appearance to save energy. We're wondering if it is too white, as in Caucasian, because so many white people use Google that it returns results that alienate the rest of the population.

( More excerpts... )

What do you think? At present I think this is a case of a problem being correctly identified but resulting in the wrong solution; what ought to happen is, let's say, a plug-in or similar into the main Google that can re-rank based on user-definable criteria, not an entirely separate hierarchy of information.

via BFP

Please forward widely, especially to those you know in Mississippi!!!!!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, August 22, 2008

TO: Editor/News Director

Contact: Patricia Ice—office 601-354-9355

Bill Chandler—office 601-968-5182

JACKSON, MS—A series of preparations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the Gulf Coast has local advocates on edge about the possibility of yet another worksite raid, and yet another devastating blow to businesses, families and communities in the name of immigration enforcement.

“The preparations we are seeing ICE make are alarmingly similar to what occurred immediately prior to the raid on the Agriprocessors, Inc. Kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, a few months ago, “ said Patricia Ice, an immigration attorney and spokesperson for MIRA. ICE has reportedly booked dozens of rooms in hotels on the Gulf Coast. They may be checking in as early as tonight.

Perhaps even more worrisome are the reports that the federal court in Hattiesburg is being readied for a response similar to the response to the raid in Postville, when nearly 400 plant workers were arrested on trumped up identity theft charges, and slammed through criminal prosecution and judicial removal (being forced to waive all their criminal defense and immigration claims) within just days of the raid. “What happened in Postville was an absolute travesty of justice that must never happen again,” said Ms. Ice. “ICE must assure that any future enforcement actions are conducted in a humane manner and that detainees are permitted their constitutional rights to due process and to legal counsel.”

With all the signs pointing to an impending raid, Ms Ice, other staff and local leaders are working quickly to identify possible targets, educate workers and assemble a team of attorneys to offset the burden on public defenders and provide immigration advice.

X-posted widely

Hello! I've been asked to run a panel on "feminism and race" at femmeconne, a local convention for women. I've made a post with my ideas and some links about feminism, race, intersectionality etc which I thought I would post a link here since you guys
(a) might be interested and
(b) are smart and might have stuff to add :)

Keep in mind that it's written for an audience of (mostly white) australian feminists.

I'm a bit trepidatious about it really, since I haven't been to this con before, feel pretty ignorant about both feminism and race, and the last panel I did about race had mixed results (I ended up talking over my POC co-panelist, which I still feel pretty bad about. Now I don't even have a POC co-panelist, which I'm not sure is an improvement...) Still, better a dodgy panel on the subject than none I guess :/

a naive response to the idea that white (and therefore colored) is a social construct is to simply stop using that social construction. one of those simplistic ideas is to go colorblind - to not see race. sounds intuitive and simple.

it's not.

even though race is "just" a social construct, it has very deep, very far reaching, very enduring, and very real effects. these effects are the core of racial oppression and white privilege - this is what racism is in practical terms.

racism has created a situation of unequal social circumstances between whites and non-whites. if somehow the notions of white and not-white magically disappeared, those inequalities would continue to exist, and the same people who suffered under the previous unequal circumstances would still be suffering the same unequal conditions.

if you try to superficially "ignore" color (aka race), those real effects persist. in fact taking a position that "race is irrelevant now" without addressing the real current effects is a surefire way of making sure those unfair and unjust effects are never addressed.

people who insist on going "colorblind", but do not work to address and redress the social injustices of racism are perpetuating racism.

going "colorblind" is an ideal goal, and a long term goal, but the path to "colorblind" goes through fixing all the social injustices created by racism. trying to take a shortcut - trying to skip the steps of dealing with racism - trying to take a shortcut from racism to a colorfree world fails because it fixes nothing.

Regarding an LJ friend's prediction that Obama would choose Colin Powell as his running mate:

tacky_tramp: Given the statements I've heard from people who are hesitant about Obama because of his race -- and most of them are not the extreme "I hate n-words" kind of things -- there are a sizeable portion of white Americans who fear powerful black people because they believe powerful black people will punish white people and only take care of "their own." Maybe they wouldn't vote for Obama period, no matter who he chose as his running mate -- but they DEFINITELY ain't gonna vote for TWO black guys. They MIGHT vote for one black guy and one white guy, since the presence of a white guy might help them believe that Obama doesn't hate whites.

losttoy: Let us face the facts that even if he picked a white running mate, he is still African American that racists will not vote for. I doubt that over 50% of America is really that polarized. However, the fact that you even use this as a reason just proves that you yourself have a level of racism. You are using racism of others to excuse your own. Instead of saying it will never happen, the first words should be YES. Obama has been appealing to a younger generation that discrimination is less of on issue.

The point here is, it is dangerous to judge people by their skin color. Colin Powell is a hero and I would be proud to have him in office.

Whaaaaa?

Edit: Yeah, I think I got my answer:

losttoy: The thing is, YOU made race an issue in this very conversation. You felt so powerful in this belief that you had to leave a comment saying so in my journal. You calling yourself an antiracist radical is a joke. I do not hear your cry of support for breaking racial barriers. There was no knee jerk to call you a racists until you kept making race an issue.

Talking about racism's impact on politics: totes racist! *eyeroll*

Well, in as many words. "Let's put a tiny sample of mixed-race kids in a little petri dish and see what happens. Then let's write a paper and post our results to the NYTimes, a reputable source, so everyone will notice!" Sigh...
__________________________________________

By Steven D. Levitt

What’s it like to grow up with one parent who is black and another who is white?

In a recent paper I co-authored with Roland Fryer, Lisa Kahn, and Jorg Spenkuch, we look at data to try to answer that question. Here is what we find:

( Read more... )

My mind exploded when I read #3...how can any self-respecting journalist/researcher write that without mentioning exotification in the same breath?

cross-posted to anti_racism

I apologize if this is way old (dates to 1996), but I'd never heard the story in full, much less told by Johnson herself.

( cut for potential outdatedness )

"white" is a social construct. it is not an absolute category that is fundamental to the universe. whiteness is something created in the minds of humans. you are white if you are considered white by society. you are white if you receive the benefits of white privilege.

white is not a skin color. white is not about physical appearance or physical characteristics. while skin color highly correlates to whether or not you are considered white, it is not about the pigmentation in your skin. there are people of color that are paler than people who are considered white.

white is not a biological category. white is not about genetic descent. when a person of color has a child with a white person, their children may or may not be white or colored. more to the point, this same child in one culture may be considered white and in another culture considered colored.

white is not universal or even global. a person can be white in one country (like mexico or brazil), and considered colored in another (like england or the united states). within the united states, people of mediterranean descent can be white in one part of the country and considered colored.

white as a social construct, comes with perceptions about what it means to be white, how to treat white people, how white people expect to be treated, benefits and privileges given to white, who is or isn't white, where white people live, what white people are like, what white people eat, etc. white becomes the touchstone construct for what it means to be not white, how to treat not white people, how not white people expect to be treated, benefits and privileges not given to not white, who is or isn't not white, where not white people live, what not white people are like, what not white people eat, etc.

white as a socially constructed racial characteristic is culturally normative. that is to say there are cultural norms around white. these are cultural norms that whites buy into without much examination, and that not whites also buy into, but with some resistance and friction. while it is tempting to call these cultural norms "white culture", that isn't correct or useful. this collection of cultural norms is a kind of "meta culture" - a "culture" that is shared by/included in many cultures.

these cultural norms are what define white.

Because I know some of the people in this community are fans (or at least listeners) of my music, I felt like it was fair to warn you that Son of Nun's new album is awesome. Son has always been political, and is one of the few emcees I know who won't let an all-white crowd leave a show without discussing the racial makeup of the crowd and the movements he's working with. Maybe it's inappropriate to post this here, but, I hope y'all check out my man's album.

It's the fire THIS time, if you know what I'm saying.

Son of Nun's second full length album brings all the heat, lyrical prowess, and political fire you might expect from one of the underground's hardest working emcee organizers out there. With DJ Mentos on production, Son travels through contemporary politics, historical context, hip hop and media, and just straight crowd rocking. From the haunting "New Ab" (featuring yours truly) to the triumphant anthem "The Reason", the album comes correct.

http://sonofnun.net/

Son is more than an emcee, though. You can find him working with veterans, so-called immigrants, baltimore city schools, on the air with Chuck D, and on the grind. Everybody, I urge you to buy his album. Support a true emcee and scholar, and put something truly revolutionary on your playlist.

http://sonofnun.net/

Also, this sunday, catch Son at the Rotunda in Philly, rocking along-side an emcee I also give ups to, Hassan Salaam, who opened his first album with three of the hardest tracks I'd ever heard.

• just because you understand one kind of oppression doesn't mean you will automatically understand another.
  
  just because you are a woman doesn't mean you understand the experience of racism. just because you are a gay man don't think you can map your experiences onto the oppression of the disabled. just because you are woman do not think you can know the shit a lesbian has to put up with. do not generalize your experiences to the experiences of others. listen to what those other oppressed groups are saying. don't put your words in their mouths.
  
  
• do not rank oppressions.
  
  ranking oppressions is a losing game for the oppressed. standing up to all oppressions is the only way to win. sitting there saying one oppression is worse than another is only reinforcing oppression all around. help all your brothers and sisters. not just the ones like you.
  
  
• do not make a person who is part of two oppressed groups choose one oppression or the other.
  
  do not put women of color in a position of criticizing sexism by agreeing with you but giving a pass on racism by not criticizing you - don't be racist. do not justify your indifference to heteronormativity by pointing out you work against ableism. do not ignore queer issues that are important to your sister just because you're straight. consider that people do experience more than one oppression at a time. listen to what these people have to say - it can teach you a lot about the nature of oppression.
  
  
• look for how your oppressed community oppresses other groups, and try to stop it.
  
  really, what good is an anti-homophobia group that is sexist? what good is an anti-sexism group that is racist? with oppressed groups oppressing each other, is it any wonder there is so little progress from the oppressors? oppressions are interlocking and mutually reinforcing - if oppressed people cannot work together, what makes you think the oppressors will work with you? help each other.
  
  

I've just read Kim F. Hall's book, 'Things of Darkness: Economies of Race and Gender in Early Modern England' and found it incredibly interesting. For anyone interested in race and racism in a historical context, it's really worth a read, although it is a bit of work in places.

However, I'm now looking for something new to keep learning on the same subject and I wondered if anyone had any recommendations for reading material on the history of race - ideally in a medieval or early modern context, although I'd be really interested if there are any books on the notion of 'race' in the classical world too. Pre-18th century is mostly where I'm interested right now.

Oh, and I'd like to mention 'King Leopold's Ghost'. It's a history of Belgian imperialism in the Congo which I read after a recommendation on here, and it's a wonderful book. It does deal mostly with Belgian imperialism, but looks at it within the wider context of general European imperialism. I know it's been mentioned here before, but I'd like to reiterate the previous recommendations for it. Tis a very good book.

Saw This post on Feministe about Team Gina, a white queer casio-electro type duo that "has phat beats and hype rhymes for days" and thought some of you all might be interested. The video is for a song called "Butch/Femme" which I, as a fellow white, queer woman, find problematic in terms of the casual appropriation of hip hop for sexy/comedic effect.

And then there's the way it lyrically is a list of offensive butch/femme stereotypes...and yes, I get that "they're not serious! It's a joke!" but...why? It's not really funny, at least to me or any of the other queer women I've talked to about it. It's just kind of...depressing.

And then there's the fat phobic part...

And the transphobic undercurrent...

And the fact that we really, really didn't need another witless, gratuitous riff on "Baby Got Back"...

...I could go on, but I should get back to work. These are some of my reactions, but what do you guys think?

So, Papa Lazarou is a racist caricature drawing on nasty stereotypes about scary weird black people, right? Or is it some really clever satire or something that's going over my head? The wikipedia page is oddly silent on the issue and googling wasn't very helpful.

I've found "The League of Gentlemen" unwatchably annoying every time I've tried to watch it, and am really bad at picking up satire, so I thought I should get a second opinion before I accuse the character of being racist to people I know and they're all "But it's satire! And how would you know, you haven't watched the show?".

I'd be especially interested to hear from english people, not because I personally believe the "People from other countries can't judge if something is racist" argument, but to pre-empt anyone who tries it.

In response to my response to the "Appropriation?" post from a couple of days ago, constintina suggested that I make a separate post "to check in about this phenomenon and discuss how it is or is not useful in terms of this community's stated mission". Here's that separate post.

The "phenomenon":

So if I (white, yes) clicked into this wreckpost, guffawed at how it went, and then felt a twinge of an urge to immediately post a fingerpoint-&-LOL at the OP, am I (and in what proportions):

A) A white ally puppy: "Look at that white person's ass! It's showing! I'm so BETTER! Headpat? Bellyrub???!"
B) A condescending ass.

The condescending ass line is of course a fingerpoint-&-LOL at the OP.

So! Let's discuss. I'm not completely clear what constintina means about puppy-posts being potentially being "useful in terms of this community's stated mission", so maybe she can clarify. In the interim, questions:

1. Twinges like this -- how do you avoid having them? (Do you?)

2. What do you make of the white ally's potential to get stuck in an endless loop of self-congratulation?: "I have a questionable comment -- OOH, I'VE REFRAINED FROM MAKING IT! -- Crap, that's a questionable sentiment, thank God I recognised it!" etc.

3. Should we be calling people on self-congratulation and other puppinesses? I know several times I've seen comments here that made me want to smack people -- comments either fawning over POC as gurus for undiscernible reasons (at least proximately), or comments that seemed to serve little purpose toward their target but were well-placed to be seen by other, "good", members of the community for brownie points. Note: if you say "yes, we should call it", doesn't calling it also feed into the same sort of phenomenon?

4. There's a fine line, I think, between trying to educate and trying to be seen to be educating. Do you feel this line? Do you do anything about it?

All thoughts appreciated.