Some Racefail thoughts

[firecat]

If a person has multiple identities and names, and if they state that they do not want other people to publicly associate their different identities and names, it is wrong to publicly associate their different identities and names. (There might be exceptions to this if a person has committed criminal activities. But writing things that piss you off does not count as an exception.)

It is wrong to try to shut people up by threatening legal action against their blogs. If someone has done this to you, there are resources to help you.

When talking about systemic oppression of certain groups of people, the word "privilege" is used to describe the advantages a person gets if they happen to belong to a group that is "approved" by the system. The word applies to the behavior of the system as a whole. In this context, it is not synonymous with "advantage" or "influence." Therefore, in this context, there is no such thing as oppressed groups of people having "privilege...in internet debates."

50books_poc is a really cool community.

http://asim.livejournal.com/388028.html is an awesome post.

I am interested in the possibilities of the new LJ community fight_derailing.

I agree with what papersky said about trying to blend families, and I posted this comment:

Also, sometimes this happens: A person gets away from their family of origin for a while and gets a different perspective and decides that some of the things they "made allowances" for were not just rude/crude but toxic/damaging/abusive. And sometimes this person goes back and tries to talk about this to the family. And the family isn't able to entertain the different perspective, for whatever reason, and there's a great deal of hurt on both sides.

I think this is part of what's happening too. Not only in this Racefail thing, but in discussions of racism in general, and other isms.

Edited to add: jordan179 has taken strong exception to my viewpoint about the term "privilege" and my statement in the comments that privileged people have a moral obligation to non-privileged people. He has made a post in his journal inviting people to come over here and disagree with me.

I'm not interested in repeating the whole RaceFail'09 argument in my journal. I have my journal set to screen comments from people who are not on my friends list, and I will be screening comments that I don't want to deal with. If this isn't enough to prevent my becoming seriously upset, I will freeze comments on the whole entry.

This is an excellent example of how white privilege gives me advantages. I can walk away from a conversation about race that I don't want to deal with. People of color can't, because it informs their whole lives.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What happens if people from the "privileged" group just laugh in your face and see this for the polylogist nonsense that it is?

They get to live with the consequences of their actions.

Having successfully freed themselves from unearned guilt?

I can live with that.

I treat people without regard to their race. And I ask that people treat me the same way.

That is being non-racist. Granting special rights to members of an "oppressed" race on account of their group membership -- that is racist.

[firecat]

Granting special rights to members of an "oppressed" race on account of their group membership -- that is racist.

I don't think that what I'm talking about is "granting special rights."

The issue of whether it makes sense to ignore race when you are interacting with someone is exactly what a great deal of the blogosphere conversation I'm addressing has been about.

I completely disagree that ignoring race is always the right thing to do.

And I don't have the energy to try to convince you of that, but if you want to see some of the arguments on both sides, I invite you to check out the rest of the discussion (you can find links to relevant posts mentioned elsewhere in these comments).

[jinian.livejournal.com]

If we lived in a society that wasn't riddled with institutional and individual racism, I would likely agree with you. The reality where I am, though, is that we need to actively work to level the playing field. For examples and arguments, you could do worse than checking out IBARW's Delicious links for "racism 101" (http://delicious.com/ibarw/racism.101).

[firecat]

Thanks for posting that link.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

It is up to each individual to actively level his or her OWN "playing field." I am not going to discriminate against, or give anyone else a free pass for discriminating against, white people in order to "make up for" past discrimination against non-white people. I shall clearly see such behavior as racism, and condemn it, just as I would if it were discrimination against nonwhites. Even if it goes by a nice name, like "affirmative action."

Racism is racism, regardless of whose ox is being gored.

[leback.livejournal.com]

I treat people without regard to their race. And I ask that people treat me the same way.

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I haven't found it to be that simple. Maybe it depends on what "without regard to their race" means. Does it mean not making any specific assumptions about how their race has affected who they are or what they've experienced or what they think? Because that seems entirely reasonable to me. I do think that there are macro-level patterns in US society that make people of certain races more likely to have certain types of experiences, but I don't think it's safe to assume that those have affected everyone of any given race in identical ways, much less that they've led all people of any race to see the world in exactly the same way.

But the other thing I've seen similar language used to mean is, "Make the assumption that their race *hasn't* affected who they are or what they've experienced or what they think." This, I think, is implausible. I can point to all sorts of instances in my own life -- some small, some large -- where things have gone certain ways for *because I am white*. It's rarely whiteness alone that does it -- sometimes it's whiteness in combination with being female, and having a certain kind of family background, and living in a particular region -- but in a lot of cases, whiteness has been an important element in the mix. My experience has been that it's often (not always) gotten me treated better -- sometimes only as well as I deserved, while other people got less than they deserved; sometimes I've gotten breaks that I probably didn't deserve.

And I try not to be out there soliciting unfair advantages, because yeah, that's about the worst kind of racism right there.

But, one of the unfair advantages that I get in a lot of spaces is that people listen more closely to me and take me more seriously just because I match some stereotype they have of what a sensible knowledgeable person is supposed to look like. And one of the ways I try to avoid soliciting that advantage is to try to avoid assuming that everybody's listening to me and not the other guy just because I'm the one who's more persuasive. Sometimes that is why, but way too often, it's because the other guy doesn't match up to their stereotypes as well -- and one of the reasons for that can be that he's not white.

So in a space full of a bunch of people who I don't know well, I assume (because it's been my experience with people in general, and because I've read a lot of psychology studies that says it's incredibly common in the general population, even among people with the best of intentions) that a lot of them -- and I don't necessarily know which ones -- are stereotyping people in unfair ways, and that there are probably people in the room who aren't getting a fair hearing because of it. And when I'm thinking about that, I do more shutting up and making sure other people get a good chance to make their cases -- especially other people who have common stereotypes (like racial stereotypes, or stereotypes about money or education or regional background or language skills or culture or whatever) working against them.

It'd be nicer to just not take any notice of those kinds of traits at all, and assume no one else would either, and assume that if people were listening to me, it was just because I was the one most worth listening to. But those don't feel like safe assumptions to me. They're safer, for sure, than they would have been in the 1920s in Mississippi, or than they still would be in a lot of parts of the world, but they're still not all that safe.

So yeah (and I'm sorry this is so long-winded), I try not to assume anything about any specific person's experiences or traits or beliefs on the basis of their race, but I do assume that there's potentially a lot of white-supremacist racism still around me, and that I ought to be cautious not to take too much advantage of it. Which is maybe itself racist in your book, I don't know, but it seems better to me than the alternative.