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

[irked-indeed.livejournal.com]

Some people in the West don't believe in the "inherent superiority" part any more, at least not consciously/intellectually. (Most if not all of us still have some less conscious and/or emotional prejudice and racism.) But it's hard to dismantle the system that has been built up around these beliefs, especially because the people in power tend not to see a benefit in dismantling it. The result of the system is that people of color have more difficulties to deal with.

But in that case- if Bob, let's say, is a jerk to black people just because he enjoys the privileged position you feel he has relative to them, and not from any conviction that they're inferior- he's not being racist?

It seems like your definition misses a notion of action in racism- which, I just called you up on the spot, so easy for me to be critical, right? It'd leave the man who treats everyone equally, yet privately thinks little of Racial Group X, as a racist- while the lady who actively behaves differently (say, kicks members of Group Y only) isn't, as long as she doesn't think them inferior.

I'm just making these things up, so they're probably not the best analogies. But here's where I'm going with this: it seems to me that weighing attitude against action is problematic for your position either way you go.

On the one side, if my actions are irrelevant to my racism*, then I'm under no unusual or extraordinary obligations toward any particular racial groups- because what I do to them doesn't matter (on an axis of "How racist am I?"). Indeed, if I can "avoid the concept that people belong to racial groups," I automatically pass your test and am non-racist; surely this is possible, as I frequently manage to avoid other such concepts- such as that people belong to eye-color groups. Barring that, I need only judge none of the groups as "inherently superior."

On the other, if my actions are entirely relevant, then I CANNOT practice special consideration towards certain racial groups- because such behavior would itself be racist.

2) If I can be a little pedantic: "should" treat each other with respect, or are "morally obligated" to?


*- "My" here is not an attempt by the author to associate himself with racism.

[firecat]

if Bob, let's say, is a jerk to black people just because he enjoys the privileged position you feel he has relative to them, and not from any conviction that they're inferior- he's not being racist?

His actions are racist because they contribute to the system of racism. In my view the system is what's really important. Individual behavior is important insofar as it contributes to the system. Motives and beliefs are important insofar as the system inculcates racist beliefs and that's part of why it's difficult to dismantle the system.

It seems like your definition misses a notion of action in racism

You're right. Do you wish to submit a better definition?

if I can "avoid the concept that people belong to racial groups,"

Only you can't avoid it. Because the concept exists in the culture you're part of. Even if you personally don't have any knowledge of that concept (which is extremely improbable unless you're an infant), your actions take place in the context of your culture and are interpreted by other people in that context.

if my actions are entirely relevant, then I CANNOT practice special consideration towards certain racial groups- because such behavior would itself be racist.

The problem here is the term "special consideration." What does this mean?

Let's say that we agree everyone should treat everyone else with respect. Then we need to define what it means to treat someone with respect. Does doing this mean making some effort to understand their circumstances? I say yes.

My attempts to do this have led me to believe there is a system called racism and it affects people's circumstances. And if I try to keep in mind a person's circumstances when I act, then I need to take this into account. On one level this will look like I am treating some people with "special" consideration. On another level I am striving not to. Or rather, perhaps, I am striving to do so in every case.

2) "Should." Which is inconsistent, yes.