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

[snippy]

Good post, and thanks for the illuminating links.

[ljgeoff.livejournal.com]

Every time I read a post about RaceFail, my heart sinks. I've always had the idea that sf readers were the best that humanity has. Really. That's what I've thought. (Because, hey, that's me, eh?) I think, too, that if I said something stupid, it'd be ... hrm, seen as a small thing said by a small person. But when someone with a readership says something stupid, it's all over the 'net. Makes me feel all cringy.

[elainegrey.livejournal.com]

Yes, thanks for the links, and the stand-up clarity in your statements.

[zpdiduda.livejournal.com]

I'm confused, and feeling overly naive. What exactly is RaceFail? [I followed some of the links in your post and found reference to a community designed to "fight the derailing of anti-racism conversations". Parsing out this passage would have required far more coffee than I have access to this morning.]

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

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."

So the accusation of "privilege" can never be made against people who belong to an officially "oppressed" group? And those with "privilege" are bound to treat those without "privilege" more politely than those without "privilege" are bound to treat those without "privilege?"

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

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Out of perverse curiosity, I wandered over to the link your edit. I had a wager with myself as to what I would find there and I won the wager. Defensiveness and anger in spades.

I was amused by the people who assumed you, firecat, to be male.

[whumpdotcom.livejournal.com]

I forget where on my friends list I saw this, but this vblog on calling people on racist statements (http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html) is relevant to people who take offense to getting called on privilege.

[stonebender.livejournal.com]

Thank you and thanks for the pointers.

[starblade-enkai.livejournal.com]

Actually anybody can walk away from a conversation with which they do not want to deal. It's called free will.

I don't know exactly what 'informs their whole lives' means, but if you think white people aren't affected negatively by race relation failures but people of other colors are, that is by definition prejudice on your behalf.

Fighting racial hatred fire with racial hatred fire is not a productive way to heal race relations in this country.

[zdashamber.livejournal.com]

That link to asim was great. Everyone should read that. Thanks!

[pandarus.livejournal.com]

Okay, we don't know each other but I found this via rydra-wong's links, I think. And then went to read jordan179's post, and its comments.

Jesus. I wish I could say I found it funny (I did boggle at the assumption that you were a guy - I'm pretty much assuming everyone I encounter in fannish circles on LJ is female, and your profile certainly suggests as much) but, overall - man, that was depressing and disheartening. So many people commenting there, so very cluelessly. And I can't even be mad with them about it, I'm just FRUSTRATED TO DEATH by the smugness and sense of cheerful, guilt-free entitlement, nd the straw-man arguments.

It is my sincere hope that at least some of them will, over time, be cluesticked into recognising that acknowledging white privilege, and trying to make that awareness inform your thinking and your actions, does not mean grovelling and abasing yourself and failing to engage in intelligent discourse. Somebody - I forget who, just now - posted recently that the language that EBear used pinged her particularly that this was being conceptualised as a game, with winners and losers, and that's the self same paradigm that I was seeing all over that comment thread. This idea that one can play the race card and trump the opposition.

And, fuck, that's just DEPRESSING.

You do not lose anything by recognising and acknoweledging that you benefit from (white/male/heterosexual/cisgender/whatever) privilege. You GAIN something - you gain self-knowledge, you gain perspective, you gain understanding. You get the chance to grow, and to see the world as a more layered and complex system.

[asim.livejournal.com]

...well, I was wondering where all the new readers where coming from... :)

No, seriously, thank you. All I did, was point out what MLK said about a similar situation all those years ago, and bring it up to today.

I just thought we needed some more historical perspective.