I started out intending to do a short piece on this ridiculous incident in Louisiana about college students who thought it was knee-slapping funny to roll in the mud and play blackface on video depicting the Jena 6.
As I typed this out (again another wee hours of the AM post), it occurred to me the there are some interesting parallels that can be drawn about our difficulties discussing race and in the case of ENDA, transgender issues. Read on and see if you can make the connection.
White Louisiana students re-enact ‘Jena 6′ in blackface
From The Smoking Gun. The fact that these people thought it was hysterically funny to do this is all the evidence one needs to confirm that an honest discussion about the third rail topic of race is sorely needed.
The images were taken down, but not before other students snared the video. In subsequent Facebook postings, Smith said:A group of white Louisiana college students dressed in blackface and reenacted the “Jena 6″ assault while a friend snapped photos and videotaped the staged attack, images that were later posted to a participant's Facebook page. The photos, which you'll find on the following pages, were taken late last month on the bank of the Red River, where students from the University of Louisiana at Monroe giddily acted out the racial attack. The photos (and the short video clip at right) were posted to the Facebook page of Kristy Smith, a freshman nursing student. The album of images was entitled “The Jena 6 on the River.” In the video, three students with mud smeared across their bodies stomp on a fourth student, while two of the participants are heard to say, “Jena 6.” One man can also be heard saying, “Niggers put the noose on.”
“We were just playin n the mud and it got out of hand. I promise i’m not racist. i have just as many black friends as i do white. And i love them to death,” she wrote. She added in a later message that her friends “were drinking” and things “got a lil out of hand.”The Smoking Gun also points to similar racially charged images placed on Facebook by college students in Texas, Connecticut, and South Carolina.
***
The bottom line is that the first order of business was for Smith to declare she’s not racist. That label is clearly radioactive to most people, so much so that they can simply cannot own the fact that they engaged in racist behavior. In their minds they rationalize away such incidents because a real racist burns a cross on someone’s lawn, or ties a black man to the back of a truck and drags him until his limbs fall off.
The matter isn’t helped when professional self-appointed Leaders of the Black CommunityTM (Jesse Jackson comes to mind first) tosses out the “racist” card way too often, explicitly because they know the label is radioactive.
Generally speaking, we can’t get very far if people cannot even admit that racism is still part of our culture, and that one can engage in negative race-based thinking or behavior without putting a Klan hood on. Look at Michael Richards. One of the striking things about his unhinged apology on Letterman last year, after appearing onstate at a comedy club and going on an unhinged rant because of black heckler in the audience was that he felt compelled to say he wasn’t racist.
“I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this,” Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.How is this not racist:
“Shut up! Fifty years ago we’d have you upside down with a f—— fork up your a–…Throw his ass out. He’s a nigger! He’s a nigger! He’s a nigger! A nigger, look, there’s a nigger!”Those comments obviously indicate that Richards either must have been possessed by a racist demon or he was just “playing one” onstage that night, right?
The real problem is that Richards was more concerned about being labeled racist because contemporary society has deemed that label the sign of a fringe element, a social pariah.
Had he been more self-reflective he might have something more sane, such as “I realize that I am a product of a culture steeped in a toxic history regarding race, and my outburst — and the response to it — is a teachable moment. It’s important to think about how we feel about race and how our internal views about race play out in our daily lives. I intend to do so, because there was no excuse for what I said on stage.”
Instead, his advisers felt it was necessary for him to ring up Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to beg for mercy. That isn’t productive.
***
This whole mess about ENDA, particularly the dialogue that has resulted in perceived anti-trans opinion to bubble up to the surface is quite similar to discussing race.
It appears some people are reluctant to publicly broach the subject of transfolk in LGBT movement and the effect on or strategy of the passage of anti-discrimination legislation lest they be labeled with the equally radioactive word “bigot.” Nothing shuts down the conversation or draws a line in the sand faster.
If people want to make the case that Ts shouldn’t be attached to LGB, then that’s a discussion that reveals a serious difference in opinion and philosophy about the definition of our movement. It needs to be aired out honestly and openly. It’s relevant to know how many hold this view and why. It’s the first step toward admitting a problem we all must face to move forward.
It’s one matter to make a case that the trans protections should be dropped from ENDA as a matter of strategy and pragmatism, it’s a completely different matter to hold the view that Ts aren’t really part of the movement at all and use the former as PC cover for belief in the latter.
Is this view due to lack of direct engagement with transfolk on the issue, a lack of education on the history of the movement, or is it because of some other factor that is worthy of open discussion that may inform those on the other side of the issue that may shed new light on the topic?
It really is identical to the problem our country has with race — we’ll never know if people aren’t willing to express their fears without getting their heads bitten off. By the same token, no rational discussion about sensitive topics can take place if that expression is not really about engaging tactfully or diplomatically, but unloading frustrations in a way that is hurtful and shuts down conversation. That’s what happens when people leave these discussions buried — they come out in all the wrong ways, resulting flashpoints at the completely wrong time.
I don’t have a solution, of course, it’s a matter of observing human nature and how difficult we often make things for one another when we talk all around the real problem — the lack of ability to communicate effectively.
43 Responses to “The difficult discussions people don’t want to have”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’ve seen little evidence that “dropping the T” would ensure passage of reform of any kind. So if it ain’t about strategy and tactics, then what is “dropping the T” really about?
The folks on the Hill aren’t comfortable protecting non gender-conforming individuals, and so Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are pushing to pass something as a symbolic measure (without Ts). There’s the problem.
Duly noted. Does the symbolic measure have any chance of passing?
I am just absolutely stunned and mind boggled at the idea that someone could engage in blackface and then make the statement “I promise I’m not racist.” If that doesn’t qualify as racist, anymore, what the fuck does?
I have to say that I’m not certain that doing away with labeling things that are racist as racist is the way to go. I would personally prefer to re-educate the public about what racism is and why certain actions are racist. It’s pitiful that we need to do that, but the need is still there. I do think that it’s a very interesting discussion, though, and definitely one that we need to have.
While my preference would be for all LGBTs to have equality with heterosexuals, I’d be fine with dropping any one, two, or even three of the four letters, since even just LG would be an improvement on the status quo. Anything to get the ball rolling.
I can’t disagree more, MH. First, the effectiveness of the measure as a symbol is severely compromised because, even if it supports rights for some letters, that is paired with the symbol that supporting the other letters is too costly to be pursued. It can’t pass without recognition that the support came only at the price of leaving others behind. That rejection of solidarity is the antithesis of nondiscrimination laws to begin with, to say nothing of the fact that “It’s not popular enough” is the same reason Democrats offer for not supporting same sex marriage. That’s no improvement; that’s conceding the fight altogether.
Cara - most white folk are simply not aware of the racist implications of blackface, or if the are, distinguish the elaborate makeup of AL Jolson in the Jazz Singer from simple improvised skin darkening in order to represent a black person. If I (a white person) wanted for some reason to impersonate a black person there’s little I could do as far as makeup that didn’t involve darkening my skin.
I think it’s worth distinguishing ignorance and insensitivity, even insensitivity that’s grounded in subconscious bias, from conscious hostility or a belief in the inferiority of the other. From the point of view of the recipient the effect of a given action may be identical, but the motivation does matter when assigning culpability, and even more so when trying to get the offender to change behavior.
Racism is something that really bothers me, but I feel like I’m almost coming across as insincere when I talk about my feelings because I’m white. I’m uncomfortable with my words and how people might take what I write because I don’t want to attribute feelings and opinions to others that may not be accurate. What the hell do I know about how it feels to be a victim of race discrimination? What would give me the right to talk about it when I might just be putting words into people’s mouths?
It’s like…yeah it’s wrong and horrible and I can say that to whoever will listen and try to empathize, but I feel like I’m not “authorized” to make a deeper examination than that because I haven’t lived it and suffered it. I guess my mindset is something along the lines of “well, I want to do more to help, but what can I do aside from listen supportively”?
Did that make any sense at all?
Plus, when I wrestle with the feelings I mentioned above I feel like I’m trying to make it about me when it isn’t, so much.
This much be how feminist men feel!
Well, crap. Of course we’re racist. We all live in a racist society and have incorporated that conditioning into our psyches. Question is, what do you do with those stereotypes and conscious or unconscious categorizations? The idea is to grow out of the bullshit, to recognize it in yourself and deal with it, not to sweep it under the rug.
I must have hung out with the wrong bunch of T folk, because in a lot of ways I’d see straitlaced society readier to accept (at least some subset of, if not all) transgendered people long before they accept the GLB crowd.
As far as ENDA goes, I’ll just provide a couple links. One, a study commissioned by the HRC suggests that most Americans support laws to protect trans people from discrimination. Even if you believe that study, done by a third-party agency, is massively flawed or biased to the order of 10% or more, it’s still most Americans. What’s the excuse in Congress? The radical right will bite them like an angry dog if they try to do what most Americans want?
Second, it’s clear to many who have been working on these issues for a long time that cutting trans people out isn’t JUST leaving some people unprotected — it actually opens a huge loophole that leaves all gay & lesbian people unprotected, and any number of straight people too. The head of the biggest LGBT legal defense fund explains the situation under the gutted ENDA pretty simply: “You can’t be fired for being lesbian, gay or bisexual but you can be fired if your boss thinks you fit their stereotype of one.”
There have always been people in the broader LGBTQ population who have a problem with trans people, who have a problem with anyone who’s “making us look bad” because their gender expression is somehow different. But there are also plenty of people — and many of them have been making their voices heard lately — who see this insecurity for what it is, a flaw that exposes everyone in the community to attack from fundamentalist homophobes and others who oppose gay rights. That’s why the outcry has been so huge.
Although I find discussions of “who really should be grouped together… is T different from LGB” kind of interesting, I have to say they don’t have much to do with the language of ENDA or what kind of legal protections are at stake. The crux is whether you’re OK being discriminated against on the grounds of gender identity and expression, and whether you’re OK being discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. The popular translation has equated the former with “protecting trans people” and the latter with “protecting gay people” but it really is not that simple.
As far as ENDA goes, I’ll just provide a couple links. One, a study commissioned by the HRC suggests that most Americans support laws to protect trans people from discrimination. Even if you believe that study, done by a third-party agency, is massively flawed or biased to the order of 10% or more, it’s still most Americans. What’s the excuse in Congress? The radical right will bite them like an angry dog if they try to do what most Americans want?
Second, it’s clear to many who have been working on these issues for a long time that cutting trans people out isn’t JUST leaving some people unprotected — it actually opens a huge loophole that leaves all gay & lesbian people unprotected, and any number of straight people too. The head of the biggest LGBT legal defense fund explains the situation under the gutted ENDA pretty simply: “You can’t be fired for being lesbian, gay or bisexual but you can be fired if your boss thinks you fit their stereotype of one.”
There have always been people in the broader LGBTQ population who have a problem with trans people, who have a problem with anyone who’s “making us look bad” because their gender expression is somehow different. But there are also plenty of people — and many of them have been making their voices heard lately — who see this insecurity for what it is, a flaw that exposes everyone in the community to attack from fundamentalist homophobes and others who oppose gay rights. That’s why the outcry has been so huge.
Although I find discussions of “who really should be grouped together… is T different from LGB” kind of interesting, I have to say they don’t have much to do with the language of ENDA or what kind of legal protections are at stake. The crux is whether you’re OK being discriminated against on the grounds of gender identity and expression, and whether you’re OK being discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. The popular translation has equated the former with “protecting trans people” and the latter with “protecting gay people” but it really is not that simple.
Oh…and apply all of the above to sexual orientation discrimination, too. For me, anyway. It’s pretty much the same deal there.
As usual, we’ve just got to drop the labels that are, like you said, radioactive. It’s like “communist” in the 50’s or something. “Wha? No, not me, I’m not that type of person. I’m on the socially-acceptable side”
The identity of being labeled a racist isn’t in vogue anymore, but it’s not because people in Louisiana really care why smart/most people hate racism, they just know that they do hate them, and that’s enough.
They’re not abhorred by racism, just by being branded with the label of “racist.”
When someone says something racist, we should ask them why they believe said things to be true, and really make a deep humiliation out of it, instead of yelling “Racist!” and shutting them up for another hour or so and not changing anyone’s mind.
I agree — I think we need to be able to make distinctions between hard-core, dangerous racists who are actively doing harm to people* and ignorant dumbasses who don’t stop to think before they say/do something. God knows I’ve said some incredibly ignorant things that made people stop and gape at me in disbelief because I didn’t think them through.
What worked, though, was not denouncing me as a racist, but telling me, “That was a really ignorant thing to say. Why would you even say that?” which was embarrassing enough that it made me pause and consider the thought process that had brought me to that point.
Even well-meaning people do and say stupid or ignorant things, and there’s got to be some middle point between “it’s fine” and “it’s horrible and racist.”
* Let me say, I don’t think that the only hard-core dangerous racists are actual neo-Nazis. There are a lot wearing badges and wearing judicial robes. But it’s the difference between someone who believes a stereotype and acts on it and someone who says a stupid thing that they get called on.
When someone says something racist, we should ask them why they believe said things to be true, and really make a deep humiliation out of it, instead of yelling “Racist!” and shutting them up for another hour or so and not changing anyone’s mind.
It’s a case-by-case sort of thing, which is the most effective way to change minds on this sort of issue. I have serious doubts that you’ll change the minds of people like the kid from Alexandria who was driving around the Jena protesters as they were leaving while dragging two nooses behind his truck, but what you can do, with a soft word or two, is point out to casual racists the implications of their statements, and if they’re the reflective type, they may change their attitudes.
But we can’t be afraid to point out big racism where it exists, and confront it on the big stage. That’s why I had no problem excoriating Don Imus. You can’t use soft words when the person you’re confronting has a megaphone.
Holly:
Whether or not the Democratic leadership will admit it, yes, that’s the excuse.
The problem, of course, is that the radical right currently runs this country, and they couldn’t possibly care less about what most Americans want.
But we can’t be afraid to point out big racism where it exists, and confront it on the big stage. That’s why I had no problem excoriating Don Imus. You can’t use soft words when the person you’re confronting has a megaphone.
Oh, yeah. It’s the difference between pointing out to your dad that he said a stupid thing and pointing out that Rush Limbaugh is spouting that same shit to his audience of millions. Though, unfortunately, Rush and Imus and his ilk just shrug off the label because, after all, they’re not running around lynching people — they’re just sayin’.
Mnemosyne —
Rush and Imus and his ilk shrug off the label because they have money and power, and they got it by pandering to people who would be glad to lynch folks if they could.
On the small-scale level, in addition to “that was a really ignorant thing to say” there’s also “Have you stopped to think about what you said might actually mean?” There are plenty of people who simply use the language and the frames around them without thinking about the stereotypes they embody.
Remember when Spike Lee made that movie about blackface? (Bamboozled). Culturally, I think that movie has been purposefully forgotten, because Spike Lee is CLEARLY not racist in the usual sense, but he used blackface as a major focus of a movie. I think that just caused a lot of people to experience cognitive dissonance….(so did that time Whoopi Goldberg wore blackface, with her then-boyfriend Ted Danson)
I was really excited about that movie, because I was hoping that blackface would “catch on” as a fashion, in a way that would call attention to how ridiculous it is to discriminate on the basis of skin color, while simultaneously being a show of solidarity (like those kids at the high school in New York, who are wearing maxipads and tampons on their clothes, to show solidarity with the menstruating girls.) If EVERYONE is in Blackface, it’s kind of like, “I am Spartacus!” (Well, it COULD be, in my idealistic fantasy America!)
So, in short, I am a total idiot!
But the very fact that I could think that such a thing is even possible (that kind of solidarity) or desireable (given blackface’s history) is a pretty good example that MOST white people have no clue what they are invoking when they put it on, or even when they roll around in the mud and laugh at each other.
What I find disturbing about these kids horsing around in the mud, is that they start “playing” the Jena Six. Now maybe, maybe they are trying to process the incident, like little kids playing…..(it’s a stretch, I know!), but MY feeling is that taking such a tragic case and making sport of it, shows a negative racial prejudice, in the “their tragedy is our hilarity” sort of way.
The more I think about it, though, they are just kids (at least compared to ME!) and maybe that was a kind of play/processing.
But then posting it on Facebook? Nah. I think you would only post it if you were somehow PROUD of what you were doing.
Back in the 80’s and 90’s, I remember the strong push here in Canada to embrace multiculturalism. While it succeded in making racism a social taboo, it failed to discuss the structural issues of racism and how it becomes ingrained in the culture.
Since then, the anti-”Political Correctness” backlash has helped to keep racism alive and well in the entertainment industry, while dumbing down the racist labels to include only violent racists like the KKK or Nazis. In the meanwhile the term “Racism” has been thrown at everything and anything by the right, (OMG, affirmative action is TEH RACISM!! WORSE THAN HITLER!!!1!) while decrying any calls of racism on the right as “Playing the race card”.
The ultimate result is that it’s helped to make anything short of violent racism an acceptable viewpoint in the media, while bringing genuinely racist rhetoric back into the discussion. After all, if affirmative action is racist, and the SPLC is racist, then the claims of standing up for the white race become a logical defense against that sort of “racism”.
Now, I’ll admit that as a white male, I’m not the most sensitive person in the world to racist dogwhistles. But Even in the past 7 years, in the time I started becoming politically active, the level of overt racism in the United States has increased dramatically. The only thing that’s changed is that now people know that it’s not right to be racist. But if racism is something only bad people do, then a person who sees themselves as “good” will refuse to apply that label to their actions, regardless of how racist they are.
“Remember when Spike Lee made that movie about blackface? (Bamboozled). Culturally, I think that movie has been purposefully forgotten, because Spike Lee is CLEARLY not racist in the usual sense, but he used blackface as a major focus of a movie. I think that just caused a lot of people to experience cognitive dissonance….(so did that time Whoopi Goldberg wore blackface, with her then-boyfriend Ted Danson)
I was really excited about that movie, because I was hoping that blackface would “catch on” as a fashion, in a way that would call attention to how ridiculous it is to discriminate on the basis of skin color, while simultaneously being a show of solidarity (like those kids at the high school in New York, who are wearing maxipads and tampons on their clothes, to show solidarity with the menstruating girls.) If EVERYONE is in Blackface, it’s kind of like, “I am Spartacus!” (Well, it COULD be, in my idealistic fantasy America!)”
There´s a difference between using something and engaging in a fictional meditation on its use. If a filmmaker made a movie about what happens after some kids in a Southern high school show up one morning to find nooses hanging from a tree, that wouldn´t be the same as using lynching humor. And if a writer wrote a book whose protagonist tried to reclaim anti-gay slurs, it´d be a different exercise than him walking around calling people fags.
I think that one of the messages Lee meant to communicate was that it´s nearly impossible to make such a gesture of solidarity over such a wide gulf of meaning and experience. Like certain commenters have said: there are plenty of white people in this country who haven´t even been in a position to learn about blackface. A white person in blackface will always–or at least for many years to come–be referencing that Al Jolson tradition, just as white men who hang nooses on trees will be linked to even more reprehensible acts of racism. Blackface doesn´t mean solidarity, unfortunately; it means vitriolic hatred, dehumanization, and invisibility. Denying that history or its easy availability to the generations of people who remember it from the brutalized side is not a way to end racism.
You know, it’s interesting you say this, LWF, because I was thinking about this just this morning. I had a doctor’s appointment and instead of taking the bus, I drove - which I do maybe once a month, if that - and I was listening to the radio. Some stupid morning show was on and they were doing this segment called “Know your black people” - the link has a very good summary but basically they were giving white callers a multiple choice quiz about what would a black person do in a certain situation, and the “right” answer was always something incredibly insulting and racist. I started listening in the middle of this and after five minutes or so changed the station because I found it so incredibly offensive. I was absolutely stunned by it.
So much so that I intended to call the radio station and speak to the management. I mean, I couldn’t figure out if that has gotten to be standard for radio now - do I not remember that sort of thing happening 10 years ago because it didn’t, or just because I never noticed?
Well, then I looked up the radio station and the morning show in question online and I am flummoxed to discover that the host of that morning show - and the rest of his crew, it looks like - are all black, except for one woman whose ethnicity is not clear from her photo.
So like. As a white person I would feel awfully weird calling up a radio station to complain that a black guy said racist stuff about black people. Maybe the joke is on me for assuming they were all white. I don’t know.
Yes! I know people want to think of themselves as not racist, not sexist, not bigoted against anyone, but we are products of a culture that is permeated with such social defects, such prejudices and power dynamics. Members of any privileged class can and do internalize oppression against any oppressed class. Members of any oppressed class can and do internalize oppression against their own class. Our flaws need to be confronted and actively rooted out, through introspection and self-education, primarily, but also through more sensitive people slapping some perspective into actions or words that are insensitive.
These kids with their “mudface” may not know that they were evoking a history as horrible as the blackface era of early mass media, but they certainly realized with a quickness that they did something wrong.
Why any of them would preface a comment with “I’m not a racist” illustrates their ignorance further, but it’s worth the follow-up questions. What constitutes being a racist? How racist do actions have to be before a person needs to fess up to being influenced by racism? Does a person have to be all racist in all ways to be considered “a racist,” or is the occasional unacceptable act of racism enough? Why not — and why should a person in a privileged position with respect to race get to make these judgments (is that not in itself racist?)? Sometimes instead of pronouncing judgment, it can be as effective to get someone else to draw the same conclusions. At least, that’s what got me to get past my own hang-ups and understand that being white in this culture and not being racist is a constant effort, not something that can be easily claimed in any permanent kind of way, and not something that will always be successful, ashamed as I am to say it.
I’d have to say, Mnemosyne, that your reaction seems to be rare. I’ve been involved three major explosions around the topic of race in fandom in the past year, and in each case, it went something like this:
White Fans: *post a fic challenge on the topic of ‘miscegenation’*
Fan of Color: Um…you know, that’s kind of a loaded term, because it’s historically been used as a racist attack. Maybe you might want to change that?
White Fans: OMG HOW DARE YOU CALL US RACIST!!!!
We seem to have reached the point in the discussion of race that if people of color have the nerve to point out offensive language or actions, we’re being mean and hurtful for even implying that a white person might be subconciously influenced by the racism that pervades our society.
I am just absolutely stunned and mind boggled at the idea that someone could engage in blackface and then make the statement “I promise I’m not racist.” If that doesn’t qualify as racist, anymore, what the fuck does?
Folks generally don’t want to use the word “racist” until there’s malicious, intentional harm towards folks specifically because they are (e.g.) black. So, because they weren’t maliciously trying to hurt a person *because that person was black*, it can’t be racism.
Folks should view racism as being like drunk driving. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t actually hit anyone while driving drunk; what matters is you took an unacceptable risk. And it’s not enough to not want to drive drunk; you need to make sure you’re sober before you get behind the wheel.
Of course, it’s a bad analogy in one sense. Most folks end up perpetually “drunk” on racism, and sobering up is hard as hell. It’s like “racism alcohol” is in everything, so you have to start being awfully damn careful about what you drink, and even then, you might find that someone’s spiked your fruit juice.
And the worst part is, almost everyone in this society is an racism-alcoholic, and you know how still-drinking alcoholics hate it when someone starts preaching the wonders of drying up. After all, they don’t have a problem, they could stop any time they wanted to, but hell, they’re not hurting anyone, are they?
I’d have to say, Mnemosyne, that your reaction seems to be rare. I’ve been involved three major explosions around the topic of race in fandom in the past year, and in each case, it went something like this.
It happened IRL, not online, so the shocked/hurt/disappointed facial expression of the person who asked me that was much more powerful than the actual words.
Online, it’s much tougher. I’ve ended up in the middle of storms where I didn’t realize how what I was saying was coming across until about 70 comments in. But it’s so easy to entrench yourself online and walk away that it’s a whole different dynamic.
OT - Pandagon, you are on the front page at DailyKos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/4/173621/741 (just in case it’s moved away from the top story)
I have lived my adult life (cruising through year 57 with three touchstones a a foundation)
Dignity
Rhythm
Imagination
I let others deal with labels. This Saturday I will be with Colorado AIM when Transform Columbus Day will end forever this mockery in the place it all started 100 years ago. I will carry a sign that has become my personal mantra. One Sky…One People…Many Tribes
Until we as a species accept we are the same species with purposeful variation we will continue the lie that we are less or more than others…
Something that resonates with all my touchstones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTlzamUlQkg
“You can blow out a candle
but you you can’t blow out a fire.
Once the flames begin to catch,
the wind will blow it higher”
MYANMAR MYANMAR MYANMAR
Yes! And it’s not limited to “this sort of issue,” or even merely social issues.
Sam Harris gave an incredible speech at this year’s Atheist Alliance conference about how “atheism” is too blunt a response to the vivid spectrum of lies. It’s the same with anything else.
My teacher for “Issues of the Non-West World” just gave examples of people using tiny “everyday defiance” instead of giant organized revolutions to defeat illegitimate rulers. It’s why the US isn’t going to win in Iraq, and it’s why dictators always fall: the people’s hearts aren’t in it. And if they did buy the routine at some point, they grow to oppose it, and dismantle it - not all at once but brick by brick.
You don’t label yourself in-opposition-to-this-particular-problem. You deal with each individual issue exclusively at the point of conflict, each time, until the umbrella concept is beaten into submission.
It’s not a “give this up” type of deal. Keep the big picture in mind! It’s a version of the Overton Window: today we ask for LGBT equality, settle for L. Tomorrow ask for GBT, settle for G. Eventually it seems weird not to have B and T as well, so they comes along, and you’ve got the full set (the specific order is not really as important as getting all of them in eventually).
It really is terrible that equality isn’t going to come in with a whoosh all at once, and that some types of people are going to have a harder, longer road towards equality than others. But I think as long as we remember that the job is not yet complete; as long as we don’t rest on our laurels; and as long as we remind our friends and allies who didn’t haven’t yet made it to the equality table that they are not forgotten and that we will continue to fight for them, that their time will indeed come, then winning the culture war one battle at a time is an acceptable strategy.
This post touches on a lot of dysfunctional aspects of our society. These days, it’s OK to be a bigot, but not OK to say that you are. It also isn’t OK to state the fact that someone else is a bigot. It’s typical of how denial, dishonesty, and social posturing replace truth.
I would disagree with your analysis of ENDA. Pelosi has been a heterosexist at least as far back as when she gay baited her way into Congress. She knows that Bush will veto any version of ENDA. Her goal in engineering excluding trans people from the ENDA bill they actually want to pass is to divide the queer community and keep us down. Watch how little support we’ll get from Pelosi for any version of ENDA if there is a Democrat in the White House. If Pelosi has the power to block impeachment hearings, she certainly has far more than enough power to pass a trans inclusive ENDA.
Barney Frank’s role in all of this is depressingly familiar. When Bill Clinton needed a queer politician to give him political cover while he pushed through a more draconian version of the military ban than the one that existed when he took office. Barney Frank jumped at the chance to spin for Clinton and was rewarded with promotion in the House Democratic leadership for his efforts.
Frank is doing Pelosi’s dirty work now just as he did Clinton’s dirty work in the past. We need to learn that we cannot trust him to lead on our issues in the House.
There is a common element to racism in America and trans exclusion from ENDA that jumped out to me when I read the first bit of your post: scapegoating.
People of color are scapegoated for an economic system that keeps extracting more for the wealthy and taking more from the middle class and the poor. Trans people are being scapegoated by Frank for the Democratic leadership’s lack of interest in queer issues, and by gay conservatives for GOP homophobia.
y’kno, similar to the walmart stalking tshirt, i am almost inclined to go “well, at least this makes it easier to spot the assholes” becos ill be god-goddamned if i kno any way to fix this save starting my own left wing radical answer to the quiverful movement and doing my damndest to populate the earth with people who arent ignorant hateful bastards. but too, its the subtle little everyday stuff that drives me nuts, the things other white people dont notice or choose not to notice, like how my friend dee is pre-med but white kids who dont kno her use “ghetto” speak to talk to her. like how the black kids in my classes for the most part dont participate in class discussions becos theyre the product of an education system that rendered them invisible except y’kno in february or in a historical context of slavery and never gave a fuck what they had to say, or this morning, sitting outside having a cigarette between tests this white girl came up and gave fliers for a halloween party/concert to every fucking white kid and didnt even acknowledge that the black guy sitting across from me existed. what the fuck do i say to him? how do i make this right? i gave him a grin and a look that said “i kno, i saw it too” when i saw the hurt in his eyes and we both said hello but me saying “i am so sorry that so many of my people are so awful” just seems to minimize the situation.
I don’t think you can blame the likes of Jesse Jackson for the “I swear I’m not racist” phenomenon. If anything, his (accurate!) application of the term to all sorts of situations and events that white America wants to let slide detracts from the radioactivity of the term.
“Racist” is radioactive because the mainstream culture wants to condemn racial oppression without acknowledging its continuing presence within that culture. The more we “toss out” accusations, when anyone who takes a step back can see they are warranted, the less racism will be perceived as a quirk of Southerners fifty years ago, and the more it will be recognized for the disease it is, still infecting the mainstream.
Racism is like rape. Being accused of it is a far worse injustice than being a victim of it, because sparing the feelings of the powerful is the most important thing in the world, and well worth any amount of suffering lesser people might experience.
My first reaction to blackface Youtube idiots was “poor home training there”. My second reaction was “kids aren’t learning squat in their history classes nowadays”. I am white. I say stupid things once in a while. If the reaction to my comment is a look that says “you tool!”, I try to figure out what went wrong and apologize. We aren’t put on this earth to be perfect; we are here to learn and use some modicum of empathy and manners and respect for one another.
I think a lot of white people just don’t have enough history and social background, and enough imagination, to understand why blackface would be considered insulting.
We seem to have reached the point in the discussion of race that if people of color have the nerve to point out offensive language or actions, we’re being mean and hurtful for even implying that a white person might be subconciously influenced by the racism that pervades our society.
Yeah, pretty much. That’s the size of it–I’ve had to develop these backdoor ways to point out racial thinking that don’t use the words ‘racist’, ‘racism’ or even ‘prejudice’, because saying flat-out ‘that’s racist, figure out why’ just don’t cut the mustard.
As a white person, I believe that my role is to push back against this problem in the way that only white people can: to use the assumption that the prejudice is shared for educational purposes. Calling bigots bigots is an exercise in futility because they know it’s bad to be a bigot; asking someone, ‘Why would you say that?’ and listening to the answer is far more persuasive.
Of course I have my moments where I just blow, but I’ve reached the point that I can usually recognize when I’m too steamed to educate anyone no matter how desperate his/her ignorance may appear to be.
It should be noted that racism and bigotry are two different things. What is being discussed on this blog is generally bigotry.
Racism is a practice or belief that places one race above another in society.
Bigotry is a personal belief in an unfounded, usually malicious, prejudice. Bigots are almost always racist since a belief in superiority naturally carries with it a belief that that superiority should be reflected in politics and social mores.
Thus, you could have, for example, a person taking advantage of white privilege who honestly believes that blacks and whites are equals and acts accordingly in all other contexts. Such a person may be a vile opportunist, or socially unaware, but that person is racist and _not_ bigoted.
The distinction is touched upon in some of the posts above. Generally, blacks are concerned more by racism whereas whites are impressed more by bigotry. Thus, when blacks think racism they think “last-hired-first-fired” before they’d every think redneck. Meanwhile, whites, when racism is brought up, would think “cross-burning” (evidence of bigotry) before anything else.
Both words are serious and dangerous, but the distinction is important. One can be somewhat “innocent” while supporting a racist system. (Hell, we indirectly and involuntarially do it whenever we pay taxes.) Bigotry is thouroughly vile, however, and is a stronger word.
When it comes to emotional impact, I think the drunk driving analogy above was apt: people should realize that racism is about the effect on the targets in society and not the emotional or financial benefit of the alleged perpetrator.
And btw. . .
It’s a pretty sure bet that if the first thing someone says is “I’m not racist,” then they’re racist and probably bigoted, both. If someone is truly not racist, the first thing they’ll tend to mention is the facts at issue (”I’d have done the same thing no matter what race he was and did so in the past.”) A guilty conscience resorts to obfuscation while the innocent will cleave to facts — a gross generalization but I think it works well enough to keep in mind.
I think it’s easy for people to claim they’re not racist. They’re wrong, but it’s become pretty simple to claim that racism is a thing of the past and that any reenactment of the past is just ironic, and that it’s those of us who call racism when we see it are the real racists, or racist-ists, or something. The problem is really that people like these kids and the prosecutor in Jena desperately want to be racist without having to suffer the opprobrium of the rest of us. They’re mad that they can’t use racism to get ahead.
And I don’t think it’s the radical right that’s stopping trans inclusion in nondiscrimination. I think it’s just as much the politic of liberals, gay and straight alike, to look at trans issues as a place where they can say: “hey, look, we’re not extremists, we too agree that human behavior is locked into place by biological sex– just like sexual orientation, right?” the notion that any nondiscrimination laws would be worth passing and enforcing if they didn’t protect people whose gender identification and history and expression is nonconformist is kind of a pipe dream– it says, please just protect me and i’ll be good. i think we need trans inclusion *before* we get policies that acknowledge sexual practices and relationships.
If that’s what’s really going on, then you’re right and T should be included along with LGB. But that is not an assumption that gibes with my experiences and observations. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone make that argument, although - full disclosure! - I haven’t exactly traveled in circles where I’m likely to hear such. But most people I know who are in favor of homosexual equality are so on the basis of, “It’s your body and you can do what you want with it” and they extend that to transsexuals as well.
Regarding whether we are all “racist,” that depends upon how one defines racism. But cognitive psychological studies do show that we all aware of the stereotypes of our culture, we mostly learn of them as children and can’t help them being in our brain, and those stereotypes are AUTOMATICALLY, SUBCONSCIOUSLY activated in relevant situations or when encountering relevant people. That happens to everybody, no matter how egalitarian they wish to be. But people who are motivated not to be racist engage in conscious examination of their stereotypes when they are activated, learn to “talk back” to them, and do not let the stereotypes influence their behavior and decisions. And studies of prejudice-reduction programs have shown that, as people who are motivated to reduce their own prejudices practice egalitarian behaviors more and more, then THOSE behaviors become more automatic and can counteract the subconscious stereotype activation. The point being that racism is often subconscious, and people may be motivated to “not be racist” but still say or do stupid things. In those cases, simply calling them “racist” can reduce that motivation more than reduce the racism. Rather, if you help them become consciously aware of the stereotypes underlying their actions/words, and explain how they could have acted differently, without putting them so on the defensive that they shut down, you can over time help people change their behavior and thought patterns.
Regarding blackface, and interesting debate is the one surrounding the Krewe of Zulu’s (a black krewe) use of blackface (among other stereotypical accoutrements) in their Mardi Gras parade.
Regarding ENDA, I am opposed to removing gender expression from the bill, I think it undermines the moral basis of our arguments for inclusion in the larger society to exclude some people who step outside of a narrowly-defined gender(-ed behavior) box in order to save others.
But that said, I’m questioning myself regarding how this differs from my feelings about people in adult consensual polyamorous relationships — I do in fact believe that polygamy should be legal (IF and ONLY IF between consenting adults, mind you) and that the arguments are essentially the same as those for gay marriage: whatever consenting adults want to do in terms of forming/formalizing relationships with other people is not anyone else’s business to judge. And yet, I know most of America isn’t ready for that one, and thus it would not prudent to tack it onto the inclusion agenda of LGBTs. But how is leaving out the polyamorists because they’re “too controversial, not accepted enough yet” any different that the arguments to leave out trans folk for now? I am soul-searching here….
Previously stated in an earlier comment:
“I am just absolutely stunned and mind boggled at the idea that someone could engage in blackface and then make the statement “I promise I’m not racist.” If that doesn’t qualify as racist, anymore, what the fuck does?”
I agree, and assume that all people here who feel that way have written to Jame Hamsher and railed at her for putting blackface on Joe Lieberman. Whether or not you like Joe, blackface is racist,no?