Tag Archives: racism

by

Feminism, Hierarchy and Self-Aggrandizement

A few days ago, I posted on the recent attention drawn to the issue of the appropriation of WOC writing and thought by white feminist authors. I’ve been trying desperately to read most of what’s being posted on the subject, and I’ve commented a few times, but I ended up deleting that post because I saw reference to a request not to mention names or write about the individuals involved. At the point that I saw it, I didn’t have a lot of time at all to research the specifics of the request or to go back and fine-tune the post in order to conform to exactly what was being requested, so my attempt to respect that request came in the form of full deletion. That post included a whole bunch of links to other blogs that have written on the specifics of this incident, while this one is my attempt to get at some of the more general issues it raises. If you need some background on the specifics, belledame has some great links (follow them), Sylvia lays down some serious awesome in specific takedown form, and Black Amazon addresses the deeper core issues that are at stake here.

A lot of the following philosophical soliloquy is stuff I’ve been thinking about for a while, and that I’ve written about in bits and pieces before.

Continue reading →

by

Almost Like the Borders are Not Where We Think They Are At All

Via matttbastard, I discovered “Hidden from History”, exposing the too frequently ignored/denied story of the genocide of indigenous peoples in Canada, and it’s fucking frighteningly recent components. Full length documentary included via google video – I haven’t had a chance to watch it yet, but I hope to shortly. During the same tour of my feedreader, via Ampersand, I come across this essay on the bullshit that’s being doled out re: Barack Obama’s affiliation with an “angry black preacher man”. Choice quotes:

What Jeremiah Wright knows, and told his flock–though make no mistake, they already knew it–is that 9/11 was neither the first, nor worst act of terrorism on American soil. The history of this nation for folks of color, was for generations, nothing less than an intergenerational hate crime, one in which 9/11s were woven into the fabric of everyday life: hundreds of thousands of the enslaved who died from the conditions of their bondage; thousands more who were lynched (as many as 10,000 in the first few years after the Civil War, according to testimony in the Congressional Record at the time); millions of indigenous persons wiped off the face of the Earth. No, to some, the horror of 9/11 was not new. To some it was not on that day that “everything changed.” To some, everything changed four hundred years ago, when that first ship landed at what would become Jamestown. To some, everything changed when their ancestors were forced into the hulls of slave ships at Goree Island and brought to a strange land as chattel. To some, everything changed when they were run out of Northern Mexico, only to watch it become the Southwest United States, thanks to a war of annihilation initiated by the U.S. government. To some, being on the receiving end of terrorism has been a way of life. Until recently it was absolutely normal in fact.

But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality. Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so, having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally shared by our darker-skinned compatriots.

Country names, specific historical references and current event anecdotes interchangeable. It’s a great essay, but it should be a simple concept – my country is not the country that exists for First Nations people, or other POC. What I learned in history class is not their history. Why anybody finds it shocking to figure that out is beyond me.

by

“Brazen Audacity” vs. “Common Sense”

The Caledonia land claims disputes are in the news again lately. In sum, the federal government offered Six Nations $26 million; Six Nations countered with $1 billion. The federal government essentially laughed in their faces:

Six Nations says it calculated the amount using the federal government’s own interest rates and historical promises made to them. But federal negotiator Ron Doering says such compound interest tables always arrive “at a really big number” and that “it is not consistent with our thinking nor does it detract from what we feel is a very fair offer.”

Funny how that’s kind of…meaningless, isn’t it? I wish I could say that I’m more familiar than I am with the specifics of the historical circumstances before offering an opinion about the actual numbers involved, but here’s what I can see–Six Nations is speaking in concrete terms, pointing out the calculations involved and explaining the terms involved. In elementary school math, this is known as “showing your work” and tends to be mandatory. Canada is making vague allusions to “our thinking” and simply saying that they feel this is a fair offer, without further argument or support for that feeling.

I would generally presume that, at the negotiating table, the Canadian government is invoking much more solid facts and logic. Or I would presume that, were I not so damned jaded about such things. Also, we’re linking the Hamilton Spectator, here–if there’s a side that makes Six Nations look worse, they’ll find it. But as it stands, in their minds, they don’t actually need to prove that the federal government represents the side of reason in this situation. That’s just common sense:

But it takes brazen audacity and a substantial helping of contrarian thinking to counter with a figure that leaves the parties 3,000 per cent apart. This approach does not lead to resolution. It is difficult to see any sense in the strategy behind all this, unless it is to prolong the impasse or make the occupation of disputed lands a way of life for natives and non-natives alike.

There’s a quote by Einstein that says that “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18” that would seem overwhelmingly appropriate in this situation.

Canada made that offer with a definite sense of just how badly they were low-balling. Let’s assume that if Six Nations had submitted the first number, they would have stuck with exactly the figure with which they countered. Would it then be the Canadian government who was being called “ridiculous”, accused of showing no faith in reaching resolution or prolonging the impasse?
The only way mainstream white Canada will be satisfied to call land claims “resolved” would be if they were to go away quietly and with absolutely no impact on the lives of individuals off the reserves. I agree that it takes some “brazen audacity” to put that billion dollar figure out there. But it takes far more head-up-assery to continue to assume that such audacity is unwarranted, without at least questioning which side of this 3000-percent difference is being irrational, selfish and incredible. The only way one can make such assumptions is to operate on the constant premise that the Canadian government is making and has always made negotiations with First Nations populations in good faith and with the desire to reach a legitimately fair resolution.

Yeah, I can’t suspend my disbelief that much, either.

by

No, seriously: Can we do this?

From Rainbow Girl:

I propose adding an “asshole or not” section the the LSAT in order to prevent morons like this from entering the profession. Basic questions, like “Your country has a law that states that 10-year olds cannot consent to sex. Therefore, can a judge rule that a ten-year old consented to sex?” can be added to see if applicants understand simple logic in addition to complex logic. For every wrong answer, points will be deducted by striking the applicant’s head with a rubber chicken. With a brick in it.

It was a while ago that an Australian judge ruled that a ten-year-old aboriginal girl who was gang-raped by nine men “probably” consented. I honestly wish I could say that I still found this surprising, which is why I often say nothing at all, but seriously: there seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what is actually in the law and what happens in sexual violence cases in every single country in the world.

If you’ve read the post below, you may have noted that my vocabulary has maybe shifted a bit again…I guess this kind of thing is why, because words beyond “what the fuck is up with that?” completely fail me.

by

In Which I Take A Side (or, When Feminists Don’t Get It)

I haven’t been long for reading the feminist blogosphere. It’s been maybe a year or so, but as with everything else I do, I’ve thrown myself into it pretty whole-heartedly, despite my late bloomer status. So I started off somewhat enamoured of the big names. I’m also a white twenty-something, well-educated and raised in a middle class family, so initially the issues they confront and their style suited me just fine.

In general, I’m not much for confrontation, which is on the list of reasons it’s fortunate nobody knows who I am. Being mostly invisible, it’s not like anybody’s looking to me to say “hey, I wonder what Purtek thinks of this?” so I have no obligation to write on whatever standard stuff is going around. And blog or no blog, I have no illusions about the fact that if anyone does read me, it’s not really because they’re that interested in me per se.

Which sets up both my irrelevance and my naiveté well enough, I hope, that I can now ask: how is it that feminists can manage to miss the point so freaking badly? How is it that they can’t see just how much they sound like all the men who have ever dismissed women as hysterical, irrelevant, special issues? So that when WOC start pointing out that claiming that a book about “empowering female sexuality” is not exactly the be-all-and-end-all of rape prevention that the marketing suggests, and that a book talking about how only yes means yes is unlikely to include stories of rape used in environments of blatant hate, in war, by authority figures, on reserves, and, given the publicity the book might get, that a book like this certainly acts to help in privileging the voices of a certain kind of feminist, certain kind of voice, certain kind of woman.

And excuse me, but fuck that. How can we not hear ourselves when we say “You’re not the target audience of this book” to WOC, when the subject of the book is why feminism is relevant today, in real people’s lives? How can we not hear that when we say “Go write your own”, or “The next one will be about you” that we’re might as well be quoting our own fucking bingo cards? What the hell is wrong with people who are well-versed in the impact vs. intent theory — for fuck’s sakes, the book Yes Means Yes emerges practically verbatim from discussions of this concept — but who still say things like “You’re really arguing more with the rhetorical posturing than the idea behind the book. I don’t think they’re trying to promote feminist in-fighting or denying radical feminist theory at all.” (Amanda Marcotte, over here).

I have a number of related thoughts I want to explore, but in this post, maybe I’m just expressing my feminist coming-of-age or something…I’ve been embarrassed recently to admit some stuff that’s been sparking those lightbulb moments (embarrassed that it’s happening only now, embarrassed at the many that are still to come) but whatever…the problem I’m getting at here, and it’s one that’s been striking me for quite some time now, is: How the fuck is it that feminists, activists, brilliant people, can become completely incapable of holding that mirror back up against themselves? I fundamentally do not understand how some of these words can unironically emerge from the mouths of people who know. I just don’t understand, and maybe I hope I’m never going to be important enough (in whatever little corner of the world I operate) that I can even try.

For reference:
Magniloquence
Firefly
Black Amazon
Sudy
Sylvia

That’s not a comprehensive list, and there are links within those links, or follow-up posts by those same bloggers. But it gets you started, if that’s what you want.

by

Fellow Language Lover Does Not Find This Appreciable

This link was posted by somebody on my Facebook friends list with the comment “Appreciable by my fellow language lovers”. I would consider myself quite the language lover, and would cite the letters after my name accompanying the word “Linguistics” as evidence of that. I would also note that as a language lover, I find the phrase “appreciable by” pretty flipping stupid, actually, especially since it doesn’t actually mean what you think it means, fellow language-lover

But that phrase is pretty much in the same vein as this “Ebonics translation competition” link–“love of language” equated with a bullshit condescending attitude of superiority and praise of big words, convoluted phrasing and prescriptive grammar. More of the same trite “What’s the world coming to” and “Kids these days” except with a nice, racist bow on top. Not new. Not funny. Not “appreciable” (well, actually, totally “appreciable” just not in any way something I appreciate).
If there really is a high school including this question on the curriculum, complete with the use of the blatantly racist term “Ebonics”, then I’m again saddened by the state of this world we live in. Even if it’s just some moron on the internet getting a kick out of saying, yet again, in oh-so-humourous fashion, that black people are too stupid to use the right words and gee, doesn’t this make it obvious that the kinds of things they talk about are silly and vapid, then it pisses me off.

Disclaimer: I think the lyrics of that song are horrifying and misogynistic. That doesn’t mean we have to resort to racist bullshit to deconstruct it (if, in fact, that were even being done here on any level).

Disclaimer #2: I’m particular about language. I know that. I’m downright pedantic, in fact. This is different. Actually, I must admit, nothing pleases me more than the opportunity to get pedantic on some asshole who is being condescendingly pedantic himself. I kind of wish I were enough of a bitch to bother posting a link to this as a comment on that Facebook entry, but…I’m not.

by

Action Barriers Part 4: The Good Person

Part 1: Defensiveness
Part 2: Guilt
Part 3: Blame

All of the barriers to action I’ve talked about so far—defensiveness, guilt, blame—hinge on the essential idea that P is a Good Person and that P’s Good Person-ness is the central fact that needs to be discussed. P can’t be Racist/Sexist/Classist/participate in the patriarchy/oppression because P is a Good Person. I’ve perpetuated that discussion to some extent with my image of St Peter at the gates of heaven and the scorecards he may or may not be using in order to evaluate one’s application for entry.

First of all, as I started to suggest in my post on guilt, this type of Good Person depends on a binary version of the scorecard, and on some idea of an ‘essential self’. At some point on a scale of good vs. evil, we do the Right Thing or avoid the Wrong Thing enough times or in enough standardized ways that we become Good and no longer Evil and then we get to stop.

It also depends on people spending a whole bunch of time doing things not simply because they are good things to do, but because we need to be Good People. Christians are often approached to discuss the notion of heaven and hell, both in philosophical and practical terms. One of the ways that it becomes a practical question is in the idea that maybe we practice our religion in order to get into heaven and avoid hell. Many thinking Christians have a well-rehearsed response to these kinds of questions that runs along the lines of “It’s not my place to judge whether or not you’re going to hell. I’m just doing what I feel I need to do and God will sort it out in the end”. That’s an important response in a lot of situations, but I’ve never felt quite comfortable with it, because it doesn’t reflect my personal theology very accurately. (Note that the overall idea applies whether we’re actually talking about heaven and hell or speaking in entirely secular terms to someone who is using the simple expressions of striving to be a Good Person—in fact, those exact words are frequently used by individuals who are defending their non-Christianity by saying that whether they believe in Jesus or not is irrelevant, as long as they are Good People)

I’ve tried to explain to people before that the threat of hell and the promise of heaven are ideas that do not play a role in my day-to-day spirituality, but it goes deeper than that. Whether or not I’m a Good Person is a meaningless question, not only because it depends on the kind of binary that anyone who thinks for thirty seconds can recognize as ridiculous, but also because it ultimately defeats its own purpose. It’s easier to simplify moral action down to what is essentially an economic transaction—if I do x, if I sacrifice y, if I pay the cost of z, I will get a, b and c in return—but if we buy into the concept that unselfishness is good, than this viewpoint is merely doing “unselfish” things for selfish reasons. More importantly to my theology, it represents one of the core examples of my experience of what the Buddhists call craving—grasping and trying to pin down morality/God in ways that can only cause suffering because they are premised on transitory things in the world and in myself. In Christian terms, it’s really a manifestation of pride. If I’m constantly trying to distinguish myself, to figure out how I’m different/better/exceptional, then I’m missing the point, even if I’m doing it in all the right ways.

The only binary that’s ever made sense to me is the quotation that “Saints are the sinners that go on trying”. If we’re going to have any discussion about trying to improve anything, the overall point can never be abstract ideas of how to be a Good Person. I don’t care whether P is a Good Person. I don’t care for practical reasons, and I don’t care for theological reasons. That’s not intended to be heartless or unsympathetic towards P—I don’t actually care whether or not I’m a Good Person either, for all of the reasons listed above.

If the point is how to make a Good World, then looking inward about whether or not I am or you are a Good Person is only hindering us from looking outward at what is or is not happening. To me, this is the difference between the conversation I’m trying to have and the conversation P is trying to have, which is where the barriers are tracing back to.

by

Action Barriers Part 3: Blame

Part 2: Guilt
Part 1: Defensiveness

(I do still exist, I just moved in to a new apartment last week and have been busily doing many things that are not writing)

In the trifecta of reasons why our friend P doesn’t have to do anything about sexism, racism, homophobia and oppression, though he knows they exist, recasting blame is the most frustrating to deal with, in my experience. Again, it’s interconnected with both defensiveness and guilt, but I feel like there’s an extra layer to unpack in dismantling these blame-deflections before we can get at the actual point.

There are tons of variations of the blame theme, all amounting to “Everything is fine here in my corner. Look over there.” Claims of reverse discrimination, saying that “real” racism now comes from POC, casting blame on feminism for the ills of men. These are pretty obvious tactics for making sure that, whatever else is going on, we’re not talking about P and we’re probably no longer talking about oppression.

The variation I’m most frustrated with lately is the blame that excuses inaction by refocusing on the missteps of those who speak out in the first place. Al Gore shouldn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize because he drives a private jet, John Edwards talks the anti-poverty talk but gets a $400 haircut, Bono has no right to tell us to do something against global poverty unless I see just how much money he’s personally giving to the cause. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Look over there. It’s not that these people aren’t right, it’s just that I don’t have to listen to them if they’re not perfect.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t criticize these people for their shortcomings, or that we should excuse, say, a self-identified feminist who ends up saying something racist or even sexist. I, personally, want to be called to constant self-improvement and have no expectation that I’ll ever reach 100% on the mythical scorecard I’ve been inventing, but I’d like for people who care about me and about the world to help me get closer.

The thing about focusing on the stones that Gore is throwing, Bono is throwing, Edwards is throwing, and then pointing to their glass houses is that all you’ve done is throw your own, slightly smaller stone, and now you’ve retreated into your own glass house. Why does Gore’s jet and John Edwards’ hair matter? In what way are those things standing in the way of making changes to your won life, from seeing the opportunities to have a positive, creative impact that are staring you in the face?

I’m not grading my own moral self-evaluation on a curve. Someone else did something worse, the next someone else neglected to notice something equally or more important, and another someone else falls short or is a hypocrite. Fine. Agreed. Also irrelevant, and leading us to talk again about why not to act, why not to change, when, just like when we somehow ended up on not-rapists and not-racism, that’s the exact opposite of the point.

by

Action Barriers Part 1: Defensiveness

I have a series of thoughts on, basically, giving a crap, speaking out, and some common reactions to that. The reactions can basically be summed up into guilt, defensiveness and blame. They all tend to be interconnected, but I’m going to take them one at a time—they’re all long, but frankly, I’m okay with that.

To start, defensiveness. The general, well-known form that this takes is for a member of the privileged group—white, male, hetero, with no disabilities, Christian, hell, even first world—or some combination of privileged classes gets into a conversation criticizing sexism, racism or other forms of oppression. Privileged individual—let’s call him “P”—hears me talking about (for example) ‘male privilege’ and relating the concept to rape culture and he interprets what I just said as “All men are rapists”. So he gets angry at me, and defensive.

This is a silencing move. The conversation is no longer about men who are rapists, it’s about men who are not. I’m angry about the ubiquity of sexual violence—I’ve experienced it personally and heard countless other women (and several men) talk about their experiences with it. We talk about being shamed and silenced, and we talk about being afraid of having it happen again and angry that we have to feel that way. But P and I aren’t talking about that anymore. We’re talking about how angry P is, how afraid he is to be considered a rapist.
Continue reading →

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started