An ever-expanding list of common understandings we share as anti-racists. Please feel free to submit your own entries.
- White privilege exists.
- Sanctuary is not segregation.
- Flipping the actors does not lend clarity to an issue, nor does it mean that you have created equivalent analogies. See entry under Fallacious Flip.
- People must own their feelings and expressions. Ventriloquy is not helpful in discussions of racism.
- Seeking the empowerment of people of color is not the same as disenfranchising white people.
- Racism is more than individual acts of meanness.
- Hating white privilege is not the same as hating whitey.
- Defensive responses to issues voiced by people of color are invocations of privilege.
- A claim to anti-racism cannot be made based on any variation of the “black friend defense” (Mexican boyfriend, Asian wife, children of color, etc.).
- Apology means say you’re sorry and then shut up. No rationalization, no long explanation of your intention, no invocation of the black friend defense. And then ask what you can do to make change.
- The anti-racist focus should be on effect rather than intention.
- Celebrations of “multiculturalism” do not address racism.
- People of color are not responsible for the education of white people.
- It’s not all about you.
- An experience you have as a white person that you think is similar to an experience related by a person of color is not a valid proof that racism doesn’t exist.
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 10, 2008 at 1:25 am
Kathy
turning the tables is silly
May 30, 2008 at 6:07 am
KarmaChameleon
I liked them all but didn’t understand #8: Defensive responses to issues voiced by people of color are invocations of privilege.
My understanding is that the theory of white-privelege is primarily rooted in perception– It’s not so much about whether or not a condition exists, but it’s about the belief a condition exists due to the racism that has existed forever in this country. I grasp that… and believe there’s a role for the theory in the healing of America.
However, I read #8 to mean that my only right to self-defense when accused of something by a person of color, is rooted in my white privilege. Is that an accurate interpretation?
May 30, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Ryan
i think it means if your reaction to a claim of racism is “no, it’s not” as opposed to “in what sense?” it infers privilege.
May 31, 2008 at 8:00 am
KarmaChameleon
I don’t know about that. It seems rather silly to exclude the possibility that a white person has examined racism in their own lives… The effect, in my opinion, would be to force whites into a state of racism without authentic consideration. It’s closed-minded.
Further, it seems to me, that it would also require, in the name of equality, that whites could do the same thing to blacks… which, getting caught up in bickering over who’s more entitled or slave-minded, etc. just doesn’t do anything for healing.
I’m certain it’s just a mis-phrasing.
May 31, 2008 at 4:01 pm
panracial
Further, it seems to me, that it would also require, in the name of equality, that whites could do the same thing to blacks…
3. Flipping the actors does not lend clarity to an issue, nor does it mean that you have created equivalent analogies. See entry under Fallacious Flip: †the fallacious flip- The reflex some people have to invert an example regarding racial issues to show how it is unfair that POC are claiming things (rights) or saying things (self empowerment in the face of oppressive and derisive societal memes) or afraid of things (contact with police, store security guards, speaking boldly in defense of their People) or “assuming” things (like when you walk past cars and hear doors locking, or are in a conversation suddenly rife with the same old racist arguments always leveled at you). It is a wholly invalid framing, because it assumes that all ethnicities have the same history in this land, the same power, the same struggle to claim personhood, the same assumptions leveled on them. In this light, The Fallacious Flip is nothing but more oppression and privileged (un)thinking; an attempt to shut down the POC from gaining equality.
Karma, I don’t think Racism 101 means that all claims that something is racist are valid and that all white people accused or racism or guilty — I don’t even think it means that white people can’t defend themselves from charges of racism — I think it means that white people shouldn’t be “defensive” before being thoughtful, compassionate, dispassionate, analytical, or self-reflexive.
June 1, 2008 at 3:34 am
KarmaChameleon
Pan posted: Karma, I don’t think Racism 101 means that all claims that something is racist are valid and that all white people accused or racism or guilty — I don’t even think it means that white people can’t defend themselves from charges of racism — I think it means that white people shouldn’t be “defensive” before being thoughtful, compassionate, dispassionate, analytical, or self-reflexive.
Response: Thanks for the response. If you’re right, how can anyone hope to communicate when the definitions are left open to such subjectivity? (Granted, objectivity is an illusion. However, we have to attain some level of it, as equity is to fair, in order to communicate effectively.) If the definition of the words being advanced vary so greatly from one person to the next, then why wouldn’t we devolve to grunts since the words have little meaning?
June 1, 2008 at 5:43 am
panracial
Sometimes when people reject subjectivity (and when I say people I don’t mean you, KarmaChameleon) what they’re really saying is this: if I have to be subjective i.e. consider opinions other than my own, then that means too many opinions are valid — hence no opinions are valid at at all — therefore I’ll just go back to privileging only my own opinion and calling that being objective. In other words, what some whites say is — yikes, recognizing that non-whites have valid perspectives is scary — too much multiplicity and diversity of opinions makes conversation impossible, hence I better go back to only seeing through my comfortable white lens again — the white view gets elided with the normative/objective view.
No one is asking you to consider all words and interpretations of experiences subjective to the point of meaninglessness — they’re just saying that being non-racist means that the most accurate point of view may not (and in racial situations, usually is not) the one perceived through the white lens.
June 1, 2008 at 6:40 am
KarmaChameleon
Interesting post.
So, how do you, personally, draw the line of objectivity and subjectivity in definitions?
June 1, 2008 at 3:36 pm
panracial
By realizing that just because an opinion is mine doesn’t make it objective and that just because an opinion comes from another person, gender, or culture, that doesn’t make it subjective — by using critical thinking, historical analysis, and a willingness to truly listen and understand. I find that, when it comes to racism, often, once people become informed about the concrete, researched backed prevalence of racism, they are more likely to trust the individual testimonies of people of color — for example: http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Obama.html:
quote:
2006 saw the largest number of race-based housing discrimination complaints on record, and according to government and private studies, there are between two and three million cases of housing discrimination each year against people of color
What does it say that he has failed to note with any regularity that according to over a hundred studies, health disparities between whites and blacks are due not merely to health care costs and economic differences between the two groups (a subject he does address) but also due to the provision of discriminatory care by providers, even to blacks with upper incomes, and black experiences with racism itself, which are directly related to hypertension and other maladies?
What does it say that Obama apparently can’t bring himself to mention, for fear of likely white backlash, that whites are over seventy percent of drug users, but only about ten percent of persons incarcerated for a drug possession offense, while blacks and Latinos combined are about twenty-five percent of users, but comprise roughly ninety percent of persons locked up for a possession offense?
Why no mention of the massive national study by legal scholars Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen, which found that at least a third of all businesses in the nation engage in substantial discrimination against people of color–hiring such folks at rates that are well below their availability in the local and qualified labor pool, and well below the rates at which they are to be found in non-discriminating companies in the same locales and industries? Indeed, according to the Blumrosen study, at least 1.3 million qualified people of color will face job discrimination in a given year. Or what of the study of temporary agencies in California, which found that white women who are less qualified than their black counterparts, are still three times more likely to be favored in a job search? And what are the odds that he’ll be likely to mention, to any significant degree, the recent EEOC report, which notes that in 2007 there was a twelve percent jump in race-based discrimination complaints in the workplace relative to the previous year (almost all of which were filed by persons of color): bringing the number of such complaints to their highest level since 1994?
I think you also have to realize (the hypothetical you, not “you” Karma) that people of color don’t like playing the victim, we don’t eagerly stride about waiting to threaten people with the race card, etc. In fact, it’s often easier, less intimidating, scary, or peaceful just to keep your mouth closed. There are times when I’ve let someone in a restaurant or store treat me very badly and didn’t complain because I was so hesitant to make waves. I think sometimes that whites think that people of color go about eagerly making claims of racism instead of realizing that people of color, like my parents, who are upper-middle class, literally LITERALLY experience racism on a daily basis. 95% of the stuff that happens to them they never address. Most people of color, simply because of the enormity of what they face, cannot address each instant of racism — so when a person of color addresses a white person to say that something is racist — realize that most likely that person has already carefully analized the situation, thought hard about whether or not he or she should bring it up, and has a legitimate claim. If the person is a white friend, that doesn’t mean they are automatically not racist. One nof the most painful lessons people of color face is realizing that those who love us to the point of kidney donation individually might still hold inaccurate negative views about our groups work-ethics, parenting, intellectualism, propensity for crime, etc. When you are our friend PLEASE respect us when we say something you did is racist, because it already took a bunch of courage for us to address it. Also recognize that people of color have a lifetime of being forced to see what others don’t have to — and that means that their gaze is clearer.
June 1, 2008 at 9:23 pm
KarmaChameleon
Pan Posted: By realizing that just because an opinion is mine doesn’t make it objective and that just because an opinion comes from another person, gender, or culture, that doesn’t make it subjective–by using critical thinking, historical analysis, and a willingness to truly listen and understand.
Response: That isn’t a line between objectivity and subjectivity… that’s your motivation for seeking out the line. How do you draw the line? Of course, you’re going to use critical thinking, but what objective measure of right and wrong do you use or is it all just relative?
Pan posted: by using critical thinking, historical analysis, and a willingness to truly listen and understand.
Response: How do you know you’re being truly willing? So far, everything seems to point to the fact that there’s really no way for any of us to know our intents and motivations.
Pan posted: I find that, when it comes to racism, often, once people become informed about the concrete, researched backed prevalence of racism, they are more likely to trust the individual testimonies of people of color
Response: What does “trusting” mean? That, because a person has ideal intentions, their perception must be unbiased? Doesn’t the innate racist tendencies of whites due to historical racism automatically make POC have the tendency to place themselves in a role that continues the racism?
June 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm
panracial
POC don’t place themselves in a role that continues racism. Sean Bell didn’t place himself in a position to be shot. When my dad drives his Mercedes he’s not placing himself in a position to be given frivolous tickets. When I eat in a nice restaurant and the waiter treats me shoddily that’s not because I placed myself in a position for him to do so. That’s like saying abused children place themselves in a position to be battered. When i say “trust” I mean to “lend credence.” Having good intentions doesn’t make you unbiased — you’re right. For example, the authors of the Stolen Generation ahd good intentions.
Perhaps if you could provide me with a hypothetical example of a situation then I could show you how I would draw the line between subjectivity and objectivity – and I do think objectivity exists.
You ask how someone knows if they’re being truly willing — I think you have to realize that this is a journey. I don’t think most (or maybe any) white people can ever wake up one day and discover they’ve reached non-racist utopia but they can try to continually become more informed, more aware, better at listening to poc’s, and better at removing their white lenses.
Karma, I just want to let you know that I really appreciate you having this discussion. I’m guessing you’re white, and most white people don’t take the time to ask the type of questions you’re asking.
June 2, 2008 at 2:57 pm
KarmaChameleon
Pan stated: I really appreciate you having this discussion.
Response: I appreciate you giving your time to explain.
Pan stated: and better at removing their white lenses.
Response: What is a white lens?
At this point, just so I’m clear, would you re-explain “Defensive responses to issues voiced by people of color are invocations of privilege”? It sounds to me like a number of contingencies have been added. (Ultimately, what I think you’re saying is that closed-mindedness regarding reports of racism is racist… Which is light-years in different from the original.)
June 2, 2008 at 5:51 pm
panracial
The white lens assumes that the way whites experience the world is normative, unbiased, and superior to other experiences. Looking through the white lens (to various degrees) masterworks of art, music, and storytelling are all European. The only history/math/philosophy that matters is European or American. There is ignorance about what other cultures contributed to the rest of the world. American history (or history anywhere) begins with the arrival of Europeans. Through the white lens statements such as 9/11 was the first American experience of terror makes sense b/c you don’t count the terror of Native American genocide or black slavery. You definitely don’t call those two events holocausts — The Holocaust is the one where whites were killed, and that’s the only one that matters.
In the white lens, if you say “drug dealer” a non-white person comes to mind although drug dealers and users are disproportionately white. In the white lense, discussing teenagers having casual sex or using drugs or bringing weapons to school brings a picture of an urban school to mind while these things happen more frequently in suburban white schools. In the white lens big black men are scary, casually dressed black men in jerseys are thugs, baggy pants are ignorant but minnie skirts on white girls or low rider jeans doesn’t evoke the same derision. In the white lens you worry about weapons of mass destruction but don’t care that Navajos have a cancer arate 1600% higher than the mainstream b/c of uranium mining on the lands to which they were forced. The white lens sees problems such as racism in healthcare, employment, housing, credit, or criminal justice not as anti-American problems that are the concern of all citiziens but as the pet projects of minorities.
Even though minorities have huge experience with racism, when a poc presents an example of racism to a person looking through the white lens automatically assumes that they can’t be racist, the person must be wrong, minorities are over sensitive, and refuses to even consider the validity of the claim. However — white lens and white skin are too different things. Most whites admit to using a white lens to look through the world, but there are whites who don’t and non-whites who do.
whites admitting to the white lens http://timwise.org/:
According to a National Opinion Research Center survey in the early ’90s, over sixty percent of whites believe that blacks are generally lazier than other groups, fifty-six percent say that blacks are generally more prone to violence, and over half say that blacks are generally less intelligent than other groups (1). What makes these beliefs racist is that by assuming that blacks are more “prone” to violence and “less intelligent,” respondents are not merely signaling that blacks have higher crime rates, or score lower on various indicia of academic achievement–both of which are true, for reasons owing to the opportunity structure and the location of black communities relative to that structure–but instead are making assumptions about the inherent abilities and characters of black people.
A similar survey from 1993, conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, found that three in four whites accept as true at least one racist stereotype about African Americans, regarding such items as general laziness, propensity to criminality and violence, intelligence, or work ethic. And according to a 2001 survey, sixty percent of whites, approximately, admit that they believe at least one negative and racist stereotype of blacks: for example, that they are generally lazy, generally aggressive or violent, or prefer to live on welfare rather than work for a living (2). In fact, the belief in black preference for welfare over work is typically the most commonly believed of the stereotypes; this, despite the fact that only a very small percentage of African Americans–and for that matter, a minority of even poor African Americans–receive benefits from programs typically considered “welfare.”
Interestingly, whites often deny the importance of racism in determining the life chances of blacks, even as they give voice to beliefs that are themselves evidence of the very racial prejudice they deny. So, for instance, in one of the more respected opinion surveys from the 1990s, six in ten whites said that discrimination was less important in determining the position of blacks in society, than the “fact” that blacks “just don’t have the motivation or will power to pull themselves up out of poverty.” But if most whites believe that blacks as a group are unmotivated or lazy, that is itself a racial generalization amounting to racism: ascribing a negative characterological trait to blacks as a group. Of course the irony should be apparent to all: on the one hand, whites are saying that blacks are lazy, but on the other they insist that racism–including the kind that holds African Americans in this low regard–would be of very little consequence to their ability to succeed; as if people imbued with that kind of bias would be able to fairly evaluate job applicants or students who were members of the presumed defective group!
Research has suggested, for example, that many persons will feign a more liberal and non-prejudicial attitude than that to which they actually adhere, when asked questions about racial “others” on opinion surveys. Meaning that if roughly six in ten whites are willing to admit to serious anti-black prejudices of one form or another, the real percentages holding those beliefs are likely quite a bit larger.
Implicit Association Tests are even more decisive as to the extent of internalized and often subconscious, but nonetheless real, white racism. These tests, which measure response time to visual stimuli–specifically testing how quickly respondents associate briefly shown images of blacks or whites with either positive or negative words that are also briefly flashed on a screen–suggest that the typical white person does indeed harbor racial biases against African Americans. According to the research:
“…when given a test of unconscious stereotyping, nearly ninety percent of whites who have taken the test implicitly associate the faces of black Americans with negative words and traits such as evil character or failure. That is, they have more trouble linking black faces to pleasant words and positive features than they do for white faces. Most whites show an antiblack, pro-white bias on psychological tests. In addition, when whites are shown photos of black faces, even for only thirty milliseconds, key areas of their brains that are designed to respond to perceived threats light up automatically.” (3)
On the other hand, if I ask people to envision an “all-American boy or girl,” or even worse, God, they invariably admit to envisioning white images (in the latter case, even those who admit to being atheists, because of the symbolic conditioning to which they have been subjected). Confirming my own experiments, researchers who have asked white focus group members to envision a “typical drug user,” report that upwards of 95 percent of whites report envisioning a black person, despite the fact that blacks only represent thirteen percent of all drug users, according to the Centers for Disease Control and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, while whites comprise approximately 70 percent of all drug users (4).
This is why it was ultimately so easy for whites to believe the stories coming out of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which suggested that black folks were raping and killing people en masse in the Superdome and Convention Center. These reports, all of which turned out to be false, and which were exposed as false by the media about a month after the city flooded (retractions that many Americans never heard, it should be noted), were never questioned at the time they were being reported by any mainstream media outlet. Needless to say, were a hurricane to take out Nantucket, or destroy the summer homes of the white and wealthy who vacation on Cape Cod, and were the media to broadcast rumors to the effect that rich white folks were raping and killing people in the local Episcopal church, no one would believe the reports without evidence, without bodies, without proof. But because of racism, you can say anything you like about black people, especially when they’re poor, and others will believe it, every word of it, without question.
1) Tom W. Smith, “Ethnic Images,” GSS Technical Report No. 19, Chicago: NORC, January 1991
(2) Lawrence Bobo, “Inequalities That Endure? Racial Ideology, American Politics, and the Peculiar Role of the Social Sciences,” in Maria Krysan and Amanda Lewis, eds. The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity. Russell Sage Foundation: 2004: 19-20
(3) Joe Feagin, Systemic Racism. NY: Routledge, 2006: 26
(4) B.W. Burston, D. Jones, and P. Robertson-Saunders, “Drug use and African-Americans: Myth versus reality.” Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 40(2), 1995:19-39.
When I hear the word “defensive” I don’t think that means someone defending themselves rationally after taking the time to consider the legitimacy of the other person’s position. I think of someone assuming a priori innocence and defending themselves without analyzing the situation because they have the (white) privilege of not having to consider the views of poc’s.
June 2, 2008 at 8:21 pm
KarmaChameleon
Pan stated: When I hear the word “defensive” I don’t think that means someone defending themselves rationally after taking the time to consider the legitimacy of the other person’s position.
Response: With all due respect, it doesn’t matter what you hear. The definition of the word is what matters. If the person making the statement wishes to convey a certain concept, isn’t it irresponsible to use words that convey a different concept?
Are you agreeing with my previous statement? “It sounds to me like a number of contingencies have been added. (Ultimately, what I think you’re saying is that closed-mindedness regarding reports of racism is racist… Which is light-years in different from the original.)”
June 2, 2008 at 9:21 pm
panracial
Words have multiple definitions, but some denotations have different nuances than others and some denotations matter more in certain contexts. One definition of defensive from wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn is “attempting to justify or defend in speech or writing.” Other definitions from “the free dictionary” website is “Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one’s shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego” and “guarding against criticism or exposure of one’s failings” In other words, the way I’m hearing the word and explaining it to you, as well as the way the word is used in Racism 101, are both in accordance with the defintion of the word.
June 3, 2008 at 12:45 am
KarmaChameleon
I checked the definition on freedic. You took a regular definition, a definition that’s specific to the field of psychology and presented a definition from a relatively disreputable source as if it was comparable to the first.
The first definition on freedic is “1. Intended or appropriate for defending; protective.” Is it an example of “privilege” if one is defensive in this way?
June 3, 2008 at 1:44 am
panracial
Racism is definitely psychological. How is the source disreputable? I’m not claiming that the first definition of defensive on freedic is an example of privilege — but you have no reason to assume that, out of all the definitions of defensive, that’s the one meant to be used in racism 101. At this point, presented with multiple definitions of racism 101, you’re simply picking and choosing defintions that don’t fit the context because for some reason you are invested in making the original statement unreasonable — I don’t even know what your motive for that would be.
June 3, 2008 at 8:16 am
KarmaChameleon
Pan stated: I don’t even know what your motive for that would be.
Response: I don’t feel like you explicitly answered any of my questions. It’s sort of like all your answers were very political… I get the impression that you don’t want to put any limitations on the subject in question.
Asking about the first definition was just a check… to see if you’d avoid saying, unequivocally,”no, the definition doesn’t apply to that.”… which, in fact, you did as I expected… which confirms, in my opinion, a level of deceit, IMO.
Pan stated: How is the source disreputable?
Response: Copyright date of the dictionary that comes from and the fact that it’s the only dictionary which carries the definition in question. It’s a copy of the “Newspeak” dictionary. You have to be cautious of dictionaries.
Pan stated: but you have no reason to assume that, out of all the definitions of defensive, that’s the one meant to be used in racism 101
Response: Well, beyond this, I don’t think there’s any reason to continue this conversation. I don’t feel that you’ve been honest… if the psychology definition was truly the definition intended to be used, you’d of had no reason to cite the other definitions (or have this long of a conversation on this topic) because there’d be no phrases like “I feel it means this”, etc. You’d simply cite the definition that’s being used. However, because, for you, I believe it’s more about being right than being forthright, you never just admitted that you didn’t know.
Regarding the definition chosen, that’s really not possible either. That’s a specialized use of the term. Use in this situation is out of context.
I kind of feel sorry for you guys for buying into this stuff. I know racism is real. However, that you’re hiding behind what amounts to nonsense (by definition because there’s no clarity of definitions) just seems to be self-fulfilling… At this moment, as a person open to hear the more nuanced perspectives on racism, I’m walking away from this with a sense that it’s over-thought excuse making.
Thanks for taking the time and best of luck to you all.
June 3, 2008 at 11:55 am
resistance
Racismese translation summary: Patronage and privilege.
June 3, 2008 at 2:34 pm
panracial
Karma, I haven’t been dishonest or misleading. All I’ve done is explain what defensive means in the context of racism 101 and then provide definitions that back up that usage of defensive, but I think resistance has summed you up perfectly.
July 23, 2008 at 11:54 am
Mer
A claim to anti-racism cannot be made based on any variation of the “black friend defense” (Mexican boyfriend, Asian wife, children of color, etc.).
Love. This. I get SO annoyed, cranky, upset when I hear this one. But, I have never known how to rebut it.
July 24, 2008 at 9:49 pm
ok yall…a lil piece on white feminists « revolution of the lilies
[...] racism 101 [...]
October 23, 2008 at 8:51 am
ms_whosit
“An experience you have as a white person that you think is similar to an experience related by a person of color is not a valid proof that racism doesn’t exist.”
I agree with this, and would like to add the more general statement that: any experience that you’ve had as anything is not valid proof of anything about anyone else’s experience. In practice however (and speaking as a white person), I’m wondering if this is a prohibition against all analogy-making in general? As a member of a white minority, I’ve noticed certain stupid/harmful things that members of my group do as a result of their historical baggage. (Sometimes we are paranoid.) The problem here is that sometimes I think I see the same behaviors in Black people. This causes me to take some claims of racism with a grain of salt, as I have learned to do with claims of persecution from within my own community. Maybe this is misguided, but it is an issue (misunderstanding, possibly) that seemingly can’t be corrected without me bringing it up. . So are all analogies invalid? Or is it just necessary to be careful with them?
And on another topic..there is a “white lense,” but it is not the same for all white people. In the version I was raised with (the “white liberal” version), white people are born into sin and must seek penance and acceptance from Black people in order to become worthy human beings. I remember in preschool finding out that I was one of the evil white people in the stories we read about Rosa Parks and MLK. It was a big deal to find that out. I don’t think Black people can understand what it feels like for a 4-year-old to learn that. White liberal children learn early that their parents are pleased when they bring home Black friends. Sometimes they think their parents hate them for being white. I have a sibling who is just a shade darker than me, and I detected early on how proud my parents were of that–the fact that they had a child that might, in the right context, be able to pass as non-white. I could never pass as non-white. I can’t ever remember NOT wishing I was something, anything, other than white.
I’ve spent a significant part of my life being angry about race. For the first 22 years, I was angry at myself. When I associated white priviledge with material priviledge and having enough to eat, I starved myself. Then I found out that eating-disorders were a symptom of white priviledge, and I stopped. Gradually, I did the only thing I could do–I transferred the anger at myself to white liberals and “anti-racists.” I can’t talk about my experience with anyone, and I know it’s out of place in contexts like this, but I don’t know how to get over it. I spend way too much time thinking about this and being angry. I don’t even know who to be angry at. But I think something is wrong when any child grows up hating herself and wishing she were someone else. Anyway, that’s the white liberal version of the white lense. I don’t know how common it is. And I don’t claim to be less of a racist because of all that. But it might explain some white anger.
January 4, 2009 at 12:19 am
Akin
I think the issues ms_whosit raises are valid.
I am of african descent myself, and broadly appreciate the anti-racist aims. But they can lead to several unhealthy emotional/psychological states in white people if followed too slavishly.
In the end, African-Americans as a whole do need to take some responsibility & own their own destiny more.
White people need not walk on egg-shells. It should be enough to work by a simple rule:
NEVER TREAT A PERSON DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF RACE. Period.
If you are an employer, employ them. If a kid, hang out with them. In a church, visit & form groups that are mixed & inclusive.
I believe other groups of people have suffered intense trauma in wider society (victims of rape, torture, bereavement, miliraty conflict etc). But, by and large, after a time for adjustment, folks are expected to get on. A modicum of understanding & sensitivity is usually what other “victims” get, not a massive set of sociological rules written for their exclusive benefit.
I will never minimise the absolute catastrophe that was done to African-Americans (& Native Americans too) over the last 4 centuries or so. But, frankly, even white society is not perfectly even-handed to its own.
I sympathise entirely with your 15 “commandments”, and they are useful for reflection so as to confront the “Elephant in America’s Living-Room”… but, I don’t need people to be perfect to me. I just want a reasonably fair chance to make my way through life. I ask nothing more from all men, white and/or black.
March 5, 2009 at 1:45 am
deesee
14. It’s not all about you.
I really don’t get this one. Can you please explain? Couldn’t anyone say that to anyone? Couldn’t I just say to you and this entire blog, “It’s not all about you.”
Kinda lost me there.
March 5, 2009 at 1:52 am
resistance
Hi deesee, thanks for asking. It refers to a common tactic white people have when talking about racism. It becomes about their fears, their hurt feelings, their denial, their world view. What we need to look at is the way racism plays into systemic and institutional inequalities.
March 5, 2009 at 1:57 am
deesee
Ah. Got it.
But can I just ask, and please, I just found this site so I’m playing catch up, why do you just say “white people?” Surely, racism among other groups, between other groups, has people in it that do this too, right?
Why not say, its when “a” person, white or otherwise, confronts a racism discussion by making it about them, their feelings, their denial, etc?
March 5, 2009 at 2:02 am
resistance
By and large we are talking about racism within the context of a white supremacist society.
March 5, 2009 at 2:05 am
deesee
Love the quick responses!
Ok, I understand. Very interesting discussions and will certainly provide for some enriching reading.
March 5, 2009 at 2:20 am
resistance
You just happened to catch me awake and procrastinating.
March 5, 2009 at 4:06 am
taryn
@ Panracial~ Thank you and cosign.
March 17, 2009 at 2:27 pm
e-mail me thoughts
Wow. Such a volatile topic as always. I’m most interested in Ms. Whosit. I’d love for you to e-mail me as I’m starting up my own website on race and issues affecting black people specifically. Views of non-blacks are encouraged as long as they are as constructive as they are critical. I would also like to discuss some mental standpoints that you don’t see (or perhaps you just don’t hear about) everyday and yours is exactly what I have in mind for an article I want to write. So please e-mail me when you get a chance at tjjr1986@yahoo.com. I’d love to hear more from you. I find your state of mind very interesting and tragic. We all suffer from this social weapon of mass destruction that is race relations. Please contact me as soon as possible.
April 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm
attack_laurel
Awesome list! Can I suggest “PoC are not required to make white people comfortable before, during, or after any conversation on race”?
I really appreciate the racism bingo card; it not only keeps my own privilege in my mind so I can be aware of it, it helps me see through the derailing tacyics of people claiming to be “reasonable” or “objective”.
It’s through sites like this (and I’d like to add you to my links list, if I may) that I have been privileged (in a more positive sense of the word!) to gain the understanding that my perception of positive societal traits is neither normative or the standard that everyone should follow. It’s been really eye-opening and wonderful. Thank you for taking the time and making the effort. I will continue to educate myself.
June 30, 2009 at 6:22 am
missincognegro
A great compilation.
I would add the following to your list: Talking the issue of race to death doesn’t solve the problem. One has to “walk the walk”, as is often said.
July 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Jack
I do have a question concering this list. I do often get the comment that unless you are a person of color then you do not understand racism fully. I tend to agree with that in the fact that, as a white person, I have not, in any way, experienced racism or discrimination. So basically, I do not understand. Ok, granted.
So if it is not a person of color’s responsibility to enducate me then how do I learn? Mind you, educate, as I define it can be anything from direct confrontation to blog posts and books to criticisms and critiques of my own beliefs.
Otherwise, it seems that all I get are conversations from other white people about racism. A concept that we are not on the recieving end of and thus cannot understand solely based on our experiences. And some of the best expositions about racism has come from those that experience it. That would be education.
Can you expand on that particular concept for me? Do I have this wrong?
August 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm
From Margin to Center: Writing Characters of Color at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture
[...] approved comment and a deleted one. Also, our friends over at Resist Racism have a good primer on Racism 101. Please pay special attention to #7. – [...]
August 26, 2009 at 3:50 am
Lutsen
Jack said: “So if it is not a person of color’s responsibility to enducate me then how do I learn? Mind you, educate, as I define it can be anything from direct confrontation to blog posts and books to criticisms and critiques of my own beliefs.”
There are some good starting answers right there in your question. Yes, it is not PoC’s responsibility to educate white people about racism. And many continue to try to do just that anyway.
You could try following some of the many blogs about racism (complete with the comment threads that typically follow) which if they happen to be written by a white person (some are, some aren’t) are still usually spot on because they are held accountable by the commenters, many of whom are PoC’s.
There are countless, countless, countless books on the subject of racism, many by PoC. Might I suggest starting with bell hooks (black/female, strongly addresses interconnectedness with other isms), Paul Kivel (Jewish, but writes as a white ally), Ward Churchill (indigenous) and Derrick Jensen (white, strongly addresses interconnectedness with other isms). Anti-racism learning doesn’t NEED to come from PoC (though if no PoCs are involved, take a good hard look at that). Tim Wise is an absolutely fabulous white ally, IMO:
http://www.redroom.com/author/tim-wise
Go ahead and subject your beliefs to critique. Allow (as opposed to create) direct confrontation. Do this by finding a forum (online or in “real” life) that is open for you to speak, when you are sure that you are not diverting or distracting the/your focus from PoC. Keep an open mind. EXPECT to find out that you are wrong, ignorant, racist…. WELCOME the possibility that you are wrong, ignorant, racist…. This doesn’t mean accept as truth everything you are told just because it came from a PoC or a White ally that can use stronger or more academic sounding language than you. It doesn’t mean you have to put up with abusiveness, just because the abuser is a PoC. It means if your first impulse is to feel defensive, then acknowledge “I feel defensive” and then set that aside long enough to actually think about what was said rather than just immediately defend yourself (also take a moment to think about WHY you feel defensive, too). Many PoC are angry, suspicious and on a hair trigger when it comes to engaging with Whites, especially when it comes to talk of racism. Many don’t communicate with the same choices of words or manners/taboos as you and yours. Take the time to look for the message buried in the confrontational language.
Ask questions (when/where appropriate to do so!!!), but remember that no one is obligated to answer you, or give you the answer you are hoping to hear. (Consider the answer they DID give you anyway, though.)
In addition to asking questions, shut the hell up, as well! Many PoC (and white allys) are trying to scream the education white “anti-racists” want from rooftops, but can’t be heard because the white folks are dominating the space. If you just wait a little while, your question may be answered on its own. It is a fundamentally white/western idea that whoever asks the “best/smartest” questions gets the biggest slice of the pie. Many cultures gauge intelligence as the ability to learn through observation. Try it out.
Remember that “on the street” (as opposed to on the internet). You may have to actually form some genuine relationships with PoC to get the “education” you sound like you are seeking, if it coming from the mouth of a live, present, flesh and blood PoC is for some odd reason a requirement to you. Not a relationship BECAUSE they are a PoC. Just a relationship. Most PoC aren’t interested in being Racism 101 Sages to enlightenment seeking white pupils. It may be well intentioned, but it’s STILL objectifying. In the course of a relationship, the teaching will occur, if you let it. It would mostly happen in those little, seemingly casual, day-to-day interactions. You WILL fail to notice most of it. Although YOU may want to have many deep political/philosophical discussions about racism, they probably don’t because talking to white people about racism can be really really frustrating!
Unplug your television.
I hope this helps you get started, Jake.
August 26, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Lutsen
Sorry Jack about mistyping your name there.
August 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Jack
Thanks Lutsen. Much helpful information there. I agree that the words “responsibility” or “obligations” are the kickers I don’t expect anyone to be obligated to answer my questions and honestly,I usually don’t feel comfortable bringing up the topic unless I am very comfortable with the person I am talking with since emotions can run high ( and rightfully so).
Thanks for the response.
Cheers,
jack
October 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Racialicious on Richard Thompson Ford’s “A Primer on Racism” | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture
[...] My day job takes me into some pretty non-anti-oppressive environments. Generally I try to steer clear of conversations that deal with any parameter of power in depth (race, class, gender, sexuality, ability…) because in my environment, I find these conversations excruciating. It’s not that folks necessarily say blatantly hateful things. It’s rather that we can’t even agree on the basis for conversation. Or to put it more bluntly, my interlocutors have no concept of – or respect for – certain Racism 101 concepts. [...]
October 30, 2009 at 3:48 pm
pdwyer
I wanted to follow up a little further on the initials comments made by karma.
Karma ended a long conversation by posting: I kind of feel sorry for you guys for buying into this stuff. I know racism is real. However, that you’re hiding behind what amounts to nonsense (by definition because there’s no clarity of definitions) just seems to be self-fulfilling… At this moment, as a person open to hear the more nuanced perspectives on racism, I’m walking away from this with a sense that it’s over-thought excuse making.
In response to which resistance posted: Racismese translation summary: Patronage and privilege.
This struck me as a sad resolution (of lack of resolution) to a conversation that could have held promise for karma to become more of an ally for people of color. Instead, because of her or his own privilege, karma left the conversation with possibly less committment to anti-racism.
How do I, as someone who seeks to be an ally of people of color, engage with white people who neither follow nor these principles without reinforcing their circularly flawed thinking? Karma got defensive about using the word “defensive” as a prohibitionary response for white people to claims of racist behavior. Does that imply that she/he may have a point about not using that word in the original rule “Defensive responses to issues voiced by people of color are invocations of privilege”? On a broader level, is this list meant for white non-allies to understand? If not, how do we use this list to engage those, like karma (or like myself at times), who may “want” to be anti-racist, empathetic, understanding, etc. but fail to understand point 14, that it’s “not about you”.
As Jack brought up, white non-ally probably do need to be engaged, and in order to bring them into a deeper understanding of their own privilege they probably do need to make it about themselves at some point. How can that process play out in a productive way? I think these anti-racism 101 rules are critical to keep in mind when thinking about the end goal of doing this type of work or having these types of conversation, but in my experience, telling someone not to be defensive or that it’s not about them often has the effect of making them more defensive and more focused on themselves. How do I avoid that trap?
October 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Jack Daw
@pdwyer Nice points you bring up. I think, personally, being white and priviledged (priviledged in a way that ideally all people should be priviledged – namely to be judged by character rather than color) that the best way to respond is honestly and compassionately.
I understand that emotions run high in this conversation but I have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of yelling and anger and critisism for simply bringing up the fact that I don’t appreciate being yelled at.
To be told that I deserve to be yelled at seemed absolutely silly. So, I think if you are honest and compassionate (as well as passionate) with your discussion (how it affects you as a PoC rather that how a non-PoC is racist for whatever reason) the person you are talking to will attempt to view it from your perspective rather than becoming defensive.
No easy answer to this. The conversation is tough (and even tougher online).
Speak with compassion rather than with definitions I suppose is the point I am trying to get across.
Cheers,
John
November 16, 2009 at 5:29 pm
aklaura
Racism is alive and well in Anchorage, Alaska. You should see the comments being left over a Native employment website, good grief! I’ve been leaving comments as is another gentleman to enlighten others, but there is some serious hating going on here: http://www.adn.com/money/industries/native_corporations/story/1013464.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:e48f514d-b5e8-414b-ab74-af562ddebd63