Tag: racism

Categories
Uncategorized

Next steps for anti-racist White Americans…

First of all, if you're not anti-racist, but you're a White American, this isn't for you. If you're going to pull some old-line "rebuttals" to well-established academic scholarship on race, this post isn't for you, and your comments will be deleted. I don't have time for your questioning arithmetic when you're in a calculus class. You're a derailer, and I've heard all of your tired arguments before. Nothing new here. Move on.

Still here? Actually want to be a better White person in America? You've already read/watched/participated in stuff like these:

  1. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and "Some Notes for Facilitators"
  2. Project Implicit
  3. ELI5: Why is it so controversial when someone says "All Lives Matter" instead of "Black Lives Matter"?
  4. White Fragility
  5. Racial Bias in Perceptions of Others’ Pain
  6. Are You Sure You’re Not Racist?
  7. 13th
Cool. That's a good start.

It's also great that you actually challenge your racist relatives and friends, because that matters, and you are making a difference, and frankly they're more likely to listen to you than to me or other non-White people. Good on you for fighting that good fight.

Some people think it's ridiculous to give "cookies" to people for being decent human beings, but you're trained and raised not to be, so when you fight that, it requires effort.

But you still might feel like "I'm not doing enough. I have a lot of privilege as a White person. What should I be on the lookout for?"

Obviously, call out overt and physically violent racism. That should be obvious. Racial slurs. Harassment.

But also be on the lookout (in yourself and others) for these subtler forms of racism:

  1. Do I think it's okay that White people defend themselves with weapons but insist non-White people resist only non-violently? Why are the Founding Fathers praised for a violent revolution against the British but Martin Luther King, Jr. is praised for being non-violent?
  2. Along similar lines, do I often rush to ask non-White people to forgive White people who've wronged them but show more understanding for White people who are resentful when wronged?
  3. Do I ever feel uncomfortable when I'm the racial minority in a situation? How much control do I have over being in the situations in which I'm the racial minority?
  4. Do I accept unquestionably narratives about all great things (literature, inventions, etc.) being created by White people? What have I done to seek out information on non-White historical figures?
  5. What media do I consume that features only White protagonists? What media have I sought out that features non-White protagonists? Why do I have to seek that out?
  6. Even though I try to treat non-White people well, am I acting more as if they're a guest in my house than as if we are equals in a house that is for all of us?
  7. Do I ever make assumptions that Whites hold majority positions of power because of merit alone? If non-Whites held majority of positions of power in Hollywood, politics, corporate boards, etc. and said it was just meritocracy, how would I feel? How would I imagine fellow White people would feel?
  8. It can be more difficult to see how "meritocracy" works in private hiring practices, but take a look at how straight-presenting cis able-bodied white males get scrutinized for in running for office versus... other folks. Good exercise: imagine public reaction to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton doing anything Donald Trump has done.
  9. Do you say you're not proud of slavery but still uphold narratives of slaveholders as noble in some way? How have you reacted to buildings named after slaveholders being renamed?
  10. Have you considered how questions like "If you could travel to any time in the past?" or "What actor would play you in a movie of your life?" are different from non-White people in the U.S. than for you?

This isn't a comprehensive list. Just a start. If you're reading this, you've probably gotten through a lot of anti-racism 101. This is your 201. Ask these questions of yourself and other White people as you go through your daily life.

P.S. Even though this is a 101 (not 201) point, just a reminder that this isn't about "White guilt." Feeling guilty or bad about yourself does nothing productive to end racism. See racism, call it out. Fix the system.

P.P.S. Here's an excellent example of White supremacy disguised as sincere concern (i.e., an example of concern trolling with a mix of gaslighting): Regarding “Did Oscar voters go for best or adjust for color?” (Jan. 25): The Oscar’s brilliance has dimmed. Because the question presented itself, it is already done. The once proud symbol of accomplishment in the entertainment industry has been smudged. An evaluation of skills and talent have been tainted by the irrelevant factors of diversity and political correctness. The pinnacle sign of accomplishment in the entertainment industry cannot recover and regain the respect it once had even with its sometimes troubling history. Most hurt of all are the nominees and recipients who can never know if they earned the award through talent or ethnicity. Oscars were always about merit before? Non-Whites didn't win Oscars in the past, not because they didn't get leading roles and juicy dramatic roles, but because they just weren't as good actors? Everybody knows that's hogwash. White actors now don't know if they won awards through talent or ethnicity. Why is it suddenly a bad thing for non-White actors to not know?

Categories
Uncategorized

Why are people picking on Girls?

Last year when Girls debuted on HBO, there was a lot of pushback on the blogosphere. Why was the cast all white? Isn't this New York? These whiny people aren't the voice of this generation. I was, frankly, confused by this reaction. All the criticisms were founded, of course. I just had no idea why people were (and actually still are) picking on Girls and on Lena Dunham.

Pretty much every major show on the normal networks and on cable has white lead characters, with the characters of color as support or background characters. Friends was all white in New York. So was Seinfeld. So was Sex and the City. Even the shows that have some racial diversity still feature white characters as the leads (for example, Law and Order: SVU had B.D. Wong and Ice-T, but the main leads were Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni; Hawaii Five-O's latest incarnation has Grace Park and Daniel Dae Kim, but the main leads are Alex O'Loughlin and Scott Caan).

There are, of course, exceptions. The Mindy Project features Mindy Kaling. And Psych has two leads, one of whom is Dulé Hill, though you could easily make the case James Roday is the main lead of the two leads, with Hill being more of a supporting lead character. (As a random side note, Roday the actor is partly of Mexican descent, but his character definitely appears to be generic white.)

If people are going to be upset about Girls being racist, they'd better be equally upset about... just about every other show in America! And if they're going to be upset about whiny characters, they should be equally upset about Curb Your Enthusiasm, Californication, and a host of other shows that are critically acclaimed.

Ultimately, I think this singling out of Girls comes down to sexism. For some reason, straight, white male directors/actors/writers get let off the hook for featuring straight, white male characters. But if a straight, white female director/actor/writer dares to feature straight, white female characters, all hell breaks loose. She's a woman! Shouldn't she be perfect?! Geez. No. This is an HBO show and is no more perfect sociologically speaking than any other HBO show. True Blood has lots of black characters, but are you honestly going to tell me that Sookie and Bill are not the main focus of the show and that the black characters are the main focus?

I'd love Girls to break some new sociological ground. I just don't think that one show alone should bear such a burden. The whole system needs to change. No need to single out Lena Dunham to turn the whole thing around herself.

Further reading: How Hollywood is Racist

Categories
Uncategorized

The Oppression Olympics

Welcome to the Oppression Olympics!

Here are some of the events you can watch, courtesy of the Google search engine:
Which Is Worse? Racism, or Sexism, or Asking Which Is Worse?
Sexism Is Worse Than Racism
Do victims of racism or sexism suffer more?

I don’t get why people get in stupid debates about whether racism or sexism is “worse” and whether black men face more obstacles than white women face. It’s silly. I’ve created a very simple illustration to show why it’s silly to entertain such a line of inquiry.


Take a look at this square. Let’s say that being closer to the top of the square means… better, whatever that is (more opportunities, less hate, more money—however you define “better”). Let’s also say that being closer to the bottom of the square means… worse, however you define “worse.”

So how would you then describe the situation of the dark-green stars in relation to the light-green circles? Is one simply in a better situation than the other? I don’t think so, since even such a relatively simplistic illustration shows more complexity than the “sexism is worse” or the “racism is worse” crowd would have you believe. I don’t get why people who have presumably taken geometry in secondary and/or primary school can get into such linear ways of thinking (“I’m ahead, you’re behind” or “You’re ahead, I’m behind”).

Categories
Race, Class, Gender, Sexuality

Immigrants are Americans

In a recent letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, someone named David Ferris wrote

Unfortunately, during the 2000-05 recovery, immigrants – both legal and illegal – got the jobs that should have gone to the youngest and poorest Americans. If we don’t make every effort to ensure that any jobs created go to our own people, we’ll be looking at another “jobless recovery.”

Hate to break the news to you, Mr. Ferris, but legal immigrants are Americans. I am the son of immigrants, and they are both full US citizens who work, vote, pay taxes, and donate to charities. I guess Mr. Ferris imagines he himself is not a descendant of immigrants…

Categories
Race, Class, Gender, Sexuality Uncategorized

Turns out Jimmy Carter was right

Of course not all of the Obama hate is race-related, but a good deal of it is, and here’s a great example:
Secret Service probes anti-Obama message at Lakeville golf course

What Carter was wrong about was thinking it’s all about the South. This was in Massachusetts.

Categories
Race, Class, Gender, Sexuality

Is there a new word to add the sociological dictionary?

Discussions of racism and sexism (or any *ism, really) in mixed company can easily become heated, especially if some people in the discussion try to combat the notion that we are “all in the same boat.” I don’t think the emotional charge of the discussion comes so much from what is being described as how it’s being described.

Usually, people trying to combat the notion of us “all being in the same boat” will use one or more of the following words: power, privilege, oppression. The “all in the same boat” or “reverse *ism” people will usually counter by using words such as victim mentality or whining.

Gender and race relations aren’t that difficult to understand. I think most people understand sociological phenomenon quite well, as examples are usually not argued with—it usually the meaning made of the examples that is cause for debate, offense, and possibly denial.

The problem, as I see it, is the lack of a proper word to describe a sociological problem that can’t be accurately described with the phrases “It goes both ways” or “We’re all in the same boat.” The word power isn’t exactly accurate to describe race or gender relations, nor is privilege. To say “you have power” with the implication “I don’t have power” makes the sociological problem too simplistic. To counter this claim, all the person who “has power” has to do is give an example of how the “powerless” has some kind of beneft the “powerful” doesn’t. The same limitation of the word privilege applies as well. The word oppression also makes it sound as if the “oppressor” is doing something deliberately malicious and invites the “oppressor” to accuse the “oppressed” of having a victim mentality.

I don’t know what this new word is, but I’ll try to explain why I think we need one, lest the status quo remain, wherein many Whites and males in America (the same may apply to other countries as well, but I can speak only for the US) feel hedged in by “political correctness” and accusations of “power,” “privilege,” and “oppression”; while many non-Whites and females in America (same disclaimer) feel frustrated by what they perceive as apathy, denial, and ignorance. Clearly, there are problems (again, at least in America) with regard to gender and race. Almost everyone knows there are problems. But we need a vocabulary to talk about these problems without making it personal.

I will say, as someone who has seen both sides of this debate (as a male “oppressor” and as a non-White “oppressed person”), that no one should take anything personally in these discussions. When feminists talk about the patriarchy, they are talking about a culture that both men and women perpetuate that is more than a collection of sexist actions by individuals. Likewise, when antiracists talk about systematic racism, they are talking about a culture that both Whites and non-Whites perpetuate that is more than a collection of racist actions by individuals.

Let’s take a break from race and sex for a moment, though. I can already anticipate the blood boiling of some of my readers. I know Hari is dying to talk about dowry harassment again.

I’ve always worked in schools. I’ve worked in many schools, and I know that not everyone in a school is equal. There are students. There are younger students and older students. There are students making good grades. There are students about to fail out. There are faculty members. Some faculty have been teaching for years. Others are new. Some faculty are prized by the community. Others are on the brink of being fired. There are staff members. Some staff have a higher position than other staff. Some staff get paid more than other staff, even though they work the same hours. There’s a principal or head of school. And there may be a board of trustees or some kind of school board. Maybe a superintendent.

In a school, I wouldn’t exactly say that the teachers are more privileged than the students. Yes, the teachers can come and go without getting a hall pass. They don’t have to have “senior privileges” to go off-campus. They get paid to be in school, whereas the students have to pay (through taxes, tuition, or both) to go to school. Nevertheless, you could argue, I guess, that faculty don’t have the same privileges students have. If a faculty member’s performance is poor, she may get a warning and a little support, but basically she’ll end up fired if it continues. It’s not difficult to be fired if you’re a teacher, even if you’re trying your best.

It is, however, quite difficult to fail out as a student if you’re putting in any kind of effort. When you’re a student, everything revolves around you. You do what interests you. If you aren’t doing all your work well, you are the only one who suffers. If you’re a teacher and aren’t doing all your work well, all your students suffer.

Do teachers have more power than students? Ostensibly so. If a teacher tells an administrator or another teacher “Jenny was cheating on her final exam,” most likely the administrator or other teacher will believe that Jenny has cheated. Teachers can make arbitrary rules students have to follow. Teachers decide how much work students have to do. On the other hand, if a student tells an administrator, “Mr. Neruda touched me inappropriately and tried to have sex with me,” that student has pretty much ruined Mr. Neruda’s teaching career, whether the charges are true or not. A student can fail out of school or get kicked out of school and still get an education at another school. Once a teacher has been accused of sexual misconduct with a student, that teacher is very likely not to get a job teaching again… anywhere.

Are students oppressed? Not really. They can’t make the rules. They’re often considered less credible than the teachers. But the school is really all about them. If the students’ needs aren’t getting met, the staff and faculty are expendible and can be replaced.

Of course, there are limitations to this analogy as it applies to race and gender relations. After all, one could easily sum up what the teachers have that the students don’t have with the word authority. You can argue with power and privilege, but ultimately teachers have authority, and students don’t. Even when a student accuses a teacher of sexual misconduct, the student has to be believed by other adults, not by peers alone. You can’t say White people have authority and non-Whites don’t. Nor can you say men have authority and women don’t. Or if you do, that would be only one small part of the problem.

I don’t know what the solution is. All I know is that we aren’t all in the same boat, and I don’t really know how to convey that without people accusing me of having a victim mentality or of misusing the words power and privilege. I do know that it’s important to realize that we are all dependent on each other and that sociological phenomena is not a zero-sum game. White people were not better or happier people in 1850 in America than they are in 2008 in America. Men were not better or happier people in 1900 in America than they are in 2008 in America. But you would think they would have been if the words power and privilege applied. After all, if you consider me to have power and want me to give up that power, then I have less power. If you consider me to have privilege and want me to give up that privilege, I have less privilege.

All I know is that with all the fighting, backlash, more fighting, concessions, denial, arguments, and semantics debates, sociological problems are staying just the way they are. I don’t want America to be a place where politicians and celebrities make racist and sexist remarks or “jokes,” get protested by various activist groups, and then give a token apology or retraction.

Categories
Race, Class, Gender, Sexuality

“Equality” shouldn’t assume we’re all in the same situation

Examples
When I was in high school, there were some people who didn’t understand why we had a Black Student Union and an Asian Student Union but no White Student Union.

When I was in college, one time we were eating in the cafeteria, and a white male heterosexual friend of mine looked up at a banner that said, “This is you” (or something like that) and listed a bunch of marginalized groups, and he yelled out loudly and indignantly, “No, that’s not me!”

At the last school I taught in, some students were upset after an assembly with an LGBT panel and said something to the effect of, “That was awful. They say they want to be treated just like everyone else, but they want to be special, too.”

This is a constant tension in a society that, at least as the American mainstream media portrays it, has no systematic racism, sexism, classism, or homophobia. It’s not a system, after all. It’s just a few crazed, backward individuals. As far as some people are concerned, there is no problem that needs to be fixed. So all these groups that seek to give voice and advocacy for the disenfranchised are useless. Why have a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People if you don’t have a National Association for the Advancement of White People? Why have a Black Entertainment Television channel if you don’t have a White Entertainment Television channel?

Problems exist
Well, first of all, I have to say that it is systematic, not just some crazed individuals. If you have presumably enlightened people asking if America is “ready for” a Black president or a woman president, then, it’s systematic. If you have Hollywood constantly pumping out White-centric movies with either no or only supporting actors of color (with the occasional Will Smith exception), then, it’s systematic. If well-meaning and supposedly “color-blind” White people keep mixing me up with other Asian-Americans who look nothing like me (totally different heights, skin tones, facial structures, mannerisms, and dress styles), then it’s systematic.

The problem is that life isn’t as simple as some people would like to believe. Yes, there are some overtly extreme bigots. Those people do exist. But most acts of racism, sexism, fill-in-the-blank-ism come from systems and people working along with the system without even knowing it. You don’t have to look any further than Peggy McIntosh’s “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” to see how this is the case.

I consider myself lucky. In many respects, I am in the privileged (not marginalized) group. I am male. I am upperclass. I am college-educated. I am straight. But if I were also White, I don’t know if I would recognize how crazy these accusations of “double standards” or “reverse racism” are. I think I’d be making those accusations. It would seem logical to me. “If I can’t have a White group, why can you have a Black group?” “If I can’t have a male group, why can you have a female group?” There are a few things to think about this if you really want to know the answer to these questions and don’t want to just feel smarmy and superior.

It basically all comes down to whether you think problems exist or not. If you believe that after the passing of certain civil rights laws that we all of a sudden have equality in the US, then of course such groups would be silly. If, however, you believe that laws are only the beginning and much work has still to do be done on people’s hearts and on the culture in general, then such groups should not only be allowed but encouraged.

Think of it this way: if a student in my school were to start a campaign to raise money for earthquake relief in China, would it make sense for me to object “Why are you raising money for relief in China? Why don’t you raise money for America? We just had an earthquake here last month!”? Not really. The earthquake in China killed upwards of 60,000 people. I don’t even know how many people (if any) died in the latest Bay Area earthquake.

Treatments have to fit the problem
Treating a problem isn’t favoritism. It’s sheer logic. It’s actually equality. Treating everyone the same when a problem exists isn’t equality. It’s lunacy. If someone’s right leg needs radiation therapy to kill a cancerous growth, it doesn’t make sense to give the left arm and brain radiation therapy as well in order to be “fair.” Real fairness means treating whatever body part needs treatment. It doesn’t mean giving the same treatment to all body parts. The medicine that cures you when you’re sick can also kill you when you’re healthy.

But who is really healthy in a country where -isms abound and are even ignored? Everyone in America needs treatment but different kinds of treatment. Let’s look at marriage as an example. Let’s say you have a marriage in which the wife does everything for the husband, and he does nothing explicitly positive for her. Basically, he does whatever he wants, and she facilitates whatever he wants. He does nothing she wants unless it also happens to be what he wants. The husband clearly benefits from this arrangement in superficial ways. If he wants to be pleased sexually, she will do whatever he wants. If she wants to be pleased sexually, he doesn’t have to make the effort to do so. If he wants a vacation, they’ll take one. If he doesn’t want to do the dishes, she’ll do them. If he wants to watch TV, she won’t ask him to do something else. If he wants to have a night out together, she’ll always be up for it. He will be above criticism. She’ll never nag him. It’s quite obvious that she benefits little from this relationship, apart from never having to make tough decisions and being responsible for the outcomes of those decisions. But let’s say we want this marriage to work before the wife commits suicide or leaves him. Is it enough to send her to therapy? Is it enough for her to just say “No, I don’t feel like it” every now and then? No. The marriage of this hypothetical couple needs therapy in both directions, but the therapy isn’t the same. The therapy the wife receives needs to let her know she can assert herself, that her happiness matters, that it’s okay for her ask for things, too. But the husband cannot receive the same therapy. He already knows how to assert himself. He already knows how to ask for things. In fact, that’s the problem! His therapy would have to tell him that even though he superficially “happy,” and even though the way he’s treating his wife is morally questionable, the main reason he should seek a marriage of equality and mutualism is that it’s even better than what he has now.

Humanity is not a zero-sum game
Relationships (between races, between marriage partners, between genders, between sexualities, between classes) are a lot like the prisoner’s dilemma. The version of the prisoner’s dilemma I got in high school had a four-part matrix with arbitrary quantities outlining degrees of desirability for the outcome. You and your partner have committed a crime and are being interrogated separately by the cops. If you confess and your partner confesses, you’re both going to have less happiness (probably more prison time). If your partner confesses and you don’t, your partner will get more happiness and you’ll get a little less. If you confess and your partner doesn’t, you will get more happiness and your partnet a little less. If, however, neither of you confesses (in other words, you cooperate with and trust each other), you both get more happiness (i.e., no prison time) than in all the other scenarios.

I can attest that a marriage of equality and mutualism lacks a lot of the superficial benefits of a totally dominant/submissive marriage, but the rewards are wonderful for both parties. And this extends to demographic groups as well. Yes, as an upperclass person, I wouldn’t really want a workingclass person stealing my money, but a society in which the rich were a little poorer and the poor a little richer I believe would be far better off than the one we’re living in now.

Next steps
There are a few things people in the privileged groups can do if they’re interested in really helping and not just having arguments:

  • Recognize that advancing marginalized groups doesn’t hurt you in the long run. It’s not us vs. them. It’s us with us. After that hypothetical couple goes through therapy, both will have a better marriage in the end for it.
  • Entertain the possibility that problems may exist. A lot of times it might seem like feminists or gay people or people of color are just whining and complaining or indulging in a “victim mentality,” but all they’re trying to do is get you to recognize that problems exist in the hopes that you’ll stop trivializing things with questions like, “If you have an X group, why can’t I have a Y group?” No one is saying “Woe is me. Pity me. Oh, poor me.” They’re just trying to say “Wake up! Can’t you see there’s a cancerous growth in this part of my leg? Can’t you see the cops have caught us and we have to decide whether to cop a plea or not?”
  • Form your own groups, but make them productive. No people of color are going to complain about a Whites-only group that seeks to educate other Whites about White privilege. No feminists are going to complain aobut a male-only group that seeks to educate other males about male privilege or sexism. No gay rights activists are going to complain about a straight-only group that seeks to educate other straight people about homophobia or heteronormativity.

There. I’ve said my piece. I said what I thought needed to be said. I realize many people will disagree with what I’ve said, but I hope it’s at least made you think.

Categories
Life

Obama v. McCain – I have to say this before November

Now that Obama has essentially become the Democratic nominee and we’ve been through all the accusations of racism and sexism throughout the Democratic primaries, I have to say that I really think this presidential race will be fair (mudslinging will occur on both sides, of course), but people will invoke race as a deciding factor no matter how the election turns out.

  • Yes, there will be people voting for Obama mainly because he’s part-Black. These would be Black people wanting some more representation or people of all races wanting a historic breakthrough of the racial glass ceiling in politics.
  • Yes, there will be people voting against Obama mainly because he’s part-Black. These would be honestly open racists or people (Geraldine Ferraro, for example) who think Obama got to where he is now only because he’s part-Black and will use the excuse of McCain being better for the job.
  • And then you’ll have people who will honestly vote for whomever they think is the better candidate or the lesser of two evils, and race won’t be a major factor in their decisions.

But regardless of the outcome, the media and bloggers alike will say race was the big thing that determined the outcome. If McCain wins, people will say “Even though Obama made great strides in being the first Black presidential nominee, America isn’t ready for a Black president” or more blatantly, “It’s still a White man’s world, and America is still racist.” If, however, Obama wins, people will say (and I’m sure Geraldine Ferraro will be the first in line) “Oh, he won just because he’s Black and got more media attention than McCain did for the past year. This is affirmative action at the highest level of politics” or “White liberal guilt has beaten out blatant racism.”

In other words, no matter to what degree race actually is a factor in people’s decisions as to whom to elect to the presidency, the media and most bloggers will think the decision was all about race.

Isn’t that insane? I think it’s insane. Barring the much-hyped potential “dream ticket” (if Obama chooses Clinton as his running mate, and she accepts the choice), I think race will actually have very little to do with the actual outcome. I think the pro-Black candidate voters will cancel out the anti-Black candidate voters, leaving the people who vote on issues or along party lines to decide the election.

If the first part-Black or Black presidential nominee was on the Republican side of things (say, Colin Powell), things would be far more interesting. I traditionally vote Democrat, but would I vote Republican to give the US its first part-Black or Black president? That’s not the case, though. In this case, the people most likely to be caught in such a bind are liberals, and so would more likely vote Democrat anyway. And most Republicans I know (not all, of course) are staunch believers against affirmative action or perceived affirmative action of any kind, so having the Republican nominee be a White man also poses no dilemma. As usual, most voters will vote along party lines. Republicans will vote Republican. Democrats will vote Democrat.

We have to stop attaching significance to sample sizes of one. When we do that, we create self-fulfilling prophecies. If you keep saying, “Clinton lost. America clearly isn’t ready for a woman president [or America is still too sexist]” enough, then it’ll come true. Most people will not vote for another woman candidate, because they’ll fear she won’t win anyway. If Obama loses to McCain and you keep saying, “Obama lost. America clearly isn’t ready for a part-Black president [or America is still too racist]” enough, then that’ll also come true. Most people will not vote for another part-Black or Black candidate, because they’ll fear she or he won’t win anyway.

I realize this presidential race is racially charged, but please don’t make race the only player in this game. It’s in the room, but it’s not the elephant in the room. Everyone knows it’s there. Let’s start talking policy and platforms here, people.