BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


But I'm on your *side*.....or, why clever people can't be racist.

 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
16:39 / 11.03.02
Ok, must correct woolly writing. Friends was not a good word to use. I figured it comes down to breaking down the whole us-and-them mentality. Where us is anyone we believe we know and understand, and them is those weird folk that live 'over there'. As you say, it is possible (but hard) to understand someone without necessarily liking them.
Crunchy's bit about criticism from outside your social sphere sparked the stuff about getting into public spaces where you can run into people you might not meet otherwise. I was suggesting challenging prejudicial thinking by challenging the resulting prejudices one by one, rather than tackling the thought processes directly as you're suggesting.

Direct would be better, I'll admit. Do those exercises work well? Even on topics not covered by the examples?

Dammit, I hate it when I get carried away like that. Hope this one's better.
 
 
grant
19:10 / 11.03.02
quote:Originally posted by [monkey - greatest sage of all]:
How about the passive "discrimination" of the Western intellectual/radical by not treating post-colonial peoples as thinking subjects of their history, but rather as objects acted upon and shaped entirely by the forces of Europe? Or alternately, freely moulding their activities as subalterns and free agents to a pre-existing radical dialogue, thus similarly denying the historical subjects agency?


This one always pisses me off: my immediate, visceral image flashing from the guts to the head is of the white stoner hippie trying to sneak into an Apache peyote ritual.
There's also a personal thing for me; visiting South African relatives during the apartheid years, I was constantly struck with the thought that there wasn't really much difference between the notorious (and oft-televised) "shantytowns" and the home villages of the tribes who lived there. The economics was fucked and the family life was fucked (callously and intentionally, too), but the physical needs part of the standard of living was actually close to the same. From what I could see.
 
 
grant
19:15 / 11.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:
maybe once you start thinking 'it isn't that there's a kind of person who is a racist, it's that there are acts which have racist effects, including acts of ommission (things you don't do...)' that it's harder to hold the them-racist me-cool mcgool line.


Bingo.
Sort of a politico-social restatement of the Catholic Church's old, "Love the sinner, hate the sin," line.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:20 / 12.03.02
phwoar, low blow n the ref hasn't seen it!

no no no - oo that was a cheap shot. n a compliment to boot, the worst kind. it's not about sin and it's sure not about lovin anyone - it's about self-criticism n if you wanna xtian analogy, it's 'let the one without sin cast the first stone', n even that doesn't work coz it's not about stones but learnin from other people what yr not in a possie to know yr self. bein humble, callin people on their shit and listenin when others call you on yrs.
 
 
Cat Chant
09:20 / 12.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:
learnin from other people what yr not in a possie to know yr self. bein humble, callin people on their shit and listenin when others call you on yrs.


yes yes yes yes!

But the question *that* raises is... Well, in order for you to call someone or be called by someone else, you have to have set up some sort of (language-game-type?) rules between you on when/how it's appropriate to do so. And that initial setting-up, particularly when, as you say, the other person isn't in your posse, seems to me to be more difficult than the criticism/self-criticism parts.
 
 
Cherry Bomb
09:20 / 12.03.02
I really started thinking about this very issue myself when I visited my little brother at his University last fall. He's a major Snoop Dogg fan, and he also has a lot of admiration for Ludakris, Method Man, Redman, Nelly (you're sort of getting the picture me thinks). Anyway, the whole weekend he and his pal kept talking about these guys in a way that was at times reverential (Snoop), at times mocking (Nelly, Ludakris, etc.) . It's kind of hard to describe but it made me start thinking about minstrel shows and "Amos N' Andy" and the like. As if pop hip hop acts existed purely for the white middle class. May be some truth to that statement. And I decide that ultimately the way they were behaving was racist, but I still haven't said anything to them because I'm not sure exactly where that would lead.

As for myself, I know I was talking with someone about my use of the word ghetto. If something looks trashy, etc., I'll say something like, "look at that ghetto-ass furniture on the corner," etc. Now, this is a phrase I picked up in Chicago, and I never stopped to consider it until I've taken it out of context (Chicago). But I do think there's racism in my use of the word ghetto.

Which naturally makes my head explode, considering I'm a lefty liberal who's never ever racist...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:59 / 12.03.02
Think one way to get at the 'when do you get to call people on their shit' problem is exactly what Crunchy says...

'Being humble' causes alot of difficulties if you're trying to 'call' people, but to me it means starting from some point where you're utterly aware of the limits of your knowing, ready to be changed and altered by contact with other people's experiences/ POVs, presenting yourself as porous... And knowing that this isn't a static 'i've found it' point, but a constant process/journey.

Possibly that's it's the cleverest thing to accept that you're not as clever as you might think, or that your cleverness may be in v.specific areas? Hmm. not sure about this, but there's a use in 'unknowing' at times...

And that then 'calling' someone can maybe be an engagement rather than a 'laying down of law' .... it's possible, albeit tricky, to hold strong convictions/opinions while allowing them to be challenged/validating someone else's right to have an opinion...

The one alters the other, is I guess what I'm saying.
 
 
No star here laces
14:11 / 12.03.02
Is a white person a de facto racist if they happen not to interact with many people of minority origins?

Is a white Londoner who has less than 10% black friends a racist?

Should you practice affirmative action in your social life?
 
 
grant
18:14 / 12.03.02
Crunchy: Hee!

I think I get your analogy, and it makes more sense, but I still think the comparison to racist as noun (essential state of being) to racist as adverb (describing transitory actions/statements) is a pretty good one.

Lyra: That really sounds like an advocacy of an ugly kind of racist trophy-hunting to me.
"Look Merle, I bagged me a brand new Nubian squash buddy!"
"Hell, Jack, I got me one o' them last season - this year I'm after one o' them *subcontiNENtal* drinking partners. Been using these classy Hindu-print T-shirts as bait, but ain't had no hits yet...."
 
 
No star here laces
21:22 / 12.03.02
Well it does, doesn't it? But it strikes me as being the logical extension of all the hair-shirt activity going on in this thread.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
21:43 / 12.03.02
Care to elaborate, Lyra?

On separating (for example) homophobic acts form homophobic *people* - I think that door swings both ways, or at least has the potential to swing both ways. On the one hand, it can very usefully allow one to accept that a "clever" person (which cpuld just as well stand for "likable" or "politically sympatico") has just performed one. However, there is also the possibility of using it the other way - in effect, saying "this person is not a homophobe, therefore what they have just said or done ipso facto cannot be homophobic".

The same sort of application as "I'm no racist, but..." - the use of the initial speech-act or internalised declaration to set up a system in which subsequent speech-acts are "validated" - is one of the things that interests me about the whole setup...
 
 
bitchiekittie
10:52 / 13.03.02
homophobic: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture

racist: prejudiced against all people who belong to other races

Im honestly not trying to be a smartass, just attempting some clarity.

like I said earlier, we are all subject to some degree of assumption when dealing with other people. regardless of where the assumption comes from or how valid it is, it can potentially be incorrect in the current situation. we are also all guilty of some degree or another of ignorance - it being impossible to fully understand another persons experiences, particularly when dealing with someone who is vastly different from yourself (race, sex, sexual "identity", religion, culture, whatever).

so what is left? to me, its intent, and the feelings behind that intent.

(edited because my "racist: prejudice" bit turned into a VERY inappropriate smilie!)

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: bitchiekittie ]
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
10:55 / 13.03.02
Ah. So in fact, BK, *nice* people can't be racist?
 
 
Cherry Bomb
11:07 / 13.03.02
"This is WHERE the party ends,
cuz I feel like a hypocrite talking to YOU..."

ANYWAY. The thing is though, regardless of intent (or what one thinks is their intent) I think one should be honest about what the things they say and how they act actually MEAN.

I don't consider myself a "nigger hater", say but I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't racist. I've seen my reactions to certain situations and known that racism motivated them.

EVERYBODY is racist in some way, I think. It's an "us" vs. "them" thing. Racism and stereotyping did actually have a use at one point. I mean, first of all if you didn't attempt to classify the world you live in into some sort of order (I'm talking "family", "businesses", etc) you would go insane. You can't live in that much chaos.


Plus back in the old days, if I was a black person living in a cave and a group of white people came by and beat up my wife and took our food, you bet your ass I would be wary the next time some white folks came around.

So there WAS a purpose to "classification," say. But we as humans should be evolving; "that's kind of our role," to paraphrase Bill Hicks.

The examples I used are pretty clinical, but we know there is a lot of hatred and a lot of history and a lot of fear behind our stereotypes. The only way to move beyond those things is to OWN it, to OWN your racism and admit it, and figure out what it is you wanna do with it.

Let's take the word "gyp." I've been on my parents' ass about this for about a year. They use "gyp" to describe getting ripped off. When I point out to them that "gyp" is derived from "gypsy" and say, "You wouldn't say he Jewed me on the price, would you?" Well my Mom just keeps saying it anyway (I think out of defiance more than anything) whereas my Dad, though he put up a great argument as to why it COULD be socially acceptable, I know now can't say it without an ethical dilemma, and hence doesn't say it anymore.

My parents meant no harm. They didn't even know the origin of the word, for Christ's sake. But in spite of that, they were still perpetuating a stereotype. For no reason other than habit (and ignorance but hey). So WHY perpetuate a racial slur? Why not try and end it?
 
 
gozer the destructor
12:24 / 13.03.02
It is imposible to not be predjudice, we can only be aware of our own predjudices and try to reason through them to become more logical or 'actulised' as people, its important to debate these issues but it is important to realise the limitations of these egos we call 'I'.

ps. great pic cherry bomb
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:43 / 13.03.02
I think that you've got it right, Cherry Bomb. Trying to ferret out your own bias and -isms can be like trying to chase your own tail. Its better to accept that you might be and be open to criticism from others - of the type you gave to your parents.

You cant be perfect, but you can be open to your own failings.
 
 
No star here laces
12:52 / 13.03.02
Haus:

Yes, because I think if you shift the bar on racism from being about discriminating against people of other races to being about thinking differently about people of other races that has enormous consequences for what constitutes good behaviour vis a vis race.

If racism = categorising people at some level by the colour of their skin, then I submit that the whole world is guilty of it*. If that is the case, we all ought to act counter to this unsavoury tendency. Which would imply actively seeking the company of those of other races, and perhaps even seeking to propagate mixed-race children.

*Why do I think this? There is a well-known category effect in cognitive psychology whereby if people mis-name an item in a memory recall test it will usually be replaced by an item in its mental 'category'. We do this so we can remember stuff more easily, by using a 'tree' type system. I've noticed this in myself - when I'm fucked and I get someone's name wrong, it's usually replaced by someone in the same racial group.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:59 / 13.03.02
And....where did racism become identified as "categorising people differently according to their race"? One might just as well suggest that the same thing was done by eye colour, with a similarly anecdotal proof...
 
 
No star here laces
13:41 / 13.03.02
I'd argue that it became "categorising'" in the course of the discussions on this thread whereby racism was redefined as "ascribing any kind of generalisation to a racial group whether or not you act on it".

As for the anecdotal nature of the evidence, I can provide a reference for the categorisation studies in due course, if anyone really wants to read 'em - my anecdote is just to humanise a science reference for those who are not that way inclined. To me, the more compelling part of the argument is that given our brains categorise all sorts of things on surface characteristics, it is very likely that they do it with people too. (e.g. family vs non-family, fat vs thin, fancy vs don't fancy etc. etc.)
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
13:58 / 13.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Lyra Lovelaces:
I'd argue that it became "categorising'" in the course of the discussions on this thread whereby racism was redefined as "ascribing any kind of generalisation to a racial group whether or not you act on it".


Hang on - not sure I understand. Does that mean that "categorisation" has to involve ascribing characteristics? Or that the generalisation you ascribe is simply "this person is black/white/asian etc." How do the verb "generalise" and "categorise" interact there?

And how would these categories be elided by having more friends from different racial groups or more mixed-race children?
 
 
No star here laces
14:07 / 13.03.02
Well, presumably the function of examining covert forms of racism in a thread like this is to arrive at a conclusion as to how they can be combatted, right?

The general consensus of the thread has been "we agree we're all clever people and we agree we're all racist at times" right?

The general thrust of how this racism is manifested appears to be "I/we mentally (and/or physically) treat other races differently because of their race, although I/we don't actively discriminate against them".

I attempted to link this to a prevalent theory in cognitive psychology of how memory works, indicating that this may be an inescapable human failing.

I then attempted a reductio ad absurdum by then pointing out that if this form of covert racism was to be combatted, given that it is inescapable (the conclusions of the thread, not my personal conclusions) then one might conclude that it was every individual's duty to practice what might be termed "social affirmative action" - said trophy-hunting and making of brown babies.

Clear?

My own opinion is that racism that only exists in the mind is no racism at all, and to discuss a societal problems in terms of psychology is a category mistake that will only lead to people embarassing themselves. Which may have been the point.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:41 / 13.03.02
Of course, my original post was not about thinking about people differently depending on their race (which is not exactly the same as categorising them accoridng to their race, as it assumes values are imposed on that racial categorisation), but about people *being* racist, or sexist or homophobic or and so on, and effectively claiming a "get out of jail free" card by being on the side of the righteous.

If your contention is that familiarity with people of other races, procreation with people of other races and the progeny of unions between people of different races will help to break down those categories, then fair enough, but presumably that means that your act of posited "categorisation" goes beyond simply looking at somebody and categorising them as "black", which is going to happen, by your example, no matter how many black friends or partners you may happen to have.
 
 
Ganesh
15:07 / 13.03.02
quote:Originally posted by Lyra Lovelaces:
I attempted to link this to a prevalent theory in cognitive psychology of how memory works, indicating that this may be an inescapable human failing.


I'm not sure which theory you mean, Lyra, but it may relate to the learning theory concept of heuristics, cognitive 'rules of thumb' with which we approach unfamiliar quantities or situations. Heuristics are a form of mental shorthand which save us the time and effort involved in approaching every situation from scratch - but they operate on 'best guess' principles based on one's experience, background, formal teaching, etc.. They're often wrong - and accepting that is, I guess, akin to what you're saying, Lyra...

[Edited to repair link]

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
No star here laces
14:56 / 14.03.02
Dammit, I'm going to have to go look it up now. I learnt it in the cognitive neuropsychology part of my degree - it came from category errors in brain-damaged patients, rather than from learning theory.
 
 
Cat Chant
14:29 / 15.03.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Horror:
looking at somebody and categorising them as "black", which is going to happen, by your example, no matter how many black friends or partners you may happen to have.


Is it? Isn't that partly the point? The boundaries of racial categories like 'black' are historically constructed and therefore changeable. They're also, of course, expressed or constructed differently according to one's position in the social structure ("he is a racist, I am aporetically trapped in an always-already raced subjectivity...")

And, relatedly, categorising somebody as 'black' can *never* be innocent of some sort of racism, since the racial category 'black' came into being in Western thought at around the same time as - and as a justification for - scientific racism.

Not that that has anything to do with your original point. Except, I would say, that it is impossible not to participate in the construction of race which is operative wherever you happen to have been brought up: accepting that might be a way to manage some of the humility Crunchy & plumsbitch are talking about.

Lyra, I'm interested in this idea about affirmative action friendship for the same reason that all arguments against affirmative action seem to break down to me: if it's right not to let race affect one's judgment of people/choice of friends, isn't it wrong of me to pick all my friends *because they're white*? And thus, if all my friends *are* white, doesn't that suggest that I'm already operating an affirmative-action program - at least subconsciously, or at least one that can make itself invisible...
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
14:42 / 15.03.02
Point. But as I said, by Lyra's example that is going to happen, because in Lyra's example he has posited a setup where there is a set of defined "categories" already, with a set of names appropriate to the memebrs of each of those categories, so when he cannot remember somebody's name he selects another from the set within the category. I think what I was trying to say was that if that was the case then going on from there to "affirmative-action friendships" would do nothing to break down these preexisting structures.

But the question of whether racism lies in categorisation or discrimination is an interesting one - is it impossible to think of somebody "Black" "White" "Asian", without also ascribing characteristics beyond the phenotypical?

I've got a vague mindbuzz here about Ancient Greek not really having a word for "black", in that sense...

[ 15-03-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Horror ]
 
 
The Monkey
15:23 / 15.03.02
The ancient Greeks just had the words barbaros which was a nice catch-all prejudicial epithet.
While it was the "scientific racism" that sort of coallesced during the 1700s-the current day that set up the race categories that we think of as natural today, the mapping of [negative] pesonality traits, as well as a sterotypical physiognomy, is practiced pretty much evrerywhere, and in all times.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:56 / 16.03.02
(never mind. Maybe tomorrow)

[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: The Haus under the Ocean ]
 
 
alas
09:56 / 16.03.02
Lyra: As I stated earlier on this thread, I don't think it really matters at all what we think, or even how we think. The critical point is determining whether we benefit from the current social structure, which is based on raced and gendered categories, and by which people who are white automatically receive privileges at the expense of others.

So, I say it again, if you do not actively work against that structure you are racist. There's no such thing as being a "passive" anti-racist.

So, what this has meant, for me, is, making sure that my work place ACTIVELY seeks to hire people of color in positions of power. And it has also meant, in a way, I have a felt a moral obligation that relates to friendship.

A good number of my friends are formed through work. Now, personally, I like having people of color around; too many white and/or heterosexual folks in one place makes me nervous. (So I agree that if you don't see that the spaces you habitually spend time in, that the people you live and interact with are "white," then you're being unconsciously, passively, racist.)

So, anyway, I believe I also have an obligation (as well as a vested interest!), to help make sure that a new colleague of color isn't closed out of the social networks at work, for instance. I don't want to preach, so--at the risk of sounding pretentious--I'll just use my own feeble attempts in this area. I'm not claiming to be somekind of a white Martin Luther King, Jr. or an Atticus Finch wannabe, but I've become tremendous friends with a woman initially in great part because I was very conscious of the unconscious way white working friendships often work to exclude black folks.

First off, I was in a good position (my office was nearby, we have similar areas of expertise) to make a conscious effort to make sure she felt included in my department, and to listen to her. I mean it was important for me to send subtle and overt signals that we are on the same side, that I have her back, and that it's okay for her to be even sharply critical of the subtle and overt racism that happens in our field, in our workplace--in my actions. She calls me on stuff, I get defensive and then realize she's probably right. And I call her on homophobia. And I think she knows now that I will do whatever I can from what power I have, even when its scary, even when it might cause me trouble, to do what I can to change the way my workplace works.

Of course I might not have become as close to just any black woman. I love her and we have a great bond. But I'd never have become this close to her if I hadn't actively noticed the unconscious, almost invisible (to me) racist structures that have shaped me, and actively worked against them.

Of course categories like "black" are a product of racist structures. But pretending not to notice these categories is not any way to end their power in our cultures.

[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: alas ]
 
 
Cat Chant
09:56 / 16.03.02
alas, I love you.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
09:56 / 16.03.02
quote:Originally posted by alas:
So, what this has meant, for me, is, making sure that my work place ACTIVELY seeks to hire people of color in positions of power.


Isn't that being racist too? Against white people?
 
 
Cat Chant
09:56 / 16.03.02
I don't think so: it's a counterbalance to the invisiblized racism of *actively* favouring white people. (invisiblized because racism is usually talked/thought of in terms of discrimination-against-non-whites rather than active-choosing-of-whites).
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:56 / 16.03.02
On [iu]barbaros[/i] - what is perhaps interesting baout that is that, if I remember aright, it was not a term applied to somebody because fo the colour of their skin or the curliness of their hair or anything along those lines, but because they could not speak Greek. Not necessarily a hard and fast rule, but interesting that the lines were drawn in such a different way.

Where's Edith Hall when you need her?
 
 
alas
15:04 / 16.03.02
quote:Isn't that being racist too? Against white people?

No. If the history were different, yes.

Here's the thing: I'm an academic. And when I was in grad school there was this assumption, amongst white grad students and profs, that if you were a person of color your chances of getting a job after grad school were boundless. Well, when I was on the market a fews years back, the major publication in my field on jobs had an article about, no shock, if you were white and male you still had the best chance of getting a job. By a long way.

And since then I've heard some pretty awful stories from black colleagues. Because there was this assumption that "if you're black, everyone will want to hire you," a couple of friends of mine were just ignored in the job-search workshops, interviewing and resume preparation sessions that their department had.

And, the problem is, in the US, if someone sees "Harvard" or some historically white school on a resume, people are impressed. But Howard? Or Spellman? These are both excellent, historically black schools. It's important to know that when you're looking at candidates.

And "merit" is not a simple matter. Point being, having persons of color (and not just one token hire) actively involved in an institution changes that institution, brings new stuff to the table that are just very unlikely to be brought by white people.

And in Universities, having black profs is important to students of color--the sense of someone coming out of the racist culture that is the US and making it and doing good work in the system is important.

Ignoring race when race still matters at every level of our culture is not going to solve problems. It's just going to reinforce the status quo, the automatic assumption that white people who make it have "deserved" everything they got.
 
 
Bill Posters
15:48 / 16.03.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus under the Ocean:
On [iu]barbaros[/i] - ... it was not a term applied to somebody because fo the colour of their skin or the curliness of their hair or anything along those lines, but because they could not speak Greek ... interesting that the lines were drawn in such a different way.


Haus, from what I recall you're quite right. Though some Greek discourse (Herodotus?) includes a kind of meteorological behavioural determinism ('they're all lazy because of the climate there' stuff), I don't think there was a concept of 'blackness' as such. I seem to recall the Romans even had an emperor who would now be defined as 'black'. Nevertheless, cultural imperialism is as bad as racial imperialism. 'Fraid I don't recall any Athenian thinker declaring, "I know, lets invite the Persians over, give 'em a crash course in Greek and then we can all have a great big huggle!"

I came to an alarming realisation recently that many of my college-educated friends, 'blacks' or 'Asians' as they might be to some, are considerably less Other to me than, say, the 'working-class' guy in the flat downstairs who thinks that "books are for faggots" and hates students. So what happens if, say, I have a 'black' 'male', or indeed 'wigga' friend, to whom a woman is a 'bitch', and I try to object to him referring to his partner as a 'bitch'? Am I furthering 'the cause', or indulging in cultural imperialism/classism? 'Tis a postmodern impasse if ever I was trapped in one. And isn't this in a way what this thread (or the Wigga thread?) is about? The way cultural capital can oppress as much as any putative notion of a biological 'race'? Have we not mixed two separate phenomena here?

[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: Bill Posters ]
 
  

Page: 1(2)345

 
  
Add Your Reply