Yet another thought about RaceFail sorts of things in general.

[xiphias]

For the most part, the racism in these RaceFail thingies is NOT of the "I hate blacks/Latinos/women/whatever" type. It's a far more subtle form -- "I don't THINK about blacks/Latinos/women/whatever -- they're just not part of my mental model." There's no hostility, there's "just" ignorance.

When talking about GLBT issues, there are two terms: homophobia (which, let's not forget, means aversion to gay topics, not fear -- "-phobia" is NOT a terms which refers only to fear, but also to any other form of aversion, such as disgust, formulated as "that's not natural"), and heteronormativity.

People who are familiar with and study racism are aware that "racism" includes actions and attitudes which are analogous to both of those terms. People who aren't familiar with it are only familiar with the first term.

In nearly every case in these RaceFail iterations, the racism is of the second form: not even THINKING about minorities, and just assuming that the white male experience is universal -- that whatever is true for me as a white male is universally true for everybody. It involves no hatred or aversion -- it simply involves just plain not thinking about the issue in the first place.

And in all those cases, when the person has that pointed out, they point out that weren't working out of hatred, aversion, or malice, and that they are therefore not racist, and that those calling them racist are totally off-base.

Would there be an advantage to adding another term to the debate, more clearly similar to "heteronormative", to avoid this confusion? I have no idea what that term would be, but it seems to me that it might be useful.

Comments

[holzman.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to note that the set of RaceFail iterations included many cases where the issue was that the "white" experience is universal, not the "white male" experience -- there has been no shortage of white women who are very clear and eloquent on the non-normative nature of male experience who still managed to treat white experience as normative.

[flouritephoenix.livejournal.com]

LJ needs the equivalent of the facebook "like" option.

I have nothing to add.

I just "like."

[navrins]

Certainly, having a less loaded term than "racist" with which to describe behavior which, while it's not as bad as most of us agree racism is (and react defensively when accused of it), can still be pointed out as something to try to avoid.

[flouritephoenix.livejournal.com]

I mean, on the net RaceFail itself seems to have taken on that meaning, but it sucks as an analysis term of any seriousness...

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I think Spider Robinson calls it rupture, when the worldviews of two people result in them just talking past each other, and not understanding why the other is upset.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

I think you're right that another term would be useful. I think it might also be useful to distinguish between willful ignorance about white-normativity (like what we saw at the Sotomayor confirmation hearings) and ignorance born out of lack of experience with/awareness of "difference." I have certainly been guilty of the latter, though college helped wake me up significantly.

[rosefox]

The word exists. It's "colorblind". The problem is that a lot of people seem to think it's a good thing.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Ah!

And THAT is why L. Jagi Lamplighter's comments about "not noticing race" are such a problem.

[kiya]

I was going to say this. So, yeah.

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Yep, I was going to say that too. Well done.

[felis-sidus.livejournal.com]

Your comment makes me think I've been misunderstanding the term "colorblind". Would you say more about what it means to you?

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I very much agree.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

I think you're on to something here. And the RaceFail interactions that really blow up are like a two-stage rocket:

Stage 1:
A: "That sort of racism never happens to me, so it must not exist."
B: "That's because your privilege is invisible to you."

Stage 2 is where the problems occur:
A: "No way! I am totally enlightened and can't be racist, because I am not a bad person. You have threatened my identity and now I will lash out in response."
B: [it almost doesn't matter what B says here...]

Now it's moved from (presumed) ignorance to either willful ignorance ("I don't want this to be true, so it isn't"), arrogance ("I know more about how your life goes than you do"), or actual hate ("The darkies have seen through my smokescreen")...all of which have poor consequences.

And I think that's what people object to, even more than the invisible backpack. It's not just the invisibility of anglomasculonormativity; it's the ensuing reaction of disbelief or abuse that results from attempting to talk about it that really needs a name (and needs to stop). No one pretends there isn't homophobia in America (though some argue there isn't *enough* anti-gay sentiment), whereas people like to pretend racism is gone/solved/irrelevant/not practiced by *them*.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Part of it is the "threatened my identity" thing. I've commented in the past that it seems like there's a shorthand acquired, given enough *studies classes, where if someone's behavior is identified as racist the person knows that there's no underlying "and that's why you're a horrible person" because sie already has the background of getting privilege, or societal racism etc.

Unfortunately, a lot of the time the conversation is with someone without those backgrounds, so they get as far as thinking they've been called a bad person when they wouldn't ever say/do something they knew to be racist.

One of Xiphias's posts, years ago, was the first to really make sense to me about privilege, but I think I only really got it when watching Cereta's post of doom. Because being female and seeing examples/discussion of male privilege (e.g. not realizing that it would be considered dangerous to jog at night in the woods) gave me both context and distance.

[sethg]

The term you're looking for is aversive racism.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

This link is fascinating. Thank you.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that link! Very good stuff there.

[sev]

In addition to the "aversive racism" sethg calls out, there's "normalization of whiteness." The author of Racism Review also talks about the "white racial frame".

However.

These discussions about the definition of "racism" that center around a person's *intent* are a red herring. Throwing yet more vocabulary into the mix is not going to fix the problem, which is people who do and say racist things want to derail discussions of racism so they don't have to own up to our own complicity. I mean, really. How do you get to "not thinking about the issue" without "aversion"? The "find a different word for racism" discussion is just another iteration of the tone argument.

Part of serious anti-racism work is to teach that racism is institutionalized separately from the intent of the individuals who implement it (and that the intent, therefore, is irrelevant). That's why one of the shorthand definitions of "racism" is "prejudice + power."

Just as heteronormativity is one of the foundations upon which homophobia exists, the normalization of the white racial frame is one of the foundations upon which racism exists. If you want to make "the debate" easier, teach White people to not get so defensive when we're called out on our unconscious racism.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

How do you go about teaching white people to get less defensive when pretty much you're saying, "here, you can continue in your life and blithely ignore this whole thing and it won't really make much of a difference to your life, or you can deliberately make yourself uncomfortable in order to help fix something you didn't know was therein the first place"?

I feel like any attempt to recognize that the Party in Power a) doesn't understand what that means and b) really doesn't give a rat's ass about the Cause (b/c they've not yet been educated about it and won't be unless they stop to listen) ends up getting labeled "tone argument."

I kept seeing that in the Ceretapost, and it drove me crazy, 'cause when I repeated stuff in my journal the guys started really /thinking/ once I got through to them that "yes, I consider you one of the good guys, and I think when they say 'all men are potential rapists' they mean 'no unknown man can be considered to be not a threat.'" B/c they'd get as far as the words about rape culture, and immediately feel a need to distance themselves from the bad guys (yes, diversion) and completely miss some of the "hey, good guys. call the not so good ones out, 'cause they'll listen to you and not us."

Color

[rymrytr.livejournal.com]

I say the following, without anger, my face is calm and my voice is normal. My intention is exchange of ideas - no flames intended!

It seems that all the "finger pointing" is at Whites. Being a mix of American Indian, Jewish, Irish, Bavarian and Welsh, I don't know which label to stand under. :)

The President is always referred to as "African American", is judged that based upon his appearance even though he is of a mix, as well.

In this discussion also, I see that we must be talking about North America? There is more (non-white) Race/Classification/Separation in India than here. If you are born into the Class that handles Sewage for one, that is your lot in life and it is rare that one can move, socially, beyond that.

In Irag, one religious group wants Genocide for another.

In Africa, forced Slavery, (Black on Black) is based upon Race, as well as religion, social status and economics.

In the late 1800's, Black Soldiers in the U. S. Army (Buffalo Soldiers), aided the "European" (ok, I'll say it) White-Man in the attempted Genocide of the Great Plains and Southwest (the so called Apache Wars) First Nations.

Terminology, while necessary, is subjective to our "knowledge". Example:

To the New York Times, it was the Custer Massacre at Little Big Horn, but to the some of my Ancestors, it was the "Victory at Greasy Grass"...

My point here is that the only "racism" I can control, is in myself. It is good that we bring it to light, to educate others, but let's not "whine" and give the impression that one group of people is responsible, planet wide. Let's work together in kindness. We can shout "Hey! You are a Racist!" or we can speak and live, by example. Show your children the "shame" of their ways, by your example, and even though it takes a generation, they should then, do the same for theirs. Say one thing in public, and another at home, and you destroy all your efforts and plant seeds in their minds that will last several generations.

OK, I'm off my Soap Box; who's next?

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

I haven't read any of the other comments, but the general term for this is "White Privilege." I do not believe that people who look at the world through white privilege are "racist" but the fact of white privilege definitely contributes to societal racism.

[diony.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this! The comparison to heteronormativity is something I finally (after 8 months of pondering) was able to frame a few days ago, and I think it's going to be immensely helpful in communicating my perspective to other people.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I had this same thought about the terminology. whitecentric? Caucasionormative?

Though I would say that it isn't *purely* a matter of not thinking, since when asked to think, the problem does not resolve. It's thinking you shouldn't have to think.

[navrins]

...and thinking about it doesn't automatically help, either.

I frequently tell the story of how, growing up in my mostly-but-not-entirely-white New Jersey suburb, it really never occurred to me to think of black people any differently than blonde people, but after a year or two in Boston being bombarded by messages about diversity and how important it is not to be racist, I was myself far more likely to be scared of a black stranger on the street than a white one. (I think I still am, though at least I'm aware enough to try not to let it influence me much.)

This is not the outcome you're looking for.

[copperpoint.livejournal.com]

I realize that popular usage can change the meaning of words, but for the most part people use the word Racism incorrectly (at least according to its original definition). The words racism or racist were originally used to describe a system that assigned different rights and privileges to one race over another, like Apartheid or Jim Crow laws. Prejudice, on the other hand, describes an individual's beliefs regarding race, whether or not those are active ("I hate -insert group here-") or passive (assuming that the white male experience is standard).

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Doing catchup... this is a sensible question, but I'm too afraid that my head will blow up if I read the comments to go see if anyone had sensible answers.

(Although, that said, very often people put a lot of effort into ignoring those other experiences. I could go on about trying to talk about those other experiences only to be told various bits of my life didn't happen, but, well, I'm trying not to have my head blow up.)