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...

[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.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I very much agree.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Ah!

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

[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*.

[sethg]

The term you're looking for is aversive racism.

[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.

[rosefox]

Exactly.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

This link is fascinating. Thank you.

[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.

[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."

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I agree that that's the solution; I agree that this is a variation of the "tone" argument.

But I also feel that it may, nonetheless, be a useful step.

[sev]

Digging stuff out of the mainstream's unconscious generally requires a multi-pronged approach.

For one thing, we can all work to make it make a difference to their lives. If people get called out on unconscious racism every time they do it, it'll make them uncomfortable enough that they'll be willing to put work into learning how to cut it out.

If enough of us keep repeating it in enough different ways and in enough different places, people start to listen. How many of us are now more passionate and more skilled anti-racists because of the recent iterations of RaceFail in fandom? I know that it's made a different for me.

[sev]

I agree that it can be constructive; that's why I offered up some vocabulary.

I do think it's important, assuming you've gotten somebody's calm attention with all the tiptoeing around, that you then close the circle. These words aren't just for letting people off the "racism" hook. The next step is that they understand that this thing they're doing, that's not intended to be racism, has the same outcome as racism that somebody does on purpose, no matter what we call it.

Otherwise it remains an intellectual exercise.

[sev]

...not that my response actually answered the question in the first twelve words you wrote. Sorry.

I have no idea how one goes about teaching white people to get less defensive. I got there by understanding the less-obvious ways in which racism touches me, by seeing parallels with my increasingly-radical feminism, and by sitting back and listening while other people got yelled at for being defensive assholes. But I don't really know how to extend that to people in general. "Shut up and listen" is an important lesson for everybody to learn and I don't know how to teach it.

I think your point that men listen to other men more easily than they listen to women is a good one; whites listen to other whites more easily than they listen to people of color, too.

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?

[kiya]

I was going to say this. So, yeah.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

:)

I think in the moment even a preface of "look, you may not intend it that way, but that statement is .. ." is a start. Outside examples, maybe, too.

Or maybe getting them to read all 4K+ ceretapost comments; dunno.

One recent example I've started using re privilege, in conjunction with Xiphias's sword-as-scythe story, was one told me by a gun enthusiast friend who lives in Florida. He knows a guy who thwarted a home invasion/robbery type thing, and called 911 from his yard whilst keeping the robber on the ground at gunpoint. After reporting address and that he needed police response and why, the guy in my friend's story went on to say, "Okay, now this is very important. Please make sure the responding officers know that I, the homeowner, am the 6'4" black man holding a gun. I repeat: the 6'4" black guy holding the gun is the homeowner. Do not shoot the 6'4" black guy holding the gun."

I find that when I tell that story it gets across a very basic concept of white privilege - that most of us would not think to describe ourselves to 911, nor likely need to, and yet just about any listener immediately gets where the homeowner was coming from when he felt the need to just make sure.

[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.