*I speak mostly of race in this post, but the ideas expressed are widely applicable to many forms of discrimination including sexism, heterosexism, etc.
I feel like the issue of race has been come up a few times in the past week vis-a-vis an April Fool's edition of my school's student newspaper that was at best ignorant and insensitive (the paper doesn't publish the April Fool's edition on their website, but scans are available). Then I saw the story about the middle schooler who made a KKK board game for a class project designed to teach that history in a "fun" way at Womanist Musings. Because I like to torture myself while procrastinating papers about Constitutional Law, I've read many comments on these stories, and those who disagree with the offended parties seem to have three main issues:
1) It was satire; it's not like they could ever mean something so ridiculous as to suggest that we should "[add] a few drops of Georgetown's milk into some dark chocolate Cocoa Puffs". Geez, learn to take a joke.
2) Waah!!! Black people are the racist ones! If we had a White Students Association or a National Association for the Advancement of White People we'd be racists!!!!!!!!!
3) Sure, maybe it was a little insensitive, but it's not like they intended to offend so it's not racist.
First of all, when you use jokes to satirize something, it's supposed to be funny. If you want me to learn to take a joke, you should first learn how to tell a funny one. Second, I don't really see the purpose in satirizing interracial dating unless your motives are that students shouldn't do it. Satire is used to poke fun at something you disagree with. If you're using satire to poke fun at interracial dating either you're racist or you don't understand satire.
This whole "reverse racism" thing really gets me too. Racism=Prejudice+Power. For the vast majority of the history of this country and this school, every student group was a White Students Association and every organization worked for the advancement of white people. And ya know what? It was racist. Maybe we're forgetting a little history here: white southern men were still lynching black men for the fun of it when many of our parents were born. This is not ancient history folks. In a time when black students still have an incredibly tough time just making it through high school, it's not funny when you say that "blacks are everywhere...[including] the men's and women's basketball teams [and] sociology classes". Say it with me: not funny.
While we're on the subject of not funny, satirizing an interview with a serial sexual assaulter on the campus who still hasn't been caught is also not funny.
Now on to the intention argument. All jokes aside, this is the one that really bothers me the most because it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the way the world works. I appreciate that none of the parties of which I speak intended to offend anyone; it doesn't make it all better though. It really doesn't matter if I didn't intend to mark "B" instead of "A" on my test - it's still wrong, and I still get a worse grade because of it. But more to the point, all of this (I believe well-intentioned) emphasis on the intent of the offender privileges the offender at the expense of recognizing the experience of the offended. In other words, if I didn't mean to offend you, then it doesn't matter what you feel because I am well-intentioned and you are obviously over-sensitive. Never mind the fact that the comment was stupid and ridiculous anyway. It is a means of erasing the experience and importance of historically oppressed people. Not okay.
Obviously, we as a society have a long way to go before we reach a real understanding between different peoples, but we will not get anywhere as long as people hold so desperately to this idea that it is only their intention and not the effect that matters.** No, the student in Kansas didn't mean to offend anyone, but the adult in the situation (the teacher) should have realized that making a game in which someone plays from the perspective of a Klansman is not a sensitive way to teach that history. People must start caring as much about how their comments are perceived as how they are meant, and it's going to require a lot less naval-gazing and a lot more effort.
**The response from the Editor was (surprisingly to me) very cognizant of that very fact.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Race, Sex, and the Privileged Concept of Offense.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12952
Well said. Thanks. I'm going to have to link this to someone who recently commented on my blog while still clinging quite desperately to a (not-often-recognized) privilege.
Oh my god #3 bugs me so much when people do it!
Cause sometimes, saying that you didn't mean to offend someone can be really good in the context of apologizing like, "hey I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings and now that I realize that I did, I will stop that behavior".
But some people seem to think that because their good intentions can get some sympathy while apologizing, that they can just skip the whole admitting they were wrong part, and just say they didn't mean to offend, period. So that should get them off the hook, right??? They're such nice people, how can you be mad at them for their hateful comments? /sarcasm. Being blind to the feelings of others is not a good defense.
Racism=Prejudice+Power.
The idea that racism cannot be present without power has always bothered me... In my Soc 101 class all those years ago I was introduced to the idea of 'isms.' Which, if I recall, is pretty close to the definition above.
On one hand, while 'isms' are a nice academic concept, it does not really work when it gets passed down and diluted from it's nuanced meaning.
I can recall walking home from school as a wee little kid, about 5th grade, and one of my classmate, who was black, was saying some pretty hateful stuff. (I can't recall what he saying, just the general nature of his comments)
I said it was racist, and he said that he can't be racist, because he is black, and only white people can be racist.
I don't see why there is such a problem with people ascribing to a specific definition of racism. The words 'bias' or 'prejudice' can be used in the circumstance you describe. I don't understand the need to use the word 'racism' or why there is so much push back against the definition racism = prejudice + power.
And I'm really not criticizing you, I seriously don't understand it.
I think the push-back, as you put it, comes from a more... I guess the term would be literal, definition of the word racism, namely the belief that a race can be superior to another, or a hatred or prejudice on the basis of race alone.
At the root of racism or sexism is some level hatred. Hatred of the different or unfamiliar.
To me, hatred the key aspect of racism, not the power relationship, and to say that racism requires power, appears to me, to excuse the underlying hatred that the term racism is getting at.
I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. As Punchbuggy said, there are other words like prejudice and bias to indicate the hate that don't include the power aspect. At their heart, the -isms indicate something discrete from "simple" prejudice exactly because they are systemic. The key aspect of sexism is not that a bunch of men were mean to a bunch of women, but that we live within a patriarchal structure in which women are systematically oppressed by more powerful men.
In terms of historical context, it is important to maintain the fact that there is something different about a prejudice that is accompanied by power over those one holds prejudice against (or even accompanied by more power to act within the system than others).
Ok, I can understand the push-back coming from people wanting to interpret racism as "the belief that a race can be superior to another."
Though I disagree that the root of racism or sexism is always hatred. Though I do think there are types of racism and sexism that stem from hatred, and the effects of that racism and sexism are the most damaging.
But I think the most prevalent forms of racism and sexism do not stem from hatred, or even any moral blameworthiness on the part of the individual engaging in the conduct or holding the attitude. Treating people differently based on unfair stereotypes rarely stems from hatred, just from lack of education/experience.
Or when people in a position of power institute policies that disadvantage certain groups of people because the person in power has never had to consider the positions of any group to which s/he is not a part. For example, a male teacher instituting a bathroom break policy that students can only use the restroom twice a day. That would disadvantage female students on their periods in a way it would not disadvantage a male student. To me, that's a form of sexism w/o moral blameworthiness, just thoughtlessness.
I also think that always using male or white as the default is sexist and racist, though does not stem from hatred. Such as medical textbooks always showing the human body as male.
When I think about isms in that way, it makes sense, and is almost necessary, to include the 'power' aspect, because the sexist/racist results only happen because a certain person had power, as a teacher, as a professor writing a medical textbook.
That response would have been a lot shorter if I had a clearer idea of what I was talking about. But I'm still working it out...
Yeah, combine my response w/ h*yaforchoice's response, and it'll make more sense.
Steven, I recommend reading some of Renee's posts at Womanist Musings. She recently wrote about claims by commenters that she participates in "reverse racism," and explained the issues with the term and the way it is used as a silencing tactic against POC, specifically WOC in her case. And that's what you seem to be focusing on-- "reverse-racism" or what you perceive as racism against white people by people of color. I fail at creating links, but you can get to her post here: http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/04/too-hard-on-white-folk.html
The gist of the article is based on the idea that racism=prejudice+power. When poc write about the systematic oppression that they face every day, and are then accused of "reverse racism" because of a less-than-friendly attitude toward their oppressors, it is a silencing tactic.
While the "hatred" of the different or unfamiliar that you speak of does make sense to some degree, the real issue here is with the power dynamic. But hatred alone does not create an -ism. And like h*yaforchoice explained, it's less about single acts of hatred and more about the system of power and privilege.
"a hatred or prejudice on the basis of race alone."
I get your point, but I would like to point out that the black kid that insulted you in 5th grade did not hate you solely based on your race. He hated you based on the privilege and power that your race has and the history your race has of oppressing his race. That is why his hatred is not the same as racism.
I don't remember him hating on me, I think it was Asians, specifically Chinesse...
Responding generally to my respondents...
In regards to 'prejudiced' or 'bias' being a more appropriate word than racist...
Its my understanding the idea of racism being based on power a new development, or nuance to the word, and I think the old definition is fine. If you narrowly define it, its a way of excusing prejudices of one group or another.
I like adverbs and adjectives... If we can identify institutional racism, then we should be able to think up a modifier to racism that includes a power dimension and does not appear to excuse a group or persons biases or prejudices because they are not in power.
And requiring a power dimension still leaves the problem of some people saying that they cannot be racist as they are a minority.
What would happen if two ethnic minority groups in the United States have a hatred towards one another on the basis of race, and they have equivalent amounts of power?
With the power requirement, all sorts of hatred, animosity and so forth that stems directly from differences of race would not be called racism.
That just does not make sense to me.
But if you define racism as "the belief that a race can be superior to another, or a hatred or prejudice on the basis of race alone" then it COMPLETELY erases institutional racism from the definition of racism. So your definition of racism is perhaps even more limiting than the prejudice + power definition.
So the prejudice + power definition excludes the scenarios you talk about; and your definition excludes institutional racism.
And the thing is, when talking about racism in modern society, must of the discussion is going to focus on institutional racism, so I don't think it would make sense to have a definition of racism that excludes the most prevalent form of racism.
AND your definition of racism has an aspect of moral blameworthiness that accompanies attitudes which are conscious or intentional. Institutional racism on the other hand, only has a level of moral blameworthiness that accompanies not knowing/understanding something that a person SHOULD HAVE known/understood.
And I think there is a real problem if every single discussion of racism involves that level of moral blameworthiness, because it sometimes isn't appropriate and it's very counterproductive because people will automatically tune out if they feel they are being condemned in such a way.
Basically I'm just arguing that the prejudice + power definition is more useful for the level of discourse that we engage in on this blog and others like it.
Lots of funny things are also offensive, and sometimes they're funny because they're offensive. Apparently this guy took the offense too far for his audience, although I laughed. I'm also a horrible person who laughs at tasteless humor. Possibly it wouldn't have been as funny without the red ink.
What I don't get is how this could be mistaken for satire. It's funny (or not as the case may be) because it's absurd as a newspaper article, not because it's mocking interracial sex. The "vanilla-chocolate swirl" and "Georgetown cream" phrases are intended to be funny because they're ridiculous-sounding and out of place.
Basically I'm just arguing that the prejudice + power definition is more useful for the level of discourse
An increasingly esoteric definition of a word does not make it mo better if that esoteric definition is to far removed from the original definition of the original word.
I mentioned institutional racism as an example how using a modifier can improve the level of discourse. It is because of the great difference of meaning that 'institutional' brings to 'racism' that the conversation is advanced.
The argument that modifiers limit the definition rather than expanding the definition in a more precise manner just seems to miss the point.
Imagine a conversation about sex. Someone could claim that sex is only penile-vaginal intercourse. But, of course, people point out there are other forms of sexual activity, penetrative and non-penetrative.
But once ya start adding adverbs, adjectives, prefixes and of that, the conversation can proceed in a way that is not esoteric and only available to the learned few.
And I also ask again, what happens when race-based animosities are expressed between two racial groups that share the same power-levels?
What is that called when (what I think) is the most obvious word, is off the table?
What happens when an individual is biased against their own racial group?
How do you describe that without using the word 'racist' in some form or another?
Esoteric? Really? It's not that strange of a definition. Definitions change over time. It's not that big of a deal.
"And I also ask again, what happens when race-based animosities are expressed between two racial groups that share the same power-levels?
What is that called when (what I think) is the most obvious word, is off the table?
What happens when an individual is biased against their own racial group?
How do you describe that without using the word 'racist' in some form or another?"
If you are actually interested in answers to those questions, then I suggest you follow the links heather sent you.
I only saw one link, which I assume was an original statement that Heather... restated.
In bold was "Another 101 fact, racism equals privilege and power" so, sending me there to prove that proposition was almost, if not, tautological.
My take away from the link provided was white women still have white privilege, and black men can still be sexist.
The poster at Womanist musings states as I have mentined some beleive "therefore, it is not possible for a person of color to be racist. We may have individual prejudices but racism is an impossibility."
I disagree.
Prejudice on the basis of race is racism, regardless of the ethnic/racial status of the prejudiced holder.
Recapitulation: To believe that some races/ethnicity are incapable of racism is racist.
"To believe that some races/ethnicity are incapable of racism is racist"
Wow, you've completely lost me. So I'm racist now??? I'm done.
Anyways, Renee talks about it often at Womanist-Musings. You should click around. And I'm pretty sure that post has more to it than you've claimed. In the comments too.
I'm sorry, but I think you may be adding a level of hostility to Steven's comment that I don't think is there. The comment of "Wow, you've completely lost me. So I'm racist now??? I'm done." closes down the lines of communication pretty completely, when it seems to be that Steven genuinely does not understand the purpose or sense of the perimeters being ascribed to the word/concept of racism, when adding modifiers - like "systematic" to racism gets the job done without narrowing the original word down to where it can no longer be applied to other situations. I do think that "Prejudice by the basis of race" is a more fitting definition than to racism than "prejudice, exercised by individuals in power, based on race."
I suppose, though, that using the term "racial prejudice" would be acceptable in places where the term "racism" is not by your definition. Or is that also inappropriate?
A quick review of the top comments at the above link indicate the discussion there is as it is here.
I also clicked on the "get your 101 on" link, and read a bit into that, but only so much. The poster there seems to be bigot, which, since we are having problems with words, is a person who is devoted to their own idea and treats those that don't share those ideas with intolerance.
Does the poster at Womanist Musing fulfill both critera? Check... and check.
In regards to reverse racism, I always read that as reverse institutional racism, not just simple racism of a minority group against the majority.
If you're going to define "bigot" with such a lack of nuance, you could easily be defined as a bigot as well.
And I just love how you are using the very thing that you are arguing the definition of as the reason you won't define it any other way. That's quite some circular logic you have going there.
Woah, I think you might want to slow down here. It's completely inappropriate to call another blogger a bigot, especially since you don't seem to be acquainted with her work beyond one or two posts. As far as I'm concerned, that's a silencing technique and a personal attack on said blogger.
Feministing is a blog where all the time people are called out as racist, privileged, sexist, ageist, ableist and any other slew of terms... not only that, but community posters will come to feministing and basically brag about calling people sexist asshats or whatever.
But ya can't call someone a bigot?
Others seem to take it upon themselves as a moral duty to point out others sexism, privilege, and so forth, otherwise, how would they know to fix it. The author of the blog in question has had her nature pointed out to her (articulate and otherwise) and does not care.
I am not going to waste my time and email her, but I will say that I am not going to be spoon-fed dogma.
I have stumbled across the blog in question several times, linked here and on other websites, and the authors M.O. is readily apparent. The writers mind there is like an iron cage and those that disagree with her are fools or morally corrupt.
To be clear, bigotry is not based on what you believe, but how you believe it and how you treat those that don't agree with you.
There can be a person that agrees with you 100 percent on the issues, and they could be a bigot and you are not, or vice versa.
It does not matter how articulate your positions are. It does not matter if you are for or against fluffy bunnies, capitalism or Captain Picard.
The blog of reference, feministing, and others, deal closely with ideologies. When you have ideologies you get dogmatic thinking. And when people combine that dogmatic thinking with judgments of those that don't follow their dogmatic thinking you get bigotry.
Point blank. Full stop. Don't pass go and collect $200. Its bigotry.
I don't think this kid was intending to be offensive, and I do concur with one of the commenters on the news article, that this kid should have been instructed about cultural sensitivity, and that the general notion of the game was good. Describing the Klan activites as something desirable (You can't go to the lynching) especially as a participatory exercise may have been a bit over the line, but twelve year olds are, and they need to be educated. I worry that this student might get browbeaten and not educated.
As an African-American and a member of the NAACP it worries me that this child might come to see the issue as the NAACP restricting his rights, rather than as someone trying to educate him.
Hmm, while I'm not the biggest fan of making the assignment about the KKK a board game (just like I wouldn't be a fan if the assignment about the Holocaust was a board game), I don't think that's really the issue. Nor do I think that the kid is really at fault. At 12 years old, one's ignorance is definitely not one's fault. Where I think the situation broke down and was allowed to go further than it should have was with the teacher. The teacher was the adult in the situation who should've known better and sat the kid down privately and said something along the lines of: I know you didn't mean any harm and it's not going to affect your grade, but the way the game is organized is insensitive and here's why.
Personally, I hope the kid is able to remain completely anonymous (although I think that ship may have sailed). The last thing any middle schooler needs is to have his ignorance paraded in front of the whole world.
And I just love how you are using the very thing that you are arguing the definition of as the reason you won't define it any other way. That's quite some circular logic you have going there.
Are you saying that I am saying that the definition of something is the definition of something?
And if you can show that I meet both criteria for bigotry, then yes, you could say I was a bigot.
But I don't know if I am that dogmatic and judgemental... I am very tolerant to other people ideas and all that, if I get new info I change my position, so forth and so on.
Doh,
But in regards to redefining words nilly willy, I take an anti-Humpty Dumpty approach
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.''The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
More at:http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
If a word has a perfectly good definition, why distort it in a way that is completely self serving and can be used to shield yourself from meaningful introspection and defend against legitimate criticism?
You know, when I asked the question "I don't see why there is such a problem with people ascribing to a specific definition of racism," you could have just been straight-forward and said you dislike it because you thought it was a way for POC to avoid dealing with their own prejudices. We could have actually had a productive conversation.
I actually have a bit to say about it now that I know what you were actually talking about all along. But this thread is dead.
Suffice it to say I think you're wrong. I don't see how the r = p + p definition allows POC to avoid their own prejudices anymore than your definition allows you to avoid your own privileges.
If you have something more say about it, please create a Community Post or blog it out and cross-post it.
I did look at my above response to you, and I can see that that was something I was thinking so loudly in my head that I kinda read it into what I wrote.
On another note, I don't see how someone being married to a specific person negates what she admits is prejudices and biases (racism) against other groups.
If I said "I can not be sexist, after all, I married a woman!" to justify sexist behavior I would be ripped to shreds on this site. I am sure that saying "Not all women are sluts, after all" would receive similar treatment, or "black people are ok.... once you get to know them" would similarly be called out as sexist and racist, respectively.
-Please forgive the lateness of my reply.
And if you actually read Womanist-Musings instead of just perusing it to find instances of Renee's "prejudice against white people," you'd know that she's married to and has two kids with, a white person; thus it is QUITE unlikely that her definition of racism is based on her desire to avoid dealing with her prejudice against white people.
At first I was taken aback by Steven's accusations of bigotry and of the self-serving definition of racism relating to Womanist Musings. However the more I read the more I think he is right.
Digging further, I found a post in which she defends her characterization of radical feminists as "hateful bitches." She goes on to deny that her use of bitch is sexist: "For bitch to be sexist, it would have to be uttered in a conversation in which there is a power differential." That is self-serving. I can't cite a similar example relating to race, but to me the concepts are related.
After Womanist Musings failed to satisfy my desire to better understand the reasoning behind the r = p + p definition, I found a discussion of the topic at The Angry Black Woman. From what little I've read of this blog, I found that it patiently explains anti-racist theory in ways that even a white person (such as me) could understand.
I think I understand the definition better now. I'm still not crazy about it, but I think I'll just leave it at that.
One thing I find curious is that in my years of reading about feminism, I don't recall having seen the "sexism = prejudice + power" definition before.
I've been consistently reading Womanist-Musings for a while now, and I its an awesome blog, so I think I read her intentions differently. As for 'bitch,' I actually agree with a lot of what she says. I personally would never use the term on a feminist blog because I wouldn't want to offend people, but I understood her use of it. I think SOMETIMES people police language not because they actually care, but because they want to silence the person talking, and she was reacting to such a situation.
And I think Feminism does kind of have a 'sexism = prejudice + power' aspect to it. I think most feminist theory presupposes that society is set up as a 'patriarchy' which, on average, disadvantages women and privileges men. And anything sexist is anything that reinforces that power structure. That's how I interpret it anyways.
So if a woman calls a man a 'bitch' she might mean to belittle him by calling him a female pejorative. That is sexist because it reinforces the notion that female is bad, male good. If a man calls a woman a 'bitch' often (but not always) the feeling behind it is that there is something inherently wrong with a woman who acts aggressively. This reinforces social hierarchies of men above women, and so is sexist. And sometimes when a woman calls a woman a bitch, those problems aren't there. (Except, in the words of Tina Fey, the more women call each other bitches, the more it makes it ok for men to.)
I think the problem with the discussion of the definition of racism is that people are not accounting for the difference between institutionalized racism (which requires power) and internal prejudices (which don't).
I don't think you need power to be a raceist. I'v met all sorts of people from various minority groups with searious racial hatered.