tl;dr racy racitude.
I asked one of my students what race meant to him, and his answer began with the word "racism." It's a telling shift; race, for him, is the experience of racism. I think that's depressingly common for black Americans, or really, for any American who isn't white.1 Otherwise, it seems to me that race is often experienced as cultural or familial, it's interwoven (as any identity ideally will be, I would argue) with various other identities.
When I teach about race, often the most significant moment in the classroom is when I make the distinction between racism and prejudice. Racism is the discrimination against or oppression of a person or group of people based on their race, with the added leverage of social power behind it. (As witchqueen simplified it: prejudice + power = racism.) Prejudice is the discrimination against a person or group of people based on their race without that added leverage. Prejudice is still a serious problem. When someone uses an icon that has the word "honky" in it, I am to a certain degree offended and/or silenced. However, because of the systematic institution of white privilege, I am not experiencing "reverse racism." There is no such thing. I can't be oppressed based on my race in America, because I am in a position of unspoken and unquestioned privilege because of the color of my skin.
This moment in the classroom can become profound when I say to the students, "every white American is or has been at some point a racist. I am a racist." This is not something people say, which I find repellent. We've turned racism in this society into an untouchable evil, when it is a fact of our daily existence. So it is not evil to be a racist. It's bad, but it's not essentially evil. It is part of how white Americans are socialized, part of our learned behaviors and assumptions. It is evil when we do not combat it, when it is allowed and accepted and exercised. The only way to combat racism, at least in my experience, is to talk about it, continually admit to it, and examine your actions when it seems like they've been influenced by it.
This is, for the record, how I feel with regards to all sorts of oppression. Generally the only thing human beings have going for them is communication. Without communication, we don't compare very favorably to animals. At all. Generally I am not offended by sexism, or homophobia, not if the person is willing to talk to me and make a genuine effort to have a conversation. I don't even have to turn them into a commie pinko liberal bleeding heart homo-a-go-go for me to be pleased with the conversation (although every time I do, I get a toaster and a coupon for a free game of skeeball). I just want to have a fun, interesting, intense conversation with people about stuff that we're normally too scared to talk about.
This is why I am irritated and even angered by the claim that "I do not see color," or that "racism doesn't exist." This is also the problem with the argument that a person did not know or does not mean the racist implications behind a certain word. Those implications are there, and when you attempt to evade them by claiming ignorance, blindness, or lack of intent, you are silencing the discussion and refusing to engage. That is, in my opinion, an extraordinarily racist act, and by definition an unexamined one.
All this sort of stuff has been said better and more clearly by others, of course. This isn't news. But it is something that bears repeating, I think, for just the reasons that I outlined above.
There was recently a big to-do about race and racism in fandom. daily_deviant posted a "miscegenation" challenge, and when witchqueen commented about the racist implications of that term, the mods of the community refused to apologize, refused to see that they did anything wrong, and refused to change the name of the challenge. (They have since changed their position, after fandom outcry.) You can see witchqueen's posts if you go to her LJ (July 30, 31, August 1, 2). They are thought-provoking and much more thorough on the subject than I can be. I like her posts, even though I disagree with her on some points and actions, because she encourages debate and communication.
I keep thinking about this from a 19th century scholar's perspective. I did a lot of research on perspectives towards miscegenation for a paper on Pauline Hopkins' "Of One Blood; Or, The Hidden Self," which is a badass book of wacky awesomeness. [/plug] The book involved three people, two men and one woman: Reuel, Aubrey, and Dianthe. Reuel and Dianthe were married and loved each other dearly, and when Reuel went on an archeological dig and discovered the lost kingdom of Ethiopia, Aubrey forced himself on Dianthe using his mesmeric powers. By the end (spoiler alert), the three are revealed to be siblings.
I argued that while the incest did indicate the legacy of slavery, the incest was also an idealized romance of monogenesis2. One of the reasons why Hopkins supported the idea of monogenesis is that it rendered irrelevant the concept of miscegenation, which at that time was, yes, actually was perceived as equivalent to bestiality, or at least at the same level of proscription. This is the point I'm making, anyway: I've seen a few people say that people are overreacting by saying miscegenation is equivalent to labeling interracial sex/relationships as bestiality, but historically speaking, that is the comparison that was made. A white woman who engaged in sexual relations with a black man was permanently sullied or defiled, and this was compared to if the woman had engaged in sexual relations with a dog; mixed-race offspring were compared to mules, and were expected by some scientists to be infertile. These beliefs constitute a legacy that continues in American society. It is part of our history. This history is embedded in our language, and while it is true that words evolve and are modified through usage (hence why I can call myself a queermosexual or a girl-loving faggot), we cannot escape the history of our terms, or the legacy of that history in our everyday actions and experiences.
I am willing to believe that the mods did not intend this implication, and, what's more, I don't really care. What bothered me, and what continues to bother me, is that there was 1) a refusal to engage in the debate by the mods, and 2) a dogpile onto the debate by fandom as a whole, all taking the "right" position of being against racism.
I would like even more critical engagement to result from this debate than has thus far. It's very well and good to be anti-racism, and I appreciate that everyone who has commented on posts considers themselves to be against racism. But we need to be careful to avoid dogpiling on a debate just because it's good to be anti-racist. I think what is necessary is a careful examination and discussion about the various investments of fandom, of our fannish texts and practices. I think the most generous and sweet thing we can do for one another at this point is to take the opportunity to discuss and risk being wrong about something, or not on the side of what's right and respectable.
1 - I can't speak for a non-American perspective, so I'm not.
2 - Terminology: Monogenesis, a theory which Hopkins supported, was the idea that all races originated from one ancestry. Polygenesis is the belief that different races are from different ancestors. BOTH monogenesis and polygenesis have been used to racist ends.
When I teach about race, often the most significant moment in the classroom is when I make the distinction between racism and prejudice. Racism is the discrimination against or oppression of a person or group of people based on their race, with the added leverage of social power behind it. (As witchqueen simplified it: prejudice + power = racism.) Prejudice is the discrimination against a person or group of people based on their race without that added leverage. Prejudice is still a serious problem. When someone uses an icon that has the word "honky" in it, I am to a certain degree offended and/or silenced. However, because of the systematic institution of white privilege, I am not experiencing "reverse racism." There is no such thing. I can't be oppressed based on my race in America, because I am in a position of unspoken and unquestioned privilege because of the color of my skin.
This moment in the classroom can become profound when I say to the students, "every white American is or has been at some point a racist. I am a racist." This is not something people say, which I find repellent. We've turned racism in this society into an untouchable evil, when it is a fact of our daily existence. So it is not evil to be a racist. It's bad, but it's not essentially evil. It is part of how white Americans are socialized, part of our learned behaviors and assumptions. It is evil when we do not combat it, when it is allowed and accepted and exercised. The only way to combat racism, at least in my experience, is to talk about it, continually admit to it, and examine your actions when it seems like they've been influenced by it.
This is, for the record, how I feel with regards to all sorts of oppression. Generally the only thing human beings have going for them is communication. Without communication, we don't compare very favorably to animals. At all. Generally I am not offended by sexism, or homophobia, not if the person is willing to talk to me and make a genuine effort to have a conversation. I don't even have to turn them into a commie pinko liberal bleeding heart homo-a-go-go for me to be pleased with the conversation (although every time I do, I get a toaster and a coupon for a free game of skeeball). I just want to have a fun, interesting, intense conversation with people about stuff that we're normally too scared to talk about.
This is why I am irritated and even angered by the claim that "I do not see color," or that "racism doesn't exist." This is also the problem with the argument that a person did not know or does not mean the racist implications behind a certain word. Those implications are there, and when you attempt to evade them by claiming ignorance, blindness, or lack of intent, you are silencing the discussion and refusing to engage. That is, in my opinion, an extraordinarily racist act, and by definition an unexamined one.
All this sort of stuff has been said better and more clearly by others, of course. This isn't news. But it is something that bears repeating, I think, for just the reasons that I outlined above.
There was recently a big to-do about race and racism in fandom. daily_deviant posted a "miscegenation" challenge, and when witchqueen commented about the racist implications of that term, the mods of the community refused to apologize, refused to see that they did anything wrong, and refused to change the name of the challenge. (They have since changed their position, after fandom outcry.) You can see witchqueen's posts if you go to her LJ (July 30, 31, August 1, 2). They are thought-provoking and much more thorough on the subject than I can be. I like her posts, even though I disagree with her on some points and actions, because she encourages debate and communication.
I keep thinking about this from a 19th century scholar's perspective. I did a lot of research on perspectives towards miscegenation for a paper on Pauline Hopkins' "Of One Blood; Or, The Hidden Self," which is a badass book of wacky awesomeness. [/plug] The book involved three people, two men and one woman: Reuel, Aubrey, and Dianthe. Reuel and Dianthe were married and loved each other dearly, and when Reuel went on an archeological dig and discovered the lost kingdom of Ethiopia, Aubrey forced himself on Dianthe using his mesmeric powers. By the end (spoiler alert), the three are revealed to be siblings.
I argued that while the incest did indicate the legacy of slavery, the incest was also an idealized romance of monogenesis2. One of the reasons why Hopkins supported the idea of monogenesis is that it rendered irrelevant the concept of miscegenation, which at that time was, yes, actually was perceived as equivalent to bestiality, or at least at the same level of proscription. This is the point I'm making, anyway: I've seen a few people say that people are overreacting by saying miscegenation is equivalent to labeling interracial sex/relationships as bestiality, but historically speaking, that is the comparison that was made. A white woman who engaged in sexual relations with a black man was permanently sullied or defiled, and this was compared to if the woman had engaged in sexual relations with a dog; mixed-race offspring were compared to mules, and were expected by some scientists to be infertile. These beliefs constitute a legacy that continues in American society. It is part of our history. This history is embedded in our language, and while it is true that words evolve and are modified through usage (hence why I can call myself a queermosexual or a girl-loving faggot), we cannot escape the history of our terms, or the legacy of that history in our everyday actions and experiences.
I am willing to believe that the mods did not intend this implication, and, what's more, I don't really care. What bothered me, and what continues to bother me, is that there was 1) a refusal to engage in the debate by the mods, and 2) a dogpile onto the debate by fandom as a whole, all taking the "right" position of being against racism.
I would like even more critical engagement to result from this debate than has thus far. It's very well and good to be anti-racism, and I appreciate that everyone who has commented on posts considers themselves to be against racism. But we need to be careful to avoid dogpiling on a debate just because it's good to be anti-racist. I think what is necessary is a careful examination and discussion about the various investments of fandom, of our fannish texts and practices. I think the most generous and sweet thing we can do for one another at this point is to take the opportunity to discuss and risk being wrong about something, or not on the side of what's right and respectable.
1 - I can't speak for a non-American perspective, so I'm not.
2 - Terminology: Monogenesis, a theory which Hopkins supported, was the idea that all races originated from one ancestry. Polygenesis is the belief that different races are from different ancestors. BOTH monogenesis and polygenesis have been used to racist ends.