Too good to not be posted...

Dec 06, 2006 16:33

This was in response to a comment in my last post. The situation (which wasn't really a situation, but a misunderstanding of a multispecific nature) has since been resolved, but this is just good stuff.

From thegirliscrazy with inserts by me ( Read more... )

race, blackfolk, whitefolk, public

Leave a comment

You know what comes before Part B . . . PART-A!!! croupier December 8 2006, 00:08:17 UTC
stickykeys633 is being a lot nicer to you than I'm being, 'cause she doesn't have the luxury of getting all het up every time some white guy says something like this (if she did, she'd never get anything done). Fortunately, I do have that luxury. Fuckin' bully for me.

I'd recommend that you not read into my intent or my reaction any more than what I said . . . I just don't understand how racism can be fought by using racist remarks, and I've still not seen a proper reply.

You've seen plenty of proper replies. You are, however, not putting much effort into understanding them. I'm gonna call out white privilege when I see it, so, y'know, you can recommend all you want. I'm not sure how much good it will do.

You say that it's not my place to even ask the question...so can white people contribute nothing to a talk about racism?

Did you miss the part where I repeatedly said I was white? If so, here it is again:
croupier is white

Now that that's settled, I call straw man on yr asking me if "white people [can contribute] nothing to a talk about racism."

Whatever. If you're okay with people using racist remarks, that's your deal. It's not mine.

I think our primary difference is in the understanding of the word "racism." You probably suscribe to the dictionary meaning, which I don't need to repeat here, 'cause it's so fucking common. I don't subscribe to that definition, and here's why. (I'mma go slow on this next bit as much for my benefit as for yours.) If you feel like you need clarification on any of this, debunkingwhite is a great place to start.

1. In order for racism to be over, white folks such as ourselves must accept that we do not get to define the terms of discussion as far as racism is concerned. People of color know what is wrong and people of color get to develop the language to fix it. This is because discussion of racism will necessarily entail discussion of white domination of people of color. White people insisting on defining the language is part of that domination.

2. The dictionary definition of racism has never been and will never be enough for adequate discussions of racism. White people insisting on using the dictionary definition of racism is problematic (see the last two sentences of point 1). Many people of color and their allies have settled upon the definition of "racism" as "prejudice + power"--see debunkingwhite if you need to. Racism is institutionalized. It is systemic. It is prejudice + power.

3. Because white people do not get to define the terms of the discussion, the definition of "racism" as "prejudice + power" is one we must proceed under in order to get anything done. If we truly want to be allies, we will follow the lead of people of color. Abandoning our desire for domination at the door is a significant step in becoming a white ally of people of color. This means that we give up some of our privilege in order that we may discuss others getting rights.

4. Because we must proceed under this definition of racism in order to get any decent discussion done, we must view racism as prejudice plus power. "Cracker" has prejudice behind it, but Black people do not have the power in Western society.

5. Therefore, THE TERM CRACKER ISN'T RACIST. If you want to go cry about it being racist under the dictionary definition, or whine about the dictionary definition being adequate to define your experience, I would direct you to debunkingwhite for further discussion.

Reply

Re: You know what comes before Part B . . . PART-A!!! kalbear December 8 2006, 00:15:22 UTC
Fine. I don't understand how using prejudicial viewpoints is beneficial to fighting racism. Or being discriminatory, or using hateful terminology, or whatever you like. Whatever you choose to say 'all white people are X' is.

I don't understand how lumping a group of people together by the color of their skin is helpful to solving racism.

Reply

Re: You know what comes before Part B . . . PART-A!!! stickykeys633 December 8 2006, 00:23:00 UTC
Re: You know what comes before Part B . . . PART-A!!! kalbear December 8 2006, 00:29:46 UTC
I did. I see a lot of argument for why it's fine to use 'cracker' - because that term can't hurt anyone with any power, and prejudice without power is fine because it causes no direct harm.

I've never asked what harm it causes. I ask what _good_ it does. And I still don't really care about the terminology; I care about the prejudice behind it. To me, saying 'all white people' and 'all crackers' is essentially congruent. I don't really care.

I understand where that discrimination and hatred comes from. I just don't know what good it does anyone.

Reply

Re: You know what comes before Part B . . . PART-A!!! stickykeys633 December 8 2006, 00:46:43 UTC
Yes, but we've established over and over that the answer is none, but guess what? IT's still going to happen. I asked in the comment that I just mailed to you, "now what?"

Reply

Re: You know what comes before Part B . . . PART-A!!! stickykeys633 December 8 2006, 00:19:41 UTC
Prejudice!

That's the word I was trying to think of! And yes, this is also getting added to the post.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up