Fun with various kinds of privilege
Why do people continue to Not Get It? Today's post isn't about stuff that's jaw-droppingly rage inducing, but still makes me go "Argh!"
Yesterday, in my lesbian lit class, we were discussing Stone Butch Blues. Since the book deals with Diné/Navajo culture and transgenderism, it's no surprise that the topic of of third genders within Native American Cultures would come up. The problem came when one woman used the word "berdache." While this is indeed a word used to describe non-gender-conforming native peoples, it's an insulting word, first used by European conquers to insult the people they were destroying. Also, using berdache as a blanket term ignores the multitude of differences across tribes. (I really hate it when I hear something described as a "Native American custom." Which tribe are you talking about? Cheyenne? Arapaho? Iroquois? Mohawk? I demand details!) When I brought this up, I was all but attacked, with the woman insisting that the work should be used for convenience's sake. The professor tried to cool the situation and made a note that perhaps someone should research the history of berdache. Which is exactly what I did. I looked in Transgender Warriors by Leslie Feinberg and Sex Changes by Patrick Califia, and found confirmation for my statement. (I would hope so, considering those books are where I got the information in the first place. But it's nice to have straight textual evidence.) I fully plan to bring this up tomorrow. The professor better have meant it when she said that someone should look into this. I do my research! And my research does not support the "Yay Western Imperialism!" viewpoint.
By the way, a blanket term for gender nonconformity within Native American Cultures that actually used by native people is two-spirit. That's respectful. Of course, if you come across someone who doesn't like the term, you shouldn't use it to describe them. (I shouldn't have to point that out, but.)
Later the same day, in my Christianity and Democracy class, I encountered a different time of privilege. We were discussing Christianity and Democracy by John De Gruchy. Of course, it's severely difficult to discuss the problem knowing that it's highly unlikely that anyone reading this has also read said book. To give you an overview of my issues, I'll just put up my response paper that I wrote for the class.
In part four of his book, De Gruchy further describes what exactly he believes should be the relationship between Christianity and democracy. His belief that Christianity should inspire and inform democracy does not come as a surprise, but the specifics are troubling.
De Gruchy looks at injustice in the world and places a large amount of blame on the fact that people have turned away from God. He says, "By separating human beings from creation and from God, persons have become alienated and disengaged individuals, and this has had far-reaching negative social and ecological consequences." He's also concerned with the "conclusion that God is no longer a necessary working hypothesis with regard to science, ethics, or art." The first quote is insulting to people who are trying their best to be good and responsible people without belief in God, and the second is just odd. Why should God be a "necessary working hypothesis" for any of those things? Especially science. One would think that 'God did it' should be the first solution a scientist discards, not because God and science cannot coexist in the world, but simply because science deals with the measurable, physical world. (And, in my opinion, saying that God exists only as a simple explanation for what we cannot explain is is an insult to the nature of God.)
De Gruchy's assertion that God is necessary for a just world world would be problematic even if he was speaking of God in the most general sense. However, later he describes that not only is God necessary for justice, but that the utopia he speaks of should be based on the Holy Trinity. De Gruchy is making it clear that Christianity should be foundation for the best possible democracy, a statement that non-Christians might fairly take offense to.
De Gruchy's main problem is that keeps contradicting himself, without realizing that what he's said is a contradiction. He states that he believes in the separation of church and state, but then says "the church would cease to be the church if it failed to remind the state of its responsibility to govern justly and the parameters of its power." How does De Gruchy intend for the church to show the state "the parameters of its power"? Also, no matter how many times De Gruchy says that Christianity should be given no special privileges by the state, it will ring empty as long as he repeats that Christianity must guide a fair and just democracy.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that Christian ideals can be used to build a more just world. However, De Gruchy takes this idea, and makes it requirement. And as long as one religion is so privileged over others, how can there be equality and justice?
All right, there you go. Little more than you strictly needed, but you understand my issues.
There are times when something seems incredibly clear to you, and you're shocked to find that people disagree. This happened in class. Two people thought that De Gruchy wasn't privileging Christianity. That's right, saying that an ideal society would be modeled after the Holy Trinity has nothing to do with concept of Christian supremacy. One woman couldn't see what the problem was. "If you like his ideas," she said, "why does it matter how he expresses them?"
I wonder what it would be like to go through life seeing absolutely nothing oppressive about saying that people not believing in the Christian God is responsible for society's ills, or that God should be a "necessary working hypothesis with regard to science, ethics, or art." It's classic Christian privilege. (Of course, it's possible that the woman wasn't a Christian. There will always be people who defend oppressors without being them. Look at the sheer number of sexist and misogynistic women. But I find it more likely that she's Christian.)
I'm reminded that in the same class, someone expressed the belief that the presidential inauguration wasn't explicitly Christian. Multiple preachers, swearing in the president with his hand on the Bible, and reference to God in the speech, and it's not Christian! People don't seem to get that the concept of Christianity as default in our society is problematic.
But now we reach our last point for today. And this point deals not with other people's privilege, but with my own. (So much harder to deal with.)
I'm not sure how much any one person on my flist has been keeping up with Racefail 09. I know that there's a lot that I've been missing. If you want to catch up, rydra_wong has an extensive (and impressive) collection of links.
A post that really stuck with me is this one by seperis. To quote:
Speaking for myself, sitting here in comfortable privilege and mulling how much new material I have to read, I'm ashamed that in this, I had nothing to lose and everything to gain and I've profited immensely by way of clicking links like some progressive online course. And I have to be grateful, and sickened by it.
This is so true. And it's not just this one instance. It seems that every time there's an explosion of racism in fandom, I get to learn stuff. I find fascinating, worthwhile information from brilliant people. People of color? Well, they get stepped on and hurt.
Does that make me a bad person? No, of course not. Privilege 101: Having privilege does not make you a bad person. But it's something I need to keep in mind. Something that frustrates me.
That said, the least I can do is plug some lj communities that are trying to make a difference. 50books_poc challenges you to read fifty books written by people of color over the course of year. Or more than a year. Or read fifty short stories. Or keep count of the books you read that are written by people of color. Or just read books written by people of color and post reviews. The point is to read work by people of color. I want to fulfill the original challenge: fifty books in a year, but right now, with my school schedule, the idea of being able to finish a book for fun seems like a distant dream. But I'll make the effort. I read What I talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami earlier this year, and right now I'm in the middle of The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall.
Also, verb_noire is a small press publisher dedicated to celebrating "the works of talented, underrepresented authors and deliver them to a readership that demands more." They're currently accepting submissions. Check them out!
Ok, I should probably get started on tidying up the condo, just a little.
Yesterday, in my lesbian lit class, we were discussing Stone Butch Blues. Since the book deals with Diné/Navajo culture and transgenderism, it's no surprise that the topic of of third genders within Native American Cultures would come up. The problem came when one woman used the word "berdache." While this is indeed a word used to describe non-gender-conforming native peoples, it's an insulting word, first used by European conquers to insult the people they were destroying. Also, using berdache as a blanket term ignores the multitude of differences across tribes. (I really hate it when I hear something described as a "Native American custom." Which tribe are you talking about? Cheyenne? Arapaho? Iroquois? Mohawk? I demand details!) When I brought this up, I was all but attacked, with the woman insisting that the work should be used for convenience's sake. The professor tried to cool the situation and made a note that perhaps someone should research the history of berdache. Which is exactly what I did. I looked in Transgender Warriors by Leslie Feinberg and Sex Changes by Patrick Califia, and found confirmation for my statement. (I would hope so, considering those books are where I got the information in the first place. But it's nice to have straight textual evidence.) I fully plan to bring this up tomorrow. The professor better have meant it when she said that someone should look into this. I do my research! And my research does not support the "Yay Western Imperialism!" viewpoint.
By the way, a blanket term for gender nonconformity within Native American Cultures that actually used by native people is two-spirit. That's respectful. Of course, if you come across someone who doesn't like the term, you shouldn't use it to describe them. (I shouldn't have to point that out, but.)
Later the same day, in my Christianity and Democracy class, I encountered a different time of privilege. We were discussing Christianity and Democracy by John De Gruchy. Of course, it's severely difficult to discuss the problem knowing that it's highly unlikely that anyone reading this has also read said book. To give you an overview of my issues, I'll just put up my response paper that I wrote for the class.
In part four of his book, De Gruchy further describes what exactly he believes should be the relationship between Christianity and democracy. His belief that Christianity should inspire and inform democracy does not come as a surprise, but the specifics are troubling.
De Gruchy looks at injustice in the world and places a large amount of blame on the fact that people have turned away from God. He says, "By separating human beings from creation and from God, persons have become alienated and disengaged individuals, and this has had far-reaching negative social and ecological consequences." He's also concerned with the "conclusion that God is no longer a necessary working hypothesis with regard to science, ethics, or art." The first quote is insulting to people who are trying their best to be good and responsible people without belief in God, and the second is just odd. Why should God be a "necessary working hypothesis" for any of those things? Especially science. One would think that 'God did it' should be the first solution a scientist discards, not because God and science cannot coexist in the world, but simply because science deals with the measurable, physical world. (And, in my opinion, saying that God exists only as a simple explanation for what we cannot explain is is an insult to the nature of God.)
De Gruchy's assertion that God is necessary for a just world world would be problematic even if he was speaking of God in the most general sense. However, later he describes that not only is God necessary for justice, but that the utopia he speaks of should be based on the Holy Trinity. De Gruchy is making it clear that Christianity should be foundation for the best possible democracy, a statement that non-Christians might fairly take offense to.
De Gruchy's main problem is that keeps contradicting himself, without realizing that what he's said is a contradiction. He states that he believes in the separation of church and state, but then says "the church would cease to be the church if it failed to remind the state of its responsibility to govern justly and the parameters of its power." How does De Gruchy intend for the church to show the state "the parameters of its power"? Also, no matter how many times De Gruchy says that Christianity should be given no special privileges by the state, it will ring empty as long as he repeats that Christianity must guide a fair and just democracy.
There's nothing wrong with the idea that Christian ideals can be used to build a more just world. However, De Gruchy takes this idea, and makes it requirement. And as long as one religion is so privileged over others, how can there be equality and justice?
All right, there you go. Little more than you strictly needed, but you understand my issues.
There are times when something seems incredibly clear to you, and you're shocked to find that people disagree. This happened in class. Two people thought that De Gruchy wasn't privileging Christianity. That's right, saying that an ideal society would be modeled after the Holy Trinity has nothing to do with concept of Christian supremacy. One woman couldn't see what the problem was. "If you like his ideas," she said, "why does it matter how he expresses them?"
I wonder what it would be like to go through life seeing absolutely nothing oppressive about saying that people not believing in the Christian God is responsible for society's ills, or that God should be a "necessary working hypothesis with regard to science, ethics, or art." It's classic Christian privilege. (Of course, it's possible that the woman wasn't a Christian. There will always be people who defend oppressors without being them. Look at the sheer number of sexist and misogynistic women. But I find it more likely that she's Christian.)
I'm reminded that in the same class, someone expressed the belief that the presidential inauguration wasn't explicitly Christian. Multiple preachers, swearing in the president with his hand on the Bible, and reference to God in the speech, and it's not Christian! People don't seem to get that the concept of Christianity as default in our society is problematic.
But now we reach our last point for today. And this point deals not with other people's privilege, but with my own. (So much harder to deal with.)
I'm not sure how much any one person on my flist has been keeping up with Racefail 09. I know that there's a lot that I've been missing. If you want to catch up, rydra_wong has an extensive (and impressive) collection of links.
A post that really stuck with me is this one by seperis. To quote:
Speaking for myself, sitting here in comfortable privilege and mulling how much new material I have to read, I'm ashamed that in this, I had nothing to lose and everything to gain and I've profited immensely by way of clicking links like some progressive online course. And I have to be grateful, and sickened by it.
This is so true. And it's not just this one instance. It seems that every time there's an explosion of racism in fandom, I get to learn stuff. I find fascinating, worthwhile information from brilliant people. People of color? Well, they get stepped on and hurt.
Does that make me a bad person? No, of course not. Privilege 101: Having privilege does not make you a bad person. But it's something I need to keep in mind. Something that frustrates me.
That said, the least I can do is plug some lj communities that are trying to make a difference. 50books_poc challenges you to read fifty books written by people of color over the course of year. Or more than a year. Or read fifty short stories. Or keep count of the books you read that are written by people of color. Or just read books written by people of color and post reviews. The point is to read work by people of color. I want to fulfill the original challenge: fifty books in a year, but right now, with my school schedule, the idea of being able to finish a book for fun seems like a distant dream. But I'll make the effort. I read What I talk About When I Talk About Running by Haruki Murakami earlier this year, and right now I'm in the middle of The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall.
Also, verb_noire is a small press publisher dedicated to celebrating "the works of talented, underrepresented authors and deliver them to a readership that demands more." They're currently accepting submissions. Check them out!
Ok, I should probably get started on tidying up the condo, just a little.