Where racism is concerned, our attention has the disturbing tendency of being confined to transgressions against "our own." Many black bloggers took Andrew Young to the woodshed over recent comments about Barack Obama, but how many mentioned Young's insensitive description of Obama's Indonesian stepfather as "a Chinese?" Where do white feminists stand on mainstream hip hop's denigration of black women? How vocal were Latino activists during Nappyheadedhogate? While black folks lament the poverty and despair in the urban ghetto, do they care about the poverty and despair on the reservation? How much compassion do American-born people of color have for the men and women in underdeveloped countries, who manufacture our clothes and trinkets for a pittance? Post 9/11, when irrational voices slandered American Arabs and Muslims, did Asian Americans speak out against bigotry? Or are we all largely silent when the prejudice and profiling doesn't concern us?
Maybe the problem is race.
If you have never visited the blog, Mixed Race America, you should. Jennifer offers some truly insightful commentary. Two of her recent posts, Getting Rid of Race and Living the Anti-Race Praxis, intrigued me. Getting Rid of Race discusses a book by Paul Gilroy with a unique premise:
It's not race that causes racism--it's race that is a byproduct, an after-effect, of racism. We (especially Americans) are immersed, obsessed, disgusted by, proud of, distraught over race because we are living with the legacy of racism--because racism, the colonial, imperial, institutional forms of racism have undergirded the systems of power and philosophy that comprise our lives.
Because of racism, we cling to the social construct of race. We revel in and lift up the idiosyncrasies of our tribe. We develop an "us" to protect against "them." We are not so much against racism as we are against racism directed toward "our kind."
And it makes me giddy to think what we could do if we could shift the conversation from race to racism--or more specifically, if we could start to recognize the ways in which an anti-racist paradigm and philosophy would really benefit us ALL because we are ALL impacted/invested in a racist ideology that has constrained us into believing in race--into believing that we need to chop people up into categories and to hang values and judgments on people based on race.
Perhaps the most effective way to gain justice for all is to focus on racism wherever it exists, not race. Mixed Race America suggests the need for coalitions of black and white, gay and straight, middle class and working class, all working together to defeat the "isms" that plague our society.
Visit Mixed Race America and read Jennifer's post in its entirety. What do you think?
4 comments:
Yawn... I read her article and think it falls under the usual tripe that passes for insightful progressive commentary from the post-modernist race crowd. When the word race is used what group comes to mind? When someone mentions a "race" man or one expert on matters of race, what color comes to mind and what group is said person likely to be discussing and looking at in the US? Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics (not even a race)? Hell no. They are discussing blacks. When one talks about erasing race (long before they even come close to even considering rectifying or even addressing any of the disparities/despair and life hardship that comes by virtue of being a member of a particular race), who or what aspects of society are they talking about dismantling? None of the biracial/multiracial and assorted "color-blind"-ers are ever at any anti-prison/anti-poverty-or anti imperialism/etc movements...none of them have made any sort of justice etc ideology a main part of their platforms. And what does colorblind mean. It means normative (so far as this country/hell this planet is concerned given media reach etc), in other words white. When yall spout this erase race crap they are not talking about erasing white cultural aspects or group identification or historical traditions based on negative/exclusionary aspects of race (white = not black/not colored). Where was this erasing race crap during Jim Crow? Reconstruction? Where were the multitudes of Asians, and Hispanics fighting to end Segregation and institutionalized racism during the period? During slavery? (they were plenty of Hispanics in the US during the time, and Asians as well)? They were at home not giving an Iota of a damn about anything even remotely black or even red. Just becoming citizens and getting along to go along until they reached instances where they were "treated like blacks".Why all this multi-culti, bi-racial biz now and not then? Oh that's right because the past 40 years in this country is about the only time period here where you could luck at a biracial and not be pretty certain said person was conceived either via rape or some form of prostitution.
But I'm sposed to believe that all those other groups which didnt lift a single organized hand to help the most maligned groups in this county at any point in their existence here are of course going to now? Give me a break. And as far this blacks only come to the aid of their own nonsense, maybe in the bougie..please dont call me black...multi-culti crowds you roll in. Look up the 60s era definition and common usage of the term black and who it referred to (Malcolm X speech particularly- meant colored peoples of the earth i.e. not-white). And how do you explain the fact that the periods of the most awareness of international struggles of other peoples of color (meaning not black like you and the writer at other site mean when you talk about erasing race and crap) always coincided with those periods and persons that most unashamedly adhered to a black/negro identity and black and negro political bent (W.E.B DuBois, Malcolm X, Panthers had chapters in India etc, Martin Luther King at the end of his life) and the organizations with the least awareness or knowledge of said affairs usually being those black organization that were Americanist/Intergrationist/Don't see race/ in bent? Lame.
Thank you for your comment, Tac-t-krl.
I believe that you may have missed the point of my post and the post at Mixed Race America.
I believe the theory that MRA was floating is that as a response to racism, we all cling more tightly to our group and look for ways to define ourselves in the context of that group. Because of years of slavery, genocide and discrimination, people of African descent have formed a black community in this country. It is a community that provides support for its members and provides a basis for the fight for equality. In a world without racism, it is likely that none of us would organize ourselves around the social construct of race. But this is not a world without racism, and I think MRA and I, acknowledged that.
I do not advocate a colorblind society. I do not advocate people of color rejecting their cultures to assimilate into the mainstream. I never said “don’t call me black.” In fact, if you read my other posts, you will see that I clearly define myself as a black woman. Though I think we have made huge strides in the last 100 years, we are not even close to a world without racism. What my fellow blogger and I were doing is discussing a theory. As MRA continues to study and write on behalf of Asian Americans, so too do I advocate for African Americans. But I think we both see that, by working together, marginalized people gain more power. It seems you agree as well, so one part of your comment confuses me.
You mention that other people of color have failed to stand up against racism directed toward Native and black Americans. Well, you are correct. That is my point. I began my post enumerating many instances where one group has been silent while another suffers. Why? Because we all often fail to look beyond what affects our race to see what is happening to others.
One last note…Interestingly, there was a great discussion of the word “bourgie” on Racialicious about a month ago. Several folks, me included, saw the use of the word as a power play, a way for black folks to denigrate other black folks for not falling in line with the “right” way of thinking, a way to say “You’re not black enough. Now, fall in line.” Your mention of “the bourgie circles you hang around in,” confirms that belief. You do not know me, but you have projected a host of intentions onto me. I enjoy good debate and I am happy to consider your point of view, though I am not sure you are very interested in mine. You seem to have knowledge of the struggle for black equality. So, I hope you realize that there are a million different ways to “be black” and that your beliefs, whatever they are, are no more legitimate that mine.
regarding "Why? Because we all often fail to look beyond what affects our race to see what is happening to others."
That is false because it automatically assumes that all groups do this and to a similar degree which is patently false. Whether it be the universal (well, save the respectable and educated ones)condemnation and staunch anti-war stance on the part of blacks in the country (when everyone, i mean everyone else was all behind the red white and blue nonsense), the paltry/anemic numbers of blacks anywhere near the anti-immigration movement (despite animosity/disdain Hispanics and all immigrants really have had twds native born blacks), or the huge numbers of average black folks who have been railing against racial profiling etc since time immemorial...blacks have kept up their part. Whether intentionally or not, all of those other groups have benefited from the lost lives, misery and death that blacks have faced in order to get some semblance of civility up in this damn country. When those other groups get together however, it is always for themselves and themselves alone and usually preface any of their requests by snubbing or distancing or differentiating themselves from the "unworthy" etc- i.e. blacks. We are good Americans /hard working not criminals..wink wink...we are not on welfare wink wink and a host of other nonsense. When some Asian group organizes it benefits them and them alone...when Arabs talk about racial profiling (which you know, came into existence the day their butts got thrown in the dock), or Hispanics mobilize for their gains their gains benefit them alone and that is their purported goal. Hell, all of the things blacks have fought for in this country and managed to get on the books have benefited every other group by orders of magnitude. Affirmative-Action- White women as one example. Pick up the Incite Anthology there is a huge chapter on just this sort of "piggybacking". Why is it that the average black person in this country knows more about those other groups cultures etc then those other groups even care to even pretend to want to know about blacks culture and experiences?
Regarding the use of the word bougie: there was no power play, no attempt to brow beat you into any position. Everyone I know who uses the term (as opposed to the bougie :) pontificators on the thread at racialicious) uses the term in the same manner one would use the term Democrat/Republican. An identity marker/classification based on a matrix including world view, mannerisms and associations and aspirations. Proper usage of the term requires containing more than one of the aforementioned-particularly the motivations behind the actual trait. Diction- not a problem...if you speak a certain diction or pursue a certain bit of knowledge/mannerism or associations because of desire to mimic or gain membership to whiteness or rather not-blackness = bougie...that said I did say it in a derogatory fashion and for that must apologize.
Hi--this is the author of MRA, Jennifer, and I have re-read both posts, and I have a few thoughts/clarifications.
1) Although I did title the post "Getting rid of Race" and although Tami also titled hers "Erasing Race" I think, as Tami already noted, that neither of us believes this is feasible in the here and now (or even the far future, at least I don't). I think we were both trying to be provocative rather than to espouse a neo-conservative view of erasing/getting rid or race.
2) My emphasis in my post was on racism--or rather, shifting a discussion of race to racism. And actually if we did that, the many points that you raised in your two comments would actually be brought to light, because the (il)logic of race has, indeed, created a hierarchy where, in our modern period, those with the darkest skins were deemed inhuman by people with much lighter skins. Shifting a conversation/perspective to the systematic and institutional history of racism would surely bring to light all of the examples that you give of the ways in which various "racial" groups have been created and hierachized (and the ways in which they have used past rhetorics of other groups).
3) Generalizations are always hard to believe--so saying that there are never transracial or transnational cooperation is just not true. For example Yuri Kochiyama was a friend of Malcolm X and she is actually in the very famous photograph holding his body when he is assasinated (right next to Betty Shabazz). This is but one example of transracial coalition around issues of social justice (WEB DuBois and Gandhi are another that come to mind). Also, I absolutely agree with Tami--I don't think that in our contemporary period it happens nearly enough. There need to be MORE multiracial coalitions advocating on behalf of social justice issues--and by putting anti-racism as a category over race, this is one, potential way to achieve this.
4) Finally, I want to be clear, because I understand that Asian Americans have gained a lot and owe a lot to the Civil Rights movement, which was a largely African American movement. So I understand your suspicions. But, again, I think if you re-read both Tami's post and my post, neither of us are trying to rank oppression or to say that racism is experienced in the same way by all groups. I don't think it's a smart thing for me to start to say that the Transatlantic slave trade was worse/better than Native American genocide. But I can ackonwledge that both were part of a larger racist agenda by Europeans/Euro-Americans, and that understanding how both are part of this larger ideology (and how subsequent racist practices, the Japanese American internment, current profiling of Arab Americans) are all part of this larger problem, that we should ALL try to work on, not in a simplistic "It's a small world after all" way but in a "Wow, we have a lot of work to do but I want to be part of the solution not the problem" kind of way.
Anyway, you are, of course, free to disagree with me, with Tami, with anyone else--I guess what I feel a bit discouraged by is your own cavalier attitude (I mean, beginning your post with "yawn"? Seems a bit condescending, doesn't it?) because I think, at heart, what both Tami and I are trying to do is to engage in a dialogue and to make connections outside of our own racial groups to work together on an anti-racist practice.
And since you are someone who knows a lot about social justice issues, I, for one, would want you to also be someone who wants to engage in anti-racist praxis, because lets face it--we all agree that racism has messed up our world quite a bit (I was going to use stronger language, but figure I should keep it "PG"). And if we can at least agree on that, then I think there's room for us to try to work together, even if it's contained, for the moment, in the blogosphere.
Anyway, Happy New Year!
Post a Comment