(no subject)

[rivka]

I've been following the Great Post-Wiscon Cultural Appropriation Debate with considerable interest. (If you haven't, rilina has a comprehensive link roundup here.)

My thoughts are a little bit scattered, and mostly focus on this observation by yhlee:

In four journals--mine, rilina's, oyceter's, and cofax7's (I believe that was the fourth; oyceter, correct me if I'm wrong)--discussion of cultural appropriation and authenticity kept turning to discussions of white cultures and distinctions, deflecting attention away from cultures that do not have white privilege.

My father has told me stories about ways in which, as a person of Jewish descent in Boston in the 1940s and 1950s, some people perceived him as Not White (and Not Acceptable). Those are interesting stories about my father, and interesting stories about the history of anti-Semitism in the United States. But if they're what immediately comes to mind for me to talk about when a person of color talks about racism he or she experiences today, I need to stop and ask myself why.

I was talking about this with Michael yesterday, and he pointed out that people are likely to perceive two potential characters to identify with in a story about racism: the victim and the evil oppressor. Well-meaning liberal whites genuinely don't see themselves as the oppressor, so the only way for them to slot themselves into the story is to find a way to analogize themselves with the victim. So the prejudice their Irish ancestors experienced a hundred and fifty years ago, or the suppression of a minority white ethnic group back in the Old Country from which their ancestors emigrated, is placed on the table as a token of which side they belong to.

I don't think that's necessarily a conscious process, by the way. I think that one of the ways that white privilege affects its recipients is that it makes distinctions among white cultures and white ethnic experiences genuinely seem like the really interesting questions about race. I think the people yhlee complained about had no perception of themselves as ignoring or minimizing the perceptions of people of color - I expect that they saw themselves as moving beyond racial dualities in a sophisticated way that looked at subtle distinctions among races generally perceived as monolithic. In one sense, they weren't wrong. Those are interesting questions. They just happen to be interesting questions that put the spotlight on white people and their feelings and experiences, at the expense of people of color who are pushed into the background.

I want to suggest that white people don't have to choose between slotting ourselves into a story about racial prejudice as the Victim or being forced into the role of the Evil Oppressor. There's a third option, a third role that one can identify with: The Person The Story Is Not About. It's possible to listen to people of color talk about race without either trying to ally your experiences with theirs, or explaining why you aren't the bad guy. It's possible, in other words, to just listen, and try to hear the story from the other person's perspective without immediately leaping to put yourself at its center.

That's not an easy thing for a member of a dominant culture. We're used to most stories being about us, in one way or another. (Okay, it's also hard for humans in general, because egocentrism is pretty much an organizing feature of the human brain, but members of minority cultures get a lot more experience with stories that are not about them and that don't even allude to them.) I recognize that it's not easy, and I don't claim to be especially or particularly good at it myself. But given the number of other things that are easier when you're white, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect us to spare the effort.

A final comment about egocentrism. In white folks' comments to the cultural appropriation debate, I'm seeing a lot of frustration that "there's no way we can win." If a white author depicts an all-white world in her books, that's racist; if she doesn't, that's cultural appropriation. Double-bind! It's a common theme in white folks' responses to discussions of white privilege in general.

Here's what I want to say about that: "how can I win?" is not the right question to be asking in this discussion, especially if "winning" means something like "not having to worry any more about being criticized on racial issues." "There's no way we can win," again, takes the focus off the problems of people of color and puts it onto white people. I'm sympathetic to the feelings it reflects, because I too am a person who wants to Do The Right Thing with respect to race. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting that. What's wrong, I think, is expecting that I should be able to put myself into a position where my race doesn't ever matter because I am behaving correctly on racial issues. People of color don't ever get to be in the position where their race doesn't matter, and it's a reflection of white privilege to believe that if I "follow the rules," I should be able to be there myself. Race matters, and requires careful consideration and reflection and acknowledgement of double-binds and paradoxes and above all listening.

One doesn't get to demand rules that let one opt out of doing that work.

Comments

[redbird]

People of color don't ever get to be in the position where their race doesn't matter, and it's a reflection of white privilege to believe that if I "follow the rules," I should be able to be there myself. Race matters, and requires careful consideration and reflection and acknowledgement of double-binds and paradoxes and above all listening.

One doesn't get to demand rules that let one opt out of doing that work.

Well put.

A more useful question would be "how can we fix these problems/how can I help?" If we [members, in this context, of the dominant group] feel a need to define a "winning" condition, we might say "I win when I am making things better" or "We win when racism and other forms of oppression lose." The latter might be useful for people whose victory conditions/idea requires that someone or something else lose.

[therealjae.livejournal.com]

This is a smart post.

I have one concern, though. If we're supposed to listen to people of colour talk about their experience by just sitting there and listening, without chiming in with experiences we've had where we've felt similarly, then this means refraining from doing something that is simply a part of everyday conversation. I know from my work in conversation analysis that telling a little anecdote from your own life is a normal, useful way for a co-conversationalist to convey empathy with the person who's narrating some aspect of *their* life. It's not "egocentric," it's typical conversational style.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that white people should talk with people of colour about their experiences as a therapist might talk with a client, instead of as a friend or an ally. Isn't there a level on which that's problematic?

-J

[cheshire23.livejournal.com]

Having not been a part of the original debate, but realizing that there are a lot of good points on both sides, I'll say this:

There is a problem when "white culture" is assumed to be, well, WASP culture. I wrote a piece about ten years ago about this - going into toy stores and seeing the Asian doll, the African-American doll, the Hispanic doll, and the blonde, blue-eyed white doll, over and over again. As a child, I sincerely believed I was ugly because I had green eyes and all the "pretty girls" in storybooks have eyes that are either blue or brown. We are all judged on the basis of physical ideals.

My Polish-American family had similar experiences to your father's, and even as recently as ten years ago, I went to college with a group of young women who would never have considered telling racist jokes, but who thought "dumb Polak" jokes were perfectly A-OK, even in front of my Polish immigrant friend.

I agree that race matters, and it matters a lot more because of its visibility in people's day to day lives (it's pretty hard to hide one's race, after all, and impossible for most people), but I also think that lumping a bunch of very different cultural groups together under the banner of "white" does everyone a disservice.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's way more natural, when someone comes to you, to listen to the issue, and then say exactly how you feel about what it is that they are troubled with. If you also cannot stand hearing racial jokes, say so...if you have a problem, also, with the way that literature presentation in the public school setting is handled, say so, if you do not feel that your friend is looking at the situation fairly, say so. Get into a natural discussion.

Personally, I would never dream of reacting to someone who is having angst over their race, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, lifestyle, religion, or *any* injustice, by trotting out any more than the cursory anecdote of my own that realjae suggests, and then returning to discuss what it is the other person has thrown on the table. I wouldn't need to go into great detail about how I am not one of "those" white people, nor would I need to get wound up about ways "I" have been similarly persecuted for being different. That is no better than responding to a friend's illness with a long, drawn out version of your illness, which, by the way, was worse! Save your angst for when you have the floor...

Sometimes, if one is being egocentric, it does not mean that it is okay, because egocentrism is a constant in human nature: it simply means that the person behaving egocentrically needs to take a look at themeselves, and adjust. Because it IS narrow and egocentric to think, "Oooh, I am indirectly or directly in an oppressed minority, too, so this is kind of all about me, and my own suffering."

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

One doesn't get to demand rules that let one opt out of doing that work.

marry me?

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Oh, wow. I think this is one of the best posts on the topics I've seen yet. Thank you!

[oyceter]

*hugs you hard*

Thank you!

[elynne.livejournal.com]

Beautifully put. Do you read debunkingwhite? I do, and it's been very eye-opening.

It reminds me of a bit from one of Steven Brust's post-500 Years Later series; I can't remember which book, and I'm not sure what that series is called, but anyway. One character is talking about another character, and describes him as self-centered. She elaborates that he isn't selfish, but that he looks at any situation from the perspective of "What can I do?", rather than "What needs to be done?" Wheras the answer to the second question can sometimes be "Nothing," or as in your post "Shut up and listen," the answer to the first question moves attention away from the situation and towards the person asking the question.

So, yes. I've been doing a lot of listening and thinking lately. Sometimes, it's incredibly hard to just shut up and listen, and not immediately try to jump in with "Well, this one time, me me me..." It's hard to accept that some discussions aren't about me. And yes, I think that's a human thing; but it's also very much a white dominant-culture thing.

I've also found it extremely helpful to juxtapose discussions of race with discussions of gender. I'm wondering if it might be helpful to compare white folks talking about being oppressed in racial discussions with men talking about being oppressed in gender discussions. There's a valid point to such comments, but when the problem is so overwhelmingly one-sided, drawing attention to the priveledged group and away from the group that is having genuine problems is... at best, disingenious; at worst, a deliberate attempt to deny the weaker group of a genuine voice and perspective.

[/end flailing]

[iamjw.livejournal.com]

One concept I don't see covered here is that of active listening. Of asking questions about what people are saying when they are sharing, rather than jumping in with anecdotes of your own. Questions that show that you're listening and attempting to understand something that you've not experienced yourself can help to validate the speaker, in that they may feel that they've managed to really explain themselves and enlighten someone. It's an awful lot more than nodding and saying yes, dear.

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

I could *so* kiss you right now.

(checks Amtrak schedule)

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

What's wrong, I think, is expecting that I should be able to put myself into a position where my race doesn't ever matter because I am behaving correctly on racial issues. People of color don't ever get to be in the position where their race doesn't matter, and it's a reflection of white privilege to believe that if I "follow the rules," I should be able to be there myself.

It is, but I'm not sure the solution is to give up demanding it for myself, rather than to start demanding it for others as well, or at least to get out of their way as much as possible so that they can demand it for themselves.

I find it difficult to talk about these issues in the abstract, though; in real life, my reaction would be heavily dependent on why the other person in the conversation had chosen to raise this issue (rather than some other topic) with me (rather than someone else). Venting calls for a different response than a request for a specific action from me, which calls for a different response than a personal accusation, which calls for a different response than generalised aggression based on my perceived ethnicity.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

I've read some of the summaries at rilna's, and I think I may just keep on reading. Reason being:

I want to suggest that white people don't have to choose between slotting ourselves into a story about racial prejudice as the Victim or being forced into the role of the Evil Oppressor. There's a third option, a third role that one can identify with: The Person The Story Is Not About.

Nail. Head. I have always been rather uncomfortable when the subject of racial distinctions and racism comes up because I know that as a white person, I cannot grasp it, and nothing in my experience is really analagous. But I always feel that need to offer up some personal anecdote to make conversation, when, like you said - it really isn't about me.

Active listening seems to be a better approach.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

First up, I think that this is an excellent piece of writing, and I really like the points that you've made.

I think that the only quibble I have is that there are a lot of times when the Evil Oppressor really is the role that we should be identifying with, and I think we need to examine our desire to avoid that self-identification.

[delux-vivens.livejournal.com]

excellent post.

[kaethe.livejournal.com]

I just want to mention that your "person the story isn't about" line really helped clarify something for me. I was just reading an article about Native American children being sent to boarding schools where they were stripped of their identities and treated in ways that can only be described as child abuse. Some weird hindbrain reaction was going on, trying to deny that it could have been as bad as the article described, like *I* had a personal investment in denying it. Because, of course, it was white people who did the abusing, which . . . did *not* make it about me. And once I was able to recognize that reaction and get rid of what amounted to panic, I could "listen" to the experience and (I hope) learn something from it.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Linked from IBARW II. THis is incredibly wise.