![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How to get involved with race discussions online without totally messing it up
Someone at ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
femmeconne asked me for some examples of times I'd screwed up talking about race on the internet, which I decided was justification for this tl;dr screed (which I've been working on for ages) I've done "not X" for pretty much every "Do X" listed here, this is basically everything I wish someone had told me a few years ago :)
EDIT: This lays it out much better, read it instead if you like :) Race Relations 101 - What if I screw up?
This is aimed largely at white people who are against racism, and interested in getting involved with all the anti-racist discussion on lj, but are afraid of messing up. Other people may find it interesting and are welcome to comment, but keep that purpose in mind. The other sort of people who might find it useful are those who are thrust into discussions about racism against their will, because they or their friends end up in the middle of some imbroglio. I'm not really in a position to offer any particular advice on that, but I think a lot of this might be helpful.
Terminology: I use "Anti-racists" to mean everyone who is working against racism regardless of ethnicity, while "POC" means people who are not white.
Note: as someone with a long history of messing stuff up I am very open to suggestions and criticism. Also: there are links at the end, you may like them more.
Step -1: Figure out your goals
What are you planning to get out of this conversation? Are your actions really working towards that goal? Have you considered the likely consequences of your actions, and whether it's all worth it?
(I know most lists don't go to to negative numbers, but it's my list :P)
Step 0: Acknowledge that racism is a significant problem
If you don't think that racism is worth fighting against, even in principle, then this post is not for you. Go away.
If you think it is, but it's not your first priority, or you have problem with some of the ways people fight it, fair enough. But keep in mind that anti-racists are fighting an important and difficult struggle, so if you're going to engage with or conflict with them you need to consider whether your actions have a positive or neutral effect in fighting racism, or if they are going to, in effect, perpetuate racism by stymying it's opponents without achieving anything constructive.
Also, racism has a hugely negative effect on POC, in a way which is difficult to understand if you're white. It is very, very easy to seriously hurt people's feelings or otherwise make their life more difficult without meaning to, especially if you blunder in without knowing what you're talking about.
Which is not to say you shouldn't ever get involved: the way I see it, as long as you try your best, are willing to learn, and do more good than harm it averages out ok. But when in doubt, lurk moar. See also Baby-stepping away from racism: A guide for white people.
Step 1: Don't expect a free ride
There's no reason you have to be dedicated to anti-racism if you just want to read these discussions (there's a reason I designed this so that people could skim the headings if they just wanted to know the gist of my argument :)) But if you're going to get involved and expect people to respect and pay attention to what you have to say then you have to be willing to put in some effort yourself. Good intentions by themselves are not enough.
1 b) Shut up
In general, I recommend the advice in Baby-stepping away from racism: A guide for white people, to read LOTS before you speak (and everything else: that post is much better than mine :)). I have some links at the end.
When you get into this stuff your first reaction is going to be to flail loudly, and make a whole bunch of arguments which everyone goes through at this stage(*). Which is fine, but you need to work through that by yourself where you're not going to irritate other people and get yelled at. I have a lot of unfinished posts I wrote in a text editor, saved, looked at the next day, and decided not to post after all. I also ranted at my husband and friends, and learned about feminism so I could explore similar ideas there without offending people.
Also, if you have a question? Chances are it's been asked before, and you can save everyone a lot of effort by looking into it yourself rather than bugging people who have better things to do than explain the same concepts over and over. And if you read through the comments on blog post etc there's a fair chance you can see someone else make the same comments you were thinking and get the appropriate (or not) reply.
(*)I found this a bit galling to accept since I like to feel like a unique snowflake, but looking at the discussions I really wasn't. And even when I had a valid point to make I wasn't at a point where I could express it in a way that wasn't going to put people off from engaging with me.
Step 2: Learn the lingo
EDIT: So it's been pointed out to me that not everyone uses these definitions, even in university level race-analysis. But certainly they come up enough to be worth being familiar with.
The two most basic concepts here are
Race=predjudice plus power and
White privilige
In general you'll pick up a lot by reading (see my links at the end) You may need to read the same ideas multiple times in slightly different formats before they click.
"But Dr Sophie!" you say "I don't like those definitions! And anyway, why should I have to learn a lot of arbitrary academic jargon to have a practical discussion about a real world issue?"
Well, first off, like it or not those are the terms most people use (online at least), and if you want to get anywhere without being mired in misunderstanding, you need to be able to use and understand them.
Second, I felt that way myself, but decided to beat them at their own game by learning the terminology so I would be in a better position to explain it's flaws...and by the end of that process I agreed with it and found it really useful.
Step 3: You will be accused of racism. Deal with it (it's not as bad as you think)
Having followed step 2, you will be aware that everyone is racist. The trick is becoming aware of how racism works and trying to minimise actions which perpetuate it.
Thus, sometimes when another person says "That was racist" they just mean "Hey, fellow anti-racist, let me give you a handy hint you might not have thought of!" and mean no offense to you personally.
Other times they think you should have known better and really are annoyed, but will probably still accept a genuine "I'm sorry, I didn't realise/wasn't thinking, I won't do that again"
Unfortunately, noone likes to be criticised, racism is a touchy subject, and many actions which perpetuate racism seem perfectly innocuous to your average person. So your (and my) first reaction is likely defensive anger.
Luckily, this is the internet. You can walk away, calm down, maybe write a private venty post, and then rationally think about what happened. (If you are not the sort of person who can do this, you might want to reconsider ever discussing race with anyone :P)
Even if you still think you're in the right, be polite (see step 0), consider how your post might have looked (especially given the huge number of sneaky racist trolls out there) and never forget that you might just not be able to see what you're doing wrong. I once spent several months feeling righteously indignant at someone for falsely accusing me of racism and then suddenly realised her actions made sense in context, and was thus very glad all I'd said was "I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say, but agree with you in principle".
The ratios of "People who think they're not being racist but are" vs "People who are unfairly accused of racism" and "Suffering caused by racism" vs "Suffering caused by anti-racists" are so absurdly, unimaginably high that I think it's reasonable that we be willing to bite out tongues from time to time. If you're not, see (0) and (1).
All that said: Everyone does racist things from time to time. If you make a genuine effort to be anti-racist and deal reasonably with criticism then in my experience people are willing to forgive the odd slip-up (Although "forgive" does not mean "let slide")
See also How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People)
Step 4: Consider the context (lj-based)
This is written assuming you're on lj, since that's where I'm based. Other places online are similar. I assume :)
The first time I tried writing this post, this section blew out into Stay On Topic. But really: stay on topic. Read the userinfo.
If a community describes itself as "a POC-safe space" or "POC-centered" etc then it's not for you, and in some ways everything you say is off-topic so it better be really worth saying. In such communities, or on the lj of a POC you don't know(*), you need to ask yourself "Is there any chance that what I'm saying is cluelessly racist or derailing?", and if so you probably shouldn't say it. POC deal with enough of that elsewhere and probably won't have much patience for it in their private space (see Step (0)). If you have something you need to get off your chest, write it elsewhere.
Depending on your friendslist, a post on your lj can be a much safer place to start, and if you're worried about the reactions of random strangers then lock it. This may stop (or at least reduce) you hurting people's feelings or getting yelled at, but can also limit the potential for you to unlearn your racist assumptions and get to a place where you can discuss racism with people other than your flist. And of course racism is a touchy enough topic that they might get narky at you anyway, and you'll probably spend a lot of time going over the things from Step (1).
Something I found really helpful when I started getting involved in this stuff were race meta posts onmetafandom, and other random race-meta posts I encountered here and there. Generally, the author had written the post with the intention of inviting comments from strangers, and they were open to moderately newbie-ish replies. The trick is of course judging how open they are, especially, as I said above, if they're a POC, but if you follow all the steps above you hopefully won't do too badly. And yes, that's is the sort of post I'm trying to write here :)
Another option is anti-racist communities which are more aimed at white people (or at least not just for POC) In the long run, just hanging out with other white anti-racists can be very limiting, but it's definitely a good place to start. The standard is still going to be a lot higher than your average lj, so make sure you've followed Steps 0, 1, 2, and 3. I'm a member ofdebunkingwhite which I've found quite helpful and interesting overall (though it's not a very cosy place), but there's a number of others out there.
(*)If you do know them then obviously you still don't want to say anything racist, but how they take what you say will depend a lot on the nature of your relationship
Links for further reading
Angry Black Woman's required reading
My race tag
My 101 tag
The Great Race Discussion Linkspam
To everyone who wants to "learn" something about racism
femmeconne asked me for some examples of times I'd screwed up talking about race on the internet, which I decided was justification for this tl;dr screed (which I've been working on for ages) I've done "not X" for pretty much every "Do X" listed here, this is basically everything I wish someone had told me a few years ago :) EDIT: This lays it out much better, read it instead if you like :) Race Relations 101 - What if I screw up?
This is aimed largely at white people who are against racism, and interested in getting involved with all the anti-racist discussion on lj, but are afraid of messing up. Other people may find it interesting and are welcome to comment, but keep that purpose in mind. The other sort of people who might find it useful are those who are thrust into discussions about racism against their will, because they or their friends end up in the middle of some imbroglio. I'm not really in a position to offer any particular advice on that, but I think a lot of this might be helpful.
Terminology: I use "Anti-racists" to mean everyone who is working against racism regardless of ethnicity, while "POC" means people who are not white.
Note: as someone with a long history of messing stuff up I am very open to suggestions and criticism. Also: there are links at the end, you may like them more.
Step -1: Figure out your goals
What are you planning to get out of this conversation? Are your actions really working towards that goal? Have you considered the likely consequences of your actions, and whether it's all worth it?
(I know most lists don't go to to negative numbers, but it's my list :P)
Step 0: Acknowledge that racism is a significant problem
If you don't think that racism is worth fighting against, even in principle, then this post is not for you. Go away.
If you think it is, but it's not your first priority, or you have problem with some of the ways people fight it, fair enough. But keep in mind that anti-racists are fighting an important and difficult struggle, so if you're going to engage with or conflict with them you need to consider whether your actions have a positive or neutral effect in fighting racism, or if they are going to, in effect, perpetuate racism by stymying it's opponents without achieving anything constructive.
Also, racism has a hugely negative effect on POC, in a way which is difficult to understand if you're white. It is very, very easy to seriously hurt people's feelings or otherwise make their life more difficult without meaning to, especially if you blunder in without knowing what you're talking about.
Which is not to say you shouldn't ever get involved: the way I see it, as long as you try your best, are willing to learn, and do more good than harm it averages out ok. But when in doubt, lurk moar. See also Baby-stepping away from racism: A guide for white people.
Step 1: Don't expect a free ride
There's no reason you have to be dedicated to anti-racism if you just want to read these discussions (there's a reason I designed this so that people could skim the headings if they just wanted to know the gist of my argument :)) But if you're going to get involved and expect people to respect and pay attention to what you have to say then you have to be willing to put in some effort yourself. Good intentions by themselves are not enough.
1 b) Shut up
In general, I recommend the advice in Baby-stepping away from racism: A guide for white people, to read LOTS before you speak (and everything else: that post is much better than mine :)). I have some links at the end.
When you get into this stuff your first reaction is going to be to flail loudly, and make a whole bunch of arguments which everyone goes through at this stage(*). Which is fine, but you need to work through that by yourself where you're not going to irritate other people and get yelled at. I have a lot of unfinished posts I wrote in a text editor, saved, looked at the next day, and decided not to post after all. I also ranted at my husband and friends, and learned about feminism so I could explore similar ideas there without offending people.
Also, if you have a question? Chances are it's been asked before, and you can save everyone a lot of effort by looking into it yourself rather than bugging people who have better things to do than explain the same concepts over and over. And if you read through the comments on blog post etc there's a fair chance you can see someone else make the same comments you were thinking and get the appropriate (or not) reply.
(*)I found this a bit galling to accept since I like to feel like a unique snowflake, but looking at the discussions I really wasn't. And even when I had a valid point to make I wasn't at a point where I could express it in a way that wasn't going to put people off from engaging with me.
Step 2: Learn the lingo
EDIT: So it's been pointed out to me that not everyone uses these definitions, even in university level race-analysis. But certainly they come up enough to be worth being familiar with.
The two most basic concepts here are
Race=predjudice plus power and
White privilige
In general you'll pick up a lot by reading (see my links at the end) You may need to read the same ideas multiple times in slightly different formats before they click.
"But Dr Sophie!" you say "I don't like those definitions! And anyway, why should I have to learn a lot of arbitrary academic jargon to have a practical discussion about a real world issue?"
Well, first off, like it or not those are the terms most people use (online at least), and if you want to get anywhere without being mired in misunderstanding, you need to be able to use and understand them.
Second, I felt that way myself, but decided to beat them at their own game by learning the terminology so I would be in a better position to explain it's flaws...and by the end of that process I agreed with it and found it really useful.
Step 3: You will be accused of racism. Deal with it (it's not as bad as you think)
Having followed step 2, you will be aware that everyone is racist. The trick is becoming aware of how racism works and trying to minimise actions which perpetuate it.
Thus, sometimes when another person says "That was racist" they just mean "Hey, fellow anti-racist, let me give you a handy hint you might not have thought of!" and mean no offense to you personally.
Other times they think you should have known better and really are annoyed, but will probably still accept a genuine "I'm sorry, I didn't realise/wasn't thinking, I won't do that again"
Unfortunately, noone likes to be criticised, racism is a touchy subject, and many actions which perpetuate racism seem perfectly innocuous to your average person. So your (and my) first reaction is likely defensive anger.
Luckily, this is the internet. You can walk away, calm down, maybe write a private venty post, and then rationally think about what happened. (If you are not the sort of person who can do this, you might want to reconsider ever discussing race with anyone :P)
Even if you still think you're in the right, be polite (see step 0), consider how your post might have looked (especially given the huge number of sneaky racist trolls out there) and never forget that you might just not be able to see what you're doing wrong. I once spent several months feeling righteously indignant at someone for falsely accusing me of racism and then suddenly realised her actions made sense in context, and was thus very glad all I'd said was "I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say, but agree with you in principle".
The ratios of "People who think they're not being racist but are" vs "People who are unfairly accused of racism" and "Suffering caused by racism" vs "Suffering caused by anti-racists" are so absurdly, unimaginably high that I think it's reasonable that we be willing to bite out tongues from time to time. If you're not, see (0) and (1).
All that said: Everyone does racist things from time to time. If you make a genuine effort to be anti-racist and deal reasonably with criticism then in my experience people are willing to forgive the odd slip-up (Although "forgive" does not mean "let slide")
See also How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People)
Step 4: Consider the context (lj-based)
This is written assuming you're on lj, since that's where I'm based. Other places online are similar. I assume :)
The first time I tried writing this post, this section blew out into Stay On Topic. But really: stay on topic. Read the userinfo.
If a community describes itself as "a POC-safe space" or "POC-centered" etc then it's not for you, and in some ways everything you say is off-topic so it better be really worth saying. In such communities, or on the lj of a POC you don't know(*), you need to ask yourself "Is there any chance that what I'm saying is cluelessly racist or derailing?", and if so you probably shouldn't say it. POC deal with enough of that elsewhere and probably won't have much patience for it in their private space (see Step (0)). If you have something you need to get off your chest, write it elsewhere.
Depending on your friendslist, a post on your lj can be a much safer place to start, and if you're worried about the reactions of random strangers then lock it. This may stop (or at least reduce) you hurting people's feelings or getting yelled at, but can also limit the potential for you to unlearn your racist assumptions and get to a place where you can discuss racism with people other than your flist. And of course racism is a touchy enough topic that they might get narky at you anyway, and you'll probably spend a lot of time going over the things from Step (1).
Something I found really helpful when I started getting involved in this stuff were race meta posts on
metafandom, and other random race-meta posts I encountered here and there. Generally, the author had written the post with the intention of inviting comments from strangers, and they were open to moderately newbie-ish replies. The trick is of course judging how open they are, especially, as I said above, if they're a POC, but if you follow all the steps above you hopefully won't do too badly. And yes, that's is the sort of post I'm trying to write here :)Another option is anti-racist communities which are more aimed at white people (or at least not just for POC) In the long run, just hanging out with other white anti-racists can be very limiting, but it's definitely a good place to start. The standard is still going to be a lot higher than your average lj, so make sure you've followed Steps 0, 1, 2, and 3. I'm a member of
debunkingwhite which I've found quite helpful and interesting overall (though it's not a very cosy place), but there's a number of others out there. (*)If you do know them then obviously you still don't want to say anything racist, but how they take what you say will depend a lot on the nature of your relationship
Links for further reading
Angry Black Woman's required reading
My race tag
My 101 tag
The Great Race Discussion Linkspam
To everyone who wants to "learn" something about racism
no subject
:-)
no subject
no subject
Well, first off, like it or not those are the terms people use, and if you want to get anywhere without being mired in misunderstanding, you need to be able to use and understand them
They aren't the terms everyone uses. The current lot of classes I'm doing on race, and all the reading I did for that presentation, at no point do they discuss racism as just being limited to race being the "prejudice plus power" idea. And I suspect assuming racist style prejudices only occur in that situation might be simplifying enough to be actually damaging to the whole idea of getting everyone to get along.
I realise this goes against a lot of what you've read and discussed. I just thought I'd point out that different groups/researchers/whateverers do use different concepts and definitions and that I'm not sure those basic concepts you've set are necessarily the best ones to have, depending on the context.
Also I am really sick and dizzy so sorry if I'm not making any sense.
Edited because I hit post by accident. Just correcting my shitty spelling and grammar :P
no subject
How did they define racism then?
no subject
A lot of the paper we did was on racism being two-way. Most of what I did was focused on a survey on racism in NSW and QLD particularly old and new racism that included analysis of racism via suburbs as well as via countries of birth. *sighs* I think my tute partner has the paper and the links, so I'll have to get back to you. After a nap.
no subject
no subject
You end up with 'Racism = Racism + Power', which doesn't make a lot of sense.
However, it's useful for acknowledging the factor that turns simple ignorant hatred into a larger problem. If the line was 'Oppression = Prejudice + Power', it would be much more sensible (though rather more self-evident).
no subject
If you're fighting racial injustice then all you're really interested in is predjudice towards ethnic groups who have less power in the overall structure, and so it can be helpful to narrow your definition.
But if you're studying social patterns in geography etc then I can see that you might want to look at racial prejudice in general, and so a broader definition is more useful.
Where I think it matters is when people say "All racism is equally bad. Racism just means race-based predjudice, so we should treat black pride groups the same as white pride groups": the problem there isn't the words themselves, but the combination of ideas.
While I personally do find the narrower definition more useful, sometimes I think anti-racists would be more successful if they stuck to the more commonly accepted, broad definition of racism and focussed on pointing out that not all "racism" is equal, and that what needs fighting is racial oppression or what have you. But the choice has been made.
no subject
This was the one I had, and to some extent still have, with so much of what I see on LJ. Time and time again I have just had to conclude that although I disagree with pretty much all the methodology that I see here on LJ, since I don't disagree with the intent I have to learn to just leave it be. It is after all not my battle, so I don't get to dictate the tactics even if I strongly disagree with them. This pretty much means I can't discuss racism except in locked posts, but again that is pretty low down on the list of the world's troublesome issues! Meanwhile, I've worked out what I think about the various aspects raised, so to some extent I have found peace. I do still have a lot of questions about why the anti-racist activists believe the things they do, but I am reasonably ready to accept that I will just never get those questions answered. So I guess, by default, I have chosen to shut up since clearly the alternative was causing distress. I can't say I'm happy with that outcome, but I can live with it.
I will take issue with one small aspect of your post - something I see mentioned quite a lot and which my own experience contradicts - I don't think everyone will get all their questions answered by what is already out there on the net. Most of what I found when I looked was repeating the same material in slightly different wording, but try as I might I couldn't get my actual questions answered just by googling and reading. As I say, I've had to learn that I probably never will get those questions answered, so I've had to learn not to mind. But if there is some resource that really answers the questions then all I can say is it is well hidden.
no subject
Oh no, neither do I, which is why this post doesn't start and end with "shut up" (Hmm, should probably make more clear) I think a lot of most people's initial questions can be answered by doing some reading, but some can't. That said, as you (and I) have discovered, if you don't know how to express your ideas in the right way you'll annoy anyone you ask so much they won't engage with you and answer them. Also, you may see the answer (such as it is) and not be able to take it in, since these questions often have very complicated, ambiguous answers which rely on other fairly complicated concepts.
I've been digging at this stuff for several years and am still working towards figuring out the right way to ask about some of my initial questions (though others have been answered along the way). Sometimes framing the question right way gets you most of the way to answering it. But in the process I've gained a much more nuanced understanding of the issues and have learned a bunch of stuff I didn't even realise I was ignorant about. It reminds me a bit of researching my Phd :)
Something I've found helpful (though it's not always appropriate) is recontextualising them as questions about gender, since then it's all a lot less fraught, but that might not work for you if you're not a woman (not wanting to make assumptions here :D)
To give an example of one of my questions which did get answered: I can't remember if you were one of the other non-americans who had trouble discussing the differences between your countries racism and theirs without getting embroiled in "My country is less racist than yours" arguments (I stopped asking this question for that reason, I've found the only way to discuss it at ALL is with giant "I THINK AUSTRALIA IS JUST AS RACIST AS ANYWHERE ELSE, AND ANYWAY THAT'S NOT THE POINT" disclaimers every few sentences) but I eventually found some good, accessible books and essays by local POC and white anti-racists and they were amazingly eye opening.(*) The way I got those recommendations was by researching and writing a draft essay on race in australia (specifically, as it relates to feminism) which had all the decent links I could find via google and getting my friendslist to vet it before posting it more widley, at which point a few australian POC replied with some book and essay recommendations, which I looked into and read.
(*)Not that they'll be much good to you, but they're here if you're interested.
no subject
Well, I have as many problems with feminism as I do with anti-racism, and many of them are the same problems, so to some extent I'm already doing that but it doesn't always solve the problem, it just makes me less tolerant of both. (For the record, I have two X chromosomes but a pretty male-pattern brain. Like a lot of in-between people I find feminism unhelpful. In fact it is just possible I am one of the 'anti-feminists' I saw you mention in your journal a few months ago, although I hadn't heard of the term before.)
That is good to hear - I feel less of a failure to know that you still have unresolved questions. I rather wish I had noted down all my initial questions because I am sure I have managed to find answers for some, or at least discovered that the question isn't worth asking, but because I have no record of my mental state back when I started all this (it wasn't the sort of thing I felt I could post about more than once or twice on my own LJ) I have probably forgotten a lot.
Some of my questions I am fairly sure should not be asked where POC could hear them, but that doesn't mean I don't long to ask them and discuss people's replies. But I can see that setting up a forum for white folk to talk about these things amongst themselves would be enormously difficult in itself.
::smiles wryly::
Oh yes, I'm one of those. I agree with you, on LJ it has pretty much become an impossible topic. Which is a great shame because my own interest is primarily local and based about my own country, but it is now very hard to discuss racism relating to England without having to first explain the differences to all the passing Americans, and then you get into the comparisons and the arguments those comparisons inevitably seem to engender. But in fact, the state my thinking is currently in I actually most want to discuss the ideas with other white English people, not with non-white Brits and certainly not with Americans, because really they are the only people who can answer the questions I currently have. But I haven't a clue if there even is a forum where white English people people meet to discuss racism in the terms I am interested in.
Returning to your original topic. I think the thing I most wish someone had told me before I started was to begin by working out my own goals. Because for whatever reason it is very difficult to join in these discussions without getting upset and badly hurt at times (possibly all the time) and one needs a pretty clear idea of ones own motives to make it worth keeping going.
no subject
Ooh, work out your goals, that's a very good point. I mean I wrote it on the assumption that people have different goals (and fighting racism may not be the top one) but that idea is pretty buried.
Personally I like to discuss things with as wide a variety of people as possible, since there have been so many times when I've been blindsided by a POV I simply didn't consider since none of the people I know have it (Especially the POC POV: I have a fair number of POC friends, but the dynamic in the groups I hang with in in real life is still very white dominated) But I can understand wanting to discuss stuff with people who are less likely to take offense. I was only yesterday pondering the sad idea that it may be impossible to create a space to discuss this stuff that isn't either going to be really intense and harsh or panders to the status quo (or both)
no subject
Hah! Yes. The next stage is usually 'you just think that because you are uneducated' so then you have to work hard to demonstrate you know what you are talking about, and only then can you sometimes begin to have a real conversation.
Have you perhaps seen this: Ballot initiatives provide a wake up call to the LGBT community about race (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/ballot_initiatives_provide_a_wake_up_call_to_the_lgbt_community_about_race/)? In the comments it provides an amazing example of someone (a commenter called Uhura) who is essentially bigoted on the issue of gay marriage, but she knows she is bigoted and wants to be persuaded out of her bigotry. Unfortunately, the problem for both sides is that she is very unclear about exactly what she does think and why she thinks it, which makes it very hard for people to show her how to change her mind. There is a mutual incomprehensibility from the two sides which is very sad to see at times. And at times people get frustrated, and just start calling her names, and clearly at times Uhura is feeling swamped by the weight of alternative opinion and clearly would like to throw the whole thing up. But they all keep talking for an amazingly long time and eventually do make some progress. (I haven't read all the way to the end of the comments, it may end badly, I don't know, but at the point I got to they were making some progress.)
I think though that throughout Uhura is making one very valid point - it is for the LGBT community to come up with a way to gently persuade the other side that is acceptable and pleasant for their opponents, otherwise they ultimatly won't persuade anyone.
I think that is what is most lacking in race discussions on LJ at the moment, and to some extent in the feminism discussions although they aren't quite as bad. The userinfo of
no subject
First off: I think what they mean by "It's a full time commitment" (and I agree the wording is suss) is that it's not ok to be two faced: if you act all anti-racist in the community but then go and do blatantly racist things outside it then you obviously don't actually care about being anti-racist, you just want to look anti-racist. We had a guy like that who actually pretended to be black, he was all sorts of trouble. That's different from having a consistent but low-effort anti-racist attitude, which I'm pretty sure they would be ok with in principle (though they might not consider such a person appropriate for the community) There are lots of easy ways to be low-effort anti-racist: donate to charities, call people out on really obnoxious jokes, pay attention to the voices of local POC, if you notice a racist behaviour or attitude of your own try to work on it, etc. I actually find it easier than being pro environment, since you can't ask the earth what it wants you to do :)
I agree that any activist group should make an effort to make their arguments accessible and inviting to the general population. But there are lots of very simple, friendly, unconfronting anti-racist materials out there, and in pretty much every fandom race imbroglio I've seen there's always at least one POC/anti-racist trying to explain things this way. But it's not fair to expect all POC and anti-racists to be friendly and polite and willing to explain their POV at all times: experiencing discrimination makes people angry, everyone gets times when they aren't up to being nice, and some people just aren't the polite-and-pleasant type.
There's only so much energy one can expend on arguing with people. Confronting your own racism is unpleasant, there's no way to change that. If people can't handle some unpleasantness then they're not going to make good anti-racists no matter how nice you are to them. They might be swayed onside a bit, and that's a worthy goal for anyone who can be bothered trying, but on the whole there are more productive uses for that energy. See http://zvi-likes-tv.livejournal.com/429092.html and http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/02/12/the-privilege-of-politeness/
Also, some people actually react better to being yelled at! I know there have been times when I was engaged in racist behaviour and only stopped when someone yelled at me.
no subject
You make an interesting point about some people reacting to anger by being shocked out of their behaviour. My problem is that I think that only works with people who already trust and like you, people who already agree about the fundamentals and therefore will feel bad about having hurt the angry person down. There is a big difference between that and being angry at a stranger. When strangers become angry we just get defensive and engage fight or flight mode.
I guess the experience that really put all this in perspective for me was at the start of the year. I'd been putting up with a steady drip of homophobic behaviour for several weeks - the sort of thing that starts small and you just brush off but then seems by chance to become so common and insistent that you begin to get bristly and see everything as homophobic even when it probably isn't. Then two or three people on the trot said something about Torchwood (that Ianto 'wasn't gay' because he had had a girlfriend once) and I just lost it. I yelled at someone who I actually really like, and not surprisingly really hurt her. Well we walked away from one another like bristling cats and licked our respective wounds for a couple of weeks. Then when I'd made myself calm down I posted for the first and so far only time requesting a little political correctness on this issue - explaining why Torchwood 'matters' to people with marginal sexualities and why saying a character 'isn't gay' is hurtful. I very carefully expressed it as politely as possible, specifically stating I wasn't directing the post at any individual and that I wasn't angry any more. And it really worked - I got a lot of nice replies either agreeing with me or saying they had never realised that before but now it made sense and they would try to avoid the behaviour in future. And what was best was that it was the catalyst to allow me to make up with the person who I had hurt by losing my temper, and that gave me the chance to see (and say) that no of course she isn't homophobic, she just said something that happened to be hurtful because her view of the world is different from mine.
So the big lesson for me was that losing your temper just causes more upset, while keeping it can actually help other people not to hurt you in future. Of course not every situation will be the same, and its not as if I actually agree with PC as a long term strategy, but the fact is I am really pushed to think of a situation where getting angry with strangers can ever persuade them of the validity of a cause rather than just push them into being defensive. I'm afraid I think people who try to rationalise their own anger as a valid tactic are just making up excuses. So while I can sympathise that yes, prejudice often does make people hurt and angry, I have to say that when they are angry is not the time to try to respond because then they stop doing good for ant-whateverism and just become a selfish liability.
::shrug::
As I say, this seems to be one of those areas where my tactical views diverge from the mainstream. Don't know why - it all seems blindingly obvious to me, but there you go.
no subject
I see what you are saying, and it is an interesting and valid point that people who can't take a little unpleasantness probably don't make good activists. However, I think it is important to remember that society isn't changed by activists, it is changed by the majority of people changing their views. Unless you are planning revolution (and I assume most anti-racists aren't!) then activists are only people recruited to spread the message to a wider audience. As such the wider audience - the people who don't really care and certainly don't want to be put to any trouble - are precisely the people who most have to be persuaded. And they are also the people who are most likely to walk away if the business becomes even slightly unpleasant. This is why I think shouting doesn't work, making people feel guilty doesn't work, expecting political correctness doesn't work. All of those things are unpleasant and troublesome and so most people just won't bother.
Ultimately all these anti-discrimination issues are the same, they are about seeing people who are different from us as still being members of our 'tribe' whose needs must therefore be considered. That isn't easy because mistrust of outsiders is a strong human trait that has evolved over vast chunks of time and with good sensible reasons behind it (until trade evolved, the chance that outsiders were anything other than a threat in some form or other was minimal).
So the question is how do we overcome this tribalism? Well it is pretty obvious to me that we don't do it by making one another feel uncomfortable. And I also don't think that multiculturalism works on anything other than the most superficial level because underneath it still leaves the feeling of belonging to separate tribes. You can maybe get away with that for a while, in the same way that the class system works - the classes are essentially different tribes but manage to share the same nation. But just like the class system, tensions are bound to simmer under the surface and the thing basically works only because the different classes don't actually meet much. But with the class system there is the safety valve that people can and do want to change class, that isn't possible with race, sexuality, disability etc.
So I think the key has to be in our collective myths and self-image. Those always have been open to change and adaptation, and we just need to gently steer them to change and adapt to include the people who currently aren't included. As a friend of mine once put it, before you go on the big trip to Paris you need to know what Paris will be like. You want to stick a poster on the wall and dream about it. And that is why something like The Cosby Show or Torchwood work in a way that PC can't - they put a poster on the wall for people to look at and see if it is really as scary as they thought or if in fact it looks like a nice place to visit. And once they've visited they might eventually consider living there.
no subject
But where I think we differ the most is that I think anti-racists are already polite. Not all of us and not all the time, but no group of people that large is going to be polite all the time, and some people have less of a politeness-is-good approach to discourse than you and I. Are some individual anti-racists rude in specific situations where they should probably have been more polite? Sure. But on the whole I think we're about as polite as is ever going to happen. In an ideal world maybe we'd all be more polite, but we don't live in an ideal world, and if we did anti-racism wouldn't be necessary anyway.
The main places where anti-racists are rude are places which are not designed for the general public. And the anger there serves a very specific purpose: it gives people a chance to vent, to focus, to motivate etc.
Also, while we can try to minimise how uncomfortable we make people with our arguments, there's no way to not make them a bit uncomfortable just by the nature of challenging the status quo. This is why the politeness argument can be very dangerous: it's fine to say "Where possible people should be more polite". But if you let that slide into "If you're not polite then I'm not going to listen to you" that easily becomes "If you make me uncomfortable I'm not going to listen" and then since all anti-racism is going to make people a bit uncomfortable that becomes "I'm not going to listen to any of you. Maybe if you were more polite...". I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's why I'm very cautious about blanket generalisations about politeness even though it is something I'm generally in favour of.
Also: I think we have different ideas about the way social change happens. I guess there's a continuum between the marxist (not Marxist :D) idea that it just happens when society is ready for it and there's no point fighting for it, and the idea that all it takes is a few committed individuals to force everyone else in line. You're more "group consensus", I'm more "group consensus pushed along by a core group of committed activists and lobbyists". But I've only really recently started poking at this assumption, it's something I'm still considering. (My family are ALL activists of one sort or another, its in our blood :) So it never really occurred to me to think of things any other way)
Political correctness is this whole other thing, I've yet to figure out a way to express what I think about it so will have to leave that point be!
no subject
Yes, I think you are absolutely right and some of our underlying assumptions about how the world works are slightly different. I have been aware for some time that one of the reasons I have such trouble discussing race, gender etc with most radicals is that as a conservative my underlying world view is very different from theirs, and even when this is unstated it can lead to some fundamental misunderstandings and hence disagreements.
I didn't know that marxist ideas believed in things just happening when society was ready, but since conservatism and marxism both arose at the same time in response to the same problem (the rise of unfettered industrial capitalism according to the dictates of Political Economy in the 19th century) it is not unsurprising that there will be similarities of foundation.
Certainly I strongly believe that change needs to be organic and arise from within the populace, and hence have the inbuilt safety checks that any slow organic change will naturally contain. The idea of activists appealing directly to a power group to have change imposed from above is actually pretty morally repugnant to me. (This of course raises a personal moral dilemma on those occasions when I happen to benefit personally or otherwise agree with the change being imposed.)
So, in terms of your post, I think this sort of thing highlights the importance of knowing what you personally think before trying to talk to other people. When I first started to get involved in conversations with radicals I knew that something was 'wrong' with their world view, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. And I am guessing from their angry and aggressive responses to my questions that they could sense something 'wrong' with my world view, in their terms. It took me a long time and a lot of reading around to work out what that problem was and the differences it made. Which is all part of the 'if you disagree with their methods just walk away', because as fundamental a difference as that between a conservative and radicals is not something that is ever going to be ironed out smoothly. We do of course have common ground in terms of wanting a more equitable society, but my understanding of how we got to the current state and how to get out of it seems so at odds with most radical theorists (and the radicals do seem to dominate the debates on LJ) that I am pretty sure I am never going to be able to fully engage in the discussions.
no subject
Bit of both I'd say :)
The idea of activists appealing directly to a power group to have change imposed from above is actually pretty morally repugnant to me. (This of course raises a personal moral dilemma on those occasions when I happen to benefit personally or otherwise agree with the change being imposed
Yeah, I have complicated conflicts between my drive for social justice and my deep respect for democracy.
I'm a loooong way from being conservative myself but for several years have been trying to understand the conservative POV because I think we all suffer when politics etc become polarised and we don't let ourselves understand the intelligent, logical reasons people have for believing things we disagree with. Since (a) Noones going to be convinced if you start with the premise that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly evil and/or stupid and (b) Very occasionally the other side actually have a point :D
And yes, one of the things this investigation has come to make me believe is that sometimes we just have to agree to have different approaches to things and let each other go our separate ways.
no subject
:-)
no subject
no subject
Well, first off, like it or not those are the terms people use, and if you want to get anywhere without being mired in misunderstanding, you need to be able to use and understand them
They aren't the terms everyone uses. The current lot of classes I'm doing on race, and all the reading I did for that presentation, at no point do they discuss racism as just being limited to race being the "prejudice plus power" idea. And I suspect assuming racist style prejudices only occur in that situation might be simplifying enough to be actually damaging to the whole idea of getting everyone to get along.
I realise this goes against a lot of what you've read and discussed. I just thought I'd point out that different groups/researchers/whateverers do use different concepts and definitions and that I'm not sure those basic concepts you've set are necessarily the best ones to have, depending on the context.
Also I am really sick and dizzy so sorry if I'm not making any sense.
Edited because I hit post by accident. Just correcting my shitty spelling and grammar :P
no subject
How did they define racism then?
no subject
A lot of the paper we did was on racism being two-way. Most of what I did was focused on a survey on racism in NSW and QLD particularly old and new racism that included analysis of racism via suburbs as well as via countries of birth. *sighs* I think my tute partner has the paper and the links, so I'll have to get back to you. After a nap.
no subject
no subject
You end up with 'Racism = Racism + Power', which doesn't make a lot of sense.
However, it's useful for acknowledging the factor that turns simple ignorant hatred into a larger problem. If the line was 'Oppression = Prejudice + Power', it would be much more sensible (though rather more self-evident).
no subject
If you're fighting racial injustice then all you're really interested in is predjudice towards ethnic groups who have less power in the overall structure, and so it can be helpful to narrow your definition.
But if you're studying social patterns in geography etc then I can see that you might want to look at racial prejudice in general, and so a broader definition is more useful.
Where I think it matters is when people say "All racism is equally bad. Racism just means race-based predjudice, so we should treat black pride groups the same as white pride groups": the problem there isn't the words themselves, but the combination of ideas.
While I personally do find the narrower definition more useful, sometimes I think anti-racists would be more successful if they stuck to the more commonly accepted, broad definition of racism and focussed on pointing out that not all "racism" is equal, and that what needs fighting is racial oppression or what have you. But the choice has been made.
no subject
This was the one I had, and to some extent still have, with so much of what I see on LJ. Time and time again I have just had to conclude that although I disagree with pretty much all the methodology that I see here on LJ, since I don't disagree with the intent I have to learn to just leave it be. It is after all not my battle, so I don't get to dictate the tactics even if I strongly disagree with them. This pretty much means I can't discuss racism except in locked posts, but again that is pretty low down on the list of the world's troublesome issues! Meanwhile, I've worked out what I think about the various aspects raised, so to some extent I have found peace. I do still have a lot of questions about why the anti-racist activists believe the things they do, but I am reasonably ready to accept that I will just never get those questions answered. So I guess, by default, I have chosen to shut up since clearly the alternative was causing distress. I can't say I'm happy with that outcome, but I can live with it.
I will take issue with one small aspect of your post - something I see mentioned quite a lot and which my own experience contradicts - I don't think everyone will get all their questions answered by what is already out there on the net. Most of what I found when I looked was repeating the same material in slightly different wording, but try as I might I couldn't get my actual questions answered just by googling and reading. As I say, I've had to learn that I probably never will get those questions answered, so I've had to learn not to mind. But if there is some resource that really answers the questions then all I can say is it is well hidden.
no subject
Oh no, neither do I, which is why this post doesn't start and end with "shut up" (Hmm, should probably make more clear) I think a lot of most people's initial questions can be answered by doing some reading, but some can't. That said, as you (and I) have discovered, if you don't know how to express your ideas in the right way you'll annoy anyone you ask so much they won't engage with you and answer them. Also, you may see the answer (such as it is) and not be able to take it in, since these questions often have very complicated, ambiguous answers which rely on other fairly complicated concepts.
I've been digging at this stuff for several years and am still working towards figuring out the right way to ask about some of my initial questions (though others have been answered along the way). Sometimes framing the question right way gets you most of the way to answering it. But in the process I've gained a much more nuanced understanding of the issues and have learned a bunch of stuff I didn't even realise I was ignorant about. It reminds me a bit of researching my Phd :)
Something I've found helpful (though it's not always appropriate) is recontextualising them as questions about gender, since then it's all a lot less fraught, but that might not work for you if you're not a woman (not wanting to make assumptions here :D)
To give an example of one of my questions which did get answered: I can't remember if you were one of the other non-americans who had trouble discussing the differences between your countries racism and theirs without getting embroiled in "My country is less racist than yours" arguments (I stopped asking this question for that reason, I've found the only way to discuss it at ALL is with giant "I THINK AUSTRALIA IS JUST AS RACIST AS ANYWHERE ELSE, AND ANYWAY THAT'S NOT THE POINT" disclaimers every few sentences) but I eventually found some good, accessible books and essays by local POC and white anti-racists and they were amazingly eye opening.(*) The way I got those recommendations was by researching and writing a draft essay on race in australia (specifically, as it relates to feminism) which had all the decent links I could find via google and getting my friendslist to vet it before posting it more widley, at which point a few australian POC replied with some book and essay recommendations, which I looked into and read.
(*)Not that they'll be much good to you, but they're here if you're interested.
no subject
Well, I have as many problems with feminism as I do with anti-racism, and many of them are the same problems, so to some extent I'm already doing that but it doesn't always solve the problem, it just makes me less tolerant of both. (For the record, I have two X chromosomes but a pretty male-pattern brain. Like a lot of in-between people I find feminism unhelpful. In fact it is just possible I am one of the 'anti-feminists' I saw you mention in your journal a few months ago, although I hadn't heard of the term before.)
That is good to hear - I feel less of a failure to know that you still have unresolved questions. I rather wish I had noted down all my initial questions because I am sure I have managed to find answers for some, or at least discovered that the question isn't worth asking, but because I have no record of my mental state back when I started all this (it wasn't the sort of thing I felt I could post about more than once or twice on my own LJ) I have probably forgotten a lot.
Some of my questions I am fairly sure should not be asked where POC could hear them, but that doesn't mean I don't long to ask them and discuss people's replies. But I can see that setting up a forum for white folk to talk about these things amongst themselves would be enormously difficult in itself.
::smiles wryly::
Oh yes, I'm one of those. I agree with you, on LJ it has pretty much become an impossible topic. Which is a great shame because my own interest is primarily local and based about my own country, but it is now very hard to discuss racism relating to England without having to first explain the differences to all the passing Americans, and then you get into the comparisons and the arguments those comparisons inevitably seem to engender. But in fact, the state my thinking is currently in I actually most want to discuss the ideas with other white English people, not with non-white Brits and certainly not with Americans, because really they are the only people who can answer the questions I currently have. But I haven't a clue if there even is a forum where white English people people meet to discuss racism in the terms I am interested in.
Returning to your original topic. I think the thing I most wish someone had told me before I started was to begin by working out my own goals. Because for whatever reason it is very difficult to join in these discussions without getting upset and badly hurt at times (possibly all the time) and one needs a pretty clear idea of ones own motives to make it worth keeping going.
no subject
Ooh, work out your goals, that's a very good point. I mean I wrote it on the assumption that people have different goals (and fighting racism may not be the top one) but that idea is pretty buried.
Personally I like to discuss things with as wide a variety of people as possible, since there have been so many times when I've been blindsided by a POV I simply didn't consider since none of the people I know have it (Especially the POC POV: I have a fair number of POC friends, but the dynamic in the groups I hang with in in real life is still very white dominated) But I can understand wanting to discuss stuff with people who are less likely to take offense. I was only yesterday pondering the sad idea that it may be impossible to create a space to discuss this stuff that isn't either going to be really intense and harsh or panders to the status quo (or both)
no subject
Hah! Yes. The next stage is usually 'you just think that because you are uneducated' so then you have to work hard to demonstrate you know what you are talking about, and only then can you sometimes begin to have a real conversation.
Have you perhaps seen this: Ballot initiatives provide a wake up call to the LGBT community about race (http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/ballot_initiatives_provide_a_wake_up_call_to_the_lgbt_community_about_race/)? In the comments it provides an amazing example of someone (a commenter called Uhura) who is essentially bigoted on the issue of gay marriage, but she knows she is bigoted and wants to be persuaded out of her bigotry. Unfortunately, the problem for both sides is that she is very unclear about exactly what she does think and why she thinks it, which makes it very hard for people to show her how to change her mind. There is a mutual incomprehensibility from the two sides which is very sad to see at times. And at times people get frustrated, and just start calling her names, and clearly at times Uhura is feeling swamped by the weight of alternative opinion and clearly would like to throw the whole thing up. But they all keep talking for an amazingly long time and eventually do make some progress. (I haven't read all the way to the end of the comments, it may end badly, I don't know, but at the point I got to they were making some progress.)
I think though that throughout Uhura is making one very valid point - it is for the LGBT community to come up with a way to gently persuade the other side that is acceptable and pleasant for their opponents, otherwise they ultimatly won't persuade anyone.
I think that is what is most lacking in race discussions on LJ at the moment, and to some extent in the feminism discussions although they aren't quite as bad. The userinfo of
no subject
First off: I think what they mean by "It's a full time commitment" (and I agree the wording is suss) is that it's not ok to be two faced: if you act all anti-racist in the community but then go and do blatantly racist things outside it then you obviously don't actually care about being anti-racist, you just want to look anti-racist. We had a guy like that who actually pretended to be black, he was all sorts of trouble. That's different from having a consistent but low-effort anti-racist attitude, which I'm pretty sure they would be ok with in principle (though they might not consider such a person appropriate for the community) There are lots of easy ways to be low-effort anti-racist: donate to charities, call people out on really obnoxious jokes, pay attention to the voices of local POC, if you notice a racist behaviour or attitude of your own try to work on it, etc. I actually find it easier than being pro environment, since you can't ask the earth what it wants you to do :)
I agree that any activist group should make an effort to make their arguments accessible and inviting to the general population. But there are lots of very simple, friendly, unconfronting anti-racist materials out there, and in pretty much every fandom race imbroglio I've seen there's always at least one POC/anti-racist trying to explain things this way. But it's not fair to expect all POC and anti-racists to be friendly and polite and willing to explain their POV at all times: experiencing discrimination makes people angry, everyone gets times when they aren't up to being nice, and some people just aren't the polite-and-pleasant type.
There's only so much energy one can expend on arguing with people. Confronting your own racism is unpleasant, there's no way to change that. If people can't handle some unpleasantness then they're not going to make good anti-racists no matter how nice you are to them. They might be swayed onside a bit, and that's a worthy goal for anyone who can be bothered trying, but on the whole there are more productive uses for that energy. See http://zvi-likes-tv.livejournal.com/429092.html and http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/02/12/the-privilege-of-politeness/
Also, some people actually react better to being yelled at! I know there have been times when I was engaged in racist behaviour and only stopped when someone yelled at me.
no subject
You make an interesting point about some people reacting to anger by being shocked out of their behaviour. My problem is that I think that only works with people who already trust and like you, people who already agree about the fundamentals and therefore will feel bad about having hurt the angry person down. There is a big difference between that and being angry at a stranger. When strangers become angry we just get defensive and engage fight or flight mode.
I guess the experience that really put all this in perspective for me was at the start of the year. I'd been putting up with a steady drip of homophobic behaviour for several weeks - the sort of thing that starts small and you just brush off but then seems by chance to become so common and insistent that you begin to get bristly and see everything as homophobic even when it probably isn't. Then two or three people on the trot said something about Torchwood (that Ianto 'wasn't gay' because he had had a girlfriend once) and I just lost it. I yelled at someone who I actually really like, and not surprisingly really hurt her. Well we walked away from one another like bristling cats and licked our respective wounds for a couple of weeks. Then when I'd made myself calm down I posted for the first and so far only time requesting a little political correctness on this issue - explaining why Torchwood 'matters' to people with marginal sexualities and why saying a character 'isn't gay' is hurtful. I very carefully expressed it as politely as possible, specifically stating I wasn't directing the post at any individual and that I wasn't angry any more. And it really worked - I got a lot of nice replies either agreeing with me or saying they had never realised that before but now it made sense and they would try to avoid the behaviour in future. And what was best was that it was the catalyst to allow me to make up with the person who I had hurt by losing my temper, and that gave me the chance to see (and say) that no of course she isn't homophobic, she just said something that happened to be hurtful because her view of the world is different from mine.
So the big lesson for me was that losing your temper just causes more upset, while keeping it can actually help other people not to hurt you in future. Of course not every situation will be the same, and its not as if I actually agree with PC as a long term strategy, but the fact is I am really pushed to think of a situation where getting angry with strangers can ever persuade them of the validity of a cause rather than just push them into being defensive. I'm afraid I think people who try to rationalise their own anger as a valid tactic are just making up excuses. So while I can sympathise that yes, prejudice often does make people hurt and angry, I have to say that when they are angry is not the time to try to respond because then they stop doing good for ant-whateverism and just become a selfish liability.
::shrug::
As I say, this seems to be one of those areas where my tactical views diverge from the mainstream. Don't know why - it all seems blindingly obvious to me, but there you go.
no subject
I see what you are saying, and it is an interesting and valid point that people who can't take a little unpleasantness probably don't make good activists. However, I think it is important to remember that society isn't changed by activists, it is changed by the majority of people changing their views. Unless you are planning revolution (and I assume most anti-racists aren't!) then activists are only people recruited to spread the message to a wider audience. As such the wider audience - the people who don't really care and certainly don't want to be put to any trouble - are precisely the people who most have to be persuaded. And they are also the people who are most likely to walk away if the business becomes even slightly unpleasant. This is why I think shouting doesn't work, making people feel guilty doesn't work, expecting political correctness doesn't work. All of those things are unpleasant and troublesome and so most people just won't bother.
Ultimately all these anti-discrimination issues are the same, they are about seeing people who are different from us as still being members of our 'tribe' whose needs must therefore be considered. That isn't easy because mistrust of outsiders is a strong human trait that has evolved over vast chunks of time and with good sensible reasons behind it (until trade evolved, the chance that outsiders were anything other than a threat in some form or other was minimal).
So the question is how do we overcome this tribalism? Well it is pretty obvious to me that we don't do it by making one another feel uncomfortable. And I also don't think that multiculturalism works on anything other than the most superficial level because underneath it still leaves the feeling of belonging to separate tribes. You can maybe get away with that for a while, in the same way that the class system works - the classes are essentially different tribes but manage to share the same nation. But just like the class system, tensions are bound to simmer under the surface and the thing basically works only because the different classes don't actually meet much. But with the class system there is the safety valve that people can and do want to change class, that isn't possible with race, sexuality, disability etc.
So I think the key has to be in our collective myths and self-image. Those always have been open to change and adaptation, and we just need to gently steer them to change and adapt to include the people who currently aren't included. As a friend of mine once put it, before you go on the big trip to Paris you need to know what Paris will be like. You want to stick a poster on the wall and dream about it. And that is why something like The Cosby Show or Torchwood work in a way that PC can't - they put a poster on the wall for people to look at and see if it is really as scary as they thought or if in fact it looks like a nice place to visit. And once they've visited they might eventually consider living there.
no subject
But where I think we differ the most is that I think anti-racists are already polite. Not all of us and not all the time, but no group of people that large is going to be polite all the time, and some people have less of a politeness-is-good approach to discourse than you and I. Are some individual anti-racists rude in specific situations where they should probably have been more polite? Sure. But on the whole I think we're about as polite as is ever going to happen. In an ideal world maybe we'd all be more polite, but we don't live in an ideal world, and if we did anti-racism wouldn't be necessary anyway.
The main places where anti-racists are rude are places which are not designed for the general public. And the anger there serves a very specific purpose: it gives people a chance to vent, to focus, to motivate etc.
Also, while we can try to minimise how uncomfortable we make people with our arguments, there's no way to not make them a bit uncomfortable just by the nature of challenging the status quo. This is why the politeness argument can be very dangerous: it's fine to say "Where possible people should be more polite". But if you let that slide into "If you're not polite then I'm not going to listen to you" that easily becomes "If you make me uncomfortable I'm not going to listen" and then since all anti-racism is going to make people a bit uncomfortable that becomes "I'm not going to listen to any of you. Maybe if you were more polite...". I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but it's why I'm very cautious about blanket generalisations about politeness even though it is something I'm generally in favour of.
Also: I think we have different ideas about the way social change happens. I guess there's a continuum between the marxist (not Marxist :D) idea that it just happens when society is ready for it and there's no point fighting for it, and the idea that all it takes is a few committed individuals to force everyone else in line. You're more "group consensus", I'm more "group consensus pushed along by a core group of committed activists and lobbyists". But I've only really recently started poking at this assumption, it's something I'm still considering. (My family are ALL activists of one sort or another, its in our blood :) So it never really occurred to me to think of things any other way)
Political correctness is this whole other thing, I've yet to figure out a way to express what I think about it so will have to leave that point be!
no subject
Yes, I think you are absolutely right and some of our underlying assumptions about how the world works are slightly different. I have been aware for some time that one of the reasons I have such trouble discussing race, gender etc with most radicals is that as a conservative my underlying world view is very different from theirs, and even when this is unstated it can lead to some fundamental misunderstandings and hence disagreements.
I didn't know that marxist ideas believed in things just happening when society was ready, but since conservatism and marxism both arose at the same time in response to the same problem (the rise of unfettered industrial capitalism according to the dictates of Political Economy in the 19th century) it is not unsurprising that there will be similarities of foundation.
Certainly I strongly believe that change needs to be organic and arise from within the populace, and hence have the inbuilt safety checks that any slow organic change will naturally contain. The idea of activists appealing directly to a power group to have change imposed from above is actually pretty morally repugnant to me. (This of course raises a personal moral dilemma on those occasions when I happen to benefit personally or otherwise agree with the change being imposed.)
So, in terms of your post, I think this sort of thing highlights the importance of knowing what you personally think before trying to talk to other people. When I first started to get involved in conversations with radicals I knew that something was 'wrong' with their world view, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. And I am guessing from their angry and aggressive responses to my questions that they could sense something 'wrong' with my world view, in their terms. It took me a long time and a lot of reading around to work out what that problem was and the differences it made. Which is all part of the 'if you disagree with their methods just walk away', because as fundamental a difference as that between a conservative and radicals is not something that is ever going to be ironed out smoothly. We do of course have common ground in terms of wanting a more equitable society, but my understanding of how we got to the current state and how to get out of it seems so at odds with most radical theorists (and the radicals do seem to dominate the debates on LJ) that I am pretty sure I am never going to be able to fully engage in the discussions.
no subject
Bit of both I'd say :)
The idea of activists appealing directly to a power group to have change imposed from above is actually pretty morally repugnant to me. (This of course raises a personal moral dilemma on those occasions when I happen to benefit personally or otherwise agree with the change being imposed
Yeah, I have complicated conflicts between my drive for social justice and my deep respect for democracy.
I'm a loooong way from being conservative myself but for several years have been trying to understand the conservative POV because I think we all suffer when politics etc become polarised and we don't let ourselves understand the intelligent, logical reasons people have for believing things we disagree with. Since (a) Noones going to be convinced if you start with the premise that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly evil and/or stupid and (b) Very occasionally the other side actually have a point :D
And yes, one of the things this investigation has come to make me believe is that sometimes we just have to agree to have different approaches to things and let each other go our separate ways.