![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
One of the ideas that comes up in anti-racist discussion from time to time and I find very challenging is the idea that "white anti-racist", "anti-racist ally" etc are meaningless or even destructive terms. EDIT: I'm talking about criticism from POC in the anti-racist movement who have a problem with us self describing as "allies", not white people who don't like being called 'white'.
Note that Disclaimer 3b applies (I keep meaning to revise this and then post but always end up posting about something else instead!).
I have deliberately completely left alone whether or not all POC (non-white people) count as anti-racists and what anti-racism means to them personally. I don't think it's my place to talk about that.
So obviously there are such things as white people who are genuinely committed to fighting racism. As I understand it the main critiques aimed at "white antiracists" by POC are that (a) We think self identifying that way means we get a free pass on our own racism and (b) We think we're qualified to control the anti-racist movement. I've seen lots of POC say "They want a cookie for basic human decency" which I've had real trouble properly processing, since my innate reaction is "But most people don't work anywhere near as hard as I do!". See the allies tag at my delicious. (Which I just invented, need to go through and add it to more stuff)
Now I have definitely seen examples of those behaviours, both in others and sometimes even myself, and agree they're bad. But if we don't see ourselves as "above" racism, or as the driving forces behind anti-racism as a movement, then what does it mean to be a white anti-racist?
I guess it means that you're white, and you think racism is bad, and you make an effort to fight it. Afaict, unless you set the bar for the term so high that most if not all self identified "white anti-racists" (myself included) aren't included, a white anti-racist will still slip up sometimes and act to support/benefit from racism, and isn't anywhere near as good at recognising it as POC.
But by that definition? Most white people are "white anti-racists". Apart from actual white supremacists most white people are against racism in principle, and will even speak up against it when it gets sufficiently bad. It's just that "sufficiently bad" for some people is stuff like death camps and lynching.
Now this may sound like semantic messing about, but the more I think about it the more I realise there really is no defined line between "white anti-racists" and "racists". I have encountered a LOT of white people who in some contexts are entitled racist troublemakers, and in others are quite sincerely committed to discussing and fighting racism. Heck, I've been both, though I like to think the ratio has shifted much more towards the latter. On the other hand, I've seen lots of people who I would consider pretty racist who have still been quite vocal about specific injustices which go against their own idea of racial fairness.
So afaict the only even halfway workable definition of "White anti-racist" is "White person who is more anti-racist than average". Which maybe isn't that useful. Otherwise there's just "White person who is acting to fight racism right now in this context", so that we are all anti-racist sometimes.
EDIT: Read the comments for some interesting takes on the question. I still haven't 100% come to a conclusion.
What do people think?
Note that Disclaimer 3b applies (I keep meaning to revise this and then post but always end up posting about something else instead!).
I have deliberately completely left alone whether or not all POC (non-white people) count as anti-racists and what anti-racism means to them personally. I don't think it's my place to talk about that.
So obviously there are such things as white people who are genuinely committed to fighting racism. As I understand it the main critiques aimed at "white antiracists" by POC are that (a) We think self identifying that way means we get a free pass on our own racism and (b) We think we're qualified to control the anti-racist movement. I've seen lots of POC say "They want a cookie for basic human decency" which I've had real trouble properly processing, since my innate reaction is "But most people don't work anywhere near as hard as I do!". See the allies tag at my delicious. (Which I just invented, need to go through and add it to more stuff)
Now I have definitely seen examples of those behaviours, both in others and sometimes even myself, and agree they're bad. But if we don't see ourselves as "above" racism, or as the driving forces behind anti-racism as a movement, then what does it mean to be a white anti-racist?
I guess it means that you're white, and you think racism is bad, and you make an effort to fight it. Afaict, unless you set the bar for the term so high that most if not all self identified "white anti-racists" (myself included) aren't included, a white anti-racist will still slip up sometimes and act to support/benefit from racism, and isn't anywhere near as good at recognising it as POC.
But by that definition? Most white people are "white anti-racists". Apart from actual white supremacists most white people are against racism in principle, and will even speak up against it when it gets sufficiently bad. It's just that "sufficiently bad" for some people is stuff like death camps and lynching.
Now this may sound like semantic messing about, but the more I think about it the more I realise there really is no defined line between "white anti-racists" and "racists". I have encountered a LOT of white people who in some contexts are entitled racist troublemakers, and in others are quite sincerely committed to discussing and fighting racism. Heck, I've been both, though I like to think the ratio has shifted much more towards the latter. On the other hand, I've seen lots of people who I would consider pretty racist who have still been quite vocal about specific injustices which go against their own idea of racial fairness.
So afaict the only even halfway workable definition of "White anti-racist" is "White person who is more anti-racist than average". Which maybe isn't that useful. Otherwise there's just "White person who is acting to fight racism right now in this context", so that we are all anti-racist sometimes.
EDIT: Read the comments for some interesting takes on the question. I still haven't 100% come to a conclusion.
What do people think?
no subject
no subject
*raises eyebrow* We're white. This changes one's perspective on race somewhat.
Being against racism doesn't mean not noticing it exists.
no subject
no subject
Not in 1-1 correspondence: sure. (Thus, you and I disagree on it despite being roughly the same colour) But definitely not orthogonal, any more than whether or not one has a uterus is orthogonal to ones feelings about gender.
Semantic messing about
Labelling someone a 'racist' is meaningless, because there will almost certainly be situations in which they are not. Similarly, an 'anti-racist' will almost certainly be racist in some contexts, because these viewpoints are not black-and-white (pun intended).
Since racism depends entirely on context, terms like 'racist' and 'anti-racist' cannot meaningfully be applied to people in any context-spanning way. This is the sort of thinking that underwrites statements like "I can't be racist, I have black friends!" Context is important.
So, in my opinion, people should feel free to call themselves anti-racists if they want, but it's only a label. It doesn't really mean anything beyond a publically-flaunted attachment to a particular group.
Re: Semantic messing about
My response to someone who said "the term 'white antiracist' is destructive" or "... is meaningless" would be to feel like I was being trolled by someone looking to provoke an emotional response.
It should be pretty clear what "white antiracist" is intended to mean, and although it's perhaps interesting to deny (on various grounds) that white antiracism is "real" in some context, my expectation without further framing commentary would be that the person who claimed it was simply reciting from some dogmatic framework of thought.
Re: Semantic messing about
I don't think it depends entirely on context, but on the whole yes, I think I agree with you.
no subject
I tend to talk about acts or beliefs as racist [or not] and people or institutions as white privileged [or not]. If words are communication & conceptual tools, much of their value remains in how they're used.
For example, white & anti-racist can be shorthand terms for someone's location amongst several actors dealing with a specific racist event.
Talking about the NT legislation, it's annoying when people talk like "Rah! I'm doing the right thing as a white anti-racist!!" but only address people as a caricature of their race and politics. Taking labels that literally probably reinforces racism, by seeing Othering not subjective actors.
OTOH, racism IS about actions in a big network of power relations.
So sometimes I find it helpful, albeit clumsy, to use those terms to clarify my position in the bigger dynamic. Online, it can be practical to find forums or just know where to start a conversation if people use some identifying labels.
In person though, can you imagine saying: " Hi, I'm Bob's white anti-racist ally!!"
no subject
Hmm. I think you helped me clarify that in my head, thanks.
no subject
Really? The no-cookies thing bothers you?
Cookies are so... shaming. My reward is self-respect (I know that sounds corny, but I don't care), and when someone gets cookie-ish at me (it has happened) I find myself recoiling from the cookie in visceral horror. You respect me THAT little?
:: I guess it means that you're white, and you think racism is bad, and you make an effort to fight it. ::
I'm going to completely disagree with you here.
I would say that a white anti-racist is someone who has figured out that institutional and systemic racisms exist, and that those two elements are a major component of what needs to be fought against. A white anti-racist has also figured out that white privilege exists, that said privilege is a Catch-22 for any white person trying to work against racism, but that the Catch-22 does not get one off the ethical hook of whether or not one should try.
As I understand the usual usage of the term, it's the knowledge-set, above and beyond the intention-set, that defines "white anti-racist."
no subject
As I understand the usual usage of the term, it's the knowledge-set, above and beyond the intention-set, that defines "white anti-racist."
Hmm. On the one hand I agree education makes a huge difference, and if someone isn't willing to teach themselves a bit about racism it's hard to take them seriously when they claim to fight against it.
The problem I have with this, and I'm still working through it, is that unless you're careful it ends up being rather elitist. I've encountered well educated white people who know the right language etc about "privilege" etc but still do a lot of racist things and are just good at coming up with nice-sounding ways of justifying them, and a lot of other people who have a more intuitive (and somewhat flawed) understanding of these ideas but do a LOT of work to fight racism in a practical way. As I understand it your definition places the first group above the second which bothers me. Of course one could argue that the second group actually does understand these ideas better but just uses the "wrong" terminology etc. Or, I suppose that neither group counts and you need both the right ideas and the right actions. I've just seen people in anti-racist discussions be very elitist about this sort of thing and it bothers me.
But the issues around education level and knowing the right thing to do are something I'm struggling with at the moment.
(*)I'm never sure how nakedly apparent this is from my lj, but there's a reason I have a "creative genius" tag :)
no subject
Re the charge of elitism, and continuing the craft/trades metaphor, I'm fine with thinking of someone still at the apprentice stage an ally, but with the caveat that apprenticeship is something you do -- a hands-on learning process -- and that if you walk away from the hands-on learning, then you're not an apprentice anymore.
(But notice, please, that when I'm saying who I'm willing to call an ally, I'm referring to ally-relationships where other people are allying with me; I do not get to define for others whether I'm an ally to them or not.)
...and on further reflection, I'm willing to drop the "knowledge of institutional/structural -ism" as an allyship requirement. Understanding, even at a non-verbal level, that you have privilege, that there's a power-and-comfort differential that exists and which does not go away with good intentions, is the core requirement of allyship in my mind. The rest of the knowledge-base comes with time.
no subject
That makes sense.
I do not get to define for others whether I'm an ally to them or not
That is a very good point and one reason I don't call myself an "ally". I am more comfortable describing myself as "anti-racist" in the right contexts, since (like most people) I am against racism (but definitely not unracist) and it can be useful to divide the people in a given conflict into those being racist and those fighting that racism, although it doesn't always divide up that neatly.
Understanding, even at a non-verbal level, that you have privilege, that there's a power-and-comfort differential that exists and which does not go away with good intentions
Ok, then yes, we agree.
no subject
no subject
no subject
FWIW, I don't think *anyone* gets a free pass on their own racism, but that doesn't stop my acknowledging people as being on the right side of any given issue, and calling them anti-racist is a perfectly natural use of language in that context without it implying infallibility on the issue. Insisting that a term implies infallibility, and so can only be used to describe the infallible, is a pretty weird way to use language.
We use adjectives to apply to people in a situational context all the time, just think of anti-racist as a word that is generally applied in that way rather than as a descriptor of the innate qualities of a person, and everything will be fine.
no subject
Yes, I think "meaningless" was way too strong a word. It's definitely not as powerful as people think it is, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful sometimes. And yes, it's a useful adjective but less useful as a noun describing ones Inner Being.
no subject
(And I like your disclaimer system--that is something I should think about myself--though in fact just about everything I post in LJ is a WIP...)
no subject
One problem with the disclaimer system is I worry it makes me complacent about posting poorly thought out posts as long as they're disclaimered!
no subject
no subject
*raises eyebrow* We're white. This changes one's perspective on race somewhat.
Being against racism doesn't mean not noticing it exists.
no subject
no subject
Not in 1-1 correspondence: sure. (Thus, you and I disagree on it despite being roughly the same colour) But definitely not orthogonal, any more than whether or not one has a uterus is orthogonal to ones feelings about gender.
Semantic messing about
Labelling someone a 'racist' is meaningless, because there will almost certainly be situations in which they are not. Similarly, an 'anti-racist' will almost certainly be racist in some contexts, because these viewpoints are not black-and-white (pun intended).
Since racism depends entirely on context, terms like 'racist' and 'anti-racist' cannot meaningfully be applied to people in any context-spanning way. This is the sort of thinking that underwrites statements like "I can't be racist, I have black friends!" Context is important.
So, in my opinion, people should feel free to call themselves anti-racists if they want, but it's only a label. It doesn't really mean anything beyond a publically-flaunted attachment to a particular group.
Re: Semantic messing about
My response to someone who said "the term 'white antiracist' is destructive" or "... is meaningless" would be to feel like I was being trolled by someone looking to provoke an emotional response.
It should be pretty clear what "white antiracist" is intended to mean, and although it's perhaps interesting to deny (on various grounds) that white antiracism is "real" in some context, my expectation without further framing commentary would be that the person who claimed it was simply reciting from some dogmatic framework of thought.
Re: Semantic messing about
I don't think it depends entirely on context, but on the whole yes, I think I agree with you.
no subject
I tend to talk about acts or beliefs as racist [or not] and people or institutions as white privileged [or not]. If words are communication & conceptual tools, much of their value remains in how they're used.
For example, white & anti-racist can be shorthand terms for someone's location amongst several actors dealing with a specific racist event.
Talking about the NT legislation, it's annoying when people talk like "Rah! I'm doing the right thing as a white anti-racist!!" but only address people as a caricature of their race and politics. Taking labels that literally probably reinforces racism, by seeing Othering not subjective actors.
OTOH, racism IS about actions in a big network of power relations.
So sometimes I find it helpful, albeit clumsy, to use those terms to clarify my position in the bigger dynamic. Online, it can be practical to find forums or just know where to start a conversation if people use some identifying labels.
In person though, can you imagine saying: " Hi, I'm Bob's white anti-racist ally!!"
no subject
Hmm. I think you helped me clarify that in my head, thanks.
no subject
Really? The no-cookies thing bothers you?
Cookies are so... shaming. My reward is self-respect (I know that sounds corny, but I don't care), and when someone gets cookie-ish at me (it has happened) I find myself recoiling from the cookie in visceral horror. You respect me THAT little?
:: I guess it means that you're white, and you think racism is bad, and you make an effort to fight it. ::
I'm going to completely disagree with you here.
I would say that a white anti-racist is someone who has figured out that institutional and systemic racisms exist, and that those two elements are a major component of what needs to be fought against. A white anti-racist has also figured out that white privilege exists, that said privilege is a Catch-22 for any white person trying to work against racism, but that the Catch-22 does not get one off the ethical hook of whether or not one should try.
As I understand the usual usage of the term, it's the knowledge-set, above and beyond the intention-set, that defines "white anti-racist."
no subject
As I understand the usual usage of the term, it's the knowledge-set, above and beyond the intention-set, that defines "white anti-racist."
Hmm. On the one hand I agree education makes a huge difference, and if someone isn't willing to teach themselves a bit about racism it's hard to take them seriously when they claim to fight against it.
The problem I have with this, and I'm still working through it, is that unless you're careful it ends up being rather elitist. I've encountered well educated white people who know the right language etc about "privilege" etc but still do a lot of racist things and are just good at coming up with nice-sounding ways of justifying them, and a lot of other people who have a more intuitive (and somewhat flawed) understanding of these ideas but do a LOT of work to fight racism in a practical way. As I understand it your definition places the first group above the second which bothers me. Of course one could argue that the second group actually does understand these ideas better but just uses the "wrong" terminology etc. Or, I suppose that neither group counts and you need both the right ideas and the right actions. I've just seen people in anti-racist discussions be very elitist about this sort of thing and it bothers me.
But the issues around education level and knowing the right thing to do are something I'm struggling with at the moment.
(*)I'm never sure how nakedly apparent this is from my lj, but there's a reason I have a "creative genius" tag :)
no subject
Re the charge of elitism, and continuing the craft/trades metaphor, I'm fine with thinking of someone still at the apprentice stage an ally, but with the caveat that apprenticeship is something you do -- a hands-on learning process -- and that if you walk away from the hands-on learning, then you're not an apprentice anymore.
(But notice, please, that when I'm saying who I'm willing to call an ally, I'm referring to ally-relationships where other people are allying with me; I do not get to define for others whether I'm an ally to them or not.)
...and on further reflection, I'm willing to drop the "knowledge of institutional/structural -ism" as an allyship requirement. Understanding, even at a non-verbal level, that you have privilege, that there's a power-and-comfort differential that exists and which does not go away with good intentions, is the core requirement of allyship in my mind. The rest of the knowledge-base comes with time.
no subject
That makes sense.
I do not get to define for others whether I'm an ally to them or not
That is a very good point and one reason I don't call myself an "ally". I am more comfortable describing myself as "anti-racist" in the right contexts, since (like most people) I am against racism (but definitely not unracist) and it can be useful to divide the people in a given conflict into those being racist and those fighting that racism, although it doesn't always divide up that neatly.
Understanding, even at a non-verbal level, that you have privilege, that there's a power-and-comfort differential that exists and which does not go away with good intentions
Ok, then yes, we agree.
no subject
no subject
no subject
FWIW, I don't think *anyone* gets a free pass on their own racism, but that doesn't stop my acknowledging people as being on the right side of any given issue, and calling them anti-racist is a perfectly natural use of language in that context without it implying infallibility on the issue. Insisting that a term implies infallibility, and so can only be used to describe the infallible, is a pretty weird way to use language.
We use adjectives to apply to people in a situational context all the time, just think of anti-racist as a word that is generally applied in that way rather than as a descriptor of the innate qualities of a person, and everything will be fine.
no subject
Yes, I think "meaningless" was way too strong a word. It's definitely not as powerful as people think it is, but that doesn't mean it can't be useful sometimes. And yes, it's a useful adjective but less useful as a noun describing ones Inner Being.
no subject
(And I like your disclaimer system--that is something I should think about myself--though in fact just about everything I post in LJ is a WIP...)
no subject
One problem with the disclaimer system is I worry it makes me complacent about posting poorly thought out posts as long as they're disclaimered!