In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Why You Tripping About What I Said?

Monica Roberts

black woman on computer11I’ve been involved in online discourse for over ten years now.

It never fails that when I or any Black person, be they gay, straight or trans, posts ANY commentary that critiques how whiteness insidiously operates in our communities and beyond, calls out a white person operating in a racist way, or points out that race relations aren’t as ‘post-racial’ as people claim they are the usual predictable stuff happens.

*We’re called ‘angry’,’emotional’ or whatever euphemism du jour is used to personally attack the writer.
*There is a demand for dissertation level evidence or statistics to back up whatever we said in our commentary.
*We have our commentary nitpicked for perceived ‘flaws’.
*Whatever we said in the post is dismissed, belittled or labeled ‘anecdotal’
*We’re accused of being racist.
*Our post is accused of being ‘counterproductive’ to the issue we’re bringing up.

So why are you tripping about what I said? Is it because deep down, you have exhibited the behaviors at one time or another that I’m talking about in the critique and it’s making you uncomfortable?

Or is it because you wish to deny the mountains of evidence that racism is still a problem in our so called post-racial society?

The point is, I have four decades of experience living on this planet. I’ve been exposed to racism and its effects, observed its impact on my people throughout our history, and had long conversations on an almost daily basis with other African descended people from across the Diaspora about it.

Whites don’t have that life experience. So how can you tell me as an African-American or presume to have the authority to tell me what is and ISN’T racist?

Why is anger a legitimate emotion for white people in discourse, but not for Blacks or other people of color?

Why is any critique by a white writer on an issue not greeted with the same shifting goalposts of ‘proof’ that you require of us?

Why is it that whites can freely criticize my community, but Blacks aren’t allowed to do the same without a hostile or angry reaction to it?

Why is it that when white people who make controversial statements that are later proven blatantly false ignore demands from the Black community to apologize for them, but ANY controversial statements that are penned by a Black or POC writer are immediately followed with demands to apologize for them by the White community irregardless of whether they are true or turn out to be false?

Explain that to me.

60 thoughts on Why You Tripping About What I Said?

  1. 20 years ago Jessie Jackson referred to New York as hymie town and it has continued to follow him. Just 10 months ago Dan Savage made highly racist statements and yet many members of the GLBT community, including Savage himself want it swept under the rug and forgotten about. It seems to me that Whiteness is allowed to not only speak without apology for it language, but is assumed to have the right to control what is and is not considered offensive.

  2. My brain is still very foggy, so I apologize if this is a bit jumbled.

    I’m beginning to think that people take offense to anger, or strongly-worded argument, on the part of minority peoples, because the use of this tone presumes a truth (of racism, transphobia, ageism, misogyny, etc.) they don’t agree with.

    Whereas “reasonable” tones do not presume that truth; they argue it, justify it. They are starting from a presumption that your truth is not actually truth, and try to convince people that it could actually be truth (the way you say it is).

    People can be OK with that, because the presumption from the start does not threaten their privileged standing. It may make an argument that might threaten it, but because it is making it an argument, they can argue against it, or maybe even consider it, but still feel safe.

    But when you start out with an angry, righteous, straightforward tone, you are not arguing your truth. You are asserting it. And that leaves them no room for comfort in their privilege, because the presumption from the start is that they have that privilege and it is wrong that they do.

    People don’t like that.

    I think it’s not as much about emotion (though that is also a proxy for prejudice of different sorts) in argument, as it is about that. About what the starting assumptions are. When you speak in anger, or even speak in reasoned but strong tones, the starting assumptions are not favorable to privileged persons, do not allow them safe standing in their privilege, and this unsettles them deeply.

    Just a few musings.

  3. Whites don’t have that life experience. So how can you tell me as an African-American or presume to have the authority to tell me what is and ISN’T racist?

    Oh … it gets worse. If you ever get nominated to the supreme court, some people will call you a racist merely for pointing out that whites don’t have that life experience (which, of course, we don’t).

    People from other groups may have similar experiences, maybe not in such personal terms but certainly in knowing our history and what our parents, grandparents, etc. went through. And yet certain people on the left dismiss our narratives because they feel that somehow we are merely tools of the same colonialist powers that be who historically have denied our equality and very citizenship. They haven’t lived our lives, yet they feel free to dismiss our narratives as being tribalist or colonialist.

  4. Amanda,
    Whether we POC speak in measured tones as Eric Holder did or in angry ones, it doesn’t matter.

    We will still experience the effects I’ve described in my post.

  5. What Amandaw said, and:

    In my (white) history major opinion, the reason why white people want “dissertation-level evidence”* out of you is because they are thisclose to calling you an uppity n—– (or, if you were a dude, “boy”). They are pissed because you can legally address them by looking them in the eye (metaphorically, for the interwebs) and they cannot call the cops or the dogs or the mob on you.

    The short and simple answer, in my opinion, is that white people who get pissed at you when you call out racism, or who think we’re post-racial, or think you can’t be angry, are doing those things because they are racists. When they want proof without offering proof, it is because they are racists.

    Never apologise, unless you feel moved by your own self to do so.

    _________
    *awesome way of putting it and I’m going to steal that phrase

  6. I think amandaw is right on with this:

    But when you start out with an angry, righteous, straightforward tone, you are not arguing your truth. You are asserting it. And that leaves them no room for comfort in their privilege

    —

    Monica: “So how can you tell me as an African-American or presume to have the authority to tell me what is and ISN’T racist?”

    Exactly… and I’ve seen you do many excellent take downs of white LGB and/or T commentators who assumed that their experiences as members of a marginalized group somehow makes them experts on the marginalization of all groups. I think that because, IMO, racism is one of the few forms of prejudice that’s commonly discussed, people feel more comfortable and knowledgable about race when they really are. The superficial acknowledgement of some sort past wrongs that a few white folks might have engaged in reinforces white privilege. It’s almost as if, “Look, I know that Rosa Parks didn’t give up her seat, and I’m not in the klan, so I totally get it!”

    At the very least, most kids are taught that racism existed back in the day, but then Lincoln freed the slaves, and MLK had a dream, and everything became post-racial and happy. In other words, there are tons of white folks out there that think they’re experts on race because of some token experience, but there’s a limited subset of white people who actually understand that we’ve got racial privilege, and none of us truly understands what it’s like to not have that privilege. However, because racism is IMO the most acknowledged type of privilege (even if many folks view it as a historical phenomenon), far too many people use race as a handy analogy for any sort of privilege, almost always with disasterous results. Rather than talking about ableism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia white people want to talk about race, because, OMG, we’ve all heard of Dr. King, and everyone, therefore gets it. Wrong.

  7. Aware as I am that it’s problemmatic lumping forms of discrimination together, I’m beginning to suspect that people’s defensiveness when being called out on any form of discrimination is linked to an inability people have to separate their actions from their identity.

    This is what Ill Doctrine was talking about in his ‘how to tell someone they sound racist’ video that I’m sure everyone’s seen by now.

    The trouble I see a lot, is that when a white person is called out on their racist actions (by a person of colour or another white person) they automatically think they’re being told they ARE a racist, which everyone knows is a horrible thing to be and something they’re not willing to admit about themselves. No one takes unexpected self discovery well. But I’ve seen time and time again that when called out on doing something racist, people say “well, I’m not a racist” and either ignore concerns or attack what wasn’t said.

    Which – isn’t an answer to most of your closing questions, but an idea I’m working with to try and understand WHY we get so indignant and act at our very worst when accused of racism – because calling our actions racist is calling US racist, and that means we’re much more horrible people than we think we are.

    How to address this, I have no idea, at present. I’m just working on accepting that sometimes I do/say something that Others other people, and recognising and accepting responsibility when I do.

  8. “Whites don’t have that life experience. So how can you tell me as an African-American or presume to have the authority to tell me what is and ISN’T racist?”

    Because I have a race too. While I am not a member of your race, I am a member of mine. While I do not have your life experience, I have my own. I don’t know you or your writings, so I have no reason to suppose you are a racist. But I am free at some point to draw a conclusion on the matter, and voice an opinion on it. You and others are free to conclude whether I have some authority on the matter. The same goes for you about me.

    “Why is it that whites can freely criticize my community, but Blacks aren’t allowed to do the same without a hostile or angry reaction to it?”

    Apparently no one is stopping you. In fact I’m hearing some criticism of my community in this very post. While I do not have your forty years of distinguishing and uniquely qualifying life experience, my experience is that people in all communities tend to get angry when their communities are criticized by others.

    “Why is anger a legitimate emotion for white people in discourse, but not for Blacks or other people of color?”

    Legitimate to who?

    What you seem to want if for me to defer to you as the final arbiter on what anger is legitimate, and what opinions and behaviors are racist. I grant you no such authority, and claim no such authority for myself.

    “Why is it that when white people who make controversial statements that are later proven blatantly false ignore demands from the Black community to apologize for them, but ANY controversial statements that are penned by a Black or POC writer are immediately followed with demands to apologize for them by the White community irregardless of whether they are true or turn out to be false?”

    Both groups have demanded apologies, and sometimes they are given and sometimes not. Communities in general circle the wagons to protect their members, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. It is generally harder for smaller communities. I’m surprised that you are puzzled by that, given that you claim all those years of uniquely qualifying experience and scholarship.

    And let me be the first to mention privilege, since people here seem unable to conclude matters on any basis other than the respective privilege of the debaters. I have Privilege 1, Privilege 2, … privilege N, the sum and Kyriarchy of them all, and they all make me not just bigoted but clueless about the world. I am a White Patriarchal privilege borg, and my soul is an just epistemic sinkhole that leaves me cold to all human suffering. Blah blah blah.

  10. The thing with making an argument versus asserting a truth is that when you so very boldly assert the truth at me, I break down your truth into separate claims, and check if I agree with each one. Inevitably, I will find some I agree with, and some I disagree with. Now, if you were making an argument, I could tell you my views on the subject and you could correct any errors in my reasoning or show me that my preconceptions are out of order.

    But you’re not making an argument, you’re asserting your truth, and that doesn’t leave any space for dialogue, shuts down all hope of discussion. You assert your truth, and I can either take it or leave it, and I am not about to take a truth I only agree with in part.

    I also think you’re being rather whiny if you can’t stand your commentary nitpicked for flaws, but that’s an entire different topic regarding internet etiquette. I think it’d be horrible if people didn’t point out flaws in other people’s arguments. In fact, that would ruin the whole point of arguing in the first place.

  11. What I got from the post is that race is an incendiary topic–and perhaps people of privilege should make the effort to listen instead of indulging in knee jerk argument and nitpicking when people of color assert their truths about race.

    just sayin’

  12. The oppressed group being viewed as irrationally angry is something we see a lot. It allows the priviledged group to dismiss their statements without actually addressing the content.

    Though, something weird that happens on the internet but not in person usually is that if you have not specified your group membership, if you speak about oppression, you are assumed to be in the oppressed group and irrationally angry. I once got involved in a very heated online discussion about employment discrimination and got called an ‘angry black bitch’. My opponent was relying on the notion that only black people care about discrimination against black people. I think it is sad that we as a society assume that someone who stands up against racism is not white, but its something that we white people have created with our lack of resisting racism.

  13. “Why is anger a legitimate emotion for white people in discourse, but not for Blacks or other people of color?”

    women arent allowed to be angry. lest they be called bitch, whore, shrill, feminazi etc. perhaps you are talking about white men here? if thats the case, i think you are right.

  14. @Sweating Through Fog

    Apparently no one is stopping you. In fact I’m hearing some criticism of my community in this very post. While I do not have your forty years of distinguishing and uniquely qualifying life experience, my experience is that people in all communities tend to get angry when their communities are criticized by others.

    Let’s not pretend that the criticism laid at WOC like Monica is not a valiant attempt to silence us. This is not a case of sensitivity it is case of undeserved white privilege plain and simple. Due to the power dynamics the reaction by Whiteness is often defensive for the purposes of maintaining the divide.

    What you seem to want if for me to defer to you as the final arbiter on what anger is legitimate, and what opinions and behaviors are racist. I grant you no such authority, and claim no such authority for myself.

    Actually if you are not of color you have no business deciding that something is not racist because you don’t have the necessary experience. Furthermore any such decision is going to be laced with your own personal privilege. Even know you cannot embrace the fact that WOC just might know a little bit more than you.

    @AXIOMATIC

    But you’re not making an argument, you’re asserting your truth, and that doesn’t leave any space for dialogue, shuts down all hope of discussion. You assert your truth, and I can either take it or leave it, and I am not about to take a truth I only agree with in part.

    How about this for a novel idea. Sometimes there does not need to be conversation. Sometimes Whiteness needs to STFU and listen. Perhaps we are sick and tired of hearing Whiteness proselytize in the hope of convincing us that our oppression is natural. Perhaps it just might be time to step the hell off the pedestal and allow POC to speak for a change. I know it is shocking but you might actually learn something.

    WOW someone hand me a bingo card….

  15. Factcheckme – members of the oppressed group are not allowed to be angry at members of the oppresing group. So yeah, when we’re talking about gender issues, women are not allowed to be angry at men. But when we’re talking about race issues, people of colour are not allowed to be angry at white people. This includes white women… I’ve seen countless discussions about race on feminist sites that result in the white women asking the women of colour: “Why are you so angry?/Why are you so mean and hurtful/Why are you yelling at me when I’m just trying to understaaaaand?”

  16. And Axiomatic demonstrates exactly the point I was making. It threatens people when they’re dealing with someone who isn’t leaving the fact of their privilege up for debate. Who says “Of course you have it, now let’s get on to the important shit and get things fixed.” That’s too hard for them to deal with. They’d rather be able to argue their privilege away.

    Anger is a useful tool and it unsettles people for a reason, and not just because it’s anger. When it’s anger from a certain kind of person, they hear something in that. They hear their own guilt and complicity, and they don’t get a chance to protest them. That’s why they can’t handle it.

  17. Of course, members of the oppressed group have every right (or maybe the correct phrasing would be OUGHT to have every right) to be angry at the oppressing group.

    I think a lot of such cases could be cleared up quite easily, at least on the internet, if one prefaced one’s post with a tag [venting] or something on those lines, to show people who might think you’re trying to have a discussion badly that you’re really not trying to have a discussion at all, but blowing off steam accumulated from a day of having to deal with being the fucked over group in an unequal society.

    At least for me, my first instinct when reading anyone’s post on the internet is to see where I disagree with that person, because the points of disagreement are the ones we can have a discussion about. I have no idea how many others follow this pattern, but I think you’d get quite a different reaction if you made it known that you were ranting.

    Now I’m wondering if I only demand that people explicitly say that they’re venting in some cases, or if I’m consistent with it through all my dealings…

  18. women arent allowed to be angry. lest they be called bitch, whore, shrill, feminazi etc.

    It is indeed applied to women. But POC experience this same assumption (that when they speak confidently they speak in anger, and white people just can’t seem to deal with that anger), operating in a somewhat different way and in different levels depending on the situation.

    When Monica says that white people are allowed to speak in anger without those reprecussions, that includes white women. Because, yes, white women are allowed to speak in anger and still be considered legitimate in a way that POC are not.

    Bringing up that women also experience similar dismissiveness comes across as attempting to refute the oppression that POC face. It also makes it about white people’s concerns yet again, which is a common problem in these discussions (dominant people’s issues centered in the middle of a discussion about minority peoples’ issues). Surely we can recognize that women also face problems without having to bring it up in response to someone saying POC face problems? Otherwise no other conversation but women’s will ever move forward.

  19. Good post.

    I’m a White person who has been working on developing an anti-racist perspective over the past couple years. It’s been a pretty shocking for me to discover the degree of racism that existed (and still exists) within me. This racism is mainly on a subconscious/semi-conscious level, but, of course, it still affects my beliefs and actions. I know I used to get very defensive on some racial issues. I think it was because I didn’t want to admit to myself the extent of my own racism, since nowadays racism is officially considered a “bad” thing, even though most Whites still hold racist views.

    I think among most Whites today the dominant racial ideology is the “colorblind” view. I know this was my predominant view growing up. According to this theory, you should treat everyone like an individual and pretend race doesn’t exist. So, things like White Pride, the KKK, and segregation must be rejected, but things like affirmative action and Black Studies are suspect, as well. The colorblind view lacks any analysis of power, and maintains every individual must be treated the same, regardless of their circumstances. I think when you talk about privilege many Whites may get upset because it conflicts with their view of reality–i.e. the “colorblind” theory.

    Over the past couple years I have been trying to shift myself to an explicitly anti-racist view. The colorblind view is wrong in my opinion: it’s as if you were in the middle of the ocean and kicked someone off your lifeboat and then said: “Alright, from now on we’re going to stop focusing on who may or may not be on this lifeboat and just each focus on individually getting back to shore to the best of our abilities.”

    Unfortunately, I’d estimate fewer than 10% of Whites are committed to a genuinely anti-racist view. The colorblind view is hegemonic in the media and does more to justify a status quo that benefits Whites, and thus it persists.

    A lot of this is probably stuff you already know. . .but I hope something in this answer was helpful and elucidated your question.

  20. I think a lot of such cases could be cleared up quite easily, at least on the internet, if one prefaced one’s post with a tag [venting] or something on those lines, to show people who might think you’re trying to have a discussion badly that you’re really not trying to have a discussion at all, but blowing off steam accumulated from a day of having to deal with being the fucked over group in an unequal society.

    And who gets to determine when someone is “venting”?

    Expressing anger is NOT the same as venting. In fact, saying, “You’re just venting”, or demanding that people declare they are venting, is a strategy of the privileged, used to minimize and invalidate the argument/truth/statement that has just been asserted. It effectively ends the conversation–“when you’re feeling reasonable I’m ready to talk, and I get to determine what ‘reasonable’ means.”

    Allowing someone to “vent” means you can feel good about yourself for letting them state their opinion, but still allows you the privilege to ignore their actual point.

  21. amandaw: You’re quite right, although I doubt a tone of actual anger can lead to the “now let’s get to the important part and get shit fixed” half, since the anger, or the nature of the anger, accuses the privileged, viz. myself, not just of being part of the problem, which is probably perfectly true, but of being completely unable of ever being, by word, deed or thought, part of the solution.

    And I dunno, you might be right. Or you might be totally fucking wrong. But if you’re right, why the hell are you bothering to talk to me? Why try to teach me or anyone not part of a given minority about privilege, if we’re never gonna get it? If our lack of experience of being an African American means we can never really GET what is and isn’t racist, then is there any point to either you or us trying to not be racist, since our attempts will be no better than a random number generator or a toss of a few dice?

    How can two groups get together and get shit fixed when one is by its nature incapable of dealing in good faith?

  22. It is because if they accepted your authority and your criticism, they would have to DO something about it. And because they don’t know what to do, don’t want to do anything, and resent you implying that they should do something about it, they try to undercut your authority or your criticism as a means of self defense. Otherwise they would have to be in the wrong.

    It is not just a racial or gender phenomena, just look at the lengths some people (mostly conservatives) will bend the facts to avoid having to admit that America was wrong, behaved badly, etc. I remember during the Iraq war that people were called traitors for questioning the president, for revealing the Abu Ghraib mess, the whole ‘support the troops’ meme was nothing more than a constant steady pressure of ‘we are right and you are wrong and you should feel guilty about it’. I’ve actually heard it called ‘unamerican’ by right wing pundits that children are taught what Christopher Columbus did to the Taino, or about the Trail of Tears.

    Even religious conflicts can be seen from the viewpoint of unwilling to admit wrongness, leading to massive inflation of the confict, even if the original complaint was a minor one. And on a personal level I’ve had a woman tell me that no man can possibly have a correct opinion about childbirth. On a rational level I understood that she knew that women were different and have diverse experiences, but identity roles are such strong positions that having me, a man, make her question her experience was a threat that had to be silenced.

    It is hard to express yourself in a way that will change people, to get them to see things that would mean they were wrong, without them becoming defensive.

  23. Willow: Since people write their own posts, they’d probably choose whether or not they add such a tag to it. Also, I’m not demanding it, I’m suggesting it as a strategy for getting fewer replies on the lines of “citation needed, you are angry and irrational and your post is counterproductive”.

  24. Pingback: Why trip? from Feministe « FemBot

  25. ‘Demanding’ was your word:

    Now I’m wondering if I only demand that people explicitly say that they’re venting in some cases

    And my point (not very clearly stated, I will grant) is putting the label “vent” on a post is the equivalent of saying “do not reply,” or “reply only with ME TOO,” or “dear reader, you don’t have to let this post affect your worldview.”

    It’s not the anger in a post that draws the “you are angry and irrational etc”; it’s the viewpoint. Requiring that certain viewpoints be labelled ‘venting’ seems, to me, to come too close to saying ‘only these other views are valid contributions to discussion.’

  26. When I did my “On having a black name” post (about being a white person with what is commonly perceived by many as a “black” name)–I provided a lot of firsthand experience. Lots of people liked it and it went viral: Jezebel, MetaFilter, Reddit, etc.

    It was the MetaFilter commenters who demanded the dissertation-level proofs that you describe. I was floored; it was just an anecdotal post about my own observations, but it was like I must have made it all up and/or exaggerated ….why? To get linked on MetaFilter? (Actually, there was LOTS I left out, since it would have required actually disclosing my real name, which isn’t Daisy.)

    Even the account I gave of the Saturday Night Live show with my name on it, sent them all to the TV-Land archives to “see if what she is saying is true. Then we’ll know!”–Good God! Why would I make up something on my tiny little blog, then getting about 100 hits a day? Obviously, I had spun this evil yard to make all white people look bad and curry favor with African-Americans. About 100 posts on MetaFilter focused ONLY on whether I was telling the truth or not.

    To say the least, it was another learning experience.

  28. “Surely we can recognize that women also face problems without having to bring it up in response to someone saying POC face problems? Otherwise no other conversation but women’s will ever move forward.”

    actually, i read the article as from a WOC perspective, since it was written by one.

  29. The most hilarious thing just happened – I was watching a youtube video by Tim Wise called “White like me”, which basically has a guy stand at a podium and talk about white privilege.

    And here’s me, nodding along happily, occasionally thinking how reasonable he’s being in explaining it.

    It took me to the end of Part 3, so about 33 minutes, to realize that he’s not being reasonable at all, he’s not actually being the least bit reasonable or calm or anything like that, but he is rather soothingly white and male.

    Which is doubly hilarious since at the start he talks about a guy who took pills to make himself black and traveled all over Jim Crow America that way one summer and then wrote a book about how tough black people had it, and people were totally shocked and the book sold a ridiculous amount of copies. Of course, black people had been writing books with the same topic for rather longer, but nobody was really interested in THAT.

    So yeah.

  30. @Axiomatic

    Why try to teach me or anyone not part of a given minority about privilege, if we’re never gonna get it? If our lack of experience of being an African American means we can never really GET what is and isn’t racist, then is there any point to either you or us trying to not be racist, since our attempts will be no better than a random number generator or a toss of a few dice?

    This leads me to believe that you are not arguing in good faith. The point is that a person who is White is in no position to over rule the judgment call of a person of color regarding racism. It is not that White people cannot see for themselves if something is racist or not. Often when there is a denial of racism because of a failure to acknowledge privilege,or ignorance of facts and history. When the watermelon on the White House lawn e-mail went out several White people asked why the image is racist and yet, you would be hard pressed to find a Black person who didn’t know after years of dealing and living with racism, that it was indeed a racist image.

    Finally, the point is not that white people cannot be anti-racist; it’s that they cannot erase their undeserved privilege. This means no matter how well meaning a person is, they will always have certain advantages.

  31. also, @axiomatic – why does every post here have to be aimed at you and influencing you? maybe this post can be a discussion between WOC about having experienced this phenomenon, how it affects them, etc. and have nothing to do at all with whether you like it or whether it included you. your unfamiliarity with that kind of situation just illustrates how the white anti-racist tends to be centered in discussions about racism. but the primary concern when writing a post, or even a concern at all, need not be “how will this make the white anti-racists feel?” and asking that it be the dominant concern is a demonstration of your privilege.

  32. Wow, Amanda, you put it brilliantly.

    Anger is a medium of assertion. It is not an argument or a proposal. Anger is the force behind the assessment that transforms it into an assertion.

    An argument can be argued against. A proposal can be dismissed. It gives an opening through which one who can not see through the stained glass window of privilege is allowed to escape the awful thought that someone is being beaten to death on the other side of that beautifully crafted stained glass, just out of view.

    And I can reasonably state, no I angrily assert, that there is absolutely nothing more uncomfortable to a well intentioned but still privileged person than the idea that the pretty image they see is wrong and they are part of the problem for staring at that beating without seeing it.

    It is why feminists and womanists drown out trans women and ignore us. It’s why White Noise spills over POC cries of pain. It’s why no matter where someone is, if they are not a horrible person but they still have privilege it is hard as hell to move those eyes off that colorful, opaque window.

    The anger, the assertion, it tells you that you must move your eyes. It gives you no quarter. It demands that you see past that window. There are no excuses. There are no rebuttals. There is only one and one’s privilege.

    And privilege is a very ugly thing when you really, and I mean really, get a chance to view it in all its disgusting glory.

    So yeah, I’m not surprised that POC anger makes white folks uncomfortable. It certainly makes me uncomfortable. But you know what? I get the fuck over it. Because that discomfort is my sign that I’m not doing something right. I’m staring at the damn window and not helping the person on the other side. That discomfort is my warning sign.

    And that’s damn well what it’s for.

  33. But if a white person CAN (potentially, or at least some white people) see if something is racist or not, then shouldn’t his or her judgement be given some consideration as well? I mean, obviously a person of color ought to be kinda better at spotting racism than mister Lilly White, but not even that gives godlike infallibility. It is not actually physically impossible to get a false positive, even though I will admit that I wouldn’t care to put money on a roulette table based on those odds.

    TANGENT: Regarding watermelons, I’ve only known for a few years that watermelons have any association with any race, and frankly I still don’t understand it. I mean, I understand the, uh, literal text of it – Hurr, look how black people all love watermelon! – I just can’t wrap my mind around why this is supposed to be bad. I mean, watermelons are awesome. I don’t understand why anyone WOULDN’T love watermelon, or why you’d single out any group of people as liking them more than any other group, or why them liking watermelons so much is supposed to prove how silly they are.

    P.S.: Tell me if I’m making this all about white people, and I’ll stop

    P.P.S.: Also tell me if you still think I’m not arguing in good faith, and I’ll also stop. Going on would just be annoying you and probably everyone else, and be a waste our of time besides.

  35. @Axiomatic

    But if a white person CAN (potentially, or at least some white people) see if something is racist or not, then shouldn’t his or her judgement be given some consideration as well? I mean, obviously a person of color ought to be kinda better at spotting racism than mister Lilly White, but not even that gives godlike infallibility. It is not actually physically impossible to get a false positive, even though I will admit that I wouldn’t care to put money on a roulette table based on those odds.

    Yeah it does actually because racism is about how it effects the individual and therefore if someone feels as though they have been demeaned then they have. Can you read someones mind and now whether or not they are legitimately upset? Yeah even the power of Whiteness stops there.

    As for watermelons if you know that it is demeaning then a quick trip to google should tell you why and since I am already catering to you by bothering to respond to your privilege filled posts I shall go no further.

  36. “Whites don’t have that life experience. So how can you tell me as an African-American or presume to have the authority to tell me what is and ISN’T racist?”

    By this logic, since you presumably have no experience with anti-semitism, you can’t tell Bibi Netanyahu when criticism of Israel is legit or based on bigotry.

  37. manju,
    Why are you weakly attempting to derail this discussion from at hand, which is focused on racism?

    Israel is not mentioned anywhere in this post

  38. Anger, with content well expressed, is always appropriate. Anger in a blog post will attract angry commenters, many of whom have no real desire to think about the issue at hand.

    Most of the time, I find it tedious when a thread approaches Godwin’s Law level of rhetoric and anger. Face it, many commenters just don’t do anger well, and the conversation degenerates into a pissing contest.

  39. @Ranee

    ?Yeah it does actually because racism is about how it effects the individual and therefore if someone feels as though they have been demeaned then they have.”

    You need to tighten up your game a bit here, because you’re leaving a door open. You are supposed to qualify a statement like that, and say it is only about how a person of color feels. Otherwise Whiteness may get the idea that their feelings have some significance in the matter, and that they could suffer from racism even though they have institutional power. You’ll come around to that eventually of course, but only after an unnecessary exchange or two with Whiteness.

  40. It seems to me that a lot of critics of what Monica is saying are misinterpreting the context of her remarks. She seems to be asking questions about what motivates White people. Probing questions, to get us to be self-reflective. She seems to be asking us to reflect about certain phenomenona that sure as heck SEEM like double standards.

    And yet, many commenters seem to feel as if she is bossing them around. Saying you must ALWAYS do this or ALWAYS do that. I don’t see any commands in Monica’s post. I don’t see her advocating censorship or some politically correct culture where everybody lives in constant fear of offending somebody. I see Monica as trying to get us to question our assumptions and self-evaluate our own thinking.

    And honestly, couldn’t everyone afford to be more self-reflective and open to others’ viewpoints? That includes us who are White. As Renee said, sometimes the best thing someone can do is just to respectfully listen.

  41. Your comment is an example of nitpicking, Sweating Through Fog.

    Did you ask any of the other people commenting on this thread to quantify their comments?

    Then why do you presume that Renee needs to do so?

  44. It occurred to me that most White people, deep down, consider ourselves members of a “non-race.” We are completely “normal” and “neutral.” Due to this, most White people believe that our frame of reference is the objective, and therefore most accurate, frame of reference on racial matters. In contrast, POC are clearly part of one race or another, and therefore they are biased toward the interests and the viewpoint of their race.

    Of course, this White perspective makes no logical sense. But it is the inevitable result of privilege, dominance, and isolation from frequent contact with opposing viewpoints and/or evidence. Most Whites deep down probably think their objectivity allows them to legitimately dictate the nature of discussions on race, and the definitions and parimeters involved, and to police non-Whites to make sure they remain as “objective” as us.

  46. “manju,
    Why are you weakly attempting to derail this discussion from at hand, which is focused on racism?

    Israel is not mentioned anywhere in this post”

    Because anti-semitism is a form of racism, but with this issue the shoe is often on the other foot, with progressives complaining they’re unfairly labeled bigots when they criticize Israel not unlike whites do when progressives call them out on racism.

    this reversal might help you empathize with the position of those you disagree with and demonstrate the limits to your framework.

  47. Manju..
    Nice try. Trying to use Israel as an example doesn’t fit what I’m talking about in this post.

    Israel is a nation. Israel the nation does not by default equal Jewish people. You can criticize Israel the nation for its political policies towards Palestinians, et cetera.

    There are even Israeli citizens who do so. Does that make them anti-Semites when they may or may not be Jewish themselves?

    Yes there are anti Semites who merge their hatred of Jews and Judaism with their criticism of Israel the nation. But just because you are critiquing Israeli national policies as a concerned world citizen does not make you an anti Semite for expressing those opinions..

    Context is the magic word here. Our Jewish friends can tell the difference between legit criticism of Israel and anti-Semitic or anti Jewish hatred wrapped in criticism of Israel.

    We now return this thread back to the discussion at hand.

  48. Wow. The proper reply to an angry post? Most of the fucking posts on this website are ANGRY! Anger at patriarchy is totally acceptable, but anger at white racism, whoa whoa whoa pump the brakes and remind this negro that white is right!

    I don’t subscribe to the notion that *everything* is about race but let’s not pretend that MANY things ARE, and race like gender are things that cannot be denied or hidden proudly. That no one should be ashamed of who they are or made to feel that they somehow deserved to be mistreated, belittled or ignored simply for being female, a POC or *gasp* both!

    SHe’s taking jabs at white racism and you’re crying foul all while trying to claim hat you aren’t racist. You can’t defend racism WITHOUT being racist! That’s just basic logic. It’s like defending anti-feminism all while claiming not to be down with gender discrimination.

  49. @Azalea:
    YES! You beat me to it.

    I would add that, if you (generic) look at an angry post and your gut-jerk reaction is to dismiss it, or consider it “venting” without the author having stated as such, you need to examine your own reaction as well as what the author said. In particular, try to notice if there is a pattern to the posts you see as “angry and irrational.”

    This strategy has been very useful to me for revealing my own hidden (to me) prejudices and showing me what I have to work on.

  51. Monica, it reads to me like you’ve got a lot of rhetorical questions that you already know the answers to. Why are you asking for an explanation to something you yourself can explain?

  52. “Our Jewish friends can tell the difference between legit criticism of Israel and anti-Semitic or anti Jewish hatred wrapped in criticism of Israel.”

    I beg to differ. There’s actually considerable debate among the jewish community here. For example, Bibi Netanyahu–apparently dong a jewsih verison of Malcolm X– just called Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod “self-hating jews.” So if non jews wanted to practice the anti-racist rule of listening to oppressed communities when they speak of oppression, they would face a conundrum…who to listen to, bibi or rahm?

    diversity problematizes the progressive anti-racist paradigm. If we were to grant you the authority you seek due to your “four decades of experience living on this planet…[being]… exposed to racism and its effects” then doesn’t that necessitate the erasure of African-Americans who disagree with your positions? I suppose if you could demonstrate an overwhelming consensus I’d accede to your demand, but in my experience the opinions of the community at large often differ dramatically from the progressive vanguard.

  53. Manju, I do think you have a point, but this

    I suppose if you could demonstrate an overwhelming consensus I’d accede to your demand, but in my experience the opinions of the community at large often differ dramatically from the progressive vanguard.

    is the key. This is a progressive website; Monica Roberts is presuming that her audience is composed of progressives, though there are always a few outliers like yourself and Sweating Through Fog. Most black progressives probably agree with her “positions”. White progressives should therefore listen to them far more attentively than they would to Michael Steele concerning what is and isn’t racist (though they should still listen to Steele).

  54. Monica, it reads to me like you’ve got a lot of rhetorical questions that you already know the answers to. Why are you asking for an explanation to something you yourself can explain?

    Oh, wow. Are you serious?

    Rhetorical question

  56. Remember what I said in my opening post on Monday.

    As Parliament-Funkadelic said back in the day,

    Think! Think! It ain’t illegal yet!

  57. ‘Nothing pains some people more than having to think’

    Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Strength To Love 1963

  58. So why are you tripping about what I said?

    Because racism runs deeper than most white people want to admit, even to themselves.

  59. It’s been a long, long, long time since I’ve commented here. So long in fact, it was probably under a different name.

    As a person of color with one of them being white, I speak to a multitude of varying issues surrounding the issues of race as they intersect with other areas.

    And, because I am willing to be both assertive and also objective, I will, first off, verify something Monica said earlier: it doesn’t matter if you are pleasant or angry. If you challenge those ideas, you get creamed.

    Unlike Monica, I don’t carry my ethnicity bluntly. People see me and they often think off the top of their heads that I’m *this race*. The one’s that have the least trouble are usually also Black, like me, but they have some issues.

    I am, as Monica knows, extremely sensitive to issues surrounding race, because I receive it from all sides. I am not Black enough, I am not White enough, I am not Native enough, I am too white, I am too black, I am too native.

    And yes, all of it is racism. But what makes that particular experience so horrifying is that it is institutionalized — buried in the basic underlying fabric of everything that is part of the social intereactions we have.

    Amandaw made some stellar points, but I’d like to point out that prejudice *is* an emotion, in and of itself. So all arguments around it are emotional — people feel and believe, not know and establish.

    That’s why it doesn’t matter if the approach is one of assertiveness or one of objectivity. It is an emotional issue from the very start.

    Axiomatic proposed a concept of forewarning — thus enabling one to escape from having one’s privilege revealed. No. I will not preface my posts. I will tell you what I know to be the case and I will not care if its pleasant to you.

    Manju uses a situation of internal dispute to try and provide “a sense of the other side”. Well, Manju, I know the other side. I have passing privilege. I identify and carry on within the white sphere. I also identify as Black, and Native, and I have the background to allow it. The way I see it is I am all of them, and I am none of them.

    And she’s still correct in what she’s saying — this is not the problem of those PoC, it is the problem of those who, as was noted by Ben, do not see themselves as a PoC. White is indeed a color — and my life is a testament to it. So, for that matter, is our sitting President in the US. And when you see yourself as not being one, you will not see the privilege that comes from being such.

    laprofe63, the purpose of asking rhetorical questions is so that *you* can answer them using facts in evidence — often that you may have a propensity to disagree with.

    I don’t ask rhetorical questions. Because to me, there is never an obvious answer, and when there seems to be one, you aren’t thinking about it enough.

  60. I see this happen a lot when I call someone on something they say which is racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain bigoted. I am always told that either a) it didn’t happen or b)I’m the mean nasty one for pointing it out.

    I am trying to work out if it is an inability/fear of facing their privilege, because it rocks their self-image as someone who isn’t racist(as a couple of people have said above). Or if it is that they know admitting saying something racist would mean that they could no longer hide behind their ignorance next time; that if they continue to say those things, they would have to do so openly as a racist, instead of hiding behind the ‘it’s just a joke, there’s something wrong with you if you can’t take it….’

    There is someone in my life who uses any excuse to put people down, from ‘no I didn’t’ to ‘it’s a joke’ to ‘I thought you’d find it funny’ to ‘I forgot you didn’t like it’. Now, when I am actually naming his jokes as racist or sexist jokes, open hostilities have broken out and escalated rapidly – to the point where he would rather cast me out of his life than acknowledge the racism and sexism in what he says. I used to think he just didn’t understand; now I’m starting to believe he just wants to put people down, and wants to believe he has that right, and will use any excuse to do so.

    Breaks my heart; he’s my dad.

Comments are currently closed.