I recently attended the Transforming the Church conference here at Claremont. When Professor Fulkerson of Duke Divinity School addressed the issue of racism, she spoke of “colorblindness” being a new form of racism. To paraphrase, she continued saying that denying another’s race and assimilating it to our own diminishes aspects of the other race. She said that we must recognize and celebrate our racial differences rather than pretend there are none. While I agree with her completely, I find myself at a loss when actually trying to practice this.
Let me be the first to admit that no matter what side I take or what I think is right or wrong, I can only speak from my own social location. I am a primarily white (definitely white in appearance) female raised in a privileged household in the United States. I attended a junior high school where I was by far the minority, but other than that I was probably amongst the majority for the rest of my education, at least racially speaking. In college, I went to school with many international students spanning the entire world. With that being said, I read the first account in Traci C. West’s Disruptive Christian Ethics called “Welcome to Our Church, White Church” (West 113-116) and I thought of Professor Fulkerson’s comments. West gives some of her personal accounts of being an African American woman visiting white Protestant churches (her denomination), where she encountered white people attempting to be nice but making racially offensive comments without even realizing what they were doing. One example she gave consisted of members of the congregation apparently staring at her and then seeing her and upon her remark, “Good Morning,” they replied, “Welcome to our church” (West 114). Another example she gave told of a woman from the choir at a visiting church, who later approached West and mentioned that she had noticed West during the service and said that she said to herself, “Now I just know that gal can sing. We ought to get her up here to do it” (West 115). I can clearly see why she would be offended by both comments. I understand that the first implies that she looks different; therefore she must not be a member of their church, even a lapsed member, so they labeled her as a stranger. I understand that the second racially stereotypes, assuming all black people can sing.
I consider this new form of racism under the guise of colorblindness and I wonder how West’s situations and similar situations should be handled. In the first situation, I think it is unfair to overlook the fact that West was indeed a visitor in a predominately white church. Yes, the congregation most likely saw that she was African American and not one of the African American people that they recognized from regular service, and probably did not recognize from town so they assumed she was an outsider, which she was. They welcomed her to their church and went about their business. In my opinion, they recognized a racial difference and moved on, as Professor Fulkerson called us to do. In the second situation, the woman from the choir obviously stereotyped so the argument here is not as easy to make. While I think it is probably fair to assume that she had meant the comment to be a compliment, assuming that African American people can sing, she did stereotype and in this case it did not fit. West later admits that she cannot actually carry a tune (West 115). However, I feel that I can make the argument (not that I necessarily agree with it) that the woman from the choir was also recognizing a difference between many African American people and many white people. So, how should these two instances have been handled in order to celebrate and recognize our racial differences while still respecting each other?
I personally find this to be a difficult issue. I personally agree with Professor Fulkerson but I also feel that presently a person who is in the racial majority has very little room for error when making any sort of a comment recognize a racial difference. I think that in order to truly rid ourselves of racism, the racial majority must be able to speak respectfully and with good intentions, and should they make an offensive comment without being aware, it should be brought to their attention in an equally respectful manner. I do not think that any member of the racial minority should have to be subject to offensive stereotypes or different treatment because of race. I believe they should take pride in their race regardless of how represented (or unrepresented) it is, but I also think they should be careful not try to find every instance they can to criticize the majority or even another minority race for inadvertently making an offensive comment. But again, where do you draw the line? I suppose the crux of my issue is how does one differentiate between a stereotype or an unwarranted assumption (assuming both are made with good intentions) and a recognition and celebration of our differences?
Posts
This is a very difficult issue to grapple with. My daughter and I were just discussing this very thing. As an English major at Arizona State University, she is in a course about Shakespeare and Race which has challenged the way she looks at the Bard. Her comment to me was that as a person who grew up in a pretty non-racist immediate family, it was difficult for her consider the reality of hidden racism in cultural pursuits as well as to imagine how to deal with it in an intelligent and compassionate manner. In her first attempt to articulate this conundrum to me, she stated that she grew up in a "color blind" family - yet immediately caught herself, and said, "no - we have never ignored the differences in our circle of friends; we have all been who we are in friendship with one another."
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I think my daughter is right; but the reality is that we still have moments in time when we have that sense of discomfort if we say something we think might be construed in a manner other than that with which it was meant.
In my undergrad coursework in physical anthropology, we discussed at length the fact that there are actually many more genetic differences between "white" people than there are between people of African descent and people of European descent. Race as a differentiating factor is a human-made phenomenon. There are no underlying differences between us other than those that make us different individuals. Racial differences are really cultural differences. Skin color has very little to do with it, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, dermatological melanin levels have been indicators of separation for so long now that breaking the habit seems nearly impossible.
Just like all my other comments here on the blog, I have no answers whatsoever. All I know is that for me, I believe that it is in pursuit of learning to Love as God would have me Love that I will learn to cross those human-made borders and Love all equally. How to teach that to others? Ahhhh, now that's the real question....I pray that one day I am able to live it as I feel it, thereby reaching out to others with a hand in friendship.
I am going to come across somewhat "evangelical" here, because of my lack of an overtly "political" solution (haha), but part of the problem in the examples West gives is that the white people in these churches don't have black people attending. If they were in constant relationship and community with those outside of their homogenous racial, cultural and socioeconomic group they would know such statements were offensive and not say them to visitors. I am not aware of the racial dynamics of the communities those churches were located in, though it seems the one in West's hometown had enough of a black population to sustain all-black churches, but the lack of community between people of different races leads to these once-in-a-while encounters that often turn out so bad.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is much deeper than what happened on these isolated occasions. The problem is that it seems interaction between the races in these churches only happens on isolated occasions. If it occurred on a regular basis many of these faux pas' would occur less frequently. (They still would occur from time to time, but the people would know each other well enough to be comfortable enough to address them without too much offense being taken on either side.)
Sometimes it really is a simple as getting to know one another.
I have a concrete idea that’s directly related to West’s experiences, that starts with dialoguing which, I believe, needs to happen in any case between worshipping bodies. I believe that a place of worship is not a place in which discrimination should be encountered. Speaking out of my own tradition, Christian, one part of my vision for overcoming racism in this area would be for individual predominantly “white” churches and churches predominantly populated by people of color/other ethnicities to start what I would call sibling church relationships. Steps for building such relationships would be to set up systematic visitation to each others’ churches by small groups of members from each church on a regular basis, have monthly potlucks together, and engage in recreational and other activities together. Maybe this sounds simplistic, but the thread I think I’m detecting in previous comments is “We need to get to know each other better”. That’s not going to happen if we all stay in our racial/ethnic safety zones.
ReplyDeleteIf we get to know each other, there is hope that we will begin to care for each other. In the course of the relationship, we may learn about racism and any other oppression that is being experienced by each other and will become intolerant of and start counteracting such discrimination and other oppression. Also, we will get to know each other as whole people created by God. This will help us to stop committing the error of just seeing color when we look at each other, while at the same time learning about and appreciating each others' culture/background. We don’t need to be “color blind”, but we don't need to be “color obsessed” either. We can appreciate color and culture as part of whole persons. I am going to practice what I’m preaching on an individual basis by visiting the church of one of my classmates of color in the coming weeks. Anyone else want to take up the challenge?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that stereotypes ignore individual variation and colorblindness ignores variation between racial/ethnic groups, where we really need to honor both sorts of variation. As for stereotypes, I dislike it when people speak as if they could reduce all of my complexity as a human being to some, usually inaccurate, stereotype based on one characteristic, and think it is likely that other people will also dislike this. Experiences do not affect everyone in the same way, and so generalizations about entire groups of people will never be true of every individual in that group. On the other hand, it seems to me that there are genuine cultural, historical, and experiential differences between people of different races and it is just as inaccurate to ignore these as it is to ignore the individual variations. The best way I know to initially treat a stranger of a different race than mine is to avoid assuming anything at first, treat her in the ways I know to show respect, and be open to and welcome the possibility that we may be different from each other in ways I'm not used to. If anyone knows of better ways, please let me know because I would hate to inadvertently hurt someone.
ReplyDeleteDebbie's suggestion for how to address that is intriguing. I've also found that taking public transit results in encountering an incredible variety of people of many different races as the bus or train moves across the county, and it's been fascinating to speak with people I would not have otherwise met. Education can also help, especially if the teacher belongs to the culture she is teaching about. Years ago, I took a class on Mexican-American tradition and culture at the community college, and left that class fascinated by the variety of subcultures within this country and less afraid of making a mistake in interacting with people who looked and spoke differently than my family. Jimmy is probably right that we just need to get to know one another, and any move in that direction should help.
Yes, a most difficult issue, especially when we have people in the world who have historical and immediate experiences that give them little to no reason to "presume postitive intent" when encountering others. Fear does seem to rule us whether consciously or unconsiously. The desire to have freedom and choice and economic well being have contributed to our actions of alienation, rivalry and scapegoating. It takes really learning about another person, beyond "hello" and appearance, sound of voice, skin color, beliefs, etc to begin to appreciate diversity, equity, interdependence and work for sustainability and transformation. I do agree with positon Professors Fulkerson and West take related to colorblindness--it's just too easy of a response. Relationship building remains key--that requires that I honestly listen another's story and take it in while suspending preconceived ideas. Debbie's proposal is an avenue to accomplish this. I also think that working with our schools and youth programs to teach kids about overcoming stereotypes helps tremendously. The city of Antioch CA in recent years has gone through tremendous changes in racial demographics. Part of these changes have resulted in increased youth gang violence.
ReplyDeleteOne parent championed change at the highest levels of city government starting with the Chief of Police. As a result, the city engaged in a process called Dialogue for Peaceful Change that comes out of the Northern Ireland conflict (also was used in the Balkan conflict and currently in other locations around the globe). The mayor, police chief, school superintendent, and other civic leaders went thru DPC training. As a result, they've come up with the Youth Empowerment Program where mediators assist a youth and his/her family in identifying solutions for overcoming conflict and meeting needs. They hope to have the youth and families learn this DPC process to then become DPC mediators within the community. Some of the youth, now former gang members, are also becoming involved to assist youth in resolving conflict in sustainable ways. Key to DPC is really listening to the perspective of the other person and working to "restore right relationships." We've hidden behind many "issues" as a society rather than engaging in relationship or working to "restore" relationship. We presume often that conflicts cannot be resolved without even looking at the issues that are the pillars that keep the conflict going. West's book is challenging me to examine those pillars closely.
Thanks for bringing this to the table!
I see a lot of talk about dialogue. This has to be with mutual respect. Understanding that either party has the right to exist and coexist. None is above the other. To become a recongnized part of the society people should not have to explain or give up their identity. Diversity adds value to society. Looking at people from the same lens is often a common mistake made by many. We live in a society based on value judgement. People also try to paint the entire canvas with one brush. I always say dialogue should be accompanied by bilateral relations. This should without the condition or attempt to change the view or other's identity.
ReplyDeleteChaplain--I think that's why I like the Dialogue for Peaceful Change approach--there is absolutely no condition or attempt to change the view or identity of the other party. The process models respect at each step of the way. The parties engaging in the process are asked at each point if they want to continue coming together in an effort to overcome the point of conflict.
ReplyDeleteHeather, I agree with you that this is a very difficult issue, and as much as i want to put hope in the solution of dialogue, I feel that it must be in a pro-active effort similar to what Jimmy said. Elaine - maybe I don't understand, but how can there be no change in view from both parties if the reason to dialogue was to end a conflict in viewpoints?
ReplyDeleteWhen professor Amesbury ask us to write down the five characteristics that we would use to define ourselves, I found myself in the same category as the two men who responded on the class video of Claremont we in Arizona watched. I am a white, straight, male. I did not write down any of these as characteristics to describe me. I did not feel I omitted these out of some sense of privilege because I happen to fit those categories, but it got me thinking. I grew up in a school system that was very close to 50% Anglo and 50% African American. However that was only reflected at school. In our respected neighbor hoods, churches and most of our recreation we were segregated.
ReplyDeleteThat being said I have spent the rest of my life drifting between trying to be “color-blind” and now more inclined to celebrate racial diversity and then hoping to build bridges of dialogue and inclusiveness through diversity.
I believe dialogue is our most important tool. However let me challenge everyone to step outside of their box and try on a little reverse racism if you will. And of course I am talking about the privileged, Anglos of a normative society.
As a working musician for many years I was privileged to live in a cross cultural, mixed race world that focused on presenting the music, all with little thought to color. Many times I found myself as the only Anglo in and all African American or Hispanic situations. I will admit at first I had degrees of being uncomfortable. This gave way to amazing experiences of hospitality.
To be honest it was not all fuzzy and warm and there were instances of reverse racism, some angry and some in good fun, at my expense. However for the most part there seemed to be a gracious hospitality of welcoming the stranger (me) and accommodating my cultural slips.
It’s as if a culture of welcoming allows people to be more cognizant and caring in what they say to the outsider. Anglo cultures take note.
Now that I have been a vocational pastor for the past nine years I have found myself in similar situations, most humorous and some perplexing. Just recently I officiated a wedding of a young Filipino couple who have been attending our church. As I sat next to the groom at the reception, in a place of honor due solely to my pastoral status, the only Anglo in attendance, he asked if I knew any other Filipinos. My answer was yes, but my mind was asking, “And do you know any other Anglos?”
I held my tongue. The main solution seems to be educating ourselves to the necessity of really thinking about what we are going to say before we speak. And to immerse ourselves in cultures different from our own. Now you may say it is not our job to do so. I am simply offering that it is a necessity in the multi-cultural world we live in that carries the bondage of centuries of oppression and misinformation.
Then start a dialogue.
Thanks, Jon, for asking--with the DPC process, the mediators enter the process knowing that the work and the results belong solely to the parties involved. The parties involved work with the mediators to come to agreement about ground rules or agreements of respect that the parties will adhere to during the DPC process. (there's always 2 in order to help one another remain unaligned with either party). The mediators put no conditions on the parties or hold expectations that people will change their views. Experience has shown us this process works. We start with each party having a private session with the two mediators. The goal of the session is for the party to share his/her story and perspective on the conflict and the mediators to understand that perspective. The mediators cannot share anything that this person said in that session in the following sessions. The next session, the two parties come together. Each again tells his/her story to the mediators while the other party listens. The next stage = the mediators facilitating the parties thinking about what the issues are in the conflict--in other words, what "holds" the conflict up. In between sessions, the mediators map out the conflict and issues that they've heard. This is not to share with the two parties or to push the process in a certain direction. Rather, it's just to help the mediators keep track of what's happening and to provide a cross check with what they hear. Once issues get identified, the parties are asked to think of what would be the benefit of the conflict being resolved. Then they are asked to think of potential solutions that would work from his/her perspective. And, they are asked to think about what solutions would work from the perspective of the other person. The process keeps going as long as the parties are willing to come together.
ReplyDeleteWhat's amazing is that often people come to understand the other person's viewpoint or at least how it might have come to be that the other person holds a particular view. We've learned that often by just coming to understand the issues propping up the conflict helps parties to realize what issues they actually can impact. Often there are issues propping up conflict that the two parties have little control over.
If some movement, even if just a bit, can occur, then parties often begin to believe that change can occur.
There's much more to the process and the thinking behind it than I can provide here. The training to be a mediator is 45-50 hours over the course of 5 days including hands on skill building. Hope this helps . . .
I liked Heather’s post a great deal and it touched on issues that I have been thinking about, whether consciously or unconsciously, for all of my life. While I did grow up in an integrated school system (Denver, CO) and had many friends who were of other races, it seems that racial distinctions would still linger. Why was that?
ReplyDeleteJimmy’s comment about the church West had visited not having black people attending makes more sense than perhaps it seems. In my own personal experience, the only antidote for racism, or issues such as whether to embrace or reject colorblindness, is to enter into a setting, church or otherwise, that is so decidedly interracial that race can simply no longer be an issue because no dividing lines are left. Do such places exist?
There are many reasons why I would like to get my family out of Los Angeles. Living near 3rd and Fairfax it is loud, crazy, busy, anxiety producing, sometimes polluted, and often downright invasive. But I keep hanging on because there is nowhere else on earth that I know of where such a fantastically wide array of races and cultures exist together in harmony. And when I say exist together, I don’t just mean that they retire to their own race-specific blocks and peacefully coexist (like New York). I mean that, in my case, an African-American studio exec lives next door, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor lives across the street, and a Korean couple lives next to him.
More importantly, the church we belong to, the Oasis Christian Center, has as many races and cultures represented as there seem to be in the world. We live in racial harmony not only because we are brothers and sisters in Christ, but because to try to draw racial distinctions would be like trying to write in the sand: the letters are erased as soon as they are written.
My point here is that we can give all of the lip service we want to opening up lines of dialogue and being or not being color blind, but it seems to me that the only solution to a challenge like racism is to run right into the middle of it so that color does disappear for lack of contrast. While I do feel a level of colorblindness that I have never felt in my life because of Los Angeles, the real test will be with my kids. Can children who are raised in an environment where every culture gets its fair share of “air time” honestly see no color only culture?
This has been yet another great discussion! I was really intrigued by the question you posed, Steven, about your children. You wrote: “…the real test will be with my kids. Can children who are raised in an environment where every culture gets its fair share of ‘air time’ honestly see no color only culture?” I’m at an advantage right now…my 24 year old son is living with us while he looks for work (yes, he is one of the many victims of our economy…he was laid off in February). I asked him what he thought about this term “colorblindness” and whether or not it had any significance for him. Our neighborhood in Tempe, AZ is somewhat racially mixed, and he attended racially mixed schools. In his words: this whole notion of colorblindness is a non-issue, at least for individuals from his generation. He took a young woman of color to a dance at his high school (one of my memories, not necessarily his), and as far as he was concerned, race didn’t matter…color didn’t matter…it was all about the people, who they were and what they were “in to”. I shared with him my own experience in high school, growing up in a lily-white neighborhood where the biggest controversy was when I was a Junior in high school and a young man (who was my age, and black) wanted to play on the basketball team. I remember as a teen thinking “who cares about the color of his skin…he’s tall. What’s the big deal.” But to the adults in our neighborhood, it was huge. I don’t recall that it ever became a non-issue in the community, but I am glad to hear that for my kids, they honestly do see no color, only culture.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, during the conversation, my son said something really profound (he does this a lot!). He said, “I think at any given time, we all are discriminated against. I’m discriminated against because I’m young, other people are discriminated against because they are considered old, both men and women are discriminated against. It’s a fact of life.” And you know, he’s right. As a woman, I have experienced my own fair share of discrimination…sometimes I still do. My daughter, who looks young for her age, and who is an assistant manager at a local restaurant, is discriminated against by customers, men and women alike. Unfortunately it’s systemic…but I do think it’s getting better. Will we ever reach a point of seeing each other for who we are, without having to think about whether or not we are colorblind? I don’t know. I think there’s hope, if my children are any indication.
One final word…I can appreciate the concept of “colorblindness” as a negative. I think it’s important for us who come from privilege to remember that there are those who do not, or have not, and we shouldn’t ever forget. But I also believe that if we are to ever make any strides as a society, we have to be able to see people for who they are and what they bring to the table, without judgment or discrimination. I don’t know that I’ll ever see this in my lifetime, but I can hope.
Just like Professor Fulkerson said, we shoud celebrate our differences. I might not exactly understand the concept of colorblindness, but it seems to me as though being colorblind is unrealistic and might be an attempt to put a blanket over the real issue that frankly, we really are all different from one another culturally, ethnically, socially, etc. We are all different and sometimes we might think so differently that we do not know what to do with this wall between us. I believe that in admitting and accepting our differences will help to break down the wall, although this will indeed require much effortful work.
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic which is with me every day and I struggle with how slowly we are progressing as a society to live in a place where we are judged by “the content of our character.” I am elated with the election of President Obama and see the fact of his election as progress (albeit slow) on the journey. Yes, the key is to walk in true relationship with people of all various definitions but as humans we seem to have a pernicious tendency to seek people similar to ourselves (not just racially, but in other ways at least as much too.) It takes awareness of this tendency to motivate ourselves to go beyond our comfort zones and put ourselves in situations where we may be challenged.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I understand the demonizing of the word “color-blind” and its attendant understanding of leveling all to a common denominator (usually perhaps to the normative culture/race?), I do think that underlying its use by many people are good intentions. At times this word is used to mean that there is a common bond perceived between people and it is the commonality being focused on rather than the differences. This constant tension of longing for community and building bridges versus honoring the individual is with us always.
I close with an observation about the nexus of race/class. I would hazard a guess that many people might feel more comfortable with someone of a different “race” but same economic class as themselves, and more uncomfortable with someone of the same “race” but different economic class. I see this being played out in my son’s high school that is inner city and very diverse in all ways. The youth cluster by economic standing and intellectual division (the school’s various academies.) There is a difference drawn not so much by race per se but by behavior due to socio-economic standing. Just another piece to consider…
I struggle with this. I consider myself pretty open-minded for a white straight guy, and don't often share those qualities because I don't think they identify who I am. Great. But that's me. Who am I to decide for the people around me that color, gender, or sexual identity aren't important? "Colorblindness" does just that.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting conversation and I appreciate how everyone is wrestling with the issue. I applaud all who would endeavor to build relationships with persons of color as a first step to understanding and change.
ReplyDeleteWhen greeting a person of color, the best "approach" in my opinion is, as some have said, openness and respect. People of color have varying culture just like white people do. To make an assumption otherwise is to insult the dignity of that person.
The so-called colorblind concept is indeed racism. It's an attempt to sidestep responsibility for acknowledging what racism is - a social construct that undergirds white privilege in all facets of our society and is ensconced in all of our institutions: church, education and government. It is so ingrained in our society that most white people don't realize how they have been acculturated to not only see it as the norm, but to perpetuate it.
Bob, It's not a matter of deciding for people that color, gender and sexual identity don't matter; the do matter. Colorblindness denies that and this is where the challenge Tamara spoke of comes into play. What is it about people of color that puts someone out of "their comfort zone"? What make anyone think that people of color want any more or less than whites?
How do we overcome it? There is not space or time to address it in a blog. It will take all of us to intentionally build relationships, dialoging, teaching our children to respect one another; but more than that, it will take white people (who have privilege and power) to question institutional foundations and unravel the stronghold of racism.
I remember commenting to my dad that one of the big differences between rural Michigan and California was the way we would perceive an all-African-American church: in my hometown this would be called "extremely diverse" church, whereas in California it is not at all diverse. My dad didn't understand the point I was trying to make and I told him that to those of us from farm towns equated "diversity" with the presence of non-white people, whereas in California "diversity" is viewed in contrast with an ethnic monolith.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I favor those who find "colorblindness" ideologically problematic and naive in its assumptions. Overlooking differences is not helpful and - get ready for it - pretty ethnocentric. The fact is, as a hetero white dude, I don't have to worry about being denied a loan, others assuming that I'm where I am only because of Affirmative Action, being condescended to, etc. on the basis of my race. Colorblindness disingenuously denies the advantages for me and disadvantages for non-whites that result from this reality.
I took a few years off between undergrad and grad school. My undergraduate degree is in Philosophy which is tragically unmarketable. As a result I picked up a job in construction. The general rule of thumb (pardon the pun) is that white guys are the framers, black guys are the dry-wallers, Mexicans are the roofers, and Koreans do the siding and trim work. What’s more is that lunch time is equally predicted. The dry-wallers eat fried chicken, the roofers eat tacos, the trim carpenters eat rice and kimchi, and the framers eat sandwiches or something comparable. This was the way people explained it to me as I learned my trade. Even though this stinks of racism and prejudice it is accurate with my experience, barring the unusual exception to these rules. The subcontractors we worked with were exceptionally skilled, reliable and efficient and so we worked alongside them often. When I started working with the framing crew people assumed I had roofing experience, or they’d ask me to translate to the roofers; I don’t speak Spanish. I would clarify that I’m not “Mexican” (I use quotes here because the label “Mexican” is used to denote anyone of Hispanic origin), learned a little Spanish from high school and of course have since forgotten, and that I’m actually Japanese and Italian, and enjoy a wide variety of cuisine. To me, the notion of colorblindness is important insofar as it relates to cultural differences. Unfortunately, this means removing racism out of a cultural differences sphere and into a separate realm in order that we maintain its abrogation. At the same time, though, noting cultural differences can breed racism, as I described above, no matter how flattering the intentions.
ReplyDeleteI have been trying to figure out how to approach this issue. There are white people that would prefer to think of the world as colorblind now that Obama has been elected.
ReplyDeleteI have been working on a racism project in my church for over a year. While on the surface the membership was a group of "white" liberals who do not think that they are prejudiced, there are layers of racism that are so deep that unlearning is a long process.
What we focused on is the system. I notice in every ad, every billboard, every picture of people whether or not the person in the photograph is a person of color. The vast majority of the time the person is not. Hegemony is the dominant culture so pervasive that it is understood as the norm. It is like being in a fishbowl, the water is every where around you and through you and it is privileging the white.
I read an article in the LA weekly about a serial killer that has been killing African American women in Watts for years. He took a break and is apparently back. One of the mothers of a murdered young woman asked why such a fuss was made over Natalie Holloway, that we sent police to that country, and the LAPD continues to take little interest in the serial murders. When a white child is kidnapped it is a big deal. A small black girl gone missing makes hardly a blip.
Colorblindness, as was spoken about by a younger, Republican, Navy veteran who came from money and is a lawyer. He would like to see that there is no difference and if he could give his privilege away, he would. Now, he was an officer in the navy which may or may not have paid for his education. In fact, I believe that you must have a higher education to be an officer. Young persons of color, who have no hope of paying for college on his or her own will sign up for the military and will end up on the front lines, not some cushy pilot job. Is this colorblindness? I mean, people of color and people who are privileged work together in the military, right?
The housing crisis is yet another example. People of color, who qualified for normal home loans were pushed into the riskier higher interest rate loans. And people in the US have the gall to blame these people who bought their houses on good faith. Yes there was some greediness, but I do not think that it was people of color doing the flipping of houses. It was the banks, and who are we bailing out? The privileged of wall street and finance.
There is no colorblindness. Corporations are privileged over individuals, white individuals are privileged over people of color. With white privilege you can go to Ivy league schools and make contacts, and be able to retain and grow what money you have.
What people often don't realize is that it is the system itself that is sick. We are all guilty of some sort of petty racism. And the ugliness of racism is all too real. However, when those in power compel one group to resent the other for perceived privileges such as Affirmative Action, often that middle class does not realize that they would not even own the house that they live in if not for their color or lack thereof.
With the exception of the skinheads and some really prejudiced people in the South, racism has just become more subtle, and subtlety masked as colorblindness.
There was an experiment performed in game form in the early nineties, I think, where the sociologist called a group of white people together and separated them by eye color, but they weren't told what the separation designation was. Those who had blue eyes were at the lowest end of the socio-economic totem pole. In the game, those with brown eyes were given privileges and luxuries. The blue eyed people were given chores, little food, less space, and little water. At the end of the experiment, the sociologist gathered the responses from the participants. It was clear that the message was sent, treating anyone differently just because of how they look isn't fair, it isn't right, nor is it ethical. It wears down the person's sense of self worth and sets the stage for self defeating behavior.
ReplyDeleteThis sociologist's take away was we need to stop being colorblind, but embrace our color differences. As an African American woman, when someone says to me that they are colorblind, what I hear is that they think there is something so wrong with my color (the deep dark chocolate variety) that they just can't stand to look at it.
A few years ago, my parents gave me a brand new convertible BMW as a thank you for the selflessness way I'd served my family. When I was driving down the street in the SouthBay, a sheriff's car started trailing me. I wasn't speeding, I wasn't making any illegal moves, I was just a young black woman in a fancy brand new car. And people wonder why African Americans have a higher incidence of high blood pressure.
Revisiting again - this is an issue that speaks to me almost daily, despite the fact that I live in a predominately white neighborhood and work in a church that is by far predominately upper-middle class white. I read in a couple of these responses reference to the fact that racism is basically so subtle we almost miss it - and this is so true. I discovered a subtle enculturation of racism in popular music recently. I was listening to classic rock, to a song that I have always enjoyed the sound of, and for some reason for the very first time, I listened - really listened - to the words. The song was Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama." As I listened, I realized for the first time that this song was a southern man's response to Neil Young's "Southern Man," in which Neil challenges the southerner with the words:
ReplyDelete"Southern man
better keep your head
Don't forget
what your good book said
Southern change
gonna come at last
Now your crosses
are burning fast
Southern man
I saw cotton
and I saw black
Tall white mansions
and little shacks.
Southern man
when will you
pay them back?
I heard screamin'
and bullwhips cracking
How long? How long?"
Lynyrd Skynyrd's response comes with the not-so-subtle message that Neil Young's opinion is not wanted:
"Well I heard mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard ole Neil put her down
Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow"
Further down the lyric sheet comes the real message; the one that is so blatant that I am personally appalled that I liked the song for so long:
"Sweet home Alabama
Oh sweet home baby
Where the skies are so blue
And the governor's true "
Why is this so blatant? Well, for many who don't know their history, or who have forgotten, the governor they speak of it is Alabama's 4-time governor, George Wallace, who is most famous for resisting segregation and vilifying blacks, students and everyone who was against continued US activity in Vietnam. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Wallace is the governor who is "true" in these lyrics. He's the governor they loved in Birmingham.
Now, I find I can't enjoy any Lynyrd Skynyrd song; and I find myself listening more carefully to the music I hear on the radio.
Do I think listening to racist music will make a non-racist person racist? Perhaps not any more that "Mandatory Suicide" by Slayer will make a non-suicidal person commit suicide. Nevertheless, the message is clear - it makes racist attitudes seem acceptable to an unthinking world.
I pray for forgiveness in my Naiveté.