woodwardiocom | Further Thoughts On Fandom & Reverse Racism

Further Thoughts On Fandom & Reverse Racism

I just added this lengthy comment in my previous post, as a reply to

jordan179. I thought it was worth bringing out for its own post. (Slightly edited for the different context.)

As a white person, I can understand the "it's bad if whites do it, therefore it's bad if blacks do it" position, since I've thought the same way from time to time. The reasons I have thought this way are:

1) The power of analogy is tempting. "Such-n-such happened to a black person. If such-n-such happened to me, how would I feel?"
2) My desire for justice believes that the same rules (of laws, of etiquette) should apply to everyone.
3) I have spent my life learning stuff, in order to better understand stuff, and this is just one more thing to learn, right?

The problem is that the lifetime experiences of a black person (or a woman, or a homosexual) are radically different from mine. There is pervasive discrimination that simply does not happen to me. They therefore bring an expertise to these topics that I do not share, and can't learn except by listening to them.

This is intensely frustrating! I'm a smart guy, with a good education, so I'm used to being right about stuff. The epiphany came when I had to admit that it was literally impossible for me to understand what their experiences were like, and I would never be able to match or exceed their expertise in the issues.

Therefore, in order for me to not say wrong things on the topic, it is absolutely required for me to listen to them, defer to their expertise, seek out their help, and acknowledge my own ignorance in the area.

Now, we've agreed that racism is bad. The problem is that the definition of "a racist act" has very fuzzy boundaries. White people set them in one place, black people have a larger set, Jews have a different set, Southerners, Northerners, Republicans, Democrats, SF fans, etc.

Given the above, when people disagree about whether a specific act is racist, the greatest expertise on the topic will generally not come from white people. When the white people are informed of this, they tend to get really cranky.

This is a problem in any demographic, but it can be worse for SF fans. One of the strongest messages of Campbellian SF is that smart people can solve any problem (even if it involves laws of physics you just discovered this morning), and if you read SF, you're one of the smart people. A more subtle message of Campbellian SF is "Men of Northern European extraction are the best!", since (per Asimov), Campbell actually believed that.

So, smart SF fans of Northern European extraction, when they are told that they are wrong about issues of race, and are incapable of gathering the experiences necessary to be experts, throw huge pissy fits.

They need to learn to admit their ignorance and listen.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Keep fighting the good fight, man.

Thank you muchly.

Well said.

Well said, and thank you. It's a small thing in the greater context of racism, but I get infuriated at white people who say "How come I can't use the N-word when they do, that's not fair". Seriously? Let's put aside the fact that most black folks I know, women my own age mainly, are mortified by it's use by younger folks. Even so, in the face of the obvious institutional racism faced by people of colour in this country, and the effects of that racism on their day-to-day life, your problem is there is a word they can use that you can't? That's a problem for you? You can't let there be one thing that you, as a white person, can't do that a person of colour can? Maybe it's time to think about all the things they can't do because of racism before you publicly bitch and moan about fairness.

<3 It's been really great to see you talking about this stuff. I agree with the overall content of your post.

However, I think it's more than just "get really cranky" or "throw huge pissy fits" in reaction to these kinds of situations -- you have to WANT to get better at these things, and if you haven't yet committed to that change, then I think people lash out because it hurts a lot (but that's still the responsibility of the person with those feelings, not of the people who are speaking up about they way they are being treated). Around the time of the first public internet Racefail in 2009 (http://fanlore.org/wiki/RaceFail_'09) I started LISTENING to people. I suddenly, thoroughly understood that I did not know SHIT about this stuff, and the one message that came through loud & clear was "be quiet and LEARN before you try to help." It's only in the past couple of years that I feel confident enough in my ability to read an article or a comment or whatever and feel like I can correctly interpret any problematic elements, and asses whether it's something that should be shared.

I recommend this tag "For Whites, like me" on this blog (which does sometimes have a religious aspect, but seriously, don't let that get in the way of listening to these people). http://livingformations.com/category/for-whites-like-me/
The first post in that category is also a good read: http://livingformations.com/2013/08/01/for-whites-like-me-prelude/

And yes, I definitely want to advocate listening to black voices, and people of color, but it's also not THEIR job to single-handedly explain racism to us. So I try to highlight someone who is speaking to white people about their racism, since that may be an easier place for white people to start learning. Those resources were harder for me to find in 2009, and I would've found them really helpful (and I still do).

One trouble with this, to my mind, is the often made assertion that no black person can ever be racist.

Quite a few years ago, now, I took a long trip by Greyhound, and when I got back, I went to the bus stop to head for home. And a black man waiting at that same bus stop started threatening me, telling me he didn't want me at that bus stop; in fact, he explicitly said, "I'm a segregationist." I was tired and just wanted to go home, and I'm not good at dealing with violent situations, but fortunately I was rescued by the intervention of a bystander—another black man, as it happens—who told the first man to back off.

Now, it seems to me that there is no sensible way to describe that sort of behavior and attitude except as "racist"—that is, based on adherence to an ideology of racial difference and of hostility based on that difference.

There is an argument that black people cannot be racist because they are not in power in society as a whole. But power is not simply holistic. Power is largely situational and negotiated—socially constructed—and the process of construction takes place in concrete circumstances that differ from place to place, moment to moment, and person to person. And who's in power can change. The Christians were a contemptible minority in ancient Rome; a thousand years later they were in power in most of Europe—and their laws included death penalties for sodomites and heretics. I don't judge people's attitudes purely by how much power they have now; I judge them by what they are likely to do if they get into power.

I'd also note that, stipulating that a black person knows more than a white person about the abuse to which black people are subject, the accusation of "racism" is also used as a trump card in arguments—and any such trump card will attract people who want to use it to win arguments, whether or not it's relevant and whether or not they have anything valid to say. I've been accused of racism in response to my criticizing the health care proposals of Barack Obama (whom in fact I voted for in 2008, because I thought his original proposals during his campaign, if not ideal, sounded endurable and better than Clinton's). This gets to have a flavor of "shut up, he explained": It says, "I can make an accusation against you because you're white, and you can't refute it because you're white, and that makes anything you say that I disagree with wrong, and no evidence or argument you present can be relevant." And you can't pursue empirical truth if evidence can be ruled out in that way.

Now, maybe you believe that there is no empirical or objective truth to be pursued, and everything is purely a matter of superior power. But it seems to me that that implies that what I ought to do, out of prudence, is to make sure that people like me are in power, and people different from me are kept out of power, by any means necessary. That's a position I reject, and I don't think it's one you actually want to adhere to either.

Are people of colour sometimes racist? Sure. Do people use straw men and other such tactics to silence others? No question. But I believe that those incidents are far, far, far outnumbered by the systemic racism people of colour experience every day. Continuing to harp on them whenever someone talks about manifestations of that systemic racism is like insisting on bringing up "false accusations" whenever the topic of sexual assault is raised.

(And in case anyone reading this *does* like to shout "But false accusations!" whenever the topic of sexual assault is raised, I direct you to these links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/13/false-rape-allegations-ra_n_2865823.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estimates_of_prevalence)

There's an apocryphal story told in The Peaceable Kingdom about George Fox and Margaret Fell (the founders of the Society of Friends). George Fox was very very adamant about the Golden Rule, and advocated that everyone should always treat everyone else the way they would wish to be treated. One specific instantiation of this, so goes the story, was that in an argument, rather than escalate the argument, the Quaker participant in the argument should embrace their interlocutor "in the spirit of the Lord." When Fox was in prison, and Fell was receiving letters from new Quaker converts everywhere, she was trying to interpret Quaker "doctrine" (such as it is) to respond to these letters. One other person in prison wrote that as much as he tried to embrace those who spoke against him, the embraces seemed to anger the combatants more and what should he do? Fell replied to his letter suggesting that before he treat others the way he would be treated, he might well check if their tastes were the same. Fox disapproved, but I suspect that Fell kept many an imprisoned Quaker from getting beaten up extra...

One trouble with this, to my mind, is the often made assertion that no black person can ever be racist.

Yeah, I'm not going to assert that or defend it.

I'd also note that, stipulating that a black person knows more than a white person about the abuse to which black people are subject, the accusation of "racism" is also used as a trump card in arguments... It says, "I can make an accusation against you because you're white, and you can't refute it because you're white, and that makes anything you say that I disagree with wrong, and no evidence or argument you present can be relevant." And you can't pursue empirical truth if evidence can be ruled out in that way.

That is indeed a danger. It's the same danger someone with no knowledge of physics has when arguing with a world-renowned physicist. The phyisicist could be saying complete nonsense, but the layman has no way to know or argue. The difference is that the layman could learn physics, but you and I can't learn what it is to be black (or a woman, or whatever). It's freakin' annoying.

In actual practice I have friends I trust who are black/Hispanic/gay/women/trans/etc., and able to offer good input on these matters, and I check with them. In the absence of being able to determine empirical truth for myself, I have trusted sources. (Which, frankly, is the same way I determine truth in physics, since I'm no physicist.)

Thank you.

Well said.

Gratzi beaucoup.

It's been really great to see you talking about this stuff.

Merci.

I don't think that saying "but there is this other worse problem" is a legitimate justification for not recognizing a problem, or for not addressing it, when it actually arises.

That might be a valid argument if this discussion had started off being about the things you raised. But it didn't. From my perspective, *you* are the one saying "But there is this other less worse problem!" irrelevantly in the middle of a discussion.

In actual practice, when I see a physicist writing about theology, or economics, or race relations, and claiming authority in that subject because they are a physicist, I dismiss their claims to authority. They and I are equals in dealing with any subject outside his area of expertise; they're as much a layman as I am—and I'm entitled to judge their qualifications as a layman from my standpoint as another layman.

In actual practice, when a black person addresses a question of economic policy, their experience as a black person does not give them any special expertise in determining the consequences of such policy. If they claim otherwise, I'm going to ignore that. And if they make my being white an issue, I'm going to dismiss their arguments without further hearing.

I mostly trust a sick person to know where it hurts (though there are hypochondriacs!); but if I want to know the cause of the pain, I want a diagnostician—who need not be sick in the same way. And I really can't address the day to day troubles of black people (other than by doing my best to exercise common courtesy), whereas I can think about economics and political philosophy and public policy and try to figure out what the sound positions are there.

"When it actually arises", sure. Focusing on the rare problems to the detriment of the common problems is called "derailing".

I'm speaking to discussions of racism, not discussions of economic policy. The guy who thought you were a racist for criticizing Obama was mistaken, given how well I know you.

Inasmuch as most issues of racism overlap with some other field (such as economics, or the Hugo nomination process), I'm presuming that the people involved have similar experience in that field.

It seems odd to me that you first say "I'm speaking to discussions of racism, not discussions of economic policy," and then say that "most issues of racism overlap with some other field."

I want to make one other point. You point, and legitimately, to the personal experience black people have with racism, gay people with anti-gay bias, and so on, and you suggest that it is objectionable to invalidate their personal experience or to undercut the weight of what they experience. But I'm a guy who likes to discuss political philosophy, ethics, and related fields; and I am telling you that I personally have experienced the use of the charge of "racism" in an attempt to silence me, and (I presume a successful attempt) to dismiss my views. And it seems to me that you are invalidating my personal experience of this sort of thing, or suggesting that it isn't a serious matter. I can only say that it's serious to me. I don't propose anything as undignified as a competition for who has been more victimized; in any case I don't think that being a victim makes you a better person or makes your beliefs more true. But a principle like not invalidating people's experience is not worth much, to my mind, unless you apply it consistently even on small matters.

It seems odd to me that you first say "I'm speaking to discussions of racism, not discussions of economic policy," and then say that "most issues of racism overlap with some other field."

I think the word "most" gets me out of that infelicity...

But a principle like not invalidating people's experience is not worth much, to my mind, unless you apply it consistently even on small matters.

It's a shame that these things happen to you, Bill, since I sincerely believe that you are not racist. Please go read up on "derailing", because you are following that script very closely, and that means people who recognize the script stop respecting your words.

My whole point in this discussion was that "You can't simply dismiss people who object to charges of racism; some such people have legitimate concerns." I think that I have granted, repeatedly, that the concerns you raise are often valid.

What you are doing is a classic rhetorical strategy in ideological argument: On one hand you are pointing to the things that concern you as systematic patterns about which something must be done, at the level of collective action; on the other hand you are dismissing the things that don't concern you as isolated incidents, regrettable in themselves, but not adding up to anything larger and not meriting serious attention.

I don't think this discussion is going to lead anywhere productive, so I will leave the last word to you, if you want it. But I urge you to be more aware of the classically recognized logical fallacies as rhetorical strategies. We all fall into them—the human brain is not naturally good at logic—but they don't help us arrive at the truth.

It's interesting that this discussion got recursive: The fact that the two things are not symmetrical was part of the original point.

This post and ensuing thread gave me a lot to think about. Thank you for that.

But I believe that those incidents are far, far, far outnumbered by the systemic racism people of colour experience every day.

On what do you base this belief? What's more, how would systemic racism against "people of colour" make systemic racism against whites cease to be important? And why do you split all humans between "whites" and "people of colour" given that there is nothing at all in common between blacks, Hispanics, East Asians, South Asians, and Amazon Indians than their "non-whiteness?"

The question of false accusations is very important to a discussion of rape, or even sexual assault, because the existence of such false accusations makes it harder to prosecute actual rape and sexual assault. Obviously, the guilty will claim to be innocent, but the innocent will also claim to be innocent. And women have the same power to lie as do men -- it is a human universal. Why do you assume women are less capable of mendacity?

Racism is racism. There is no fundamental difference between racism by whites against blacks, blacks against whites, or blacks against Hispanics. It is the same intellectual operation.

It seems odd to me that you first say "I'm speaking to discussions of racism, not discussions of economic policy," and then say that "most issues of racism overlap with some other field."

What's even odder is that he's only speaking to discussions of white racism, not to racism expressed by members of any other group, meaning that he imagines that there is a fundamental difference between whites and other groups, such that whites can be racist but non-whites can't. Aside from this being monumentally-ignorant of history, it is an attitude which is -- itself -- fundamentally racist.

And it seems to me that you are invalidating my personal experience of this sort of thing, or suggesting that it isn't a serious matter.

No "seeming" -- he flat-out said it isn't a serious matter.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 3

Further Thoughts On Fandom & Reverse Racism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject