Archives for posts with tag: racism

It seems that every single group of people gets their own month, their own week, or their own day. I mean, what do white people get, outside of the Oscars? Why don’t WE get a month? Well, there are a couple reasons. But I recently read an interview with Chris Rock that illuminated something about race, and really gender and sexuality as well, that suggested to me that straight/white/men need more of a focus than they are currently receiving.

I’ll give you the relevant text from the interview:

When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.

What Chris Rock is saying is that, in regards to race, white people are the ones doing the progressing. Black people have always been human, with the capacity for intelligence and emotion that was long ignored in them, and to phrase race relations as black people making progress is to give the illusion that black people are the ones improving, whereas the opposite is true. White people have made great strides in becoming less moronic about the human beings that surround them, and it is white people who need to be the ones to continue to make great strides.

So why give us a month? Feminists have long argued, probably rightly so, that men do not take women seriously. There’s the old chestnut of the female executive saying something at a meeting, being ignored, and then a male colleague repeating her exact idea and being listened to, often taking the credit. It happens. However, if progressive change is to be made, would it not be logical for a male ally to be a prominent mouthpiece for the feminist movement? If feminists want to be taken seriously, and women aren’t taken seriously, why not use a man?

The artist Macklemore wrote a song called Same Love that advocated for same-sex relationships. It was a considerable blow in the fight to overcome homophobic cultural norms, but it received a great deal of criticism from gay-rights activists because Macklemore is straight. A suggestion I read was that if Macklemore wants to be an ally to the gay-rights movement, he should push homosexual rappers into the limelight, rather than hogging it for himself. Regardless of the impact that Same Love had on our culture, it was rejected by some of those that it was trying to help.

Is the goal not to overcome prejudice? Who cares who the messenger is? Well, some people do.

There is term called the Great White Saviour, and what this refers to is a white person, typically portrayed in films, that comes to care for and fight for either the Noble Savage, or the Oppressed Minority, or whoever it happens to be. You get the idea. Ol’ Whitey rolls in to town, and the great guy that he is, saves the minority and is revered as a hero. What this signifies is that white people are honourable, compassionate, moral beings, and minorities are weak and unable to do anything about their own condition.

This, of course, could apply to any such dominant figure, such as a straight person rapping about gay rights, or a man advocating for feminism, etc.

Do the voices of the dominant detract from the voices of the oppressed? Can we only ever steal credit? Comparing Hollywood’s crushing inability to properly convey progressive messages to the real-life work of advocates is a little unfair. Like relates to like, and the dominant group is going to relate most to others from the dominant group, and it’s the dominant group that needs to change. In my personal experience, it was Dr. Jackson Katz that was my first, real introduction into the world of feminism. He’s a man, by the way, if the name wasn’t a big enough indicator. The message was an important one, and because it was delivered by somebody I could relate to, I was able to listen.

If the message is good, why not pick the messenger that the people most needing to hear it will listen to?

Post-script: I am aware that this is not a new idea, and that many social justice advocates are desperate for the voices of allies. Maybe if there was a month celebrating those allies, the quieter ones would be more likely to pipe up?

I’m also not trying to disparage the work that minority rights activists do. We wouldn’t have any allies at all if they weren’t doing all the heavy lifting.

I’m pretty sure that everyone in the world is secretly in love with Liberalism. I mean, it’s great. If you don’t love charity, taking care of the less fortunate, and heartwarming moments of celebrities adopting Indonesian children, then you are a heartless monster. Liberalism is the recognition that things in this world are kinda shitty, and steps should be taken to alleviate those problems (Liberalism as a philosophy has a heavy focus on individualism and other things, but for the sake of this post I’m limiting myself to its political aspect). It has given us food banks, needle exchanges, subsidized housing, and a whole slough of feel-good programs and policies meant as a safety net for those who fall through the cracks of the system.

But today, I want to take a look at what liberalism would look like if, instead of focusing on someone’s economic standing, it focused on, say, their race.

Come with me on a whimsical journey to a magical fantasy world rife with racism and prejudice. The liberal think-tank would come up with these great solutions to fight this racism, like maybe some support groups for individuals who suffer from it. We could have AA meetings but for people suffering from racial discrimination. They could talk about their feelings, and find comfort in each other’s stories. Maybe there could be policies enacted that would enable people of colour to collect a stipend every month to cover the difference between their paycheque and the paycheques of their white coworkers. Liberalism would nurture racialized minorities and help them live with the racism that affects their lives daily.

However, the generally agreed upon solution towards racism isn’t to help racialized minorities cope with systemic and individual racism. It is to eliminate racism. It seems so obvious to eliminate racism, sexism, homophobia, and all the other forms of oppression that still afflict our society today, but the answers for poverty are prevalently liberalized solutions that treat symptoms, and try desperately to ignore the root problems that cause it in the first place.

Why not, instead of helping those who fall through the cracks, we fill in the cracks and prevent anyone from falling through in the first place? It’s our goal for most progressive movements, but when it comes to economic oppression, there is massive resistance.

Is it because eliminating racism is easier than eliminating poverty? I’ve been told that poverty is a necessary evil in order for a society to function. This is part of the Monetarist theory that currently runs the economy of our country: in order to keep inflation in check, there must be a certain amount of unemployment to keep the value of our dollar marketable. However, that is just a theory, and there are alternate theories which disagree. Keynesians believe that if everyone has jobs, then everyone has money, and if everyone has money, then everyone is putting money into the economy. And while Keynesian economics might not be the absolute solution to poverty, it does show that poverty does not have to be a necessary byproduct of a healthy society.

Others might think that poverty is not an oppression; it is the fault of the individual. Despite how prevalent this attitude is, I sincerely hope that I was able to convincingly refute it in this previous blog post: https://blogforchumps.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/the-clarity-of-the-merciless/ The short version is that poverty is not the fault of the individual, and is more often than not the failure of the system.

Still others argue that in order for better policies to be enacted, taxes would need to be raised, and if taxes were raised, then businesses would flee because to them, money is worth more than their community. With businesses gone, there are no jobs, and nobody paying taxes, and therefore no money for social programs anyway. While this idea is debatable, and maybe worth a blog post in itself, the main question that it always raises for me is why are we as a society consigning ourselves to the whims of the worst of us? Do we really want a society that is dependent on those who do not care for that society?

So please. Liberals. Continue to think that poverty is bad, and that something needs to be done to fix it, but come up with better solutions than coping mechanisms, because that makes no God damn sense.

Post-Script: If you like pretty pictures and eccentric Slovenians, you can watch this video here which has a similar theme:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

If you are born straight, if you are born white, and if you are born male, this is basically who you get to be:

Paris Hilton

You’ve basically won the lottery of life without ever having to put in any effort. Life is obviously not all sunshine and rainbows, just as Paris HIlton has her own issues that she has to deal with, but being born into that holy trinity of privilege is basically being born into wealth compared to being born into poverty. We lucked out. Being straight means we never have to worry about having the living shit curb-stomped out of us simply because of our sexual orientation; being white means we’ll never be passed over for a job simply for having a racial sounding name (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-575685.html); and having the ol’ cock’n’balls dangling between our legs means we’re unlikely to be treated any differently in the work place.

We’re not under any kind of threat. There’s a reason that white people don’t get upset when they’re called a Honky, and it’s because white people already have this continent by the balls. There is nothing in our culture that threatens white people, so if a threat is issued it is taken light-heartedly, almost tongue-in-cheek. Same with heterosexuals; same with being a dude. If we are any one of those things, it’s just one less issue we have to worry about. It’s gotten to the point where our trinity is not even talked about as a thing that exists. For example, when you hear the term “gender studies”, you probably think of women’s issues, despite men having a gender as well.

So now hopefully I’ve convinced you why being a straight, white male is awesome (not that we’re inherently awesome, but just that life is nicer to us for no god damn reason at all. Louis CK puts it pretty nicely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY ) So now why should gays/blacks/women get time put aside in order to celebrate them? Because a lot of the time, they are just crapped on every single day of the year. And somebody that is told over and over again that they are garbage, will eventually begin to actually believe that they are garbage.

We don’t need a week for us straight/white/men because we already won. It’d be like giving Donald Trump a celebratory hooker simply for existing. Trump doesn’t need to be given hookers; he already has enough hookers as it is.

Because we are not an equal society, we need to raise up those who weren’t born into privilege so that we can at least make an attempt at creating an equal society.  So yes, we try to put aside some time to tell gay people that they’re awesome. To tell racial minorities that they’re awesome. To tell women that they are awesome. So be proud.

 

I’m going to throw in a little post-script here to address specifically one of the main reasons I hear people complaining about these pride weeks, and all the other celebrations of minorities “I had it rough growing up too, even though I’m one or all of those descriptors. So where’s my week??” Maybe it was because of poverty (I would actually love a Poverty Awareness month), or obesity, or a severe lack of personal hygiene, or any other number of factors that make life tough. And yes, those things can be extremely difficult to overcome . But although you may have had problems, however genuine they might have been, you never faced a problem because of your race, gender, or sexual orientation.