Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation - An Intelligent Assessment of Controversy
This is NOT the past.
We, in America, do not teach about marginalized groups in an appropriate way.
The general conception is we've to treat everyone equally and fairly and everything is solved. Everyone gets along happily and everything is fixed.
As idealistic as this mindset is, it is not adequate to truly understand marginalization.
The first issue we run up against is the way that racism is thought of. I read once somewhere that a man visited high schools and found that black and white students consistently talked past each other on terms of race. The white students see racism as discriminatory actions towards others while the black students see racism often as institutional.
And there is our first problem. I'll give you a hint: it's not that the students see racism in different terms.
The man observing these students makes the claim that the black students see racism one way and the white students another. Ignoring that this binary excludes every other possible race, it makes the mistake of claiming that a certain way of thinking belongs to each race. Not only is this statement momentary and will likely change as time passes (not to mention it is a generalization), it doesn't get at why this is the current way these two races view racism.
Frantz Fanon put out the fantastic argument that systems create racism. Trying to fight racism as actions and opinions is futile because these opinions and views of people will continually be created by the systems in society. Destroy the systems, destroy racism. While I don't entirely agree with this paraphrased version of Fanon, it gets at a point. For example:
Some of the school systems in Chicago are based on (either) a tax system or where the student is living, with each place having a different level of taxes needing to be payed (I can't entirely remember). However, the other drawback is that the schools that receive students from low-tax areas are also poorer in quality. That means the ability to move up in society is greatly reduced. Combination of lower education and poverty (and all the frustration that goes with poverty)? Higher criminal rate and antisocial and -cultural habits within the people. And, as you might've guessed, the majority of people located in these areas are minorities.
This system creates people who act out a role which allows the solidification of racism.
And think about it - don't the stereotypes about blacks include poverty, living in a ghetto, being uneducated, and acting unruly? It's important to remember that this system originated in our nation's racist housing situation starting in the 50s (I won't take the time to explain that one here; I'll just take it on faith that your education in life has covered that part of history).
Of course, you could object - that's not a racist institution. It's discriminatory, sure, but along class lines, not race. It was started by racist intentions, sure - but it's motivated by a monetary situation now. Switch out the blacks for any other race or put a mix of races there and you get the same situation. And, for the most part, I would agree. I actually do take the mainstream opinion that race is based upon the actions people take and views people hold. Racist institutions and groups can be formed, but whether that depends upon the group trying to promote racist ends (KKK) or it only requires a system to be founded with originally racist intentions in mind (the previous Chicago example) is not an important debate.
Fine, don't fight it on arguments of racism. It's still a poor system that needs to be reformed. However, we must understand all of this I've just explained to understand why certain racial groups may argue about racism and the changes necessary to combat it in the way that they do.
Which brings us nicely to Affirmative Action. I right now admit I don't believe I know enough about AA to speak wholly intelligently on it. I already know there are different forms of Affirmative Action; and it doesn't work quite like it is generally portrayed in the mainstream (you're black? Get a full ride for college!). Actually, GodlessLiberal did a well done post on AA quite a while back (if you happen to meander over, check out how the guy's been doing; he's been fading in and out of Xanga for a bit now). To summarize, he argued that AA should be based upon class rather than race (again, I stress, I do not fully understand the ways AA works. I'm assuming that GodlessLiberal's descriptions of it are correct. His serves as a good example, regardless, because of the lesson in perspective learned from it). I agree with his argument. This makes sense. However, if AA is based on race in implementation, we have to see why.
Arguing against a staunch black AA defender that AA is an unfair system will not win the person over. As far as they're concerned, you're simply arguing for further suffering in a system that specifically picks out blacks economically. AA should reverse the inherent racism of the system that holds most blacks back. However, as we've already discussed (at least in this specific example of economic injustice situated in Chicago), the system is not racially motivated (though, even in millions of years, with no change to the system, it's unlikely any large amount of blacks will break from this system in a way that will reduce the number of blacks caught in the system. The most likely difference would be to add and trap other races in this system). The argument really should be that the system is abolished, thereby allowing equal economic opportunities, regardless of race.
All that I've just said? That's the amount of unsaid material that happens in our current discussions on race. Now, I'm not entirely sure what types of systems may exist out there for other marginalized groups and how they may work off the top of my head. Since discussions of race and racism are so large and plentiful in our country, however, it's the easiest example. But this is only one side of the coin (if you've made it this far, I'm impressed; we need more people like you who are willing to adapt their mindsets).
Two topics related to each other, this side of the coin is split in half. The first half is representation.
Often, marginal groups will bring up issues that the majority of the country rolls their eyes at and don't understand the fuss over it. The perspective of the marginal group is lacking. You cannot just apply a veil over everyone and expect to treat and see them all the same. As much as I'd like that (and I do agree with the mainstream again and believe that is the goal), reality keeps us from doing so.
The history of marginalized groups is important and must be taught - because it does inform the present. It explains why things are the way they are (think of the Chicago example above).
Last week, there was an article on the front page that questioned whether Miley's possible use of the word Gay as an insult is offensive or not. Hell, why is it even important? Same question we've heard many times before. And it's here that the picture above draws relevance as well: defamation, ignominy, contempt.
There's a reason why when an artform first created and performed by a marginalized group is taken in and performed by the mainstream and majority, some get angry. The artform was born out of struggle and persecution. Its history is often erased. The representation of your suffering is gone.
"That's so gay!"
Around the world, millions of 15-year-old boys and girls will be told they don't exist. And one of the few non-offensive words (faggot, lesbo, pederast, etc.) that they have to define themselves has been reduced to a mere petty insult. When you spend most of your life growing up being told that you're a fad or a phase and that you really can't be gay, this trivialization is more than just a changing of the meaning of a word and insulting to the very personage.
I AM A MAN; I exist: do not deny me.
The other half of this side of the coin is how we view marginal groups. I'll use myself as an example.
I was raised in the suburbs. As a result, most of my tastes, interests, and what I think was formed by what is generally mainstream society. I consider myself a goth, identifying with the sub-culture. I love rap, writing some of my own as well. Reasonable Doubt by Jay-Z is, to me, one of the best albums ever. I was pretty much raised on Bruce Springsteen. Around high school I discovered Black Sabbath - and fell in love. Most of Freshman to Junior year, actually was stuck somewhere between Atreyu, Slipknot, and Cradle of Filth.I consider myself a nerd, loving video games and the such. My ethnicity is German, Haitian, Spanish, Polish, French, English, Scottish, and American. I grew up eating almost always Haitian food. I was raised Catholic and still piously practice Catholicism.
I don't think I need to be the one to tell you that you could racialize pretty much every single one of those descriptions. But, in that context, some of them seem to contradict each other.
The mainstream (and when I say that this time, I mean the intelligent faction that doesn't make generalized statements about particular races (I'm sure you could think of plenty race jokes for examples)), for the most part, holds the view that race is not attached to culture. As just seen, I'm a decent example of the types of cultural influence that may affect a person.
I actually don't even have a racial identity. I don't see myself in terms of race. Sure, I'm aware that I'm a mixed child. I'm aware that most view me as "black" and that sometimes I'm confused for being mostly Hispanic (or other nationalities). But I don't see race in terms of culture. That makes no sense to me. I recognize my heritage (as listed above) and the cultures associated with each respective culture, and I identify as American and with the American culture. Again, I don't have a racial identity. I would actually argue that race is a socially constructed mechanism for labeling others.
Alright then, why the Black Panthers? Why Afro-centric movements? Why a Latino culture? I remember finding a personal opinion someone had put into Wikipedia under the Harlem Renaissance that both offended me and put the answer quite clearly. Towards the end of the entry on the Harlem Renaissance it's explaining the goals of the movement, particularly in terms of the New Negro and trying to create a unique black culture that would legitimize blacks on the same level as whites of that era. The person who wrote the entry finishes it off with, "But the positive implications of American nativity have never been fully appreciated by them. It seems too simple: the African-American's history and culture is American, more completely so than most other ethnic groups within the United States."
Because the positive implications of American nativity was blatantly clear (or not at all possibly offensive at the time) in contrast to slavery, Jim Crow South, and continual prejudice on many levels from other Americans.
Why might the writer of that quoted statement not understand a refusal of the mainstream culture by blacks?
I believe cultures evolve out of an isolation of specific people (whether voluntary or involuntary) and the creation of rituals, ideals, etc. out of that isolation. America has isolated blacks for years. That is why there is such a thing as a Black Culture.
For those who want that race-blind view, that is problematic. I remember my mother bringing home an Ebony magazine one time. I tried reading the first few pages and stopped. It was too weird. As I said before, I have no racial identity. Having something have meaning out of the concept of being a person of color, as a form of identity, is just weird to me. I wouldn't fit too well into all of current black culture.
But why do these cultures exist? Why might what is considered specific attributes to "blackness" be extolled?
In the case of our example of blacks in America, because of previous prejudice. There would be no Black Panthers if not for prejudice.
And (this is important to understand for those who honestly do believe in a color-blind view of humanity) we cannot simply expect blacks in America to join back into the mainstream culture. For one, they have probably been raised in a different culture most of their lives. Further, racism still exists in America (as we all well know) or, at least, institutions which continue the creation of racism do. These alternate cultures built along the lines of race came into existance due to something. Finally, harking back to the concept of representation - often the mainstream portrays blacks poorly on a consistent basis or doesn't portray them at all (and, yes, that is direly important).
Now, I'm of one of the mainstream opinions. I believe in treating people in a color blind fashion. I believe in associating the culture of a person not with what "race" they are but simply by which culture the person says they identify with (the notion of someone of Korean ethnicity partaking entirely in Irish culture isn't as impossible as some would have us believe, especially if the person was adopted by Irish parents when they were just a baby).
However - this is not realistic in terms of our world. Many people don't see themselves simply as people and identify heavily and strongly with concepts of "race" - for a multitude of reasons which we would do well to know. And while I would argue that the eventual goal is to see marginalized people as simply people rather than in terms of what caused them to marginalized (for example, think of how we see brunettes as people despite a characteristic which does set them apart from others), the history of the marginalized group and what it means is direly important in terms of giving the proper respect to a marginalized group - and understanding that group. In trying to view the world entirely as the same, it often erases the past of marginalized groups and that past does inform the future. A "insert group here"-blind viewing means that equal representation isn't necessary - and in this world, right now, that often means a mainstream dominated by the majority with mindsets thinking that is how the world is. And for many who probably aren't racist, sexist, sexualist, etc. they will still subconsciously think of their world in terms of the majority. I'll save you further examples; I'm sure you can think of others on your own.
I've said twice on here before that race relations in this country were heading toward a complete train crash. I take that back now. We are so talking past each other on issues of race that we couldn't possibly hit, even if we wanted to. Everyone has these different concepts of marginalized groups, for a variety of reasons, and they only understand their own beliefs. Only once we get on the same footing of understanding can we move forward (though quite difficultly) in addressing these issues.
***note: you'll notice that most of this addresses race (and only in terms of black and white) and touches on sexuality while biological sex (and any other groups) isn't addressed at all. The largest reason for the large focus on race is because of the great attention it has received in our country and, therefore, the familiarity of knowledge with it by most Americans.
This post also makes some pretty generalizing statements and those statements must be understood fluidly for marginalized groups to be fully understood (for nothing stays stagnate). For example, gays and women have less of any type of culture outside the mainstream because they have had less isolation from the majority than those of different races. Another example is that if the concept of looking at everyone as being equal and the same does eventually someday come to fruitation, these concepts will likely become obsolete or must be thought of differently. That day is far, far, far, far off - but we cannot allow our thinking and understanding of concepts to become mired.
Also, the title is an allusion to this Xanga post: http://www.mancouch.com/716194723/race-sex-sexual-orientation-and-abortion/
Recent Comments