Having spent a great deal of time thumbing my way around the U.S., I have a tendency to pick up hitchhikers unless I spot signs they may not be particularly safe. Like it is a pretty good bet that if said hitchhiker has some serious road grime going on and is carrying a pack, he's a legit traveler. That is not to suggest that picking up hitchhikers is a grand idea for everyone. I would not, for example, even consider picking up a hitchhiker if my kids are in the car. But as a general rule, I prefer to pick them up when I see them.
On my way home from seeing the boys over the weekend, I had the most bizarre hitchhiking experience I have ever had, in which I wasn't the hitchhiker. I stopped for gas in the middle of Kentucky - not so much because I needed gas, as because I really needed to pee. Pulling off the highway, I noticed a couple of guys hanging out at the top of the onramp, so I cleared my backseat when I stopped for gas and decided to pick them up if they were still there. Given the type of area we were in, I assumed they would be as it was the sort of place I used to dread when trying to pick up a ride.
One of the gentlemen had to be pretty close to sixty. He mentioned that he had been hitching since he got out of high school and talked about how much better the hitching was in the sixties and seventies. He was your quintessential hippie who never got past it or figured out how to make a living in spite of it. He had that perpetually stoned expression on his face that months of abstinence from toking wouldn't even begin to touch. And he had the air of surprise at virtually everything that happens to or around him that years of cannabis, LSD, shrooms and "whatever else might be available" use produces. The expression and manner that I would probably have managed in another decade or so, if I hadn't reproduced.
The other guy looked to be about my age - turned out that he actually is my age. He did not have the road grime of his traveling companion. Indeed, given that I had just dropped my boys with their mother after a go at the playground and had been driving for several hours, he actually looked a little cleaner cut than I was.
They were heading towards Columbus and my turn off from I75 was nearly a hundred miles past the best turnoff for Columbus, so they got in for about a hundred miles. They were apparently heading to Columbus to meet with some of Old Hippies friends and then were going to a rainbow festival* in about a month. Cleancut recently went through a very ugly divorce and needed to do something - so decided that when it was offered, a chance to do a bunch of mushrooms and ecstasy - while smoking copious amounts of pot, was a great idea. Then things took a turn for the fucking bizarre, if not somewhat amusing from my perspective - though not from Cleancut's.
As he got into explaining his story, the how he got here from there, he explained that he had been in the coal business. After a while this led to his explaining that he is a republican and Bushie. This was quickly followed up by an expression of distaste for Obama that of course included a racial invective. And being my very favorite sort of expression of bigotry, it was thrown out there with the caveat that he isn't actually racist. Of course not - folks like that don't have a bigoted bone in their bodies, they just act and sound like bigots. Just don't let that fool you, they are standup folk.
My very polite and measured response, delivered without sarcasm, was that my half black girlfriend, for example, would never be offended by a invective that denotes racial identity, rather than what a given person has actually done wrong. That of course he isn't racist, where ever would someone get that?
He turned rather red, but did manage to pretend that I really was being polite and didn't say anything. I then went on at great length about inbred fucking racist shitheads and made sure to occasionally mention that it was a good thing that he wasn't one of those sorts. Old Hippie chimed in his agreement a few times, noting that he really couldn't stand traveling with a racist asshole. I am honestly not sure whether he was really that clueless, or if he planned on ditching Cleancut somewhere between Dayton and Columbus.
Honestly, I did feel sorry for Cleancut, in spite of his racist fucking asshattery. Ignorance such as his comes from somewhere and it is very possible for him to change - indeed he is at a rather significant turning point in his life right now. He is also a rather hard working guy who seems to have done good by his family and who lost everything - his only solace in the security of his kids. And he was trying not to fall off the wagon completely, after five years without drinking, until one night last week. Given my general stance on addiction, I don't actually think it likely that the drugs he might use at a rainbow gathering will be a problem and if Old Hippie didn't/doesn't ditch him, the setting and the people will probably be a net positive.
That said, casual racism like that pisses me off. Bad enough that there are people who think it is ok to say shit like that - I really get cranky when they just blithely assume that I won't care - that I am like them. I am not perfect, not even when it comes to bigotry and biases. Indeed the more I explore myself in various contexts, the more I note that I have some rather horrid biases. But I am not like Cleancut and other purveyors of casual and overt racism.
All in all, it was a very strange hitchhiker experience.
* Think lots of drugs, mostly vegan food, naked people and most everyone being very kind to each other. And unlike many gatherings of drug addled hippies and hippie wannabes, they actually leave the site as clean/cleaner than they found it. At least that is what they did when I was hanging out with those sorts of folks - and managed to avoid ever going to a single gathering.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Gun Study Critique that Begat the Race Card
Apparently it has become necessary to explain my critique of the gun study and Greg's post on it, because Greg seems to think the argument is still about race and class. He won't explain how exactly, apparently because I didn't ask very nicely - but my argument is apparently about race and class none the less. No matter that he still doesn't seem to have the foggiest clue what I am actually arguing - he thinks he does and he thinks that the argument is racist or classist - or both.
Here is Greg's post on the study and here is the press release on the study. Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a paywall, but for those who might have access, here is the link to that. Greg actually posted the conclusion from the abstract, which is basically the same conclusion of the paper itself.
Greg starts right off by flying way past anything that either the study or the press release had to say, titling his post Carry a gun = you get shot more often. Well no, that is not at all an implication of the study or the press release - but it makes a hell of a headline. What the press release indicates, is that carrying a gun is of dubious value in the event of an assault. It mentions that you are more likely to be shot during an assault if you are carrying one. While I think the study itself is still over generalizing (something the authors themselves admit may be the case), they are limiting their generalization to urban settings.
Before I go into my critique, I will make the same caveat that I made in my comments at Greg's blog. I tend to think that the conclusions being made are likely true. I think that the study's conclusions, the press release conclusion and even Greg's conclusion in the title of his post, are quite likely true and a well constructed study that was able to gather data to support those conclusions would likely find evidence to support those assertions. I just don't think this study reasonably supports any of those assertions because of a serious flaw that attempting to adjust for in the controls does not - cannot compensate for.
The problem with this study, is that the vast majority of the data comes from shootings in areas fo Philadelphia that are prone to extremely high rates of gang activity. The study does not take into account the legality of the firearms in question, or the victim's legal right to be carrying them concealed on their person. The only adjustment made in an attempt to compensate, is that the controls for each case in the study, were taken from the surrounding area and culled for like employment - in most of these cases, unemployment and criminal record - actual crime/s undetermined. Because of this, I do not see how whether or not a given case in the study was a career criminal (i.e. a gang member) can be accounted for.
Now as far as Greg's title assertion goes, this pretty much knocks it out of the running entirely. With a very strong likelihood that a very large percentage, if not a majority of the cases in the study being involved in criminal activities, there is a confounding factor having nothing to do with guns, that makes it more likely the person is going to be assaulted in the first place. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to assume that someone involved in ongoing criminal activities is more likely than people who are not, to be victim of an assault in the first place. To be very clear again, I suspect that Greg's claim is correct. I just don't see this study, or any study that is limited entirely to large urban centers (the gang variable aside) providing any evidence that that is the case.
The assertion made in the press release is rather trickier, but not all that much so. Bottom line, their claim seems to be that carrying a gun in general - regardless of location, increases your chance of being shot during an assault. We won't go into the gang activity variable at all and rest with the obvious - the study authors did not make that claim. Presumably because they did not believe that the evidence they studied could reasonably be extrapolated to populations outside of urban centers. From the paper's conclusion; "Although successful defensive gun uses are
possible and do occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas." Neither that statement, or any other in the paper's conclusion makes any implications about gun use outside of urban areas.
But what about the study itself? For that matter, why would anyone who is not a criminal, have a substantively different outcome during a gun assault? What exactly makes that such a confounding variable?
First and foremost, I want to be perfectly clear that it may not make any difference at all. But there are a lot of factors that could potentially make an assault involving career criminals, different than an assault involving people who are not. Much the same way there are a lot of factors that make an assault involving a police officer different than an assault that does not involve the police. The study did not include police officers who were shot for a reason, I think it is reasonable to say that the study should not include mostly career criminals for similar reasons. Bottom line, they are not civilians in the same sense that police officers are not.
Those factors include, but are not limited to the following. First, civilians with guns (CWGs) who are not criminals and who get involved in an assault, may not be very likely to pull their gun because of a simple assault, while a career criminal may be considerably more inclined to do so. Second, a gangster is very plausibly considerably more prepared to use their gun at any given point, than your average CWG - being so prepared may actually make it less likely the gangster will be shot. Third, gangsters in larger urban centers often operate with a certain amount of discipline and training - some gangs operate on a par with tactical (paramilitary) police units. This could well provide even more of an advantage in an assault, over CWGs. And gangsters are also very likely to attack from some sort of cover and with a certain amount of stealth or surprise - such as drive by shootings.
I consider this a confounding factor that at the least raises doubts about extrapolating this study to the general population. And it would not matter if the study included a large percentage of white gangsters, or any other organized criminals. Indeed, including a large percentage of career or even petty criminals, would create confounding factors. As would including a large percentage of terrorists. It doesn't matter if the gangsters are wealthy or poor, living in the ghetto, or living in extremely wealthy neighborhoods. Being a gangster is the confounding variable, not what sort of gangster one might be or where they live.
I am more than happy to debate this - I am happy to do so here. I could well be wrong and someone might have a stellar argument that convinces me that I am. But my argument has absolutely nothing to do with race or class. Accusations that I am racist or classist, or that my argument itself is those things, is a total non-starter.
Worse, as I explained in my other post about this, such accusations are extremely counterproductive - whether they come from a privileged white person, or from someone who has suffered actual racism. All they accomplish is to desensitize people to such accusations and make them incredibly unlikely to have the slightest interest or willingness to engage in a serious discussion about racism, classism and/or other forms of bigotry.
It also has the added detriment of seriously detracting from, if not outright destroying that person's credibility when it comes to discussions about racism and other forms of bigotry. It is kind of hard to take someone seriously about racism, when they quite unjustifiably accused you of racism.
Here is Greg's post on the study and here is the press release on the study. Unfortunately the paper itself is behind a paywall, but for those who might have access, here is the link to that. Greg actually posted the conclusion from the abstract, which is basically the same conclusion of the paper itself.
Greg starts right off by flying way past anything that either the study or the press release had to say, titling his post Carry a gun = you get shot more often. Well no, that is not at all an implication of the study or the press release - but it makes a hell of a headline. What the press release indicates, is that carrying a gun is of dubious value in the event of an assault. It mentions that you are more likely to be shot during an assault if you are carrying one. While I think the study itself is still over generalizing (something the authors themselves admit may be the case), they are limiting their generalization to urban settings.
Before I go into my critique, I will make the same caveat that I made in my comments at Greg's blog. I tend to think that the conclusions being made are likely true. I think that the study's conclusions, the press release conclusion and even Greg's conclusion in the title of his post, are quite likely true and a well constructed study that was able to gather data to support those conclusions would likely find evidence to support those assertions. I just don't think this study reasonably supports any of those assertions because of a serious flaw that attempting to adjust for in the controls does not - cannot compensate for.
The problem with this study, is that the vast majority of the data comes from shootings in areas fo Philadelphia that are prone to extremely high rates of gang activity. The study does not take into account the legality of the firearms in question, or the victim's legal right to be carrying them concealed on their person. The only adjustment made in an attempt to compensate, is that the controls for each case in the study, were taken from the surrounding area and culled for like employment - in most of these cases, unemployment and criminal record - actual crime/s undetermined. Because of this, I do not see how whether or not a given case in the study was a career criminal (i.e. a gang member) can be accounted for.
Now as far as Greg's title assertion goes, this pretty much knocks it out of the running entirely. With a very strong likelihood that a very large percentage, if not a majority of the cases in the study being involved in criminal activities, there is a confounding factor having nothing to do with guns, that makes it more likely the person is going to be assaulted in the first place. I don't think it is at all unreasonable to assume that someone involved in ongoing criminal activities is more likely than people who are not, to be victim of an assault in the first place. To be very clear again, I suspect that Greg's claim is correct. I just don't see this study, or any study that is limited entirely to large urban centers (the gang variable aside) providing any evidence that that is the case.
The assertion made in the press release is rather trickier, but not all that much so. Bottom line, their claim seems to be that carrying a gun in general - regardless of location, increases your chance of being shot during an assault. We won't go into the gang activity variable at all and rest with the obvious - the study authors did not make that claim. Presumably because they did not believe that the evidence they studied could reasonably be extrapolated to populations outside of urban centers. From the paper's conclusion; "Although successful defensive gun uses are
possible and do occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas." Neither that statement, or any other in the paper's conclusion makes any implications about gun use outside of urban areas.
But what about the study itself? For that matter, why would anyone who is not a criminal, have a substantively different outcome during a gun assault? What exactly makes that such a confounding variable?
First and foremost, I want to be perfectly clear that it may not make any difference at all. But there are a lot of factors that could potentially make an assault involving career criminals, different than an assault involving people who are not. Much the same way there are a lot of factors that make an assault involving a police officer different than an assault that does not involve the police. The study did not include police officers who were shot for a reason, I think it is reasonable to say that the study should not include mostly career criminals for similar reasons. Bottom line, they are not civilians in the same sense that police officers are not.
Those factors include, but are not limited to the following. First, civilians with guns (CWGs) who are not criminals and who get involved in an assault, may not be very likely to pull their gun because of a simple assault, while a career criminal may be considerably more inclined to do so. Second, a gangster is very plausibly considerably more prepared to use their gun at any given point, than your average CWG - being so prepared may actually make it less likely the gangster will be shot. Third, gangsters in larger urban centers often operate with a certain amount of discipline and training - some gangs operate on a par with tactical (paramilitary) police units. This could well provide even more of an advantage in an assault, over CWGs. And gangsters are also very likely to attack from some sort of cover and with a certain amount of stealth or surprise - such as drive by shootings.
I consider this a confounding factor that at the least raises doubts about extrapolating this study to the general population. And it would not matter if the study included a large percentage of white gangsters, or any other organized criminals. Indeed, including a large percentage of career or even petty criminals, would create confounding factors. As would including a large percentage of terrorists. It doesn't matter if the gangsters are wealthy or poor, living in the ghetto, or living in extremely wealthy neighborhoods. Being a gangster is the confounding variable, not what sort of gangster one might be or where they live.
I am more than happy to debate this - I am happy to do so here. I could well be wrong and someone might have a stellar argument that convinces me that I am. But my argument has absolutely nothing to do with race or class. Accusations that I am racist or classist, or that my argument itself is those things, is a total non-starter.
Worse, as I explained in my other post about this, such accusations are extremely counterproductive - whether they come from a privileged white person, or from someone who has suffered actual racism. All they accomplish is to desensitize people to such accusations and make them incredibly unlikely to have the slightest interest or willingness to engage in a serious discussion about racism, classism and/or other forms of bigotry.
It also has the added detriment of seriously detracting from, if not outright destroying that person's credibility when it comes to discussions about racism and other forms of bigotry. It is kind of hard to take someone seriously about racism, when they quite unjustifiably accused you of racism.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Privilege and the Race Card (Updated)
I think to start, I should be very clear that no matter how introspective and aware I am becoming of privilege, in the context of race and gender, I am still prone to latent racism and misogyny. I can proudly say that I am working on it and that I am far more aware of these tendencies in myself, than a lot of people. But I am a Midwestern U.S. American - the folks who pretty much invented passive aggressive bigotry. Spending one's formative years in this environment is not terribly conducive to having a profound awareness race and privilege - it is likely to be a lifetime of effort to root all of that out.
But I am aware of this and working hard to change it. I think that most of the bloggers I regularly interact with are aware of my attitudes and where I am with all this - it certainly comes up regularly and I am not particularly shy about discussing it. I know that Greg Laden is aware of where I am with this topic, which is why I was rather dismayed about the assumptions he made during a discussion on his blog about a paper that tentatively concluded that carrying a gun in urban settings may make one less safe. My problem with the study, was that the authors evidence was collected in high poverty, high drug trafficking areas of Philly, areas that are pretty much overrun by gangs.
I should note; while this post is aimed rather directly at Greg, I decided to post it here because it is something that a lot of us are guilty of and need to consider. It is our responsibility to very seriously consider exactly what we are responding to and what it actually is, before we bring up racism or other bigotry.
All criticism of the paper itself aside, Greg then decided that I must be expressing racist attitudes. Didn't think to ask me about it - didn't think to consider my motivations or reasoning. Nope, the first thing that Greg Laden thought, was that I must be a fucking racist asshole, because I didn't think that data that by necessity would include a lot of career criminals, can be reasonably extrapolated to the general population - that DuWayne thinks he's "a different species from these inner city ghetto-troglodytes..."
I didn't say this on that post, because I was planning on writing this post. Fuck you Greg. Seriously, Fuck you. How Dare you make that kind of a vile accusation of someone you fucking well know isn't inclined to that kind of vile attitude? How fucking dare you say something that vile about a friend, without even considering asking them about what they actually think first?
I am very consistent in my absolute and utter derision for anyone who engages in the sort of vile behavior that gangbangers engage in. I have repeatedly held that any form of terrorism is reprehensible and utterly inexcusable - whether it be the Taliban, Hamas, the now defunct IRA, the ELF or fucking gangsters and many others. There isn't a single group on that list who's underlying cause I do not have a great deal of sympathy for - I sympathize with every one. I also say the same about ALF terrorists and many others, though I do not sympathize with their causes.
My absolute and utter disdain has absolutely nothing to do with race. It is all about their behaviors - behaviors that I find morally and practically reprehensible. There is no excuse for it - none. I am not and never have singled anyone out based on race or the cause they purport to support - no matter how very strongly I may feel about that cause or reasoning. And to be absolutely fucking clear, I do feel very strongly about race and poverty issues in the U.S. I am horrified by the cycle of poverty and a great many concurrent issues that the neighbors I have had most of my adult life face. But I will not - cannot countenance gang activity. Not because I hate or feel superior to brown, olive or poor people (I fit that last), but because I hate fucking terrorism.
I like you Greg, but this is absolutely disgusting behavior - and not just because it was a defamatory statement about me. Indeed I really don't care about the me in this - my attitudes about race, gender and bigotry in general speak for themselves - ultimately you sully yourself with statements like that, far more than you can sully me. So to be perfectly clear, beyond feeling somewhat betrayed (and yes, a little hurt) by someone I have generally considered my friend, this is not about me. This is about a rather ugly tendency that some people of privilege have, this tendency to use the race card as a chip in rhetorical gameplay - whether it is remotely appropriate or not.
Toaster pointed out something important, that I thought about and more or less ignored as I was writing this. When I am describing the experience of some POC and members of other outgroups, I am not speaking for ALL of them. I know many people who have absolutely NOT had the experience I am describing and sincerely apologize for implying they did. What I am describing is the experience of several people I know or aspects of their experiences, as none of them are the same.
Toaster is absolutely correct, this was inexcusable. But like I mentioned - I'm not perfect, I'm just trying...
Just think about this for a moment Greg. Consider being a person of color (or member of another outgroup). Consider growing up with the problems that implies - having to be better than everyone else, to be considered equal, having to smile and nod when people engage in passive aggressive racism - so as not to make anyone uncomfortable - your own comfort be damned, having to not only consider how your actions reflect on you, but how they reflect on everyone who has the same skin color or other out trait, having to put up with people making assumptions about you, based on their experiences with people who have the same color skin or other out trait. Consider this; This isn't a motherfucking game and the race card is not a motherfucking rhetorical device!
This is the life experience of real human beings that you are throwing out on the table, as a way to garner some self righteous, false sense of superiority. This is the shame they have endured, the anger they have endured, the pain they have endured. This is their life! It is not something that your privileged white ass has a right to bandy about as a cheap talking point and nonstarter.
Why don't you rethink that?
But I am aware of this and working hard to change it. I think that most of the bloggers I regularly interact with are aware of my attitudes and where I am with all this - it certainly comes up regularly and I am not particularly shy about discussing it. I know that Greg Laden is aware of where I am with this topic, which is why I was rather dismayed about the assumptions he made during a discussion on his blog about a paper that tentatively concluded that carrying a gun in urban settings may make one less safe. My problem with the study, was that the authors evidence was collected in high poverty, high drug trafficking areas of Philly, areas that are pretty much overrun by gangs.
I should note; while this post is aimed rather directly at Greg, I decided to post it here because it is something that a lot of us are guilty of and need to consider. It is our responsibility to very seriously consider exactly what we are responding to and what it actually is, before we bring up racism or other bigotry.
All criticism of the paper itself aside, Greg then decided that I must be expressing racist attitudes. Didn't think to ask me about it - didn't think to consider my motivations or reasoning. Nope, the first thing that Greg Laden thought, was that I must be a fucking racist asshole, because I didn't think that data that by necessity would include a lot of career criminals, can be reasonably extrapolated to the general population - that DuWayne thinks he's "a different species from these inner city ghetto-troglodytes..."
I didn't say this on that post, because I was planning on writing this post. Fuck you Greg. Seriously, Fuck you. How Dare you make that kind of a vile accusation of someone you fucking well know isn't inclined to that kind of vile attitude? How fucking dare you say something that vile about a friend, without even considering asking them about what they actually think first?
I am very consistent in my absolute and utter derision for anyone who engages in the sort of vile behavior that gangbangers engage in. I have repeatedly held that any form of terrorism is reprehensible and utterly inexcusable - whether it be the Taliban, Hamas, the now defunct IRA, the ELF or fucking gangsters and many others. There isn't a single group on that list who's underlying cause I do not have a great deal of sympathy for - I sympathize with every one. I also say the same about ALF terrorists and many others, though I do not sympathize with their causes.
My absolute and utter disdain has absolutely nothing to do with race. It is all about their behaviors - behaviors that I find morally and practically reprehensible. There is no excuse for it - none. I am not and never have singled anyone out based on race or the cause they purport to support - no matter how very strongly I may feel about that cause or reasoning. And to be absolutely fucking clear, I do feel very strongly about race and poverty issues in the U.S. I am horrified by the cycle of poverty and a great many concurrent issues that the neighbors I have had most of my adult life face. But I will not - cannot countenance gang activity. Not because I hate or feel superior to brown, olive or poor people (I fit that last), but because I hate fucking terrorism.
I like you Greg, but this is absolutely disgusting behavior - and not just because it was a defamatory statement about me. Indeed I really don't care about the me in this - my attitudes about race, gender and bigotry in general speak for themselves - ultimately you sully yourself with statements like that, far more than you can sully me. So to be perfectly clear, beyond feeling somewhat betrayed (and yes, a little hurt) by someone I have generally considered my friend, this is not about me. This is about a rather ugly tendency that some people of privilege have, this tendency to use the race card as a chip in rhetorical gameplay - whether it is remotely appropriate or not.
Toaster pointed out something important, that I thought about and more or less ignored as I was writing this. When I am describing the experience of some POC and members of other outgroups, I am not speaking for ALL of them. I know many people who have absolutely NOT had the experience I am describing and sincerely apologize for implying they did. What I am describing is the experience of several people I know or aspects of their experiences, as none of them are the same.
Toaster is absolutely correct, this was inexcusable. But like I mentioned - I'm not perfect, I'm just trying...
Just think about this for a moment Greg. Consider being a person of color (or member of another outgroup). Consider growing up with the problems that implies - having to be better than everyone else, to be considered equal, having to smile and nod when people engage in passive aggressive racism - so as not to make anyone uncomfortable - your own comfort be damned, having to not only consider how your actions reflect on you, but how they reflect on everyone who has the same skin color or other out trait, having to put up with people making assumptions about you, based on their experiences with people who have the same color skin or other out trait. Consider this; This isn't a motherfucking game and the race card is not a motherfucking rhetorical device!
This is the life experience of real human beings that you are throwing out on the table, as a way to garner some self righteous, false sense of superiority. This is the shame they have endured, the anger they have endured, the pain they have endured. This is their life! It is not something that your privileged white ass has a right to bandy about as a cheap talking point and nonstarter.
Why don't you rethink that?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Privilege and The Importance of Discomfort
There are certain discussions that make me really uncomfortable. Not always, but often enough. I am really uncomfortable, for example, when race/gender/sexuality/ethnicity - pretty much any identity discussions hit on something that I should feel kind of guilty about. I also get very uncomfortable when discussions about behaviors and choices start to force me to think about behaviors and choices that I am not happy about in my own life - when the discussion hits close enough to the mark that I start making associations. Sometimes it gets really uncomfortable - like lose sleep over it, feel like shit about it uncomfortable.
That's the best time, because the worse it feels, the more you are growing and making positive, fundamental changes.
We don't change our thinking or behaviors when we are all cozy and comfy. We don't have any impetus when things seem rosy, so we get complacent. It isn't until we are uncomfortable that changes we need to make can happen. The problem with this, is that all too often we decide to just blame what or whoever exposed us to the discomfort and attempt to banish them or at least get them to shut up and stop making us uncomfortable. Like we really want our token brown/gay/trans/ethnic minority friend around to make us feel hip and progressive - we just wish they would talk and act more like us and quit trying to make us understand their perspective. It is sooo uncomfortable when they do that...
The problem is, by and large they do. They want to - you know - work and have friends and all that, so they do shut up and just pretend it's ok. They often actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt! I want you to think about that for a moment - one of the many things that privilege means, is that minorities actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt, so we don't have to be uncomfortable enough to do something about it. Talk about fucking privilege - we make them feel guilty about our guilt that wells up when they talk about their discomfort. Here's a tip - the feelings of the disenfranchised are valid. They have a right to feel that way, even if you didn't intend something you said that was offensive to be offensive.
I have been trying to write this post for sometime now, but keep getting blocked by my anger about one of the most egregious points of contention; I have the privilege of writing this post without much concern for retribution. I don't really need to worry overmuch about how people who will have an impact on my career - my future might feel about me for saying this. I am not going to get labeled an angry brown/gay/trans person for saying this. Sure, some folks may argue with me about this, but in the end I sport beige skin and rather than a uterus, I have a cock - and I am engaged in a heteronormative relationship.
So it's all good, because I am in baby!!! I'm part of the club.
But if, for example, my totally brilliant and super hot girlfriend decided to write openly about this under her real name, it could well have an adverse affect on her future. Folks might decide that they really don't want to hire an angry brown women. At the very least, she will be told that her feelings aren't valid. Hell, that whole thread is chocked full of people who just can't believe that people who really don't like to be referred to as "the brown person" have valid feelings on the matter.
The message I am getting there is; "Your discussion about things that make you uncomfortable is making me uncomfortable - I sometimes say things like that and hearing how it makes you feel is making me feel vaguely uneasy and bad about myself. And of course, my feelings are far more valid than yours, so please just shut the fuck up and let me get on with feeling good about being a decent person."
Shut the fuck up, you whiny little asshole. Seriously. Shut the fuck up and consider why you feel uncomfortable. Hell, just think about that discomfort and consider that rather than shutting people down for making you feel that way, you can actually change your behavior and respect the feelings of others. Because the last time I checked, my GF can't change the color of her skin (and I would be really bummed if she could and did - she is totally hot). Isis can't change the experience she had growing up. That token queer friend of yours can't do anything to change how he internalized all the times he was separated out by his sexuality.
You however, can accept and embrace your discomfort, allow it to foster change in your life so you can quit being a fucking asshole and making others feel bad about things that they cannot change.
That's the best time, because the worse it feels, the more you are growing and making positive, fundamental changes.
We don't change our thinking or behaviors when we are all cozy and comfy. We don't have any impetus when things seem rosy, so we get complacent. It isn't until we are uncomfortable that changes we need to make can happen. The problem with this, is that all too often we decide to just blame what or whoever exposed us to the discomfort and attempt to banish them or at least get them to shut up and stop making us uncomfortable. Like we really want our token brown/gay/trans/ethnic minority friend around to make us feel hip and progressive - we just wish they would talk and act more like us and quit trying to make us understand their perspective. It is sooo uncomfortable when they do that...
The problem is, by and large they do. They want to - you know - work and have friends and all that, so they do shut up and just pretend it's ok. They often actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt! I want you to think about that for a moment - one of the many things that privilege means, is that minorities actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt, so we don't have to be uncomfortable enough to do something about it. Talk about fucking privilege - we make them feel guilty about our guilt that wells up when they talk about their discomfort. Here's a tip - the feelings of the disenfranchised are valid. They have a right to feel that way, even if you didn't intend something you said that was offensive to be offensive.
I have been trying to write this post for sometime now, but keep getting blocked by my anger about one of the most egregious points of contention; I have the privilege of writing this post without much concern for retribution. I don't really need to worry overmuch about how people who will have an impact on my career - my future might feel about me for saying this. I am not going to get labeled an angry brown/gay/trans person for saying this. Sure, some folks may argue with me about this, but in the end I sport beige skin and rather than a uterus, I have a cock - and I am engaged in a heteronormative relationship.
So it's all good, because I am in baby!!! I'm part of the club.
But if, for example, my totally brilliant and super hot girlfriend decided to write openly about this under her real name, it could well have an adverse affect on her future. Folks might decide that they really don't want to hire an angry brown women. At the very least, she will be told that her feelings aren't valid. Hell, that whole thread is chocked full of people who just can't believe that people who really don't like to be referred to as "the brown person" have valid feelings on the matter.
The message I am getting there is; "Your discussion about things that make you uncomfortable is making me uncomfortable - I sometimes say things like that and hearing how it makes you feel is making me feel vaguely uneasy and bad about myself. And of course, my feelings are far more valid than yours, so please just shut the fuck up and let me get on with feeling good about being a decent person."
Shut the fuck up, you whiny little asshole. Seriously. Shut the fuck up and consider why you feel uncomfortable. Hell, just think about that discomfort and consider that rather than shutting people down for making you feel that way, you can actually change your behavior and respect the feelings of others. Because the last time I checked, my GF can't change the color of her skin (and I would be really bummed if she could and did - she is totally hot). Isis can't change the experience she had growing up. That token queer friend of yours can't do anything to change how he internalized all the times he was separated out by his sexuality.
You however, can accept and embrace your discomfort, allow it to foster change in your life so you can quit being a fucking asshole and making others feel bad about things that they cannot change.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Library Unit 3: Culturist Propensities
I would just like to add from the getgo, that when I am talking about the arrogance of the West, I am most certainly not excluding myself. And I also think that it is important to make a distinction that is not made in this paper. Included in that arrogance is all of Western culture, not just those of us with pasty beige skin. Because this is really less about race, than it is about culture and our arrogant assumption that because we have digital watches, we are the sum of civilization. It is about people who live in different subsistence paradigms. It is about people who live in different social constructs. It is about recognizing - All of Us recognizing, that different, does not mean inferior. I don't care what color your skin, or your place on the economic spectrum. I don't even care about your education or intelligence.
We are, all of us, guilty to some degree or another.
“Rangers By Birth”
Will Hurd
Cultural Survival Quarterly 30.2 Summer, 2006
Will describes an awfully untenable situation, that I was happy to read has subsequently been resolved – at least in part by his work. The tribal peoples who live in and around the Omo National Park, by Will's account, have managed a wonderful balance of man and nature. This is evidenced by the belief of many that this is a wilderness, when it is actually the home of an estimated 50,000 people. And there is evidence of people much like these, living on these lands and with a similar balance for about 5,000 years.
Yet Westerners believed that there was some need to interfere withthese peoples and “manage” the lands of the Omo National Parkmore carefully. The African Parks Foundation, funded in part by theWalton Family Foundation – the same Walton family that owns WalMartand Sam's Club and other wealthy individuals, signed a 25 year leaseon the park in 2005 – threatening to displace the estimated 50,000Mursi, Suri, Nyangatom, Dizi and Me'en tribesmen who reside in thepark.
Yet these are people who understand the land, understand the ecology and their garden. They are horticulturists who practice eco friendly slash and burn gardening. They are herdsmen, who are careful not to allow their cattle to interfere with the ecosystem. They are also remarkably adept trackers and sometime (though rarely) hunters. They know where and how to travel this land safely and with very little risk from some of their less “polite” neighbors, such as crocodiles and water buffalo.
To be perfectly honest, this article made me bloody damned angry. I am sick of this idiotic notion that Westerners have, that when something is actually functional, we should stick our noses in and try to “fix” it. Yet where there are egregious human rights violations taking place, or even genocides, we can't seem to do anything, except maybe to protect our “interests” in the area. Which is always the exploitation of local natural resources, the proceeds from which do little or nothing for the local indigenous populations, instead usually lining the pockets of a few.
So to make ourselves feel good, we try to kick functional populations who are living in harmony with their environment, off the lands that they and people like them have inhabited for thousands of years. Because somehow we know better than these people who have lived here for so very long. Somehow we have the answers for “protecting” the diverse animal populations and vast array of plant life that is in parts simply an aspect of the ecosystem, a source of food, a source of building materials, fibers for ropes and clothing, a pollen source for domestic bees, food for cattle and also the pharmacy of the people who live there. And that is just a simplified list - I am quite certain that volumes could be written about the balance these people have achieved with their environment.And this is not just the story of these peoples. This is the story of indigenous populations the world over. Populations that Westerners too often believe that we need to “help,” when they need nothing of the sort. We assume that because a people lives differently than we do, more primitively than we do, that they are somehow inferior – lacking some critical component of Civilization.
I have recently been told by someone that dark skinned people are somehow less moral than us white Westerners, because it takes cooperation and a certain moral fiber to live in our colder climates, than it does to live in these tropical and subtropical climes. That is the fundamental underpinning of Western thinking, though the more diversity oriented among us would cringe at the racism and culturalism stated so boldly – so openly. Yet that thinking is what drives many of the very Westerners who would cringe at hearing it stated so succinctly.
It is that thinking that causes supposed conservationists to decide that they, as “enlightened” Westerners can do it better than these people who have lived on those lands for centuries, if not Millenia. We don't like to put it in those blatant terms, but what else can we call this absolute height of arrogance and hubris? We. We who have managed to cause more damage to this planet, in the last 150 years, than was ever caused this planet since the mass extinction of the dinosaurs millions of years ago. We Westerners deciding that we can somehow do it better? We have a word for that – the same word that would be used to describe that bald statement I ran into the other day; Racism.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Now That You Mention It, There Are Times I Hate My Race...
...Because all too often, we humans are complete bloody morons.
So I spent a little time over the last few days, going the rounds with a particularly egregious example of human idiocy, over at the above linked CPP post. Mostly I was just messing with the jackass, but I'll admit that he had me rather irritable. Not because he was being smug and trying to get my goat - to the contrary, I would have probably just dropped it if he had been. The reason I got rather cranky with this particular person, is because he actually believes he has a valid point. He truly cannot understand why he was being mocked and no one was taking him seriously, except for me. And honestly, I was more than a little harsh with him. Reasonably so.
You see, this particular idiot truly doesn't grasp the notion of beige privilege. He figures that because there are plenty of poor white folks, then it must be a crock of crap and those of us beige type folks who have issues with that "hate our race." That we must just cheer when another "white" person goes to jail for drugs. Completely missing the point, even after it was quite clearly explained to him and later he was smacked upside his cyber-head with it.
Personally, I don't want to see anyone in jail for using or selling currently illicit drugs. I do want to see violent thugs in jail, but I want to see them in jail for being violent thugs, not because they also happen to be drug dealers. Or if they sell to kids, but honestly, I would also like to see people who sell alcohol to kids go to jail too. Because I'm pretty sure that if we start actually putting people in jail, instead of fining them and the store, they might take it a little more seriously. But I digress.
I want to see the laws enforced equally - and make no mistake, I want them enforced. As much of a radical as I have been and still am, I am also a very firm believer in law and order. Nor do I restrict that to laws I agree with or actions I disagree with. I want to see the law enforced, even when we're talking about acts of civil disobedience, something that I have engaged in on more than one occasion. I want to see them enforced right up to the point that it becomes an impossibility without the level force necessary, far outweighing the acts of disobedience - such as happens when there are so very many people involved that enforcement becomes impractical.
I don't want to see statistics that show me people with a brown hue to their skin are getting busted for dope or simply pulled over, far more frequently than their beige counterparts. I don't want to walk down the street in my old ghetto neighborhood in Portland and get a quick stop for a minute or less, by the idiots from the gang task force - then watch them harass my neighbor for about fifteen minutes, until he finally agrees to let them search him in front of his daughter, who is watching from the balcony. A neighbor who doesn't even drink, much less use or sell illicit drugs. A neighbor who works two jobs, so he could try to get his family the hell out of that hellhole.
This didn't used to bother me nearly so much. I mean it did, but it was peripheral - not really an issue for me. Go figure it wasn't, I've had very limited experiences with racism - fewer still where I happened to be the target of the racism. But then, I may have mentioned - I'm beige. And I grew up in an area of the midwest, that isn't exactly a major metropolis - not even close. There wasn't major unrest or even much in the way of overt racism - it was more of a passive aggressive sort. But it was and still is, rather segregated. For that matter, the underlying passive aggressive racism still flourishes, though it is far less than it was when I was a child.
Then I left the area I grew up in and hitchhiked away. One of the first places I ended up, is kind of a quintessential midwestern dream-town, Saint Louis. It is like a absolutely massive, small midwestern town, that is imbued with many of the best traits of small towns, while simultaneously being imbued with many of the best traits of larger metropolitan settings - including being considerably less segregated. I was suddenly surrounded by diversity and honestly, it really rocked. I frequented a club that catered to the performance art scene and there were people of many different colors hanging out and performing there. It was really cool, but honestly, it didn't do much to make the topic of racism all that much less peripheral - some of the artists used racism as a theme, but it wasn't really prevalent where I was living (I'm beige remember - it was probably there, but I didn't see it), so the impact was minimal.
It wasn't really until I moved to Portland, that it became far more than peripheral to me. It wasn't until I watched how the people with darker skin in my neighborhoods were treated, compared to how my beige skinned neighbors were treated, that it really started making me angry. It wasn't until my then four year old asked me what racism meant, that I really, really got angry. "Thankfully" we had already discussed anti-gay bigotry when he was three and arbitrarily hating someone because of their skin didn't seem any more silly than arbitrarily hating them because they happen to love people of their own sex - though it made no sense whatever to my little boy - still doesn't.
Then we moved to the really crappy, ghetto neighborhood. When I was threatened with arrest, because I was trying to explain the the neanderthal thugs with badges, that they were messing with my hardworking neighbor, in front of his daughter...I was fucking explosive.
And now it has even more impact, because there is a spectacularly brilliant, absolutely beautiful women who I am coming to care for more and more, on a virtually daily basis. Not the most practical of situations for a number of reasons, it is, nonetheless, what it is. It also happens that she is not beige in skin tone like I am.
I don't want to live in a culture that will treat me better than the women I am falling for - a women who if anything, is rather brighter than I am.
So I spent a little time over the last few days, going the rounds with a particularly egregious example of human idiocy, over at the above linked CPP post. Mostly I was just messing with the jackass, but I'll admit that he had me rather irritable. Not because he was being smug and trying to get my goat - to the contrary, I would have probably just dropped it if he had been. The reason I got rather cranky with this particular person, is because he actually believes he has a valid point. He truly cannot understand why he was being mocked and no one was taking him seriously, except for me. And honestly, I was more than a little harsh with him. Reasonably so.
You see, this particular idiot truly doesn't grasp the notion of beige privilege. He figures that because there are plenty of poor white folks, then it must be a crock of crap and those of us beige type folks who have issues with that "hate our race." That we must just cheer when another "white" person goes to jail for drugs. Completely missing the point, even after it was quite clearly explained to him and later he was smacked upside his cyber-head with it.
Personally, I don't want to see anyone in jail for using or selling currently illicit drugs. I do want to see violent thugs in jail, but I want to see them in jail for being violent thugs, not because they also happen to be drug dealers. Or if they sell to kids, but honestly, I would also like to see people who sell alcohol to kids go to jail too. Because I'm pretty sure that if we start actually putting people in jail, instead of fining them and the store, they might take it a little more seriously. But I digress.
I want to see the laws enforced equally - and make no mistake, I want them enforced. As much of a radical as I have been and still am, I am also a very firm believer in law and order. Nor do I restrict that to laws I agree with or actions I disagree with. I want to see the law enforced, even when we're talking about acts of civil disobedience, something that I have engaged in on more than one occasion. I want to see them enforced right up to the point that it becomes an impossibility without the level force necessary, far outweighing the acts of disobedience - such as happens when there are so very many people involved that enforcement becomes impractical.
I don't want to see statistics that show me people with a brown hue to their skin are getting busted for dope or simply pulled over, far more frequently than their beige counterparts. I don't want to walk down the street in my old ghetto neighborhood in Portland and get a quick stop for a minute or less, by the idiots from the gang task force - then watch them harass my neighbor for about fifteen minutes, until he finally agrees to let them search him in front of his daughter, who is watching from the balcony. A neighbor who doesn't even drink, much less use or sell illicit drugs. A neighbor who works two jobs, so he could try to get his family the hell out of that hellhole.
This didn't used to bother me nearly so much. I mean it did, but it was peripheral - not really an issue for me. Go figure it wasn't, I've had very limited experiences with racism - fewer still where I happened to be the target of the racism. But then, I may have mentioned - I'm beige. And I grew up in an area of the midwest, that isn't exactly a major metropolis - not even close. There wasn't major unrest or even much in the way of overt racism - it was more of a passive aggressive sort. But it was and still is, rather segregated. For that matter, the underlying passive aggressive racism still flourishes, though it is far less than it was when I was a child.
Then I left the area I grew up in and hitchhiked away. One of the first places I ended up, is kind of a quintessential midwestern dream-town, Saint Louis. It is like a absolutely massive, small midwestern town, that is imbued with many of the best traits of small towns, while simultaneously being imbued with many of the best traits of larger metropolitan settings - including being considerably less segregated. I was suddenly surrounded by diversity and honestly, it really rocked. I frequented a club that catered to the performance art scene and there were people of many different colors hanging out and performing there. It was really cool, but honestly, it didn't do much to make the topic of racism all that much less peripheral - some of the artists used racism as a theme, but it wasn't really prevalent where I was living (I'm beige remember - it was probably there, but I didn't see it), so the impact was minimal.
It wasn't really until I moved to Portland, that it became far more than peripheral to me. It wasn't until I watched how the people with darker skin in my neighborhoods were treated, compared to how my beige skinned neighbors were treated, that it really started making me angry. It wasn't until my then four year old asked me what racism meant, that I really, really got angry. "Thankfully" we had already discussed anti-gay bigotry when he was three and arbitrarily hating someone because of their skin didn't seem any more silly than arbitrarily hating them because they happen to love people of their own sex - though it made no sense whatever to my little boy - still doesn't.
Then we moved to the really crappy, ghetto neighborhood. When I was threatened with arrest, because I was trying to explain the the neanderthal thugs with badges, that they were messing with my hardworking neighbor, in front of his daughter...I was fucking explosive.
And now it has even more impact, because there is a spectacularly brilliant, absolutely beautiful women who I am coming to care for more and more, on a virtually daily basis. Not the most practical of situations for a number of reasons, it is, nonetheless, what it is. It also happens that she is not beige in skin tone like I am.
I don't want to live in a culture that will treat me better than the women I am falling for - a women who if anything, is rather brighter than I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)