we dont need another anti-racism 101 by Mai’a at guerrilla mama medicine:
and so in my experience, folks can learn all the theory, all the right words, all of it and yet act fundamentally the same, live out the same patterns of thoughts, still hold the same fucked-up priorities. and yet spout all of the anti-racist rhetoric.
[...]
in that they are able to say things like: i realize that such and such is a function of racism and then they continue to do the same fucking thing that they just acknowledged was racist.
this happens all the time. like. all. the. time.
There are great comments too:
Kai commented:
I totally agree that the reason is the white/Eurocentric cultural norm which separates word and being. For many white folks (though not only white folks, of course), words are deployed strictly from the ego in order to project a propagandistic image of oneself that will aid one’s selfish ambitions; rather than deployed from the heart-spirit to summon the power of the word in manifesting truth and love as we walk the earth in peace.
[...]
I suppose we can’t prevent people from dipping into our writings and picking up bits of strategic rhetoric for whatever agendas they’re pursuing.
Holly commented:
‘the work is not the workshop’
belledame222 commented:
also, possibly covered under what you’re talking about here (people using the new words but still playing the same old tune underneath) there’s this phenomenon among white people and other “allies” that I’ve been calling “dirty fork,” after the Monty Python sketch:
i.e. it might be earnestly meant in some cases, but something about the whole “examine your privilege” deal ends up becoming a way to focus on one’s own hairshirt process as opposed to, y’know, what the other person actually needs.
Isabel commented:
I think she was making that mistake of assuming principles, beliefs, awareness etc. are something that come with being able to write an essay about it. Or, that being able to write an essay about something implies actual awareness about it.
Jo commented:
I think the idea, with using the work of white cismen, is that perhaps the “voice of power & authority” will speak more forcefully to those in the most need of listening. But… really? I wonder just how far down the anti-racist road any of us are going to get if we have to be cajoled to start walking by a voice of authority, if we’ve already, off the bat, discounted the voices of poc?
[...]
But maybe pointing people in the direction of serious, tangible, problems they can do something about & that help illustrate why “being the BEST anti-racist” must NOT be about having the most obscure Audre Lorde & Franz Fanon quotes or the ability to write a paper about intersectionality.
Hat tip to jwbe.
Next action: Read we dont need another anti-racism 101.
March 30, 2009 at 11:05 am
I have a question… not necessarily specific to this post, but in general.
I happened upon your blog a while back while doing some research for work (and life), which connected me to other blogs, and others, etc. I read and, at times, I contributed in comments. I have since withdrawn a little bit for my own reasons.
I am not, and never have been, a citizen of the blogosphere, so I had trouble negotiating some acronyms, and they got me thinking. Why are People Of Colour and Women Of Colour reduced to acronyms, while ‘white people’ gets spelled out? There is only a difference of 1 or 2 characters. What does that say? It strikes me as both interesting and troubling. Does it not further marginalize racialized people by reducing them (literally and figuratively)?
March 30, 2009 at 11:15 am
I don’t know about that. The terms “people of colour” and “women of colour” appear longer than “white people” especially if you count the spaces.
What if analogous to the term ‘person of color,’ we used ‘person of white privilege’?
March 30, 2009 at 11:21 am
Actually, that is more clear, but cumbersome. I understand the convenience of acronyms, but the symbolism struck me. So… POC, WOC, PWP?
(yeah, I didn’t count the spaces – and I used the American spelling of colour)
March 30, 2009 at 11:30 am
whoops. POWP.
March 30, 2009 at 11:32 am
I actually like the variation “people with white privilege”. PWWP is a nice, palindromic acronym.
March 30, 2009 at 11:35 am
yeah, I thought about that too… on a side note, if you say it, it sounds like spitting! Ha! oh, I digress.
March 30, 2009 at 1:00 pm
[...] [Hat Tip: Restructure] [...]
March 30, 2009 at 1:04 pm
[...] [Hat Tip: Restructure] [...]
March 30, 2009 at 5:43 pm
the post is great, i like the dirty fork video too. i think the idea of christianity affecting white thinking is probably rooted in the catholic idea of confession, where intent is sometimes a part of the reflection on sin, i also think that intent plays a factor in the legal system, very interesting, thanks.
April 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm
[...] we don’t need another anti-racism 101, including the comments by belledame222 and by kathy at restructure where there are excerpts of the post and [...]
April 22, 2009 at 7:07 am
[...] Why I dislike a particular white antiracist blogger [...]
May 1, 2009 at 4:58 pm
how do you call a freak who starts a blog in the name of anti-racism and turns it more and more into his ‘kingdom’ of censorship, probably until only “oh I love your blog” or “M. you are great” or “yes I agree” will be published.
He can’t deal with opinions that are different to his.
I should perhaps stop reading there and just treat him like any other troll.
Like this what you (Restructure) posted about trolls, it also applies to this certain white person I think, only that he uses a way were unfortunately nobody can censor him.
May 1, 2009 at 5:03 pm
in addition: his censorship actually does what you also already mentioned, that someone has to write a comment one wants to see published in a way that at least with me it would no longer truly be me. And I won’t do this.