Racism and Katrina

[pegkerr]

In all my compulsive reading of the Katrina coverage, I've been mulling over the ugly questions that have been raised about how racism has made this whole story play out. I was withholding judgment for awhile. But then I read this, and this and saw this, among other things (there was one other link that I can't find right now). And I've decided that, yeah, chalk me up as one of the minority of whites who think that race does have something to do with the abysmal response. Along with class, I'll add.

I'm thinking about some advice I gave to two friends of mine recently who have been struggling with a troubled marriage: if one of you says, "I see a problem here" and the other says "you're imagining things, there is no problem here" then the proper response is: guess what, you both have a problem here, whether the second sees it or not. Because if it's a problem for the first one, it's a problem for the relationship.

So . . . what can a liberal but often clueless honkey woman like me do about it?

Comments

[perigee.livejournal.com]

Also, regarding your second link, there is an extreme disconnect in America, especially, where people are kind of "over" the whole "race issue" and so it's just business as usual that of course racial minorities are poor, so we can just stop thinking about that social injustice and focus on how poor people are treated.

The reason I call it a disconnect is that the fact is, poor people are still often disproportionally (and in urban areas, usually) of racial or ethnic minority. And I thought it was the dream of the civil rights era that 1) there'd be a good mix there and that if we had to have poor people, a representative portion of them would also be pink or 2) if we could avoid it, we'd try not to have desperately poor people.

And we got done with Civil Rights and we still have a bunch of poor people who also happen to be non-pink. But since we're done with Civil Rights activism or something, it's rude to bring up the "race card" and instead we should focus on economic factors of prejudice.

I think I missed the "being over race" bus. Somehow, no matter how hard I scrub, my olive skin doesn't turn pink, and people still treat me differently from pink people. Or maybe it's my eyes. Should I have a surgeon "correct" my epicanthic fold?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Yes, poor people in the U.S. are disproportionately people of color. But I don't think it matters to the power structure whether they are or not. Countries, societies, cultures, that are racially/ethnically homogeneous still have class structures, still have rich and poor. You'll find rich and poor--powerful and powerless--in Liberia and Korea as surely as in a U.S. city.

For many people, the only measure of their success, of their position, of their status, of their value, is to be better than someone else. It's a zero-sum game: I can be "better" only if you are "worse." (Look even at the human tendency to believe that "different" must mean one is better than the other.) And one obvious, clearly delineated way to measure "better" is by worldly goods. If you have more than I, you are obviously "better" than I. "Have" is obviously better than "have not."

This isn't just a material measure, either. One thread of Protestantism is not the only world religion in which one's success in life is considered to reflect one's spiritual stature. And not all of those religions are in white cultures.

Focusing on economic injustice does not mean that one does not believe that racial/ethnic injustice exists. But my reading of history is that in every time and place, when people divide the world--as humans seem unable not to do--into "us" and "them," the single certain differentiation is between "have" and "have not."

If you believe that racism is the most pervasive human characteristic causing injustice, then surely your focus should be on racism. I don't think that means that you don't think classism exists. But neither does my opinion that classism is the most pervasive human characteristic causing injustice mean that I don't think racism exists.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

I don't know if racism is the most pervasive human characteristic contributing to or causing injustice. I've always tended to think that the most cogent narrative I've ever seen about what contributes to us vs. them mentalities is The Mahabharata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata) which, among many other things, is a narrative that seems to assert that a human characteristic is putting one's children's well-being and comforts ahead of others' children's, and that as long as that is a human characteristic, there will be bias and there will be war.

I think you and I have demonstrated amply that you and I do not share the same view of the world. In fact, in this very thread, I started, and then stopped myself, to/from talking directly to you about your take on things, because I don't think you and I communicate very well in race-oriented discussions, even when that's not really the necessarily primary point of the larger discussion. I do not know why this is so, though I suspect part of it is cultural and part of it is generational, and some of it may also have to do with our experience of the world from the perspective of our personal morphology.

But regardless of the reason, I wish that you and I could leave well enough alone. I think our disparity of perspective and reason cause us both a bit of heartache.

But I need you to know that part of the reason race and racial issues matter to me is simply that ignoring them is not an option for me. Racism is done to me, no matter how hard I try to opt out of it. That you are able to personally opt out of it by passing as pink in our pink-oriented culture is your privilege and I envy you for it.

At the same time I figure you have the same or similar criticism potentially on me, since I pass regularly as a man and sexism is likely done to you whether you try to opt out of it or not.

My point is that it is not my cussedness that causes me to be fixated on racial issues, but my morphology - the color of my skin and the shape of my eyes - and I think you and I may have more in common about being victims of non-consensual implicit and explicit bias than it may appear at first blush.

For what it's worth, I strongly agree that economic power disparity is in the mix, but I also don't think that you can meaningfully separate or ignore the concommitant implicit and explicit biases regarding color of skin or general personal morphology of the involved people. It's not just economic position and it's not just racism, but a really difficult mix that I think is enriched when we talk about all the factors, including those, and family structure, and religion and all sorts of other things that are in the mix. Race is interesting in the mix because it involves often very quick visual assessment. Economics is also interesting because it is almost as easy to determine economic position visually, or at least behaviorally (both in an enculturated sense and in the sense of whether a person has or has not possessions, or is or is not able to personally arrange travel for emself out of a disaster area).

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

But I need you to know that part of the reason race and racial issues matter to me is simply that ignoring them is not an option for me.

I know that. How could I not know that? It isn't like I have no (even if secondhand) experience with an Asian American male's (or Asian American female's) not being able to ignore race and racial issues. But this phrasing frustrates me. It seems to imply--perhaps I only infer it--that race and racial issues don't matter to me or that I ignore them.

I don't want people to overlook the racism in the reactions to this disaster. I simply want them also to see the clear classism: people who were trapped in the Superdome were trapped not because they were black (they weren't all black) but because they were poor (or in some cases, elderly and/or sick, which are other issues). What happened after that may well have been the result of racism, but they were there in the first place because they were poor.

As you have your reasons for focusing on race, I have mine for focusing on class. I grew up in a working-class family. We were never "poor," I don't think--certainly we always had food, and even treats like Kool-Aid--but my parents lived from paycheck to paycheck during my childhood. My father spent a lot of time in the late '40s and early '50s away from the family, traveling to wherever there was a job in construction. He never knew what it was to be his own boss, to work just for the welfare of his own family. After he died, sooner than he should have at 65, I wrote a song in which the chorus says, "It was bosses that killed Charlie, God damn their souls to hell."

No wonder I followed my mother's example (she was a medical transcriptionist) and became a freelancer!

At the same time I figure you have the same or similar criticism potentially on me, since I pass regularly as a man and sexism is likely done to you whether you try to opt out of it or not.

Well, no, I don't have the same or similar criticism of you. It would never occur to me to criticize someone for making their issues those issues that have direct relevance to their lives.

Truth be told, I have experienced very, very little sexism in my life. Some of that may be because of my appearance--I am tall and never slouch, I have a confident demeanor (or as my husband says, I look not only like I could, but like I would be willing to, "beat the shit out of them"). Some may be good fortune. Some may be an intrinsic ability to ignore other people's opinions and go on doing what I'm doing. For whatever reason, no one, ever, told me, for example, that there was something I couldn't do because I was female. (OK, one guy in college told me that there was a career I couldn't get into because they didn't take "girls," but he was factually wrong.)

I agree that we don't communicate very well on race. I don't know why. I'm pretty sure that it isn't generational, because my kids are younger than you and they and I communicate well on the issue. I'm sorry that our exchanges cause you heartache; as I tried to make clear last time, the only pain that they cause me (for reasons I explained to misiais that they seem to cause you pain. I'm a born arguer; I may get frustrated, exasperated, annoyed, or even angry (not often) in arguing, but it doesn't cause me heartache.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd rather believe that you keep discussing this with me at length because for some good hearted reason you wish to reach mutual understanding, than because of being a born arguer you are compelled to flog this with me even though I obviously would rather just get through it and beyond it with you. :>

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Maybe I didn't write that well. The part about my being a born arguer was related to my not feeling heartache from arguing, not to my reason for arguing.

My main purpose in arguing--whatever form it takes or name it has--is to challenge my own opinions. Second to that is to reach mutual understanding; however, since it's impossible ever to know for sure that one understands what another means, much less feels, I hope only for a reasonable approximation.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

If someone could wave a magic wand, would you trade the physical circumstances of your current life, including your home, material possessions, and degree of financial security (whatever it may be), as well as the way people treat you, for a poor white man's life, including his home (if any), material possessions, and degree of financial security (i.e., none at all), as well as the way people treat him?

[perigee.livejournal.com]

This question is, aside from other things I'm sure you intended well, a rhetorical trap. There is no way I can answer this question without preserving any of my points' original intents. I will leave it as an exercise to you to determine why.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Providing my own answers to a question I asked you hardly seems fair, and certainly doesn't make any progress toward understanding, for either of us.

It wasn't intended to be a rhetorical trap. It was a straightforward question, the answer to which might reveal where some of our differences lie. When one cannot answer a question--any question except a nonsense one--while preserving their points' original intent, one might do well to examine those original intents. I have had to change my mind more than once in my life because I was asked a question I could not answer without changing something in my thinking. I value those questions highly.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

No, I think you misunderstand me.

The question you asked strikes me as a rhetorical trap in the same way a question like, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is a rhetorical trap. I do not, as a rule, answer questions like that. In general, I ignore them, but in your case, I thought a more thorough response about why I would not answer was appropriate. But I see I'm wrong, because you're just using the opportunity to suggest that I am not thinking straight. :>

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Telling me that a question I ask is a rhetorical trap without telling me why doesn't help communication very much. (Now you've told me why, but your previous response didn't.)

The only way that "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is a rhetorical trap is if the questioner demands a yes-or-no response. Otherwise, the response "I have never beaten my wife" answers the question. I did not ask for a yes-or-no response.

I am not a subtle person. What you see is what you get. If I ask a question, it means what it says and nothing more. If it is unanswerable for some reason, telling me the reason is helpful (though of course one has no obligation to do so).

You are not the first person to see subtlety and machinations and hidden meanings and traps in my words. They aren't there. I am hopelessly literal-minded.

(One of the reasons I am so taken with misia's writing is that she can do things I am totally incapable of. I could never write, for example, one of her "letters" to passersby or email correspondents. It is completely beyond my ability.)

[perigee.livejournal.com]

Okay. I'll bite (against my better judgement, because you always strike me as an intelligent if not totally supportive conversant - please note that I am feeling like it's quite likely that someone's going to debate my answer with me. If not you, then someone else will, and I think it's quite likely that the person who does so is pink).

My answer to your question (which implies a binary choice for potential answer) is that my answer does not exist among the obvious and implied answer to your question.

In my ideal world, where racism was something we took on head on, and didn't shy from addressing, I could still be me, with my life, my skin, my eyes, my house, my dog, my neighborhood, my cat, my misia and racism would not be a perceivable factor. The answer is not that I simply think that it would be better or worse to be someone else (where presumably the system would make racism less of a concern than economic factors) but that both racism and economic factors and all the other isms we're talking about happened very infrequently, and that if they happened, the systemic response was not "Oh, well we can't help that", but "Oh, that's awful, I'm sorry that happened to you. How can we avoid it in the future".

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Well, hell, what are we arguing about, then?

The only difference I can see is that you think that we can best avoid it in the future by addressing racism while not ignoring classism and other isms, and I think we can best avoid it in the future by addressing classism while not ignoring racism and others isms.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

Yes, except when I post a comment (not in reply to yours) about how I think racism has become disconnected in typical American thinking from addressing injustice in response to a question explicitly about how racism can be addressed/improved, you jump in and tell me how classism is at least as important as racism, which has a bit of a silencing effect on me and my opinions about racism.

I think that my frustration arose more from the dynamic than the topic or the opinions, if that makes sense.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

which has a bit of a silencing effect on me and my opinions about racism.

Well, gee, if I have the power to silence people by simply--not even disagreeing with them, but stating an opinion that goes in another direction, I'd best get busy using that power for good. I can think of many better targets for it than you!

However, I don't see you as so easily intimidated, so either I have a totally mistaken image of you or something else is involved here.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

Well, there are the other commenters here, and elsewhere, who have been less respectful than you, and it becomes increasingly uncomfortable, frustrating and onerous for me to feel like I'm arguing with more and more people. There is the overhead involved in trying to keep things reasonable and keep myself from flying off the handle as well as keeping my language even and predictable enough so that people read that I'm not flying off the handle and so that people (hopefully) also notice what effort I'm putting into the language to keep things even and respectful.

There's fighting the same fight over and over and being tired of it (and frankly feeling like maybe I should just stop being the token non-pink person in the discussion for a while, because it's obviously frustrating me a lot these days). There's the feeling I Get from others not involved in this direct conversation or this direct thread that I'm not qualified to make my own testimonies without having them (or the quality [prose or rhetorical] of my narrative) be up for debate.

But you know what? I think you should be using the power your words have and that you have to encourage the good kind of debate that builds things rather than using that energy on me, who you've already noted, is arguing the same point from a different perspective, and who has already directly remarked to you that this discussion is wearing me out and I'd rather not have it with you again.

And we've come full circle.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd be happy to use the power of my words to encourage the good kind of debate if I knew how to do that to some useful effect. The best I seem able to do is to engage people in disucssions that I can use to challenge my own thinking, so I can be pretty sure that I at least have had my reality check and am not living a mistake, if you will.

Preaching to the choir seems a pointless use of time and energy, yet I've never had any--or seen others have much--success at preaching to the, um, nonconverted. It gets discouraging when you've been at it for 50 years or so (yes, I started as a kid). Maybe you'll have better fortune. I certainly hope so.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

As you have dared me to continue to argue with you well after I was done, I can only turn the tables on you and dare you to keep going and keep trying with people are not the choir, as you have the energy and the time. While you and I are singing in ostensibly the same choir, I often don't have the faith or impression that you really are because of your argumentativeness and the work it takes to resolve things with you. When it comes to race discussions with you, the energy demand on my part feels less like preaching to the choir and more like doing that harder kind of work at which both you and I have so little results to show for it.

But if you're going to dare me to continue with me, I'm going to dare you to continue with people who are not in your choir, despite the 5 decades you've put into it. I've got people in my corner egging me on, and I will be in your corner egging you on.

You come at me and tell me you're argumentative and then cop out by saying it never works, but you still seem to expect me to rise to your challenge? I don't think so. If you want me to fight with you, and with others, then you get to as well.

[perigee.livejournal.com]

Pardon me. I had a double-negative in there. It should be, "There is no way I can answer this question while preserving any..."