Essential reading #1: Barriers to Clarity.

I've not felt like writing in a while. I study a lot for school, work quite a bit, and have other things going on. However, I will not leave this blog unattended. I will continue to read and educate myself on racism, sexism, classism, and other topics. In doing so, I will post up things I find interesting and important for myself and anyone else interested in educating themselves on the topics here.

My first one to show is a reading called "Barriers to Clarity" discussing the various ways in which Whites often try to assuage themselves, evade, or make unimportant the seriousness of institutional racism in this country.

http://www.cwsworkshop.org/pdfs/WIWP_Analysis/9Barriers_to_Clarity.pdf

Hard to know what you're feeling sometimes.

As much as I educate myself on race/ethnicity related topics and do what I can to encourage and ferment an anti-racist mindset, it is really fucking tough sometimes in the society I live in. Some days I barely notice it, if at all. Others, however, it is really easy to see how one can go throughout most of (if not all) their entire life not having to give a shit, other than a token comment here or there, about the problems and concerns of others who are not White. And every time I remember that it really feels sort of discouraging for a moment.

Then I think to myself "Man, there's gotta be more people out there that give a shit on a real level about this stuff". So I run into some progressive minded people, but their lack of nuance on the topic and propensity to say things like "Oh yeah, I totally know about ethnic issues. My friend is black, so...yeah", as if having a black friend were the be all/end all of understanding race/ethnic relations in the country.

Now and then I run into people who are in tune on the topic, but seldom is it a White person. I can think of 4 or 5 people that I know semi-close to very close who are aware of racial/ethnic relations on a real level, and all are non-White. 

It really sucks the most, actually, to meet someone who is very nuanced and well-read on other important issues like global warming, religious propaganda, class issues, or gender problems, but still remains largely ignorant on race related topics and doesn't seem to get why I "get on that topic" as opposed to some other one. 

I expect most these days to be uninformed on the issue. But maybe I shouldn't let that make me more complacent. Maybe it's time for me to stop seeking out people who do know more about it and start looking for those who don't. 

Vamos a ver.

In the quad at school today there was a short Asian-American kid being eccentric, waving to people from a tree and shouting, "I love you!" in a cutesy voice. He ended up climbing down from the tree to interact with people up front. Most people just said it back or waved. 

One girl, however, took it upon herself to live into the worst damned situation I see happen to people of Asian descent in the U.S. As he strolled by she asked what his name was, to which replied "Tim". Afterwards, almost immediatley, she asked "So where do you come from?"...

*Palm to face*

Now, waiiiiiit a sec! Isn't it possible she just meant what town in Texas he was from, or part of the U.S.? Aren't I being just a *little too PC*? 

Nope. Since when the fuck do white people go around to other White people, or Black people, etc. asking "Where do you come from?"

Phrasing the question in the way that she did only perpetuates the idea of Asians as the "foreigner", "stranger", "outsider", somehow less authentically American than 'the rest'.

Can White identity exist without non-White identity?

Ponder this:

White identity cannot, would not have, and will not exist without the existence of non-White identity. So what does that say about being White? That being white is less about being something, and more about not being something else. What is that something else?

What do we give those who are considered "non-White"? Well, ethnic identity, for one. We call them Hispanic-American, Asian-American, African-American, etc. We attribute different types of music to them. If a White man goes to an Asian restaurant, there is a consensus that he's eating "ethnic food", in contrast to "normal food" (of course, such as Hamburgers, hot dogs, sandwiches, etc.)

We give them "foreign language". Hispanics are tied to Spanish, Asians to a multitude of languages, etc.

We give them 'other-worldly' attributes, such as "natural dancers" (black people), "great at math and science, breed like rabbits" (Asians), etc.

It seems that everything that has to do with being non-White is about having ethnicity or culture. Being white is defined by it's neutrality. One is 'normal', a 'person', an 'individual'. One can judged as such, as evidenced by the 100 or so Supreme Court justices before Sotomayor whose personal experiences didn't call into question their impartiality. You can miss a basketball shot and not have it reflected on you that there's something not normal about you. You can show up late for class and not have being lazy ascribed to your tardiness, as well as your racial behavioral characteristics.

Being race-neutral, the "norm", the benchmark means that you are what everyone else is judged off of. Obama being called "race transcendent" did not mean he did what other Presidents did. It means he rose above being black. John McCain never transcended being white, nor will he ever be asked to. This is a privilege, to be considered the norm so as to never have to "overcome" a racial status.

In essence, being a white-American (and in many ways, a white-American male) means more in what you are not rather than what you are. Blacks, Asians, Hispanics - THEY have a race and a racial identity. Whites are just people. It means not having to conform to anything outside of a comfort zone. It means being given the benefit of the doubt, being judged as an individual.

Without Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or any other group, White would not exist. There would be nothing for it to exist in contrast to. There would again be Irish, Dutch, Spanish, French, Swiss, Polish, Germans, or any other European ethnic group. Asians do not call themselves yellow or identify themselves with others of East Asian heritage unless they live in a White centric society, like America. This is just as Europeans did not identify as such until their arrival into the New World and the creation of it's power structure.

Knowing all of this, what does it say about those who choose to self identify, consciously or subconsciously, with the term "White-American"?

"I always feel like"...no, wait, someone is watching me.

More and more these days I'm noticing stares. I don't tend to get these stares when I'm alone, so I've scratched out (for the most part) the notion that the stares I refer to come as a result of having not brushed my hair, worn a shirt that may attract attention, or some other reason. I notice I tend to get the stares when I'm with my girlfriend.

She at times notices it less than I do, and sometimes seems to notice it as much as I do, but nonetheless, I can't count on any specific number of hands how many stares my girlfriend and I both get when walking in public, particularly holding hands.

It's not a stare with any kind of rude look (well, 85% of the time, let's say). It's usually a blank stare, but with a hint of an invesitagtive look. It's almost as if the person is asking themselves, "I wonder what that's all about?" I only assume this internal possibility because of certain questions I've been asked in the past (and to which I've referred in a recent post). I'll get questions, questions that the asker feels are innocuous but to me reveal an ignorant mindset. I've been asked whether I'm "into Mexican girls", "just not that attracted to white girls", etc. These kinds of questions tell me that we're not seen as "normal" in the person's eyes.

Before I go on, let me make clear: I am not saying that everybody that I make eye contact with while in public with my girl is giving me the afforementioned stare. I am only referring to instances in which I am certain an obvious prolonged glare has taken place.

Now, here's where apologists rush in. "Come on. Interracial couples are not the norm, so why would they view you as one?" If the asker were truly inquisitive about our social status as a rarity situation, wouldn't the questions be less directed at my motives (or hers) and more about our situation? For instance, I'm seldom asked whether we are subjects of racist comments, stares, or actions, or whether we face or have faced pressure from society, family, or friends to date "within our race". Those would be questions pertaining to our social situation.

The subject matter of questions asked pertaining to my relationship and the frequency and nature of the stares given tell me that there is a good likelihood that they are less an expression of social curiosity and more one of preconceived ideas about who we are and why we date.

To review shortly, a couple of tips on speaking to people in interracial relationships:

1. If it is a non-verbal environment, don't stare unless they are giving you a reason to stare (like, anything your "average" couple would do: making out in public, for instance).

2. Instead of revealing yourself to be someone of limited social couth, please don't ask ridiculous questions or make stupid comments like "So you don't think Mexican guys are cute?", "Got jungle fever, eh?", or "Have you always liked (insert racial group here)?" It presumes that the person dating chose that person on the foundation of a skin color grouping and not based off of personal traits. It's insulting. And no, I don't give a shit if you have some interracial couple friends that "don't mind" having been asked that. Having self-respect isn't a pre-requisite for living in our society, sadly.

Now, go out there and don't fuck this one up. :)

That's just how it was, right?

While sitting in a lecture, my professor is discussing the history of the theory of Evolution. Once she gets around to discussing Darwin and his contemporaries, she mentions that Darwin (like many Anglo men of that time) was "a bit racist, sexist, etc." but that we can't judge him based off of that criteria due to his being a product of his time. This was said by someone with a Masters degree. 

This is quite a common tendency in race based discussions on the side of apologists, isn't it though? To take up the side of historic figures and excuse their philosophical short-comings (that we would normally chastise others for) in the name of them being a "product of their times". Funny, Darwin is considered "revolutionary" with Evolution, yet "a product of his time" in terms of racism, sexism, etc. Funny how we cherry pick how and what he was a product of when it suits certain agendas. 

I've always found this line of thinking pretty ridiculous. The truth is that it isn't that he was a "product of his time", as though all men in notable positions thought as such. Thomas Paine, one of the biggest names of the American Revolution, wanted to do away with slavery altogether, yet many of his contemporaries were quite the opposite. 

Bartolome de Las Casas witnessed the brutality enacted against the indigenous Arawak people of what is now Puerto Rico and wrote an extensive essay to the Spanish royalty asking for this behavior to be condemned and punished. Again, contrary to Spanish feelings of superiority and Catholic dominance, he was unlike other contemporaries. What product was he of, exactly?

The next time someone attempts to justify a publicly well-renowned figures actions that might tarnish an otherwise impeccable reputation, remind them that they might just be products of their own experiences, not their "time".