![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimoreneI really appreciated Elizabeth Bear's second-to-last two posts in the current discussion of racism. I'm sure they're not entirely problem-free, but they are thoughtful, sensitive, apropos, and well-intentioned. So I don't mean anything negative about Bear to refer specifically to Bear when I say,
Isn't it funny how both her posts received far more quick laudatory comments - cookies, I will go so far as to say - than the meaty, brave, and potentially inflammatory posts from fans of color involved in the same discussion?
Now, there's plenty of reinforcement for POC and their allies in this discussion - in fact, in most of their meta posts on the subject, there are many voices who obviously agree with them in the comments; although often as not, the post and the comments are joined in shock, pain, or anger about things said by the other side elsewhere. The "cookies" - ie "Thanks for posting this!" and "Good job" and "This is so smart!" - make up a somewhat lower proportion.
Now, this is particularly poignant in light of the constant racist refrain of "I'm so tired of working SO HARD to not be racist and the mean people of colour are just BLAMING ME instead of giving me cookies!", which has also come up more than once in the current debate.
And certainly positive reinforcement for people working through their own issues, working to understand and dispense with prejudice and priviledge, is good. It probably does help them. But maybe as you watch these debates go by and feel yourself moved to give out some support, you should think about who you're giving the cookie to, and whether it might not be better spent supporting POC's voices elsewhere.
Isn't it funny how both her posts received far more quick laudatory comments - cookies, I will go so far as to say - than the meaty, brave, and potentially inflammatory posts from fans of color involved in the same discussion?
Now, there's plenty of reinforcement for POC and their allies in this discussion - in fact, in most of their meta posts on the subject, there are many voices who obviously agree with them in the comments; although often as not, the post and the comments are joined in shock, pain, or anger about things said by the other side elsewhere. The "cookies" - ie "Thanks for posting this!" and "Good job" and "This is so smart!" - make up a somewhat lower proportion.
Now, this is particularly poignant in light of the constant racist refrain of "I'm so tired of working SO HARD to not be racist and the mean people of colour are just BLAMING ME instead of giving me cookies!", which has also come up more than once in the current debate.
And certainly positive reinforcement for people working through their own issues, working to understand and dispense with prejudice and priviledge, is good. It probably does help them. But maybe as you watch these debates go by and feel yourself moved to give out some support, you should think about who you're giving the cookie to, and whether it might not be better spent supporting POC's voices elsewhere.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 03:52 pm (UTC)Do not confuse my politeness, my willingness to listen to criticism, or my acceptance of the need to sometimes take one for the team with moral cowardice, a susceptibility to bullying, or any plans to throw any of my friends under the bus whether I disagree with them or not.
Yes, I pretty much expect to see my name blackened all over the internet for saying so. I don't care, and you could do me a favor and not care either. And if you have to care, do it someplace other than my journal, kthanx.
Basically she's just agreed with all her pantsless friends that the people bringing up these issues are bullies. I guess her previous posts were simply professionalism and not any sign of really giving thought to what people had said.
(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 04:12 pm (UTC)Why does everybody make these discussions about their fucking childhood traumas? Speaking as an Adult Child of an Alcoholic[TM], among other things, WE DON'T CARE AND IT ISN'T RELEVANT.
(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 04:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 04:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23 Jan 2009 07:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 04:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 04:09 pm (UTC)And, yes, all the cookie-giving was a bit...much? Unless you're going round petting FoC for the nasty crap that's been flung their way as well, perhaps.
(no subject)
Date: 21 Jan 2009 04:34 pm (UTC)But even if Bear's record were spotless, I think there's something wrong when the white people who simply speak out reasonably and like human beings get showered with positive reinforcement far more than the POCs speaking right alongside them and usually in more difficult circumstances.
(no subject)
Date: 22 Jan 2009 10:40 am (UTC)Unfortunately, this happens more often than not.
(no subject)
Date: 23 Jan 2009 12:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23 Jan 2009 07:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 11:37 pm (UTC)The fact that some (by no means all, and in Britain, virtually no) people with darker skin refer to themselves as POCs is irrelevant to whether it is racist or not. There are people who use the N-word of themselves, but I'm sure we all agree it is a profoundly racist term.
"Person of colour" comes from "coloured person" which is fatally compromised, having played a leading part in the horrors of apartheid in South Africa. I read recently the comments of a gentleman that he hated the term because it did not apply to his race, as everyone has a colour. He preferred the term black, which was how he saw himself.
The term is, at best, patronising and, at worst, dehumanising.
This gentleman puts it far better than I ever could: http://www.mrcforchange.org/coloroflove.html
(no subject)
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:17 am (UTC)I will rephrase, in North America, where I live, and where much of my flist live, person of colour is not considered derogatory, and has long been embraced by ethnic minorities as a term they have chosen to use to describe themselves. Obviously, if a given person of colour tells me that they find this particular vocabulary loaded, and they prefer a different term, I would quit using it. Within my LJ circle, it is not considered a "loaded" term. Obviously, my LJ circle is not the world, but tell me, how should I describe my ethnic minority flisters who don't consider it loaded?
I don't really feel like getting further into it with you, because this conversation is turning into a derailment. The topic is cookies, and two white people arguing in comments over what we think non-white people should call themselves is a way of making the conversation about us white people (yet again). You are welcome to start a post discussing the history and suitability of the term PoC, but in this particular context (i.e.
(no subject)
Date: 25 Jan 2009 08:31 am (UTC)I tend to comment where I think someone's approach could come across to others as hypocrisy. When I find out that the hypocrisy is real, there's no point in telling them how their words seem.
You seem more sincere than the others, but use of the terms POC and non-white (I've never met a person who is white, even albino people are not truly white) both strike a Brit like me as racist. Have you ever considered just referring to people as people?
Well, I will leave you all in peace now, to ask the world for cookies for patronising people whose skin is dark.
(no subject)
Date: 4 Feb 2009 03:44 pm (UTC)And if this is a bit of late response, apologies. I've only 'discovered' this online imbroglio relatively recently.
(no subject)
Date: 23 Jan 2009 07:33 am (UTC)Or is trying to deal with real oppression more difficult than joining in with online bullying?
(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 01:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 07:36 am (UTC)There is a growing group of people who consider themselves thought police, sent to make everyone think PC thoughts. They never bother to attack the racists who are daily churning out hatred, instead they look for people who are trying to do or say the right thing, like a writer who says respect is needed in dealing with cultures not your own. Then they leap on that person and publicly shred them. It's not nice and it certainly is bullying.
It might be more constructive if we all focus on our own shortcomings, rather than looking for soft targets online. This isn't a fight against oppression. It's an ego trip, a quest, if you will, for cookies. Cimness wants to be told, "You're wonderful!" Well, sorry. I don't find all this petty unpleasantness that great.
(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 03:00 pm (UTC)They never bother to attack the racists who are daily churning out hatred,
Again, how on earth do you know this? Why would you assume that because people are talking about racism here, they're not doing anything about it elsewhere?
instead they look for people who are trying to do or say the right thing, like a writer who says respect is needed in dealing with cultures not your own. Then they leap on that person and publicly shred them.
See, and that right there is why I think you haven't really been following this very closely at all (or maybe have only just discovered it and are forming and expressing your opinions before working your way back to see what's actually happened), or else are perhaps talking about some other conversation entirely. No one jumped on Elizabeth Bear for trying to do the right thing. Avalon's Willow wrote a post about one of Bear's books, talking about her own reactions to it and why she thought it was problematic -- it was not a "shredding", and Bear wrote a post responding to it in which she actually agreed with Avalon's Willow's assessment and talked about how she herself had gotten things wrong. It was awesome to see her not just fly off the handle and claim she was being accused of being a racist (which she wasn't), and to see this dialog beginning to take place. And the people I've read on this topic have to a person agreed that it was awesome.
But Bear's friends immediately came plowing in to throw around racially-charged insults, be dismissive of people of color, and accuse them of not being smart or educated enough to understand the text. Dialog at that point became somewhat more difficult, though many people did try -- they were met, on the whole, with more racially-charged insults and dismissals.
I don't know, though, I mean, between the whole thing about claiming Cim wants cookies and your comment below to folklorefanatic accusing her of descending into "racist nonsense" -- I've read folklorefanatic's comment three times trying to figure out where you got that.
I think you and I are viewing the world through entirely different lenses.
I also eat babies for brunch, apparently.
Date: 25 Jan 2009 06:07 am (UTC)There's no point in expecting an answer from her -- she thinks were racist bigots for...standing up for ourselves? Bzuh?
(
I think she's looking at the world through an entirely different telescope, actually -- the telescope of a "pro-life, anti-war, anti-EU, moderate extremist, liberal conservative monarchist and believer in sacred kingship" who "practises non-aggressive gardening," speaks "for those who can't defend themselves" (except, apparently, for People of Color), and "believes in fairies and speak to spirits of the dead."
I clicked through to see what nonsensical ranting Cim's post had inspired, and I think I feel down a rabbit hole or something. I have offended her delicate anti-PC abilities enough to warrant, not one (http://ysgawen.livejournal.com/152861.html?format=light) but TWO (http://ysgawen.livejournal.com/153121.html?format=light) separate public posts calling me a racist! Complete with macros from Pride & Prejudice, BBC Version and a bonus mention in a third post (http://ysgawen.livejournal.com/153399.html?format=light)!
I *could* play a drinking game every time she mentions the "PC Police," but these WW tears taste so damn good, I'm running through the bottle too fast to bother.
Re: I also eat babies for brunch, apparently.
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 05:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 07:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:19 am (UTC)Elizabeth Bear was not being "considerate" when she tried to deny her whiteness and use her upbringing to equate her suffering with the racism PoC face everyday. She was not being "considerate" when she told people to be polite on her posts or she would moderate and then let people be racist and ignorant all over the place:
I suspect a lot of them are driven by envy. She is, after all, successful. How dare she be more successful than us!
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! *dies*
Snerk. There are a ton of successful artists, writers, authors, and academics who think she is doing bigoted things right now because her feelings were hurt. I had her friended for a while before this happened. I did not take pleasure in watching some I respected as an author go batshit insane because a few of us PoC pointed out that her behior was inconsistent and that one PoC found problematic racist tropes in one of her books.
I'm really not feeling in the mood to explain this further. Thee are a lot of links out there on [Unknown site tag] and elsewhere. Go read and educate yourself as to why she is not being anywhere *near* considerate. (http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1544111.html?thread=30733743#t30733743)
(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:22 am (UTC)Feel the Rhythm, Feel the Rhyme, Get on up, It's Bingo Time
Date: 24 Jan 2009 06:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 07:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:13 pm (UTC)If there's a script floating around, there must be a draft. Maybe it's on Scribd.com. I've heard teh whyte wimminz hang out over there.
(no subject)
Date: 23 Jan 2009 08:39 am (UTC)I think I am somewhat more likely to leave "cookies" for white people. There may be unconscious racism going on with this I'm not seeing.
Thinking about my own reactions, and I have no idea how general this is, when talking about a charged racial topic I feel more self conscious in the lj of someone I know is POC because I don't want to barge in and say something offensive and hurt their feelings. So unless I have something useful to say I'm more likely to say nothing, and thus white posters are more likely to get silly rambly "This was awesome!" responses.
But something I've also noticed is that white people are more likely to make posts which are well written summaries of things I already know, while POC are more likely to write things which are challenging and make me think and feel uncomfortable. The former do not inspire thinky responses, just "This is great!". The latter are more likely to either get a thinky response or have me decide not to respond at all while I ponder what I think about it. The former also create a more positive emotional response since they don't unearth any new sore points.
A while ago I was worrying that my more positive emotional responses to white people's posts was simple "I like white people more regardless of what they say" racism(*). But I had the same positive emotional response to
Anyway, thanks for posting this, this is is so smart, good job! :D
(*)A very disquieting thought, and I can't say for certain it isn't true to some extent :/
Do they WANT cookies? Can you have too many?
Date: 24 Jan 2009 12:53 pm (UTC)A lot of (though not all) discussions on the ljs of POC are aimed at other POC and trying to have an intra-POC conversation about issues affecting them. Comments from white people, no matter how well meaning, can in large enough numbers disrupt that conversation. But this only a reason not to leave cookies when there's already plenty.
Of course, I don't know how POC feel about this, maybe they don't mind wading through the cookies to get to the meat. But it has struck me when reading comment threads full of well meaning white people not saying much of substance.
Re: Do they WANT cookies? Can you have too many?
Date: 24 Jan 2009 07:22 pm (UTC)Some responses *I* use when I don't know if I agree with someone but I want them to know that I appreciate their efforts to express themselves:
"This made me think about (situation) in a new light / differently / from an alternative viewpoint I hadn't thought of before. Thank you."
"I'm glad you posted this. It's an important topic that needs to be discussed." (Very general blah, but it lets people know that you've read the post and are listening.)
"I've read this and I need to think about it some more. I'm not sure if I agree with everything in it, but I'm sitting back and examining the issues right now. I just wanted to tell you that I'm listening." (There must be a way to make this shorter.)
"Thank you for posting this." (Pretty effortless. Contrary to popular belief, this does not have to signify that you agree, although you can certainly clarify further if you wish.)
When I see general outpourings of glee for white people saying the same things that PoC say, one of two things are happening:
1. It's possible that the PoC doesn't have as much of a platform as the white writer, which can be problematic in and of itself, but let's leave that for the time being, OR
2. Something is happening inside a white person's head that makes it harder for them to leave comments for a PoC.
I think the latter reason is far more common in situations like these, because let's face it, everyone big has been linking to everyone else by this point.
Re: Do they WANT cookies? Can you have too many?
Date: 25 Jan 2009 03:19 am (UTC)Oh, absolutely. That's not what I'm talking about though. I was pondering (possibly without much basis) that responses saying "I agree with you and here are my thoughts on how this relates to my life as a white person" can, in large enough numbers, distract from an attempt to have a conversation about the POC POV. This was certainly the vibe I got from the comments on I Didn’t Dream of Dragons (I eventually decided it was such good post I'd comment anyway, but part of me wasn't sure it was actually helpful to deepad to do so)
It's worth mentioning that I sometimes get a little annoyed by large numbers of comments saying the same thing on my posts where I'm trying to create a discussion, even if that same thing "This is great!". So I may be projecting.
I think the latter reason is far more common in situations like these, because let's face it, everyone big has been linking to everyone else by this point.
Yes. Absolutely, especially with stuff off metafandom etc.
Re: Do they WANT cookies? Can you have too many?
Date: 25 Jan 2009 05:19 am (UTC)It's worth mentioning that I sometimes get a little annoyed by large numbers of comments saying the same thing on my posts where I'm trying to create a discussion, even if that same thing "This is great!". So I may be projecting.
True. It's a lot more annoying, though, when that chorus is supporting people in the wrong than when it's on an ally's page.
I was pondering (possibly without much basis) that responses saying "I agree with you and here are my thoughts on how this relates to my life as a white person" can, in large enough numbers, distract from an attempt to have a conversation about the POC POV.
You mean the ones that go: "Great post! As a half-Irish, half-Swedish girl growing up with two moms in suburban Milwaukee during the sixties..." ? Yes, those ARE annoying when they come from white people. PoC explain their cultural heritage to show how their experiences relate or differ and mold their PoV, because an Indian born in India is coming from a place different than an Indian-American.
[For example: sometimes I self-identify because I want other PoC and/or observers to know that I'm coming from a very 'colonized' life -- that I grew up in a household where my father's culture was buried in/mixed with white culture, or that I could 'pass' in most areas of the country outside of the Deep South and the West if I chose to (I don't). There's colorism involved; I have colorist privilege, my father doesn't have nearly as much, if any. That kind of thing. I'm letting people know that I can screw up on occasion or that I hear a lot of the racist shit that white people say because they think they can say it to me without social consequence, whereas my dad is more likely to get frisked at the airport, pulled over by the police, etc.]
When a white person goes into their background, it sounds like they're either playing Oppression Olympics or trying to deny their whiteness. White people's experiences and knowledge of race and heritage are all around us, all of the time. There's no need to bring them into a discussion about PoC experiences.
In summary, white people see PoC talking race, and they start going into ethnicity or sexual orientation or class or physical abilities. Not cool, so much. I hope I'm making sense?
Re: Do they WANT cookies? Can you have too many?
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:17 am (UTC)But as I was saying, it's not necessarily that that energy should be spent on, say, leaving a cookie to support Willow or Zvi or Deepad instead of to EB - but perhaps the energy could have been spent engaging in the debate - lending words of support to POC voices in the many comment threads in various ally posts and in posts of opposing viewpoints.
These are just my thoughts, and I didn't intend the post as a prescription - just something to inspire thought. Because noticing the pattern of cookie-leaving, I think it's obvious that there are Not Unrelated Issues at work here which the allies in question would want to be aware of.
Re: Do they WANT cookies? Can you have too many?
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:27 am (UTC)Oh yes. Tactless tl;dr support of POC, while not an unqualified good, is a gazillion times better than any sort of support for racist actions against POC. (Which is lucky for me, since tactless tl;dr is my default setting :)) And in any general conversation about race discussions on lj I wouldn't bring it up since there's bigger fish to fry, but since cimness was specifically talking about cookies I thought I would.
Learning to shut up and listen to what POC are actually saying, and realising you need space to say what you need to say without having to justify/explain/market yourself to white people, has been one of the central concepts I keep having to come back to when trying to be anti-racist. "It's not about you" is one of those phrases I hear, and go "Yep, sure" and then later I go "Oh wait, it's not about me."
In summary, white people see PoC talking race, and they start going into ethnicity or sexual orientation or class or physical abilities. Not cool, so much. I hope I'm making sense?
Yes. That or we emphasise the teeny not-100%-whitebread aspects of our ethnicity, a-la someone who shall remain nameless who acted like being part Ukranian was a Huge Deal (I'm part Ukranian myself so it particularly amused me(*)) I found this post had some interesting thoughts on the subject.
(*)I feel reasonably confident that this is an acceptable time to bring up my own background but I apologise if not :)
(no subject)
Date: 24 Jan 2009 09:23 pm (UTC)and by funny you mean typical, right?
(no subject)
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:03 am (UTC)