"Racism is bad"-- Who can help me tease this out?
I'm sure far smarter people have already figured this out, come up with a name for it and everything. But something's been bugging me lately and I've been trying to put it into words.
It has a lot to do with aversive racism, and it's provable in the way that Tim Wise recently wrote about "the race card." In fact, it's a very close cousin.
I'm talking about this idea that racism is at least a verbal or... symbolic taboo. Something we were just talking about with regard to "comparing isms." There is this idea that unless you are an overt white supremacist, that you will loudly agree that "racism is bad." That idea does seem to be one with which we all-- white people included-- "agree," at least in public discourse. Only "stupid people" or people who are shunned in some way would disagree with that statement. Of course, most white people DO disagree with the idea that "racism is bad," they just don't think they do, and they'd never/rarely say it that WAY. (i.e., "Racism is good/fine/logical.")
It seems to me-- and again, I'm sure that this is not a new idea-- that the collective public "agreement" that "racism is bad/wrong/stupid/evil" is not only ineffective AND fails to indicate any progress made with racism, but actually serves to REINSCRIBE racism.
I'm trying to form an argument as to how that works. Can you help me?
What I'm thinking off the top of my head...
-It acts as a pacifier to quash debate-- but not in the way campus conservatives posit. More accurately, it is supposed to quash dissent from POC. "Hey, we all agree that RACISM IS BAD, and if we ALL AGREE, then racism can't be a major issue, because who could be perpetuating it?"
-Something about the way racism-- since we have ALL AGREED it IS BAD-- is then used (usually highly improperly) to invalidate other "isms," rather than the other way around, or rather than using another example. Do you feel me on this?
What I mean is that someone pushing animal rights, feminism, anti-homphobia, etc. invariably compares factory farming/sexism/homophobia to racism almost solely in order to make his/her point. Why? Perhaps because racism is considered in the public imagination to be "more illogical" than other oppressions. (Not necessarily more severe, but less "logical.")
But you rarely see sexism used to validate racism, and you don't as often see homophobia used to validate issues of animal cruelty, etc.
Racism is kinda the "base" oppression that we can ALL AGREE IS BAD.
To my mind, this is actually proof that white people continue to perpetuate racism THROUGH the idea that RACISM IS BAD, by once again using the suffering of POC without consideration and at our whims. To paraphrase-- other people's suffering exists so that we can prove a point.
-And of course, this all goes to the myth that EVERYONE AGREEING that RACISM IS BAD is A) proof that racism is not so bad, and B) proof that the Civil Rights Movement achieved all its aims. (Which, of course, means that we can use it as a handy example in fighting other, at least significantly different, oppressions.)
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Know of any good resources that have already made this argument? Personal experiences along these lines? What else can we put in here?
It has a lot to do with aversive racism, and it's provable in the way that Tim Wise recently wrote about "the race card." In fact, it's a very close cousin.
I'm talking about this idea that racism is at least a verbal or... symbolic taboo. Something we were just talking about with regard to "comparing isms." There is this idea that unless you are an overt white supremacist, that you will loudly agree that "racism is bad." That idea does seem to be one with which we all-- white people included-- "agree," at least in public discourse. Only "stupid people" or people who are shunned in some way would disagree with that statement. Of course, most white people DO disagree with the idea that "racism is bad," they just don't think they do, and they'd never/rarely say it that WAY. (i.e., "Racism is good/fine/logical.")
It seems to me-- and again, I'm sure that this is not a new idea-- that the collective public "agreement" that "racism is bad/wrong/stupid/evil" is not only ineffective AND fails to indicate any progress made with racism, but actually serves to REINSCRIBE racism.
I'm trying to form an argument as to how that works. Can you help me?
What I'm thinking off the top of my head...
-It acts as a pacifier to quash debate-- but not in the way campus conservatives posit. More accurately, it is supposed to quash dissent from POC. "Hey, we all agree that RACISM IS BAD, and if we ALL AGREE, then racism can't be a major issue, because who could be perpetuating it?"
-Something about the way racism-- since we have ALL AGREED it IS BAD-- is then used (usually highly improperly) to invalidate other "isms," rather than the other way around, or rather than using another example. Do you feel me on this?
What I mean is that someone pushing animal rights, feminism, anti-homphobia, etc. invariably compares factory farming/sexism/homophobia to racism almost solely in order to make his/her point. Why? Perhaps because racism is considered in the public imagination to be "more illogical" than other oppressions. (Not necessarily more severe, but less "logical.")
But you rarely see sexism used to validate racism, and you don't as often see homophobia used to validate issues of animal cruelty, etc.
Racism is kinda the "base" oppression that we can ALL AGREE IS BAD.
To my mind, this is actually proof that white people continue to perpetuate racism THROUGH the idea that RACISM IS BAD, by once again using the suffering of POC without consideration and at our whims. To paraphrase-- other people's suffering exists so that we can prove a point.
-And of course, this all goes to the myth that EVERYONE AGREEING that RACISM IS BAD is A) proof that racism is not so bad, and B) proof that the Civil Rights Movement achieved all its aims. (Which, of course, means that we can use it as a handy example in fighting other, at least significantly different, oppressions.)
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Know of any good resources that have already made this argument? Personal experiences along these lines? What else can we put in here?