![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Colorblind = LOGIC FAIL
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
karnythia who is made of ten different types of awesome, discusses the experience of encountering a very obnoxious person who derailed a panel by claiming she was completely colorblind.This person went on to make one of the most fail-ridden posts I have seen in a while. Let me give you a little sample:
I did get to say that my kids go to schools that could be the poster schools for diversity. There are no two kids of the same color sitting next to each other.
Do you see where her argument of colorblindness has failed? Do you see what she did there?
If not, let me play it slow-mo for you and point it out.
If you notice that none of the kids are the same color at each other and what color they are, you cannot be colorblind. Res ipse loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. Because if you were actually as wonderfully colorblind as you claim to be (which you are not), you wouldn't notice their color enough to make that observation or be so obnoxiously proud of it as if having proximity to people of color somehow automatically means you can't be racist.
I also feel very dubious of her claims that her kids don't notice race. She quotes other examples of people who don't notice race, but never says that they told her they don't notice it. In fact, she never cites anything but her own experiences, observations, and thoughts as her justification.
She talks about an interracial couple, saying:
It was not until they went to Williamsburg on a sight seeing trip that they realized that she was white, and he was Black.
She doesn't say that this couple told her they didn't notice, and I find it hard to credit that this woman turned to her husband in Williamsburg and went, "OMG! You're black! I never knew. Why didn't someone tell me?!?"
I'm pretty sure that her "friends" were aware of the racial situation long before then, just as she was obviously aware of it. This woman is not colorblind by any means. Do the math and you'll find that she cites or mentions a particular race 37 times. 37. She obviously sees race. She's not blind to it. She notices it.
What she is blind to can be clearly demonstrated from this tidy little package of fail (emphasis mine):
We used to have a Korean and White couple as well. No one has ever mentioned a word about this. This doesn’t mean that no one ever slights them, but no one at the pool, in the mom’s groups, etc., has ever so much as mentioned the subject in front of me...even in private.
So far as I can tell, no one cares.
Leaving aside that she says "a" couple, in a way that indicates to me that they may have been the only ones she knew, there are so many things wrong with just that one paragraph.
Notice that her reason for deciding just how much racism SOMEONE ELSE experienced came solely from HER observations as a white person. She denies racism because it hasn't happened "in front of [her]...even in private". Never mind if women of color are coming to her and saying, "We have these experiences, they happened to us". If it didn't happen in front of her, it didn't happen at all.
This post never makes allowances for the limitations of her own viewpoint.
Because she didn't see them, because they didn't happen in front of her they aren't real and they aren't part of her reality. If they aren't part of her reality, they're not part of anyone else's, so anyone who tries to talk about a reality that she doesn't believe in is out of line. Anyone who tries to insist that things she hasn't observed are real and that she needs to start observing them rather than claim they don't exist is a big race-baiting meany-head.
I'm still shaking my head. I mean, seriously? Three-year-olds can figure this crap out. Just because you don't observe something doesn't mean it isn't there. Covering your eyes doesn't make something disappear, it just makes you unable to observe it. It's still there.
But that's not the worst part.
We've established that she sees race, 37 mentions of it later. We've established that she doesn't see racism unless it happens right in front of her.
And the reason she can do all this? Because she's white and she has privilege of creating a life for herself where she is not forced, against her wishes, to see it, experience it, live it. Because she is white, she is given privileges by society that allow her to shield herself from any unpleasantness.
A person of color may well want to choose not to see racism, either. They don't get that option, because they do not have privilege. Because it gets in their face every single day. It follows them home. It's on the TV, in magazines, in books, in the people around them. It's in the past, the present, and sadly, the future. It's in the textbooks and in the way companies choose to advertise and in the way they're treated by law enforcement.
I don't know what it is like to be a person of color, and I wouldn't presume to say I am some expert in racism or race relations. I'm not. I'm a semi-Clueless White Person who is slowly trying to get a clue as best she can.
What I can say is that I know as a queer, fat woman what it is like to have an issue that follows you home, an issue others don't have to think about even when their actions make your life harder than it has to be. And I know what it's like when those people try to claim they don't see it, when they try to claim that gender doesn't matter or weight doesn't matter or sexuality doesn't matter when you know damn well that it matters every single day of your life.
no subject
no subject
There are some terms and phrases which are commonly used short hand, especially among those who discuss racism frequently. I think this post here (http://hth-the-first.livejournal.com/53171.html) may also help.
I don't know if you read the links I mentioned in the post or not, because that may help to answer a lot of questions that you have.
The problem is not about someone claiming that "I see a black person and automatically think they're lazy" - it's about someone saying, "I don't even notice that they're black!", which is a blatant lie and a function of white privilege. She notices people's races, she just tries to pretend that everything is just fine.
Saying that you acknowledge someone's race and do not automatically apply stereotypes because of that has nothing to do with colorblindness. Colorblindness is about pretending you don't have reactions, conscious and unconscious, to the races of others around you and that you don't have certain hurtful behaviors due to that. It's about pretending that you don't "notice" that someone is not white. Which is a lie.
It's always been my understanding that the phrase means something more like "doesn't see the colors with the usual negative connotations attached."
I'm not sure where you picked up that definition from. Colorblindness, AFAIK, has always been used to connotate that someone doesn't even realize that people are of other colors, that to them Black = White = Latino = Asian = Native Americans, etc, that everyone is the same.
Your definition, for the purposes of this post, what either
This is, of course, ludicrous. Because as I stated above, she obviously notices race enough to know the people around her are different and to point them out and to at least nominally acknowledge some kind of prejudice.
no subject
Whenever there's an ongoing conversation, there has to be consensus about what the terms being used means. That consensus usually does not come from an official source with a rubber stamp, but, just as usually, it may as well have. That's what I mean by sanctioned.
The problem is not about someone claiming that "I see a black person and automatically think they're lazy" - it's about someone saying, "I don't even notice that they're black!", which is a blatant lie and a function of white privilege.
Granted.
I am, however, wondering if there are more people than me who have interpreted the term "color blindness" in a different way. From other things I read over the years where people use the term, it often seems like what they're getting at isn't "I don't see that she is black" but "I don't see black as inherently bad."
The claim that one actually doesn't see things like skin color (provided one is not actually blind) would make me question the speaker's intelligence more than anything else. Though, work in the field of race boundaries have shown that skin color is one of the least important attributes in determining a person's race, and all the used attributes are culturally chosen, so they may or may not be shared across cultural boundaries. So any two people may or may not even be able to agree on what identifies a third person as white/non-white.
Saying that you acknowledge someone's race and do not automatically apply stereotypes because of that has nothing to do with colorblindness.
It's good to know where you're coming from and how you're using your terms.
I'm not sure where you picked up that definition from.
The same place from which all language is learned: interpretation of context.
Colorblindness, AFAIK, has always been used to connotate that someone doesn't even realize that people are of other colors, that to them Black = White = Latino = Asian = Native Americans, etc, that everyone is the same.
Interesting. The only times I ever noticed people read the term that way is when they're critiquing people for claiming to be color blind. I'll have to go dig around and pay more attention to how the phrase is being used.
The discussion at hand involves a white woman claiming that she does not "see" or "notice" race, that she is oblivious to it and that therefore her actions, thoughts, and words are never dictated by race.
My definition was entirely tangential to the discussion at hand. As I said, my question was for my edification only. It was not meant in any way to be applied to what the woman you quoted said.
All I'm really trying to do is understand where you're coming from so that I can read your posts the way I think you want them read. Since I'm on the periphery of a conversation in which you're immersed, I need to occasionally wade in check your assumptions.
no subject
1. Whenever there's an ongoing conversation, there has to be consensus about what the terms being used means.
This is not just an "ongoing conversation". This isn't some new internet meme. This isn't just us squabbling on the internet, inventing cool new words. This has - and always has had - real consequences. This is not theoretical or academic.
I think this post (http://guerrillamamamedicine.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/we-dont-need-another-anti-racism-101/) may help. Pay attention to what she says about the place of rhetoric and theory in white culture. You can get all the vocabulary right and still be doing things that hurt people of color. It is not about saying the right things. It is about doing the right things.
2. All I'm really trying to do is understand where you're coming from so that I can read your posts the way I think you want them read. Since I'm on the periphery of a conversation in which you're immersed, I need to occasionally wade in check your assumptions.
Therein lies your mistake. This is not understanding me. It's not about me at all. This is about people of color being oppressed. This is about kids kicked out of swimming pools for "changing the complexion", and college professors harassed by cops in their own home and millions of other racism-laden interactions people of color endure DAILY.
This is about people who are being oppressed. Period. End of sentence. Understanding and decoding my words won't make a lick of difference. Whether or not you know the right words - it won't change what's happening down your street. It won't change the unfairness in who gets college eductions and jobs. It won't change which people fear the police at a traffic stop and which ones have nothing to fear because they're white.
It won't change that a book about a black protagonist had a white model on the cover because black faces "don't sell" (http://justinelarbalestier.com/blog/2009/07/23/aint-that-a-shame/), thus affirming the old message that black faces are inferior to white ones and teaching it once again to children of color who walk into bookstores and libraries to find covers of people like THEM are not there or off into some other area because they can't hang with the superior white people books.
It won't change that a movie based on a popular ALL ASIAN cartoon was cast with white actors and only one actor of color (http://aang-aint-white.livejournal.com/). You think Asian kids who loved that show represented see that Hollywood thinks they're not worthy to be lead roles and the only PoC is the BAD GUY?
Coming in with an academic interest in the words is insulting, whether or not you intend that. This is not about teaching you at your convenience.
When you comment on these discussions, you are commenting on other people's pain and oppression. You are talking to, with, and about the people from whom OUR privileges come. We have lived many facets of OUr lives at THEIR expense and have not been forced to notice. We come to it at our leisure. We notice racism when we want to. People of color have it shoved in their face every day.
When you "wade in to check assumptions" you're derailing something meant to translate into positive action, taking focus away from racism and the people it hurts most. You're making about your understanding, your feelings, your point of view and you.
Casual academic interest is not appropriate here, because this is not casual or academic. It is serious, it is real. Please respect that.
If you need further reading material, it is beyond plentiful:
- Links for Clueless White People (http://delicious.com/starkeymonster/forcluelesswhitepeople)
- Racism 101 Primer (http://mystickeeper.livejournal.com/303397.html)
- Even more links! (http://sophy.livejournal.com/1163325.html)
-
Start from there and just keep following links. I promise, the well will not run dry.
no subject
Casual academic interest is not appropriate here, because this is not casual or academic. It is serious, it is real. Please respect that.
For someone who claims to be about not hurting people and about trying to end the hurts that are embedded in society, you're pretty free with throwing the hurt and accusations out there. My interest is academic, yes, because I'M AN ACADEMIC. I deal with language. I deal with words. That's my job. And every year I spend hundreds of hours with roughly 250 white, rural, Christian, males--many of whom see no difficulty at all with casual use of the word colored to describe someone. I need to be able to go into my interactions with them and explain HOW LANGUAGE HURTS. Not just that is does, but why it does. In order to do this, it means I need to understand how you're using the terms and what they mean, because you're a living example of someone who is invested in the argument.
Your accusations that my interest in the "ongoing conversation" diminishes what is happening/has happened is horribly, horribly ignorant, and I'm frankly appalled that you're still claiming an earned English degree. The words we use influence how we think; how we think is reflected in the language we use. It is well documented that if you want to change how someone thinks, and therefore how they act, one place to start is by changing how they talk. This makes rhetoric and theory essential elements in any fight. There is no such thing as a topic being "merely" academic.
Perhaps you need to check your own biases and prejudices, as you seem to be more interested in showing how offended you can be than in actually helping people make the world better.
no subject
If you were THAT interested in knowing the definition of these terms you'd be reading the THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of things written by PoC explaining in their own words why these things hurt. You have a wealth of information available.
You're basically picking a student who looks like they did the reading and you're asking for the notes because it's easier than doing your own work. Just like a jock in an English class who doesn't consider literature that important, just an annoying requirement for them to be able to do what they really want. It's not important enough for you to go read on your own or do the work independently. Instead, you ask for someone's notes.
I could patiently sit down and very politely tell you everything and point you to links and give you citations and write you a thesis complete with footnotes in MLA style. But you still won't get it.
It's easy to pass a test without ever absorbing the material. We both know that. I've written essays on books I didn't even read. Ask me about them now? I couldn't tell you the first time. Even though I regurgitated the words, I didn't digest them. They meant nothing to me. They weren't important to me.
How would you feel if one of your students who never came to lectures, never did the reading came to you and started asking for definitions of things you had gone over FIFTY BAJILLION TIMES in class?
Because that's what's going on here. These words, these terms, these arguments have all been hashed and re-hashed so many times. There are so many resources available. Just google "racism 101" for heavens sake!
Yet you don't even bother doing that much before stopping a discussions of colorblindness to ask the definition of colorblindness. That's like stopping a discussion of particle physics to ask "what's a quark?".
Ergo, the topic must not be worth that much time or effort to you. Ergo, this topic is not that important to you. Ergo, it does not hold that much of your respect.
If you don't want to get into this topic, fine. I'm not keeping a list here, going "well, that person didn't comment and say something nice and anti-racist, guess they're a bigot". Nobody is keeping a list of that.
This has nothing to do with me being a Bad English Major^TM (a title I gladly accept, BTW).
As for acting offended? Yeah, I'm offended on behalf of those who were hurt by the actions of the woman who derailed the WorldCon panel, but I don't care about or even want pats on the back. Never did. I don't care if I get noticed or heard or paid attention to. I never have. I certainly am doing this as a show, and oddly enough? As much as I like/respect you as a person, I don't give a shit what you think my motives are.
What I care about is solving this problem, starting with making sure I'm not adding to it. And that's a big, long, hairy process that I have to undertake, on my own. I cannot ask for help in it, I cannot burden others with my ignorance. I must seek my own materials, I must do my own processing. I must digest, not regurgitate.
You want to explain to your students why using the term "colored" is wrong - start with the fact that you're asking another white person for the definition of "colorblind" instead of reading up on what people of color are telling you it means.
That's like asking a first year med student about brain surgery. I am not an expert, I am not the voice of anti-racism.
Privilege enables your students to use those words, and more importantly, to face no consequences. The bigger problem is that society allows it, not that they're using the wrong word.
The guy who kicked the kids out of the pool used nice words. He called them "African-American" and still assumed they were dangerous. His rhetoric was great, his actions were deeply hurtful.
Language is symptomatic. It is not the end in and of itself, but a gateway to meaning, action, and reality. It is reflective. It is the mirror, not the object. Changing the mirror does not change the object. Saying nicer words is merely skewing the mirror. The object - the racism - persists.
no subject
I am not, and have not been, unwilling to do the research myself.
The reason I have come to your blog and you questions about what you're saying is because you're the one speaking. You're a living, breathing, representative of a person who is immersed in a particular conversation from a particular viewpoint, and what I have been interested in is how you in particular are using the language. I've not always been certain that you are using the terms correctly, which is why I've been asking you about what you mean. This is not information that I can get from someone else. The information that I can get from someone else, I do.
Given the fact that language changes, reading "what's out there" isn't going to help me understand what you understand. Look at the debates about what the word "slash" means.
Just google "racism 101" for heavens sake!
You say this like I haven't.
That's like asking a first year med student about brain surgery. I am not an expert, I am not the voice of anti-racism.
Nor am I treating you like one. I've been treating you like exactly two things: a) a person who has some sense of the workings of your own mind, and b) a person whom I consider a friend, and therefore felt more comfortable approaching with awkward questions.
This may strike you as unfathomable, but the fact that you're white, the fact that you were raised in Tennessee, and the fact that now live in New York are things of interest to me in figuring out what you're talking about. You often base what you're saying on assumptions about a world that doesn't sound familiar to me. When I want to know PoCs' perspectives on a world that does sound familiar to me, I ask them.
I cannot ask for help in it, I cannot burden others with my ignorance. I must seek my own materials, I must do my own processing. I must digest, not regurgitate.
Asking for help is not the same as regurgitating. Perhaps you should consider asking for more help to make sure that you're digesting properly.
You want to explain to your students why using the term "colored" is wrong - start with the fact that you're asking another white person for the definition of "colorblind" instead of reading up on what people of color are telling you it means.
Try again. I wasn't asking a white person for the definition of colorblind. I was inquiring of a white person how the definition was being used by that white person.
Some of my students are going to be going out into the world and reading blogs like yours--if not yours--and they're not going to know how to make sense of it. Asking them to catch up on hundreds of years of reading before they can parse your arguments is self-defeating.
Privilege enables your students to use those words, and more importantly, to face no consequences.
Yes. In more practical terms, the fact that they live in a town of 500 people, all of whom are white relatives is why they can use those words and face no consequences. More than a few of these kids have never actually seen a PoC in real life.
Language is symptomatic. It is not the end in and of itself, but a gateway to meaning, action, and reality. It is reflective. It is the mirror, not the object. Changing the mirror does not change the object.
Now it's you who needs to do some research. Changing the mirror absolutely does change the object. If it didn't, we wouldn't be so interested in changing the mirror. Language can, and often is, the object in itself, especially for people who teach language and who are trying to teach people how to be aware of the language that is being used around them.
BTW, this is not an exclusive function of white culture, as your more recent post asserts. Using language to affect magic is a feature of every single world culture. If you don't believe me, do some research on African death curses.
no subject
For my own edification, is there a sanctioned definition somewhere that says the phrase "color blind" (as used in this kind of context) actually means "can't see/distinguish between colors".
You did not ask me "what do you specifically, Meg, mean by colorblind?"
You asked me "is there a SANCTIONED DEFINTION SOMEWHERE". You were asking about information on other people, other things, other conversations.
You showed me no evidence you looked at any of the broader context for yourself. You didn't say, "I went to this webpage and saw this" or "I went to that blog and they said this...". In fact, the only source you cited was "[your] understanding".
You asked it's place in the context of ANTI-RACISM DISCUSSIONS. And that, yes, is asking for my notes rather than reading - or showing that you had read - those discussions for yourself.
Changing the mirror absolutely does change the object.
As a physical reality, no. Making someone who is 300lbs look skinny in a funhouse mirror will not make them fit into a size 4. Neither will teaching anti-racist rhetoric make someone anti-racist. Until their attitudes and environments are shifted, it will only make them better at camouflaging their racism.
If you don't believe me, do some research on African death curses.
"African death curses". Seriously?
You just summarized many thousands of different beliefs about death, magic, spirituality, and the afterlife of the entire population of AN ENTIRE CONTINENT in one neat little sentence?
Because people who come from Africa obviously believe the same exact things. *nods*. Someone who is Maasai obviously believes the same as someone who is Zulu or someone who is Ashanti. Of course. You can summarize what they believe in just saying "African". [/sarcasm].
You, summarized all the many religions, belief systems, tribes, groups, peoples, races, and organizations on the world's second largest and second most populous continent with one word: "African".
As a linguist? You ought to really be ashamed of that statement. Because you damn well know how diverse language is even among the people who live within the same political borders. You wouldn't say "European language", because you both known and respect that language in Germany does not function like language in France or language in Russia.
Yet to you, "African" is a sufficient descriptor.
Because you are a white American, and have had your head filled by media that only shows starving, half-naked people in tribes when they talk about Africa. Because you carry around an attitude that all Africans are the same.
No matter what word you had used there, the action would have been the same. Because your word reflected your attitude. You could have said "tribal" or (insert other polite word), but so long as you hold any belief, conscious or subconscious, that one word is sufficient, you will have done something racist.
Even if your intent was to summarize the many individual tribes who may believe in death curses, using one word "African" to shove them all into a neat linguistic box is still indicative of the attitudes and prejudices you hold as a result of your culture.
White Americans tend to want neat boxes. For us, we say "African" and "Native American" and "Asian" as if they were homogenous. As if one group who qualifies geographically is interchangeable with another.
You probably didn't mean to express that, but you did mean it on some level. And your language reflected that.
no subject
It's always been my understanding that the phrase means something more like "doesn't see the colors with the usual negative connotations attached."
That's the nice, white interpretation of the phrase; I have not come across it to mean one truly cannot see different races or cultures (though willful misunderstanding or ignorance on the other hand...). What that phrase really means is that whiteness becomes the default: "See, this is the thing: These are the behaviors I have experienced from people, from a world, that is color-blind. I will always be a person of color. Being color-blind means people will never see me: they'll only see the places where their culture overlaps with mine." (http://helsmeta.livejournal.com/208601.html) The whiter you are (and if you never, ever bring up race/racism) the more (white) people are able to be "colour blind": you're really a white person with a tan!
So, for hypothetical example, a person who is color blind would see a black person and ably recognize that the person has darker skin, but won't see him/her and also automatically see a person who is lazy and stupid as someone who is not color blind would see.
Otoh, someone who isn't colour blind might see him as an actual person, complete with faults.
About the only time I've seen that phrase work the way it's maybe supposed to is with the casting of Grey's Anatomy (though the lead couple are still white). But I also think they were perhaps being more colour aware than colour blind.
no subject
Though I appreciate the attempt at the correction, I think you're still not understanding what I was getting at when I said how I interpreted the phrase color blindness. It has nothing to do with not seeing differences in race and culture. What I always understood the phrase to mean is that it meant not starting from a position of negativity. In my understanding (which, I'll grant you, is very likely mine alone), it basically means that people's races and cultures can be openly and positively acknowledged. You're not a white person with a tan; you're a black person who exists as a person and not as a representation of a stereotype.
Otoh, someone who isn't colour blind might see him as an actual person, complete with faults.
Well, yes. That is the ideal goal of all human interaction. But, generally speaking, people's first impressions are categorical ones, not individual ones. It's unlikely that I'm going to look at any person for the first few times (assuming there's no prolonged contact) and be able to see them complete with all their faults. Hell, I'm only barely beginning to recognize the faults in the person I've been married to for almost a decade.
no subject
Sometimes people do say that by "color blind," they mean that they see race, but don't [believe that they themselves] attach negative prejudice. However, the term itself is using "blindness" as a metaphor (another problematic thing, as far as ableism go), and so the meaning often goes to "I don't see race." Or "I don't think of you as [insert race]."
The term is also kind of a dogwhistle -- some people hear it and think of one thing, and some people hear it and think of another thing. (See also: "state's rights" as a racist dogwhistle.) Where the term is actually used, a lot of time it's within this nexus of privileged liberal aversive racism.
This article may be helpful. (http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/racism10.htm) My apologies if you've seen it before. It is my favorite article ever.
no subject
Also? I never considered the ablism inherent in using "colorblindness" as a metaphor for all this. You're right though, it is deeply problematic.
no subject
no subject
To white people, who are using their standards as the default (and deviations from that = negative). That's what happens when people don't "see" race.
There's this white author whose books I love a lot (and one series with an Aleut main character), but who has blogged once or twice about growing up with POC kids and not realizing she was white until she went off to college. I keep wanting to ask her what colour she thought she was, then, and why, on occasion, she defaults to white in her books when describing white characters -- by not describing them as white, while POC characters are described matter-of-factly to be non-white. I can't really imagine a POC not knowing what colour they were, especially growing up in the US or Canada.
You're not a white person with a tan; you're a black person who exists as a person and not as a representation of a stereotype.
I think if you can acknowledge that, then you are not being "colour blind".
no subject
You're kinda awesome, you know that right?
no subject