I was informed last night that I am sexist.
Well, not really. The person who did it even said outright "I do not think you are prejudiced." But it was obviously true from the conversation that I was using sexist language. Isn't that the same thing?
The thread (if it can be called that; yet another reply chain dangling off the tip jar - I hope we will very soon return to the day when that was rightly frowned upon, and I don't care if anyone understands the reason why it should be) is here and clearly shows the issue, I think.
This diary is about much more than my incipient misogyny. But it seemed appropriate to start out this way, as a clear and honest mea culpa in terms of using the kind of language which deben so well described as an "insipid relic in our expression". This diary is about racism, and racist language, and the difficulty of dealing with them on Daily Kos. It was inspired not by what happened to me last night, but by what happened to briefer on Wednesday night...
(Let me note here that briefer, the Kossack who inadvertently (but not accidentally) started all of this, appears to have been busy the past couple of days dealing with severe weather in his local area, so I don't want to make it seem like he has been purposefully remiss in dealing with it. But I have no intention of letting this issue lay low any longer, only to be accused myself of "dredging it back up" because I didn't make my stand early enough.)
The set up is relatively simple. A Brit Kossack, Brit, dove into the Obamaphobia pie fight feet first with "He Went There! Obama Attacks the 1%". Being complimentary of the President, the diary immediately attracted a typical gaggle of Kossacks stepping up to bash our party's leader. It is honestly tough to say how much of the bashing is inspired by white privilege, and how much of the push-back against it is caused by trying to shield the President from criticism in a conscious attempt to combat white privilege. It isn't my intention to hash all that out right now.
Things started well enough. JekylInHyde, who is something of an institution here on DK for his compilation and sharing of editorial cartoons, posted one showing Paul Ryan "explaining" his Plan for Prosperity budget proposal. In one panel, to show his embrace of the top 1%, or more accurately to show their embrace of him, he is depicted in the cradling arms of a suited, over-fed, balding white man labeled "The Rich".
In an attempt to show agreement with the sentiment of the cartoon, Kossack briefer, who started the Amateur Radio Group here on DK4, posted a comment attempting to illustrate with words the perceived power relationship between Ryan and The Rich. He did so in an unfortunately all-too-communicative manner, because it revealed that, just as I am sexist (or, rather, that I've been known to use sexist language without even really recognizing it), Briefer is racist.
Briefer isn't alone, of course. You are racist. You are all racist. We are all racists, because we live in a racist society. America is racist, and all Americans are racists. The difference between liberals and conservatives in this regard is not whether they are racist, but whether they want to be racist. And it doesn't even need to be questioned that briefer doesn't want to be racist. Yet he was.
Because in order to most clearly, effectively, and compactly describe the power relationship between Ryan (a white man) and The Rich (a caricature representing the largely-white "oligarchs" of the top 1%), his brain came up with the simplest language it could to communicate this. Which was, unfortunately, the vernacular of an obsequiously supplicating slave, speaking to his plantation owner master. Complete with proto-eubonic usage like "Massah" and reference to getting to live in "the big house", it was all too shocking in its effectiveness.
When I first happened across it, like a lot of Kossacks (but not all; that's where things get complicated, if you don't think they are already) and realized what I was reading, it literally felt to me like someone had first slapped me in the face, and then delivered a punch to the gut. And I'm white, so I knew immediately that any African American Kossacks were going to be absolutely livid. Within minutes, of course, TUs had started slapping HRs on briefer's comment. He had moved on to another diary, not even realizing what he had done. Literally; it hadn't occurred to him when he so effectively wrote that short message (half a line, plus the subject) that there would be any reason for anyone here to be upset by it. And I understand exactly why, because the same thing happened to me, but with sexism.
"Pearl clutching" is, as I described in one of the comments I referenced earlier, a time-honored metaphor on Daily Kos, and other lefty blogs, to mean something relatively specific. An overly-dramatic seemingly false outrage used to deflect considerations of pragmatism or acceptance of any degree of imperfections, it has never (to my knowledge) been meant to be gender-specific. Men can "clutch their pearls", metaphorically, just as easily as women can. But that doesn't change the fact that it is based on a gender-specific image, implying a gender-specific insult. Obviously the parallels are not perfect, but they are obvious. We all tend to use "insipid relics" in our expressions which refer to insulting stereotypes, and as far as briefer was concerned, that is really all he did.
The problem wasn't really briefer's supposedly inadvertent use of insulting racial stereotypes to easily communicate his meaning. The comment would have been hidden very quickly, except for one very important and very revealing portion of the chain of events. Because he wasn't alone in being unaware of why his language was so instantly-communicative (or that this fact alone would incense not just African American Kossacks, but any Kossack who is more "racially aware" than what seems to be the average, which is 'all too unaware', even 'in denial'.
This isn't a new problem. It has come to the foreground recently because of the Obamaphobia, but it has been here all along. It is the whole reason there was a Black Kossack sister-site created (now in the process, I hope and believe, of moving over into a DK4 Black Kossak Group) and a point of contention for countless succeeding waves of African American Democrats, liberals who come aboard DK expecting to be taken seriously, only to have just about every mention of racial issues discounted, deflected, and derailed by supposedly well-intentioned white users who view them as "attacking" and "carping" and, quite literally, attempting to use accusations of race to gain a power advantage in personal interactions. Most black Kossacks eventually give up. They keep to Black Kos (the 'voluntary segregation' which this illustrates alone should send a shudder down every Democrat's spine, presuming any of us have such a thing) or they just go away entirely, or they simply learn to keep quite on the issue of race. Regardless of how they react, the result is still the same: effective maintenance of white privilege on this site by an entirely complicit but largely unaware community of users.
The problem of briefer's unconscious racism (slightly exacerbated by the new DK4 moderation policy, but it could have happened anyway) blew up into an event because he isn't alone. Twelve other Kossacks (including JekylInHyde himself) also didn't recognize or become offended by either the use of "slave lingo" to illustrate the power relationship depicted in the cartoon, or the incongruity of its use. In fact they thought it was nothing more than an amusing insult to Ryan. Like briefer when he wrote it, it never occurred to them that it was inherently, obviously, blatantly, and entirely racist, without even the redeeming value of being in any way accurate. There are a number of non-racial cultural references which might suffice, from the Oliverian "Please, sir, can I have some more?" to the more directly middle-American (if not necessarily any more obviously caucasian) "Yes sir, anything you say sir, perhaps I could borrow the Bentley?" I'm not saying any alternative would have been as effective in communicating his meaning. I am saying that doesn't matter: the words he chose to use are unacceptable because they communicate that meaning so effectively (the black speaker being inferior to the "Massah"), not in spite of that fact. There is simply no way to disconnect that meaning from the historical context of institutionalized racism through slavery.
But briefer's writing was effective, and a dozen people actually recommended the comment. This was not only viewed as more slaps in the face to the 'sensitive' among us, but prevented the comment from being quickly hidden. At this point, several things seem to have happened at essentially the same time.
I posted a message in the thread explaining that I believed the people who rec'd the comment simply didn't even realize why it was so effective at communicating the intended power relationship in so few words, to the point they barely (if at all) noticed that is was an aggressively racist (and therefore aggressively insulting to African Americans) stereotype. The only people who would be insulted by it, in their minds, I suppose, would be Ryan, and slaves from the Nineteenth Century.
Certainly any modern African American wouldn't identify so closely with such abject supplication that they would take personal offense at simply seeing someone use the historical fact of slavery to insult a Republican, I imagine their defense as being. And, that is some primo uncut racism, I have to be honest. But that isn't to say that those dozen people who, unaware of their racism, found the comment humorous enough to recommend are white supremacist hate-mongers. And that is one of the biggest problems with this whole issue; defensive white people (more often than not guilty of white privilege, which simply means they notice any fault in a black person, and ignore almost every fault in a white person, as necessary to justify their inherent bias, and this happens unconsciously, whether you want it to or not) see any reference, no matter how tepid, to their inherent American racism, as an accusation of white supremacist hate, rather than the simple recognition that we live in a racist society and so we all tend to pick up subtle (and yes not-so-subtle) habits of re-enforcing that racism. Particularly when we become members in a group.
So what actually happened is that several Kossacks set off across the virtual landscape to find ("hunt down") briefer and the other twelve "racists", and informed them of how reprehensible their actions were. Of course, they all confirmed they lacked any awareness of how reprehensible their actions were, and this again comes back to how white privilege is protected in our society (and on our website.) It is firmly ingrained in all of us that we cannot be responsible for what we do not control. If briefer did not post the comment with the intention to insult black people but merely to insult Ryan, a simple apology and statements of intent not to do it again should suffice, in his mind and the mind of just about every other white person he discussed it with. If those who recommended his comment didn't realize a slave (which in America means black) caricature would insult anyone, but thought it was merely humor, then their intention wasn't to be racist and therefore they are not racist. But me, I'm an asshole contrarian, so I couldn't let it sit there. "Not good enough!" I cried at the poor racist bastard. "Contrition and atonement!" I demanded, with a lengthy comment meant to point out that it is not his personal liability, but the effect of his oversight on the community, which is at issue. And so began my quest to gain absolution for briefer.
Think of it this way: if he admits he didn't consciously intend to insult black people by using such a supremely obvious racial stereotype, what use to those offended are his claims that he won't do it again? His "accusers" (there were none; they were informing him, not accusing him, of his racism) did not (that I know of; more on this soon) claim he had intended to insult them, only that he had. And so, as I've explained, verbal apologies and claims of contrition are vapidly useless in dealing with the problem. Which wasn't that he insulted them on purpose, but that he insulted them at all. To those with white privilege, of course, it was them "taking" insult which sowed the racial discord, because when he'd "given" it, it was "by accident" or "inadvertently". But of course it wasn't. It was just unconsciously.
And here we see how voluntary segregation (unlike community moderation) is self-policing. Here in our relatively white, safe, comfortable community, it is all too easy to "forget" that using an African American slave to casually indicate a supplicant's role in a power relationship is outrageously and purposefully and directly insulting, not just to black people (and whether the insult is worse or less for those who aren't descendants of slaves is a different, complicating discussion) but to those of us who truly expect that Democrats, and liberals in general, to rigorously, even ruthlessly, stamp out racism in even the most subtle form, wherever it is seen, but most especially within our midst. When someone is hateful (or more accurately their comments are) without intending to be, it is far worse than the simple case of when they do intend to be.
So by the time I caught up with briefer to try to explain why he and the dozen Kossacks who rec'd his comment were part of a controversy, more emotional reactions had already happened. One user wrote a diary, not coincidentally (I think) naming it in a reflection of slinkerwink's recent Obamaphobe-defending diary, "Shame, shame, shame" (itself an example of the white privilege defense network in action). In that second diary using that title, the diarist apparently "took briefer to task", I presume by literally trying to shame him (and all those who rec'd the comment) as a racist, as if all of this had happened with willful intent. This attracted briefer's attention as well as some of the reccing Kossacks. This had two effects, for the purposes of this narrative, but it also had another unfortunate result, which again illlustrates the workings of the "white privilege defense" mechanism. He deleted the diary.
Now the truth is, of course, he should have never written it. The 'angry confrontation' approach is self-defeating, in these circumstances, and it was a guarantee that, if he did say that briefer or the dozen other Kossacks "were racists", insinuating or just claiming outright that they had purposefully engaged in this racist behavior, he would have had to go through his own round of semi-contrite apologies that only exacerbate the insult, at least in the minds of the insulted. But worse, it appeared to be an attempt to hide the incident, to insulate those at fault for the racism from "embarrassment", as if that should be any part of our priorities in this matter. And it made tracking what actually happened in the aftermath of this controversy all that much harder. I doubt he meant any of that intentionally, just as I doubt any of those recommending briefer's racist comment meant it intentionally, just as I was sure from the start that briefer himself would not realize that he had been intentionally racist. (It should be mentioned, just to emphasize the issue, not to lay blame or provoke anger, that briefer is actually a serial offender in this regard, as he has on at least one other recent occasion used a "they're like slaves interacting with their masters" analogy. At that time, also, he insisted it was an appropriate analogy, not realizing that unless you are intentionally trying to incite racial tension in everyone around you, it is never an appropriate analogy.)
The first result of these attempts to inform the 'perpetrators' of the problem they caused was to set off the "You're calling me a racist!" bear-trap. This is a familiar rhetorical exchange that anyone who has suggested white privilege might play a role in some people's assessment of the President's performance is so familiar with. (Obamabots, they call us, to insinuate we aren't doing any thinking when we notice the damned fine job Mr. Obama is doing.) This is the same trap that waits in hiding for any African American who tries to confront racism on Daily Kos, whether subtle or blatant, until they manage to gnaw their arm off and give up. "See, they gnawed their arm off; so they never really had a point and we can safely ignore the insinuation as well as the accusation that we are at all racists. We're liberals, how could we be racist?"
The answer, as I've said, is that we are Americans. And America is a racist society. It has been since its founding, though there will (will!) come a day when that is no longer true. As long as even voluntary segregation happens, though, you can be sure it is still true, as that is all the evidence you need to prove it, however circular that logic might seem. It is the very self-reinforcing nature of this racism that has kept it around for so long, even after emancipation, even after Civil Rights.
So the first thing that happened was that by the time I started discussing this small crisis with anyone outside the thread where it occurred (because I seem to be the first to realize it might all have been "inadvertent" to begin with), the defensive mechanisms of white privilege had already gelled into place. A seemingly endless series of apologies-without-merit and statements of intent to "watch what I say" came from briefer, but no signs of recognition that the problem wasn't alleviated by the unintentional nature of his mistake, but compounded by it.
The second thing that happened was that two of the Kossacks reccing the comment returned to the scene to remove their recs, and the comment finally got hidden. Unfortunately, in a way this didn't help all that much, because the other ten could no longer see the comment to remove their own rec, unless they were a TU. I haven't followed up to see if this is the case or if these individuals simply haven't heard yet about the controversy, or even possibly don't care and wish to defend the comment as humorous regardless of its racist (not simply racial) foundation. I don't think anyone should bother, but that is not my issue.
One of the Kossacks who swiftly returned as soon as they learned what was going on was JekylInHide himself. He removed his recommendation, saying he hadn't realized when he first read it "that it could be construed as being rather offensive". Unfortunately, this was effectively an announcement that he was part of the "white privilege defense mechanism" on DK. Because the comment could not possibly be "construed" any other way. The problem with the comment was not that it "could be construed" as being offensive, it is that it was offensive. This wasn't noticed by these (white) Kossacks because the intent had obviously been to just insult Ryan, rather than every racially-sensitive person who saw the comment. It isn't the intent that briefer had in his heart that makes it offensive, it is the mere existence of this shorthand method of identifying and ridiculing the power relationship between these two characters which is offensive. (The fact that Ryan and The Rich in the cartoon were both white doesn't seem to be important, but I still think it is relevant.) And it should be immediately recognized as offensive (and purposefully so) by every American, let alone every liberal. Not because we seek to be politically correct, but because we seek to be correct. It is supposed to be what makes us liberals!
The other Kossack who returned and managed to remove her rec before the comment got hidden (currently sporting a pleasantly large 130 HRs) was Onomastic. And here is a Kossack who deserves to be celebrated, because she managed to do something I have otherwise never once seen any Kossack accomplish in the several years I have been watching "racial relations" on DK. True contrition for her racism. Not because she intended it, but because she did it. Not because someone else was offended, but because she offended them. Without any indication of passive voice or deflection or "now you're just ganging up on me" quibbling, she owned up to what she had done, how unthinking and callous she was for having done it, and took affirmative steps to make it right. That is contrition, that is the beginning of atonement, and that is what has been lacking in far far too many Kossacks through the years. Everyone here, from Kos on down, owes her a debt of gratitude for showing that it is possible, after all, to both recognize and overcome our shared, inherent, American racism. Intending to do so isn't enough, acceptance of our very real inability to do so entirely (because we are all human) isn't sufficient, and most especially conviction that we've already done so is simply outrageous.
I also want to personally thank Princess (princss6), for not giving up. Yes, she tends towards a gleeful willingness to trigger the bear-trap and then ridicule and insult those who (unknowingly) become part of the white privilege defense network. For that she has earned a reputation as, well, not that this is the term they use, but, "uppity". "Intent on taking offense". She makes no bones about it and I don't see why she should. But then again, I'm not part of that network. Nobody here should be. But a lot of you are, and it has now become of renewed importance that you stop it. If someone (anyone) points out that you are being racially insensitive, racist, or just "white", you should be unsettled and upset. Just as I was when I realized that I had been using sexist language all along, without even thinking about it. Resolving to do better isn't enough though, if that intent is couched in any way with mitigating rhetoric or obfuscations or help from other Kossacks to defuse or derail the conversation. In fact that is the problem itself, not the racism but the refusal to take responsibility for it, the acceptance of the denial of white privilege.
I'm hoping the comment section of this diary can serve as a "truth and reconciliation" mechanism. Those of you I've directly addressed in comments on other diaries, please speak freely. If this all feels like an unfair accusation to you, then that is a valid perception (regardless of whether it is justified) and it, too, must be part of this conversation. Eric Holder (whom I know many here hold in 'contempt' for doing what no previous AG has done, either) once called us a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race. Let's try to prove that wrong, not with denials, but with a renewed effort at self-awareness.
We are all racists; to have that on display sometimes is inevitable. But we shouldn't be bigots, and shouldn't resent the people who point out when we are displaying racism simply because we didn't intend to. Intentions aren't the point.
Here are some links to several of the longer comments I made to briefer and some others who were helping in the "defense network" in the deleted diary, to provide some more background, explanation, and context for this one. Please be sure to check the parent comments and elsewhere in those threads for the full context.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
(I apologize to slinkerwink and Badabing for catching them in the crossfire, though I think it is worth pointing out that I believe they are both basing their opinions of the President, to a large degree, on unconscious, but quite real, white privilege.)
I'll end this by apologizing also for the length, and with one quote from the above comments, when I said, "It is not possible to minimize this incident at all and not be minimizing it too much." I don't say that with any desire to "call out" anyone, but simply to insist that we all try very hard to learn from this incident.