Yesterday Armando called for "someone less flammable" than him to take up the problem of race on the left and on this site specifically. While I recognize that "less flammable" than Armando describes a lot of people, I felt that call was specifically directed at me. Like Armando, I am a Kossack with an obviously Latino username who is often appalled by the level of discourse on race at this site and on the left generally. I've studied the subject academically and I've lived my life as a brown Latino-identified person raised in the south Denver suburbs, aka Tancredo Country who went to college and law school in well-known liberal havens. So I've seen racial attitudes in the conservative suburbs and the liberal college towns, and I don't think there is a tremendous amount of difference. This is my small attempt to try to advance the discussion in this liberal community.
Let me offer two suggestions that are intended to be non-inflammatory that I hope can promote improved discussion of race on dKos: 1. Disconnect "racism" from "racists" and 2. Know and subvert the "Rules of Racial Standing."
[Note: I am not going to devote any effort to demonstrating that race is an issue in this community. If you aren't convinced, this diary is not for you.]
1. "Racism" and "Racists." I think a major part of the problem is semantic. We are brought up to believe that where there is an "ism," there must be an "ist" -- for example, when Communism was viewed as a threat, people were on the lookout for "Communists." Because of this, when race is discussed, people get defensive because no one wants to be called a racist. Or self-righteous because they believe they have purged themselves of "racism."
I propose that "racism" and "racist" are not very useful terms when discussing the problem of race on the left. Few if any adhere to a formal "racist" ideology a la the KKK. Yet the idea that white European culture is superior or that white Americans are entitled to a certain privilege and are just plain easier to look at is ingrained in all of us. (To give a specifically Latino example, see the favoritism in hiring shown toward light-skinned people on all of the Spanish language TV networks.) The battle to reject this ingrained mentality is ongoing -- for everyone, white, black, brown, whatever. I draw two major conclusions from this: First, out-and-out "racists" are only a small part of the race problem in America. Second, rather than getting defensive about who is or isn't being accused of racism we should focus on rooting out the white supremacism that is taught to all of us.
So, how can we have conversations about race that don't invoke the power dynamics that normally come into play when white and non-white people interact in America? That's the million dollar question. I don't have all the answers, but knowing and fighting against the Rules of Racial Standing can help.
2. At the risk of being pedantic, or boring people who are already familiar with the work of Professor Derrick Bell, let me drag his Rules of Racial Standing into the discussion. Bell is a law professor who wrote the Rules from a specifically Black perspective, but I think they have a lot of relevance to discussions of race in this community:
FIRST RULE The law grants litigants standing to come into court based on their having sufficient personal interest and involvement in the issue to justify judicial congnizance. Black
people (while they may be able to get into court) are denied such standing legitimacy in
the world generally when they discuss their negative experiences with racism or even when
they attempt to give a positive evaluation of another black person or of his work. No
matter what their experience or expertise, blacks' statements involving race are deemed
'special pleading' and thus not entitled to serious consideration.
SECOND RULE Not only are blacks' complaints discounted, but black victims of racism are less effective
witnesses than are whites, who are members of the oppressor class. This phenomenon reflects a widespread assumption that blacks, unlike whites, cannot be objective on racial issues and will favor their own no matter what. This deep seated belief fuels a continuing effort - despite all manner of Supreme Court decisions intended to curb the practice - to
keep black people off juries in cases involving race. Black judges hearing racial cases are eyed suspiciously and sometimes asked to recuse themselves in favor of a white judge - without those making the request even being aware of the paradox in their motions.
THIRD RULE Few blacks avoid diminishment of racial standing, most of their statements about racial condidtions being diluted and their recommendations of other blacks taken with a grain of salt. The ususal exception to this rule is the black person who publicly disparages or
criticizes other blacks who are speaking or acting in ways that upset whites. Instantly, such statements are granted 'enhanced standing' even when the speaker has no special
expertise or experience in the subject he or she is criticizing.
FOURTH RULE When a black person or group makes a statement or takes an action that the white community
or vocal components thereof deem "outrageous," the latter will actively recruit
blacks willing to refute the statement or condemn the action. Blacks who respond to the call to condemnation will receive superstanding status. The blacks who refuse to be
recruited will be interpreted as endorsing the statements and action and may suffer political or economic reprisals.
FIFTH RULE True awareness requires an understanding of the Rules of Racial Standing. As an individual's understanding of these rules increases, there will be more and more instances where one can discern their workings. Using this knowledge, one gains the gift of prophesy
about racism, its essence, its goals, even its remedies. The price of this knowledge is
the frustration that follows recognition that no amount of public prophesy, no matter its
accuracy, can either repeal the Rules of Racial Standing nor prevent their or prevent
their operation.
Still with me? Thanks. Anyway, speaking as a person with an obviously Latino name, I can tell you that these rules apply pretty strongly when I express an opinion on a racially tinged issue affecting Latinos, like affirmative action or immigration. My strong pro-immigrant, pro-path to citizenship position can be discounted as the product of some atavistic affinity to other brown people as opposed to being the product of actually knowing and speaking with people who are potentially going to be directly affected by a dragnet against the undocumented.
I would say that as a community we have already made some progress towards negating the Rules of Racial Standing here. For example, arguments that give extra weight to a person of color's views because they go against the views generally ascribed to people of color are rarer here than in the mainstream media (one of the local TV stations here in Denver only gave airtime to one Latino during the immigration rally on May 1, and he was standing with the Minutemen) but they do happen. I do think the "special pleading" problem is a big one here -- some people want to discount race as an issue when they feel only people of color are bringing it up. This rejection of the issue allows the member to feel they are Not-Racist when they are actually engaged in discounting the person of color's attempt to address a race-tinged issue based on their status as a person of color. If anything, it is a bigger problem on-line because the default anonymity can promote the assumption is everyone is white and people like Armando and myself who post with racially coded IDs are intentionally flinging our identity into the discussion.
There is of course a lot more to say on this issue than can be crammed into a single post. This is just my attempt to help further the discussion a bit.