Recently, I was in an argument on the internet, in a thread called Black Power and the Rhetoric of Modern Racism, where deep deep into the 5 page repeating argument about white privilege, someone decided to send a message to me:
“Reading your blog has been just another reminder that people like you are not to be taken seriously. It was foolish of me to even post in that thread and to reply to you where everyone could see what we had to say to each other.
Pious ideologues like you will be ignored, not just by me, but by the silent majority of all people of all skin color who know better than to be suckered into an outdated culture war. Blather on about "white people black people doo doo doo" all you want, maybe even convert a few gullible idiots. But you are irrelevant.”
While this was going on, a very public argument broke out on my personal Facebook account that ended up with me dissolving a friendship.
These two incidents are what I have had the hardest time learning how to deal with. On one hand, you have a mostly anonymous web site with people all over the map in terms of their views and opinions, and on the other, a very public, open place where people as close to me as my own family can plainly see.
In the anonymous argument, I was fierce, and intensely arguing against those with racist views, openly mocking some of them. I was also openly trying to educate people that seemed like they wanted to learn more, and encouraging them to continue to learn. All this was going on, and I still was making allies, and even rustling up one contributor to this very blog. (Aaron)
Arguing over the internet is something that has come very easy to me, a self important douchebag that can type fast.
It was almost fun to call idiots out on their idiocy in this argument, and have other allies rally around and make pariahs out of these idiots.
There have been other times, however, when on things where people know my name, I have done worse things remaining silent. I have shut down threads when they got out of hand, and even worse than that- I have sent private messages to people that undermined the people that are dear to me.
Why? Why would I do this? Why was I so afraid?
It was because I had to face these people. If one of the people I told off told me to fuck off, I would have to really deal with that rather than simply move on to something else on the Internet. If I spoke up, I could have been faced with the very real possibility of having to dissolve a personal relationship I had built up over time over this one thing.
It not a little thing, and it's not easy to let things go and move on. But then you realize that it's not your fault, and you are better off. Who knows? It might be the wake up call they need to finally start listening and start learning.
The above asked out of genuine curiosity, not rhetorically. I have my own ideas on the matter but I'm interested in yours.
ReplyDeleteWait, where'd my first comment go? I am a dummy. Above is supposed to be the question "Do you think Keegan's remarks and those of the anonymous poster are morally and/or intellectually equivalent?" and then below the explanation that I meant it genuinely, not as some rhetorical arguing tactic. Also sorry (and perplexion) if you deleted my first comment and it wasn't my error.
ReplyDeleteYou do the best you can to live with principles and compassion. It is not unreasonable for certain things to be "deal-breakers" for you - there's nothing wrong with saying, "this is what I believe, and on this issue, I just won't budge." Lots of people have these boundaries. With my father, it is a belief in God. We have lots of theological discussions, but I never tread over the line with him and tell him that his beliefs make him boring, or that his belief in God is invalid - it is because I respect and love him, and I respect what he loves and believes.
ReplyDeleteI think the difference between an internet forum flamewar and a personal encounter like the one you had on your fbook is that usually anon internet racists are arguing something that is blatantly hateful and horrible. They're easy to spot and dismiss. However, on your facebook page, Keegan was arguing for the *pass* to be potentially hateful and horrible. He wanted to be able to personally attack other commenters without being personally attacked, and he also wanted a free pass that would allow him to say things without others reacting to his words. He threatened your friendship again, and again, holding it up for ransom, while demanding a cookie for not intending to be offensive, no matter what the actual effects of his words. Bafflingly, he wanted free reign to disagree with Lane's beliefs (of which he knew nothing - having never met or interacted with Lane before your post), but he retreated to a defensive crouch when you calmly and rationally explained why you didn't share his beliefs. Again, he wanted the right to disagree with your beliefs, but he refused you the right to disagree with his.
It's a tricky interaction. Sometimes a facebook wall can be the same as having a giant house party - sometimes people who would never otherwise meet get into a discussion and realize that they totally disagree. As the host, you try to play peacemaker. Sometimes people will go the compassionate route and say something like, "huh, never really thought of it like that before- you've given me something to think about." or even "well, my experience is this, so I'm devoutly _____, but I liked/was interested in your experience," and they'll go on their merry way. When someone gets defensive and loud and keeps issuing threats to end a friendship, then unfortunately, what can you do - you've been calm, rational, compassionate -but at this point they see you as a threat, because you've made them uncomfortable with their point of view or identity, and they're going to lash out to protect it. It's like that cognitive dissonance that Rachel was talking about.
I feel like you have a great asset in these interactions on race and privilege because you have lived both sides. Maybe at one time you were afraid to speak up. But you aren't now.
When you present a human being with a choice - by calling out their behavior as offensive, oppressive, and hurtful; they can choose to heal by stopping the behavior (or at least altering it), or they can choose to continue to hurt another human being because it is simply easier for them not to have to alter their behavior or come to terms with their racial conditioning. This is a matter of compassion, and many, many people will make the compassionate choice to not hurt another human being. Others won't. I feel like this is a good line in the sand to draw - when you ask another human being to stop causing pain, and they refuse, simply because it is the easier choice, then they have crossed the line.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/09/high_profile_anti-muslim_hates_crimes.html
ReplyDeleteThis was on colorlines today - the conservative quote - that even having a point of view on anti-racism (it was a book of arab voices documenting their experiences with racism and oppression in America) "smacked of indoctrination" and intimidated people by "sending the message that only one side will be approved."
This logic and rhetoric is very similar to what happened with Keegan. The point of view that challenged the dominant power structure (your calm and rational discussion of privilege) was so threatening, that just by disagreeing with him, he accused you of censorship/indoctrination. This typical knee-jerk defensive rhetoric response is almost cookie-cutter in interactions where racial conditioning is examined or called out. For many, many people, an anti-racist worldview represents a change that is so scary and threatening to the privilege that they have always assumed it was "normal" to wield (feeling entitled to control others reactions to your actions; to have your actions exist in a racial vacuum; to always be right), that they will kick, and scream, and claw when you merely open the curtain to show them another way.
@Peter
ReplyDeleteYes. In both cases, they had a position and were not going to change their minds, and that position is something that is a deal breaker for me.
Let's take a similarly important issue to me but completely different from this one. If someone presented an anti-gay argument to me, no matter how firmly they insisted they were correct, no matter what fact they could site, not matter what studies or logical arguments they could present, if they thought the gays were less than equal than me, then fuck them, I don't want to deal with them, they are wrong, and I don't want them in my life.
@Ken: Have you considered the possibility that the disagreements Keegan foresaw having might be essentially tactical ones? Or differences of interpretation of this or that given thing that still agreed with the basic egalitarian premises you're operating under?
ReplyDeleteIf you have considered that, then what I'd like to know is if all disagreements with your tactics and interpretations counts as deeds that warrant shunning.
@Peter, having read the post over and over again, I see Keegan threaten to shun Ken and Dani several times, before he tells them, basically to take their bowls and gtfo. This is because he was upset that Ken disagreed with him and told him that he believed he was wrong.
ReplyDeleteKeegan's words:
"Sorry but if you feel this strongly about our difference of opinions on this matter I guess you have to disown me and apologize to other friends that you mistakingly interacted with me at one time.
"It was nice spending time with you guys while we did and you can swing by and get your cookware at some point."
"I'm done with you guys online ... honestly it's just boring. "
Ken's words:
"What has happened has happened. I have said worse things and hurt people more with the way I have thought in the past.
It's what happens after this that is really important."
"I'm willing to help you."
I saw Keegan go from admitting that he had posted an inflammatory retort just to get a reaction from Ken, to whining and crying that other people (namely me) had reacted to his comment, to backpedaling and trying to say that he was just suggesting that he might disagree in a purely hypothetical sense of point/counterpoint (i.e, "you can't be offended! I was just making a philosophical point!"), to shunning my opinion when I pointed out that his argument both revealed his privilege and was terribly cliched. When Ken calmly and rationally talked to Keegan about why he disagreed with Keegan's behavior (not his beliefs but his behavior in the thread), Keegan shunned him.
I am interested to know why Ken is getting the blame for this, when it is visible that Keegan was the only person in the thread to mention "disowning" and he repeatedly made threats to Ken and Dani about no longer "coming over" and about "taking their bowls" (I imagine Keegan meant this threat to sound much less absurd than I read it; I don't know him.). He threatened Ken with the dissolution of their relationship with Ken several times.
I heard "well then you can't be my friend" in elementary school and I was disgusted to see that tactic used by an adult male against a friend of mine who came to my defense.
Are Ken's anti-racist views seen as so problematic that he is seen as the "shunner" despite the obvious and visible proof? This seems to be the classic problem of the "white traitor" -- wherein a white person who points out privilege and racism is seen as "shunning" or turning their back on their race - when it is they who are shunned. But their beliefs are seen as such a betrayal, that blame is diverted to them. I was going to talk to Ken about this privately, but since you have brought up your view that Ken was the one who shunned Keegan, I'm wondering why this is.
@Lane:
ReplyDeleteI'm not blaming Ken for anything. It's his business who he shuns and who he doesn't: I'd just like to know people's rationales and thought processes. I have my own ideas about what's happened, but I'm not interested in getting into a big internet fight with anybody.
To answer your question, I've known Ken and Keegan personally for about seven or eight years now, and know many people in their shared social circle. I hear about what goes on in it. I know that Keegan isn't the first one of Ken and mine's acquaintances that Ken has shunned for ideological ("ideological" used in the value-neutral sense of the word) reasons. Keegan (and I, and any part of our shared circle watching the discussion) had a fairly good idea of what happens after this sort of discussion with Ken: either complete capitulation on his part, or Ken would cut him off socially. Keegan opted to let the latter happen, and I believe the stuff about the bowls was an honest effort to smooth the transition. I don't know if you spend a lot of time with programmers, but I have, and that sort of thing wouldn't be out of character for them.
Why do you assume I'm calling Ken a traitor? Why do you assume I'm telling him he did something wrong? Why do you assume I'm telling him anything, for or against his position? I'm asking him questions out of an honest and legitimate interest in the parameters of his worldview. If I wanted to start a fight, that'd be easy enough, but I very much do not want to. It was actually my plan to not engage anyone other than Ken in this discussion, because in my experience the more people involved in an internet discussion the more likely it is to degenerate, but I also thought it would be rude for me not to answer a direct question.
To answer your question, I feel like this a race traitor scenario because I'm feeling "black-friend"-ed in this situation. Ken defends his black friend in a conflict where racial privilege is brought up, everyone gets upset, white people refuse to talk about race, and Ken is vilified for daring to agree with me and for disagreeing with his fellow white, male friend. Do not fool yourself. This is not a race neutral situation.
ReplyDeleteKeegan's retort of "I'm not going to read this, but I'm sure I'll have counterpoints" dismissal of Ken's anti-racist blog offended me racially. It hurt me as a person. It is a common reaction to anti-racism, and disability rights issues, which I'm also actively involved in. Keegan's comment offended me as a black woman in this case because his comment was "I don't have the time for your point of view, furthermore, when I get around to it at my leisure, I will most likely disagree with it." (I wish I had the luxury of only dealing with racial "ideologies" in my spare time! And of picking and choosing which points of view I agree with, from my armchair!) I told Keegan, that based on his comment, we would not get along. Keegan began reacting defensively and hostilely to me and others in the thread.
Ken defended me by pointing out to Keegan that he was exhibiting racial privilege and that was the reason everyone was so upset. Ken told Keegan that he was wrong to continue to do so. In my private conversations with Ken, he said that he knew I could stand up for myself, but that he saw what was happening, and decided to stand up for me since he knew Keegan better than I did.
Keegan and you (to a certain extent, by making this conflict about neutral "ideologies" when it is not a racially neutral situation) have both refused to confront the race issue. Keegan racially offended me. Ken pointed out how Keegan's racial conditioning was offending me in the thread and then Keegan, unwilling to admit that he had entered into a racial topic without checking his white privilege at the door, told Ken to take his cookware and gtfo.
I know personally that Ken has taken heat for speaking out against white privilege before, in defense of me and other people in Ken's life who have been racially offended by Ken's social circle. I know that Ken has been shunned for asking some of his friends not to call his father-in-law and me niggers. I believe he has met with similar hostility when he asked some of his friends to avoid calling his roommate and friend faggots. I know that in each case, the white male social circle he was dealing with used the same derailing tactics, instead of confronting the race issue, they attempted to neutralize it on their end and make it about their right to free speech, or their right to disagree, ignoring the very real issue that racial pain of Ken's friends and family was at stake. For people like me, and Ken, this is not an simple matter of disagreeing about a political issue. This issue is at the core of my experience as a black American woman, and for Ken, as a white American male. It is who we are.