One of the first things people always bring up when I discuss what I'm studying are questions/comments like:
"I mean, feminism is great, but I think men need to reclaim some of the power they've lost, because it's getting a bit out of hand."
"I'm not racist, but I think it's wrong that Obama can appeal to black voters. Imagine if Mitt Romney said he was appealing to white voters."
"It's not like I can have a white club, that doesn't seem fair."
And inevitably something like: "Well, what about reverse racism? Like when white people who are just as qualified aren't hired so that the company can be more diverse?"
My first response to these things is usually along the lines of, "... No?" or "Who do you think voted for Romney?" I think that people tend to use the phrase 'reverse racism' when they are doing one of two things: they are not seeing the 'big picture' or they are simply taking a very selfish look on something (which is another way of not actually looking at the entirety of a situation).
In class on Tuesday, we went over why racism is different from a prejudicial act. People very often look at an instance of racism and see it as a victim/racist model: the victim due to some reason was treated unfairly by the racist in this one instance. They try to approach it in a vacuum as if racism has never existed before but out of nowhere this person decided to do a horrific thing based on racial differences. Racism can NOT exist without a culture and society that allows and perpetuates it. The George Zimmerman shooting of last year was a very good example of this: instead of trying to create a better dialogue on racism, the media went on a wild goose chase blaming everything on Zimmerman.
The second reason, I think, people ask these questions is because people are very often considering things through a selfish lens. People with power and privilege do not always have reason to acknowledge their own place in society. If a white person has never encountered race in a very abrupt and obvious way, they very often have never even considered the fact that it is not a good idea to have a 'white only' club.
To tie this all into Negritude, my main point is that people like Senghor are responding to the systems of power and oppression in their time. While essentialism is inherently flawed, it is also extremely reasonable when considering the context. In societies where races were essentialised in very negative ways, oppressed groups needed (and need) ways to revolt against those with power. I think we will continually be coming up with the question, "But what now?" Racism still exists, despite the education and literature changing. We are still playing the game of racial essentialism, despite knowing that race is a social construct. Is it just a matter of time, or are there more proactive ways to counteract racist culture norms?
I thought your second point was really interesting. Things like groups for blacks were developed in response to a culture that allowa racism. In fact, I don't think things like that would exist without people of the same race being driven together by a racist society. When a white person says, "Why don't we have a white club," they are almost speaking as if they wish to be the oppressed group without realizing that that's what they're doing. I agree with you that that type of thinking comes from the selfishness of wanting power while simultaneously not acknowledging the power already had.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question "But what now?" I don't know if we are yet able to answer that question. Although, I do know that we as humanity have made great strides against a more visible, open form of racism. In his popular 2004 song "Never Let me Down" Kanye West writes:
ReplyDelete"Now niggas can't make it to battles to chose leadership
But we can make it to Jacobs an' to the dealership
That's why I hear new music an' I just don't be feelin' it
Racism still alive, they just be concealin' it"
In other words, African Americans have freedoms, but only the ones granted to us by an institution. Omi and Winant, in their essay "Racial Formation in the United States," point out this institutional aspect of racism and make the point that when we choose to view racism in this way it often inflates the idea of racism making it hard to see what progress has been made. So if even knowing that racism is inherent won't stop it, what will? Frankly, I cannot answer this question because my story, my hardships, my culture does not represent those of all people. It would be hard for me to simply say, “change your mindset about the world and love all people” because you're not just combating the idea of race, your also combating its history; a history that has been pervasive seen it was acceptable to colonize.
I think it relates back to what you were saying in class about the idea of any category being "provisional." In order for a political identity to avoid appealing to the same strategies that worked to oppress it, i.e. essentialism, then it is important for that identity group to simultaneously work as a community and constantly question the legitimacy of the ties of that community. This is difficult for women's rights, queer rights, and in the fight against racism. Not to repeat your question, but I do wonder how it is possible to at once group yourself based on the categories advanced in the maintenance of the hegemony and attempt to dismantle or at least draw attention to the flaws of that hegemony.
ReplyDelete