Reverse Racism

A little while ago the concept of "reverse racism" was thrown into a conversation I was having. It wasn't used in a context that made much sense to me, but the conversation that followed, debating why or why not reverse racism could exist, was of more interest to me. The idea was shared that the notion that debunks reverse racism (racism = power + prejudice) also disempowers people of color. The argument went on to say that the definition denies the effects of a word used toward white people as violent and harmful.

I clarified: while words used to harm white people are certainly harmful at an individual level, they do not have the cultural or institutional weight that a word used to harm people of color has regards to race. This still wasn't understood, perhaps I did not explain clearly enough, because the person did not feel that individual, cultural, and institutional types of power were the only types of power someone could have. Additionally, they could not distinguish between cultural and institutional power.

I felt this conversation, which I thought was very conceptual, was not productive because I didn't feel the other member of the conversation was listening. What I mean by that isn't that they did not read the words on the page or hear the words coming from my mouth, but that they did not internalize them. I feel they may have internalized something else and then had problems with the ideas they interalized. When this occurs, I do not know how to clarify in better terms.

Fortunately, people of color have been writing about this sort of thing for a long time! And so it is certain that they will do a better job than I in explaining. I present a post from Racialicious called "Why is it so important to have productive conversations on race?" Below are some quotes which resonated particularly for me, teasers even, to get y'all to read the actual article itself.

The author states:
"There are two major issues when trying to have a conversation as complicated as one centering race."

They are:

* The Role of Empathy (Bonding vs. Silencing)

"This kind of dynamic happens often on my blog. A person who is may not be of a the race/ethnicity being discussed shares a story about their experience. It is not the same as others stories. However, there are two very different ways people go about it.
One is when someone is trying to *affirm* an experience by relating it to their own lives. They talk about marginalization based on their sexuality, or based on their race gender combination. For example, many Asian American males and African American females find common ground in being portrayed as undesirable partners in the media. The experiences of an Asian American male and an African American female are not the same – however, there are enough notes of similarity where when we write a post, someone (of either group) wants to reach out and say, “hey, I feel you on this – you are not alone.”

The second is when someone is trying to *deny* your experience based on their limited reality. This is what I object to, because they are building what is a false parallel. So, comments like “As a white woman with kinky hair, I think it’s ridiculous that black women wouldn’t want to straighten their hair! I straighten my hair to look presentable and so should you!” (We actually received that comment on Racialicious, but it went on for paragraphs). It is frustrating when you are talking about a large, systemic issue and people try to make it about the individual. Saying “well, my barbie didn’t look like me either” or “women in ads don’t look like me” as a way of dismissing the systemic in favor of the personal actually stalls conversation."

* The Limitations of Patience

"My point is sometimes I can’t do it. And that’s a shame because, even if most failed, I know some of these conversations HAVE worked. I know some ignorant people who bought a clue, listened and did their best not to do it again. Yes, it can be productive. Yes it has worked. Yes calmly and reasonably answering all the ignorant questions you’ve answered a thousand times or politely objecting and explaining why something was offensive can and does work."

Ultimately, the post is about a push for better conversations about race.

I enjoyed this article because it talks about how to go about activism, and the myth that it's worth it to take on every situation at every time. This isn't something new to me. I just find it particularly pertinent at this moment in time.

"I just spent three or four hours I could have been doing other things responding to people’s concerns, and while that is fine sometimes, it isn’t a sustainable practice.

I prefer to work with other people who recognize the issues with systemic vs. individual racism, and are interested and willing to compare the ways in which oppression impacts us in order to raise a stronger fight against it."

I also enjoyed the article because it referred to reverse racism in a way I found accessible, and referred to some other concepts that have been bothering me lately, which were also present in the conversation. One is that of intent versus effect:

"You are correct in that we cannot judge the intent of others – this is why we say that the *effect* also needs to come under consideration. If you don’t intend to kill someone but do it anyway, the end result is a person is still dead. If you perpetuate racism unintentionally, the end result is still upholding a racist system.
But I am not overly concerned about this. I am one person, working at something that millions of others did before me and millions of others will do after I am gone. I do what I can."

The other is this concept of listening, really listening. I leave with this:

"But I firmly believe that you will not change anyone’s mind about anything unless they are willing to hear it."