Quote:
Originally Posted by robinseggblue
|
Articles like this set up a false binary system for critique of activist behavior. You are either in full support of all that activists do, or you are criticizing them in order to maintain an oppressive structure in a manipulative way. It is therefore an implicit position that activists are so free of any fault that if anybody dares to comment on how any aspect of their behavior is incorrect, or even dangerous, or even verging on fascism (which I do agree with), well then that person is using their position of power to manipulate to silence minority voices, because of course there can be no truth in their claims whatsoever. When a group or movement is so free of criticism, dangerous and unchecked behaviors can emerge, and they are certainly emerging.
It is this very assertion that is leading to the problems that many are speaking of.
My wife and I speak out about white privilege among our family and friends. I see where privilege has affected my life, and attempt to do what I can to rectify it. We contribute our money and time to organizations that help bridge that gap in privilege in our hometown (San Francisco) by supplying marginalized groups of children with the additional tools they need to succeed in school, starting in pre-K and ending with post-college coaching. We are not perfect, we all have biases, and I understand this paragraph is close to "ally theater", but all of this to say I support the goals of the movement and do see oppression and lack of opportunity in our society.
That being said, when we address the issue of "power" with regard to racism, we all too often ignore the "micro" aspect in favor of the "macro". Yes, overall minority groups do not have power in American society, and their voices have been silenced. However, in smaller situations, they (alongside allies) are gaining a strong and powerful voice, which is something to be celebrated. Being able to demand the resignation of high profile campus administrators, and actually see those people resign because of it, is certainly a sign of power. However, in some university settings, as that power grows, I am saddened and angry to see it abused.
The issues I think we are seeing:
(1) A substantial lack of proof of many claims put forward, and the readiness of activists to condemn people and organizations in a highly visible manner without actually examining the proof (or lack thereof) at hand. I think the most recent example of this was UCLA's Alpha Phi and Sig Ep chapters, who were widely broadcast throughout the media as dressing in blackface when no blackface actually occurred. The members of these chapters received death threats of their own and yet nobody seemed to care. And even when the lack of proof was widely known, protests and condemnations continued, and with no apology. The Rolling Stone UVA rape case is an even more extreme version of this. If a story or claim is presented that fits a preconceived narrative, we are seeing aggressive behavior without examining whether or not these incidents truly happened. It is not longer "innocent until proven guilty", but it is on the accused to prove their innocence, and even upon proving it nobody ever seems to care or retract their statements. If you have the power to condemn a person so violently, visibly, and nationally, then you must use that power wisely and make sure something has actually occurred before going forward. People's lives and being played loosely with in an abhorrent manner, but if they are from a cultural group that has power, well then their feelings and lives don't matter at all on behalf of their skin color, gender, hometown, etc and if they get falsely dragged through the mud, "at least a conversation has been started".
(2) Reactionary anger toward having any sort of opinion that does not align with what an activist believes. There are constant calls for dialogue, and yet when dialogue happens that is not complete and utter agreement, no matter how tactful, often instead of engaging, these people are violently silenced themselves in any way necessary. I mean violent in the sense of verbal violence, but with the recent cases of spitting on people at Yale (an actual crime, battery, by the way) and blocking the videographer at Missouri (a clear violation of freedom of the press), we are actually beginning to escalate to (i) culturally sanctioned physical violence and (ii) culturally sanctioned law breaking, but only if the ideology is right. Considering that if the ideology is "wrong", even a well written e-mail can be a cause for resignation, I can only imagine what would happen if this woman at Yale tried to slap a camera out of her face or spit on somebody. NOTE: I am not talking about anger if, say, a person uses a racist slur or something of that note. I am talking about the Yale e-mail in this case, where an opinion was posited in an articulate, tactful, and well meaning way. Engage with it in disagreement, sure. But this has gone way too far.
(3) Invalidation of people's statements based on race, gender, class status, or any other cultural identifier. So, for example, the temptation of many to see what I wrote, look for my cultural identifiers, and upon finding them (white, straight, male, etc) discount my opinion, often times in a very public and aggressive way, not by examining what I say and finding it to be true or not, but by there mere nature of who I am as a person. I understand that as a white man, I do need to let people of color speak about their experiences and not assume my knowledge of their lives is accurate, as well as listen to what they are saying. But I draw the line at an "inclusive" movement that will not accept any critique or comment, especially when it is an inclusive movement that feels fairly comfortable speaking on behalf of majority (oppressive, in their terms, which can often be true) groups on what goes on in their heads, their families, and their communities.
(4) Lastly, violent hate speech. One woman I read on Twitter frequently, because she promotes an exceptionally radical view on race, sexuality, etc that I enjoy learning about (some I agree with, some I do not, but it has certainly broadened my horizons) will frequently go on tirades about the "Rancid mayo" she has to interact with (white people), not in terms of political or cultural discussions, but in every day activities, often not even directly interacting with her but just being near her, but will justify this hate speech because of past interactions with white people. The hypocrisy here is, of course, delicious given that this is the same exact justification that oppressive groups often give when speaking hatefully about minorities ("I'm not sorry for what I called them, in my experience [GROUP] has been [STEREOTYPE]"). And then we just culturally nuance the hell out of it all "No but this hateful speech is OK for [THIS PERSON] because [REASON]".
I support and will continue to support much, if not all, of what these movements are based on. I do think we have a large way to come. However, we should have the right to comment if we seeing disturbing trends, especially if they are contrary to the type of society that these same activists want to bring about. If we cannot comment on the irony and hypocrisy of the actions above, then we are veering toward an extremely dangerous place.
Hybrid Mode
