There is a meme going around toward the idea that we should not be silent about our feelings and reactions to Racefail 2009 and our lessons learned.
How do I put this?
- I am no stranger to the idea that speaking out and getting as many opinions as possible is a good thing. When done in a way that is not compelled and completely freely done by volunteers it can be an effective way to establish that a certain phenomenon or feeling is more prevalent than is generally suspected. Great for issues where silence=death, and yes, there are a lot of those, racism and its effects certainly one of those issues.
- I am also no stranger to the idea that this sort of thing can get out of hand. When a social movement has enough power or leverage to do real town-meeting type shamings where folks get called out and humiliated for all to see, where apologies and capitulation are not just convinced but compelled, where loyalties are sniffed out and undesirable ones are extinguished, where friends, families and extended families are deemed unsuitable by the mob and sundered.
- Oh? We are doing loyalty oaths now? That’s wonderful! And how do we think that will work out for us?
- Witch hunts? No, we were never guilty of that! Pshaw!
- I have until now called myself an individualist antiracist, because I’ve been getting really uncomfortable with the direction the main antiracist activism crowd has been going with respect to anger and the search for justice and recompense and not been comfortable calling that part of the movement my allies. I think I’m going to have to sadly call it a day/month/year, and find something else for me to call myself. At this point, I feel that the main body of antiracist activists is to varying degrees becoming guilty of abuse of the power to be heard that they have recently gained and I am ashamed to call myself a part of the movement. So I will not.
I have some things to say to individual parts of the constituents of Racefail 2009.
To those folks who have been compelled to say something, who have reevaluated friendships based on what strangers are telling you, who have been shamed into saying or writing loyalty oaths:
I understand what it’s like to be beaten and shamed and to be lonely and exhausted and desirous of resolution, peace, and end. At the same time, I urge you to, next time, or perhaps this time, really address this ethical issue with your full energy and full intellect and full honesty and only confess to what you really feel you are responsible for. I urge you to NOT reevaluate friendships based on what a mob is telling you. By all means if you feel that you must reevaluate, do it in private and make it a fully personal and individual decision. Do what you feel is right, certainly, but please don’t do it because there’s a howling mob outside your door.
To those folks who, antiracist activists new and old, have howled outside doors:
I understand the soul consuming anger and the energy and joy of running with the pack, finally making some progress, finally being heard, finally being able to be effective with words so long ignored or simply not heard. At the same time, as you know from my writing about the Tao of the Warrior and what links activism has to warriorship, you have a personal responsibility to justice, mercy, compassion, honor, honesty and many other intangibles that go with the warrior’s role. If you find that you are at the point where you and your angry mob are compelling, for instance, loyalty oaths, you have gone too far. Come back and start thinking for yourself, come back and start thinking compassionately and sympathetically about your opponents. Remember that they already have lives, families, co-workers, friends, and that you are not responsible for that, nor should you interfere with that.
To everyone:
How do I feel about Racefail 2009? A shame, really. We all could have put our energies to better ends. I’m glad some folks got something out of it (I think it’s clear Elizabeth Bear – she’s a friend, by the way – has learned some things, but I would be surprised if all of these things were directly productive for antiracist activists), but I am personally saddened by seeing so many noble warriors fall. The good news is that few of them actually died in any meaningful way (deaths, I assume, were largely metaphorical and deaths of ideologies/assumptions), so they’ll get up again I’m sure, and may be as good after that as they were before.
For the record, I will NOT be stating any loyalty oaths and in fact this has cemented my suspicion that the antiracist activist organization is not the right one for me. In some cases I will be willing to discuss purposeful alliances, but I do not give ongoing or blanket endorsement for the cause. I think too many of the grassroots methodologies of creating change are too problematic for me to be loyal to.
I have more to say about organization of civil rights activist groups and the long-term goals of making change and what short term and long term strategies and tactics may or may not be suitable but I’m still formulating that and will post it later.
I think the current tactics that antiracist activists are using are good when dealing with outreach but bad when dealing with resolution. The mechanics of the pursuit of change that they currently carry out put some folks (especially white people in power, some of whom might have been better allies if approached in a different way) at such incredible disadvantage that yes, it creates change, but it also alienates potential allies and creates enemies. I do not believe that doing this is an ethical act, and I think that at a purely pragmatic level it will not make lasting change for any of us, beyond creating enemies and sowing distrust. That needs to change about how antiracist activists make the change they want.
Shock troops are fine for certain kinds of change, but generally not good for long-term change because people become inured, and honestly I think activists in this area are about to lose the momentum gained by the shock and merely become tired and ineffective, so there will be a need for change in tactics anyhow.
Updated: Edited to remove some grammatical froners and tighten up some prose, no substantive changes made.
Malcolm, I am trying to be as gentle as possible in this, but this is the second concrete time I have seen you speaking to distorted perceptions of what people are saying (IMHO), rather than what anyone has actually said. This time, re: ‘loyalty oaths.’ I have not seen one case of asking for one, in name or in concept. I have not seen one person called out because they didn’t post something in this discussion. I have no idea where you — or anyone else — are getting these ideas. I am honestly more perplexed than anything else at this point.
Lori, the meme that has folks speaking out and confessing their wrongs strikes me as an old-time nationalist style loyalty oath. I have been reading perhaps 5% – 10% of the whole discussion and most of my exposure has been either through E.Bear’s LJ and on-post comments or through discussions linked over the time of the discussion to larger communities like BoingBoing and Metafilter.
Through these I saw some of Scalzi’s posts and on-post comments and some of Shetterly’s posts and on-post comments.
I also saw a lot of the earlier discussion in
November 2008January 2009 on LJ, but would be hard pressed to find and quote themI’m sorry but I’m late leaving work and need to pack up, so I will try to come back to this and comment further.
I am aware, though, that “loyalty oaths” is a loaded term, I meant it to be.
Please do take my words, perceptions and interpretations as only my own, though. I don’t think of them as distorted, but you are free to think so.
I do think that I’ve made my feelings about ethics and the warrior’s role pretty clear – from these derive my interpretations and reactions to the entire discussion (or the parts I’ve been exposed to).
Dear Malcolm,
As someone who has watched and posted once during this latest go round (and I say latest because this has been flaring up at least since the 2006 WisCon cultural appropriation panel and in other fannish spaces that you may or may not know about), I have to take issue with some of the things you wrote about in your post.
1. There was one meme that I know of which was along the lines of ‘if you have said or know of people who have said racist things, etc. post this meme in your journal’ (very roughly paraphrased but I can find where it was originally posted). That very same meme was also soundly criticized in a number of venues for being overly simplistic and not very helpful.
It did not spread far and wide but there is a perception that it did.
2. Oyceter (who I know pretty well personally) made an LJ post directed at SF book fandom here: http://oyceter.livejournal.com/819945.html. It would be useful to read through it carefully and understand what exactly she was speaking about.
What you miss by only getting your information from Metafilter or BoingBoing is a wide range of discussion and opinion that on the surface looks the same but have nuance.
Something else you’ve missed are the continuing blog carnivals about PoC in SF/F (the latest of which is hosted at the Hathor Legacy website), the call for an Asian Women’s blog carnival, the beginnings of Verb Noire – a new press and a brand new community on LJ called Racism 101. There are people getting something out of it and moving forward.
However, characterizing what you call the anti-racist side as “howling outside doors”? Really? Howling? You might want to rethink that just a little because just as some of what you saw bothered you, that characterization was uncalled for and unworthy of what you call your Tao of the Warrior.
ladyjax,
Please don’t mistake me. I have attended WisCon (and plan to come back). I have been involved in all but the first cultural appropriation discussion, and I am well-informed.
I’m not particularly an outsider, except insofar as I stayed mostly out of the extended discussions of this round in early 2009. I dropped out of this particular discussion in late January when I told a few friends that I thought they were going too far and dropped out to write my 8 part essay about the Tao and about responsibilities of being an activist, which I’ve likened to the responsibilities that warriors have.
I think activists and warriors fight similar battles for similar stakes. I think that each individual activist is responsible for zir own stake in the battle and responsible for zir own affect on bystanders, innocent and not.
I have said since January (and possibly before) that these discussions go too far to be fueled solely by anger, and we must seek ends that are fueled by intelligence and long-term thinky, planned strategy.
I do thank you for the links, and when I’ve got time this weekend, I’ll follow them up, but do please know that I consider myself well-read and well-educated on these topics, both in the specific and in the general.
In the case of this particular wide-ranging discussion, I have read many posts and don’t consider myself obligated to read any more.
With respect to the meme, it spread far enough to affect friends who I would have thought better than to participate, and the language and the style of both the original and their copies were so penitential that I likened them to loyalty oaths. I still think that’s what they’re like, despite what Lori and you have said.
One of the important things that came from these discussions is that it’s important for everyone to have and keep their own opinions and express them, which is what I’m doing. I am good with you and Lori disagreeing, but I’m not good with capitulating and changing my opinion. Loyalty oaths are what they look like to me, and until I encounter an argument that I find compelling, that’s what they’ll stay in my mind.
This gem?:
“However, characterizing what you call the anti-racist side as “howling outside doors”? Really? Howling? You might want to rethink that just a little because just as some of what you saw bothered you, that characterization was uncalled for and unworthy of what you call your Tao of the Warrior.”
Real nice, and way to keep building those coalitions. I think you gave as good as you got here, and I will caution you that turning a civil discussion into an insulting one is probably not the best way to convince folks, friends, enemies, allies or worthy opponents.
Lori,
I thought about linking you to specifics, to try to communicate, but also to “prove” my point, and Hanne reminded me that one of the things that came out of this larger discussion is that it’s absolutely fine for folks to have differences of opinion, large and small.
I am sorry that the term that I intentionally used (“loyalty oaths”) was something that you disagreed with enough to post a comment about and to question my judgment/perceptions. It still strikes me as a true enough term that I shall not capitulate, but I will of course not mention it in the future when we meet again, because I don’t actively try to be disagreeable with you in person.
I will say that I have seen at least one person (E. Bear) called out for not doing something that an activist thought she should do. I can send you links in e-mail if you like or leave you to discover that for yourself if you are inclined. I don’t wish to further push my worldview on you without your consent.
-Real nice, and way to keep building those coalitions. I think you gave as good as you got here, and I will caution you that turning a civil discussion into an insulting one is probably not the best way to convince folks, friends, enemies, allies or worthy opponents.-
Malcolm,
I wrote what I wrote because I felt you were using the same othering language that has been used in a good deal of this debate. People have been accused of ‘orcing’ and called ‘fuckwitted trolls” in public on blogs. Having you bring up particular animalistic imagery while at the same time accusing the anti-racist side of being less than fair also adds some fuel to the fire.
I was not trying to score anything or give as good as I got with what you refer to as my “gem.” That particular Tao is your work which is why I referred to it as such. What I was asking you to do was to look at your own language and ask if it was worthy of what you had written.
Nor am I expecting you to change your mind about anything. I just offered my perspective of what you wrote which was posted for public consumption. That’s it.
Malcolm, I think if you are getting most of your info from E.Bear’s journal, then you are indeed getting a very distorted view of the discussion.
Also, please in the future be wary of confusing people’s expressions of white guilt with the presence of someone accusing them of…anything. That’s the mistake I think you are making here.
Lori, I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. From my perspective I’ve answered your challenge honestly and forthrightly and am prepared to offer you specific links and interpretation to substantiate my perspective.
It seems like you are inclined to simplify and misunderstand my perspective, but I don’t think I deserve either of those things. I am not responding in general or specific to the white guilt I see in abundance, but to words spoken by POC and antiracist allies to folks they’ve decided are not on their side.
It has been these methods of rhetoric that I feel were unjust. It has been these sorts of tactics that I’ve been arguing against using from the beginning. If you would like further specifics, I can supply them.
If you are not interested in those specifics, I suggest we both end here (or soon) as I don’t think either of us is making a lot of progress with vague references and drawing examples from inference and interpretation.
ladyjax, I think it’s insulting that you would use your reading and interpretation of the Tao essays as a rhetorical jab at my ethics. Beyond this very short interaction, how can you possibly know my ethics? Or are we good friends and I don’t know it?
We clearly have different values about what’s insulting and not, because where I felt that I was being empathic and sympathetic while still being necessarily critical of the rhetorical and methodological tactics I’ve witnessed in use during this far-ranging discussion when I used the phrases “loyalty oath” and “howling mob”, you clearly felt those were unwarranted and insulting phrases.
I own that. I am responsible not only for making the point but for being as compassionate and present as I can be and taking lumps for my word choices. I get your response. I have been there in a space similar to the one I think you are responding from.
Still, I choose these words and still retain these opinions.
But in no way do I insist that my opinion be the only ones in this debate or conversation. I fight only for my right to have and express these opinions.
Beyond that though, I consider your opinions and interpretation of my words and work equally valid in the larger scope of the overall discussion.
It is, however, clear to me that you’ve taken personally the words I mean for the movement as a whole. This is a valueless assertion. I mean nothing good or bad by it. I do think that it may have somehow convinced you to think that the insulting rhetoric I used against the movement or loose organization of activists as a whole was meant personally against you individually.
I think that I do not know you well (if at all), and therefore could not have meant these words personally for you. I think the difference here is essential and helps explain why I felt okay using the insulting rhetoric I did against a large movement as a whole that you seemingly took personally and (I assume) reacted to when you responded in kind and insulted my ethics over what you saw as an abuse of my own principles.
Believe me that I understand also the idea that the personal is the political, and I also get the rhetorical method of taking a stand personally against issues that are hugely global and abstract. But person to person, I believe it’s possible to avoid invective and focus on less judgmental discourse. I hope you do as well.
OK. I sort of sat here and stared at this for awhile and went away again, not saying anything, but I’ve come back to it again because, apparently, I have to say /something/, even if it’s totally ineffective.
Deliberately using loaded words in response to loaded words is not of use. I get that you’re trying to make people think, but it’s of limited utility in the long run.
That meme — which as LadyJax has said, many on the anti-racist “side” are critiquing — is a meme, modeled on other memes, and given that it’s a meme modeled on other memes, it is somewhat limited in its presentation. (I take it you’ve somehow missed the ones that have similar language about queer issues?)
I find it… interesting… that you would choose to reject what seems to be a long-time identification with a specific movement over the short-term actions of a sub-set of that movement. Over a meme, even. (I do get that’s the breaking point, not the sole action creating this, but nonetheless.)
I mean, I’m a feminist, I identify as a feminist and a I work as a feminist, and yet I have all sorts of problems with some sections of the movement. (Movements.)
Obviously, this is your choice and your decision, but it does rather baffle me.
(You seem to have reacted to JadyJax’s telling you that many on the anti-racist “side” don’t agree with the meme, either, by… I’m not even sure. Being cranky at her? What’s going on there?)
Also, while I respect Mr. Shetterly as a person, I don’t honestly think that getting an idea of the situation through his posts, or Scalzi’s, is necessarily the best way to find out anything in a balanced fashion. (You may notice Scalzi himself has changed some of his perspective, in the past few days, as well.)
I’m sorry that the way people are reacting to Bear is making you uncomfortable. She’s good people; I’m aware of this. I like her a lot. But please don’t let the defense of a friend make you unaware of the area you are traveling.
I do agree that more needs to be done than just anger and pointing (I wouldn’t mind an official dialogue, with norms and expectations for behavior sometime), but the thing is, it was dying down, and it was moving towards some resolutions, before it was brought up again by Shetterly and Cramer’s actions. (I would suspect you have a perspective on those actions which is not mine; nonetheless, their actions were problematical.)
I think that things are calming down again, but honestly, I think that anger in this case is one of (many) reasonable emotions. But among the anger and the… baying of hounds… people /have/ moved beyond that to things like racism 101, Verb Noire, the POC Wiscon Assistance Program, and so on. These all happened /because/ of all this, not despite it.
(About that baying of hounds thing. I also have issues with the terminology when said of a group made up in large number of people of color. Just FYI. I’m not flailing at you or anything. Just saying I was surprised you’d use it.)
Julian,
I’m tired today (I did a neighborhood watch patrol this morning from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. local and am just fatigued). Please forgive me if I make no sense, but I am trying here.
Briefly, you raise good points about language and use of words rhetorically and in the context of the wide range of discussion.
At the same time, I feel I should reassert that I use the words I use on this blog mostly pretty intentionally and thinkingly, and as I’ve said before, I do so with regard to as many contexts as I can bear to think about and as many as I can reasonably control. Not only am I not interested in apologizing for my use of those words (yes I considered the aspects of the use of the terms that you brought up, that Lori brought up, that ladyjax broght up) but I used those words because that’s the way the fever’s pitch looked to me at the time.
Also, the fact is (and I think it’s clear from this time around’s blowup and long decay) that there is nothing anyone can say that is totally safe from criticism, or that is totally safe for all audiences to consume.
In the spirit of civility and communication, I appreciate that you said something here in the comments and that you found a way to be critical without being insulting.
That, by the way, was what I felt warranted a grumpy response to ladyjax: that she found a way to be critical and insulting. If we are to be insulting, I can certainly step up, but if we want to be communicative, I think direct personal insult is counterproductive.
I found it especially irksome that her analysis of my Tao of… essays was so abrupt and it was difficult to feel like she had invested a good faith effort in understanding and applying those principles when she tried to use them against me in a rhetorical gambit.
I also note you seem to think, that I actually like or support Shetterly or Scalzi or their approaches to antiracism. I don’t. They’re just popular bloggers who “make” Metafilter and BoingBoing enough that though I left the immediate communities that were involved in this far-ranging discussion in late January, their involvement still involved me, again, in mid-March, when I’d hoped we were done. I came back to a rather different discussion than I left. I found to my dismay that feedback I gave to specific friends had apparently been ignored and that those friends are folks I’m not sure are interested in being close with me. I also found folks I respect and like acting cowed and beaten. Surely some of the reason they acted like that was probably deserved, but some of it, I felt, wasn’t, hence my post.
Also, I think my mentioning Elizabeth Bear as a friend caused some misunderstanding. She is a friend, I like her. I respect her abilities as a writer and as a warrior but in the warrior’s spirit, I don’t feel any need to protect her (her least of all). She makes her bed, she lies in it, she gets up and keeps trying to do what right she can. That’s fine. That’s what all warriors do. Sometimes when fights are over and people are picking up the pieces I’ll have a private e-mail exchange with her to check in. But that’s the extent of it. When I mention my friendship with her, it’s just in the spirit of full disclosure. But Bear is among the last 5 people on the planet I’d spend time on protecting or defending. She doesn’t need it. I don’t provide that service for her (or much of anyone these days, honestly – if I have friends who can’t take care of themselves, they learn to do without white knight behavior from me. It’s unseemly).
What I think I am in fact reacting to, and which I will write about more when I’ve got the spoons, is that the short term strategies (the meme included, but also the other mob-driven tactics I’ve seen called for by antiracist activists in this and in past discussions) I’ve seen utilized to MAKE THEM HEAR US are really not good for finding and cultivating long-term alliances and coalitions with folks who may only share some of our cultural experience or long-term goals.
I said this around the time of Obama’s election and inauguration. There is a man who knows how to build coalitions, and look at all the great change it’s making for our nation. I do not see us in the antiracist activist communities doing so well. In fact, I mostly see us letting our anger drive us and letting ourselves revel in our short-term gains of power and abusing that power with mob tactics.
Not good ways of making change or building long-term change through cultivating long-lived organizations.
This is my point and where I think I differ with many of the activists I used to work well with. I want to build those long-lasting effective coalitions. I’m done with the simple anger. I want to do more complicated and long-lasting things.
I am glad to hear about the new initiatives. I hope they go well and make progress and build the alliances we need to move forward. When I’m feeling like I have more energy, I’ll look into them. Thank you and ladyjax and Lori for those pointers.
Seriously.
Finally regarding being surprised by my rhetorical ethics, I will give you a pointer to Taoist philosophy if you are not familiar with the principles. Taoists are meant to (as in it is part of the root philosophies) be as unpredictable as possible. I know what you mean by saying you are surprised I would use that particular rhetoric, and I know that you are trying to say that I shouldn’t, and I understand your point. To me, it’s still not enough to preclude the use of that surprising terminology, especially when my aim is to be shocking and to stop folks in their tracks, hoping they will think about the situation in new ways.