Situation
1:
I was standing in
line at Whole Foods with my food lined up behind me on the conveyor belt. A young black man got in line behind me and
put his small handful of groceries behind mine.
I noticed that he didn’t use the divider between his groceries and mine,
and I didn’t say anything. Surely the
clerk would notice?
A
few minutes later, the clerk had gotten to the end of my groceries and looked
down at his. “Is this yours?” she asked
me.
I
shook my head and then looked back at him.
Snarkily, I said, “Almost got me to pay for your food. Almost.”
He
laughed; I laughed; the clerk laughed.
But
as I walking out to the car, I wondered, “Why did I say that? Why did I make that joke? Was it because he was a young black man or a
young man?” I can’t help but think that maybe I was operating on some
unconscious bias, some snap judgement on him being a young black man, and his
trying to pull a fast one. It was a
joke, yet it still haunts me to this day.
I
didn’t get to talk to him afterwards, and I wanted to apologize. My intent
was to make a joke. And, from his
response, the clerk’s, and mine that intention
came through. Yet, I wasn’t entirely
sure. Was my intention really just to make a joke? And outside of the sort of half-hearted laugh
we all shared, was there any other impact? For me, the situation left me thinking about
my motivations; my willingness to make a joke at someone else’s expense. What was the impact on him? The
clerk? I don’t know.
Situation 2:
On
my way to my favorite bar, I walked by a young black man washing his car.
A
couple of hours and beers later, I walked back home. It had rained while I was at the bar, and
noticing that he was now sitting on his front porch with a friend, I said,
“Thanks for bringing the rain.”
He
got up. “What do you mean?”
I
stammered, “You washed your car. It
rained.”
“So. What are you trying to say?”
“I
was just making a joke. You
know…whenever someone washes their car it always rains.”
“I
like my car.”
“You
haven’t heard that joke?” Whether it was
the beer or not, things seemed to be getting tense. He didn’t think I was joking.
“You
need to move on,” he said.
“But…”
“No. Just go.”
I
did. Yet, the walk home and my
discussions with my wife afterwards, I kept asking. How had my intention of making a joke gone so horribly awry.
In
a diverse neighborhood with a lot of short term renters, it wasn’t common that
people talked to each other. I was a
middle aged white man wearing a baseball cap, and while I didn’t say anything
on the way to the bar, I was definitely looser and louder on the way home, and
he didn’t know me.
“But
it was just a joke,” I protested. “I was
trying to be friendly. That was my intent.”
Intent vs. Impact:
After
two White
Privilege Conferences, I look at the world a little
differently. Yet, in following the daily
news and reading about the latest outrage committed by our President, I can’t
help but wonder why the message of institutional racism has gotten so
charged.
I know there are
bad actors that will use whatever means necessary to hold on to their
power. And I know that those same bad
actors have made in-roads into painting “intersectionality,” “institutional
racism,” and “systemic oppression” as partisan issues. But I can’t go through life thinking that all
people who support the status quo are bad actors. Many of them have to want the world to
improve and think of themselves as “good people” who want the same goals as
many on the left but have been turned off in some way.
While
it is important to recognize that fact, not everyone who argues that “identity
politics” has gone too far really understands the issues nor how to effectively
talk about them. I don’t understand the issues
as well as I’d like, but I do think that how we talk about it is not serving
our interests. Interestingly, I don’t
think we have to reinvent or come up with a new language. I think we just need to take some the
language from the field and apply it in discussions with people who may not
understand the nuances around talking about identity.
To that end, this
seems to be an adequate summary of what I think needs to happen: “After
all, in the end, what does the intent
of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those
around us?” [italics mine].
From my perspective, there are many well meaning, liberal to centrist,
white people who don’t understand the nuances of defining someone’s statements
or actions as racist or misogynist or ableist.
Likewise, when they bring up issues of “reverse racism” or “toxic
masculinity” or “he’s crazy” as issues that need to be teased out and
explicated, diversity educators (or anybody versed in this language and not
afraid of the conversation) runs crashing into “white fragility,” being
overly PC, or just too hypersensitive.
Yes, these are learned responses, but people aren’t learning. They still use them frequently and even if,
as I wrote about on another
article the conversation (in particular race) doesn’t go
anywhere. And yes, a lot of times the
resistance to really understanding white supremacy or white privilege comes
from white people, even some that haven’t experienced marginalization or
oppression, yet that is exactly what they feel.
They can still be impacted by
how we talk about this even if they are not who we are talking about. So, how do we move forward?
My
argument is that we have the tool, and we need to use it to police our own
discourse. Yes, when we label someone as
“racist” we are, quite often, not trying to suggest it is a permanent condition
but a learned response and that their words and/or actions need to change
because it is doing people harm. But the
throwing the label at them is not having its intended impact. Our intent is to get people to be better, to
look at their words and their actions and understand how that effects people
around them. You only need to look at Evergreen
College to know that hurling the label didn’t make the situation
better. Instead we get push back that
drives them (primarily white people) further away because they don’t have the
nuanced understanding that we do. The impact does not match our intent.
And we need to address that.
Calling
someone a racist
isn’t helping. When our friends remark
that they “don’t see color” pointing that that is an
impossibility doesn’t help unless we factor in the impact of doing just that. We’ve all been calling each other out in the
simplest shorthand, and it is leading to less honest discussion or no
discussion at all instead of more. We
need to have more conversations, more nuanced, honest, and fearless
conversations and unless we don ‘t look at our own intent by blasting people on social media with a shorthand that
they may not understand, the impact
is going to leave us with even less room to talk not more.
Comments