white normativity

it occurs to me that white normativity exists although i have never heard this term. i was just at a conference about race, at a workshop on a theory of "silent racism." this theory is essentially that all white people are somewhat racist--that white people's actions/behaviors/thoughts are more or less racist or somewhere on that continuum. "not racist" doesn't exist in this theory.
now, i am not going to argue for or against this theory, but i do want to mention that during the workshop, the person leading it kept saying "we." usually this is not a big deal, however, someone asked who the "we" was and the response was white people. language, namely "we," the presenter used was never altered after this question was asked.
the presenter assumed the audience was white, as that is the meaning of "we." the audience was not white. in fact, the audience was mostly people of color. to me, the inherent message of the continuation of using "we" is that people of color should be disregarded, even if they are in the room.
this was the moment during the conference that i began to think about white normativity. i began to connect concept to practice. to me, white normativity is when we reference the world from a white perspective and (un/consciously) assume that everyone agrees with and has this perspective.

in this situation, the perfectly logical explanation (ple) for the presenter using "we" and really only meaning white people, was simply that it was difficult to find an easy way to make clear that the theory was in reference to white people. to me the ple is pretty pathetic. also, it tells me that the presenter is not doing their own work, just reporting their research. if the presenter had done their own work, this ple would not exist.

pronouns

really, i just have one thing to say. in the absence of knowing the appropriate gender pronoun--she/he--the person should not be referred to as "it."
the sad thing is i hear this often enough to realize that it is said often. people are always people; they should be treated as such. no one, not one person, should be referred to as a thing, an it, whatever, or nothing.
what made me especially disappointed today was that one of the people who off-handedly called someone "it" was a person who attended a training about how to be an ally for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) community. calling someone "it" certainly is not a good start or positive reflection of this person's ability to be an ally to the lgbtq community.
that is all.

institutional racism

sometimes, there is no perfectly logical explanation (ple), no excuses at all.
it was wonderful to sit in a training and have the trainer, a white man, say that institutional racism is the primary factor in the disparately high numbers of children of color in the foster system. i was astonished. it was refreshing to hear such honesty. he didn't want to beat around the bush or have us believe that there was some other "logical" explanation. when we play off stereotypes, believe that a person's worth is less than another because of their race, and act according to our belief in that person's lower worth, then we have racism on individual level. when our beliefs shape our systems--schools, policies, laws, social services, then that initial active use of racial stereotypes is institutional racism.
i think he is right. institutionalized racism has engrained in us that when children of color are in the foster system that somehow that is acceptable. or more acceptable than white children. how does this belief continue so rapidly for so long? the thought that some children deserve to be in the foster system (while others do not deserve to) is the ple that must stop.

i wish there were more moments like today's training.
kudos to you, trainer. thank you for keeping it real.

judgement and action

forgive me for judging...
i am starting to think that a ple for people whose awareness about social justice issues is high centers around action. or lack of action to be precise. for a socially-aware person, the perfectly logical explanation for inaction is the simple fact that they are aware. somehow having heightened awareness and knowledge of information about the world is enough.
if ignorance is not an excuse, then when you do know (when awareness/knowledge is present), inaction is not an excuse either.
try telling a police officer after being pulled over: "i didn't know that was a law." that is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. furthermore, when you do know the law and are pulled over for breaking it, whose responsibility is that?
knowledge alone does not solve problems. in the case of being pulled over, knowledge that the law exists does not mean you follow the law. with social justice, knowing the "laws," or statistics, experiences, cycles of oppression does not mean that you are affecting social justice change.

yesterday i had started this same blog but it came out much more angry than now. and, in a very me fashion, riddled with pointed questions that i would never actually ask someone. just think and occasionally write.
i do think, however, it is important to share a little of where i was at yesterday when i sat down to type my thoughts...
please practice what you preach.
help me understand the gaping hole between what you say and what you do.
why is it that you say you understand about sweatshops, but make no effort to not buy their clothes? what is the knowledge worth then? show me. show the clothing manufacturers. show the workers behind the clothes. show your values. show how knowledge affects your choices. make new choices.
you want to know what you can do?!? use your knowledge! think critically AND act critically. have your actions connect directly to your thoughts. my gosh. is it really that difficult to figure out what to do?


help me understand how you can expect respect, but have no idea how to demonstrate it? how can you expect something you don't really understand yourself? the congruence of expectation and demonstration should be apparent. i can show you respect when you can also show it.


how can you say you want an advanced version of a training when you can't say one thing you gained from it in the first place? i have to say, as a trainer, this is frustrating. what it sounds like you are saying was those few hours you and i both spent were pointless. what value was your time if you did not gain something? then, you have the gall to request a more advanced training on the same topic? why would i waste my time on developing, planning, and implementing it when there is a possibility you will disregard it as well?

don't tell me something is broken when you have the knowledge and tools to fix it. freaking fix it yourself, then tell me you fixed it.

turning the other cheek

privilege and ignore are scary words to me when they are in the same sentence. a couple months ago now i helped lead a training about privilege. a man at the training said that he would just ignore his privilege and that would serve as a solution for the system of privilege.

it’s scary to think that the two-year-old child’s solution of covering up your eyes—if i can’t see you, you can’t see me—is suddenly a viable solution for adults in regard to privilege. when we see two-year-olds do this, it’s cute and endearing. when adults do this, what do we think? it’s sad to me because i have seen covering one's eyes as an acceptable solution. it’s sad and scary to think ignoring privilege and pretending not to have it all of a sudden seems a likely way to solve the problem. is it true that in reality when it happens, we think it's okay? why is this funny for a child to do and serious for an adult? to me, this indicates something very wrong is going on. something we are not willing to acknowledge but is there nonetheless.

the real problem of privilege, however, is systemic, cultural, and personal. we might not be able to see it because we are not really looking. it’s a pervasive system wrought with expectation and entitlement, fear and blame whether we acknowledge it or not. when people have privilege and acknowledge they do the guilt that accompanies is overwhelming. let me ask though---who makes guilt an overwhelming emotion? only the person feeling it, that’s who...rightfully so to some degree being that the system is so insidious. it chokes everyone, suffocating people into consciouslessness.

i am not trying to knock the tactic of ignorant bliss altogether. sometimes it is useful; i recognize it as a defense mechanism, but i think it’s important to unpack that. why is there a need for defense when it comes to acknowledging privilege? my best guess is the lack of readiness to accept responsibility for privilege. responsibility for how the system currently is, responsibility for contributing to oppression, and responsibility to do something about it and with it. that’s a huge mental and spiritual undertaking. avoiding such an undertaking, such a responsibility, is certainly easier than facing the reality.
on the other hand, people lacking privilege face reality everyday. there is no option of defense—of ignoring, of pretending, of avoiding responsibility. privilege truly is having this luxury. the option of avoidance if and when you choose.
ignorance by choice is just one more perfectly logical explanation (ple) to not change; to not have to try to live and achieve social justice.
stay awake people! don’t use a ple because it’s easy. be in it (in your privilege) even though it’s hard and brings about emotions that are difficult to face up to. reality in its fullest is difficult to face up to. what’s worse is when you don’t see what is truly going on around you and how you are a part of it. don't continue to contribute to oppression. it doesn't benefit anyone. how is ignoring privilege beneficial to anyone--including yourself?

so, what do you do with your privilege?

religious privilege

i often do diversity trainings and use social justice as the foundation of my trainings. a few weeks ago, i led a training on religious privilege. it was only an hour long session; aimed at getting people to talk about how religious privilege affects and impacts all our lives.
the group was certainly slow to talk with one another and i attempted to roll at their pace. talking about religion over lunch is, afterall, a little unusual and potentially scary. i gave that to them. so i am nearing the 45 minute mark--we still needed to verbalize concrete examples of religious privilege. i pulled out my old stand-by, the academic year vacation schedule. christmas break and easter break, now of course, politically corrected to be winter and spring break respectively. from no where i expected came an absurd PLE! our vacation schedule is based on the farming season. that's why we have winter break. logical, perfectly. accurate, debatable.
first, i was blown out of the water and stumped with this response. it made me a little disappointed; disappointed for a few reasons actually. i was disappointed in myself because i wasn't prepared for this answer. i was disappointed in the answer itself because it blocked that person and the rest of the group from having a dialogue about religious privilege. and, i was disappointed because at the end when i asked the group for something new they took from the session, the first few answers were that our vacation breaks were based on the farming season.
why is it that what people who came took away something that wasn't even about the topic? this PLE totally took center stage to the potential learning and exploring that could have happened.
i do want to say that yes, we still farm in this country. however, we are an industrialized, technology-driven country and society. we have been for a long time. if our vacations were in fact determined from farming, why isn't farming a greater part of our current culture? i still believe that religion is the greater determinant of why we center our annual vacation breaks around december 25 and easter sunday.

when i was younger, the holidays i celebrated were not given as school holidays. that continues to be the case even now with the changed language of what our vacations are called. i always had christmas and easter off, including the week around each of those holidays. in order to take the two holidays celebrated in my non-christian religion, my mom had to lie. taking holidays that were not christian, and therefore not already blocked out in the academic year, was unacceptable. how is it that to practice religion in a country that grants freedom of religion is unacceptable? all i knew as a kid was that my holiday, my religion was not valid enough for the school system. being "sick" was valid, even without a cough, headache, illness, or symptoms of illness. so, on holidays--just two days in the whole year, i was called in sick. yet, no one had to be sick to get christmas off.

that PLE just took away my experience...i think that's why it took me by such surprise.