I am seriously losing
patience with white people who don't get it.
Pop quiz! What is your
response to this?
A. OH BURN, TRUTH
B. I find it incredibly
offensive that someone has just labeled my entire race as thieves. No
one race is better than the other, I won't have someone stirring up
racial hatred. If you define white as Western European and American,
we are not responsible for all the evils in the world. Black people,
Asian people, Indian people, Muslims, Jews, shamans, witch doctors,
first nations, Maoris etc. have all committed atrocities and stolen
from each other.
If you answered A,
congratulations! You're not a completely terrible human being!
If you answered B (or
some
variant thereof), then just... GTFO.
When this happened on
my Facebook, I pretty much disengaged completely. I wrote only, “OH
NO, I'M REVERSE RACIST”, which is probably far too subtle a slice
of mockery for the person in question (who probably thinks that
“reverse racism” is a thing), and then I backed the fuck off.
Another friend, who does a lot of anti-racist work, stepped up and
wrote some very patient and kind posts to try to get the first person
to check their privilege without hurting their fee-fees too much. I
didn't say anything else, because I knew I wouldn't be able to stay
civil.
The fact is, I'm having
an extremely hard time giving a flying moon-fuck for white people who
care more about their own hurt fee-fees than about combating racism.
Say it with me:
ANTI-RACISM. IS. NOT.
ABOUT. WHITENESS.
It's
really, really, really, really, really
not
about us.
I
am white – matrilineally Jewish but fully WASP in appearance –
and my
one personal encounter on the receiving end of racism (not to
mention my numerous
encounters
with sexism and heterosexism) assures me of what should be completely
frickin' obvious to everyone: being
on the receiving end of an -ism is much, much worse than having to
check your goddamn privilege.
And
I am profoundly
not
interested in explaining this to people who don't get it.
I've
been learning about the history of the gay rights movement in the US,
and one thing I've found very striking is that from the very
beginning the movement was split into two wings. The one side
advocated a softly-softly approach, and the other was a lot more
militant. I think it's generally accepted in activism that both wings
are necessary for maximum movement efficacy: if you don't have a
softly-softly side, you'll alienate the mainstream, but without a
militant wing you might not get anything done.
Myself,
I don't have the temperament to be gentle with people whose consciousness hasn't yet been raised. But, by God, I admire
those who do.
