One of the questions I posed for discussion was, "What might mediate the dichotomy (if there is one) between racism and anti-racism?"
Perhaps we should first think about whether or not a dichotomy exists. Are they purely opposites? Thinking about it more, literally speaking I would say that they are not complete opposites. Anti-racism is a response to racism, making it dependent upon racism, while racism can exist without this opposing response. But, the idea of anti-racism is to nullify all of the beliefs and views of racism, making it "conceptually" opposite (if that makes any sense).
Assuming there is a dichotomy, though, let's proceed. What can lie between? Like in the religious distinction between theism and atheism, but are centered around a specific claim. Racism is the belief that people can be categorized according to race, are naturally done so, and thus are hierarchically placed leading to discrimination against certain groups based on this. Anti-racism, similarly, includes any beliefs that oppose racism. In religion, agnosticism might fall between the two opposing beliefs (belief in a supreme being, or belief that one does not exist) as it claims that one cannot know which one is true, and sticks to a policy of not believing either way. Can this be applied to mediate this opposition? Can people say that they don't want to believe that humans are naturally categorized, or in the case of anti-racists, that humans are not? Unfortunately, it gets much more complex--there lies, of course, the issue of believing in the notion of race itself, as well as the various cultural constructions of it, the extent to which actions are carried out in the name of race, and so on and so forth.
I think that any sane person now would hope that they would be anti-racist. I think, though, that this would include getting rid of all of the social constructions that allow for race; which, in my opinion, is quite impossible (at least at this stage). And, sadly, disregarding racial characteristics can lead to colorblind racism, which puts it back on the scale with racism.
Ahh, it's so confusing! I think that it's complex to look at them as complete oppositions, with some sort of possible mediation; but on a simplified level, what else is it? I'd appreciate any comments as I struggle to understand my own question (haha).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don’t think we have to narrow our beliefs or perspectives on race to these two categories: racism or antiracism. While being antiracist means trying to eradicate the notion that race matters at all in society, not being racist doesn’t make us antiracists. Furthermore, our ideas about race do not have to be measured on a spectrum, where there are two extremes. What you are looking for is a middle ground on this spectrum, which does not necessarily exist in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI have used this analogy once in my discussion paper and I think I can reapply it again here. Imagine me asking you what is your belief or opinion on the differences in colors found within a species of birds. You don’t have to restrict your answer to “I think color matters for birds because it is a determining factor in mating and thus establish the superiority of certain specimens of birds over others” or a response that is opposite to what has been said such as “I think color does not matter at all because we should look at each bird as an individual and merit each for attributes that each has control over than those that the individual bird doesn’t.” I know this analogy is oversimplifying the complexity in race, but I think you get my point.
For me, I believe that the physical, genetic, and behavior traits that we mark with race just because they vary amount different groups of people matter simply because they make our species less monotonous. Like bird lovers who like looking at the diversity among birds, I acknowledge and appreciate the existence of differences among the human race. I don’t think this idea is racist and I certainly hope not. Neither is it antiracist because I am not saying that differences do not matter.
In end, I think all I’m trying to get at is that we don’t have to confine ourselves to the two narrowly defined categories about racial beliefs. The ideas about race differ so much from one individual to another that we can’t possible know and assign them to either of these two groups.
I wanted to touch on something that you said: “I think that any sane person now would hope that they would be anti-racist. I think, though, that this would include getting rid of all of the social constructions that allow for race; which, in my opinion, is quite impossible (at least at this stage).”
ReplyDeleteI really wish that any sane person would also be anti-racist. I have lived my life surrounded by people of different colors, religions, social backgrounds, and economic statuses. I have enjoyed are discussions so much and am amazed at how freely and deeply we can talk about race in Dr. Fathman’s class. And although I am grateful that these experiences shape my perspective and allow me to make open-minded decisions about individuals, sometimes I find myself in an idealistic world. Sometimes I forget that outside of our class, there is ignorance and hatred.
A month ago, a student was threatened that she would “be lynched” by two drunk guys. Since then, it has been an issue that has been brought forth to Student Government every Wednesday during Senate meetings. Students are talking with other students and administrators to come together and see what can be done. But what can be done? And is it that we are still living in times where race matters so much?
This has not been the only incident. A friend of mine had to face being called the “n-word” at the beginning of the year. She is composed. She is compassionate. She is everything. She is a Presidential Scholar and an RA. But none of that mattered at the time when she was called something so horrific.
I already read chapter 4 in Hartigan and agree with him that racism still occurs. The reason that many fail to recognize it is because of the notion that things such as The Civil Rights Movement and Affirmative Action have already “remedied” the problem and put everyone on an equal scale. But is everyone truly on an equal scale? Like Hartigan says, inequality may not happen explicitly, but rather to the denial of things such as jobs and housing.
From a student perspective at this University, what can be done to change the climate on campus? What do we do prevent such incidents from occurring?