• Sections

    • Jul

    1

    GA Notes: “My Race is (Not) Your Race”

    Filed Under events, ga, race, uu culture, workshops 

    Notes from General Assembly - a week late!

    “What is the racial construct that latinas and latinos are coping with?” This is the question Jorge Zeballos attempts to address in his presentation, My Race is Not Your Race. This event was sponsored by LUUNA (Latino UU Networking Association).

    The following are notes I took during the program:

    I would highly recommend obtaining the audio of this event, and another Zeballos lecture (Cosmic Race, Rainbow People, and Other Myths - also about latinos and race). You can get these here at SoftConference.

    Share This

    Popularity: 28% [?]

    Comments

    31 Responses to “GA Notes: “My Race is (Not) Your Race””

    1. Jaume on July 1st, 2007 12:33 pm

      When the speaker says that Latin Americans do not use the word “race” because it is taboo, apparently he knows better than those Latin Americans, who are unaware of their “true” problems. This Latino consultant, talking from the USA and using US concepts, pretends to apply a US mind scheme on a different reality, so that those “conceptually challenged” Latin Americans can “learn” what is “really” going on there. Well, it sounds a pretty imperialistic, although well intentioned, point of view. Rather than changing their language and applying US patterns to Latin America, I suggest that Latin Americans should be first listened to, if anyone wants to really understand them better: when a latino woman says: “I’m from New Jersey”, she means exactly that and needs no interpretation.

    2. Chalicechick on July 1st, 2007 1:24 pm

      (((Zeballos went on to say “whiteness” has been co-opted by … the KKK, the Christian Right, the Founding Fathers of the US)))

      The thing is, I don’t particularly see being white this way.

      I see being white as simply a sign of my ancestry. I think my ancestors did a lot of cool stuff, and the world would be a poorer place had they not lived. I won’t deny anyone else these same statements.

      (And the founding fathers provided the foundation for a society that was the closest to fair any society that didn’t have people starving every time the crops fail had ever been, with provisions for it to become fairer as society progressed. I really don’t like seeing them thrown in with the Christian right and the KKK.)

      Anyway, the only time I hear that whiteness is associated with the KKK, or is something to be ashamed of, or is the social justice equivilent of original sin, is when I stray into anti-racism conversations.

      CC

    3. Enrique on July 1st, 2007 1:42 pm

      Jaume, I do not know if using concepts of race as articulated in the US liberal political discourse is imperialistic per se (that is kind of harsh). What is certainly true is that the racial constructs used here are not universal, but are only intelligible to those who are familiar with that discourse in a North American context.

      What is the primary construct that lati@s are coping with? Classism! If race is understood at all, it is a subsidiary concept to social class. Why dont we have a response from lati@s to the message of UUism? Because class is not something that is treated meaningfully within our congregation or in liberal political discourse in general.

      If UUism will take hold in a Spanish speaking community, it would have to develop its own theology of liberation that supports civil society and cultivating the human relationships within those communities who struggle for survival. It needs to disrupt the discourse of clasism as effectively as it does race, sexism, homophobia, ableism, …etc.

    4. hafidha sofia on July 1st, 2007 4:02 pm

      Jaume: Zeballos is Peruvian. He was invited by latinos to talk to mostly white people and some people of color, including latinos such as myself. Can you explain to me how pointing out a racial hierarchy created by Spanish and Portugese people is “imperialistic?”

      CC: Zeballos never said that being white was being a member of the KKK. Please note the context in which he made this statement, and perhaps purchase the audio for further elucidation. I don’t think you’re responding to anything he said. For people of color, namely indigenous and black folks, the founding fathers did as much damage to them as the KKK has done - the KKK was merely an extension of slavery, which most of our founding fathers profited by. Everyone should be proud of who they are, but they also need to know who they are. And that means accepting *all* of your history.

    5. Jeane on July 1st, 2007 5:14 pm

      Despite the 2006 responsive resolution re race and class, classism has been denied and swept under the rug in the UUA. I watched all the main GA events via my PC and almost no one in the plenary sessions used the word classism; people use the words “economic justice”and “antiopression.” Only Gini Courter and a couple of other UUs said and named classism. This is also true for the article in the last UU World reporting on what some churches had done re the race and class resolution. Most people are not comfortable talking about money and what it tells the world about them.

      I am a poor senior living on social security only; my rent is one half of my social security. Sometimes I wonder why I keep going to my metropolitan UU church. It’s all I’ve got. Sometimes I feel like I’m the only poor person in the church. People don’t realize why I don’t go to the church retreat and GA. I’ve been asked why I wear the same clothes over and over. Those of us in my situation are judged and blamed; I’ve lived my life the best I knew how with what I was given.

      I’m sad and angry because I’ve watched classism be ignored. Classism is what it is, and it can’t be couched under other names.

      May I suggest reading “Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics” by bell hooks, an African American professor. She writes about sexism, racism, classism, etc, and the patriarchy in very radical terms. Nothing is going to change unlil the patriarchal system itself is changed.

    6. Chalicechick on July 1st, 2007 9:49 pm

      I do know that some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, lots of rich white people at that time did. (And indeed, rich people of all colors had owned slaves for thousands of years before the Founding Fathers were born.)

      The British brought slavery with them and founding fathers like George Washington and John Adams spoke out against it and signed laws banning it from the states they allowed into the union.

      And the 3/5ths clause, nasty as it sounds to modern ears, was not about determining the humanity of slaves, but about limiting the south’s power to create more slave states.

      Ben Franklin and Benjamin Rush formed the first abolitionist group. John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, and John Randolph all released their slaves.

      Were the Southern founding fathers worse? Of course, Jefferson especially, though even Jefferson did a lot to stop the slave trade. They were men of their times. Doesn’t excuse it, but I’d still say comparisons to the KKK would be a little harsh. The KKK are trying to stop the progress of racial justice. I don’t think that could reasonably be said to be the founding fathers’ goal at all. If anything they on the whole moved justice forward, though not as fast as we all wish they could have been able to.

      (Indeed, the ban on importing slaves that Jefferson imposed meant that slaves grew more and more expensive as time progressed. Though he was no saint on the issue himself, he may actually have done more to further the abolitionist cause than anybody else of his time as by the time of the civil war, slavery was unsustainably expensive and many plantation owners had offered to release their slaves if the abolitionists/government would give them enough money to buy a factory instead..)

      I’m not certain which Founding Fathers did what to the native Americans, though I know bad things happened to them.

      That said, the world is still a more just place with democracy, trials by jury and the reforms they created than it would be without it.

      Were they more interested in creating this new form of government than they were in freeing the slaves? Yes. But I don’t think that’s tantamount to making them KKK members either.

      CC
      And no, I get that the speaker’s point was that white people shouldn’t be ashamed, I’m just chagrined that anybody feels the need to make the point that anybody shouldn’t feel ashamed because of their race.

    7. hafidha sofia on July 2nd, 2007 12:32 am

      CC: What is your understanding of race-based slavery?

    8. Chalicechick on July 2nd, 2007 6:01 am

      Is race-based slavery one race enslaving another (e.g. the current practice in the Sudan of Arabs enslaving Africans,) or rich members of a race enslaving poorer members of the same race (e.g. the current practice of poor Thai girls being sold into prostitution?)

      Either way, both practices are as old as human history and morally wrong and still going on around the world.

      Slavery is at least as old as Hammurabi, and abolitionism is at least as old as Moses.

      Slavery, no matter it’s relationship to race, is a battle that is being won around the world, but being won around the world slowly.

      And I still think the Founding Fathers played their part.

      CC

    9. Mike (dh) on July 2nd, 2007 11:49 am

      (((((Zeballos went on to say “whiteness” has been co-opted by … the KKK, the Christian Right, the Founding Fathers of the US)))

      The thing is, I don’t particularly see being white this way.

      I see being white as simply a sign of my ancestry.))

      As far as I can tell you are suggesting instead of “race” we use the word “ancestry”. Plus, your next statement suggest you have internalized at least some association with some of your white ancestors.

      (([...]I think my ancestors did a lot of cool stuff, [...] I really don’t like seeing them thrown in with the Christian right and the KKK.))

      Which I read as equivalent to “I don’t like that the KKK and Christian Right have co-opted ‘whiteness’”.

      Next, I would like to unravel your set of “ors” in your last statement of your first comment:

      ((Anyway, the only time I hear that whiteness is associated with the KKK [...] is when I stray into anti-racism conversations.))

      I think that this statement may be true, but in a trivial way. Most times when a group whose primary platform is about being racist white people then any time the group is brought up “whiteness” and racism are going to be mentioned.

      I am sure you do not deny that people who strongly identified with their “whiteness” started the KKK. The KKK certainly sees itself as a manifestation of “whiteness”. Even whiteness in the sense you seem to be using it. That is as ancestry and historical legacy.

      (([The only time I hear whiteness] is something to be ashamed of is when I stray into anti-racism conversations.))

      In my limited experience this guilt about being white has come from white people every time. In fact, one of the reasons I am turned off by UUism is a lot of the white people in it seem to have this guilt about being white…

      (([The only time I hear whiteness] is the social justice equivilent of original sin is when I stray into anti-racism conversations.))

      Who said/implied this in your estimation? In my estimation Zeballos and Hafidha did not.

      I have a feeling I know where this sentiment came from, but am not sure, so let me just say this:

      Whether you choose to identify whiteness as a concept or not, it does exist in reality. People believe, by virtue of their ancestry, they are better or worse, deserve more or less, should hate this person and love that person, etc. This Ancestry-ism, if you prefer that term, is real and present.

      Further, my personal belief is that power confers responsibility. As a member of the group of “whiteness”, even if you are in that group against your will (you didn’t choose what country you were born in either), you have powers that someone not in that group doesn’t have (just as an American you have special powers to shape America as opposed to a cuban).

      When the KKK says “we as a people of white ancestry are like this or that” you as a white person can say “people of white ancestry also are like this and that”.

      Which of course, in my estimation you are already doing:

      ((And the founding fathers provided the foundation for a society that was the closest to fair any society that didn’t have people starving every time the crops fail had ever been, with provisions for it to become fairer as society progressed.))

      Which of course is the whole point of the Zeballos talk. These issues of Ancestry-ism are internalized to the point we don’t even recognize them as such. I think your post nicely illustrates this.

      My view is that instead of assuming that whiteness is already at its best, and that other people who are not white just don’t understand this and are attacking it for irrational reasons, that perhaps whiteness can be further shaped to be even better. Of course, to deny whiteness even exists, or to deny your membership in it (to say not my responsibility), is to choose to do nothing to shape its future.

      I tell you this much, the Christian Right and the KKK are perfectly fine being the sole representatives of “white” values if you want to let them.

    10. Mike (dh) on July 2nd, 2007 12:01 pm

      Jeane: ((I’m sad and angry because I’ve watched classism be ignored. Classism is what it is, and it can’t be couched under other names.))

      According to my readings of Bell Hooks she feels that all these system cannot be talked about in isolation, and that the are all parts of a system of oppression.

      In fact, when I saw her speak she referred to our society as a:

      white supremacist capitalist patriarchy

      or something like that.

      I would say that Bell Hooks, at least in the talk I saw, was saying that “Classism” is not “it” but part of “it”.

    11. Chalicechick on July 2nd, 2007 12:31 pm

      (((As far as I can tell you are suggesting instead of “race” we use the word “ancestry”. Plus, your next statement suggest you have internalized at least some association with some of your white ancestors.)))

      Well, the founding fathers weren’t directly my ancestors, a point I do blur in my response.

      ((Which I read as equivalent to “I don’t like that the KKK and Christian Right have co-opted ‘whiteness’”.))

      I don’t know why you read it that way. It pretty clearly says that the categorizing of the Founding Fathers with the KKK is done by the speaker, not that it is done by the KKK.

      (Well, I’m sure the KKK tries, but it is the speakers words being repeated uncritically here, not the KKK’s)

      (((Next, I would like to unravel your set of “ors” in your last statement of your first comment:)))

      FWIW, you don’t particularly unravel my argument here. Between this statement and Hafidha’s earlier “Everyone should be proud of who they are, but they also need to know who they are. And that means accepting *all* of your history,” which was apparently stated under the assumption that anyone who disagreed with her on the Founding Fathers must not know what they are talking about, I will note again that doing anti-racism work doesn’t necessitate rudeness.

      ((In my limited experience this guilt about being white has come from white people every time…In fact, one of the reasons I am turned off by UUism is a lot of the white people in it seem to have this guilt about being white))

      I agree, though you’re not likely to hear this in a UU church outside of anti-racism stuff, so please don’t judge the entire religion based on it.

      I don’t feel guilt about being white and I wouldn’t reject my culture either. I have some quibbles with the speaker’s definition of my culture, particularly that it seems to imply that other cultures don’t make judgements on race, but I get that I’m hearing what he said secondhand and may not be understanding it properly.

      (((Further, my personal belief is that power confers responsibility. As a member of the group of “whiteness”, even if you are in that group against your will (you didn’t choose what country you were born in either), you have powers that someone not in that group doesn’t have (just as an American you have special powers to shape America as opposed to a cuban).)))

      All we can do is use what powers we have to make the change we can. Personally, I believe people gain more power by having better opportunities and more education, so I want to work for the poor in those directions. That’s why I’d like to work for legal aid.

      (((When the KKK says “we as a people of white ancestry are like this or that” you as a white person can say “people of white ancestry also are like this and that”.)))

      I could, but I would be making racial stereotypes. Why would I want to do that?

      (((My view is that instead of assuming that whiteness is already at its best, and that other people who are not white just don’t understand this and are attacking it for irrational reasons,))

      I have no idea where you’re getting this.

      How can the concept of “best” even apply to a culture when cultures by their nature are always creating new things and surpassing their previous achievements?

      (((I tell you this much, the Christian Right and the KKK are perfectly fine being the sole representatives of “white” values if you want to let them.))

      They can call themselves whatever they want, nobody listens to them anyway.

      I want to talk about Unitarian Universalist values, American Values and human values.

      CC

    12. Mike (dh) on July 2nd, 2007 1:24 pm

      ((Well, the founding fathers weren’t directly my ancestors, a point I do blur in my response.))

      Which is an important point to make, why did you feel like listing the Founding Fathers when talking about the accomplishments of your ancestors but not the KKK? Neither are your direct ancestors (I assume) but you associate with them by … nationality? ideology? race?

      ((((Which I read as equivalent to “I don’t like that the KKK and Christian Right have co-opted ‘whiteness’”.))

      I don’t know why you read it that way. It pretty clearly says that the categorizing of the Founding Fathers with the KKK is done by the speaker, not that it is done by the KKK.

      (Well, I’m sure the KKK tries, but it is the speakers words being repeated uncritically here, not the KKK’s)))

      Your parenthetical is in fact essential if we are using the word co-opt in this context to mean roughly that the KKK claims to be representative of whiteness.

      We can get more precise as I do believe that it is important to note that the KKK claim is accepted by many, and the Christian Right claim is accepted by even more is important. Maybe this is effective co-opting.

      But for the KKK to co-opt anything, they have to make the claim, not anyone else. That is why I interpret the speakers claims as references to the KKK and Christian Right views. I think he represents them accurately.

      The next assumption I made was that you don’t like that the KKK is associated with whiteness (and thus to a group common with the Founding Fathers).

      From these two things:

      1. You do not like any categorization that links the KKK and the Founding Fathers.
      2. The KKK in co-opting “whiteness” have created such a link (you agree that the KKK have made such a claim, and I assert such a claim is believed by a significant number of people).

      I infer:

      You do not like that the KKK/Christian Right has co-opted whiteness.

    13. Mike (dh) on July 2nd, 2007 1:42 pm

      Note, when I said:

      Mike: ((I would like to unravel your set of “ors” in your last statement of your first comment))

      Which is what I attempted to do. That is address three parts of your statement individually instead of all as one block.

      CC: ((FWIW, you don’t particularly unravel my argument here))

      There wasn’t an argument in your last statement to unravel (in the sense of make come apart), just a set of observations interwoven into one statement. Which could be unravelled and commented on individually.

    14. Chalicechick on July 2nd, 2007 2:58 pm

      I suppose I didn’t make myself clear. In mentioning that my ancestors had done both good and bad things, I intended to recognize the KKK by implication. I don’t see them as nearly so influential to American culture, so I didn’t really bother naming them, but, duh, of course they are.

      I don’t think that the KKK is succesful in “defining whiteness” except in their own heads. And I don’t see that the Christian right is either.

      And I really doubt there’s any proof that the Founding Fathers even tried to co-opt whiteness in any sense. If anything, they fought for things like religious freedom that broadened American culture and made it more accepting of outside influences, which is, to put it mildly, the opposite of the KKK’s goal.

      I guess I just see whiteness as a lot more varied. I don’t really see a culture in itself because I don’t feel like I inherently have much in common with other white people that I don’t also have in common with people of color. (Particularly since my husband is a Brit. The illegal immigrant I know best is one of his relations and white.)

      Skin tone aside, I really can’t think of anything, actually.

      (((The next assumption I made was that you don’t like that the KKK is associated with whiteness (and thus to a group common with the Founding Fathers).)))

      Ok, and that’s another chancy assumption that isn’t really accurate. I recognize that there are many categories that the KKK and the Founding Fathers share. That both are primarily made of white people is one of them.

      What I didn’t like was the original statement “Zeballos went on to say “whiteness” has been co-opted by … the KKK, the Christian Right, the Founding Fathers of the US.”
      which to me implies that the Founding Fathers had the same GOALS as the KKK and the Christian Right, namely, setting back the cause of racial justice.

      Hafidha echoes this point when she says “For people of color, namely indigenous and black folks, the founding fathers did as much damage to them as the KKK has done - the KKK was merely an extension of slavery, which most of our founding fathers profited by”

      I do think the KKK has tried to co-opt whiteness. I don’t think they have been successful. Ask a KKK member what white people are like, they will likely say “Smarter, morally superior, better breeding stock, purer, more holy…” I don’t know anyone outside the KKK who would answer the question that way, so I’d say the KKK’s attempt to define whiteness has been pretty unsuccessful.

      Instead of trying to tell me what you’ve decided I mean, why don’t you focus on what I’ve actually written?

      So far your record of reading my mind is not so good.

      CC

    15. Mike (dh) on July 2nd, 2007 4:08 pm

      ((What I didn’t like was the original statement “Zeballos went on to say “whiteness” has been co-opted by … the KKK, the Christian Right, the Founding Fathers of the US.”
      which to me implies that the Founding Fathers had the same GOALS as the KKK and the Christian Right, namely, setting back the cause of racial justice.))

      When I read this I thought, “How in the world did you come to that conclusion from that sentence?” What does that statement have anything to do with the GOALs of each group?

      Zeballos in that statement as I read it says nothing about the GOALs of those groups. And during the talk he only talked about their effects.

      In fact, if you refer back to your own writing, it is you who introduce a question of goals:

      ((The KKK are trying to stop the progress of racial justice. I don’t think that could reasonably be said to be the founding fathers’ goal at all.))

      Which no-one claimed to be the case. If this new argument were the actual argument we were having I may agree with you.

      To support your claim that goals were being prescribed you quote Hafidha (who incidently wrote this next statement AFTER you introduced the notion of that co-opting had to do with goals)

      ((Hafidha echoes this point when she says “For people of color, namely indigenous and black folks, the founding fathers did as much damage to them as the KKK has done - the KKK was merely an extension of slavery, which most of our founding fathers profited by”))

      Which says nothing about their goals in associating themselves with whiteness.

      This appears to me to be a problem of definitions.

      ((I don’t think that the KKK is succesful in “defining whiteness” except in their own heads.))

      ((I do think the KKK has tried to co-opt whiteness. [...] I’d say the KKK’s attempt to define whiteness has been pretty unsuccessful.))

      Does co-opt = define in your mind?

      If so, then would you at least admit that if you took co-opt to mean either of these two definitions in the dictionary:

      * To appoint summarily (with or without the appointee’s consent).

      * To appropriate (something rightly belonging to another) as one’s own; to preempt; as, to co-opt someone’s name.

      Or even to take your advice:

      ((Instead of trying to tell me what you’ve decided I mean, why don’t you focus on what I’ve actually written?
      So far your record of reading my mind is not so good.))

      Take what I wrote as a definition (since you have not given one explicitly, but perhaps implicitly as meaning having a common GOAL or to be the definition of)

      My proposed definition was:

      (([...] if we are using the word co-opt in this context to mean roughly that the KKK claims to be representative of whiteness.))

      That indeed the KKK has co-opted whiteness. And leaving questions of the self identification (or not) of the Founding Fathers as white, that at least there are many groups that claim kinsman-ship with them on the basis of whiteness?

      Off topic: Personally, I thought we have both been doing an excellent job of using words like assume, assumption, apparently to mark when we were guessing at the others meaning.

      I also think I have been referring to what you have written very consitantly.

    16. Jeane on July 2nd, 2007 7:02 pm

      Mike,
      I didn’t say that Classism is THE problem. I was saying that people are not comfortable with saying the word “classism.” The UUs I read and saw used the words “economic justice” and antiopression.” I believe those words are less threatening, and as a result Classism itself will not be addressed.

      I agree with everything you said about bell hooks.

    17. mike (dh) on July 2nd, 2007 8:01 pm

      Jeane: i misunderstood. With you clarification i can say I agree. I feel like a lot of activists have sacrificed a lot yo raise awareness about these concepts and we harm that work by choosing more palatable words. It is sexism, classism, and racism. No apologies for using those words.

    18. hafidha sofia on July 2nd, 2007 8:59 pm

      CC & Mike: Hmmm … I have no real comment on your exchange. I would just like to add that there actually are some very unique qualities to slavery in the Americas (remember that only 7% of Africans sent to the New World ended up in the US). I would highly suggest doing some serious reading on the race-based chattel slavery that took place here. Or if you don’t have time for that, maybe Google it.

      Also, stating that “some bad things” happened to the indigenous people of the US is a serious understatement. An easy way to get more information on this is to get your hands on and listen to the first three CDs of James Loewen’s “Everything You’ve Been Taught is Wrong: Fact, Lies and Fiction in American History.” He presents things very clearly in accessible language. The genocide and enslavement that happened in our nation and the rest of the “new world” was very intentional, and was all about profit - but instead of simply saying, “this is a practice about money,” the wealthy European men who created this construct used RACE as the justification, thereby branding an entire people as fit only to be slaves - and their children, and their children’s children, for all time. This is very different from other types of slavery.

    19. Philocrites on July 3rd, 2007 4:54 am

      I claim the “founding fathers” because I’m a liberal and an American, not because I’m white. The legacy of constitutional government, rooted in the consent of the people rather than any inherited status or arbitrary authority, is a legacy I both inherited — by being born a citizen in the United States — and have claimed — by studying and embracing the liberal tradition. For me, it has nothing to do with sharing a race or ancestry with them.

      One of the best things about liberalism — political, religious, or philosophical — is that it acknowledges a human being’s capacity to transcend their inherited or imposed roles and adopt new ones. There are obvious limitations to this capacity, especially when other people keep imposing them, but it’s still one of the best things that emerged from the Enlightenment.

    20. Chalicechick on July 3rd, 2007 5:10 am

      The definitions I was using, from the Random House Unabridged, were:
      “to assimilate, take, or win over into a larger or established group: The fledgling Labor party was coopted by the Socialist party.”

      and

      “to appropriate as one’s own; preempt: The dissidents have coopted the title of her novel for their slogan. ”

      As far as I can tell, all three groups have been unsucessful in the first, which is assuming the founding fathers even tried.

      The second is mostly about in-group identification and, sure, the KKK has done that, but I don’t see that the Religious Right or the Founding Fathers have, particularly given the religious right’s efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters.

      ((((Zeballos in that statement as I read it says nothing about the GOALs of those groups. And during the talk he only talked about their effects.))))

      I was taking for granted that one can not Co-opt something accidentally, so if the Founding Fathers did Co-opt whiteness, it was the result of goal-directed behavior.

      Are you now saying that someone can co-opt something accidentally? That doesn’t fit with any of the definitions you provided.

      (((To support your claim that goals were being prescribed you quote Hafidha (who incidently wrote this next statement AFTER you introduced the notion of that co-opting had to do with goals)))

      I’m not sure what the timing has to do with it. It clearly made the point “founding fathers are enemies of racial justice” and even accused me of not knowing my history for thinking otherwise.

      Using your definition of co-opt makes the inclusion of the Founding Fathers make absolutely no sense, unless there are documents you and the speaker know about where the Founding Fathers appoint themselves representatives of whiteness.

      Are there small pockets of rednecks that claim kinsmanship with the KKK? Sure.

      Does that have much effect on the larger culture, aside from them serving as bad guys on the occiasional Law and Order episode? I really don’t see that it does.

      CC

    21. hafidha sofia on July 3rd, 2007 8:08 am

      Some of the stuff being said on this thread is making my head hurt, and now I realize why: I’ve already had this conversation.

    22. Chalicechick on July 3rd, 2007 8:41 am

      FWIW, I don’t think that it’s wrong to say that the Founding Fathers did racist things, even that they were racist. Not all of them did, but some of them certainly owned slaves and some of them participated in the genocide of Native Americans.

      But I think they also furthered the cause of racial justice at the same time and that to view them as just being evil is to oversimplify.

      Lots of great historical figures would have thought me incapable of doing much because I’m a woman and not Christian, and in that sense, I understand what you’re saying. At the same time, I do still feel I can marvel at their achievements and admire them for what they were able to do for the world.

      CC

    23. Jess on July 3rd, 2007 9:20 am

      I’ll wade in, cautiously, to say that I think the point here could be tied to the idea that white people, in general, do not tend to claim a racial identity. The very concept of “whiteness” is a hard one to grasp for many of us — the cultural “norm” is presented as white, and words like multi-culturalism or diversity seem to only apply when there are “not-white” people mixed in. It’s as if “white” implies the _absence_ of race or culture (whether or not this is true).

      For example, CC’s comment, “I guess I just see whiteness as a lot more varied. I don’t really see a culture in itself because I don’t feel like I inherently have much in common with other white people that I don’t also have in common with people of color. (Particularly since my husband is a Brit. The illegal immigrant I know best is one of his relations and white.) Skin tone aside, I really can’t think of anything, actually.”

      But, from what I understand, part of the work of anti-racism is to help all different kinds of people claim their own racial/cultural heritage as part of their identity, so that they can understand how that broader identity interacts with others, and work intentionally on those interactions that may be negative or racist. So to talk about the concept of “whiteness” is to bring into focus that those interactions _do_ have something to do with race, and not always just from the perspective of the “not-white” side of things.

      This is not to say that “white” and “not-white” are concepts that can ever truly encompass the _culture_ of a particular group of people, which is informed by so many other factors, but that the interactions between those two broad groups can be framed in a context informed by racial concepts.

      Please tell me if I’ve missed the mark here.

    24. hafidha sofia on July 3rd, 2007 11:16 am

      Jess, I think you’re very much on point.

    25. Mike (dh) on July 3rd, 2007 12:33 pm

      ((Are you now saying that someone can co-opt something accidentally? That doesn’t fit with any of the definitions you provided.))

      No one is disputing there was a goal.

      ((What I didn’t like was the original statement “Zeballos went on to say “whiteness” has been co-opted by … the KKK, the Christian Right, the Founding Fathers of the US.”
      which to me implies that the Founding Fathers had the same GOALS as the KKK and the Christian Right, namely, setting back the cause of racial justice.))

      You state clearly that it implies not just that there was a goal (any intentional act implies this), but that goal was in both cases setting back racial justice.

      I believe the quote from the speaker does not support this and your only other reference to support that this has been done is this (not even made by Zeballos):

      ((Hafidha echoes this point [of setting back the cause of racial justice] when she says “For people of color, namely indigenous and black folks, the founding fathers did as much damage to them as the KKK has done - the KKK was merely an extension of slavery, which most of our founding fathers profited by”))

      Which says nothing about the goal (in the sense of intent) of the Founding Fathers. I suppose it could imply a profit motive, but not your claim of “setting back racial justice”.

      Also your view:

      ((which was apparently stated under the assumption that anyone who disagreed with her on the Founding Fathers must not know what they are talking about, I will note again that doing anti-racism work doesn’t necessitate rudeness.))

      and further clarified here:

      ((It clearly made the point “founding fathers are enemies of racial justice” and even accused me of not knowing my history for thinking otherwise.))

      was written in response to Hafidha:

      ((Everyone should be proud of who they are, but they also need to know who they are. And that means accepting *all* of your history.))

      “enemies of racial justice” is an ambiguous statement which can be taken to be either a reference to intent or effect.

      I don’t see how Hafidha’s statement can be seen to say anything about intent (except perhaps profit motivation, not your claim of setting back racial justice). I can see how it says something about effect.

      Your words:

      ((Founding Fathers had the same GOALS as the KKK and the Christian Right, namely, setting back the cause of racial justice.))

      Are clearly a reference to intent.

      Further, I also don’t see her statement as suggesting that if you disagree with her view you must not KNOW your history. Her point appears to be (although you would have to ask her about her intent) is that should ACCEPT your history.

      Now as far as I can tell there is no real a-priori reason one needs to in fact accept “your” (what does that mean?) history. I think this is a racial justice theory, and has a lot to do with the comments of Jess.

      Further, I think CC does accept her whole history, and has admitted the effects of some of the decision of the Founding Fathers could be seen as “racist”.

    26. Mike (dh) on July 3rd, 2007 12:51 pm

      Jess,

      Interesting. I am not very schooled in these issues so your comments are interesting to me.

      I do see people making the claim that racism is recognition of the race construct itself.

      There reasoning seems to be that race is not an emergent phenomenon but comes into being though a pure mental construct.

      The problem is that racism does indeed exist. As an emergent phenomenon it exists without anyone willing it to do so. If we were all the same color, we would just have an ism based on something else.

      So it exists wether people want it to, or recognize it, or not.

      To me, if you accept that premise then it is sheer lunacy to then to take the position of self imposed race blindness. That is if you think it is good to solve these problems.

      In fact, I think the general feeling among social justice people seems to be that this self imposed blindness to the plight of your fellow man is not just not helpful, but harmful.

      To not be part of the racial justice problem, you must see race.

      Does this make sense?

    27. Mike (dh) on July 3rd, 2007 1:03 pm

      Another thought occurs to me. Indeed, I don’t know my history of the founding fathers well enough to make the claim that they co-opted whiteness.

      But why did I accept this fact so readily? I think it is because whiteness has co-opted the founding fathers. When “white” american culture is talked about in a lot of circles, the founding fathers are pointed at as representing some of the best achievements of white culture.

      It didn’t occur to me that the Founding Fathers themselves did not identify as white peoples. I guess I just assumed that since their laws excluded the peoples of other colors, that it was so.

    28. Jess on July 3rd, 2007 4:31 pm

      >>To not be part of the racial justice problem, you must see race.

      Exactly. Though I don’t know that it is possible to be completely not a part of the racial justice problem, that’s the goal as I understand it.

      An ethnomusicologist I know starts each term in his undergraduate courses by talking about this notion of “color-blindness” or “racial-blindness” as not only an unwitting proponent of further racism, but a barrier to true multicultural richness of relationship with other people. He says that most kids these days are taught by very well-meaning teachers that everyone should be treated exactly the same, in the hopes that this will end racism.

      But what that mindset does is to make white kids, in particular, feel awkward about mentioning race in any context, which can lead to major defensiveness when attention is called to their actions that might be racist regardless of their intentions. And also, discussion is not open to the interesting differences between races/cultures/families when the goal is to treat everyone the “same,” which means everyone misses out on learning interesting things about each other.

    29. PeaceBang on July 6th, 2007 9:21 am

      I think one of the reasons UUs don’t talk about classism is that they don’t know what the term means. It’s going to take a lot more education and effort to introduce this to our congregations, many of which are just starting to talk about money at all, let alone their own relationship to economic privilege. If you’ve ever run a stewardship campaign or discussed by-laws that make a minimum contribution as a condition of church membership, you’ll know what I mean. I do wish our AO/AR concepts were more intentionally tied to what actually happens in the life of a congregation. It would help.

      As to whiteness, my own story: I am the granddaughter of poor Eastern European immigrants on both sides (one side Jewish). EVERY time I see my name in gold leaf on the side of my church (founded in 1642) I am deeply aware that very recently in the history of that institution, I would not have been considered eligible for membership or inclusion, let alone to be the called minister! Current concepts of “whiteness” that fail to include the broad spectrum of ethnic “acceptability” within the white population are doomed to be deemed unhelpful at best and irrelevantat worst by people like me, the grandchild of maternal and paternal grandparents who suffered terrible discrimination when they arrived in this country for being the wrong ethnicity, but who were unmistakably “white.”

    30. The Last Best Hope on Earth? : Never Say Never to Your Traveling Self on July 7th, 2007 6:43 pm

      [...]“What is the racial construct that latinas and latinos are coping with?” This is the question [...]

    31. Joyce Dowling on July 11th, 2007 3:04 pm

      Great discussion here. Leaders at my church do admit to classism. We had a good discussion after seeing the PBS program about Social Class. Currently, we resolve to being “middle class” (which we know is broad and there are many sub-classes from it), but we do not claim to have a solution or even interest in doing something about it, other than maybe reducing the disparity. Still we should not behave poorly toward people who do not have the resources to act in the typical middle class way.

      I catch myself reacting to someone dressed in a ragged t-shirt and sweats on Sun. morning, but I try to focus on the person’s face, smile, and make them feel welcome. I think the members of my church do this better than most, but it only takes one person, or one incident, for someone to feel they are not treated as being worthy. I have not appreciate certain treatment by individuals in my congregations at times, but remind myself that no one person represents the entire congregation & I look toward seeking justice.

      Though racism is a sub-set of classism, I think it is easier to eliminate than classism itself. We have to be conscious about it, though, and pay attention to what non-white people say about their perception of us (it’s not wrong! it’s a perception, just like history written by whites is their perception) - whites can be so blind! - it’s the invisible white privilege. Through an effort to become multicultural, we can learn about each other and learn better how to get along together. Our principles tell us that’s what we should be about (essay about it here).

      Back to the original topic: Thanks for reviewing this! I’m sorry I missed it. I really enjoyed the presentation last year and want to learn more about the many perspectives of Latino/a/Hispanic people on racial issues. It is really hard for me to “get it” as I consider my culture to be modern U.S. with disregard to my ethnic heritage. I attempted to start a discussion about the book “Soul Work” on WACAN.org in their forum, but never got past Chapter 2: Latino & Latina Perspective since no one ever posted a comment.

    Leave a Reply




    Close
    E-mail It
    visitors since June 16, 2007