Social Justice

[jccalhoun]

I have a phd in Communication (technically the department was called Communication and Culture) and I teach in a Comm department (in fact I am writing this from my hotel room as I attend the National Communication Association conference). I am stunned that someone who teaches in communication is so ignorant and could honestly claim "“As a white woman I just never have seen the racism." WTF. in the comm departments I have been a part of we talk about race and gender and sexuality all the time.

[Zeusthecat]

This feels a bit counterproductive

 

Something just seems a bit off about the notion that if I want to protest in support of a thing, I would need to go find a person that is affected by that thing and ask for their permission first. I don't mean to generalize and I realize there is a lot of nuance around that but looking at the big picture with these issues, I don't think having these kinds of fights between people who ostensibly share the same goals has anything but an overall negative effect on any progress being made.

[Bjorn]

This feels a bit counterproductive

 

Something just seems a bit off about the notion that if I want to protest in support of a thing, I would need to go find a person that is affected by that thing and ask for their permission first. I don't mean to generalize and I realize there is a lot of nuance around that but looking at the big picture with these issues, I don't think having these kinds of fights between people who ostensibly share the same goals has anything but an overall negative effect on any progress being made.

 

I'd say it's often arrogant.  If you want to support African-Americans, immigrants, trans folk, gays, whatever, there is a high, high, high likelihood that there are existing groups and leaders you can seek out and support.  By forming their own group, or starting their own events, and assuming leadership roles within those groups and events, white/straight/majority students are very likely actually muddying the waters rather than trying to support actual people. 

 

Also, taking the #concernedstudent1950 hashtag and repurposing it is dumb, and ignorant.  That hashtag specifically references the year black students could attend Mizzou.  It has historical and cultural meaning specific to Mizzou.  White students who take it and just try to use it because it's visible and popular are being pretty shitty by being completely ignorant of the history and context of the phrase.  Better is to find something that has meaning within your own community, and the most likely place to find that is within existing groups.

 

There was a similar thing at KU over the last week.  A white guy was doing a hunger strike at KU, but ultimately stopped because he agreed that his attempt to help had become a distraction away from getting people to listen to black voices on campus. 

 

My white activist friends around here have been trying to design events to educate white people about the specific local history/current events they may not have been aware of, to familiarize them with local groups and leaders they can support, and with strategies on how to talk with white friends/family who say shitty things.  It's something that can do some good (maybe), but isn't trying to draw publicity away from the people actually affected by all this or to speak for them. 

[jennegatron]

Was going to type something out, but really just l agree with Bjorn here.

[Bjorn]

Speaking of local history, many cities, big and small, have forgotten or hidden histories in regards to racism, violence and oppression.  I know multiple people who in the last few weeks have just learned about 1970 riots, deaths and violence that turned parts of Lawrence into what felt at the time like a war zone (I know a few people who lived in Lawrence at the time who described it that way).  A lot of people tend to look at something like Ferguson as this isolated event (both the killing and the protests), but it's one thread in a tapestry of similar events over the last century.  This is why working with local leaders and groups is important, as they are the most likely to know that local history, which in turn can become a powerful tool used in protest. 

[Zeusthecat]

I hope I don't articulate this too poorly but I guess the way I see it is that this is an issue that both parties are deeply involved with. I understand that black people are the ones that are negatively affected by it and are always going to have the best perspective on what exactly is wrong and how we should approach fixing things. But at the same time, people that are members of the oppressive party probably also have a valuable perspective on things that the oppressed might not understand as clearly. I mean, as a white guy, I've had the displeasure of having some very uncomfortable conversations with various family members and other ignorant people that have given valuable insight into how and why they think the way they do.

 

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I don't see anything wrong with a bunch of white people organizing to send other white people the message that "Hey, we're being fucked up and we need to stop!". I think that can be a valuable supplement to all of the other protests that are happening.

 

In this case though, I'll concede that there was indeed some nuance around the events I posted that makes it a little tonedeaf.

[Bjorn]

I think this is one of those theory versus reality problems.  In theory, I agree with you that anyone should be able to engage in activism that they care about in whatever capacity they think they are best suited.  However, in practice, I don't think it works out well when people from the majority try to take leadership roles in causes that are most heavily identified with minority populations. 

[clyde]

I wonder if it would have been better received if it was clearly named something like an "Whites Against Racism" since the way racism harms white folks is a particular subject on its own. I'm sure it would be criticized, but I could see it being worthwhile and non-oppressive.

[itsamoose]

I wonder if the whole calling for someone's job thing is because that is so often the response for public personalities. Donald Sterling, Paula Seen, that ESPN anchor, Charlie Sheen and so on that has simply been the response for all of them. Now those people being millionaires I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear, but for anyone not independently wealthy the same punishment could be devastating. This in particular drives me up the wall. Sure it's easy, and that's probably why it is done, but the idea that the way to defeat an argument or position you don't like is to destroy the person making it I just can't get behind.

[Ninety-Three]

I wonder if the whole calling for someone's job thing is because that is so often the response for public personalities. Donald Sterling, Paula Seen, that ESPN anchor, Charlie Sheen and so on that has simply been the response for all of them. Now those people being millionaires I don't think anyone is going to shed a tear, but for anyone not independently wealthy the same punishment could be devastating. This in particular drives me up the wall. Sure it's easy, and that's probably why it is done, but the idea that the way to defeat an argument or position you don't like is to destroy the person making it I just can't get behind.

 

Remember a year or so ago when the owner of a basketball team said some racist things, and when recordings of his private conversation got out he was fined millions of dollars and banned from the league? We can all get behind the sentiment of "screw that racist jerk", but it seems weird to punish someone's professional/business life for a private conversation, and I'm frightened of the precedent it sets to fire people for saying unpopular things that are unrelated to their job.

 

I think it might have been discussed in this thread ages ago, but we can see it affecting regular people in things like the Justine Sacco incident where someone made a racist joke on their personal Twitter, it blew up by the power of social media, and she got fired from her job. The company publicly stated when firing her "There is no excuse for the hateful statements that have been made and we condemn them unequivocally. We hope, however, that time and action, and the forgiving human spirit, will not result in the wholesale condemnation of an individual who we have otherwise known to be a decent person at core." It seems a bit two-faced for the company to execute the maximum possible condemnation of her (public firing) while claiming to hope she's not condemned wholesale.

[clyde]

I'm not sure if I expressed my opinion in a satisfactory way.

I feel a sense of injustice about the way jobs in American society are considered to be commodities worth judging someone's value on, and simultaneously life-lines. It would be so much better if they were considered temporary priviledges and were irrelevant to whether or not someone will be able to feed their family and pay rent.

The reason I'm not bothered by Sacco getting fired is that I don't think she is more deserving of that job than many un-employed or under-employed folks who haven't had the priviledges that she has had.

My view on this has some amount of nuance though. I don't think that most people are capable of performing every duty (surgeon, police), but a PR agent? I'd like to take someone off the street and see how much worse they do when you offer them however much she was being paid.

[SuperBiasedMan]

Worth pointing out that sometimes being prejudiced or ignorant of social justice can make you less fitting for a job especially if you're stubbornly unwilling to change.

[jennegatron]

Remember a year or so ago when the owner of a basketball team said some racist things, and when recordings of his private conversation got out he was fined millions of dollars and banned from the league? We can all get behind the sentiment of "screw that racist jerk", but it seems weird to punish someone's professional/business life for a private conversation, and I'm frightened of the precedent it sets to fire people for saying unpopular things that are unrelated to their job.

 

So the owner you're referring to is Donald Sterling (which was one of the examples itsamoose listed.) The thing about this is that the story that got reported on was that Sterling was talking racist shit about America's favorite basketball uncle, a man whose career was cut criminally short by HIV fears, Magic Johnson. Even people who HATE the Lakers like Magic Johnson. But this was far from an isolated incidence of casual racism.  The conversation came after Sterling had been accused of housing discrimination in the rental properties he owns (which is how he's rich enough to have owned a basketball team.)  He then paid millions of dollars to settle out of court. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/donald-sterling-to-pay-2725-million-to-settle-housing-discrimination-lawsuit.html ) It's well known in the league that dude is a racist. He was also super weird and did not have a good relationship with his players. I think the conversation was merely an ignition point for something that had been stacking up for a long time.

[itsamoose]

In the case of Donald Sterling that is probably a fair assessment, the dude had a pretty shitty past. I still can't justify in my mind the link between personal statements and one's job. As Clyde pointed out jobs, particularly in the west, are a huge deal and more or less define your ability to survive. So when you call for someone's job as a result of one thing they said, it strikes me as the 21st century equivalent of calling for their head. I know a lot of the people who do this kind of thing are coming from a good place, but it's really just mob justice in the end.

[Griddlelol]

I've tried reading things on the subject, but I really just don't get why cultural appropriation is a thing, let alone why it's a problem. When people live collectively, you get spread of ideas, culture and customs. It's just part of being human: you copy things you think are awesome. 

 

Can someone explain to me, like they would to a child, why it's a big deal?

[Ben X]

We've had massive discussions about this previously - in this thread in August and June and also in the "Ethics..." thread in August. I recommend you do a post search for "cultural appropriation" to find these discussions and then check them out. You'll probably find a few simple explanations in there (although I'm not saying people shouldn't give you one here too) along with more in-depth discussion.

[Merus]

Worth pointing out that sometimes being prejudiced or ignorant of social justice can make you less fitting for a job especially if you're stubbornly unwilling to change.

 

Three responses to that:

• no more, and more importantly no less, than other considerations required for your job. It's more of a problem for Kim Davis to be a bigot than it is an Apple store worker in terms of whether or not they should lose the ability to feed themselves over their bigotry
• a mob intent on shaming and un-platforming people have demonstrated their inability to tell whether someone is actually prejudiced or ignorant of social justice
• being unprejudiced and fully conversant in social justice is a standard that maybe one or two people in this thread meet. Cast not the first stone and all that.

[Ben X]

• being unprejudiced and fully conversant in social justice is a standard that maybe one or two people in this thread meet.

 

Well I know I'm one of them but who's the other guy?

[Merus]

Oh Ben, you sweet summer child

[Griddlelol]

We've had massive discussions about this previously - in this thread in August and June and also in the "Ethics..." thread in August. I recommend you do a post search for "cultural appropriation" to find these discussions and then check them out. You'll probably find a few simple explanations in there (although I'm not saying people shouldn't give you one here too) along with more in-depth discussion.

 

I read that, and it didn't really help my understanding. Way too specific examples that didn't really resonate with me.

[SuperBiasedMan]

Three responses to that:

• no more, and more importantly no less, than other considerations required for your job. It's more of a problem for Kim Davis to be a bigot than it is an Apple store worker in terms of whether or not they should lose the ability to feed themselves over their bigotry
• a mob intent on shaming and un-platforming people have demonstrated their inability to tell whether someone is actually prejudiced or ignorant of social justice
• being unprejudiced and fully conversant in social justice is a standard that maybe one or two people in this thread meet. Cast not the first stone and all that.

 

I think you misunderstood my point to mean that it's always fine since it can affect job performance, I just wanted to point out that it can affect performance for some jobs (as no-one else seemed to have said as much). I'm not endorsing it wholesale or trying to justify mob mentality.

 

Also I guess my brevity with a phone post made me unclear with regards to the third point. I don't expect people to be fully fluent in social justice, extremely few people are. Mainly people should be open to realising there's more they need to know/understand, instead of stubbornly resisting PC culture. Also if your job deals directly with a student body that contains minorities then you should know really know a bit about the issues facing them, otherwise you're just not actually equipped with everything you need to do the job correctly.

[Badfinger]

Don't be a racist and don't say or do racist things and maybe you won't be face consequences for being a slimeball.

[Twig]

Don't be a racist and don't say or do racist things and maybe you won't be face consequences for being a slimeball.

wow that was easy wish someone had thought of that before

[Bjorn]

I read that, and it didn't really help my understanding. Way too specific examples that didn't really resonate with me.

 

Let's try to take an example of one possible situation (something that does actually happen, across multiple cultures).

 

1) In my town is a university that only serves native peoples, it was set up to do that because of their historic lack of access to higher education (it's also built on the grounds of an institution the government used to try and forcibly assimilate native peoples years ago, but that's another story).  This university holds art fairs, pow wows and other public events throughout the year, at which lots of white people go and buy art, learn about native history, meet and hang out with native peoples, etc.  The people going to these events are (probably) not engaging in cultural appropriation. 

 

2) A middle aged white woman opens up a store that sells art and holds classes based on native art/religion, but employs no native peoples, buys no products from native craftsman and seeks to profit from their image because it is popular and holds certain symbolism among certain crowds.  She's taking someone else's culture to profit from it personally, while cutting off that culture/people from her activity.  In her pursuit of her business, she's also likely making a number of both minor and major changes to the actual style, meaning and history of the work she is providing.  However, her clients are likely to be ignorant of this and view her work as legitimate, and may even come to view actual native work as inferior or wrong in some way. 

 

A comparison like that can be scaled up or down in impact and severity, but the essential idea holds that someone from outside of a culture benefits from something primarily produced or associated with that culture, often in a way that benefits the outsider but has no benefit or even harms the originating culture.  It doesn't have to be monetary.  It can be as small as just benefiting a person's image.

 

Appropriation isn't about the spread of ideas, it's about the sterilization of them to fit within the existing dominant culture, which is often the outcome regardless of what the intent was. 

[Griddlelol]

Ok, thanks I understand that, I guess it's just nuanced enough that there's always going to be examples that people disagree on. In your above example, I can see how one is good and one is bad, but things I've come across where people have argued it's cultural appropriation, haven't been as cut and dry.

For example my gym stopped yoga classes a while back, and recently I've seen that they've stopped a free yoga class in Canada due to cultural appropriation. Neither of those directly profit from taking a thing - yoga - and they are essentially white washing it: removing all the spirituality and turning it into a purely fitness and stress release thing. 

Are they appropriating? They're not profiting, but they are ignoring some aspects and in my opinion stripping yoga of spirituality is beneficial...