sigelphoenix

I read a recent interview with Morgan Freeman linked from the sex_and_race community, and I thought I'd use his comments as a springboard for my own thoughts.



He says he finds Black History Month "ridiculous."

"You're going to relegate my history to a month?" asks Freeman. "I don't want a Black History Month. Black history is American history."

I see his point. But let me first say: We have needed a month for black history, because otherwise who would have given any attention to the unique experiences of black people in America? History, like it or not, is white/rich/male/straight/Christian history in this country, both because such are the people who have held power and determined the course of the major events that comprise history, and also because such people are given more of a voice than minority groups when it comes time to record history. Taking a month to spotlight marginalized histories lets us know what happened to these "others," as well as being a way of pointing out how the dominant identity has influenced supposedly neutral history.

The flip side of that, as Morgan points out, is that maintaining a separate black history could also prevent black history from being recognized as American history. I think we needed to give black history a protected space, because it's been stomped on and silenced; but the ultimate goal is to have everyone recognize that it belongs, full voiced, in American history. People might not realize that this is a provisionary step, and think that this solves the problem of our ignorance -- no need to alter the way the mainstream operates, because we give the minority a month here or there.

Morgan then goes on to note that there are no white or Jewish history months.

Well, yes. I mean, you could convince me that Jewish history has been overlooked in the U.S. -- for example, the way Jews weren't "white" until how many decades ago? But, like I said, American history is and has been white history. It's not that I'm willing to grant minority ethnic groups a spotlight, but oh, not the white people. It's that white people have it all the time. There are white people who are silenced -- women, gay people, poor people -- but these people are silenced for reasons other than their whiteness. Let's be frank -- "white" is not an identity that's in need of protection.

You know what pisses me off? When equal treatment is labelled as an attack on the majority. cereta said something similar in her famous entry on male privilege in fandom, something about how, when she chose to keep her last name instead of take her husband's, she was criticized for going against her husband/men/the institute of marriage. She did nothing, in fact, against her husband -- she kept her last name, exactly the way he kept his. And yet.

Similar treatment is given to black/women's/etc. history months. These individual observances have no effect on the way history is taught for the rest of the year, and yet they're often criticized as being examples of "special treatment," or unfair to white people.

You know what this makes me think of? Say you have two little kids. One of them is spoiled silly, has all the toys he wants. The other kid -- not so much with the material abundance. One day, though, he gets a toy of his own, no more valuable or shiny than anything else the first kid gets. And yet that first kid will throw a fit and want to have that exact same thing. Not because he's really hurting for one more toy, but because the other kid has something he doesn't.

If you've ever had to watch over small children, you'll know I speak the truth.

Now, I'm not using this to say that white people are spoiled children. :P I am saying, though, it's so easy to overlook what you've got and only notice when the other guy gets something. No, white people don't have something exactly like black history month, in which we make it a point to look at the history of a single race. However, the other eleven months are enough "theirs" that it really shouldn't matter that they lose one.

How can we get rid of racism?

"Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man," Freeman says to Wallace. "And I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You wouldn't say, ‘Well, I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.’ You know what I'm sayin’?"

Nnrgh.

Yes and no. I understand the impulse to say, "Stop making race an issue and racism will end." I used to believe that myself, until very recently, in fact. But I've been reading a lot of things by people, both in print and on LJ communities like sex_and_race, that reveal how inadequate that strategy is.

The thing is, colorblindness is something that sounds great on the surface. We stop recognizing race? Okay. Then what do we do? Treat everyone neutrally? But what is "neutral"?

Remember that video about invisibility I posted the link to? What's invisible, accepted, the default -- or, in other words, what's "neutral" -- is, in fact, a very specific identity. If we try to revert to neutrality in order to eliminate racism, we'll be favoring a society that is already geared toward white people. Other races will, in essence, need to assimilate to whiteness in order to be neutral. Those who don't, who embrace their own specific heritage or even acknowledge the ways in which white society overlooks them, will be criticized for not being colorblind. Racial minorities will remain silenced, and nothing will change. It will do absolutely nothing to educate us on the ways in which we have been racist in the past, and the damage that has done. It will do absolutely nothing to reveal to us how we still remain race-conscious, and even racist, today, and how the damage of the past continues to have an impact.

In other words, "colorblindness" as a solution is a luxury afforded by people who benefit from society as it currently exists, in which whites are the highest, blacks (and probably Latinos and Middle Easterners) are the lowest, and everyone else is in between.

I acknowledge that, in some ways, making a point to focus on race can be counterproductive. Dwelling on the past, some might say. And I do worry sometimes about this approach, the emphasis on racial inequalities and white privilege, the "difference" movements that emphasize the need of minority groups to be somewhat insular and essentially exclude other races ... I worry that all this can perpetuate racial separation and the idea of essentialist racial identities. However, racial minorities are already treated differently. No, we shouldn't go around saying "you're a white guy" and "you're a black guy" -- but in many says, society already does that. What's more, it's often done in an implicit manner that neatly prevents accusations of overt racism. To ignore the racial inequalities entrenched in wider society and our own personal perceptions is essentially escaping responsibility.

For a better explanation of all this, see Are we ready for a colorblind society? from PBS' What Is Race? website.



Also, is it just me, or is Sarah Brightman's "Once in a Lifetime" a song about S&M? Or at least bondage?