When you try to whip them forwards, they buck you off
July 25, 2017 10:29 PM Subscribe
In Defence of the Bad, White Working Class. Shannon Burns writes thoughtfully in Meanjin about middle-class myopia in antiracist politics.
While the author provides a genuinely insightful perspective on growing up poor, he also seems to think that being a middle-class liberal inoculates you against physical violence and aggression. As a queer person, I can't help but think this might be connected to his self-confessed whiteness, heterosexuality, and maleness.
posted by Panthalassa at 11:10 PM on July 25, 2017 [68 favorites]
posted by Panthalassa at 11:10 PM on July 25, 2017 [68 favorites]
It was also understood that if they performed their job well and behaved decently, their rough manners would not count against them. How is it that middle-class progressives are unwilling or unable to make similar adjustments?
Well, because the women among us don't have the luxury of laughing off the guy who punctuates every other sentence with misogynist profanity, because based on lots and lots and lots of experience, that's the guy who will do worse if he gets the chance. The same way gay people don't have the luxury of laughing off the guy who calls people homophobic slurs, and black people don't have the luxury of ignoring casual racism.
This dude is able to extend a bunch of empathy to poor racist white folks, and I wish he'd try to extend the same empathy to the groups of people that are hated by a lot of those poor racist white folks.
posted by protocoach at 11:16 PM on July 25, 2017 [92 favorites]
Well, because the women among us don't have the luxury of laughing off the guy who punctuates every other sentence with misogynist profanity, because based on lots and lots and lots of experience, that's the guy who will do worse if he gets the chance. The same way gay people don't have the luxury of laughing off the guy who calls people homophobic slurs, and black people don't have the luxury of ignoring casual racism.
This dude is able to extend a bunch of empathy to poor racist white folks, and I wish he'd try to extend the same empathy to the groups of people that are hated by a lot of those poor racist white folks.
posted by protocoach at 11:16 PM on July 25, 2017 [92 favorites]
Just as a counterpoint to the FPP article, I think it's really, really worth reading about the big-money genesis of a lot of amped up supremacist politics in America. America is not Australia, which is the perspective of the FPP, but this is also a globalized effort.
posted by codacorolla at 11:18 PM on July 25, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by codacorolla at 11:18 PM on July 25, 2017 [12 favorites]
I think that story is almost more a complement than a counterpoint, codacorolla. How is it that the moneyed corporate right is able to drive a wedge between the working and middle classes? In part - by exploiting the suspicion and contempt that each class bears one another. I see Shannon's essay as poking around the reasons that this suspicion and contempt arise, and I suppose his thesis is that fuller recognition of our class biases will help in presenting a united front to the corporate right. I do agree the closing paragraph is weird and tone-deaf, and it's odd for such a class-conscious essay to not touch on the role played by the elite.
On the topic of racism as a purely cultural trait - well, possibly. There's been study on ethnic preference in babies etc but it's fundamentally an unanswerable question at the moment so I'd avoid sweeping declarations one way or another. Regardless, if racism is omnipresent as cultural construct, isn't that basically as good as it being biological and therefore functionally inescapable? While a theoretical raceblind utopia might be able to be built, it would have to be populated by people entirely unpoisoned by any currently extant culture. I'm very dubious that we can get there by some process of Fabian incrementalism - though, I suppose, what else can we do but try?
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 11:43 PM on July 25, 2017 [9 favorites]
On the topic of racism as a purely cultural trait - well, possibly. There's been study on ethnic preference in babies etc but it's fundamentally an unanswerable question at the moment so I'd avoid sweeping declarations one way or another. Regardless, if racism is omnipresent as cultural construct, isn't that basically as good as it being biological and therefore functionally inescapable? While a theoretical raceblind utopia might be able to be built, it would have to be populated by people entirely unpoisoned by any currently extant culture. I'm very dubious that we can get there by some process of Fabian incrementalism - though, I suppose, what else can we do but try?
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 11:43 PM on July 25, 2017 [9 favorites]
you can tell this guy is no longer friends with any of his POC childhood friends because no friend would've allowed him to publish this
posted by Anonymous at 11:44 PM on July 25, 2017
posted by Anonymous at 11:44 PM on July 25, 2017
I think the article makes a few decent points, but ending it with, "When you try to whip them forwards, they buck you off. If you then rebuke them, they kick you where it hurts. And they are right to do so," is goddamn ridiculous. The apparent reference here is in the rightward shift towards fascism in western democracies, often fueled by an underclass. Becoming a fascist is not a legitimate answer to being lower class, and it ignores the actual research that a LOT of the burgeoning fascists aren't noble savage underclass at all - they're the middle managers with college degrees.
"Kicking you where it hurts" is not supposed to mean fascism. One way to translate that is the psychological concept of "acting out", perhaps more generally in relation to political ressentiment. To imply from those lines that the author meant fascism is "right" is incredibly uncharitable.
BTW I'm a minority and I could read that last paragraph without being fazed. It's not that ridiculous.
posted by polymodus at 11:52 PM on July 25, 2017 [14 favorites]
"Kicking you where it hurts" is not supposed to mean fascism. One way to translate that is the psychological concept of "acting out", perhaps more generally in relation to political ressentiment. To imply from those lines that the author meant fascism is "right" is incredibly uncharitable.
BTW I'm a minority and I could read that last paragraph without being fazed. It's not that ridiculous.
posted by polymodus at 11:52 PM on July 25, 2017 [14 favorites]
I also like how his argument carries this underlying assumption that anti-racism is a luxury afforded by income, as if past a certain number in one's bank account one's racism is magically wiped clean and all middle-class white people inherently appreciate the beauty of diversity and totally aren't harboring their own ugly beliefs and how dare you suggest that fascist movements have historically been driven by the middle-class how very dare you
posted by Anonymous at 11:52 PM on July 25, 2017
posted by Anonymous at 11:52 PM on July 25, 2017
there are lots of ways to read this article, but since he makes reference to an orange buffoon, i'm going to respond to this as a critique of liberals who scoff at trump voters. in that regard, at least, i don't buy it at all.
in an alternate reality where most trump voters last year were hardscrabble, lower class people, i might find this article convincing. but they weren't; i believe the median income of trump voters was around $70k per year. that means their "stick it to the liberals" mentality probably wasn't primarily class-based. moreover, if the primary motivation behind trump were really economic, then of course non-white people of lower economic classes would be supporting him just as much as whites. of course, that isn't so.
the article might also be more convincing to explain trump-like phenomena in a country like australia, which didn't have the institution of african slavery, than it does in the US. trump-like racism in the US is not solely directed at new immigrants; there's also the "inner cities are burning" angle that this article does not address. i'm no expert in australian history, but it seems plausible to me that the lower classes in australia were not privileged in the sense of priding themselves on their whiteness as compared to an even lower class of dark-skinned slaves. so perhaps in australia, there is a more innocent explanation for racism (i mean, i don't really buy that either, but maybe) because it's principally an economic disdain for new immigrants. but in the US, there really was a premium on whiteness during jim crow (and even still, i'd argue) among lower classes because it gave them a leg up at least in that regard. for example, poor whites were not redlined the way black people were in the US. so it seems plausible to think that white supremacy in the US has a malicious edge given our history of slavery that isn't quite as sharp in australia, if the author's more benevolent description of racism there is to be believed.
so, i don't buy the purely economic explanation for trumpism, nor do i buy the comparison to trump-like behavior
in australia. what's left? the author's exhortation not to patronize the mildly racist. well, sorry, but i think trump voters are the ones who tend to patronize and put down others. they're the ones who lay claim to "real" america and who call others "snowflakes," and yet they're the ones who tend to live in cloistered communities without having to contend with people unlike them, and who are up in arms politically at every perceived (and imagined) slight.
at least in the american context, i think this piece is apologia. nice, well written apologia, but just the same.
posted by wibari at 12:03 AM on July 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
in an alternate reality where most trump voters last year were hardscrabble, lower class people, i might find this article convincing. but they weren't; i believe the median income of trump voters was around $70k per year. that means their "stick it to the liberals" mentality probably wasn't primarily class-based. moreover, if the primary motivation behind trump were really economic, then of course non-white people of lower economic classes would be supporting him just as much as whites. of course, that isn't so.
the article might also be more convincing to explain trump-like phenomena in a country like australia, which didn't have the institution of african slavery, than it does in the US. trump-like racism in the US is not solely directed at new immigrants; there's also the "inner cities are burning" angle that this article does not address. i'm no expert in australian history, but it seems plausible to me that the lower classes in australia were not privileged in the sense of priding themselves on their whiteness as compared to an even lower class of dark-skinned slaves. so perhaps in australia, there is a more innocent explanation for racism (i mean, i don't really buy that either, but maybe) because it's principally an economic disdain for new immigrants. but in the US, there really was a premium on whiteness during jim crow (and even still, i'd argue) among lower classes because it gave them a leg up at least in that regard. for example, poor whites were not redlined the way black people were in the US. so it seems plausible to think that white supremacy in the US has a malicious edge given our history of slavery that isn't quite as sharp in australia, if the author's more benevolent description of racism there is to be believed.
so, i don't buy the purely economic explanation for trumpism, nor do i buy the comparison to trump-like behavior
in australia. what's left? the author's exhortation not to patronize the mildly racist. well, sorry, but i think trump voters are the ones who tend to patronize and put down others. they're the ones who lay claim to "real" america and who call others "snowflakes," and yet they're the ones who tend to live in cloistered communities without having to contend with people unlike them, and who are up in arms politically at every perceived (and imagined) slight.
at least in the american context, i think this piece is apologia. nice, well written apologia, but just the same.
posted by wibari at 12:03 AM on July 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
I'm really disappointed by some of the reactions to this essay. The author went to the length of digging up parts of his past that he appears embarrassed by to illustrate a disconnect between middle class values and his lived experience. Reading it as an apologia for fascism seems like bad faith.
posted by zymil at 12:12 AM on July 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
posted by zymil at 12:12 AM on July 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
Indeed, the willingness to expose your wounds is another sign of privilege. Those for whom injury has a use-value will display their injuries; those for whom woundedness is a survival risk, won’t. As a consequence, middle-class grievances now drown out lower class pain. This is why the wounded lower classes come to embrace conservative discourses that ridicule middle-class anguish.
"Lower class pain" here involves only the pain of being a lower-class white cishet person, in particular men, because those are the only "wounded lower classes" that are "embracing conservative discourse". Strangely enough, the other "wounded lower classes", the ones he repeatedly acknowledges had things worse than he did, and the ones that are often directly targeted by progressive positions such as "cops shouldn't shoot black children" and "trans people should be able to use the bathroom safely" and "women should be able to get birth control they can afford and abortions when they need them" and the like? They're not voting for the right wing just to stick it to the middle class.
Maybe they are very receptive to the the "ridicule middle-class anguish" part, but only because they don't care about all those people worse off than them. Poor whites--especially poor white cishet men--did not just suddenly stop being supporters of women, black people, trans people, and so on only after hearing the word "privilege" the first time.
posted by Sequence at 1:06 AM on July 26, 2017 [38 favorites]
"Lower class pain" here involves only the pain of being a lower-class white cishet person, in particular men, because those are the only "wounded lower classes" that are "embracing conservative discourse". Strangely enough, the other "wounded lower classes", the ones he repeatedly acknowledges had things worse than he did, and the ones that are often directly targeted by progressive positions such as "cops shouldn't shoot black children" and "trans people should be able to use the bathroom safely" and "women should be able to get birth control they can afford and abortions when they need them" and the like? They're not voting for the right wing just to stick it to the middle class.
Maybe they are very receptive to the the "ridicule middle-class anguish" part, but only because they don't care about all those people worse off than them. Poor whites--especially poor white cishet men--did not just suddenly stop being supporters of women, black people, trans people, and so on only after hearing the word "privilege" the first time.
posted by Sequence at 1:06 AM on July 26, 2017 [38 favorites]
... but it seems plausible to me that the lower classes in australia were not privileged in the sense of priding themselves on their whiteness as compared to an even lower class of dark-skinned slaves.
National Sorry Day and the Stolen Generations. The history of racism towards the Aborigines in Australia is every bit as horrible as racism in America. And there are parallels there with white American attitudes towards both blacks and Native Americans.
posted by plep at 1:22 AM on July 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
National Sorry Day and the Stolen Generations. The history of racism towards the Aborigines in Australia is every bit as horrible as racism in America. And there are parallels there with white American attitudes towards both blacks and Native Americans.
posted by plep at 1:22 AM on July 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
Reading that essay *enraged* me. I was tired from hearing about Trump in the big thread, but I gotta hand it to him: Shannon Burns inspired me to genuine hatred and wrath, enough that it's taken me a bit of time calming down enough to offer any kind of coherent response, so forgive me if a I fumble a bit.
As mentioned above, the presumption that political correctness is some elitist notion that is imposed from above isn't merely wrong, it's *incredibly* patronizing. You know what? I didn't need my degree to hate hearing someone call a person who looks like me a sand-nigger and want some kind of norm against that shit. Reading this, I don't think he is even capable of thinking of lower class PoC as actual humans motivated by a desire for human decency and respect, just sheep whom the mythical elites lead around by the nose and... you know, I'm being generous imagining that he thinks of us at all, because this whole thing is about white class conflict with the rest of us as playing pieces in his mind.
Moreover, it is - as wibari mentioned - intensely hypocritical. Here we've got:
It's not a thoughtful essay. Oh, and yeah, it's absolutely a defense of fascism - he just said that people are warranted in voting for our 'worst nightmare' over their hurt feelings.
This is a garbage essay from a garbage person.
posted by mordax at 1:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [113 favorites]
As mentioned above, the presumption that political correctness is some elitist notion that is imposed from above isn't merely wrong, it's *incredibly* patronizing. You know what? I didn't need my degree to hate hearing someone call a person who looks like me a sand-nigger and want some kind of norm against that shit. Reading this, I don't think he is even capable of thinking of lower class PoC as actual humans motivated by a desire for human decency and respect, just sheep whom the mythical elites lead around by the nose and... you know, I'm being generous imagining that he thinks of us at all, because this whole thing is about white class conflict with the rest of us as playing pieces in his mind.
Moreover, it is - as wibari mentioned - intensely hypocritical. Here we've got:
When I first came across someone who reacted to something that was said to him as though something had been done to him, I thought he was insane. But he wasn’t. He was from a lower middle-class family and was unfamiliar with our habits of speech. He’d never been beaten, so the words felt ‘violent’ enough for him to react in a way that was, in our environment, laughable.But at the same time:
I confess that if a well-dressed, university-educated middle-class person of any gender or ethnicity so much as hinted at my ‘white privilege’ while I was a lumpen child, or my ‘male privilege’ while I was an unskilled labourer who couldn’t afford basic necessities, or my ‘hetero-privilege’ while I was a homeless solitary, I’d have taken special pleasure in voting for their nightmare. And I would have been right to do so.So him using racist language? Objections are laughable. Someone uses language he objects to? Oh, suddenly it's okay to vote to take away our healthcare or social safety net or whatever the fuck because fuck us for talking down to him.
It's not a thoughtful essay. Oh, and yeah, it's absolutely a defense of fascism - he just said that people are warranted in voting for our 'worst nightmare' over their hurt feelings.
This is a garbage essay from a garbage person.
posted by mordax at 1:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [113 favorites]
I am inclined to be sympathetic toward the author and his class compatriots after the miasma of ridicule spewed toward the current soft targets of the lower classes in the last few years. And this article has several good points, especially about how the 'tolerant' upper classes have very little skin in the game when it comes to exercising their expressed values.
But the victim-status/sensitivity to language section weakened the piece somewhat. Early in the article, the author describes his parents' fear of Asian immigrants and their potential for violence. However, all but one of the examples of directly-experienced violence (included to support the author's claim that violent speech is relatively benign) were violent acts perpetrated by his family toward other members of his family. This brings to mind the stock horror film line "the call is coming from inside the house!!"
Normalized intra-familial violence is a different social concern from the use of state power or the leveraging of entrenched social status to harm or repress distinct classes of people, which can occur without resorting to the unsubtle tactic of open violence. It is precisely the aspirational middle classes who will notice these sorts of wrongs.
posted by Svejk at 1:52 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
But the victim-status/sensitivity to language section weakened the piece somewhat. Early in the article, the author describes his parents' fear of Asian immigrants and their potential for violence. However, all but one of the examples of directly-experienced violence (included to support the author's claim that violent speech is relatively benign) were violent acts perpetrated by his family toward other members of his family. This brings to mind the stock horror film line "the call is coming from inside the house!!"
Normalized intra-familial violence is a different social concern from the use of state power or the leveraging of entrenched social status to harm or repress distinct classes of people, which can occur without resorting to the unsubtle tactic of open violence. It is precisely the aspirational middle classes who will notice these sorts of wrongs.
posted by Svejk at 1:52 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Oh, and one other thing before I back outta here to avoid steam firing from my goddamn ears:
My first political activism was in San Francisco, where I attended pickets and participated in boycotts. This started about when I was in the 3rd fucking grade. Most of the people I've known who mattered in politics? Poor like our family was, not the ivory tower eggheads he has filled with straw to knock down.
So yeah. Stepping away because frankly? I'm going to take any defense of the author as a personal slight today. Guys like him are a part of why we can't have nice things, and it doesn't matter if he laid bare his troubled past or whatever: it didn't make him a better person, it made him very proud of being a worse one.
posted by mordax at 1:58 AM on July 26, 2017 [45 favorites]
Most lower class people of all ethnicities quickly learn that universal justice doesn’t exist, and probably never will, yet unbridled fantasies of fairness are continually thrust upon them from above. Don Quixote rides his workhorse, Rocinante, with the same blind abandon. But the lower classes are not as tolerant as old nags, and they express themselves with actions rather than arguments and complaints.So, uh, how fucking dare he compare lower class people to beasts of burden? And how dare he conflate class with capacity for expression or reasoning capability? How dare he presume that we don't speak for ourselves?
My first political activism was in San Francisco, where I attended pickets and participated in boycotts. This started about when I was in the 3rd fucking grade. Most of the people I've known who mattered in politics? Poor like our family was, not the ivory tower eggheads he has filled with straw to knock down.
So yeah. Stepping away because frankly? I'm going to take any defense of the author as a personal slight today. Guys like him are a part of why we can't have nice things, and it doesn't matter if he laid bare his troubled past or whatever: it didn't make him a better person, it made him very proud of being a worse one.
posted by mordax at 1:58 AM on July 26, 2017 [45 favorites]
It is difficult to reach out to stubborn resentful people who have been brutalized by capitalism and don't give a shit about the common good, yes.
posted by fleacircus at 2:18 AM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by fleacircus at 2:18 AM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
Especially given the Aussie context this is a ridiculous white guy article!
An article about racism, in Australia, aaaand ... ctrl+f aboriginal. 0. ctrl+f indigenous. 0. Fucking really?
ctrl+f a sense that these immigrants and refugees had it about the same as you or worse actually; 0. ctrl+f a sense of the fact that the 'working class uncertainty' that so shaped the people he knew was well shared by these immigrants and refugees because white australians wouldn't fucking hire them; 0.
These blokes are bog standard in my blue-collar industry and they are to a one the biggest bunch of whingers, bar none. When their 'jokes' and 'harmless language' and 'whassa matter it's not like we meant YOU' is met with anything but full approval they will whinge all fucking day. They carry on like pork chops at each other, to their supervisors, their bosses, the entire goddamn management tree, because someone didn't like a joke they made or had the temerity to actually voice an opinion like "hey can you not call me a cunt at work".
Fwoosh! Apocalypse! Mayhem! That cunt fucking dared! Woosh! Fire! Alarms! Exeunt a bear! The old yawn about how they're so beleagured and what's with these kids and they're just battling out here and back in my day! All because someone had the temerity not to want to be called a cunt during work hours!
Fuck right off with the we're the toughest of the lot exceptionalism horseshit you rode in on, Shannon.
posted by E. Whitehall at 2:53 AM on July 26, 2017 [72 favorites]
An article about racism, in Australia, aaaand ... ctrl+f aboriginal. 0. ctrl+f indigenous. 0. Fucking really?
ctrl+f a sense that these immigrants and refugees had it about the same as you or worse actually; 0. ctrl+f a sense of the fact that the 'working class uncertainty' that so shaped the people he knew was well shared by these immigrants and refugees because white australians wouldn't fucking hire them; 0.
These blokes are bog standard in my blue-collar industry and they are to a one the biggest bunch of whingers, bar none. When their 'jokes' and 'harmless language' and 'whassa matter it's not like we meant YOU' is met with anything but full approval they will whinge all fucking day. They carry on like pork chops at each other, to their supervisors, their bosses, the entire goddamn management tree, because someone didn't like a joke they made or had the temerity to actually voice an opinion like "hey can you not call me a cunt at work".
Fwoosh! Apocalypse! Mayhem! That cunt fucking dared! Woosh! Fire! Alarms! Exeunt a bear! The old yawn about how they're so beleagured and what's with these kids and they're just battling out here and back in my day! All because someone had the temerity not to want to be called a cunt during work hours!
Fuck right off with the we're the toughest of the lot exceptionalism horseshit you rode in on, Shannon.
posted by E. Whitehall at 2:53 AM on July 26, 2017 [72 favorites]
Divide and conquer, working well as always.
posted by jonmc at 4:33 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by jonmc at 4:33 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
australia, which didn't have the institution of african slavery
The Pacific islands were closer, so blackbirding happened instead.
posted by zamboni at 5:28 AM on July 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
The Pacific islands were closer, so blackbirding happened instead.
posted by zamboni at 5:28 AM on July 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
Oh, and yeah, it's absolutely a defense of fascism - he just said that people are warranted in voting for our 'worst nightmare' over their hurt feelings.
No, it obviously isn't defending, encouraging, or condoning fascism in any way. That whole section is about "I would have been right to … take pleasure in causing nightmare for the middle class when they have no qualms about exercising their natural right to determine the moral values of the world." This is exactly the sort of conflict picture that made Kant invent the categorical imperative. In this case, if one class can co-opt what's "right" leaving the other alienated and aggravated (terms used in the same paragraph), then is their reaction of immature neener-neenering really that unexpected? (Point: Well, it would be unexpected to the coddled oppressor.)
There's a difference between identifying and describing a thought process and behavior, versus condoning it. At the end of the same section the author specifically uses the word shed, as a point of reflectivity and admission.
There are weaknesses in the piece in terms of rigorous evidence, and oddly glib/just-so logic in some parts. For example the paragraph that relies on a use-value argument is badly developed and very uncritical writing. But the parts about personal experience and the repeated emphasis on difference leading to conflict are really informative.
posted by polymodus at 5:34 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
No, it obviously isn't defending, encouraging, or condoning fascism in any way. That whole section is about "I would have been right to … take pleasure in causing nightmare for the middle class when they have no qualms about exercising their natural right to determine the moral values of the world." This is exactly the sort of conflict picture that made Kant invent the categorical imperative. In this case, if one class can co-opt what's "right" leaving the other alienated and aggravated (terms used in the same paragraph), then is their reaction of immature neener-neenering really that unexpected? (Point: Well, it would be unexpected to the coddled oppressor.)
There's a difference between identifying and describing a thought process and behavior, versus condoning it. At the end of the same section the author specifically uses the word shed, as a point of reflectivity and admission.
There are weaknesses in the piece in terms of rigorous evidence, and oddly glib/just-so logic in some parts. For example the paragraph that relies on a use-value argument is badly developed and very uncritical writing. But the parts about personal experience and the repeated emphasis on difference leading to conflict are really informative.
posted by polymodus at 5:34 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
There's a difference between identifying and describing a thought process and behavior, versus condoning it
Under your taxonomy, does "And they are right to do so" identify and describe, or condone?
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 5:46 AM on July 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
Under your taxonomy, does "And they are right to do so" identify and describe, or condone?
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 5:46 AM on July 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
People keep calling this essay 'thoughtful' - what thoughts do you see expressed initially well here?
Because my reaction to this
They made it clear that I was not the kind of friend they wanted for their sons.
The experience of being deemed undesirable and unworthy even by new Australians is a peculiarly lumpen trial. For me, it was eye-opening. For others, it’s an unutterable humiliation.
is that he's engaging in this massive act of projection, that everyone of his socioeconomic status is exactly like him.
Which is basically my reaction to the essay as a whole.
"My parents were racist but didn't consider themselves such [and how far does the apple fall]" is not a new perspective.
So what thoughts are people seeing this as full of?
posted by PMdixon at 5:59 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Because my reaction to this
They made it clear that I was not the kind of friend they wanted for their sons.
The experience of being deemed undesirable and unworthy even by new Australians is a peculiarly lumpen trial. For me, it was eye-opening. For others, it’s an unutterable humiliation.
is that he's engaging in this massive act of projection, that everyone of his socioeconomic status is exactly like him.
Which is basically my reaction to the essay as a whole.
"My parents were racist but didn't consider themselves such [and how far does the apple fall]" is not a new perspective.
So what thoughts are people seeing this as full of?
posted by PMdixon at 5:59 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
I thought it was a rather good article, and not a defence of facism, but a criticism of liberal-rhetoric which in my opinion does tend to inflate "violence", and "impose" a certain world-view on everyone else independent of their desires, while simultanseously claiming to be on the side of "democracy".
I think some of the reactions are also indicative of the problem:
"So, uh, how fucking dare he compare lower class people to beasts of burden? And how dare he conflate class with capacity for expression or reasoning capability?"
What the hell is wrong with metaphorically referring to the working class as Rocinante? Marx also suggested that the wealthy "ride on the coat-tails of the working class" did he not?
This is the very inflationary concept of "violence" that the author is attempting to address!
posted by mary8nne at 6:03 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
I think some of the reactions are also indicative of the problem:
"So, uh, how fucking dare he compare lower class people to beasts of burden? And how dare he conflate class with capacity for expression or reasoning capability?"
What the hell is wrong with metaphorically referring to the working class as Rocinante? Marx also suggested that the wealthy "ride on the coat-tails of the working class" did he not?
This is the very inflationary concept of "violence" that the author is attempting to address!
posted by mary8nne at 6:03 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
This is the very inflationary concept of "violence" that the author is attempting to address!
Uh. Unless I'm missing something, mordax did not refer to this as violence. So where is the inflation occurring?
posted by PMdixon at 6:19 AM on July 26, 2017 [10 favorites]
Uh. Unless I'm missing something, mordax did not refer to this as violence. So where is the inflation occurring?
posted by PMdixon at 6:19 AM on July 26, 2017 [10 favorites]
It will never cease to amaze me how much hostility metafilter can put forth in the face of this sort of article. The attempt here is pretty clearly to explain the cultural reaction of white working class culture from the perspective of someone who was in white working class culture, and the rage at that is pretty disgusting. You can hate that culture, but at least realize the reactions aren't feigned.
Regarding Trump Voters and their demographics, you need to take into an account that a good chunk of white working class culture is of the opinion that responding to surveys and polls is an excellent way to lose your couch or your home or your kids (not saying this is particularly, likely, but that is definitely the perception) so things like exit polling don't precisely ring true.
posted by pan at 6:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
Regarding Trump Voters and their demographics, you need to take into an account that a good chunk of white working class culture is of the opinion that responding to surveys and polls is an excellent way to lose your couch or your home or your kids (not saying this is particularly, likely, but that is definitely the perception) so things like exit polling don't precisely ring true.
posted by pan at 6:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
So what thoughts are people seeing this as full of?
You want the ten weird ideas you just won't believe? I wonder whether you might perhaps have spent too much time on the internet? ;)
When I call something 'thoughtful' I don't mean it is replete with fightable propositions. If you can read the thing dispassionately (and I do appreciate why that may be difficult) I think you'll see it is a bit more than a collection of gut reactions, received ideas, and ingrained thinking - and that's what I mean.
posted by Segundus at 6:26 AM on July 26, 2017
You want the ten weird ideas you just won't believe? I wonder whether you might perhaps have spent too much time on the internet? ;)
When I call something 'thoughtful' I don't mean it is replete with fightable propositions. If you can read the thing dispassionately (and I do appreciate why that may be difficult) I think you'll see it is a bit more than a collection of gut reactions, received ideas, and ingrained thinking - and that's what I mean.
posted by Segundus at 6:26 AM on July 26, 2017
The attempt here is pretty clearly to explain the cultural reaction of white working class culture from the perspective of someone who was in white working class culture, and the rage at that is pretty disgusting. You can hate that culture, but at least realize the reactions aren't feigned.
I grew up in a trailer. Am I allowed to think the article is a pile of excuses for the way some people at the bottom of the hierarchy displace their anger onto others now.
posted by PMdixon at 6:30 AM on July 26, 2017 [25 favorites]
I grew up in a trailer. Am I allowed to think the article is a pile of excuses for the way some people at the bottom of the hierarchy displace their anger onto others now.
posted by PMdixon at 6:30 AM on July 26, 2017 [25 favorites]
It will never cease to amaze me how much hostility metafilter can put forth in the face of this sort of article. The attempt here is pretty clearly to explain the cultural reaction of white working class culture from the perspective of someone who was in white working class culture, and the rage at that is pretty disgusting.
Among certain groups there is no narrative about white lower class voters. There is just the simple mantra of "I am great and they are racist, the end, forever and ever, amen." Coming to any other conclusion is of course "violent language".
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:31 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Among certain groups there is no narrative about white lower class voters. There is just the simple mantra of "I am great and they are racist, the end, forever and ever, amen." Coming to any other conclusion is of course "violent language".
posted by FakeFreyja at 6:31 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Coming to any other conclusion is of course "violent language".
Funny how no one in the thread has used that phrase.
posted by PMdixon at 6:39 AM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
Funny how no one in the thread has used that phrase.
posted by PMdixon at 6:39 AM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
Among certain groups there is no narrative about white lower class voters. There is just the simple mantra of "I am great and they are racist, the end, forever and ever, amen." Coming to any other conclusion is of course "violent language".
"Among certain groups?" Would you care to enlighten us as to what these groups are? I have never in my life--much of the latter part spent in academia in Portland freaking Oregon-- heard so much as a single person utter this ostensible mantra you posit of "I am great and they are racist, the end, forever and ever, amen."
It is possible you might be, I dunno, making stuff up?
posted by dersins at 6:42 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
"Among certain groups?" Would you care to enlighten us as to what these groups are? I have never in my life--much of the latter part spent in academia in Portland freaking Oregon-- heard so much as a single person utter this ostensible mantra you posit of "I am great and they are racist, the end, forever and ever, amen."
It is possible you might be, I dunno, making stuff up?
posted by dersins at 6:42 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
What the hell is wrong with metaphorically referring to the working class as Rocinante?
The problem isn't referring to or describing as, it's reducing to. As clarified by the words he follows it with.
The attempt here is pretty clearly to explain the cultural reaction of white working class culture [...]
The problem isn't the explaining, it's the excusing. As clarified by the other words in the article.
It's a good and worthwhile attempt to make. I just could've done without all of the apologism that came with it and that seems to be where most other people's ire is coming from, too. And that's not even remotely an unreasonable response. "[X] group does [Y] thing that hurts others because..." is one thing, but "[X] group does [Y] thing that hurts others and they are right to do so" is another.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 6:47 AM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
The problem isn't referring to or describing as, it's reducing to. As clarified by the words he follows it with.
The attempt here is pretty clearly to explain the cultural reaction of white working class culture [...]
The problem isn't the explaining, it's the excusing. As clarified by the other words in the article.
It's a good and worthwhile attempt to make. I just could've done without all of the apologism that came with it and that seems to be where most other people's ire is coming from, too. And that's not even remotely an unreasonable response. "[X] group does [Y] thing that hurts others because..." is one thing, but "[X] group does [Y] thing that hurts others and they are right to do so" is another.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 6:47 AM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
"Among certain groups?" Would you care to enlighten us as to what these groups are? I have never in my life--much of the latter part spent in the academia in Portland freakin Oregon-- heard so much as a single person utter this ostensible mantra you posit of "I am great and they are racist, the end, forever and ever, amen."
It is possible you might be, I dunno, making stuff up?
This reaction here is what he's talking about, I'm pretty sure. You're taking what's pretty clearly meant to be a description of the sentiment and treating it like its an actual quote to attack his response.
To be fair "Among Certain Groups" isn't exactly peaceful either, but still, you've got to have some concept of metaphor and hyperbole?
posted by pan at 6:49 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is only an "excuse for racism" if you think any kind of "explanation" of the sociological and personal factors that motivate racism are inherently an "excuse".
Also given that the actual aims of the article are i) to point towards what might be more effective mechanisms for re-orienting the opinions of working class people, in order to overcome racism, and ii) explaining why the the usual elitist PC interventions are ineffective, then I think its a gross misreading to simply accuse the author of excusing racism.
Oh and - I meant the whole "how dare he" was conflating (implicitly) the use of a metaphor with a kind of violent act.
posted by mary8nne at 6:51 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Also given that the actual aims of the article are i) to point towards what might be more effective mechanisms for re-orienting the opinions of working class people, in order to overcome racism, and ii) explaining why the the usual elitist PC interventions are ineffective, then I think its a gross misreading to simply accuse the author of excusing racism.
Oh and - I meant the whole "how dare he" was conflating (implicitly) the use of a metaphor with a kind of violent act.
posted by mary8nne at 6:51 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
australia, which didn't have the institution of african slavery
True - instead they had essentially prison slave labour from 1788-1868 to the tune of approximately 150,000 "inmates", and it wasn't an experience where you came off the convict ship and handed a parcel of landed and told to go homestead. Once you arrived - you were still incarcerated in brutal conditions and laboured away for the term of your sentence. (Which terms were pretty harsh for minor crimes to begin with - as well - as with any prison system, new minor infractions within your penal colony in Australia would dramatically increase your sentence)
If you are ever in one of the Australian cities/areas that used to be a penal settlement - go to one of their museums, very very interesting.
posted by jkaczor at 6:52 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
True - instead they had essentially prison slave labour from 1788-1868 to the tune of approximately 150,000 "inmates", and it wasn't an experience where you came off the convict ship and handed a parcel of landed and told to go homestead. Once you arrived - you were still incarcerated in brutal conditions and laboured away for the term of your sentence. (Which terms were pretty harsh for minor crimes to begin with - as well - as with any prison system, new minor infractions within your penal colony in Australia would dramatically increase your sentence)
If you are ever in one of the Australian cities/areas that used to be a penal settlement - go to one of their museums, very very interesting.
posted by jkaczor at 6:52 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
It will never cease to amaze me how much hostility metafilter can put forth in the face of this sort of article. The attempt here is pretty clearly to explain the cultural reaction of white working class culture from the perspective of someone who was in white working class culture, and the rage at that is pretty disgusting.
Speaking as a cishet white guy from working class roots myself (who has clawed his way up to lowest middle class and is hanging on by his fingernails) perhaps I can give you some enlightenment on that topic.
Beginning with the fact that not all of us in the white working class world are massive racist fucks and being told over and over that being poor is, or should be, synonymous with being a massive racist, misogynist, bigoted scumfucker is a slap in the face to every white working class person who isn't.
Funny thing, it turns out that being poor doesn't automatically make you think that calling people by ethnic slurs is ok, much less laudable.
Yes, there absolutely are racists in the lower classes. No, it isn't universal and pretending that poor and racist are synonyms is inexcusable. It also utterly ignores the existence of poor people of color.
I'm sure that my partner, who grew up as a dirt poor black girl in Texas, would rather be called an ethnic slur than be physically attacked. But that doesn't mean she things being called an ethnic slur is ok or something to laugh off.
My real problem, however, is that this article isn't asking for empathy, or understanding, or just offering an explanation, it's asking for acceptance of bigotry from the poor. It is, in fact, demanding acceptance of bigotry among poor people and threatening Fascism if the bigoted poor aren't coddled and told that their bigotry is perfectly fine.
I also can't help but notice that the author lies, perhaps without meaning to. He claims his parents, like all of his Noble Savage WWC heroes, weren't truly bigoted because while they used offensive terms they never took action.
Except he details quite a bit of action his parents took based on bigotry. Trying to move to a white homogeneous part of town is action. Changing the school your kid goes to because you don't like Asian people is action. Yet the author claims that the racism of his parents was limited to mere un-PC language that only the delicate flowers of the vile middle classes could possibly object to (again, note how the working class people of color mysteriously don't exist in his narrative).
The entire article can be boiled down to a single sentence: stop complaining about bigotry from the white working class or they will punish you with Fascism and be right to do so.
If that doesn't merit a hostile response I don't know what does.
posted by sotonohito at 6:53 AM on July 26, 2017 [77 favorites]
Speaking as a cishet white guy from working class roots myself (who has clawed his way up to lowest middle class and is hanging on by his fingernails) perhaps I can give you some enlightenment on that topic.
Beginning with the fact that not all of us in the white working class world are massive racist fucks and being told over and over that being poor is, or should be, synonymous with being a massive racist, misogynist, bigoted scumfucker is a slap in the face to every white working class person who isn't.
Funny thing, it turns out that being poor doesn't automatically make you think that calling people by ethnic slurs is ok, much less laudable.
Yes, there absolutely are racists in the lower classes. No, it isn't universal and pretending that poor and racist are synonyms is inexcusable. It also utterly ignores the existence of poor people of color.
I'm sure that my partner, who grew up as a dirt poor black girl in Texas, would rather be called an ethnic slur than be physically attacked. But that doesn't mean she things being called an ethnic slur is ok or something to laugh off.
My real problem, however, is that this article isn't asking for empathy, or understanding, or just offering an explanation, it's asking for acceptance of bigotry from the poor. It is, in fact, demanding acceptance of bigotry among poor people and threatening Fascism if the bigoted poor aren't coddled and told that their bigotry is perfectly fine.
I also can't help but notice that the author lies, perhaps without meaning to. He claims his parents, like all of his Noble Savage WWC heroes, weren't truly bigoted because while they used offensive terms they never took action.
Except he details quite a bit of action his parents took based on bigotry. Trying to move to a white homogeneous part of town is action. Changing the school your kid goes to because you don't like Asian people is action. Yet the author claims that the racism of his parents was limited to mere un-PC language that only the delicate flowers of the vile middle classes could possibly object to (again, note how the working class people of color mysteriously don't exist in his narrative).
The entire article can be boiled down to a single sentence: stop complaining about bigotry from the white working class or they will punish you with Fascism and be right to do so.
If that doesn't merit a hostile response I don't know what does.
posted by sotonohito at 6:53 AM on July 26, 2017 [77 favorites]
This reaction here is what he's talking about, I'm pretty sure.
He's talking about taking someone's words literally as a rhetorical device? I mean I have my pet peeves but I'm usually more up front about them.
Oh and - I meant the whole "how dare he" was conflating (implicitly) the use of a metaphor with a kind of violent act.
It does no such thing. Plenty of things are objectionable at that level without being violent.
posted by PMdixon at 6:54 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
He's talking about taking someone's words literally as a rhetorical device? I mean I have my pet peeves but I'm usually more up front about them.
Oh and - I meant the whole "how dare he" was conflating (implicitly) the use of a metaphor with a kind of violent act.
It does no such thing. Plenty of things are objectionable at that level without being violent.
posted by PMdixon at 6:54 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
So - what I am trying to say - is that potentially the casual racism displayed in Australia (I was there for 8 months and noticed plenty) could be related to more of a "they didn't have to come through it as hard as we did" mentality, considering that as much as 20% of today's population is descended from penal colonists.
As well - the xenophobia is strong - they are incredibly concerned about immigration/refugee levels. Now - this factors in a bit if you do not know much about Australia, and are looking at a map, you might ask yourself why? It is a huge continent... But the reality is, only the fringe near the ocean is habitable - less than 10% of the entire landmass, so... Concern about overcrowding might be overblown - or it might not, depending on your perspective.
posted by jkaczor at 7:01 AM on July 26, 2017
As well - the xenophobia is strong - they are incredibly concerned about immigration/refugee levels. Now - this factors in a bit if you do not know much about Australia, and are looking at a map, you might ask yourself why? It is a huge continent... But the reality is, only the fringe near the ocean is habitable - less than 10% of the entire landmass, so... Concern about overcrowding might be overblown - or it might not, depending on your perspective.
posted by jkaczor at 7:01 AM on July 26, 2017
Yeah, they're not "right to do so". People who allow themselves to be manipulated into voting against their own interests, and do so over and over and over and over again, are just fuckwits. End of.
Enumerating a list of plausible reasons why the fuckwits within any given social stratum might be inclined to do a fuckwitted thing is not an argument for the acceptability of that thing, merely for its predictability.
Understanding why whining manbaby fuckwits will so often vote for whining manbaby fuckwits (or people skilled in the art of presenting as such) does not make it "right to do so" regardless of the socioeconomic status of the fuckwits involved.
posted by flabdablet at 7:01 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
Enumerating a list of plausible reasons why the fuckwits within any given social stratum might be inclined to do a fuckwitted thing is not an argument for the acceptability of that thing, merely for its predictability.
Understanding why whining manbaby fuckwits will so often vote for whining manbaby fuckwits (or people skilled in the art of presenting as such) does not make it "right to do so" regardless of the socioeconomic status of the fuckwits involved.
posted by flabdablet at 7:01 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
Always interesting to see comments in threads like this. The ones who find fault with this man’s opinion seem quick to judge based on his race and or perceived privilege thus ignoring and dismissing what was being said. In some cases it appears some people did not even read the article, but were quick to offer angry opinions railing against things not actually discussed. I would also be curious to know if those who are critical of this article have actually lived under such circumstances; or are just arbitrarily applying their perceived values without actually understanding the nuances of his situation. My opinion will not be popular, but I feel the following quote is on the money when it comes to some of the comments here.
"But progressives might benefit from considering lower class points of view, and the experiences that forge them, at least once in a while. They might also find that addressing those sensibilities, instead of ignoring or deriding them, opens up new pathways to mutual understanding and cooperation."
The author is not saying racist, misogynistic and other such negative behavior is acceptable, but to make inroads to correcting them there needs to be an empathetic and open minded approach, not a lecture with a side of derision that often accompanies discussions involving poor whites. Otherwise your behavior is no better than the ones you are condemning. Just my opinion…
posted by remo at 7:04 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
"But progressives might benefit from considering lower class points of view, and the experiences that forge them, at least once in a while. They might also find that addressing those sensibilities, instead of ignoring or deriding them, opens up new pathways to mutual understanding and cooperation."
The author is not saying racist, misogynistic and other such negative behavior is acceptable, but to make inroads to correcting them there needs to be an empathetic and open minded approach, not a lecture with a side of derision that often accompanies discussions involving poor whites. Otherwise your behavior is no better than the ones you are condemning. Just my opinion…
posted by remo at 7:04 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
This is only an "excuse for racism" if you think any kind of "explanation" of the sociological and personal factors that motivate racism are inherently an "excuse".
And if you ignore the bits where he says that it's right for people to respond to those factors with racism. "Right" is a word with a meaning - it makes a normative, not an explanatory claim. These are different things, and no amount of ignoring the normative aspects of the piece will make them go away, no matter how dearly you might wish it would.
This article is toxic fucking bullshit, and just very bad. It basically totters between saying that poor people are too thick to make moral judgements, and a sort of wispy Romantic faith in the authenticity of their reactions (as long as they're white - non white people being clearly perceived as unable to do or think anything that isn't handed down to them by the "elites").
posted by howfar at 7:07 AM on July 26, 2017 [24 favorites]
And if you ignore the bits where he says that it's right for people to respond to those factors with racism. "Right" is a word with a meaning - it makes a normative, not an explanatory claim. These are different things, and no amount of ignoring the normative aspects of the piece will make them go away, no matter how dearly you might wish it would.
This article is toxic fucking bullshit, and just very bad. It basically totters between saying that poor people are too thick to make moral judgements, and a sort of wispy Romantic faith in the authenticity of their reactions (as long as they're white - non white people being clearly perceived as unable to do or think anything that isn't handed down to them by the "elites").
posted by howfar at 7:07 AM on July 26, 2017 [24 favorites]
I would also be curious to know if those who are critical of this article have actually lived under such circumstances; or are just arbitrarily applying their perceived values without actually understanding the nuances of his situation.
If only people had talked about their background in this thread!
posted by PMdixon at 7:13 AM on July 26, 2017 [25 favorites]
If only people had talked about their background in this thread!
posted by PMdixon at 7:13 AM on July 26, 2017 [25 favorites]
The experience of being deemed undesirable and unworthy even by new Australians is a peculiarly lumpen trial.
This sentence belies a lot about the author's thoughts on the place of immigrants.
And anyone suggesting that he is merely explaining not condoning clearly missed the "and they are right to do so" in reference to lower-class 'acting out' through fascism.
posted by Dysk at 7:16 AM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
This sentence belies a lot about the author's thoughts on the place of immigrants.
And anyone suggesting that he is merely explaining not condoning clearly missed the "and they are right to do so" in reference to lower-class 'acting out' through fascism.
posted by Dysk at 7:16 AM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
"If only people had talked about their background in this thread!"
Way to add to the conversation. I was talking about those that did not do so. But, in your eagerness to be witty you might have not comprehended that.
posted by remo at 7:18 AM on July 26, 2017
Way to add to the conversation. I was talking about those that did not do so. But, in your eagerness to be witty you might have not comprehended that.
posted by remo at 7:18 AM on July 26, 2017
Way to add to the conversation. I was talking about those that did not do so. But, in your eagerness to be witty you might have not comprehended that.
oohhhhh my goddd o h my god ohhhh my god
like at least 3 people who have been critical of the article have gone in depth on this what would make you happy here 100% participation?
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 7:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
oohhhhh my goddd o h my god ohhhh my god
like at least 3 people who have been critical of the article have gone in depth on this what would make you happy here 100% participation?
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 7:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
I was talking about those that did not do so.
Yeah, except you're then ignoring or denying the existence of those that did, in the implication that condemnation flows from a lack of understanding. Based on several comments here, it evidently doesn't.
posted by Dysk at 7:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
Yeah, except you're then ignoring or denying the existence of those that did, in the implication that condemnation flows from a lack of understanding. Based on several comments here, it evidently doesn't.
posted by Dysk at 7:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
Yeah I agree actually that there is something odd about the 3-4 places in which the author says "And they are right to do so."
But I think its ambiguous in what sense the author is using "right".
Is it "correct", "moral", "justified", "reasonable", "normatively justified" etc.?
It also has a kind of clunky feel to it though as though it was added or changed later from another term.
I thus do not think it was meant as "morally justified" given that this reading seems opposed to the larger political stance of the article.
Thus I was reading it as a clumsily meant "reasonable from their perspective", or according to some other implicit principles.
For example, the section discussing Rocinante seems to arguing that based on democratic principles espoused by liberalism the working class are legitimate in resisting the top-down imposition of PC-culture. Not that the end results are "morally justified".
posted by mary8nne at 7:22 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
But I think its ambiguous in what sense the author is using "right".
Is it "correct", "moral", "justified", "reasonable", "normatively justified" etc.?
It also has a kind of clunky feel to it though as though it was added or changed later from another term.
I thus do not think it was meant as "morally justified" given that this reading seems opposed to the larger political stance of the article.
Thus I was reading it as a clumsily meant "reasonable from their perspective", or according to some other implicit principles.
For example, the section discussing Rocinante seems to arguing that based on democratic principles espoused by liberalism the working class are legitimate in resisting the top-down imposition of PC-culture. Not that the end results are "morally justified".
posted by mary8nne at 7:22 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
As an Australian this article is making me bubble like an internal combustion engine turning over and over with new explosions of irritation. Argh. I think a lot of people will agree with him here, not that they ought to. Goddamn it. I have argued with so many people who think this way. Who are capable of understanding that they're being offensive, but nonetheless persist in the practice because they think its leftist frippery and doesn't really matter, doesn't really make a difference.
Also, I wasn't going to say it, but for remo - I'm I guess middle-class Australian, who works with and shares many life spaces with people from across a wide spectrum. European immigrant family and Australian convict family. None of his excuses are acceptable. The dynamics he talks about are definitely resonant though, unfortunately.
posted by Peter B-S at 7:26 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
Also, I wasn't going to say it, but for remo - I'm I guess middle-class Australian, who works with and shares many life spaces with people from across a wide spectrum. European immigrant family and Australian convict family. None of his excuses are acceptable. The dynamics he talks about are definitely resonant though, unfortunately.
posted by Peter B-S at 7:26 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
I thus do not think it was meant as "morally justified" given that this reading seems opposed to the larger political stance of the article.
Then the author should have used a different, better term to describe his intent, because that's the reading he gives us.
For example, the section discussing Rocinante seems to arguing that based on democratic principles espoused by liberalism the working class are legitimate in resisting the top-down imposition of PC-culture. Not that the end results are "morally justified".
It's the same argument either way - the white working class has a legitimate argument for taking umbrage at being told "hey, that's a bit racist".
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:27 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Then the author should have used a different, better term to describe his intent, because that's the reading he gives us.
For example, the section discussing Rocinante seems to arguing that based on democratic principles espoused by liberalism the working class are legitimate in resisting the top-down imposition of PC-culture. Not that the end results are "morally justified".
It's the same argument either way - the white working class has a legitimate argument for taking umbrage at being told "hey, that's a bit racist".
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:27 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
they are incredibly concerned about immigration/refugee levels.
As an Australian living in a small rural community that contains approximately 0 refugees and where anti-refugee sentiment is therefore predictably very strong, I'm frequently appalled by how much casual venom I hear expressed against refugees in particular as opposed to immigrants in general.
And every now and then my local newsagent runs out of the local Fairfax paper before I make it in, and I pick up one of Murdoch's because having a crossword to do while I sip my latte is better than not having one, and I read the letters page, and it's like I've moved to a bizarro world where everybody is my least analytical and most ignorantly opinionated neighbour.
80% of the people who say terrible things about refugees appear to have spent no time at all actually thinking about immigration or population policy. They hear some overpaid loudmouth fuckwit on commercial breakfast radio pass an unsupported remark about a putative link between refugees and terrorism, or between refugees and the freeway being backed up for miles, and they mindlessly regurgitate it complete with a few deliberately "politically incorrect" slurs because they're insecure enough to believe that talking about the weather instead might lead somebody else to consider them boring instead of "edgy".
As far as I can tell, it really is that simple. It has very little to do with social class and everything to do with the universal desire to be thought of as fashionable. I hear the same slurs coming from the overgroomed overperfumed overmoneyed tourists at our local boutique brewery as from the unemployable drunks at the pub.
posted by flabdablet at 7:31 AM on July 26, 2017 [16 favorites]
As an Australian living in a small rural community that contains approximately 0 refugees and where anti-refugee sentiment is therefore predictably very strong, I'm frequently appalled by how much casual venom I hear expressed against refugees in particular as opposed to immigrants in general.
And every now and then my local newsagent runs out of the local Fairfax paper before I make it in, and I pick up one of Murdoch's because having a crossword to do while I sip my latte is better than not having one, and I read the letters page, and it's like I've moved to a bizarro world where everybody is my least analytical and most ignorantly opinionated neighbour.
80% of the people who say terrible things about refugees appear to have spent no time at all actually thinking about immigration or population policy. They hear some overpaid loudmouth fuckwit on commercial breakfast radio pass an unsupported remark about a putative link between refugees and terrorism, or between refugees and the freeway being backed up for miles, and they mindlessly regurgitate it complete with a few deliberately "politically incorrect" slurs because they're insecure enough to believe that talking about the weather instead might lead somebody else to consider them boring instead of "edgy".
As far as I can tell, it really is that simple. It has very little to do with social class and everything to do with the universal desire to be thought of as fashionable. I hear the same slurs coming from the overgroomed overperfumed overmoneyed tourists at our local boutique brewery as from the unemployable drunks at the pub.
posted by flabdablet at 7:31 AM on July 26, 2017 [16 favorites]
>The experience of being deemed undesirable and unworthy even by new Australians is a peculiarly lumpen trial.
-
This sentence belies a lot about the author's thoughts on the place of immigrants.
Does it really though? Isn't the point that "even" the "other", the immigrant "other" who shares your economic position rejects you as much as the middle-class. That, the lumpen proletariat is actually more "other" than the outsider.
And indeed even Marx and Engels had only contempt for the "lumpen proletariat", the "basket of deplorables"
posted by mary8nne at 7:31 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
-
This sentence belies a lot about the author's thoughts on the place of immigrants.
Does it really though? Isn't the point that "even" the "other", the immigrant "other" who shares your economic position rejects you as much as the middle-class. That, the lumpen proletariat is actually more "other" than the outsider.
And indeed even Marx and Engels had only contempt for the "lumpen proletariat", the "basket of deplorables"
posted by mary8nne at 7:31 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
"Lumpen" does seem to be one of that author's favourite words.
posted by flabdablet at 7:34 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 7:34 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Yeah, except you're then ignoring it denying the existence of those that did, in the implication that condemnation flows from a lack of understanding. Based on several comments here, it evidently doesn't.
I was not denying any such existence, but I did forget to add the word "some" which was my original intention.
Having actually grown up white and poor as the son of first generation immigrants in a mostly minority neighborhood in NJ. I'm actually reluctant to share accounts of my experiences growing up with my more progressive/liberal friends and heck even here (and I'm a liberal!) for the reaction it would receive. So, I tend not to say anything, for when I do speak out about something it gets shouted down, or told it's invalid due to my gender/privilege/race. I do also feel (right or wrong) that I am often judged or occasionally looked down on by having grown up poor and white. While the author may not have articulated things in a palatable manner for many here, there is an underlying truth to some of what he says. But, again, that's just my opinion and you are free to disagree with it.
posted by remo at 7:40 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
I was not denying any such existence, but I did forget to add the word "some" which was my original intention.
Having actually grown up white and poor as the son of first generation immigrants in a mostly minority neighborhood in NJ. I'm actually reluctant to share accounts of my experiences growing up with my more progressive/liberal friends and heck even here (and I'm a liberal!) for the reaction it would receive. So, I tend not to say anything, for when I do speak out about something it gets shouted down, or told it's invalid due to my gender/privilege/race. I do also feel (right or wrong) that I am often judged or occasionally looked down on by having grown up poor and white. While the author may not have articulated things in a palatable manner for many here, there is an underlying truth to some of what he says. But, again, that's just my opinion and you are free to disagree with it.
posted by remo at 7:40 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
I was talking about those that did not do so.
OK I'll start.
I was poor for a long time. I worked in minimum wage jobs for years, alongside other people who worked in minimum wage jobs. I now work exclusively for poor people. My circle of friends includes many white working class people. I am well aware of the existence of white working class racism, and the need, on a social level, for a degree of tolerance, for views that I find repugnant. Some people I count as friends are racist in ways that places serious strains upon those friendships. Sometimes this issue has ended friendships, sometimes not. I don't just write off people on the basis of their beliefs, even if sometimes I am not sure that I am morally right in doing so. It's difficult, and yes, of course one has to understand why people feel as they do, and try to reach mutual understanding.
But none of that justifies claiming that the refusal of white people to recognise their privilege and the advantages it brings is somehow fine. Or that voting for Trump or Brexit as an expression of racial outrage is "right". Saying that the white working class get a free pass on enabling bigotry and undermining democracy is insanely infantilising. People make choices and we have to take responsibility for them. It isn't fair, no, but life isn't fair. Every single one of us could explain everything we've ever done in terms of the factors that led us there - free will is a philosophically dubious notion. But even so, most of us will be held accountable for our actions - except of course, where our particular privileges inoculate us from responsibility. And while it's not fair that we are treated as if free will exists when it doesn't, it is exponentially more unfair that some people get let off the hook and others have to take responsibility. And, ultimately, this piece amounts to special pleading that the white working class be accorded the privilege of exemption from responsibility for racism And, well...no... that's just not OK.
posted by howfar at 7:45 AM on July 26, 2017 [24 favorites]
OK I'll start.
I was poor for a long time. I worked in minimum wage jobs for years, alongside other people who worked in minimum wage jobs. I now work exclusively for poor people. My circle of friends includes many white working class people. I am well aware of the existence of white working class racism, and the need, on a social level, for a degree of tolerance, for views that I find repugnant. Some people I count as friends are racist in ways that places serious strains upon those friendships. Sometimes this issue has ended friendships, sometimes not. I don't just write off people on the basis of their beliefs, even if sometimes I am not sure that I am morally right in doing so. It's difficult, and yes, of course one has to understand why people feel as they do, and try to reach mutual understanding.
But none of that justifies claiming that the refusal of white people to recognise their privilege and the advantages it brings is somehow fine. Or that voting for Trump or Brexit as an expression of racial outrage is "right". Saying that the white working class get a free pass on enabling bigotry and undermining democracy is insanely infantilising. People make choices and we have to take responsibility for them. It isn't fair, no, but life isn't fair. Every single one of us could explain everything we've ever done in terms of the factors that led us there - free will is a philosophically dubious notion. But even so, most of us will be held accountable for our actions - except of course, where our particular privileges inoculate us from responsibility. And while it's not fair that we are treated as if free will exists when it doesn't, it is exponentially more unfair that some people get let off the hook and others have to take responsibility. And, ultimately, this piece amounts to special pleading that the white working class be accorded the privilege of exemption from responsibility for racism And, well...no... that's just not OK.
posted by howfar at 7:45 AM on July 26, 2017 [24 favorites]
basket of deplorables
One of the most impressive feats of applied psychology I've seen from the opinion making class in recent years is the efficient weaponization of the unremarkable fact that deplorable people exist and are real and walk among us.
There is a basket of deplorables who supported and voted for Donald Trump.
There is a disenfranchised white working class that also supported and voted for Donald Trump.
All it took was a tiny and quite focussed amount of furious argument against a completely spurious idea - that the entire white working class is a Basket of Deplorables - for both the attribution of that spurious idea to Hillary Clinton and the spurious idea itself to catch on like wildfire.
It's now so much a part of the common wisdom that even people who don't have a direct personal interest in setting the 99% at each other's throats have taken to issuing lengthy arguments against it. The article that's the subject of this thread, and the ensuing interpersonal biffo in the thread itself, is just the latest in a very very very long line that started at Breitbart, shows no sign of ending any time soon, and about which evil arseholes like Rupert, Lord Moloch remain very very happy.
posted by flabdablet at 7:57 AM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
One of the most impressive feats of applied psychology I've seen from the opinion making class in recent years is the efficient weaponization of the unremarkable fact that deplorable people exist and are real and walk among us.
There is a basket of deplorables who supported and voted for Donald Trump.
There is a disenfranchised white working class that also supported and voted for Donald Trump.
All it took was a tiny and quite focussed amount of furious argument against a completely spurious idea - that the entire white working class is a Basket of Deplorables - for both the attribution of that spurious idea to Hillary Clinton and the spurious idea itself to catch on like wildfire.
It's now so much a part of the common wisdom that even people who don't have a direct personal interest in setting the 99% at each other's throats have taken to issuing lengthy arguments against it. The article that's the subject of this thread, and the ensuing interpersonal biffo in the thread itself, is just the latest in a very very very long line that started at Breitbart, shows no sign of ending any time soon, and about which evil arseholes like Rupert, Lord Moloch remain very very happy.
posted by flabdablet at 7:57 AM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
I'll let the echo chamber resume uninterrupted going forward.
There are plenty of differing opinions going on in this thread but hey, you do you.
If you're taking issue with the pushback against your comment other people have addressed it but here's part of why:
"The ones who find fault with this man’s opinion seem quick to judge based on his race and or perceived privilege thus ignoring and dismissing what was being said."
You just dismissed people who find fault with article's opinions as making judgments solely on his background (despite many people saying they shared his race and/or 'perceived' privilege!). If you actually read or considered these comments you'd find that is almost universally inaccurate and really uncharitable.
"In some cases it appears some people did not even read the article, but were quick to offer angry opinions railing against things not actually discussed. "
The vast majority of people being critical are pulling quotes directly from the article and discussing their grievances with them. Maybe there are a couple of "in some cases" but again, way to ignore literally every other valid thing people have brought up against it.
"I would also be curious to know if those who are critical of this article have actually lived under such circumstances; or are just arbitrarily applying their perceived values without actually understanding the nuances of his situation."
This has been addressed. A lot of people have said they did live under such circumstances and understand the nuances and still have significant issues, very clearly stated, with the article. Not sure why you chose to ignore them in favor of taking pot shots. If you're upset with people not engaging with the text you're not doing a very good job of doing it yourself, here.
"The author is not saying racist, misogynistic and other such negative behavior is acceptable, but to make inroads to correcting them there needs to be an empathetic and open minded approach, not a lecture with a side of derision that often accompanies discussions involving poor whites."
I agree that an empathetic approach would be the best one! As do many others! But the author is actively excusing that poor behavior and is indeed implying that behavior is not only accepted but is basically their right! The author muddied the issue himself and people are right to call him out for it.
At any rate people offering different opinions than yours based directly on the subject matter at hand isn't an echo chamber, but ok.
Oh and also: "Way to add to the conversation."
No offense but your entire first comment disregarded almost all of the conversation that had gone on so far, so while I 100% support you throwing your voice into the mix you did so without fully taking into account the context of the discussion at that point and as a result ended up sounding super dismissive of all of the other opinions that had been voiced before yours which doesn't exactly foster a sensation of you approaching it in good faith.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 7:58 AM on July 26, 2017 [16 favorites]
There are plenty of differing opinions going on in this thread but hey, you do you.
If you're taking issue with the pushback against your comment other people have addressed it but here's part of why:
"The ones who find fault with this man’s opinion seem quick to judge based on his race and or perceived privilege thus ignoring and dismissing what was being said."
You just dismissed people who find fault with article's opinions as making judgments solely on his background (despite many people saying they shared his race and/or 'perceived' privilege!). If you actually read or considered these comments you'd find that is almost universally inaccurate and really uncharitable.
"In some cases it appears some people did not even read the article, but were quick to offer angry opinions railing against things not actually discussed. "
The vast majority of people being critical are pulling quotes directly from the article and discussing their grievances with them. Maybe there are a couple of "in some cases" but again, way to ignore literally every other valid thing people have brought up against it.
"I would also be curious to know if those who are critical of this article have actually lived under such circumstances; or are just arbitrarily applying their perceived values without actually understanding the nuances of his situation."
This has been addressed. A lot of people have said they did live under such circumstances and understand the nuances and still have significant issues, very clearly stated, with the article. Not sure why you chose to ignore them in favor of taking pot shots. If you're upset with people not engaging with the text you're not doing a very good job of doing it yourself, here.
"The author is not saying racist, misogynistic and other such negative behavior is acceptable, but to make inroads to correcting them there needs to be an empathetic and open minded approach, not a lecture with a side of derision that often accompanies discussions involving poor whites."
I agree that an empathetic approach would be the best one! As do many others! But the author is actively excusing that poor behavior and is indeed implying that behavior is not only accepted but is basically their right! The author muddied the issue himself and people are right to call him out for it.
At any rate people offering different opinions than yours based directly on the subject matter at hand isn't an echo chamber, but ok.
Oh and also: "Way to add to the conversation."
No offense but your entire first comment disregarded almost all of the conversation that had gone on so far, so while I 100% support you throwing your voice into the mix you did so without fully taking into account the context of the discussion at that point and as a result ended up sounding super dismissive of all of the other opinions that had been voiced before yours which doesn't exactly foster a sensation of you approaching it in good faith.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 7:58 AM on July 26, 2017 [16 favorites]
> And indeed even Marx and Engels had only contempt for the "lumpen proletariat", the "basket of deplorables"
Yes, but Marx and Engels were fussy and somewhat blinkered 19th century Europeans. For a theory of what it means to be lumpenproletariat, and for the political potentials of the lumpenproletariat in the 21st century, we'd do better to look to Huey Newton, who argued that as high technology and the technocratic elements of capitalist culture progressed, more and more people would become unemployable — lumpen — and that the task of the revolutionary was therefore to organize this unemployable/lumpen class toward revolutionary ends.
The thing is, both the Marxian and the Newtonian definitions of lumpenproletariat stress the unemployability of the lumpenproletariat. By these terms, the people who my man Sheldon here writes about are not lumpen: they're described as underemployed, precariously employed, but they're not people who've been rejected by the market as wholly unsuitable as sources of wage labor, and as such their means of making a living aren't criminalized. They are not lumpen, not exactly; they're better understood as people with a powerful fear and loathing of the lumpenproletariat derived from their anxieties about potentially becoming reduced to lumpen status.
And in broader terms the people he's writing about aren't the base for the new global fascist movements; as others have observed upthread, the real motor of contemporary fascism is white people from the middling-comfortable class.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:01 AM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
Yes, but Marx and Engels were fussy and somewhat blinkered 19th century Europeans. For a theory of what it means to be lumpenproletariat, and for the political potentials of the lumpenproletariat in the 21st century, we'd do better to look to Huey Newton, who argued that as high technology and the technocratic elements of capitalist culture progressed, more and more people would become unemployable — lumpen — and that the task of the revolutionary was therefore to organize this unemployable/lumpen class toward revolutionary ends.
The thing is, both the Marxian and the Newtonian definitions of lumpenproletariat stress the unemployability of the lumpenproletariat. By these terms, the people who my man Sheldon here writes about are not lumpen: they're described as underemployed, precariously employed, but they're not people who've been rejected by the market as wholly unsuitable as sources of wage labor, and as such their means of making a living aren't criminalized. They are not lumpen, not exactly; they're better understood as people with a powerful fear and loathing of the lumpenproletariat derived from their anxieties about potentially becoming reduced to lumpen status.
And in broader terms the people he's writing about aren't the base for the new global fascist movements; as others have observed upthread, the real motor of contemporary fascism is white people from the middling-comfortable class.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:01 AM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
Normative claims that the article makes:
- Middle-class progressives have no qualms about exercising their natural right to determine the moral values of our world. Yet a fairer approach would surely entail sacrificing one’s own comfort for a cause. The trickier and scarier consequences of enlightened policies should fall on those who champion them, yet they rarely do.
This implies that specifically anti-racist moral beliefs come with important costs and that either the middle class should bear those costs or drop the beliefs. The actual costs he talks about are economic and social costs of migration--increased crime, increased competition for jobs--but he presupposes that the causes of these costs must be "enlightened policies". His previous discussion suggests that the enlightened policy he is most angry about is the policy of criticising the use of racial slurs. There's no suggestion that the solutions to the social and economic problems he identifies could be, in any way, race-blind or unconnected to condoning racial slurs. He is not advocating investment in communities experiencing the pressures of immigration, for example. He is advocating shutting up forever about how racism is bad. The argument seems to be that the presence of brown people is itself an inherently costly thing for the community, nothing short of the freedom to utter racial slurs could compensate or mitigate it, so it's unfair to try and take that freedom away from those affected by the problem of brown people in their midst. Unless this is the claim, I cannot see the logical connection between the enlightened policy of 'don't use racial slurs' and the economic problems he describes. The argument only works if you think the refusal to allow people to use racial slurs is, in itself, the cause of all the problems.
- I confess that if a well-dressed, university-educated middle-class person of any gender or ethnicity so much as hinted at my ‘white privilege’ while I was a lumpen child, or my ‘male privilege’ while I was an unskilled labourer who couldn’t afford basic necessities, or my ‘hetero-privilege’ while I was a homeless solitary, I’d have taken special pleasure in voting for their nightmare. And I would have been right to do so.
This says: 'if your speech offends me, it is not only understandable but right that I vote for a person or a policy specifically in order to harm you (rather than in order, for example, to benefit myself). The worst form of such offence is when some well-off person from a minority draws attention to their minority/my majority status in some way. Such speech must rightly be punished by voting for policies that collectively punish the whole minority.' Again, I cannot see how the logic of this argument goes anywhere else. It's commending and praising the politics of resentment.
- My worry is that by conflating racist or offensive speech or attitudes with racist or offensive actions or activism we push people like my parents and Ricky (who represent large chunks of every dominant ethnicity or tribe in every country on earth) over to the wrong side of the political fence. By setting unnegotiated limits on attitudes and speech as well as actions, we claim too much territory and thereby risk losing it all.
This argues that we should not criticise people, ever, for racist speech because otherwise they will undertake racist actions. There is no hope of removing racism from the world, he says. It's futile to try. Therefore, the burden of being called by racial slurs and dealing with racially biased attitudes is an inevitable one and a price worth paying to ensure that you don't actually get killed or anything. The implication is that the only alternatives for white working class people are (a) being free to say racist things without being criticised or (b) carrying out actually racially violent acts. We must accept this and never treat white working class people as if they are separate individuals who may have different levels of investment in racist speech and different levels of sensitivity to the feelings of others, for example.
- Most lower class people of all ethnicities quickly learn that universal justice doesn’t exist, and probably never will, yet unbridled fantasies of fairness are continually thrust upon them from above.
No one should try to advance justice and fairness, because policies that purport to do this are actually oppressive to the oppressed in some unspecified way. We should all just shut up about race and gender, forever, and be grateful that we've been spared fascism. There are no working class people who are themselves interested in promoting universal justice and fairness, all that stuff is a fantasy of the effete rich. The real ideology of the real people--I'm going to go ahead and call them the Volk--is that life is an unbridled power struggle between sharply demarcated groups in society, your gain is my loss, and politics is about making sure the people closest to the soil have the power and aliens and outsiders don't.
I don't consider my reading of the article uncharitable. It's confusingly written, and jumps from factual to normative claims in a way that makes it difficult to follow, but these specific passages in the text seem to me to be making unequivocal normative claims that are not open to any other reading. If these are not the arguments, what is the supposed connection between high crime and loss of employment and the article's recurrent complaint that sometimes people are criticised for using racial slurs? Unless the right to use racial slurs is itself an important dimension of communal well-being, it's perfectly possible to both (1) promote social and economic equality and push against the pressures of migration falling unequally on already resource-stretched communities and (2) comment unfavourably on people using racial slurs and discriminating against each other on the grounds of race.
posted by Aravis76 at 8:03 AM on July 26, 2017 [44 favorites]
- Middle-class progressives have no qualms about exercising their natural right to determine the moral values of our world. Yet a fairer approach would surely entail sacrificing one’s own comfort for a cause. The trickier and scarier consequences of enlightened policies should fall on those who champion them, yet they rarely do.
This implies that specifically anti-racist moral beliefs come with important costs and that either the middle class should bear those costs or drop the beliefs. The actual costs he talks about are economic and social costs of migration--increased crime, increased competition for jobs--but he presupposes that the causes of these costs must be "enlightened policies". His previous discussion suggests that the enlightened policy he is most angry about is the policy of criticising the use of racial slurs. There's no suggestion that the solutions to the social and economic problems he identifies could be, in any way, race-blind or unconnected to condoning racial slurs. He is not advocating investment in communities experiencing the pressures of immigration, for example. He is advocating shutting up forever about how racism is bad. The argument seems to be that the presence of brown people is itself an inherently costly thing for the community, nothing short of the freedom to utter racial slurs could compensate or mitigate it, so it's unfair to try and take that freedom away from those affected by the problem of brown people in their midst. Unless this is the claim, I cannot see the logical connection between the enlightened policy of 'don't use racial slurs' and the economic problems he describes. The argument only works if you think the refusal to allow people to use racial slurs is, in itself, the cause of all the problems.
- I confess that if a well-dressed, university-educated middle-class person of any gender or ethnicity so much as hinted at my ‘white privilege’ while I was a lumpen child, or my ‘male privilege’ while I was an unskilled labourer who couldn’t afford basic necessities, or my ‘hetero-privilege’ while I was a homeless solitary, I’d have taken special pleasure in voting for their nightmare. And I would have been right to do so.
This says: 'if your speech offends me, it is not only understandable but right that I vote for a person or a policy specifically in order to harm you (rather than in order, for example, to benefit myself). The worst form of such offence is when some well-off person from a minority draws attention to their minority/my majority status in some way. Such speech must rightly be punished by voting for policies that collectively punish the whole minority.' Again, I cannot see how the logic of this argument goes anywhere else. It's commending and praising the politics of resentment.
- My worry is that by conflating racist or offensive speech or attitudes with racist or offensive actions or activism we push people like my parents and Ricky (who represent large chunks of every dominant ethnicity or tribe in every country on earth) over to the wrong side of the political fence. By setting unnegotiated limits on attitudes and speech as well as actions, we claim too much territory and thereby risk losing it all.
This argues that we should not criticise people, ever, for racist speech because otherwise they will undertake racist actions. There is no hope of removing racism from the world, he says. It's futile to try. Therefore, the burden of being called by racial slurs and dealing with racially biased attitudes is an inevitable one and a price worth paying to ensure that you don't actually get killed or anything. The implication is that the only alternatives for white working class people are (a) being free to say racist things without being criticised or (b) carrying out actually racially violent acts. We must accept this and never treat white working class people as if they are separate individuals who may have different levels of investment in racist speech and different levels of sensitivity to the feelings of others, for example.
- Most lower class people of all ethnicities quickly learn that universal justice doesn’t exist, and probably never will, yet unbridled fantasies of fairness are continually thrust upon them from above.
No one should try to advance justice and fairness, because policies that purport to do this are actually oppressive to the oppressed in some unspecified way. We should all just shut up about race and gender, forever, and be grateful that we've been spared fascism. There are no working class people who are themselves interested in promoting universal justice and fairness, all that stuff is a fantasy of the effete rich. The real ideology of the real people--I'm going to go ahead and call them the Volk--is that life is an unbridled power struggle between sharply demarcated groups in society, your gain is my loss, and politics is about making sure the people closest to the soil have the power and aliens and outsiders don't.
I don't consider my reading of the article uncharitable. It's confusingly written, and jumps from factual to normative claims in a way that makes it difficult to follow, but these specific passages in the text seem to me to be making unequivocal normative claims that are not open to any other reading. If these are not the arguments, what is the supposed connection between high crime and loss of employment and the article's recurrent complaint that sometimes people are criticised for using racial slurs? Unless the right to use racial slurs is itself an important dimension of communal well-being, it's perfectly possible to both (1) promote social and economic equality and push against the pressures of migration falling unequally on already resource-stretched communities and (2) comment unfavourably on people using racial slurs and discriminating against each other on the grounds of race.
posted by Aravis76 at 8:03 AM on July 26, 2017 [44 favorites]
the real motor of contemporary fascism is white people from the middling-comfortable class.
Quite right. The chickens who cannot be persuaded to vote for anybody but Colonel Sanders are at best the drive train.
posted by flabdablet at 8:04 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Quite right. The chickens who cannot be persuaded to vote for anybody but Colonel Sanders are at best the drive train.
posted by flabdablet at 8:04 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
While the author may not have articulated things in a palatable manner for many here, there is an underlying truth to some of what he says. But, again, that's just my opinion and you are free to disagree with it.
Unless you're willing to fill in "some" there's nothing to agree or disagree with. I mean I'm happy to take his claims about the demographic evolution of NW Adelaide at face value in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean. If you want to make a substantive claim, make it and stand behind it.
posted by PMdixon at 8:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
Unless you're willing to fill in "some" there's nothing to agree or disagree with. I mean I'm happy to take his claims about the demographic evolution of NW Adelaide at face value in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean. If you want to make a substantive claim, make it and stand behind it.
posted by PMdixon at 8:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
My best friend and I broke up after the election because of this idea that antiracist work was a luxury only the middle class could participate in. She wasn't even a Trump supporter. She simply saw my fight for equal rights as a foreign idea, something which could only be considered once the problems of the white working class have been solved.
Conspicuously absent from any of this is how this affects the social and political ideas of people of color. It may suck to hear stuff about privilege and power if you're white and poor, but it doesn't mean that those critiques don't apply. And if I'm hearing that that my life is at stake because of White rage, then fuck it, they're not a force I should be forced to placate.
posted by orangutan at 8:13 AM on July 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
Conspicuously absent from any of this is how this affects the social and political ideas of people of color. It may suck to hear stuff about privilege and power if you're white and poor, but it doesn't mean that those critiques don't apply. And if I'm hearing that that my life is at stake because of White rage, then fuck it, they're not a force I should be forced to placate.
posted by orangutan at 8:13 AM on July 26, 2017 [20 favorites]
"I'm frequently appalled by how much casual venom I hear expressed against refugees in particular as opposed to immigrants in general."
The right here in Canada are trying to equate refugees with terrorism - it is particularly obnoxious - and not unique to Australia - I wasn't trying to give an excuse (because Australia is still apparently under-populated even when you account for the available land) - because while I did hear alot of casual verbal racism during my time in Australia - it's nothing I haven't heard in Canada either.
posted by jkaczor at 8:17 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
The right here in Canada are trying to equate refugees with terrorism - it is particularly obnoxious - and not unique to Australia - I wasn't trying to give an excuse (because Australia is still apparently under-populated even when you account for the available land) - because while I did hear alot of casual verbal racism during my time in Australia - it's nothing I haven't heard in Canada either.
posted by jkaczor at 8:17 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
"i believe the median income of trump voters was around $70k per year."
This is tangential, but one of the reasons neoliberalism has triumphed is because they've convinced everyone that $70k-earning "middle managers" are somehow not working class. The reality is that those guys are in the same boat as the guys in the factory or the mine. They have slightly larger houses and slightly newer cars, but they're still wage slaves. They own no capital: most have mortgaged their houses to the point where it creates system-wide financial crises; many carry six figures of student loan and/or credit card debt. Few have more than $1000 in savings. And yet the neoliberals have somehow convinced them that they have more in common with Carl Icahn. That's obviously false. All they really have is some managerial authority over others. Fascism is the unsurprising result.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:26 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
This is tangential, but one of the reasons neoliberalism has triumphed is because they've convinced everyone that $70k-earning "middle managers" are somehow not working class. The reality is that those guys are in the same boat as the guys in the factory or the mine. They have slightly larger houses and slightly newer cars, but they're still wage slaves. They own no capital: most have mortgaged their houses to the point where it creates system-wide financial crises; many carry six figures of student loan and/or credit card debt. Few have more than $1000 in savings. And yet the neoliberals have somehow convinced them that they have more in common with Carl Icahn. That's obviously false. All they really have is some managerial authority over others. Fascism is the unsurprising result.
posted by kevinbelt at 8:26 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
It is really puzzling to me that suddenly middle class progressives are the ones who bear all the responsibility for racial resentments arising out of economic inequality. It's as if, in the minds of these authors, actual conservatives--Reagan, Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch, that whole crowd--have somehow vanished from the scene, leaving only liberals, Marxists and fascists to argue over who is most responsible for economic inequality and racism. Every self-declared "progressive" I know is both broadly anti-racist and some variety of socialist. How did we end up with all the responsibility for the murderous effects of conservative economic policy? Why have we apparently forgotten that it's possible--cf Murdoch, Thatcher et al--to be both happily very racist and very anti working class?
posted by Aravis76 at 8:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 8:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
How did we end up with all the responsibility for the murderous effects of conservative economic policy? Why have we apparently forgotten that it's possible--cf Murdoch, Thatcher et al--to be both happily very racist and very anti working class?
The 1% can afford more effective advertising.
posted by flabdablet at 8:41 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
The 1% can afford more effective advertising.
posted by flabdablet at 8:41 AM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
So - what I am trying to say - is that potentially the casual racism displayed in Australia (I was there for 8 months and noticed plenty) could be related to more of a "they didn't have to come through it as hard as we did" mentality, considering that as much as 20% of today's population is descenudes from convicts
As an Australian, I don't believe this is true in any meaningful sense. Most people have no idea if one of their ancestors was a convict, Ive certainly never heard this sentiment expressed in any way at all, and plenty of casual racism comes from people who identify with later waves of migration (I have heard the argument that being against immigrants is ok if you identify as the children of immigrants because clearly you're not against all immigrants, you're making a rational argument against *some* immigrants, which is bafflyingly nonsensical).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 8:45 AM on July 26, 2017 [10 favorites]
As an Australian, I don't believe this is true in any meaningful sense. Most people have no idea if one of their ancestors was a convict, Ive certainly never heard this sentiment expressed in any way at all, and plenty of casual racism comes from people who identify with later waves of migration (I have heard the argument that being against immigrants is ok if you identify as the children of immigrants because clearly you're not against all immigrants, you're making a rational argument against *some* immigrants, which is bafflyingly nonsensical).
posted by the agents of KAOS at 8:45 AM on July 26, 2017 [10 favorites]
Here's the thing that gets me. Classist shit like assuming that white members of poor, rural, or working-class communities are responsible for the vast majority of racism in either Australia or the US is absolutely a thing in middle class progressive and liberal circles--and if you argue with me, I'm going to point out that I've called Metafilter to task on that shit repeatedly in my time here, because it's a thing that this community not infrequently do.
My class background, incidentally, is decidedly 1%, but I know an awful lot of people who grew up in very very different circumstances than I did. That's actually in large part a direct result of my queerness and the paths I chose to take, because being part of a minority group who is born in all backgrounds but is disproportionately likely to slip down class boundaries because of lessened parental support will do that sort of thing to you--you wind up, or at least I did, socializing with an awful lot of people who didn't grow up as comfortable as I did.
And so I know that the nastiest politics I've seen have come out of my comfortable 1%er family, and the more well-off branches of that family are the more likely to have particularly virulent politics. The more comfortable someone is, the more they have the ability to rely on themselves--they don't need to cultivate any ally they can find to keep afloat. They don't need to cultivate the kind of careful compassion that knows you might be the one getting fucked next week, and all you can do is hope someone else might get your back.
Why is it suddenly magically okay to accept that working-class white people are inherently bigoted, that they just don't know any better, that they don't contain multitudes and have nuanced opinions based on their experiences? Why is it magically okay to not expect better, because if you pause to actually talk to people--including those raised poor--often you fucking get it? Why is it being cruel or unreasonable to say that not all working-class white people are racist, to point out that those who are are assholes and shouldn't be tolerated, just as upper- and middle-class racists and bigots are?
Why are people so invested in making bigotry so synonymous with working-class culture? Because in my own experience, it's not--but it's not working-class liberals who are failing to be aware of the allies they might find around them, let me just say. And it's certainly not as if there's some sort of magical dividing line between educated activists "slumming it" and--what, normal poor folks? Look at the backgrounds of the people who have yielded some of our most important civil rights activists: you'll find a lot more class diversity than you'd think if you take these articles at face value. Is it that white poor folks supposed to magically be that much more hateful and vicious and shortsighted than black poor folks? (Whose ranks, let me add, have been yielding powerful activists for freedom and compassion for well over a century now.)
posted by sciatrix at 8:56 AM on July 26, 2017 [37 favorites]
My class background, incidentally, is decidedly 1%, but I know an awful lot of people who grew up in very very different circumstances than I did. That's actually in large part a direct result of my queerness and the paths I chose to take, because being part of a minority group who is born in all backgrounds but is disproportionately likely to slip down class boundaries because of lessened parental support will do that sort of thing to you--you wind up, or at least I did, socializing with an awful lot of people who didn't grow up as comfortable as I did.
And so I know that the nastiest politics I've seen have come out of my comfortable 1%er family, and the more well-off branches of that family are the more likely to have particularly virulent politics. The more comfortable someone is, the more they have the ability to rely on themselves--they don't need to cultivate any ally they can find to keep afloat. They don't need to cultivate the kind of careful compassion that knows you might be the one getting fucked next week, and all you can do is hope someone else might get your back.
Why is it suddenly magically okay to accept that working-class white people are inherently bigoted, that they just don't know any better, that they don't contain multitudes and have nuanced opinions based on their experiences? Why is it magically okay to not expect better, because if you pause to actually talk to people--including those raised poor--often you fucking get it? Why is it being cruel or unreasonable to say that not all working-class white people are racist, to point out that those who are are assholes and shouldn't be tolerated, just as upper- and middle-class racists and bigots are?
Why are people so invested in making bigotry so synonymous with working-class culture? Because in my own experience, it's not--but it's not working-class liberals who are failing to be aware of the allies they might find around them, let me just say. And it's certainly not as if there's some sort of magical dividing line between educated activists "slumming it" and--what, normal poor folks? Look at the backgrounds of the people who have yielded some of our most important civil rights activists: you'll find a lot more class diversity than you'd think if you take these articles at face value. Is it that white poor folks supposed to magically be that much more hateful and vicious and shortsighted than black poor folks? (Whose ranks, let me add, have been yielding powerful activists for freedom and compassion for well over a century now.)
posted by sciatrix at 8:56 AM on July 26, 2017 [37 favorites]
I was also struck by the similarity between the thin skinned American conservatives and the author of this piece.
He argued, at length, that it is completely acceptable for white working class people to use ethnic and gender slurs. Unspoken, but necessary for this argument to make sense, is the position that it is up to minorities and women to just STFU, accept without complaint or resentment being slurred by white working class people, and generally treat insults to themselves as nothing of any importance at all.
He explicitly argues that the existence of physical violence means that objections to bigoted language are insane.
He then argued, with great vehemence, that notwithstanding his demand for women and minorities to tolerate any and all pejoratives directed at them, that anyone who brought up the concept of white privilege was doing great injury to white working class people. That the injury done by the words (violent language perhaps?) "white privilege" was sufficient that the only right and proper response was to vote for Fascists in order to cause as much harm as possible to the person who dared to use the vile PC language.
We're back to the thin skinned bully.
Their slurs, epithets, and pejoratives are all in good fun and merely the robust language of bold working class men who have no time for the namby pamby PC nonsense of the elite overlords. Clearly nothing truly bad is meant by those words and to imagine that there is any legitimate complaint about such language is to be literally insane.
But the slightest hint of words spoken against the bold working class men is a grave injury that must be repaid with the maximum possible violence and harm to the vile bourgeoisie elites who dared to speak in such a manner.
I suppose it's universal that bullies are thin skinned types who demand that their bullying be ignored, while shrieking and demanding retribution for the tiniest slight directed their way.
posted by sotonohito at 9:04 AM on July 26, 2017 [33 favorites]
He argued, at length, that it is completely acceptable for white working class people to use ethnic and gender slurs. Unspoken, but necessary for this argument to make sense, is the position that it is up to minorities and women to just STFU, accept without complaint or resentment being slurred by white working class people, and generally treat insults to themselves as nothing of any importance at all.
He explicitly argues that the existence of physical violence means that objections to bigoted language are insane.
He then argued, with great vehemence, that notwithstanding his demand for women and minorities to tolerate any and all pejoratives directed at them, that anyone who brought up the concept of white privilege was doing great injury to white working class people. That the injury done by the words (violent language perhaps?) "white privilege" was sufficient that the only right and proper response was to vote for Fascists in order to cause as much harm as possible to the person who dared to use the vile PC language.
We're back to the thin skinned bully.
Their slurs, epithets, and pejoratives are all in good fun and merely the robust language of bold working class men who have no time for the namby pamby PC nonsense of the elite overlords. Clearly nothing truly bad is meant by those words and to imagine that there is any legitimate complaint about such language is to be literally insane.
But the slightest hint of words spoken against the bold working class men is a grave injury that must be repaid with the maximum possible violence and harm to the vile bourgeoisie elites who dared to speak in such a manner.
I suppose it's universal that bullies are thin skinned types who demand that their bullying be ignored, while shrieking and demanding retribution for the tiniest slight directed their way.
posted by sotonohito at 9:04 AM on July 26, 2017 [33 favorites]
Why are people so invested in making bigotry so synonymous with working-class culture?
Because it relieves people in positions of actual power from any responsibility for said bigotry.
posted by PMdixon at 9:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
Because it relieves people in positions of actual power from any responsibility for said bigotry.
posted by PMdixon at 9:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
I'll let the echo chamber resume uninterrupted going forward.
“There are plenty of differing opinions going on in this thread but hey, you do you.”
- Sorry, but I perceived a bit of hostility towards my comments.
If you're taking issue with the pushback against your comment other people have addressed it but here's part of why:
"The ones who find fault with this man’s opinion seem quick to judge based on his race and or perceived privilege thus ignoring and dismissing what was being said."
“You just dismissed people who find fault with article's opinions as making judgments solely on his background (despite many people saying they shared his race and/or 'perceived' privilege!). If you actually read or considered these comments you'd find that is almost universally inaccurate and really uncharitable.”
- I’ll agree to disagree here. There does seem to be a sense that based on race and gender he is being judged differently. Again, I feel some people are judging him on their own perception of his privilege rather than taking into account the perspective and content of his message. While I find his approach a little ham handed (yes maybe I am guilty of this as well) I feel the gist of his opinion is not to give a pass or endorse racist behavior, but try a new tact to changing those racist minds. We would do better to find the causes of these behaviors, understand them and fix them. A lecture on why it’s bad is not going to do anything but cause ill will.
"In some cases it appears some people did not even read the article, but were quick to offer angry opinions railing against things not actually discussed. "
The vast majority of people being critical are pulling quotes directly from the article and discussing their grievances with them. Maybe there are a couple of "in some cases" but again, way to ignore literally every other valid thing people have brought up against it.
- Again, I corrected it in another comment, was not able to add the “some” to the original comment.
"I would also be curious to know if those who are critical of this article have actually lived under such circumstances; or are just arbitrarily applying their perceived values without actually understanding the nuances of his situation."
“This has been addressed. A lot of people have said they did live under such circumstances and understand the nuances and still have significant issues, very clearly stated, with the article. Not sure why you chose to ignore them in favor of taking pot shots. If you're upset with people not engaging with the text you're not doing a very good job of doing it yourself, here.”
- I was not talking about those who gave those experiences, rather the few who just like a nice straw man to attack without digging deeper. Maybe I didn’t do a good job of articulating myself and for that I apologize.
"The author is not saying racist, misogynistic and other such negative behavior is acceptable, but to make inroads to correcting them there needs to be an empathetic and open minded approach, not a lecture with a side of derision that often accompanies discussions involving poor whites."
“I agree that an empathetic approach would be the best one! As do many others! But the author is actively excusing that poor behavior and is indeed implying that behavior is not only accepted but is basically their right! The author muddied the issue himself and people are right to call him out for it.”
- As I mentioned previously, maybe I interpreted it differently, but I don’t think he was trying to give a pass. I viewed it as progressives tend to put poor whites under a much more critical lens without taking into account the life experiences and culture (which is often different, despite being of the same race) of their upbringing. It feels like the prevailing theme is “they should know better”, but honestly if that’s the life you only ever known and were exposed to, should you really? And that’s where I think things fall apart, in these types of conversations.
At any rate people offering different opinions than yours based directly on the subject matter at hand isn't an echo chamber, but ok.
Oh and also: "Way to add to the conversation."
No offense but your entire first comment disregarded almost all of the conversation that had gone on so far, so while I 100% support you throwing your voice into the mix you did so without fully taking into account the context of the discussion at that point and as a result ended up sounding super dismissive of all of the other opinions that had been voiced before yours which doesn't exactly foster a sensation of you approaching it in good faith.
- Yes, I agree I should have expressed my own opinion in a gentler less judgey manner. Having myself grown up as a poor white kid in a mostly minority neighborhood, I feel I have a good grasp on the topic. But, in my personal anecdotal (note what I just said there ) I have been told in the past my opinion is not valid due to my own race/ethnicity/privilege when I would play devil’s advocate or not fall in line with the groups prevailing opinion. But the same group had no qualms about making a white trash Wal-Mart comment, so what do they know at the end of the day. Anyway, I appreciate the dialog and reeling it back into perspective. We may not agree on everything, but you I appreciate the sentiment.
posted by remo at 9:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
“There are plenty of differing opinions going on in this thread but hey, you do you.”
- Sorry, but I perceived a bit of hostility towards my comments.
If you're taking issue with the pushback against your comment other people have addressed it but here's part of why:
"The ones who find fault with this man’s opinion seem quick to judge based on his race and or perceived privilege thus ignoring and dismissing what was being said."
“You just dismissed people who find fault with article's opinions as making judgments solely on his background (despite many people saying they shared his race and/or 'perceived' privilege!). If you actually read or considered these comments you'd find that is almost universally inaccurate and really uncharitable.”
- I’ll agree to disagree here. There does seem to be a sense that based on race and gender he is being judged differently. Again, I feel some people are judging him on their own perception of his privilege rather than taking into account the perspective and content of his message. While I find his approach a little ham handed (yes maybe I am guilty of this as well) I feel the gist of his opinion is not to give a pass or endorse racist behavior, but try a new tact to changing those racist minds. We would do better to find the causes of these behaviors, understand them and fix them. A lecture on why it’s bad is not going to do anything but cause ill will.
"In some cases it appears some people did not even read the article, but were quick to offer angry opinions railing against things not actually discussed. "
The vast majority of people being critical are pulling quotes directly from the article and discussing their grievances with them. Maybe there are a couple of "in some cases" but again, way to ignore literally every other valid thing people have brought up against it.
- Again, I corrected it in another comment, was not able to add the “some” to the original comment.
"I would also be curious to know if those who are critical of this article have actually lived under such circumstances; or are just arbitrarily applying their perceived values without actually understanding the nuances of his situation."
“This has been addressed. A lot of people have said they did live under such circumstances and understand the nuances and still have significant issues, very clearly stated, with the article. Not sure why you chose to ignore them in favor of taking pot shots. If you're upset with people not engaging with the text you're not doing a very good job of doing it yourself, here.”
- I was not talking about those who gave those experiences, rather the few who just like a nice straw man to attack without digging deeper. Maybe I didn’t do a good job of articulating myself and for that I apologize.
"The author is not saying racist, misogynistic and other such negative behavior is acceptable, but to make inroads to correcting them there needs to be an empathetic and open minded approach, not a lecture with a side of derision that often accompanies discussions involving poor whites."
“I agree that an empathetic approach would be the best one! As do many others! But the author is actively excusing that poor behavior and is indeed implying that behavior is not only accepted but is basically their right! The author muddied the issue himself and people are right to call him out for it.”
- As I mentioned previously, maybe I interpreted it differently, but I don’t think he was trying to give a pass. I viewed it as progressives tend to put poor whites under a much more critical lens without taking into account the life experiences and culture (which is often different, despite being of the same race) of their upbringing. It feels like the prevailing theme is “they should know better”, but honestly if that’s the life you only ever known and were exposed to, should you really? And that’s where I think things fall apart, in these types of conversations.
At any rate people offering different opinions than yours based directly on the subject matter at hand isn't an echo chamber, but ok.
Oh and also: "Way to add to the conversation."
No offense but your entire first comment disregarded almost all of the conversation that had gone on so far, so while I 100% support you throwing your voice into the mix you did so without fully taking into account the context of the discussion at that point and as a result ended up sounding super dismissive of all of the other opinions that had been voiced before yours which doesn't exactly foster a sensation of you approaching it in good faith.
- Yes, I agree I should have expressed my own opinion in a gentler less judgey manner. Having myself grown up as a poor white kid in a mostly minority neighborhood, I feel I have a good grasp on the topic. But, in my personal anecdotal (note what I just said there ) I have been told in the past my opinion is not valid due to my own race/ethnicity/privilege when I would play devil’s advocate or not fall in line with the groups prevailing opinion. But the same group had no qualms about making a white trash Wal-Mart comment, so what do they know at the end of the day. Anyway, I appreciate the dialog and reeling it back into perspective. We may not agree on everything, but you I appreciate the sentiment.
posted by remo at 9:20 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
"While the author may not have articulated things in a palatable manner for many here, there is an underlying truth to some of what he says. But, again, that's just my opinion and you are free to disagree with it."
"Unless you're willing to fill in "some" there's nothing to agree or disagree with. I mean I'm happy to take his claims about the demographic evolution of NW Adelaide at face value in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean. If you want to make a substantive claim, make it and stand behind it."
There are some "open minded" progressives who look upon the white working class with disdain for their behaviors often openly mock them in disparaging ways. But, yet they fully expect these people they mock and talk down upon to somehow have this epiphany to say "you know those folks who think I'm a stupid deplorable are right" and get frustrated when they don't. It's not that the progressive person is wrong that the behavior of some poor whites is bad, but they are unable to see their approach to the situation is as toxic as the original behavior.
posted by remo at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
"Unless you're willing to fill in "some" there's nothing to agree or disagree with. I mean I'm happy to take his claims about the demographic evolution of NW Adelaide at face value in the absence of evidence to the contrary, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean. If you want to make a substantive claim, make it and stand behind it."
There are some "open minded" progressives who look upon the white working class with disdain for their behaviors often openly mock them in disparaging ways. But, yet they fully expect these people they mock and talk down upon to somehow have this epiphany to say "you know those folks who think I'm a stupid deplorable are right" and get frustrated when they don't. It's not that the progressive person is wrong that the behavior of some poor whites is bad, but they are unable to see their approach to the situation is as toxic as the original behavior.
posted by remo at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
It is, of course, wrong to hold working-class white people to a different and higher moral standard to middle class white people. Racism and sexism are racism and sexism whether performed by rich people or poor people. The idea that white working class people should be held to a lower standard because they don't know better (?!) is crazily patronising and ignores the whole history of anti-racist movements on the left. The Battle of Cable Street was not fought by middle-class academics in the universities. Working class people were fighting for racial and gender equality at times in the history of the West when the middle classes were comfortably entrenched in their own racism and sexism. There are plenty of middle class racists and working class passionate anti-racists around today. There are working class communities in England today where the use of racial slurs will get you properly ostracised and possibly kicked in the head. There are plenty of middle and upper class spaces where you can get away with any amount of racist bullshit in private. This idea that anti-racism is somehow an elitist movement is a pure right-wing meme, which is built on defining the working class in a way that connects to extremely problematic stories about who really counts as working class (white; male; not any kind of unionist or communist or activist). It has no roots in the actual history of either social justice movements or the working class.
posted by Aravis76 at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 9:36 AM on July 26, 2017 [26 favorites]
It feels like the prevailing theme is “they should know better”, but honestly if that’s the life you only ever known and were exposed to, should you really?
As mentioned up thread, I and most of my hometown peers grew up in a trailer. That's what we knew. That's what we were exposed to.
When I came out, the people around me were decent and kind and accepting. These people, these friends of mine, many of whom have never and will never leave the state they were born in, drove 40 miles on a dirt road up a fucking mountain to attend a wedding ceremony between two dudes.
You slur everyone who attended that wedding by saying that their basic acts of decency towards a young fag are somehow exceptional.
posted by PMdixon at 9:38 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
As mentioned up thread, I and most of my hometown peers grew up in a trailer. That's what we knew. That's what we were exposed to.
When I came out, the people around me were decent and kind and accepting. These people, these friends of mine, many of whom have never and will never leave the state they were born in, drove 40 miles on a dirt road up a fucking mountain to attend a wedding ceremony between two dudes.
You slur everyone who attended that wedding by saying that their basic acts of decency towards a young fag are somehow exceptional.
posted by PMdixon at 9:38 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
I'd argue that as a general rule for life if you ever find yourself saying or thinking "I'll just play Devil's Advocate here", you should stop and do something else.
Nothing good ever comes from being contrarian for its own sake, and evil ideas don't need vigorous defense.
posted by sotonohito at 9:43 AM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
Nothing good ever comes from being contrarian for its own sake, and evil ideas don't need vigorous defense.
posted by sotonohito at 9:43 AM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
There are some "open minded" progressives who look upon the white working class with disdain for their behaviors often openly mock them in disparaging ways.
And for every one of those there are ten reactionary youtubers just waiting to find one to argue vociferously against - in an ongoing, and largely successful, attempt to portray the Left as identical to its least thoughtful elements and keep the level of leftist infighting cooking at a satisfactorily high boil.
posted by flabdablet at 9:46 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
And for every one of those there are ten reactionary youtubers just waiting to find one to argue vociferously against - in an ongoing, and largely successful, attempt to portray the Left as identical to its least thoughtful elements and keep the level of leftist infighting cooking at a satisfactorily high boil.
posted by flabdablet at 9:46 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
evil ideas don't need vigorous defense
and nor, in many cases, do they need piling onto with vigorous attacks. Sometimes all that does is give the promulgators of evil ideas oxygen that they would simply be unable to find otherwise.
posted by flabdablet at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2017
and nor, in many cases, do they need piling onto with vigorous attacks. Sometimes all that does is give the promulgators of evil ideas oxygen that they would simply be unable to find otherwise.
posted by flabdablet at 9:48 AM on July 26, 2017
they are unable to see their approach to the situation is as toxic as the original behavior
To be fair, that's very close to being a human universal. Every single one of us has, at some point, completely sucked at taking good advice.
posted by flabdablet at 9:53 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
To be fair, that's very close to being a human universal. Every single one of us has, at some point, completely sucked at taking good advice.
posted by flabdablet at 9:53 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I find it really strange that this article doesn't have a "here's what does work" section. Like, he says, don't be so pushy and judgey, middle class people, because it's counterproductive in getting poor white racists to change their minds. Which, fair enough, there's certainly class prejudice against poor whites, and if he has good insights about what's a more effective approach, great, I'm all ears. I'm waiting for "here are the better methods I've used, in 'negotiating' what kind of talk/prejudice is too racist to be acceptable"... but instead there's just this deflating-balloon noise.
"Don't be a jerk about poor whites" is totally fair. "Examine your middle-class/upper-class privilege and have some humility" is too.
"Don't push back on racist attitudes -- it's soft silly pretension, and poor whites just can't do better" is wimpy (oh nothing to be done about it) and insulting (poor whites are too dumb to see how prejudice is bad?).
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:02 AM on July 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
"Don't be a jerk about poor whites" is totally fair. "Examine your middle-class/upper-class privilege and have some humility" is too.
"Don't push back on racist attitudes -- it's soft silly pretension, and poor whites just can't do better" is wimpy (oh nothing to be done about it) and insulting (poor whites are too dumb to see how prejudice is bad?).
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:02 AM on July 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
> when I would play devil’s advocate
This is a lazy pseudo-intellectual technique that mostly only ever brings more heat than light and is barely half a step from trolling, if that. If you want some other viewpoint presented or interrogated, then ask for or about it.
posted by rtha at 10:17 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
This is a lazy pseudo-intellectual technique that mostly only ever brings more heat than light and is barely half a step from trolling, if that. If you want some other viewpoint presented or interrogated, then ask for or about it.
posted by rtha at 10:17 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
PMdixon
"You slur everyone who attended that wedding by saying that their basic acts of decency towards a young fag are somehow exceptional."
I get that your passionate about this but, that is a mighty strong accusation you make and is unfair and inaccurate. You obviously have a problem with me and my position and are reacting without understanding me, so let me give you a little background. I grew up in a one bedroom apartment in a crappy town in NJ, and I slept in the living room like on Good Times. I got beat up a few times for being different and one of my few friends from the time I still hang out with is a gay black man. My mother and father worked multiple jobs to send me to a better school to have a chance at college. At that school I was picked on and mocked for being poor. I once invited a friend to sleep over, but his mother said "it was too dangerous" and he eventually stopped talking to me.
Despite that, I managed to overcome it, go to college, have a successful career and give back as much as I can now. I did not let those times negatively impact my existence, but look to them for strength. It wasn't also all bad, and feel it positively helped shape my perspective.
I would never deem anyone unworthy of success ever. I base my comments on the perspective of some of the kids I grew up with had parents with drug problems, or domestic violence and other difficult circumstances worse than my own. And for that reason, I feel things need to be viewed more based on the backgrounds of those experiences rather than just on race and work from there. Blindly saying well he is white/has more privilege and should no better does not solve the problem or bring that person into the conversation to effect change.
However, it feels like when I try point out that a better tact is needed the conversation tends to fall apart, just like it has here.
posted by remo at 10:24 AM on July 26, 2017
"You slur everyone who attended that wedding by saying that their basic acts of decency towards a young fag are somehow exceptional."
I get that your passionate about this but, that is a mighty strong accusation you make and is unfair and inaccurate. You obviously have a problem with me and my position and are reacting without understanding me, so let me give you a little background. I grew up in a one bedroom apartment in a crappy town in NJ, and I slept in the living room like on Good Times. I got beat up a few times for being different and one of my few friends from the time I still hang out with is a gay black man. My mother and father worked multiple jobs to send me to a better school to have a chance at college. At that school I was picked on and mocked for being poor. I once invited a friend to sleep over, but his mother said "it was too dangerous" and he eventually stopped talking to me.
Despite that, I managed to overcome it, go to college, have a successful career and give back as much as I can now. I did not let those times negatively impact my existence, but look to them for strength. It wasn't also all bad, and feel it positively helped shape my perspective.
I would never deem anyone unworthy of success ever. I base my comments on the perspective of some of the kids I grew up with had parents with drug problems, or domestic violence and other difficult circumstances worse than my own. And for that reason, I feel things need to be viewed more based on the backgrounds of those experiences rather than just on race and work from there. Blindly saying well he is white/has more privilege and should no better does not solve the problem or bring that person into the conversation to effect change.
However, it feels like when I try point out that a better tact is needed the conversation tends to fall apart, just like it has here.
posted by remo at 10:24 AM on July 26, 2017
Blindly saying well he is white/has more privilege and should no better does not solve the problem or bring that person into the conversation to effect change.
I don't think anyone is saying this, though. It's the opposite claim--"so and so is poor and lacks privilege and so can't know better"--that is wrong, and patronising, and offensive to all the poor white people who are perfectly able and willing to treat people with respect regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation. If someone has struggled so much in life that they are genuinely incapable of understanding that throwing racist slurs around is wrong--and I doubt that this is a big category of people--that's a bit unusual, and on par with people who are somehow lacking in capacity to understand that hitting others or fraud is wrong.
posted by Aravis76 at 10:34 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
I don't think anyone is saying this, though. It's the opposite claim--"so and so is poor and lacks privilege and so can't know better"--that is wrong, and patronising, and offensive to all the poor white people who are perfectly able and willing to treat people with respect regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation. If someone has struggled so much in life that they are genuinely incapable of understanding that throwing racist slurs around is wrong--and I doubt that this is a big category of people--that's a bit unusual, and on par with people who are somehow lacking in capacity to understand that hitting others or fraud is wrong.
posted by Aravis76 at 10:34 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
"I don't think anyone is saying this, though. It's the opposite claim--"so and so is poor and lacks privilege and so can't know better"--that is wrong, and patronising, and offensive to all the poor white people who are perfectly able and willing to treat people with respect regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation. If someone has struggled so much in life that they are genuinely incapable of understanding that throwing racist slurs around is wrong--and I doubt that this is a big category of people--that's a bit unusual, and on par with people who are somehow lacking in capacity to understand that hitting others or fraud is wrong."
I think what is happening is I am doing a bad job of articulating such a prickly subject (and may continue to do so). I am not trying to come across as patronizing. Yes, people "should know better", but in some cases that's not the case and there is no getting around that. However, talking down and marginalizing these same folks is not any better and plays into the politicians who ply their trade on this divisiveness.
posted by remo at 10:46 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think what is happening is I am doing a bad job of articulating such a prickly subject (and may continue to do so). I am not trying to come across as patronizing. Yes, people "should know better", but in some cases that's not the case and there is no getting around that. However, talking down and marginalizing these same folks is not any better and plays into the politicians who ply their trade on this divisiveness.
posted by remo at 10:46 AM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
But this author is talking down to and marginalising the working class. He thinks to speak for the impact of racist language in working class discourse, despite not knowing a single working class person of colour. He portrays members of the white working class as incapable of taking moral responsibility for their behaviour, or reacting with anything but childish destructiveness if that behaviour is challenged. How is this behaviour anything but marginalising and patronising? The fact that he argues (at least implicitly) for indulging the (white) people his article marginalises and patronises does not make his position any more respectful of them.
posted by howfar at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by howfar at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
You also aren't doing a good job of engaging with people as opposed to waiting for your turn to monologue - - you seem to be under the impression that I am mentioning my background as some kind of qualification for admission to the conversation, based on the fact that your entire response to me was a description of your upbringing. I'm not bringing up the circumstances I grew up in to assert dominance, I'm bringing them up specifically to rebut the repeated claim that no one who has expectations that po folk be decent has any lived experience as such and I think I've been fairly explicit about that goal. I don't really know what you want me to take away from your narrative - good for you? I'm sincerely glad you were able to get out of that environment, but I don't understand how that fact undermines any part of my point.
posted by PMdixon at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 11:05 AM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
Most Mefites in my experience subscribe to a concept of racism that grew out of US academia/counterculture and draws heavily on the shameful & painful US experience with slavery. As such it's a taboo topic that people seem only comfortable discussing at a remove, either as abstract theory (e.g. in the context of Marxist critiques of capitalism) or in terms of abstracted people ("they just want to kill brown people", "the white working class"). This piece is neither. It appears to me as a fairly honest reckoning with sentiments and circumstances that do in fact actually exist, whether we want them to or not.
posted by dmh at 11:08 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by dmh at 11:08 AM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
but it appears to me a fairly honest reckoning with sentiments and circumstances that actually exist
"My parents were racists in private speech but not in action"
"... my parents responded in a surprising way. They made appointments with the public housing trust, and lobbied hard to be moved across town. They claimed that hard drugs were being sold by our new neighbours, and that ‘Asian gangs’ had replaced the predominantly white criminals who had formerly ruled the roost"
Super honest.
posted by PMdixon at 11:16 AM on July 26, 2017 [19 favorites]
"My parents were racists in private speech but not in action"
"... my parents responded in a surprising way. They made appointments with the public housing trust, and lobbied hard to be moved across town. They claimed that hard drugs were being sold by our new neighbours, and that ‘Asian gangs’ had replaced the predominantly white criminals who had formerly ruled the roost"
Super honest.
posted by PMdixon at 11:16 AM on July 26, 2017 [19 favorites]
I subscribe to a concept of racism that grows out of my experience of racism, drawing heavily on my experience of e.g. having racial slurs directed my way at school and being chased down the street by people yelling slurs a couple of times. Please don't assume that the only people who have authentic lived experiences of racism are white people who don't see what the big deal is.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:17 AM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 11:17 AM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
Most Mefites in my experience subscribe to a concept of racism that grew out of US academia/counterculture and draws heavily on the shameful & painful US experience with slavery
I'm not sure that general assertions about people's concepts of racism, particularly those of the many people of colour on Metafilter and in this thread, is actually helpful. Specific criticisms of the article have been raised throughout this thread; if you disagree with these criticisms, I think most would prefer you explain why, rather than make claims about the people expressing them.
posted by howfar at 11:18 AM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
I'm not sure that general assertions about people's concepts of racism, particularly those of the many people of colour on Metafilter and in this thread, is actually helpful. Specific criticisms of the article have been raised throughout this thread; if you disagree with these criticisms, I think most would prefer you explain why, rather than make claims about the people expressing them.
posted by howfar at 11:18 AM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
drawing heavily on my experience of e.g. having racial slurs directed my way at school and being chased down the street by people yelling slurs a couple of times
Yeah, I had the same thing happen. How did that inform your concept of racism? Did you personally ever use slurs toward someone else? Did people in your peer group?
posted by dmh at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2017
Yeah, I had the same thing happen. How did that inform your concept of racism? Did you personally ever use slurs toward someone else? Did people in your peer group?
posted by dmh at 11:20 AM on July 26, 2017
Mod note: dmh, if your main point here is "people on Metafilter are so dumb" please skip it. If you have a point you want to make about the essay, go ahead and make it rather than playing weird games.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:22 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:22 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
It informed my understanding of racism as specific form of harm, arising out of a culture of scapegoating. It's behind my argument, in this thread, that the article seriously downplays the moral wrongfulness of racist behaviour and racist language. My experience of the range of people who have treated me in racist ways, in a range of ways, has informed my argument, in this thread, that racism is hardly a uniquely working class affliction and plenty of affluent middle class kids can be racist. If you disagree with those arguments, please explain why but don't tell me your theories about my motives for making them (ie that I come out of an Americanised academia-based tradition of thinking about race or whatever).
posted by Aravis76 at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Most Mefites in my experience subscribe to a concept of racism that grew out of US academia/counterculture and draws heavily on the shameful & painful US experience with slavery. As such it's a taboo topic that people seem only comfortable discussing at a remove, either as abstract theory (e.g. in the context of Marxist critiques of capitalism) or in terms of abstracted people ("they just want to kill brown people", "the white working class").
US based is perhaps a fair criticism of Mefite views. However, concepts of racism that are only comfortably handled at arms' length and by abstracting and homogenizing groups of people anyone is not.
The author wishes to discuss the white working class--that is his framing, not that of commenters here. Indeed, commenters here have listened to his assertions that class norms prevent working class white people from listening to progressive ideas or working against racism and said "no, there is more diversity among white working class people than that man is implying, and to say otherwise is offensive." These commenters are using specific and personal examples of a diversity of experiences with many white working class people they have known.
Who is only comfortable with homogenised abstracts here, again?
posted by sciatrix at 11:29 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
US based is perhaps a fair criticism of Mefite views. However, concepts of racism that are only comfortably handled at arms' length and by abstracting and homogenizing groups of people anyone is not.
The author wishes to discuss the white working class--that is his framing, not that of commenters here. Indeed, commenters here have listened to his assertions that class norms prevent working class white people from listening to progressive ideas or working against racism and said "no, there is more diversity among white working class people than that man is implying, and to say otherwise is offensive." These commenters are using specific and personal examples of a diversity of experiences with many white working class people they have known.
Who is only comfortable with homogenised abstracts here, again?
posted by sciatrix at 11:29 AM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
I have a tin of it in the cupboard that we could break out, if we've run out of real milk.
posted by flabdablet at 11:32 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 11:32 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
It seems, dmh, that you think "understanding racism" means understanding how it feels to be a racist? I don't think that that inquiry exhausts what is morally interesting or politically important about racism. The harm that racism does, and the forms it takes, are just as politically and morally important to any evaluation of what policies we should have around racism and the article completely fails to take account of these relevant facts in chastising liberals for objecting to racism. Certainly it's also important to know why people are racist, how they feel about it, what the statistical correlations are between racist views and factors like socio-economic status, but the article doesn't do a particularly good job at exploring those either.
If we are citing anecdotes as grounds for our policy arguments, as the article does, anecdotes about how it feels to be racist need to be weighed against anecdotes about how it feels to experience racism. If we just want to know the causes of racism, on the other hand, anecdotes from racists and friends of racists are not very useful in the absence of broader statistical evidence. I would like very much to see the data supporting the argument that there is a clear correlation between socio-economic status and racist attitudes. The article doesn't supply that information.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:35 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
If we are citing anecdotes as grounds for our policy arguments, as the article does, anecdotes about how it feels to be racist need to be weighed against anecdotes about how it feels to experience racism. If we just want to know the causes of racism, on the other hand, anecdotes from racists and friends of racists are not very useful in the absence of broader statistical evidence. I would like very much to see the data supporting the argument that there is a clear correlation between socio-economic status and racist attitudes. The article doesn't supply that information.
posted by Aravis76 at 11:35 AM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
However, talking down and marginalizing these same folks is not any better and plays into the politicians who ply their trade on this divisiveness.
Except they aren't being marginalized. They are in some cases being insulted, but they aren't actually anywhere near the margins. Looking down on people doesn't inherently disadvantage them; the disadvantages marginalized people face come from many years of huge systemic problems. Poor and working-class white conservatives are influential enough to spawn article after article about how important they are and how we should be nicer to them. But if they aren't being nice to me--and I might pass for middle class now, but I wasn't always and I'm years away from anything approaching a real safety net--then why, exactly, am I being nice to them? As I said above, many of these people were racist before the middle class had a problem with racism. Many of them were sexist before the middle class had a problem with sexism. They are people among whom I am unsafe, and I am being told regularly that I need to be nicer to them so that they'll let me and the people I care about enjoy basic civil rights.
This isn't a conversation that's exclusively happening between people with money who are perfectly safe from the consequences of the rise of the alt-right and people without money whose only significant point of vulnerability is financial. For people for whom it is abstract and theoretical, it's all well and good to say they aren't really hurting anybody, but they are often actually really hurting people. Hell, the author here graphically describes violence against a disabled woman and a child, but still doesn't want us to talk about the privilege of whiteness or maleness in that world. Because if we keep talking about privilege, then they're going to ensure that more marginalized people get hurt. It feels incredibly threatening to have white men talking like this under the guise of offering advice.
posted by Sequence at 11:37 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
Except they aren't being marginalized. They are in some cases being insulted, but they aren't actually anywhere near the margins. Looking down on people doesn't inherently disadvantage them; the disadvantages marginalized people face come from many years of huge systemic problems. Poor and working-class white conservatives are influential enough to spawn article after article about how important they are and how we should be nicer to them. But if they aren't being nice to me--and I might pass for middle class now, but I wasn't always and I'm years away from anything approaching a real safety net--then why, exactly, am I being nice to them? As I said above, many of these people were racist before the middle class had a problem with racism. Many of them were sexist before the middle class had a problem with sexism. They are people among whom I am unsafe, and I am being told regularly that I need to be nicer to them so that they'll let me and the people I care about enjoy basic civil rights.
This isn't a conversation that's exclusively happening between people with money who are perfectly safe from the consequences of the rise of the alt-right and people without money whose only significant point of vulnerability is financial. For people for whom it is abstract and theoretical, it's all well and good to say they aren't really hurting anybody, but they are often actually really hurting people. Hell, the author here graphically describes violence against a disabled woman and a child, but still doesn't want us to talk about the privilege of whiteness or maleness in that world. Because if we keep talking about privilege, then they're going to ensure that more marginalized people get hurt. It feels incredibly threatening to have white men talking like this under the guise of offering advice.
posted by Sequence at 11:37 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
It feels incredibly threatening to have white men talking like this under the guise of offering advice.
Ah, that's it exactly - "keep it up and I'll give you something to cry about"
posted by PMdixon at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
Ah, that's it exactly - "keep it up and I'll give you something to cry about"
posted by PMdixon at 11:39 AM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
So, on this particular day, I think about my own upbringing in a family that I think it's fair to say slipped back forth across the dividing line between out-and-out poor and the lowest zone of the middle class. Growing up, I had never heard of a trans person (or "transvestite" or "transsexual" as they tended to be called back then). And I'm sure that, if I were able to review everything I ever said on the subject once I did learn about them, I would find ignorant statements that, in light of better understanding, I would go back and correct myself firmly on if I could. But, you know, my mother, who grew up poorer than me, raised me not to judge people by exteriors that might seem strange to me, to support the oppressed, and to recognize that everyone is valuable in the sight of God (well, that last one had to be modified in light of adulthood atheism). So I didn't have a problem with the basic idea that trans people are people, that they deserve the same rights as everyone else, and that basic politeness, not even ethics, requires that you refer to them as they prefer to be referred to. And, while it's an ongoing process for sure, I've been able to learn the finer points since then.
This is apparently more than you can expect of a man who grew up in wealth and privilege.
Remind me again why it would have been natural and "right" for me to be a bigot, and how criticizing bigotry makes me an enemy of my mother and not of Donald Trump?
posted by praemunire at 11:55 AM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
This is apparently more than you can expect of a man who grew up in wealth and privilege.
Remind me again why it would have been natural and "right" for me to be a bigot, and how criticizing bigotry makes me an enemy of my mother and not of Donald Trump?
posted by praemunire at 11:55 AM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
I read all of the comments before reading the article, trying to withhold judgment and decide for myself.
I have decided for myself and can say with absolute certainty that this article is bullshit and the author is an asshole. And I am right to say so.
Amazing that the author has such a failure of imagination to account for the possibility that many people who currently hold middle-class progressive attitudes, themselves came from working-class or impoverished beginnings. He is completely incapable of imagining that their current anti-racist views, and desire to transcend them, exist because of their working-class backgrounds. Like, this asshole thinks he is the only white dude in his middle class neighborhood who came from a working class background! I mean for him, it's apparently totally different that he's chosen to seclude himself from working class whites, but all of his other neighbors are just snooty elitists who can't relate to the common can. He can't imagine the possibility that some of them have backgrounds just like his while also valuing acceptance of others outside their current "tribe."
posted by scantee at 11:59 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
I have decided for myself and can say with absolute certainty that this article is bullshit and the author is an asshole. And I am right to say so.
Amazing that the author has such a failure of imagination to account for the possibility that many people who currently hold middle-class progressive attitudes, themselves came from working-class or impoverished beginnings. He is completely incapable of imagining that their current anti-racist views, and desire to transcend them, exist because of their working-class backgrounds. Like, this asshole thinks he is the only white dude in his middle class neighborhood who came from a working class background! I mean for him, it's apparently totally different that he's chosen to seclude himself from working class whites, but all of his other neighbors are just snooty elitists who can't relate to the common can. He can't imagine the possibility that some of them have backgrounds just like his while also valuing acceptance of others outside their current "tribe."
posted by scantee at 11:59 AM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
Ah, that's it exactly - "keep it up and I'll give you something to cry about"
Yes, there's always this underlying sense that if a white man chooses to hurt you, he's entitled, and so you should be grateful for his forbearance, and work constantly to cultivate it, lest he take it away.
Strangely, this kind of rhetoric never gets deployed around, say, any violence that arises in black American protests against specific, undeniable, and not-at-all-metaphorical acts of state violence against their communities.
posted by praemunire at 12:01 PM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
Yes, there's always this underlying sense that if a white man chooses to hurt you, he's entitled, and so you should be grateful for his forbearance, and work constantly to cultivate it, lest he take it away.
Strangely, this kind of rhetoric never gets deployed around, say, any violence that arises in black American protests against specific, undeniable, and not-at-all-metaphorical acts of state violence against their communities.
posted by praemunire at 12:01 PM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
Mod note: Let's try to keep the focus on Australia here, rather than bringing it over to the USA/Trump/racism-in-the-US context.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:03 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:03 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Fair enough & thanks for clarifying. Most of the racism directed at me felt opportunistic, like a lazy insult. I never considered that to be an existential threat and I would hesitate to even call it racism, since it is so utterly unlike the racism I have also experienced, which felt like venomous, visceral hatred. So I think that difference might owe to a different background or a different understanding of racism, which is why I brought that up.
I think that's a sort of similar distinction to what the author is trying (and kind of failing) to convey. If we understand prejudice to be a pervasive blight, and I think it is, then most of us will harbor prejudice -- I certainly do. Still I don't think that single fact makes one a racist. Maybe that's just self-preservation: if I thought everyone around me hated me ... I don't think I have the energy / werewithal.
posted by dmh at 12:08 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think that's a sort of similar distinction to what the author is trying (and kind of failing) to convey. If we understand prejudice to be a pervasive blight, and I think it is, then most of us will harbor prejudice -- I certainly do. Still I don't think that single fact makes one a racist. Maybe that's just self-preservation: if I thought everyone around me hated me ... I don't think I have the energy / werewithal.
posted by dmh at 12:08 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
keep it up and I'll give you something to cry about
Now look what you made me do!
posted by flabdablet at 12:15 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Now look what you made me do!
posted by flabdablet at 12:15 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
They are people among whom I am unsafe, and I am being told regularly that I need to be nicer to them so that they'll let me and the people I care about enjoy basic civil rights.
Also, it isn't niceness that they demand, but deference. And those are actually two different things. "I would rather not talk about this right now" and "Can we please change the subject?" and "That is not my experience" are all perfectly nice. But they aren't niceness tinged with fear and respect, and those are the attitudes they actually want from people who disagree with them.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
Also, it isn't niceness that they demand, but deference. And those are actually two different things. "I would rather not talk about this right now" and "Can we please change the subject?" and "That is not my experience" are all perfectly nice. But they aren't niceness tinged with fear and respect, and those are the attitudes they actually want from people who disagree with them.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:16 PM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
it isn't niceness that they demand, but deference
I think it's this, above all else, that makes the spectacle of a white-separatist pseudo-intellectual alt-right thug being surprised by a punch in the face so viscerally satisfying.
posted by flabdablet at 12:24 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
I think it's this, above all else, that makes the spectacle of a white-separatist pseudo-intellectual alt-right thug being surprised by a punch in the face so viscerally satisfying.
posted by flabdablet at 12:24 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
"You also aren't doing a good job of engaging with people as opposed to waiting for your turn to monologue - - you seem to be under the impression that I am mentioning my background as some kind of qualification for admission to the conversation, based on the fact that your entire response to me was a description of your upbringing. I'm not bringing up the circumstances I grew up in to assert dominance, I'm bringing them up specifically to rebut the repeated claim that no one who has expectations that po folk be decent has any lived experience as such and I think I've been fairly explicit about that goal. I don't really know what you want me to take away from your narrative - good for you? I'm sincerely glad you were able to get out of that environment, but I don't understand how that fact undermines any part of my point."
I was not looking for a cookie from you by giving my background. I was just trying to humanize and diffuse a conversation where you leveled an accusation towards me which I felt came out of emotion and misrepresented me as a person. What I have been attempting to say is some progressives tend lump all poor whites as being the problem with rise of the racism, sexism, homophobia, the radical right etc. While there is some truth to this, it's not the entire picture. I don't want to speak for you, but I think we agree that there are many poor white people who obviously do not fit this stereotype and “know better”. However, it seems this group of progressives lumps everyone in that same basket (yeah, I know) regardless and has a one size fits all solution to the issue “hey you, you know better than that stop being a racist idiot (or whatever negative trait)”, which comes across as "since you dumb hicks don’t know how to behave we are going to tell you what to do".
Unfortunately, this approach is not working and does not work. People don’t like to looked down upon or marginalized, they get resentful regardless if their behavior is not considered acceptable to the majority. Throw in politicians who pander to these folk’s frustrations and fears we have our current divisiveness. I feel we could do a better job in trying to understand the frustrations of these folks and what is causing this and work to bringing them in the conversation instead of the current path of dismissiveness and disdain. Please understand by saying “bringing them into the conversation” I don’t mean we condone anti-social behavior, but rather try to gather an understanding to the ones behind it and maybe get to the cause.
I get my opinion is not popular (wow did I get torched!) and I walk a slippery slope discussing a counterpoint in a discussion regarding white people whose viewpoints diametrically oppose those on this site (including my own). But, I feel one has to see the current path to rectifying this situation is not working regardless if you agree with my opinion. (And yes there are many more pressing problems that need to be fixed first)
posted by remo at 12:25 PM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I was not looking for a cookie from you by giving my background. I was just trying to humanize and diffuse a conversation where you leveled an accusation towards me which I felt came out of emotion and misrepresented me as a person. What I have been attempting to say is some progressives tend lump all poor whites as being the problem with rise of the racism, sexism, homophobia, the radical right etc. While there is some truth to this, it's not the entire picture. I don't want to speak for you, but I think we agree that there are many poor white people who obviously do not fit this stereotype and “know better”. However, it seems this group of progressives lumps everyone in that same basket (yeah, I know) regardless and has a one size fits all solution to the issue “hey you, you know better than that stop being a racist idiot (or whatever negative trait)”, which comes across as "since you dumb hicks don’t know how to behave we are going to tell you what to do".
Unfortunately, this approach is not working and does not work. People don’t like to looked down upon or marginalized, they get resentful regardless if their behavior is not considered acceptable to the majority. Throw in politicians who pander to these folk’s frustrations and fears we have our current divisiveness. I feel we could do a better job in trying to understand the frustrations of these folks and what is causing this and work to bringing them in the conversation instead of the current path of dismissiveness and disdain. Please understand by saying “bringing them into the conversation” I don’t mean we condone anti-social behavior, but rather try to gather an understanding to the ones behind it and maybe get to the cause.
I get my opinion is not popular (wow did I get torched!) and I walk a slippery slope discussing a counterpoint in a discussion regarding white people whose viewpoints diametrically oppose those on this site (including my own). But, I feel one has to see the current path to rectifying this situation is not working regardless if you agree with my opinion. (And yes there are many more pressing problems that need to be fixed first)
posted by remo at 12:25 PM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Those for whom injury has a use-value will display their injuries; those for whom woundedness is a survival risk, won’t.
This part really stood out to me. I don't need him to approve of my level of being wronged to believe the way I believe. But I do understand what he is trying to say- that if you had the shit kicked out of you by family members, or been dragged down by others who presumably have your best interests at heart- you will have a different perspective on words.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 12:26 PM on July 26, 2017
This part really stood out to me. I don't need him to approve of my level of being wronged to believe the way I believe. But I do understand what he is trying to say- that if you had the shit kicked out of you by family members, or been dragged down by others who presumably have your best interests at heart- you will have a different perspective on words.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 12:26 PM on July 26, 2017
"Except they aren't being marginalized. They are in some cases being insulted, but they aren't actually anywhere near the margins."
The people of Appalachia who fall into that group might beg to differ on that.
posted by remo at 12:32 PM on July 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
The people of Appalachia who fall into that group might beg to differ on that.
posted by remo at 12:32 PM on July 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
I feel we could do a better job in trying to understand the frustrations of these folks and what is causing this and work to bringing them in the conversation instead of the current path of dismissiveness and disdain.
Hm, how about 7 million long form articles on why white people vote by race, a handful of "how my white working class background explains why I hate Democrats and welfare and black people" best sellers and a healthy dose of quoting white working class trump voters in every 2nd article ever written on the topic? Would that be enough effort to bring them in to the conversation and understand them, or should I also offer to have one stay in my guest room?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 12:34 PM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
Hm, how about 7 million long form articles on why white people vote by race, a handful of "how my white working class background explains why I hate Democrats and welfare and black people" best sellers and a healthy dose of quoting white working class trump voters in every 2nd article ever written on the topic? Would that be enough effort to bring them in to the conversation and understand them, or should I also offer to have one stay in my guest room?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 12:34 PM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
This part really stood out to me.
You do realize that the implication here is that the oppressed and injured who complain are doing so for "use-value," i.e., to get stuff, not because, you know, it's unjust for them and bad for the health of our society to be treated that way.
posted by praemunire at 12:34 PM on July 26, 2017 [16 favorites]
You do realize that the implication here is that the oppressed and injured who complain are doing so for "use-value," i.e., to get stuff, not because, you know, it's unjust for them and bad for the health of our society to be treated that way.
posted by praemunire at 12:34 PM on July 26, 2017 [16 favorites]
What I have been attempting to say is some progressives tend lump all poor whites as being the problem with rise of the racism, sexism, homophobia, the radical right etc. While there is some truth to this, it's not the entire picture.
Main reason you're being tasked with monologuing rather than engaging, and the main thing I've seen you "wow - torched" for in this thread, is the fact that the author of the linked article is one of those poor-white-lumping (-lumpen?) progressives you're so insistently objecting to, and it is this aspect of his writing, rather than some kneejerk reaction "based on his race and or perceived privilege", that's behind all the harsh words directed at his essay in this thread.
There is almost no "ignoring and dismissing" of what he said going on in here. There's a lot of not-ignoring and analyzing, followed by a lot of concluding that his fundamental premises (that working class whiteness and bigotry are inextricably linked, and that reactionary responses to criticism of bigotry are both predictable and justifiable) are so full of shit as to render his pseudo-thoughtful essay pretty much worthless.
posted by flabdablet at 12:41 PM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
Main reason you're being tasked with monologuing rather than engaging, and the main thing I've seen you "wow - torched" for in this thread, is the fact that the author of the linked article is one of those poor-white-lumping (-lumpen?) progressives you're so insistently objecting to, and it is this aspect of his writing, rather than some kneejerk reaction "based on his race and or perceived privilege", that's behind all the harsh words directed at his essay in this thread.
There is almost no "ignoring and dismissing" of what he said going on in here. There's a lot of not-ignoring and analyzing, followed by a lot of concluding that his fundamental premises (that working class whiteness and bigotry are inextricably linked, and that reactionary responses to criticism of bigotry are both predictable and justifiable) are so full of shit as to render his pseudo-thoughtful essay pretty much worthless.
posted by flabdablet at 12:41 PM on July 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
I am not doubting that is the takeaway- I am saying that I can understand his point and why he feels that way. Why HE feels that way.
Not that it is right, or that the pain of others is something to be dismissed- but his lived experience taught him that you must never show fear/damage of any kind, lest those in power take it as a sign of weakness. And then close in for the kill. If you grow up with that as a survival value- you think those who do it are at best, nuts and at worst, just doing it for the attention. Understanding a thought process and how it came to be is not a validation.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 12:43 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Not that it is right, or that the pain of others is something to be dismissed- but his lived experience taught him that you must never show fear/damage of any kind, lest those in power take it as a sign of weakness. And then close in for the kill. If you grow up with that as a survival value- you think those who do it are at best, nuts and at worst, just doing it for the attention. Understanding a thought process and how it came to be is not a validation.
posted by LuckyMonkey21 at 12:43 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
The people of Appalachia who fall into that group might beg to differ on that.
this is a fair point but I feel like it also misses the point in the broader context of things
we're discussing an article where the author is basically saying 'be nicer to poor (white) folks because they don't know better,' ostensibly with the goal of providing said folks with an environment where they might actually act in ways that help marginalized groups (women, poc, etc.) they are either passively or actively harming rather than actively voting against those groups' (and often their own, and often just about everyone's) best interest.
the thing is, this isn't a real solution. is it better not to alienate the people whose support you're trying to gain? yeah, it probably is. but at whose expense? (it always seems to be at women/poc/lgbtq etc. people's expense. funny how that works). and is there any real proof that, on a large scale, pandering to poor racist/sexist (white) folks' feelings and prioritizing those over those of marginalized people affects actual, real life change to the benefit of marginalized people (or the population as a whole)? (a theory which, by the way, is flawed anyway because mid and upper class white folks are just as if not more culpable in screwing over the less-privileged 'others' (race, class, sex, gender, orientation, etc) as has been discussed multiple times in this thread)
in reality the author's advice basically boils down to 'be nicer to racist/sexist/etc. poor white folks [more often than not at the expense of and with actual harm towards those marginalized groups]' because... what? the implication is an 'otherwise' and that otherwise is generally expressed as 'they will continue to treat you like shit and in fact do so more spitefully'.
the only reasonable 'actionable' advice the author gives is the suggestion that we basically try to understand the environment some lower class people grew up in and how it might explain why they feel the way they do. that's great, and I think a lot of us do understand, at least on some level. but the author is basically saying 'don't call them out on their shit' and gives us no other alternative as to how to change their minds. like, he pretty much literally says 'don't even use the word 'privilege' or they will have every right to act in ways that could destroy your life'
we (marginalized people) literally are always expected to coddle people. always. I don't know why the onus is always on us to play nice when they're either calling us shit or voting to literally kill us. at what point do we require people in a greater position of power to start taking some responsibility? (and again, as others have said here, poor people--even poor white people--probably aren't even the right target on a larger scale)
remember, Sequence's comment is being made in the context of us talking about how we are/are not allowed to talk to/about and treat poor, racist, white folks. we, in this thread (unless we've got senators in here I don't know about) are not marginalizing people, and certainly not in the way you're implying by bringing up Appalachia. we're not responsible for their economic situation. in fact I'm sure a lot of us do just about everything we can by reasonable standards to help (voting to support better social safety nets etc). by telling people their views are sexist/racist/etc. we are not marginalizing people. we're literally just telling the truth.
anyway the author's piece focuses on the wrong groups (primarily blaming poor people for the current climate and is further more pretty insulting in its insinuation that poor people are just racist/misogynist/etc. and can't help it) and gives bad advice (don't point out when people of this group are being shitty, basically)
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 12:59 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
this is a fair point but I feel like it also misses the point in the broader context of things
we're discussing an article where the author is basically saying 'be nicer to poor (white) folks because they don't know better,' ostensibly with the goal of providing said folks with an environment where they might actually act in ways that help marginalized groups (women, poc, etc.) they are either passively or actively harming rather than actively voting against those groups' (and often their own, and often just about everyone's) best interest.
the thing is, this isn't a real solution. is it better not to alienate the people whose support you're trying to gain? yeah, it probably is. but at whose expense? (it always seems to be at women/poc/lgbtq etc. people's expense. funny how that works). and is there any real proof that, on a large scale, pandering to poor racist/sexist (white) folks' feelings and prioritizing those over those of marginalized people affects actual, real life change to the benefit of marginalized people (or the population as a whole)? (a theory which, by the way, is flawed anyway because mid and upper class white folks are just as if not more culpable in screwing over the less-privileged 'others' (race, class, sex, gender, orientation, etc) as has been discussed multiple times in this thread)
in reality the author's advice basically boils down to 'be nicer to racist/sexist/etc. poor white folks [more often than not at the expense of and with actual harm towards those marginalized groups]' because... what? the implication is an 'otherwise' and that otherwise is generally expressed as 'they will continue to treat you like shit and in fact do so more spitefully'.
the only reasonable 'actionable' advice the author gives is the suggestion that we basically try to understand the environment some lower class people grew up in and how it might explain why they feel the way they do. that's great, and I think a lot of us do understand, at least on some level. but the author is basically saying 'don't call them out on their shit' and gives us no other alternative as to how to change their minds. like, he pretty much literally says 'don't even use the word 'privilege' or they will have every right to act in ways that could destroy your life'
we (marginalized people) literally are always expected to coddle people. always. I don't know why the onus is always on us to play nice when they're either calling us shit or voting to literally kill us. at what point do we require people in a greater position of power to start taking some responsibility? (and again, as others have said here, poor people--even poor white people--probably aren't even the right target on a larger scale)
remember, Sequence's comment is being made in the context of us talking about how we are/are not allowed to talk to/about and treat poor, racist, white folks. we, in this thread (unless we've got senators in here I don't know about) are not marginalizing people, and certainly not in the way you're implying by bringing up Appalachia. we're not responsible for their economic situation. in fact I'm sure a lot of us do just about everything we can by reasonable standards to help (voting to support better social safety nets etc). by telling people their views are sexist/racist/etc. we are not marginalizing people. we're literally just telling the truth.
anyway the author's piece focuses on the wrong groups (primarily blaming poor people for the current climate and is further more pretty insulting in its insinuation that poor people are just racist/misogynist/etc. and can't help it) and gives bad advice (don't point out when people of this group are being shitty, basically)
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 12:59 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Oh man, this conversation.
I find myself all over the place on this one. I'm a white kid from a marginalized, rural community and I had some pretty similar experiences growing up both to this writer and to some of the commenters here; there was the home where I had to sleep in the hallway between the kitchen and the bathroom and where we had to pull our clothes and beds away from the outside walls in the winter because otherwise they'd freeze solid overnight, and so on, and my stepfather has some ideas about immigrants and brown people generally that still make me uncomfortable and have caused many an argument in the house. Both my parents are poor high school dropouts (I've gone over it in another thread, but I don't agree that "poor" and "working class" are synonyms; the guy who operates a heavy-lift crane for $150/hr is working class, and the woman who gets minimum wage for making your coffee in the morning is probably just poor, and this is how you get "working class" support of people like Trump), and I can tell you the exact day I left poverty and joined the middle class (January 7, 2013, about four months after I turned 34).
That being said, I've never voted for anti-immigrant policies, or policies that were otherwise racist or misogynist or not progressive or whatever, because to me, enacting policies that actively hurt people in some way is a morally shit thing to do and I knew from lived experience what it was like to be getting the boot from those policies. I do my best to best to not be racist or misogynist, and to resist the way many aspects of my community socialized me toward those things, because for every guy like my father, who wanted everyone to feel like they had a place in our community, there was at least one guy like my stepfather, who wanted people like him taken care of before people not like him got a share. I think of myself as a liberal, and I get further and further to the left the older I get. But man, the world doesn't make it easy sometimes.
Commenters keep quoting this, which I think is relevant:
I wonder how many people who would take issue with this statement also use Uber? That company is notorious for treating both women and poor people like dirt at pretty much every available opportunity for no better reason than because they can, but my white, liberal, middle class friends all use that app regularly with absolutely no second thoughts, because it's convenient. That company is at the front line of stripping away worker rights and actively harms people liberal ideologies are supposed to want to help, but it doesn't register on their moral compass because it eliminates their need to negotiate the space of class directly. Likewise AirBnB and how it notoriously facilitates racist renting practices. But my liberal, white, middle class friends won't give it up, despite their anti-racist principles, because it's too convenient. How many of them shop at Amazon, a company that actively harms the vulnerable, on top of its other execrable business practices? Nearly 100% of my liberal, white, middle class friends shop there regularly, almost obsessively. Why? Because whatever moral positions they believe in, they believe in their own convenience and saving a buck even more. They believe in the cause, but not to the point where they're going to put themselves out or anything, god no.
If you wanted a list of all the people in my life who treated me like shit because of my poverty, who were *explicit* in telling me that they felt justified in treating me badly because I was poor, that list would be 80% middle class white liberals (we aren't talking about strangers, who make up a very small part of the list, we are talking about people I know, people I often would have thought of as friends). The utter contempt directed at me as a poor person from people who were otherwise expressing liberal values that I felt we shared was, and remains, breathtaking to me, and it is probably the biggest source of class-based anger in my life. I know the conservatives don't care about me no matter what they say, because their policies are very obviously designed to hurt me, but middle class liberals? I don't get how they can vote to help people like me but then spend years telling me to my face that I'm not good enough to be accepted by them, and then lecturing me about how it's actually a moral choice, because people like me just can't keep up, and it would be unfair to expect us to try. The absolute burn-it-all-down rage that can induce, I don't know if you can understand it if you haven't felt it.
posted by Fish Sauce at 1:02 PM on July 26, 2017 [30 favorites]
I find myself all over the place on this one. I'm a white kid from a marginalized, rural community and I had some pretty similar experiences growing up both to this writer and to some of the commenters here; there was the home where I had to sleep in the hallway between the kitchen and the bathroom and where we had to pull our clothes and beds away from the outside walls in the winter because otherwise they'd freeze solid overnight, and so on, and my stepfather has some ideas about immigrants and brown people generally that still make me uncomfortable and have caused many an argument in the house. Both my parents are poor high school dropouts (I've gone over it in another thread, but I don't agree that "poor" and "working class" are synonyms; the guy who operates a heavy-lift crane for $150/hr is working class, and the woman who gets minimum wage for making your coffee in the morning is probably just poor, and this is how you get "working class" support of people like Trump), and I can tell you the exact day I left poverty and joined the middle class (January 7, 2013, about four months after I turned 34).
That being said, I've never voted for anti-immigrant policies, or policies that were otherwise racist or misogynist or not progressive or whatever, because to me, enacting policies that actively hurt people in some way is a morally shit thing to do and I knew from lived experience what it was like to be getting the boot from those policies. I do my best to best to not be racist or misogynist, and to resist the way many aspects of my community socialized me toward those things, because for every guy like my father, who wanted everyone to feel like they had a place in our community, there was at least one guy like my stepfather, who wanted people like him taken care of before people not like him got a share. I think of myself as a liberal, and I get further and further to the left the older I get. But man, the world doesn't make it easy sometimes.
Commenters keep quoting this, which I think is relevant:
Middle-class progressives have no qualms about exercising their natural right to determine the moral values of our world. Yet a fairer approach would surely entail sacrificing one’s own comfort for a cause. The trickier and scarier consequences of enlightened policies should fall on those who champion them, yet they rarely do.It's an interesting point in an article that's otherwise got a fair amount of bullshit in it (and every instance of "right to do so" is bullshit).
I wonder how many people who would take issue with this statement also use Uber? That company is notorious for treating both women and poor people like dirt at pretty much every available opportunity for no better reason than because they can, but my white, liberal, middle class friends all use that app regularly with absolutely no second thoughts, because it's convenient. That company is at the front line of stripping away worker rights and actively harms people liberal ideologies are supposed to want to help, but it doesn't register on their moral compass because it eliminates their need to negotiate the space of class directly. Likewise AirBnB and how it notoriously facilitates racist renting practices. But my liberal, white, middle class friends won't give it up, despite their anti-racist principles, because it's too convenient. How many of them shop at Amazon, a company that actively harms the vulnerable, on top of its other execrable business practices? Nearly 100% of my liberal, white, middle class friends shop there regularly, almost obsessively. Why? Because whatever moral positions they believe in, they believe in their own convenience and saving a buck even more. They believe in the cause, but not to the point where they're going to put themselves out or anything, god no.
If you wanted a list of all the people in my life who treated me like shit because of my poverty, who were *explicit* in telling me that they felt justified in treating me badly because I was poor, that list would be 80% middle class white liberals (we aren't talking about strangers, who make up a very small part of the list, we are talking about people I know, people I often would have thought of as friends). The utter contempt directed at me as a poor person from people who were otherwise expressing liberal values that I felt we shared was, and remains, breathtaking to me, and it is probably the biggest source of class-based anger in my life. I know the conservatives don't care about me no matter what they say, because their policies are very obviously designed to hurt me, but middle class liberals? I don't get how they can vote to help people like me but then spend years telling me to my face that I'm not good enough to be accepted by them, and then lecturing me about how it's actually a moral choice, because people like me just can't keep up, and it would be unfair to expect us to try. The absolute burn-it-all-down rage that can induce, I don't know if you can understand it if you haven't felt it.
posted by Fish Sauce at 1:02 PM on July 26, 2017 [30 favorites]
Fish Sauce-- great comment, thanks
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 1:09 PM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 1:09 PM on July 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
I wonder how many people who would take issue with this statement also use Uber?
Screw this line of "reasoning." Many progressives are out their busting their asses, working for low pay, giving up their free time, sometimes risking their lives, but apparently none of that shit counts because sometimes they take an Uber or order from Amazon. Individual progressives are apparently personally responsible for all corporate misbehavior and malfeasance. The only acceptable progressive is one who lives their lives in perfect accord with their values (as I'm sure you do) or self-flagellates to make penance for their sins.
posted by scantee at 1:18 PM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
Screw this line of "reasoning." Many progressives are out their busting their asses, working for low pay, giving up their free time, sometimes risking their lives, but apparently none of that shit counts because sometimes they take an Uber or order from Amazon. Individual progressives are apparently personally responsible for all corporate misbehavior and malfeasance. The only acceptable progressive is one who lives their lives in perfect accord with their values (as I'm sure you do) or self-flagellates to make penance for their sins.
posted by scantee at 1:18 PM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
Middle-class progressives have no qualms about exercising their natural right to determine the moral values of our world. Yet a fairer approach would surely entail sacrificing one’s own comfort for a cause.
I must have missed all the progressives who are in favor of reducing the marginal tax rate. Generally, you have to support increased taxation, the burden of which ordinarily falls hardest on the salary-earning middle to upper-middle class (who get W2s and aren't yet rich enough to shelter their money from tax), if you are going to support an expansive program of social support. I don't know a single person who would call themselves progressive who would, e.g., oppose a tax increase to support (an otherwise feasible and sound system of) universal health care. The poor and working-class are ordinarily the least affected by tax increases; the "comfort" they are being asked to give up is primarily their sense of white superiority. To which, sorry, they are not entitled.
Also, I try to minimize my use of Uber, but it is literally impossible to participate in modern commerce and not be complicit in evil. There's no such thing as ethical capitalism. Focusing on individual consumption is a distraction from the real issues.
posted by praemunire at 1:29 PM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
I must have missed all the progressives who are in favor of reducing the marginal tax rate. Generally, you have to support increased taxation, the burden of which ordinarily falls hardest on the salary-earning middle to upper-middle class (who get W2s and aren't yet rich enough to shelter their money from tax), if you are going to support an expansive program of social support. I don't know a single person who would call themselves progressive who would, e.g., oppose a tax increase to support (an otherwise feasible and sound system of) universal health care. The poor and working-class are ordinarily the least affected by tax increases; the "comfort" they are being asked to give up is primarily their sense of white superiority. To which, sorry, they are not entitled.
Also, I try to minimize my use of Uber, but it is literally impossible to participate in modern commerce and not be complicit in evil. There's no such thing as ethical capitalism. Focusing on individual consumption is a distraction from the real issues.
posted by praemunire at 1:29 PM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
Individual progressives are apparently personally responsible for all corporate misbehavior and malfeasance.
I don't think this really follows from what Fish Sauce was saying. Of course all of us are caught up in a web of global transactions that make it really hard to define our complicity in abusive labour conditions; when I buy strawberries from the supermarket, I don't know who picked them and under what conditions and I don't have easy options for buying definitely exploitation-free goods in the current economy. In these situations, where there's a really diffuse web of responsibility, it makes sense to say these are problems we can only fix by pushing politicians and states to better regulate corporate behaviour; the consumer is too small a piece of the puzzle to solve the problem by direct action.
But with Uber, I think it's different. You're directly buying a service, from a person who is working under conditions that are somewhat exploitative, and the cheapness and convenience of the service derives from that exploitation. I do think that's a situation where liberals, who supposedly care as much about class as other vectors of exploitation, should be asking themselves whether it is morally right to benefit from this situation before regulation catches up and the exploitative dimension of the relationship can be fixed (full workers' rights, less precarity). It's different if there's no economic choice and you have to use Uber because you just can't affordably get home otherwise. But I think if you can afford not to do so, and it's a pure convenience thing, it does make sense to avoid directly benefiting from this economic structure, where the advantage to the consumer so directly flow from the disadvantages to the worker and in situations where more expensive but fairer/better-regulated alternatives are readily available. (I'm less sure about Amazon because Amazon's working practices are unfortunately mirrored by so many companies--Sports Direct in the U.K., for example--and this is a context where changing regulation in the whole industry is needed, not individual avoidance of one company).
I don't know what this has to do with the author's fixation on racism, though. It's fine to say that liberals should be as alive to the class implications of their speech and actions as to the racial implications. It's not fine to say that, therefore, working class racism is immune from criticism. That's like saying that, because I've experienced racism, I should be immune from criticism when I am classist or choose to benefit from oppressive class structures. It's just a non sequitur, both ways.
posted by Aravis76 at 1:38 PM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
I don't think this really follows from what Fish Sauce was saying. Of course all of us are caught up in a web of global transactions that make it really hard to define our complicity in abusive labour conditions; when I buy strawberries from the supermarket, I don't know who picked them and under what conditions and I don't have easy options for buying definitely exploitation-free goods in the current economy. In these situations, where there's a really diffuse web of responsibility, it makes sense to say these are problems we can only fix by pushing politicians and states to better regulate corporate behaviour; the consumer is too small a piece of the puzzle to solve the problem by direct action.
But with Uber, I think it's different. You're directly buying a service, from a person who is working under conditions that are somewhat exploitative, and the cheapness and convenience of the service derives from that exploitation. I do think that's a situation where liberals, who supposedly care as much about class as other vectors of exploitation, should be asking themselves whether it is morally right to benefit from this situation before regulation catches up and the exploitative dimension of the relationship can be fixed (full workers' rights, less precarity). It's different if there's no economic choice and you have to use Uber because you just can't affordably get home otherwise. But I think if you can afford not to do so, and it's a pure convenience thing, it does make sense to avoid directly benefiting from this economic structure, where the advantage to the consumer so directly flow from the disadvantages to the worker and in situations where more expensive but fairer/better-regulated alternatives are readily available. (I'm less sure about Amazon because Amazon's working practices are unfortunately mirrored by so many companies--Sports Direct in the U.K., for example--and this is a context where changing regulation in the whole industry is needed, not individual avoidance of one company).
I don't know what this has to do with the author's fixation on racism, though. It's fine to say that liberals should be as alive to the class implications of their speech and actions as to the racial implications. It's not fine to say that, therefore, working class racism is immune from criticism. That's like saying that, because I've experienced racism, I should be immune from criticism when I am classist or choose to benefit from oppressive class structures. It's just a non sequitur, both ways.
posted by Aravis76 at 1:38 PM on July 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
On reread, what the article completely elides and erases, and which has been largely absent from the discussion here as a result, is the fact that the perspectives of PoC objecting to racism (and minorities objecting to bigotry more broadly). It does that thing that all these articles do - treats white perspectives as universal. The (white) middle classes object to racism because of respectability politics. Utterly ignored is the possibility that such an objection might have a more immediate, personal cause. The entire world is white-washed, and PoC exist in this world only as props to racists and progressives (all white). It thus constructs a white-knight strawman from which progressive social changes and anti-racism arise, as an impersonal and secondary concern. It frames the entire argument on skewed terms.
posted by Dysk at 1:40 PM on July 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 1:40 PM on July 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
I don't use Uber for ethical reasons so you can safely take everything I say as Valid Progressive Thought.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:44 PM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by the agents of KAOS at 1:44 PM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
The assumption of pieces like this one is that if ONLY liberals could be respectful and calm and winsome about their beliefs, then they would be able to woo “the bad, white working class” into voting in their own interests. If only liberals weren’t so smug and urban and snotty! If you treated them like people, maybe they would be more receptive to your attempts to give them health care and infrastructure repairs!
Look, despite my online persona that is admittedly fairly snotty at times, I lived in Appalachia for seven years. I actually WAS that winsome liberal for a lot of people. I worked at a barbecue restaurant where my deep red Republican boss told me that I was the first liberal she had ever liked. I got to know people from small coal mining towns. I donated my time and my money to helping the poor.
And you know what I discovered? Being a part of that community, and paying taxes there, and listening politely and calmly stating my position didn’t actually seem to change a single person’s mind. They just labeled me “one of the good ones” or “an exception to every rule” or “not like most east coasters” and went on believing exactly what Fox News told them to believe. When they talked about talk radio fantasies as if they were real, and I told them that I had lived in those places and that those things were not real, they decided that I was “confused” and went on believing in whatever they had believed in before.
We’ve seen the same story with all of these “small-town in a red state can’t understand why their token person of color suddenly feels unsafe” NYT stories— having a friendly and kind example of the type of person they had been taught to fear doesn’t mitigate the fear, most of the time. They say “this one is different” and go on believing exactly what they did before, and then their feelings are hurt when people point out that their actions have consequences.
“Oh, they won’t dare take away Medicare” they say to the people who know that they absolutely will. “Oh, they wouldn’t shut down the mine”, to the people who are holding documentation showing that the deal has already been struck. “Oh, they wouldn’t shut down the high school” they say to people who are telling them that a 10 cent tax could prevent it. And then when those things happen, they still blame liberals.
I mean, it is true that people who are ignorant of how things work are often deeply resentful of the idea that anyone else does know anything about how things work, but this doesn’t make ignorance folksy or defensible or inherently good.
When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that it might not be a good idea to put your hands in a dead body and then insert the same unwashed hands into a woman’t uterus, he too was told “you are RUDE! How dare you!!! You don’t have the right to tell us what to do!!!!!! Suggesting hand washing is a mortal insult!! You don’t know how we live! Your implications are infamous sir!!!!! Get out of here with your EVIDENCE and DATA and smug lived experience!!!!!!!” But when we look back on his story, we don’t think “man, if only he had been more polite about trying to stop thousands of deaths in childbirth. What a foolish elitist!”
(Also, "some liberals are also ignorant and therefore hypocrites" isn't actually a great argument either. Yes, some of them are! We can work on helping them learn things too! Ignorance should be opposed in all of its guises!)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:52 PM on July 26, 2017 [47 favorites]
Look, despite my online persona that is admittedly fairly snotty at times, I lived in Appalachia for seven years. I actually WAS that winsome liberal for a lot of people. I worked at a barbecue restaurant where my deep red Republican boss told me that I was the first liberal she had ever liked. I got to know people from small coal mining towns. I donated my time and my money to helping the poor.
And you know what I discovered? Being a part of that community, and paying taxes there, and listening politely and calmly stating my position didn’t actually seem to change a single person’s mind. They just labeled me “one of the good ones” or “an exception to every rule” or “not like most east coasters” and went on believing exactly what Fox News told them to believe. When they talked about talk radio fantasies as if they were real, and I told them that I had lived in those places and that those things were not real, they decided that I was “confused” and went on believing in whatever they had believed in before.
We’ve seen the same story with all of these “small-town in a red state can’t understand why their token person of color suddenly feels unsafe” NYT stories— having a friendly and kind example of the type of person they had been taught to fear doesn’t mitigate the fear, most of the time. They say “this one is different” and go on believing exactly what they did before, and then their feelings are hurt when people point out that their actions have consequences.
“Oh, they won’t dare take away Medicare” they say to the people who know that they absolutely will. “Oh, they wouldn’t shut down the mine”, to the people who are holding documentation showing that the deal has already been struck. “Oh, they wouldn’t shut down the high school” they say to people who are telling them that a 10 cent tax could prevent it. And then when those things happen, they still blame liberals.
I mean, it is true that people who are ignorant of how things work are often deeply resentful of the idea that anyone else does know anything about how things work, but this doesn’t make ignorance folksy or defensible or inherently good.
When Ignaz Semmelweis suggested that it might not be a good idea to put your hands in a dead body and then insert the same unwashed hands into a woman’t uterus, he too was told “you are RUDE! How dare you!!! You don’t have the right to tell us what to do!!!!!! Suggesting hand washing is a mortal insult!! You don’t know how we live! Your implications are infamous sir!!!!! Get out of here with your EVIDENCE and DATA and smug lived experience!!!!!!!” But when we look back on his story, we don’t think “man, if only he had been more polite about trying to stop thousands of deaths in childbirth. What a foolish elitist!”
(Also, "some liberals are also ignorant and therefore hypocrites" isn't actually a great argument either. Yes, some of them are! We can work on helping them learn things too! Ignorance should be opposed in all of its guises!)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:52 PM on July 26, 2017 [47 favorites]
I worked at a barbecue restaurant where my deep red Republican boss told me that I was the first liberal she had ever liked.
My grandpa always used to tell me I was the only liberal he could ever love.
He had heart problems and he and my grandmother went bankrupt twice trying to pay medical bills. They had to give up their house. At his funeral the preacher talked about Jesus for 40 minutes and said a total of two things about my grandpa: he liked to fish and he loved his family.
My grandmother thought it was a lovely service. She still talks about how the Pakistani family that lives across the hall is stealing government money, though.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 2:03 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
My grandpa always used to tell me I was the only liberal he could ever love.
He had heart problems and he and my grandmother went bankrupt twice trying to pay medical bills. They had to give up their house. At his funeral the preacher talked about Jesus for 40 minutes and said a total of two things about my grandpa: he liked to fish and he loved his family.
My grandmother thought it was a lovely service. She still talks about how the Pakistani family that lives across the hall is stealing government money, though.
posted by suddenly, and without warning, at 2:03 PM on July 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Fish Sauce, I should have just let you comment for me, you do I much better job!
Your experiences growing up and thinking mirrors mine in a lot of ways. I consider myself very liberal, and had a difficult time dealing with my conservative parents and relatives. But at the same time I have an occasional uneasiness interacting with my liberal circle of friends. Most came from stable successful families attended great schools and live in the posh neighborhoods. They talk a great game about diversity, giving back and openness, but wring their hands worrying if their child might get assigned to "that school". And many of my liberal "friends" from school, had no qualms about mocking me for my clothing, housing, and job at a gas station back in the day. But, like in this conversation some things are too inconvenient to discuss.
Anyway, I have come to the realization you can't change an ignorant poor persons mind. You also apparently can't change a middle class liberals way of thinking about things from a perspective outside their own bubble. Both groups apparently know better than me and are happy to keep the status quo. Yes it's a monologue and I don't care.
posted by remo at 2:10 PM on July 26, 2017
Your experiences growing up and thinking mirrors mine in a lot of ways. I consider myself very liberal, and had a difficult time dealing with my conservative parents and relatives. But at the same time I have an occasional uneasiness interacting with my liberal circle of friends. Most came from stable successful families attended great schools and live in the posh neighborhoods. They talk a great game about diversity, giving back and openness, but wring their hands worrying if their child might get assigned to "that school". And many of my liberal "friends" from school, had no qualms about mocking me for my clothing, housing, and job at a gas station back in the day. But, like in this conversation some things are too inconvenient to discuss.
Anyway, I have come to the realization you can't change an ignorant poor persons mind. You also apparently can't change a middle class liberals way of thinking about things from a perspective outside their own bubble. Both groups apparently know better than me and are happy to keep the status quo. Yes it's a monologue and I don't care.
posted by remo at 2:10 PM on July 26, 2017
Mod note: remo, you've repeated your point a number of times now and don't seem to be engaging with what other people are saying here, so at this point please let it rest.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:15 PM on July 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:15 PM on July 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
I simply don't understand how objecting to the idea of minority rights as a luxury for the white middle class, as framed in this argument, is classist. I just don't get it. Someone explain it to me, please. It's weird reading this because it's like my right to exist is somehow being framed as a debate between different classes of white people.
posted by orangutan at 2:19 PM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by orangutan at 2:19 PM on July 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
To be clear, there is a pretty big difference between saying liberals should not be classist, full stop, and saying that liberals are being classist by objecting to racism. The article says the latter, not the former. It says nothing at all about liberals mocking the clothes or jobs or housing of working class people. It says a lot about liberals criticising the use of racial slurs. That's why it's getting so much pushback.
posted by Aravis76 at 2:23 PM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 2:23 PM on July 26, 2017 [21 favorites]
Give me Convenience or Give me Death
posted by philip-random at 2:40 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 2:40 PM on July 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Under your taxonomy, does "And they are right to do so" identify and describe, or condone?
I don't see it as my taxonomy. It's just the familiar idea that explaining how a thing came about is not equivalent to excusing it. Elsewhere in the piece, the author explicitly states what the scope of the piece is, and based on those lines, it should be obvious that the various flavors of racism (overt, covert, structural, etc.) are not to be condoned. However, I do read the use of the word "right" as a rhetorical point (I'd explain it in terms of dialectic), which in my reading is supported in the text because of the way it appears, and that's what I said as much in my last comment.
It's a bit like when a schoolteacher regulates a student's behavior using criticism, shaming, denying/correcting, etc. I've been reading about education psychology, and one of recurring theoretical themes is that that sort of psychological approach is very problematic pedagogical behavior on the part of the teacher. It's the same pattern here; it's the dilemma of when you call a racist a racist (and I've done that, in public, as a PoC living in North America), that can be very counterproductive and backfires. Mileage varies. Describing this psychological dynamic in no way means encouraging it. It's a bit like map vs. territory.
I find it really strange that this article doesn't have a "here's what does work" section. Like, he says, don't be so pushy and judgey, middle class people, because it's counterproductive in getting poor white racists to change their minds. Which, fair enough, there's certainly class prejudice against poor whites, and if he has good insights about what's a more effective approach, great, I'm all ears. I'm waiting for "here are the better methods I've used, in 'negotiating' what kind of talk/prejudice is too racist to be acceptable"... but instead there's just this deflating-balloon noise.
But if you turn that around, that's what objecting to racism does as well. It tells racists they shouldn't be racist, but that alone offers no alternative or solidarity towards their struggles. In psychotherapy that's sometimes explained as the problem of not operationalizing, not showing that other person how a given goal can be achieved. And the nature of that failure comes from an inadequate theory of mind, i.e. having a model of what other people are thinking. And it's totally true that empathizing with your oppressor feels like further injustice, because I'll become resentful and think to myself, What? Why am I having to perform this emotional labor for them? But that's not really the end of it, either.
So I wouldn't fault the author for not knowing the possible answers/solutions. Personally, I've found that therapy helps, in terms of a professional offering to coach a person who feels oppressed a more adaptive set of emotional regulation and relational skills, but that's a very complicated human process and obviously may not generalize. It is very much a balloon fizzling out if the exhortation of the author's "Perhaps not fight fire with fire" is not counterbalanced with an explicit alternative (I think the piece has some implied suggestions, such as learn to communicate noncritically and nonjudgmentally and asking yourself the meta of that, i.e. if you've really learned to do so). But further, there is a radical appeal to the idea that maybe we were approaching this racism thing wrong all along—a bit like asking, who is willing to be the first to put down the whip, and really truly use the carrot? The thought that revising/increasing one's own political consciousness, and then taking the initiative to break that cycle would be an approach that aligns better with liberal progressive values, anyways?
posted by polymodus at 3:06 PM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
I don't see it as my taxonomy. It's just the familiar idea that explaining how a thing came about is not equivalent to excusing it. Elsewhere in the piece, the author explicitly states what the scope of the piece is, and based on those lines, it should be obvious that the various flavors of racism (overt, covert, structural, etc.) are not to be condoned. However, I do read the use of the word "right" as a rhetorical point (I'd explain it in terms of dialectic), which in my reading is supported in the text because of the way it appears, and that's what I said as much in my last comment.
It's a bit like when a schoolteacher regulates a student's behavior using criticism, shaming, denying/correcting, etc. I've been reading about education psychology, and one of recurring theoretical themes is that that sort of psychological approach is very problematic pedagogical behavior on the part of the teacher. It's the same pattern here; it's the dilemma of when you call a racist a racist (and I've done that, in public, as a PoC living in North America), that can be very counterproductive and backfires. Mileage varies. Describing this psychological dynamic in no way means encouraging it. It's a bit like map vs. territory.
I find it really strange that this article doesn't have a "here's what does work" section. Like, he says, don't be so pushy and judgey, middle class people, because it's counterproductive in getting poor white racists to change their minds. Which, fair enough, there's certainly class prejudice against poor whites, and if he has good insights about what's a more effective approach, great, I'm all ears. I'm waiting for "here are the better methods I've used, in 'negotiating' what kind of talk/prejudice is too racist to be acceptable"... but instead there's just this deflating-balloon noise.
But if you turn that around, that's what objecting to racism does as well. It tells racists they shouldn't be racist, but that alone offers no alternative or solidarity towards their struggles. In psychotherapy that's sometimes explained as the problem of not operationalizing, not showing that other person how a given goal can be achieved. And the nature of that failure comes from an inadequate theory of mind, i.e. having a model of what other people are thinking. And it's totally true that empathizing with your oppressor feels like further injustice, because I'll become resentful and think to myself, What? Why am I having to perform this emotional labor for them? But that's not really the end of it, either.
So I wouldn't fault the author for not knowing the possible answers/solutions. Personally, I've found that therapy helps, in terms of a professional offering to coach a person who feels oppressed a more adaptive set of emotional regulation and relational skills, but that's a very complicated human process and obviously may not generalize. It is very much a balloon fizzling out if the exhortation of the author's "Perhaps not fight fire with fire" is not counterbalanced with an explicit alternative (I think the piece has some implied suggestions, such as learn to communicate noncritically and nonjudgmentally and asking yourself the meta of that, i.e. if you've really learned to do so). But further, there is a radical appeal to the idea that maybe we were approaching this racism thing wrong all along—a bit like asking, who is willing to be the first to put down the whip, and really truly use the carrot? The thought that revising/increasing one's own political consciousness, and then taking the initiative to break that cycle would be an approach that aligns better with liberal progressive values, anyways?
posted by polymodus at 3:06 PM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
there is a radical appeal to the idea that maybe we were approaching this racism thing wrong all along—a bit like asking, who is willing to be the first to put down the whip, and really truly use the carrot?
This is a pretty unfortunate metaphor. I don't think that people of colour have the whip, when it comes to deciding how to handle this racism thing, and I cannot think of any carrot we have that we would be able to trade for "hey, please don't hate us / threaten us / abuse us because of our race." If you think racism is just about a lack of personal development, which needs to be handled therapeutically, I think you are again perhaps seeing this purely as a conversation between white people about which set of them is morally nicer, and not as a political struggle to preserve and defend the rights of actual human beings. Maybe it would help racists to be nicer people if liberals didn't criticise them for using racial slurs or discriminating against minorities. I don't care. The cost to the victims of the slurs and discrimination is not a price worth paying for that growth on their part. This is part of the point of liberalism; respect for individual rights is not contingent on anything. You don't get to trade my right not to be abused or discriminated against off against your desire for racists to achieve personal growth and feel more at home in society.
posted by Aravis76 at 3:31 PM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
This is a pretty unfortunate metaphor. I don't think that people of colour have the whip, when it comes to deciding how to handle this racism thing, and I cannot think of any carrot we have that we would be able to trade for "hey, please don't hate us / threaten us / abuse us because of our race." If you think racism is just about a lack of personal development, which needs to be handled therapeutically, I think you are again perhaps seeing this purely as a conversation between white people about which set of them is morally nicer, and not as a political struggle to preserve and defend the rights of actual human beings. Maybe it would help racists to be nicer people if liberals didn't criticise them for using racial slurs or discriminating against minorities. I don't care. The cost to the victims of the slurs and discrimination is not a price worth paying for that growth on their part. This is part of the point of liberalism; respect for individual rights is not contingent on anything. You don't get to trade my right not to be abused or discriminated against off against your desire for racists to achieve personal growth and feel more at home in society.
posted by Aravis76 at 3:31 PM on July 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
However, I do read the use of the word "right" as a rhetorical point (I'd explain it in terms of dialectic), which in my reading is supported in the text because of the way it appears, and that's what I said as much in my last comment.
You're an extremely charitable reader, I'll say that. Given the piece as a whole it's very difficult for me to read that as other than an explicit endorsement.
posted by PMdixon at 3:56 PM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
You're an extremely charitable reader, I'll say that. Given the piece as a whole it's very difficult for me to read that as other than an explicit endorsement.
posted by PMdixon at 3:56 PM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Related: Living with racism in Australia
posted by orangutan at 4:23 PM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
"I now understand how terrified those without power in Australia feel: They can’t even confront a pregnant woman face-to-face; instead they deposit racist posters and slink off. I am reminded of a line in Ecclesiastes: “I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them. On the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them.”
"Racists feel that no one, neither society nor the government, appreciates how the modern world has left them behind. But one group shares their unrelenting feelings of deep-seated fear and anxiety: their victims.
"What I have learned from experience is this: In your moments of vulnerability, the bigots will still come for you. Your tongue could still be cut out, your windows smashed. You can go about quietly achieving and trying to keep a low profile, but you can never choose invisibility. When the bigots decide to see you, they will see you."
posted by orangutan at 4:23 PM on July 26, 2017 [12 favorites]
Related ABC podcast: It's Not A Race
posted by sutureselves at 4:34 PM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by sutureselves at 4:34 PM on July 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
>>Under your taxonomy, does "And they are right to do so" identify and describe, or condone?
>I don't see it as my taxonomy. It's just the familiar idea that explaining how a thing came about is not equivalent to excusing it.
"They are right to do so" is a normative statement. As in, it is intended to set, express, or reinforce norms.
It is not an explanation of how a thing came about. It is a statement that the thing is good, acceptable, and laudable, and that the listeners should support it and if they don't they're not "right" — which is generally phrased as "wrong".
posted by Lexica at 4:40 PM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
>I don't see it as my taxonomy. It's just the familiar idea that explaining how a thing came about is not equivalent to excusing it.
"They are right to do so" is a normative statement. As in, it is intended to set, express, or reinforce norms.
It is not an explanation of how a thing came about. It is a statement that the thing is good, acceptable, and laudable, and that the listeners should support it and if they don't they're not "right" — which is generally phrased as "wrong".
posted by Lexica at 4:40 PM on July 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
I think the most interesting thing about the article has to do with the normalization of aggression and violence in the working vs. middle class. What is strange to me, though, is that while this difference is noted, the reasons are not really explored. I think the author's skepticism of anything sounding like identity politics blinds him to the role that traditional masculinity may play in enforcing the ideas that: violence between men is natural and often necessary; physicality is a primary virtue, especially among men, whereas emotionality is weak and effeminate; words cannot harm, or only harm weak or soft people; and that being weak or injured, and especially seeking redress from authorities as a result, is shameful. To look at it from a class perspective, embracing this type of behavioral code allows working class men (and some women, I imagine, though maybe in a more complicated way) to assert pride and collective power despite being subject to class oppression.
I think this is particularly relevant to the way he talks about victimhood. He notes that it has a "use value," but then goes on to equate it with self-pity, insularity, and depression -- so what positives are people actually supposed to be getting out of it, and why exactly aren't those available to the white working class? A perhaps important upside of disclosing painful experiences and injustices that goes unmentioned here is that this disclosure builds community and solidarity, by letting others know that they aren't alone, that they didn't deserve what happened to them, and that they don't have to sit idly by as it happens to them or to others like them.
The author is certainly right when he says that this vulnerability has a price, and that not everyone is in a position to pay it. But part of the reason this vulnerability comes at such a cost is also that it is incompatible with traditional codes of masculinity, which any individual is of course going to pay a high price for jettisoning. If the goal is really to build solidarity across class lines, I think this problem needs to be addressed thoughtfully. I'll also say that the author also ignores the submerged part of the iceberg in the discussion about victimization: the people who can't talk about their oppression because it is too dangerous or because it threatens to consume them, but who nevertheless face the same issues as the ones who have the bandwidth and resources to do so. This is particularly frustrating because it seems to be exactly the point the author makes about class oppression but does not generalize.
On a different note, I thought it was particularly tone-deaf and ironic when he referred to hypothetical people calling him on his "‘hetero-privilege’ while [he] was a homeless solitary." 40% of young homeless people, at least in the USA, are LGBT, despite the fact that LGBT-identified people only make up 4% of the US population. He would have been on the order of ten times more likely to be homeless had he grown up gay or trans.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:49 PM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
I think this is particularly relevant to the way he talks about victimhood. He notes that it has a "use value," but then goes on to equate it with self-pity, insularity, and depression -- so what positives are people actually supposed to be getting out of it, and why exactly aren't those available to the white working class? A perhaps important upside of disclosing painful experiences and injustices that goes unmentioned here is that this disclosure builds community and solidarity, by letting others know that they aren't alone, that they didn't deserve what happened to them, and that they don't have to sit idly by as it happens to them or to others like them.
The author is certainly right when he says that this vulnerability has a price, and that not everyone is in a position to pay it. But part of the reason this vulnerability comes at such a cost is also that it is incompatible with traditional codes of masculinity, which any individual is of course going to pay a high price for jettisoning. If the goal is really to build solidarity across class lines, I think this problem needs to be addressed thoughtfully. I'll also say that the author also ignores the submerged part of the iceberg in the discussion about victimization: the people who can't talk about their oppression because it is too dangerous or because it threatens to consume them, but who nevertheless face the same issues as the ones who have the bandwidth and resources to do so. This is particularly frustrating because it seems to be exactly the point the author makes about class oppression but does not generalize.
On a different note, I thought it was particularly tone-deaf and ironic when he referred to hypothetical people calling him on his "‘hetero-privilege’ while [he] was a homeless solitary." 40% of young homeless people, at least in the USA, are LGBT, despite the fact that LGBT-identified people only make up 4% of the US population. He would have been on the order of ten times more likely to be homeless had he grown up gay or trans.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:49 PM on July 26, 2017 [14 favorites]
*catches up on thread*
Thanks to those of you who are pushing back against this toxic bullshit. This is what I love about Mefi: I can trust that most of you would understand this, white or PoC, rich or poor, many of you have articulated what was wrong with this essay far better than I did in my seething rage.
You're helping me retain my faith in humanity, no small feat in 2017. I appreciate all of you.
As for the rest of you... it's disturbing how many people can read that essay and think it's got anything to offer. I'm not going to continue about what's wrong with it in too much detail - several posters already did a better job with that. In particular, sotonohito and Aravais did a great job with the false idea that the essay is somehow about how to reason with racists to bring them around. It's not, it's about why we should settle for mistreatment because at least open prejudice isn't beatings or murder.
That's not a path forward. At no point in history has that worked. Racial progress requires the oppressed population to resist, be it with violence or speech or whatever. Even if the author is right about us never truly 100% defeating racism, progress only comes from pushing toward it anyway, and refusing to back down.
posted by mordax at 7:11 PM on July 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
Thanks to those of you who are pushing back against this toxic bullshit. This is what I love about Mefi: I can trust that most of you would understand this, white or PoC, rich or poor, many of you have articulated what was wrong with this essay far better than I did in my seething rage.
You're helping me retain my faith in humanity, no small feat in 2017. I appreciate all of you.
As for the rest of you... it's disturbing how many people can read that essay and think it's got anything to offer. I'm not going to continue about what's wrong with it in too much detail - several posters already did a better job with that. In particular, sotonohito and Aravais did a great job with the false idea that the essay is somehow about how to reason with racists to bring them around. It's not, it's about why we should settle for mistreatment because at least open prejudice isn't beatings or murder.
That's not a path forward. At no point in history has that worked. Racial progress requires the oppressed population to resist, be it with violence or speech or whatever. Even if the author is right about us never truly 100% defeating racism, progress only comes from pushing toward it anyway, and refusing to back down.
posted by mordax at 7:11 PM on July 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
Living with racism in Australia
Alice Pung is a national treasure.
posted by flabdablet at 9:12 PM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Alice Pung is a national treasure.
posted by flabdablet at 9:12 PM on July 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Neither party represents the interests of the people
While this is undoubtedly true, there do remain important differences. Even when presented with a bad choice between two parties neither of which actually has your interests or those of people you care about as its primary reason for existence, it is still possible to choose the less bad of those.
A dynamic I'm now old enough to have seen play out over and over and over again in Australian politics, which I have no reason to doubt happens everywhere else as well, is the following:
People get miserable because their jobs are insecure and/or disappearing.
Labor (the more left-leaning of our two centre-right major parties) makes a raft of appealing promises (fairer industrial relations systems and investing in schools and healthcare in order to reap the ensuing long term economic benefits are the perennials) and is elected on that basis.
The conservative Coalition and its commercial media propaganda arm does everything within its power to undermine, block and/or discredit every Labor initiative, especially those that actually make the most economic sense. Can't have "the other side of politics" getting credit for stuff; that would not do.
After a couple of terms of Labor, the electorate starts to chafe at its failure to achieve rapid structural improvement regardless of how much incremental ongoing progress has been made, and the airwaves begin to feature lots of chatter about how Labor is "not up to the job" or "has lost its way" or has become "tired and complacent". Labor's poll figures start to plunge, the knives come out, and media speculation about leadership change becomes self-fulfilling.
And then we elect the Coalition - that party of silvertails that exists to prop up the systems of privileged parasitism driving the very misery that got Labor elected in the first place - in another fucking landslide.
Labor is not the party I would like to see in power if I had my druthers; they're still far too beholden to entrenched power interests like the coal industry. And of course I went through the customary process of cynical disillusionment with the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Australian politics and the declaring of a pox on both their houses and have ended up a rusted-on Greens voter as a consequence.
But the simple fact remains that when the Coalition is in power, everything in this country gets worse. People are meaner to each other. Refugees get fucked even harder. Indigenous Australians get shat upon from a much greater height. Employment gets scarcer and more precarious. And big extractive industries, and real estate developers who put up shonky buildings designed to double as giant fireworks displays, make out like fucking bandits. Restrict my choice to Labor vs the Coalition and it will be Labor. No contest.
So if I'm to be excoriated as a latte sipping elitist for calling Reclaim Australia and One Nation and Family First and all those other arseholes pushing the right hand edge of the Overton window a pack of deplorable intellectual basket cases, and that excoriation has no better basis than that those complete fucking arseholes like to market themselves as representative of Ordinary Working Australians? I'll happily wear that.
Some of the people exposed to my abrasive opinions on these topics are people who respect me even if they don't share my positions, and I have to believe that my accumulated social capital plus my consistent lack of political ambiguity might one day give a swinging voter close to me cause to look beyond the propaganda machine and actually think about whose box they're going to tick in the polling booth.
And I reiterate my position that anybody who would tick one of those boxes solely to achieve some kind of petty, cowardly anonymous revenge against a "politically correct" elitist who dared called them on some kind of fuckwittery is a fuckwit and has by that very vote just proved it beyond all doubt.
posted by flabdablet at 10:13 PM on July 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
While this is undoubtedly true, there do remain important differences. Even when presented with a bad choice between two parties neither of which actually has your interests or those of people you care about as its primary reason for existence, it is still possible to choose the less bad of those.
A dynamic I'm now old enough to have seen play out over and over and over again in Australian politics, which I have no reason to doubt happens everywhere else as well, is the following:
People get miserable because their jobs are insecure and/or disappearing.
Labor (the more left-leaning of our two centre-right major parties) makes a raft of appealing promises (fairer industrial relations systems and investing in schools and healthcare in order to reap the ensuing long term economic benefits are the perennials) and is elected on that basis.
The conservative Coalition and its commercial media propaganda arm does everything within its power to undermine, block and/or discredit every Labor initiative, especially those that actually make the most economic sense. Can't have "the other side of politics" getting credit for stuff; that would not do.
After a couple of terms of Labor, the electorate starts to chafe at its failure to achieve rapid structural improvement regardless of how much incremental ongoing progress has been made, and the airwaves begin to feature lots of chatter about how Labor is "not up to the job" or "has lost its way" or has become "tired and complacent". Labor's poll figures start to plunge, the knives come out, and media speculation about leadership change becomes self-fulfilling.
And then we elect the Coalition - that party of silvertails that exists to prop up the systems of privileged parasitism driving the very misery that got Labor elected in the first place - in another fucking landslide.
Labor is not the party I would like to see in power if I had my druthers; they're still far too beholden to entrenched power interests like the coal industry. And of course I went through the customary process of cynical disillusionment with the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Australian politics and the declaring of a pox on both their houses and have ended up a rusted-on Greens voter as a consequence.
But the simple fact remains that when the Coalition is in power, everything in this country gets worse. People are meaner to each other. Refugees get fucked even harder. Indigenous Australians get shat upon from a much greater height. Employment gets scarcer and more precarious. And big extractive industries, and real estate developers who put up shonky buildings designed to double as giant fireworks displays, make out like fucking bandits. Restrict my choice to Labor vs the Coalition and it will be Labor. No contest.
So if I'm to be excoriated as a latte sipping elitist for calling Reclaim Australia and One Nation and Family First and all those other arseholes pushing the right hand edge of the Overton window a pack of deplorable intellectual basket cases, and that excoriation has no better basis than that those complete fucking arseholes like to market themselves as representative of Ordinary Working Australians? I'll happily wear that.
Some of the people exposed to my abrasive opinions on these topics are people who respect me even if they don't share my positions, and I have to believe that my accumulated social capital plus my consistent lack of political ambiguity might one day give a swinging voter close to me cause to look beyond the propaganda machine and actually think about whose box they're going to tick in the polling booth.
And I reiterate my position that anybody who would tick one of those boxes solely to achieve some kind of petty, cowardly anonymous revenge against a "politically correct" elitist who dared called them on some kind of fuckwittery is a fuckwit and has by that very vote just proved it beyond all doubt.
posted by flabdablet at 10:13 PM on July 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
this is highly instructive: https://player.fm/series/the-good-fight-1398979/george-packer
posted by wibari at 1:33 AM on July 27, 2017
posted by wibari at 1:33 AM on July 27, 2017
I'm massively late to this thread. But let me just say, as an Australian POC, fuck this guy. Fuck him forever.
I developed this sentiment in the first 30 seconds of reading this piece, when the author bemoaned the fact that the parents of his Asian friends looked askance at him. Oh, the horror! The humiliation! I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with the fact that his parents were open and virulent racists who routinely used words like 'slope' and 'nip', and were so offended by their own proximity to people that weren't white that they dedicated their limited resources to fleeing the suburb. Did he think his Asian neighbors didn't know what his parents thought of them? Did he think his parents were subtle? I guarantee they weren't. Distancing yourself from racists isn't 'reverse racism', it's self defence.
The demand that POC be nice and understanding and accepting towards the people who are actively oppressing them is fucking bullshit. It always has been.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:38 AM on July 27, 2017 [33 favorites]
I developed this sentiment in the first 30 seconds of reading this piece, when the author bemoaned the fact that the parents of his Asian friends looked askance at him. Oh, the horror! The humiliation! I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with the fact that his parents were open and virulent racists who routinely used words like 'slope' and 'nip', and were so offended by their own proximity to people that weren't white that they dedicated their limited resources to fleeing the suburb. Did he think his Asian neighbors didn't know what his parents thought of them? Did he think his parents were subtle? I guarantee they weren't. Distancing yourself from racists isn't 'reverse racism', it's self defence.
The demand that POC be nice and understanding and accepting towards the people who are actively oppressing them is fucking bullshit. It always has been.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 1:38 AM on July 27, 2017 [33 favorites]
I've encountered this argument on Leftbook several times now. If only the feminists and social justice warriors weren't so mean, the argument goes, I wouldn't be forced to support fascist politicians. I have to actively support policies that do real violence upon marginalized people because they tried to make me feel bad about not being marginalized! It's the same sort of bullshit an abuser pulls: "You made me do it."
The fact is that such a person resents having to consider these marginalized people as equals. He (usually, though I've run into women with these opinions) wants nothing more than to be free to abuse marginalized people without even the lightest social censure. There is actually no level of engagement--no matter how soft, empathetic, or deferential--that the person who espouses these beliefs will accept on this subject.
This line of thinking is utterly unable to grasp that "privilege" does not mean "I get my way all the time." And they're like, affronted by the idea that even the poorest white person is going to be treated differently by the justice system, or other social institutions, than most minority populations. Because that would pull them out of the role of Virtuous Underdog. To grapple with privilege is to admit that you benefit from racism, and for some reason, this perspective doesn't allow itself to admit to any advantages that aren't self-selected. The belief seems to be that if they can point to other white people of higher social class than they, their privilege will be disproved entirely, except, it really doesn't work that way.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 8:54 PM on July 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
The fact is that such a person resents having to consider these marginalized people as equals. He (usually, though I've run into women with these opinions) wants nothing more than to be free to abuse marginalized people without even the lightest social censure. There is actually no level of engagement--no matter how soft, empathetic, or deferential--that the person who espouses these beliefs will accept on this subject.
This line of thinking is utterly unable to grasp that "privilege" does not mean "I get my way all the time." And they're like, affronted by the idea that even the poorest white person is going to be treated differently by the justice system, or other social institutions, than most minority populations. Because that would pull them out of the role of Virtuous Underdog. To grapple with privilege is to admit that you benefit from racism, and for some reason, this perspective doesn't allow itself to admit to any advantages that aren't self-selected. The belief seems to be that if they can point to other white people of higher social class than they, their privilege will be disproved entirely, except, it really doesn't work that way.
posted by Kitty Stardust at 8:54 PM on July 27, 2017 [14 favorites]
This line of thinking is utterly unable to grasp that "privilege" does not mean "I get my way all the time."
This. Though in my experience it generally reads more like "unwilling to allow" than "unable to grasp".
posted by flabdablet at 10:00 PM on July 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
This. Though in my experience it generally reads more like "unwilling to allow" than "unable to grasp".
posted by flabdablet at 10:00 PM on July 27, 2017 [6 favorites]
"There are people in New Jersey who don't acknowledge the existence of Central Jersey, bless their hearts. It's good that you've stated the rule correctly, though the boundaries can get blurry."
Thanks for the link! Yes, I know folks in the shore communities further south like Brick and Toms River like to say they are Central Jersey. So do people in some of the wealthy communities north of 78, I've even heard people from Morristown say they are from Central NJ (the blasphemy!)
posted by remo at 12:11 PM on August 7, 2017
Thanks for the link! Yes, I know folks in the shore communities further south like Brick and Toms River like to say they are Central Jersey. So do people in some of the wealthy communities north of 78, I've even heard people from Morristown say they are from Central NJ (the blasphemy!)
posted by remo at 12:11 PM on August 7, 2017
« Older Strange Fruit | Live and Let Live Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, a lot like the in-execrable Hillbilly Elegy bullshit (although this is a better viewpoint), it COMPLETELY ignores the role that the right-wing business class has in fanning and exploiting these fears. At most it pays lip service, saying that turning to racism (and later) to fascism is understandable if one does not identify with the middle and upper class elite identities that espouse tolerance and egalitarianism - however, there is no mention of the fact that racism is a CONSTRUCTED ideology. It doesn't occur naturally, as the author handwaves. Even ancient racism (which the author uses as a sop to indicate that racism necessarily exists in all human societies) had social functions, and was constructed within a culture. To imagine that it is an unavoidable biological necessity of humanity is convenient for blaming the left for everything, but not very well rooted in reality.
And, lastly, the author seems to think that one cannot have a grasp of identity politics while being or having been poor. Nearly every activist that I know is currently on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, and many of them have come from poor families. The reason that many of them fight symbolic violence (from my understanding of their writing) is that they see how the symbolic often leads to the material. If you are being called gendered or racially charged insults at work, then you will find it difficult to advance in that particular workplace. It doesn't take an x-studies degree to understand that.
posted by codacorolla at 10:57 PM on July 25, 2017 [118 favorites]