Two epiphanies I had today

[alias_sqbr]

First, a rant:
I came across a post today with white americans whining about having no culture, because they're a bunch of immigrants with mixed backgrounds, a dark history they feel ambivalent about, and an emphasis on both conformity and individuality and consumerism. Other cultures, on the other hand, are distinct and uniform and well defined and have a wholly positive effect on people's lives.

Now as someone from a culture with similar issues who finds american culture distinct and rather alien (in an interesting, sometimes cool sort of way) I find this annoying (Australians may whine about not having any culture too, but we don't tend to act like it's a Special Unique Pain Noone Else Understands)
It's like the question of "How do non-white/non-American people feel about their cultures, and what does it have in common with how we feel?" doesn't even register.

For a start, afaict pretty much every non-American in the world has angst about the difficulty of being "modern" without becoming American, of defining ourselves without relying on rigid outdated jingoism. And no culture is an unchanging monolith, everyone has to balance tradition and change, personal preferences with accepted social mores, multiculturalism with flattening and uniformity. Every choice along those continuums has both benefits and costs. And pretty much every culture has dark patches in their past, unethical social practices(*), and just plain unappealing expectations that make it difficult for a lot of people to embrace their "people" unselfconsciously and without caveats. Afaict being a POC makes this more complicated, not less, since you have external and internalised racism to contend with telling you your culture is worthless.

The second is a bit advanced, and is only really annoying (to me!) when I see it from, say, feminist bloggers who should know better. Or myself :)
Hopefully a lot of people have gotten their head around the fact that only people who experience Xism are qualified to say if something is Xist or not. EDIT: This came out wrong. See this post. I am NOT saying that, for example, white people cannot say something is racist. I'm saying we can't say with as much authority as POC, especially when it comes to saying if something is not racist.

But a lot of people who get that have trouble understanding that even if you do notice something someone did is Xist all by yourself that doesn't mean you get to judge whether or not they apologised well enough for it. On seeing an apology for Xism of a sort you don't experience but still found personally offensive, your first priority should not be "Do I think this is good enough given how offensive I found their behaviour?" but "What do the people who experience Xism and were hurt in the first place think?".

And now I feel better :)

(*)According to ones own personal ethics, whatever they may be

Comments

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I don't really care how Americans feel about their culture.

For me, my culture, is, sadly, defined by a negative, my culture is 'I'm not American'. This 'I'm not American' is a culture that is common in the world, Kiwis (who probably also define themselves as 'Not Australian'), Canadians, British) any white, especially english speaking nation, defines itself by the fact that it's not American.

That's how bloody dominant American culture is. It's almost to the point sometimes where I wish I was French, or German, because at least they are protected by their language.

American culture is so dominant, that I've spent most of my time travelling around the world, telling people 'No, I'm not American' because everyone always assumes one is. It gets a bit old, but heh, that's the world we live in right?

ETA: I did also spend most of my travels in South-East Asia with a Chinese-Canadian (almost third generation Canadian, who could not speak Chinese to save her life) who spent a lot of time explaining she wasn't Chinese, which just goes to show how cultural dominance does shift from place to place, but 'being perceived as American' gave me protection/freedom that 'being perceived as Chinese' in many parts of Asia, didn't. Because as long as I was considered American, my independence was excused because American girls are wild sex fiends, but my friend, was just a big slut/prostitute who slept with American men. And she was threatened a couple of times because of it. I only got propositioned a few times. Perception is a bitch.

[seaya.livejournal.com]

I have never seen (and I've traveled in mixed groups of anglophones in Latin America, Europe, and Asia) anyone ask an Australian if they are American or assume that. Canadians sure, because their accent and manner is quite close.

Australians have a pattern of tourism that is reviled all on its own.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

For the most part, I did travel by myself (although I did meet up with people now and again), and TBH I mostly got that when I was living in Korea, although I did get some of that in Laos and Vietnam as well.

This was back in 1995-97 period, Laos and Vietnam had just started being opened to tourists and 99% of foreigners in Korea were American soldiers based in Seoul.

Australians have a pattern of tourism that is reviled all on its own.

Was one of the biggest reasons I travelled solitary ;)

[seaya.livejournal.com]

That makes sense then.

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, I think countries which are more obviously not American have a different set of issues with american cultural imperialism than relatively similar english speaking countries like us. I've encountered enough grumpy english-as-a-second-language speakers to get the feeling it's pretty frustrating, though.

[nicholii.livejournal.com]

Afaict being a POC makes this more complicated, not less, since you have external and internalised racism to contend with telling you your culture is worthless.

How does the colour of your skin have anything to do with this? Of course you could argue that there is an inherent pro-Western bias in terms of accepted vs. non-accepted culture, but this has little to do with them being white or black or whatever. Our own Australian society thinks disparagingly of the cultures of Slavic immigrants, for instance, and Italian and Greek cultures have only become mainstream in the last generation or so. Non-European cultures do get a harder time, but I would argue that the only way skin-colour really comes into play, is when people make generalisations that are ignorant of the similarities between other cultures and our own: assuming that just because people look different, their culture has different ideas of hygiene or the treatment of women, or whatever.

If you take 'race' as a social/cultural grouping, rather than one of appearance, then the story is of course different. And I can accept that the generalisations that racism within our society makes will lead many people to believe that their culture is frowned upon, when it is only a matter of ignorance, rather than anything actually "wrong" with that culture, that is to blame.

But when you get to the aspects of other cultures which actually do diverge from the accepted customs, the issue becomes more difficult. Female circumcision is something that our Western values cannot accept, and our ideas of universal human rights are inherently bias towards our own culture's views of what is, and is not, fundamental. We can argue that there are some basic things shared by all people, such as murder being evil, but where does that put "honour killings"?

I do realise that I am simplifying things, but, like it or not, our "enlightened" values demand us to reject parts of other cultures.


(Which is why I don't actually agree with exporting democracy etc. I don't want to tell other cultures:
"It doesn't matter about the colour of your skin, you can still be white inside! Please bring your food, festivals, language, and pretty costumes, just as long as you change to our system of values! You want to be free, you just don't know it!"
But I am over-simplifying again :P)

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, I was oversimplifying a bit and once again conflating race ethnicity and culture as is unfortunately my wont. What I meant was that if there are racist or culturally intolerant stereotypes about your culture held by the people around you (and I do think this is worse when racism is involved, though I agree that's not all there is to it) it would presumably make figuring out how you feel about it yourself more fraught. I get the feeling this is a huge issue for australian aboriginal people: there's such a strong belief that their culture is outdated and useless and destructive. Of course you can cut yourself off from the rest of society and just to talk to people from your own cultural/ethnic group but that has it's own problems.

Are you arguing that cultural intolerance is sometimes justified? Because, no.

You can be against particular behaviours associated with a given culture (such as honour killings) without making assumptions about everyone in that culture or saying the whole culture is bad, especially since afaict(*) those behaviours are roughly equivalent to gay bashings in australia eg part of the culture and a sign of broader intolerance but still rare and considered too extreme by most people.

Anyway, my point was that if you're IN the culture, and don't want to give it up, it can be hard to work out how to deal with those aspects you don't like, ie the way you and I would feel about gay bashing.

(*)And I have no idea, really. But I do know I'm too ignorant to make generalisations or judgments.

[nicholii.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I can agree with that, especially with the example of Aboriginal culture.

Are you arguing that cultural intolerance is sometimes justified? Because, no.

Basically, what I think is that we have to decide where our priorities lie. I think that there are times when our values and those of others will contradict each other. We have to decide whether we are willing to stand back, or if our values demand that we interfere. I don't really feel comfortable with interfering.

You can be against particular behaviours associated with a given culture (such as honour killings) without making assumptions about everyone in that culture or saying the whole culture is bad

Yes, of course. But I just feel that if we keep separating abhorent practices from the rest of the culture, and saying that someone's culture consists only of the customs that we can tolerate, then we are not really being culturally tolerant.

I am not accusing you of doing such, but I am commenting because I feel that this is an inherent contradiction that lies in our ideals of tolerance and equality. But perhaps I am seeing a contradiction where there is none.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, of course. But I just feel that if we keep separating abhorent practices from the rest of the culture, and saying that someone's culture consists only of the customs that we can tolerate, then we are not really being culturally tolerant

Yeees, and I think some people do that, but I wasn't :P I think the underlying problem is framing cultures as all good or all bad, or as being unacceptable if there's one single bad thing about them. Once you see things that way then you either say "This culture has X bad thing! Thus it is bad!" or you say "I like this culture, therefore X bad thing doesn't count as part of the culture". Both are flawed, because ALL cultures have "bad" aspects (by whatever measure you judge "bad"ness), and are complicated and heterogeneous.

[nicholii.livejournal.com]

Hopefully a lot of people have gotten their head around the fact that only people who experience Xism are qualified to say if something is Xist or not.

I actually disagree with this strongly. There is certainly an argument for saying that only the individual can say whether something is personally insulting/abusive/discriminatory.* But the thing is that different people who experience Xism are going to have different views of it. So how can you define Xism as anything but how society overall views it? Of course this doesn't give me a right to personally say whether something in general is Xist, but in this case no individual can. But I can certainly say that I feel that someone is being cruely Xist towards me, even if society doesn't agree.


* Though at this point there comes the question of whether society is allowed to have certain expectations of how sensitive the average person is. Am I allowed to think someone to be an over-sensitive wimp if they aren't to takee the amount of criticism I think is reasonable and fair?

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

Am I allowed to think someone to be an over-sensitive wimp if they aren't to take the amount of criticism I think is reasonable and fair?

Yes because you are entitled to your opinion.

[alias_sqbr]

I went into what I think about this here.

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Without wanting to engage with Nick right now, because on first skim I think he's wrong in important places but I am in an extremely foul mood right now...

I think there's scope for non-X people to judge something IS Xist, it's just a dodgy position from which to say something ISN'T. Also, re: apologies: I do get to decide whether an apology is adequate for *my* offense. Because, for example, I may not be black, but I find racism personally offensive, especially the brand that assumes that because I'm white I won't have a problem with it.

To hell with that.

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

I think there's scope for non-X people to judge something IS Xist, it's just a dodgy position from which to say something ISN'T.

I disagree because I think that if you step back from it for something to be Xist it has to be discriminatory and I think that rational people could discuss something and come to the truth of it regardless of what X is. I mean sure they won't have all the information for example two guys might have a discussion about whether a transport system is sexist without ever considering pregnant women. This is just a flaw in their information and not their ability.

[alias_sqbr]

I do get to decide whether an apology is adequate for *my* offense

Agreed, assuming you wouldn't see your offense as the most important thing :) The sort of situation I'm talking about is:

White Person 1: *racist thing*
POC: That's racist!
WP2: Seconded.
WP1: *apology, kind of*
WP2: Oh wow let's all celebrate how awesome WP1 is for apologising!
POC: That apology wasn't good enough.
WP1: Yes it was! Gee, what do you want, blood?

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

Right, I was reading it the other way, like, white people don't get to say an apology is inadequate, for some reason.

Never mind then. :)

[alias_sqbr]

It wasn't just you, I've edited it to be clearer.

[auntpol.livejournal.com]

I don't know, what confuses me about that situation is a similar one where
White Person: *racist thing*
POC1: That's racist!
POC2: Seconded.
WP1: *apology, kind of*
POC2: Oh wow let's all celebrate how awesome WP1 is for apologising!
POC1: That apology wasn't good enough.
POC2: Yes it was!

I think that just exposes that whether or not an apology is "good" enough has less to do with the groups a person is "part" of and more to do with their personal feelings.

(I'm running off to a tute so this isn't totally well thought out, but I just don't GET this whole thing at all. But I'm not trying to flame war here, I just disagree and I think it's more because I'm willing to compromise on external moralities than you guys are :P )

[alias_sqbr]

I think that just exposes that whether or not an apology is "good" enough has less to do with the groups a person is "part" of and more to do with their personal feelings.

See, I would say it shows it's a mixture of those things, but it doesn't show that either of them is the most significant (and I don't think either always is, it depends). In the particular cases I'm thinking of, it really was ALL the POC saying "That's not enough" and the ONLY people who thought it was ok were white. Also in one case it was one specific POC who was targetted, and in that case she was the only person who could judge if the apology was enough.

But I was oversimplifying, as I tend to do when I have epiphanies. I had the same problem during my Phd, and then I'd realise my wonderful theorem didn't work for primes or something...

[melberon.livejournal.com]

I believe that "have a nice cup of toughen the fuck up" should be considered an adequate apology for any form of offensive speech.

[distantcam.livejournal.com]

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen on the internet. You need to shut the hell up and go back to fucking your mother.

Don't like what I have to say, then have a nice cup of toughen the fuck up.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Aside from probably slightly overkilling it, IAWTC

[alias_sqbr]

I understand what you're doing and acknowledge your point, but there is seriously no reason to bring his mother into this. (To be honest I'm not sure how you would make this point without crossing my personal line of what level of hurtful behaviour is appropriate on my lj but eh, I guess it's done now)

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

... I was not expecting that comment to be coming from you, though I was expecting it to come from somewhere :P

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

This is either hyperbole or you haven't been on the internet for very long.

[alias_sqbr]

First off, sorry distantcam crossed the line, he has been told off. (Not that your feelings could have been hurt of course becuase it was just words, but standards are standards)

Anyway: no it shouldn't, that's...stupid is the nicest word I can think of right now. (I was going to explain but..really, c'mon. Noone can ever complain about anything anyone says ever?) And whatever you think, the people doing this were feminist activists who do believe, very strongly, in the importance of words, so by any measure they were being hypocritical.

And as it happens? I wasn't talking about just speech, or at least not "just" slurs or whatever. Two of the examples which inspired me involved plagiarism and discriminatory legislation.

[melberon.livejournal.com]

Nah, I'm more amused than offended by Cam's comment, and presume it was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

Hopefully a lot of people have gotten their head around the fact that only people who experience Xism are qualified to say if something is Xist or not.

Having actually convinced women who were convinced that something was sexist that it wasn't I disagree. Broadly speaking if someone is discriminatory towards someone else because of X that is Xist and sure there are some cases in which a person with more experience as X or with Xism can say something is or isn't but I think if someone says "you are dumb because you're a woman" even though I'm a man I can say that that is sexist. Speaking as someone who has experienced racism I disagree If someone who has not can explain to me why something I took offence to is not offensive in a rational way then I can be conviced this is the case. I think people are too willing to let people use their emotions as an arguement.


"What do the people who experience Xism and were hurt in the first place think?".
What because they all will have the same response? I think not.

[alias_sqbr]

So I disagree with your opinion that I get to disagree with you about your opinion of racism.

Which..um...*falls into deep paradox*

I guess like with any generalisation there are exceptions? Mm. *is still figuring out exactly what I think*

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

I hate having convos on LJ. I can't handle the typing. Next time we are in a room together bring this up. Or don't. Whatevs :P

[alias_sqbr]

Heh. While I get tend to get awkward talking about loaded subjects in person(*) so maybe not unless you don't mind me pausing and looking awkward a lot :)

(*)"Wait, crap, did what I just said annoy them? I don't know, maybe. Oh no, I've been pausing too long, I should say something!" repeat. I like the lack of immediacy of email and lj etc.

[edible-hat.livejournal.com]

Whever I see an icon with stick figures, especially one I know is made from an XKCD strip, I over over it to see the alt text.

[alias_sqbr]

There is alt text! It lets you send me a message, or a virtual gift...

(But yes, I do that too)

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Hopefully a lot of people have gotten their head around the fact that only people who experience Xism are qualified to say if something is Xist or not.

Only because the definition of what Xism is has been redefined in that direction by the liberal left. Personally I always feel that if I belong to group X then I am the last person in the world to understand what does and does not make people prejudiced against me or how they manifest it. If you want to know if something is motivated by prejudice you need to ask the person doing it, not the person being disadvantaged by it. And yes I know this is frowned upon because it takes the power away from the disadvantaged group but still, if someone turns to me and says 'you're gay, tell me all about homophobia and how to cure it' - well, I've got nothing.

pretty much every non-American in the world has angst about the difficulty of being "modern" without becoming American, of defining ourselves without relying on rigid outdated jingoism.
Actually I'm fairly sure the English don't have that problem. But then a lot of our self-definition relies on not self-defining. We do have one hell of a struggle with multiculturalism though so I agree 100% with your balancing statement.

white americans whining about having no culture, because they're a bunch of immigrants with mixed backgrounds, a dark history they feel ambivalent about, and an emphasis on both conformity and individuality and consumerism. Other cultures, on the other hand, are distinct and uniform and well defined and have a wholly positive effect on people's lives.

My immediate assumption is that this comes down to standard American insularity - their lack of knowledge of any culture beyond their own makes it hard for them to grasp what is unique and distinctive about their own. Plus all that sort of American gets to see of other cultures is the shorthand stereotypes their media is so good at dishing out, so no wonder they think other cultures are neatly encapsulated and distinctive.

Sorry if any or all of this doesn't make sense, I'm not very clear headed today.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that first point.

Actually I'm fairly sure the English don't have that problem

This is what I get for making generalisations about every single culture in the world...

Agreed about american insularity being a major problem with this.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Yeah I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that first point.

:)

But I hope that doesn't mean you actively dislike discussing these things with me? I know that, while accepting we are not going to agree on a lot of things, I still find the actual discussion really, really valuable. It is important to me to talk about things like this with people who don't agree with me. So I can understand why intelligent, thoughtful people have reached conclusions that happen to be different from my own. Otherwise it is too easy to just dismiss 'the other side'.

This is what I get for making generalisations about every single culture in the world...
I doubt anyone wants to put you up against a wall for it. I think you are right and there are a lot of similarities between Australian culture and US. As an outsider to both I can see some very striking similarities as well as big glaring differences. And I think your self-image is one of the similarities. You both have reasonably similar histories after all, just on slightly different time scales.

Speaking of which, it is interesting that Australians are not insular in the way that Americans are. Yet superficially you should have what I presume to be the same causes - large land masses, with few other cultures accessible prior to cheap air travel, an immigrant population invested in fitting in rather than maintaining ties with the past, and the hugely dominant English language.

Odd.

[alias_sqbr]

But I hope that doesn't mean you actively dislike discussing these things with me? I know that, while accepting we are not going to agree on a lot of things, I still find the actual discussion really, really valuable.

For the most part, no, and I do find it useful sometimes to discuss things with people who have very different but considered opinions to me such as yourself.

Other times I do feel like discussing an idea just with people who agree with me on my basic principles while I figure out what I think or just because I'm burned out from justifying myself, and to be honest I was at that point by the time I got to your comment. Also in this particular case I think I would just flail and say "No! I am obviously right!" which wouldn't be very helpful :)

I think the main difference between Australia and America is that while we are large geographically we are very small in terms of population and power. We have this HUGE inferiority complex wrt England and America (culturally and politically).

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Sorry about the slowness of this reply. I had to think and while I was thinking some kind soul killed my computer so I'm only just back on line.

I completely understand that sometimes one wishes to talk to people who already agree with certain underlying beliefs. When you and I first started talking a couple of years ago, we were still both working out what our underlying beliefs were as regards social justice, and so it was really useful to talk to you and bounce ideas back and forth. But lately I have begun to notice that your beliefs - and I think mine as well, though it is obviously easier for me to spot my own holes - are much more solid. There are things which are therefore no longer really open for discussion, and since many of those things are very important, world-view significant foundations, I suspect this means there are now some things we can't and shouldn't discuss.

However, it is too sweeping to say that covers anything and anyway I like you damn it, I don't want to stop talking. So I am hoping that we can make an agreement to each keep an eye on what the other is saying, and when we suspect a foundation belief is at work, agree to gently back off that particular subject - or acknowledge it in such a way that the conversation can work around it. We will make mistakes sometimes of course, but hopefully with care we can minimise mutual annoyance and keep the conversation going on a different level.

What do you think?

(I will hold off replying to your comment on dreamwidth until I get your answer.)

[alias_sqbr]

So I am hoping that we can make an agreement to each keep an eye on what the other is saying, and when we suspect a foundation belief is at work, agree to gently back off that particular subject - or acknowledge it in such a way that the conversation can work around it. We will make mistakes sometimes of course, but hopefully with care we can minimise mutual annoyance and keep the conversation going on a different level.

Sounds good. And it's not like we don't have SOME things in common :)

[aris-tgd.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to stop by a few days later and say I think you're right on. Obviously the subject of apologies is very subjective--a lot of people will have different standards for what makes a "real" apology. I think that yeloson had something really good about apologies in the middle of racefail, and I think that was really useful for me to read.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I vaguely recall that too.

*looks about a bit*
Found it!
Hmm. *ponders it some more*

[elaran.livejournal.com]

I half-disagree with your second epiphany.

I don't think that only people who have experienced Xism are qualified to say something is Xist. I think anyone vaguely intelligent can tell if something is Xist if it's something horribly blatant at least.

What I do agree with is that, more importantly, someone who has not been subjected to Xism doesn't get to say that something is NOT Xist.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I expressed myself VERY poorly, and what you've said is pretty much what I actually meant. Stupid brain.

*edits post*

[katsaris.livejournal.com]

So, if someone keeps calling black people the n-word, or keeps calling for the mass extermination of Jews, I can't call him a racist or an anti-semite, because I'm not black or Jewish?

If everyone agreed to the "fact" you claim, the first repercussion would be that all white racists would be free to spew their racism, no matter how blatant, as long as they were in white company, and nobody would be able to call them out on it. Likewise with sexist men spewing misogyny (other men wouldn't be able to call them out on it) in male company, antisemites spewing antisemetism in gentile company, homophobes spewing homophobia in hetero company.

So, yeah, not sure you would actually prefer a world where everyone agreed to this supposed "fact". It seems like a world where every minority group is left to fend for itself, and members of the majority aren't even allowed to challenge bigotry because it's none of their business.

I agree completely! (Didn't expect that, did ya?)

[alias_sqbr]

On the one hand, that's not what I meant, on the other hand it is what I said. I actually agree with everything you've said here, see the edited post. Sorry about that!