So I have a few problems with his culturally racial colonial country philosophy. I find it incredibly difficult to call myself racist. I understand where he is coming from, and I even see it in action. Further, I feel it in action within myself. "Racist," though, parallels words like "black" and "latino" in that there is a disparity between what the word means in theory and the first thing that comes to mind when you (or anyone) thinks the word.
I see "racist" in the same situation as W.E.B Du Bois saw "race;" there is cultural backing to it that cant be denied.
This is where I have problems. I myself was raised in Texas where Mexicans are hired for cheap labor. Though I myself was not raised to think lowly of them, I did seem to gain an elitist mindset somewhere along the way. I did not have to work outside in the cold. I did not have to ride in a dirty truck or wear dirty clothes because I work at a site. I did not bus tables. Over the years it was even added to with the question of whether or not they were illegal.
The reason I am reticent to call myself racist is that I stop myself every time the thoughts come up because I know its irrational. Why should I place myself under a stigma. I dont want to put myself in that category and objectify myself even though I recognize what Fanon refers to.
There are asterisks and that needs to be said first.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For your last part, Fanon would contend that if you are racist, it doesn't matter whether you place yourself under that stigma, you're still ultimately alienated, even if you're in denial. That aside, I'm also having some difficulties seeing Fanon's vision of racism and racists.
ReplyDeleteFanon is definitely correct to emphasis how monumentally important structural factors are to racism. Structural and institutional racism are arguably more critical than interpersonal things, and at the very least they are certainly a more neglected area. But it doesn't seem obvious to me, from Fanon, about how to characterize interpersonal conduct within the context of a racialized society.
Maybe Fanon's idea is it's impossible to completely rid yourself of the psychology of racism at any spot in time, for instance, even if in the 60s (I'm using this as an example, just because its more obvious what some structural barriers to a non-negrophobic society were, not because I think there are no barriers presently--that'd be wrong) I was out crusading for a strong civil rights bill, desegregating the south, calling to reform zoning laws, working for equal pay, and ending bias in the criminal justice system, I might still at times harbor negrophobic beliefs, which originate from the society itself, say, that if African-Americans move into my neighborhood things will get more violent or they'll "trash" the neighborhood.
Fanon also doesn't go out of his way to establish that there are varying intensities of racism, outside of how society's can evolve to tone down and mask their underlying racism which springs from their colonized or colonizer history, so the immediate reaction is that a KKK member and MLK both were ultimately racists, according to Fanon. If that is to be taken literally, then its just absurd; if its to be taken that they are both racists but one with a more intense manifestation of racial alienating prejudice, then it seems more tenable.
BUT (and this is a big BUT), this view looks like it is guility of overgeneralizing. Fanon might be right to say if a society is structured with norms and institutions which work negrophobically that most people will be racists, but thats quite different from saying ALL of the people are racists. Also it does look empirically impossible to fallsify Fanon's ideas about exactly who qualifies as racist, once a place has been colonized--I have some issues with that in itself, but its an even bigger issue given that Fanon himself concedes racism is empirical in origin, its not biological. Maybe, ultimately, Fanon doesn't particularly care about interpersonal racism, unless it takes some sort of meaningful institutional form or becomes a strong cultural norm. That would be something that let him sidestep the overgeneralizing issue.
I agree that Fanon's idea that everyone is a racist is a bit of an overgeneralized term. But isn't the word "race" itself an overgeneralization? It is respectable that you are abele to catch yourself at the times you might think about someting in a racist way. However, I feel that Fanon would argue that even though you recognize that the objectification of certain groups is wrong, you still have been inevitabley influenced in one way or another by a racist society. I do not believe that Fanon is trying to call every person who lives in a racist society a racist in the negative way (the frothing-at-the-mouth racist we described in class), but as simply an individual who has been exposed to racism in everyday life and that is therefore influenced (to one degree or another) by it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree. How we try to use the term "race" is very often just overgeneralizing. My gripe with Fanon is I don't see how being influenced by something (through encountering it) must entail objectifying another human being. For instance, if someone walked up to me and said that people with green eyes are typically dumber than people with brown eyes, I don't see how I have to either adopt that objectifying belief or an objectifying belief in reaction to it. I mean, I've been 'influenced by it' (I ran into someone who was evidently serious about it and it left an impression) , but I don't see how my encountering it means that I now will be an objectifying 'eyecolorist.' This type of choice strikes me as a false dilemma, can't I just say I don't believe that eye color has anything to do with intelligence, without denying some aspect of another person's humanity?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Casey, that when Fanon refers to being a racist, it doesn't have to carry the all negative connotations that are presupposed. Just as B Blake said Fanon does not address the "varying intensities" of racism; therefore, he does not establish a clear definition of racist. What can be inferred from Fanon's use of the term is historically it has established itself throughout our society. Whether we recognize it or not, our perception of things in our society is altered by that already present concept. I definitely understand what B Blake is saying. I feel that if it happened with someone walking up and pointing out a racist claim, we would probably disagree, and create a fully backed thesis why we do not buy what was said. But racism is embedded in our history and continues seep into our "post-racial" era. Even if the black white issue is growing less and less, sadly there will continue to be a "race" that is inferior and racists that have been influenced by their cultural.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Kara here. While Fanon stresses that racism does plague our society, that does not mean that everyone is a racist. It is just too much of a generalization to say that we are all racists because society makes us this way. Yes, society can embed racism into us. However, we also have the power to rise above the racism and change the hatred towards races.
ReplyDeleteThat is true. I do acknowledge that I am racist by definition of identifying race. But I also see that that definition is not applicable to everyday, layman life. The definition has evolved and gained negative connotations, such as that racists only see the negative differences between races. Though I believe everyone is affected by colonial racism, not everyone is going to see "racist" as its actual definition of identifying differences between races.
ReplyDeleteTherefore should "racism," due to its disparity of connotations and its requirements of asterisks, still be considered a viable term? As in do we need to reevaluate it (conservatism), or should we get rid of it and try again with another term (eliminativism = we are all racist so we should get rid of the term)?
I personally like groupists :)
I agree with Alana that I might be a racist by definition of identifying race, and that it doesn't apply to everyday life. The way most people in our society define race would lead me to believe that I am not a racist. I may see differences in people, but I don't let that come between us. I feel that racist is in our society a negative term and that it is not used the same as Fanon uses it. Therefore, I still feel that just because I can see that a person has a different skin color that doesn't classify me, in everyday life, as a racist.
ReplyDelete