When I was in university, I remember reading an article in the student newspaper. (Please note that the link is to a very large pdf file of the entire issue. If you wish to page through the pages of ads for obsolete computers, the article in question is on page 19.)
The writer was of East Indian decent, and had a bad experience in which a couple of drunks yelled racial slurs at her. She then went to the Don (or "residence assistant" or "proctor," depending where you went to school.) The Don tried awkwardly to reassure her that the drunks were just exceptions, and most people didn't hate her people. The Don bolstered this argument by telling the article-writer, "I like curry." The writer took offence at this simplistic take on her culture, and went on a long, sarcastic rant.
That article stuck in my mind because it seemed to represent the misguided way that social activism went in the 1990's. Not to defend the Don - her ham-handed talk was insulting - but look at this whole incident from a distance. This writer encountered two negative incidents: A totally racist, inexcusable attack, and an ignorant but well-meaning attempt to reach out. Clearly the first incident was far worse, but look which person got a scathing article written about her. It sends a clear message to the straight/white/able-bodied/male: don't even try because if you're not perfect, you'll be the target.
I thought back to that article this week during the controversy over Brad Paisley (and LL Cool J)'s song Accidental Racist. If you haven't heard, the song is a conversation between a white Starbucks customer and a black barista who take different views of the former's Confederate Flag T-shirt. The song has been roundly criticised for being simplistic and dumbing down America's eternal debate about race.
On the one hand, yes, it is simplistic. But on the other hand, it's a southern white guy taking a conciliatory view of race, and conceding that there are many valid sides to the story. That sort of thing is desperately needed in the U.S., so much so that it would be good to encourage the talk even when it isn't perfect. To do otherwise contributes to whites' feeling that they just can't win. Just to make it clear, I'm definitely not saying that people should put up with casual racism; by all means, point out things that offend you. But have a sense of proportion: save the worst attacks for the people who do the worst things, not the people who disappoint you the most. To put it another way, this is the American left's equivalent of congressional Republicans' stubbornness: an attitude that we won't even talk until you already agree with us.
The writer was of East Indian decent, and had a bad experience in which a couple of drunks yelled racial slurs at her. She then went to the Don (or "residence assistant" or "proctor," depending where you went to school.) The Don tried awkwardly to reassure her that the drunks were just exceptions, and most people didn't hate her people. The Don bolstered this argument by telling the article-writer, "I like curry." The writer took offence at this simplistic take on her culture, and went on a long, sarcastic rant.
That article stuck in my mind because it seemed to represent the misguided way that social activism went in the 1990's. Not to defend the Don - her ham-handed talk was insulting - but look at this whole incident from a distance. This writer encountered two negative incidents: A totally racist, inexcusable attack, and an ignorant but well-meaning attempt to reach out. Clearly the first incident was far worse, but look which person got a scathing article written about her. It sends a clear message to the straight/white/able-bodied/male: don't even try because if you're not perfect, you'll be the target.
I thought back to that article this week during the controversy over Brad Paisley (and LL Cool J)'s song Accidental Racist. If you haven't heard, the song is a conversation between a white Starbucks customer and a black barista who take different views of the former's Confederate Flag T-shirt. The song has been roundly criticised for being simplistic and dumbing down America's eternal debate about race.
On the one hand, yes, it is simplistic. But on the other hand, it's a southern white guy taking a conciliatory view of race, and conceding that there are many valid sides to the story. That sort of thing is desperately needed in the U.S., so much so that it would be good to encourage the talk even when it isn't perfect. To do otherwise contributes to whites' feeling that they just can't win. Just to make it clear, I'm definitely not saying that people should put up with casual racism; by all means, point out things that offend you. But have a sense of proportion: save the worst attacks for the people who do the worst things, not the people who disappoint you the most. To put it another way, this is the American left's equivalent of congressional Republicans' stubbornness: an attitude that we won't even talk until you already agree with us.
No comments:
Post a Comment