POC ranking: the issue of colourism
Feb. 25th, 2010 01:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
narcasseInfighting amongst POC isn’t something I like to discuss in any venue that includes non-POC. It’s the functional equivalent of telling outsiders something that requires context, history and experience to understand and then being surprised when they just don’t get it. In the past I’ve made that mistake only for the issue I raised to later be used as ‘proof’ that Burmese people were awful and that I should be ashamed of myself for daring to not be a coconut. Likewise, ‘coconut’ isn’t a term I use lightly because what is evidently viewed as a desirable position by outsiders is absolutely abhorrent to any POC with their head on straight.
Anyone wanting to be a ‘coconut’ is in a completely untenable situation anyway. They’ve bought into the idea that they’re less of a person due to the colour of their skin. They may argue that they’re disparaging about their own people because of any number of negative stereotypes attached to those people but they never question the validity of those stereotypes, especially since they’ve been assigned by outsiders who have a vested interest in establishing and maintaining such a hierarchy. It’s very easy for an outsider who doesn’t interact with the group they’re disparaging to insist that the entire group behaves in a certain manner because they believe that that’s what said group does. From a legal standpoint it’s far easier to prove that you’ve done something rather than prove that you haven’t. To choose a popular example, if your only knowledge of gay relationships comes from reading yaoi then that’s all you have to go on and since you’re not interacting with any gay couples, or at least think that you aren’t, then there’s nothing to disprove your mistaken belief of how the matter works. Or to use a personal example, I once had a coworker tell me that it seemed to him that most Burmese were Muslim. He was Muslim himself and I pointed out that most of his Burmese Muslim friends were people he’d met at the mosque which rather skewed his sample. As it is, Muslim Burmese are an outlying rarity in comparison to the vast majority of Catholics or Buddhists but having previously only met Burmese Muslims my coworker was working from the sample he had. Thus if you have no reason to seek out verification of your assumption or opportunities to meet with negation of it then for the most part you’ll carry on in that belief quite happily.
While the workplace example above wasn’t an othering issue and is representative of many of the non-confrontational presumptions that people make every day, in the case of negative attributes the reason for ascribing those attributes to a group is always beneficial to the outsiders ascribing those attributes to them. A good UK example is the notion that all Pakistanis are lazy and trying to scam the system, where the fastest way to escape those negative stereotypes and gain the approval of the dominant group would be for a Pakistani individual to immediately and loudly start disparaging their own kind using those specific stereotypes as proof of how despicable all those other Pakistanis were. That way they step up from being one of those individuals who are deemed worthless by the dominant group and instead become the ‘right’ sort of POC because ‘they’re not like the others’. I’ve already mentioned my own personal experience with this previously where I was expected to loudly and protractedly disparage all other Burmese people if I wanted to be viewed as the ‘right’ sort of POC by one of those ‘moderate’ racists and I’m glad that I had enough respect for and knowledge of my own heritage to refuse to do so. But I can imagine that in a situation where the POC in question isn’t so sure of themselves or of their place in the world, especially in the face of so much racism both overt and covert which tells them that they should be ashamed of the colour of their skin because it automatically means they’re any number of negative stereotypes, then defending yourself becomes that much harder. I believe passionately in the virtue of being Burmese, quite possibly because I grew up in a very white environment and had to figure out what my being different was about very quickly or lose all sense of self entirely. I ascribe positive attributes to the colour of my skin not necessarily because those attributes are encoded into my DNA but because as a proud member of that group my main focus will be on all that’s good about us. It’s quite natural to focus on the positive about anything you are proud to be a part of, respect or just plain enjoy. Parents being a good example of this because while childrearing won’t be the cavalcade of Kodak moments that many a film portrays it as it’s still something that they feel is worth while hence the celebration of the positive.
Thus if someone is convinced to focus on the negative attributes ascribed to their own group and actually falls into the trap of disparaging their own group based on those negative attributes then already they’re cut off from not just the social support of their group but also any notion of self worth that they might possess. Because no matter how much they disparage people of the same group they’re still always going to be visibly a member of said group and no amount of their reinforcing the race hierarchy will change that. Their own group certainly won’t want them and the dominant group never wanted them anyway. They’ve become a tool for the reinforcement of the race hierarchy without realising that since it’s a hierarchy that’s based entirely on attributes that you cannot control there’s no option of mobility for them regardless of what they do. They don’t become an equal to the dominant group, there’s no acceptance by them but rather a pitying manipulation to be had.
Of course if you escape that method of being used to reinforce the race hierarchy there’s still another far more insidious method that filters down racist attitudes to pitch POC groups against each other so that they’re too busy fighting amongst themselves to notice that the only group that benefits from it is the dominant group at the top. If trying to encourage someone to be the ‘right’ sort of POC doesn’t turn them against their own group then the next best strategy is to pit their group against another so that they become more embroiled in that conflict and don’t have the time or energy to expend in questioning why being white has magically made somebody else a better class of human being. This is a widely encouraged and effective method of sewing dissent because it does allow for positive attributes to be ascribed to certain groups in the same way that the lord of the manner pats his greyhound on the head for being a good dog. To expand on my earlier example, if the negative stereotype ascribed to Pakistani immigrants is that they’re lazy then it’s far less effort to then tell the Chinese immigrants that they’re hard working, not like those Pakistanis, and have the Chinese immigrants reinforce your racist hierarchy for you. And as long as those Chinese immigrants are fulfilling all the roles you want them to fulfil you keep right on patting them on the head and telling them that they’re the ‘right’ sort of POC. You grant them more rights than the other group and they’re pleased to be esteemed above said others all without realising that while they have been granted some rights they’re never nearly as many as the dominant group possesses.
Once this sort of problem sets in then all hell breaks loose when other POC refuse to conform to this hierarchy and aren’t suitably cowed by the mere mention of someone’s supposedly superior race. And having worked that all out in a coherent format this is the precise problem I’ve encountered with Chinese and Japanese individuals. Refusing to debase myself at the mere mention of their racial background upsets the hierarchy, doubly so when I refuse to bring my race into the discussion and instead settle on making a rational point that doesn’t need an emotive reasoning to prop it up. I suspect that a good portion of the issue, beyond the obvious, also stems from the fact that I don’t expect this kind of racism from other POC, especially in ‘insta-racism to win an argument’ format as I’ve mentioned in my prior post today. As my dissertation supervisor said once upon a time: it’s openly acknowledged that it’s both a ridiculous and idiotic tactic to throw mentions of Nazism at Germans as a shock tactic because Germany has done so much and come so far these days that it’s obviously a deliberately cheap ploy to cause upset. And that framework applies anywhere. People who don’t have a point and know that they don’t, at least on some level, fall back on shock tactics and insults. Whether those tactics involve assuming that the person they’re speaking to is of a group that will react badly to an egregious mention of something, allowing them to use that key word in a deliberately offensive fashion, or whether the actual reveal of that person’s group will spark outrage for not bowing to the racial hierarchy the overall effect is the same: the racist will be racist and the people at the top of the hierarchy will congratulate themselves on what an obedient little dog they’ve got.
As for the notion that I should out myself everywhere so as to avoid confusion, on this occasion when it comes to race, that would also play into the dominant group’s deliberate power games because then not only do they know which group I am, which they believe it their god given right to know, but they can also assign me an intrinsic worth based on that fact. Thus if I disagree with them they can dismiss my opinion because I’m only a POC so what would I know about anything? If you have a point that you can express clearly and defend rationally your race really ought not to factor into the matter. If that point doesn’t involve explaining the angle of your perception, your experience or that of your group and is just an academic point divorced from the personal it should stand on its own without emotional arguments to support it. It’s a poorly reasoned position that has to rely on emotive compulsion rather than rational sense after all.
Anyone wanting to be a ‘coconut’ is in a completely untenable situation anyway. They’ve bought into the idea that they’re less of a person due to the colour of their skin. They may argue that they’re disparaging about their own people because of any number of negative stereotypes attached to those people but they never question the validity of those stereotypes, especially since they’ve been assigned by outsiders who have a vested interest in establishing and maintaining such a hierarchy. It’s very easy for an outsider who doesn’t interact with the group they’re disparaging to insist that the entire group behaves in a certain manner because they believe that that’s what said group does. From a legal standpoint it’s far easier to prove that you’ve done something rather than prove that you haven’t. To choose a popular example, if your only knowledge of gay relationships comes from reading yaoi then that’s all you have to go on and since you’re not interacting with any gay couples, or at least think that you aren’t, then there’s nothing to disprove your mistaken belief of how the matter works. Or to use a personal example, I once had a coworker tell me that it seemed to him that most Burmese were Muslim. He was Muslim himself and I pointed out that most of his Burmese Muslim friends were people he’d met at the mosque which rather skewed his sample. As it is, Muslim Burmese are an outlying rarity in comparison to the vast majority of Catholics or Buddhists but having previously only met Burmese Muslims my coworker was working from the sample he had. Thus if you have no reason to seek out verification of your assumption or opportunities to meet with negation of it then for the most part you’ll carry on in that belief quite happily.
While the workplace example above wasn’t an othering issue and is representative of many of the non-confrontational presumptions that people make every day, in the case of negative attributes the reason for ascribing those attributes to a group is always beneficial to the outsiders ascribing those attributes to them. A good UK example is the notion that all Pakistanis are lazy and trying to scam the system, where the fastest way to escape those negative stereotypes and gain the approval of the dominant group would be for a Pakistani individual to immediately and loudly start disparaging their own kind using those specific stereotypes as proof of how despicable all those other Pakistanis were. That way they step up from being one of those individuals who are deemed worthless by the dominant group and instead become the ‘right’ sort of POC because ‘they’re not like the others’. I’ve already mentioned my own personal experience with this previously where I was expected to loudly and protractedly disparage all other Burmese people if I wanted to be viewed as the ‘right’ sort of POC by one of those ‘moderate’ racists and I’m glad that I had enough respect for and knowledge of my own heritage to refuse to do so. But I can imagine that in a situation where the POC in question isn’t so sure of themselves or of their place in the world, especially in the face of so much racism both overt and covert which tells them that they should be ashamed of the colour of their skin because it automatically means they’re any number of negative stereotypes, then defending yourself becomes that much harder. I believe passionately in the virtue of being Burmese, quite possibly because I grew up in a very white environment and had to figure out what my being different was about very quickly or lose all sense of self entirely. I ascribe positive attributes to the colour of my skin not necessarily because those attributes are encoded into my DNA but because as a proud member of that group my main focus will be on all that’s good about us. It’s quite natural to focus on the positive about anything you are proud to be a part of, respect or just plain enjoy. Parents being a good example of this because while childrearing won’t be the cavalcade of Kodak moments that many a film portrays it as it’s still something that they feel is worth while hence the celebration of the positive.
Thus if someone is convinced to focus on the negative attributes ascribed to their own group and actually falls into the trap of disparaging their own group based on those negative attributes then already they’re cut off from not just the social support of their group but also any notion of self worth that they might possess. Because no matter how much they disparage people of the same group they’re still always going to be visibly a member of said group and no amount of their reinforcing the race hierarchy will change that. Their own group certainly won’t want them and the dominant group never wanted them anyway. They’ve become a tool for the reinforcement of the race hierarchy without realising that since it’s a hierarchy that’s based entirely on attributes that you cannot control there’s no option of mobility for them regardless of what they do. They don’t become an equal to the dominant group, there’s no acceptance by them but rather a pitying manipulation to be had.
Of course if you escape that method of being used to reinforce the race hierarchy there’s still another far more insidious method that filters down racist attitudes to pitch POC groups against each other so that they’re too busy fighting amongst themselves to notice that the only group that benefits from it is the dominant group at the top. If trying to encourage someone to be the ‘right’ sort of POC doesn’t turn them against their own group then the next best strategy is to pit their group against another so that they become more embroiled in that conflict and don’t have the time or energy to expend in questioning why being white has magically made somebody else a better class of human being. This is a widely encouraged and effective method of sewing dissent because it does allow for positive attributes to be ascribed to certain groups in the same way that the lord of the manner pats his greyhound on the head for being a good dog. To expand on my earlier example, if the negative stereotype ascribed to Pakistani immigrants is that they’re lazy then it’s far less effort to then tell the Chinese immigrants that they’re hard working, not like those Pakistanis, and have the Chinese immigrants reinforce your racist hierarchy for you. And as long as those Chinese immigrants are fulfilling all the roles you want them to fulfil you keep right on patting them on the head and telling them that they’re the ‘right’ sort of POC. You grant them more rights than the other group and they’re pleased to be esteemed above said others all without realising that while they have been granted some rights they’re never nearly as many as the dominant group possesses.
Once this sort of problem sets in then all hell breaks loose when other POC refuse to conform to this hierarchy and aren’t suitably cowed by the mere mention of someone’s supposedly superior race. And having worked that all out in a coherent format this is the precise problem I’ve encountered with Chinese and Japanese individuals. Refusing to debase myself at the mere mention of their racial background upsets the hierarchy, doubly so when I refuse to bring my race into the discussion and instead settle on making a rational point that doesn’t need an emotive reasoning to prop it up. I suspect that a good portion of the issue, beyond the obvious, also stems from the fact that I don’t expect this kind of racism from other POC, especially in ‘insta-racism to win an argument’ format as I’ve mentioned in my prior post today. As my dissertation supervisor said once upon a time: it’s openly acknowledged that it’s both a ridiculous and idiotic tactic to throw mentions of Nazism at Germans as a shock tactic because Germany has done so much and come so far these days that it’s obviously a deliberately cheap ploy to cause upset. And that framework applies anywhere. People who don’t have a point and know that they don’t, at least on some level, fall back on shock tactics and insults. Whether those tactics involve assuming that the person they’re speaking to is of a group that will react badly to an egregious mention of something, allowing them to use that key word in a deliberately offensive fashion, or whether the actual reveal of that person’s group will spark outrage for not bowing to the racial hierarchy the overall effect is the same: the racist will be racist and the people at the top of the hierarchy will congratulate themselves on what an obedient little dog they’ve got.
As for the notion that I should out myself everywhere so as to avoid confusion, on this occasion when it comes to race, that would also play into the dominant group’s deliberate power games because then not only do they know which group I am, which they believe it their god given right to know, but they can also assign me an intrinsic worth based on that fact. Thus if I disagree with them they can dismiss my opinion because I’m only a POC so what would I know about anything? If you have a point that you can express clearly and defend rationally your race really ought not to factor into the matter. If that point doesn’t involve explaining the angle of your perception, your experience or that of your group and is just an academic point divorced from the personal it should stand on its own without emotional arguments to support it. It’s a poorly reasoned position that has to rely on emotive compulsion rather than rational sense after all.
