Don’t dis your own people
Nearly two years ago I read – finally! – Steven Biko’s I write what I like. One of the items that most stood out to me was his view that we as POC sometimes try to ingratiate ourselves with whites or with those in power. These could be our white friends, colleagues or people whom we’re dating/seeing.
The people whom we’re trying to please could even be ‘acceptable’ members of our own race.
One of the ways in which we can do this is to dis our own people. We’ll say things such as “Yeah, coloured people are racists”. We do this so that the white people can feel better about themselves. No longer are they the only racists; their lone coloured tjommie told them that coloured people are also racist. This is, of course, a logical fallacy – coloured people [in South Africa] can be prejudiced but they can’t be racist. Racism = prejudice + power. But that’s a different argument for another day.
Another way to dis their ‘own’ is to beam whenever a white person says that they are so different to the other coloureds: their hair is so much prettier than; their accent is so much fancier than; and their way of thinking differentiates them from gam.
I do it, too. I was speaking with someone at the weekend when she mentioned she dislikes places – bars, clubs, and restaurants – that cater to gam. And I nodded. And then I felt bad – am I like ‘those people’ of whom Biko wrote?
This is similar to the N-word and how many African Americans use it to describe lesser members of their community.
This needs to stop. Today still. Next time I speak to that woman who distinguishes between herself and gam, I will say something instead of nodding. Next time someone mocks the alleged Cape Flats accent, I will say something instead of burying my face in my laptop’s screen. Next time I won’t write Cape Flets instead of Cape Flats. Next time I won’t get angry when someone thinks I’m from Delft or Bonteheuwel. Next time I won’t laugh along when someone jokes about how easy it is to get robbed in Mitchell’s Plain. Next time I won’t make fun of someone without front teeth. Next time I will make a bigger stink when Die Burger makes fun of coloured people. Next time I will make a bigger noise when someone complains about some other POC’s hair’s texture. Next time I won’t mock the structure of my nose. Next time I will get indignant when someone mocks a POC’s English accent. And next time, next time, my friend, I will wear my fluffy hair with pride.
Get free updates to my blog with my RSS feed or follow me on Twitter. Leave a comment below to get involved in the conversation.
“This is, of course, a logical fallacy – coloured people [in South Africa] can be prejudiced but they can’t be racist. Racism = prejudice + power. But that’s a different argument for another day.”
Pretend that today is different, and show me the argument.
Racism is a series of events. Small ones, mostly. And big ones, a la KKK, too. And people in power are the perpetrators. Think of the [white] estate agent who only shows houses to “The Right Kind of People” or the [white-controlled] courts that punish young first-time offenders of colour harsher than white first-time offenders. Or [white] CEOs of BEE-exempt companies who can choose not to hire POC.
These are all part of a wider problem — systemic racism.
You need to be prejudiced and you need to be part of the group in control.
Yes, prejudice occurs between different POC groups but they are not part of the group in control. At least not in most of what we would call the ‘developed world’.
Racism = prejudice + power
I always thought that racism was a set of ideas and techniques in action. In essence it doesn’t require power, but belief.
Yip, I, too, didn’t like the definition when I first chanced upon it. Minorities in ‘developed countries’ can be prejudiced but without the legal system and other people in powerful positions, they can’t control other races’ lives as has happened here in South Africa, as an example.
There are many people who’ll argue that POC and minorities can’t ever be racist. I say that’s not true. What I’m saying is that in most instances, POC are the recipients of racism.
“There are many people who’ll argue that POC and minorities can’t ever be racist. I say that’s not true. ”
Really? Earlier you said that it’s so true, that anyone who disagrees is committing a logical fallacy.
Neil, show me where I had said that. There are many POC groups who control their own legal system and who might not have the type of background that we in SA have.
I’m not talking about those groups; I’m referring to the majority of POC in this world who are a) minorities where they live or b) treated as second class citizens. And coloured people in South Africa is one such group.
“Neil, show me where I had said that.”
OK, you said it here:
“This is, of course, a logical fallacy – coloured people [in South Africa] can be prejudiced but they can’t be racist. Racism = prejudice + power.”
These are the last two sentences in the third paragraph of your post.
But ‘coloureds’ as a concept only exists in South Africa, not anywhere else. In other parts of the world they call us mixed-race. So those brackets aren’t even needed. I never said that POC can’t ever be racist. If my writing implied that, then I’ll do a post update.
“I never said that POC can’t ever be racist.” I’ve quoted you. In what sense were you not saying that in the place I quoted? (please answer that question.)
We’re misunderstanding each other here. Coloured people in South Africa aren’t in control of the legal system; coloured people in South Africa aren’t in control of the economy; coloured people in South Africa aren’t in control of the media.
That’s why I said that coloured people — as a group — can’t be racist. But if they had been the group in power, well, then it would look different.
Hey Joy. I don’t think that we’re misunderstanding each other. Please consider the two quotes below:
a) “I never said that Coloured people can’t be racist.”
b) “That’s why I said that Coloured people can’t be racist.”
Now please answer the following questions. (Please answer these actual questions.)
1. Do you agree that you said a)?
2. Do you agree that you said b)?
3. Do you agree that the two contradict each other?
4. How do you (assuming you’ve answered “yes” in 1-3) explain the contradiction?
You’re twisting my words to suit you. All coloured people are POC but not all POC are coloured people.
I’ve tried to make you understand but you refuse. Instead you ‘quote’ me but substitute coloured people for POC and you leave out certain parts of the quote.
End of discussion.
“You’re twisting my words to suit you.” How on earth can you say that. I’ve quoted you!
“Instead you ‘quote’ me but substitute coloured people for POC” That’s a blatent untruth. ll you have to do so read your blog post to see that there’s no substitution.
“and you leave out certain parts of the quote.” True. But I’ve made no relevant ommisions, and the full text is available on the blog. I’d rather you showed some competence in dealing with the (smaller, more managable) quoted portion before digesting the bigger bits.
“End of discussion.” How sad – it didn’t even get started…
(Here via Feministe SSS)
neil:
I don’t wish to speak for anyone else or put words into anyone else’s mouth, but since you appear unwilling to believe that a woman might be talking sense, I’ll have a go instead (with all my white male privilege). I’ll leave this as it is and leave it for those whose words I may be misinterpreting to correct me and speak for themselves if need be.
As I understand it, you claim that:
“Coloured People can be prejudiced but they can’t be racist” and “There are many people who’ll argue that POC and minorities can’t ever be racist. I say that’s not true.” are directly contradictory, because POC = Coloured People. (Oh, yes, I checked and your claim that there was no substitution is absolutely false – see, I’ve quoted the exact text in each case. )
You have now been told that “Coloured People” is a specific subset of “People of Colour” and is therefore not contiguous with or equivalent to that term. This alone should disprove your challenge.
But the logic goes even further. If I understand things correctly, the argument goes like this:
Racism = prejudice + power. The class of people who have darker skin (POC, or “Coloured People”) lack the power to impose their prejudices on the world, whereas those with pale skin (Whites) do have that power. Thus, Coloured People cannot as a class be racist but describing them as such absolves White people from guilt associated with misuse of power.
Individual POC who attain power may act in ways that form a part of the White racism, but their racist actions (and prejudices) are not proof that “POC are racist too!” but only that a POC who has been granted power by those who have greater power, exhibits the same qualities as those who have granted her/him power. Certainly that person no longer, in social terms, belongs as a member of the class “Coloured People”, or even “POC”. As far as those terms are socially defined, they have joined the ruling class of White, and serve to uphold it. (That they are not biologically White would still expose them to the prejudice of their White peers and superiors in the power structure, of course, if they stepped out of line.)
Q.E.D.
SnowdropExplodes,
Thank you.
I like this post, Joy-Mari
Also, the way are describing the definition of racism makes sense to me too. That’s also how I’ve heard it explained in academic settings too, so it’s not too much of an outrageous or crazt idea, to me
[...] So imagine my shock after I had had my hair cut. Suddenly my hair had volume. Suddenly my hair minces when it’s humid. Suddenly my hair is like theirs. [...]
Hey, Sarah
Thank you. I was starting to feel like an alien
Joy-Mari: you’re welcome. I just did what I’m good at
Sorry, I thought it was “end of discussion.” Anyway, in belated response to SnowDropExplodes (apologies again,I jsut saw your post now):
1. “but since you appear unwilling to believe that a woman might be talking sense”
This is disingenuous. I made specific remarks about Joy’s (who is one woman) specific arguments in this thread. Nowhere did I suggest that she’s unable to talk sense in general. And nowhere did I evince an “unwilling[ness] to believe that a woman might be talking sense.” If I had such a belief I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with one.
2. “You have now been told that “Coloured People” is a specific subset of “People of Colour” and is therefore not contiguous with or equivalent to that term. This alone should disprove your challenge.”
I confess that I didn’t get what Joy was on about, but having read your response, and having reread her original posts I think she’s saying something like this: POC can be racist (if certain social conditions exists) but Coloured people (in South Africa) can’t be racist, because for them those social conditions don’t exist.
I usually quote by copying and pasting. I could have made the substitution in error, in which case I apologise to Joy, and to you SnowDrop (for wasting your blogging time.) Or it could be that I quoted correctly, and Joy followed up on the promise of her October 22 posting: “I never said that POC can’t ever be racist. If my writing implied that, then I’ll do a post update. (emphasis mine)” (And let’s hope that THAT isn’t post-updated. It’s for reasons such as this that I follow the practise of leaving even egregious error on my blog after I’ve posted.) But to be clear, my apology to you and Joy stands, and I do now see the distinction that you’re labouring.
3. “Racism = prejudice + power.” In this paragraph you accurately rehash Joy’s argument. So my earlier remarks (read them by scrolling up) pertain. If they’re not enough I’d like to refer you to Eusebious McKaiser’s article on racism in which he lands a left-hook on the crazy notion that racism is defined in terms of power. Before you dis, let it be known that set-theoretically McKaiser is a member of the intersection of the sets POC and CPSA (“Coloured People in South Africa.”) – although I don’t think he’s in the SACP, or the SPCA.
4. McKaiser aside (though I’d urge you to read him), three spooky things happen in the argument you and Joy cling to:
SpookyThingNumber1: Quoting SnowDropExplodes: “The class of people who have darker skin (POC, or “Coloured People”) lack the power to impose their prejudices on the world”
Remember that Joy believes it’s possible for POC to be racist! (please read her original reply to me – before she “post updates” it. It’s downright spooky to drift immediately away from something you’ve only just defended deftly.
SpookyThingNumber2: “Thus, Coloured People cannot as a class be racist but describing them as such absolves White people from guilt associated with misuse of power.”
Absolves?! Really?! That’s kinda like saying that if I prove that you’re a marshmallow addict, then I can’t myself be one. As if moral failures (and sweety-dependence) are somehow mutually exclusive. The obvious retort to a White (or POC, or Coloured, or…) racist who tries to slink off the hook with that line is to haul out the two-wrongs-make-no-right rejoinder. Just because we have Coloured racists (which, from decades living in Cape Town I know we do) doesn’t mean that we don’t also have White racists. Or POC ones. Or…
Don’t get so caught in the rigors of redefinition that you allow obvious ruses through the front door. That’s spooky neglect.
SpookyThingNumber3:
Blinded by the gleam of your redefinition, you forget or overlook facts. I’ve spent more than three decades in Cape Town, shrouded in a darker-than-dark skin (there’s a deprecated word starting in “K,” which Capetonians have generally found more pronounceable than my name.) Let me assure you that Coloured People (in South Africa) are perfectly capable of “impos[ing] their prejudices on the world.” Of course, this doesn’t make the class/set of Coloured People racist (anymore that the cumulative weight of our history makes the “class” of White people racist.)
(this comment has been left blank intentionally.)