Words You Can't Say on Facebook

Recently, a Facebook friend had the unpleasant experience of having a post censored by the FB powers that be. She'd used a certain term to describe someone caught behaving badly in a video. The term pointed out the person's white heritage paired with a synonym for that stuff you throw away. For the Charades lovers out there -- two words, rhymes with "light hash" and "slight rash." (I'm making myself stop now. Sorry.) Anyway, you all know the term, and I won't repeat it here because, well, I don't want to risk the same censorship and deprive all three of you from reading this post. 😼

The point here is not to debate whether Facebook should or shouldn't censor posts or what words or ideas should be censored. While that is a worthy topic, it's really not my thing. As a person who thinks and writes and teaches about race, what caught my attention was the term itself. Of course, I've heard it many times, but I never stopped to think about what, exactly, makes it objectionable in racial terms. Of course the term is derogatory, but does it qualify as a racial slur, or is this just another example of an over-sensitivity about race? After all, the person in the video was white, and as I've pointed out before, simply noticing someone's race or using one's racial background as an identifier does not make one racist. So if I were to say, "the white guy in the picture is my cousin, Fred," I would not consider my comment to be racist in any way, shape, or form.

In previous writings I've also explored the phenomenon of insider/outsider status in using words that are widely considered to be racial slurs. As brilliantly depicted in the "Blackish" episode, "The Word," some people believe that what might be okay when said by an insider is definitely not okay from a person outside the group. (Note: watch the episode and you'll see that not everyone within the group agrees.) Since the person using the term banned on Facebook was of the same racial background as the person in the video (both white), does the insider rule apply here?

Maybe you think it should. Or maybe you're thinking, finally, someone sticking up for white people, even if they are light hash. But here's the problem -- while certainly meant as an insult, the term itself does not disparage white people in general. In fact, it does the opposite, because really, what is the purpose of pointing out race as part of the insult? Prefacing the disparagement with the person's race is implying that white people are supposed to be better. It's a way of saying, "look at that white person, acting beneath his or her noble race." The term itself is an example of whiteness serving as the invisible "norm" against which all other races are judged. So, when you think about it, a term meant to disparage a white person behaving badly also disparages everyone who isn't white in its assumption that whites are inherently meant to behave better. Of course, all this is subliminal, as are most of the really damaging racist ideas we hold.

Words matter. Words can hold meanings on levels deeper than we may realize.

"Reverse Racism" -- Getting Past Fifth Grade

In years past, when one of my kids (who shall remain nameless) would be reminded not to repeat a small or large infraction, s/he would respond in the same way. "Mom, I haven't done that since fifth grade!"

"Don't be late for school."
"I haven't been late since fifth grade."
"Be careful not to lose that library book."
"Mom, that was in fifth grade."
"Answer your cell phone when I call."
"I always do, ever since fifth grade."
Etc.

I was forced to conclude that either my memory was implacably fixated on one particular school year in this person's life or fifth grade was a very bad year.

More likely, though, my child's response reflected the desire to be seen in the here and now only and not through the lens of our history together. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. History matters. Whether in the family, the classroom (you teachers know - that kid who calls out once, you ignore. But that kid who interrupts you at every turn, you can't ignore), or in society at large, history matters. People don't behave in a vacuum. Newton's Third Law of Motion tell us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (I learned that in fifth grade). And while it's easy to accept that fact when talking about physical objects, sometimes it's not so easy when thinking about the events that have shaped the beliefs, policy, practices, and general racial atmosphere of our country. For a lot of us, when it comes to race we want to remember the bad stuff as ancient history. We want to put racism in a pre-civil rights movement box and keep it there as securely as my child kept memories of wrong-doing in the secure vault known as the fifth grade.

It's this desire that leads to a certain argument, or discourse, usually heard among whites, called the "reverse racism discourse." I've written about it before, in this and other spaces. The discourse has been documented often in critical race scholarship, but you don't have to read the texts to know what I'm talking about. I'm sure you've heard the argument, or maybe even used it yourself. It goes like this -- a better qualified white person didn't get some kind of benefit (job, scholarship, whatever) because a less qualified African American, Hispanic, etc. got it instead. Therefore, whites are now the endangered race because their skin color is standing in the way of opportunity. It's important to note that usually a presumption is being made here. All the facts of the particular situation are not usually known, but the speaker presumes that the person who got the position was under-qualified. But more importantly, the person arguing the reverse racism discourse is speaking from the vacuum of fifth grade, so to speak. If policies are in place to help traditionally marginalized people to advance, they are there for a reason -- to equal the playing field in a historically white dominated society. When it comes to race, is the playing field equal yet? Not by any sociological indicator -- education, employment, housing, wealth, income, health, incarceration, etc. (BTW, the argument can be extended to gender -- not long ago a good friend of mine bemoaned the fate of men because of the #MeToo movement. She was genuinely worried that men would suffer and somehow become second class citizens because of the movement. I assured her that I think they'll be okay.)

Recently I was surprised to read the reverse racism discourse from a pretty well-known author in the Scifi-Fantasy world. (I'm not sure why I was surprised. I shouldn't have been. I've been doing this long enough to know that racial tensions are prevalent in every aspect of our society.) He complained about discrimination in the writing/publishing world. Now, there's ample evidence that this area has been dominated by whites since its inception. Speculative fiction, in particular, has long been a white man's domain, with a few notable exceptions. But over the last several years people have worked hard to raise awareness and we're starting to see some change. We know that change always brings backlash, and the reverse racism discourse is part of that backlash.  The writer was complaining that white men aren't being considered equally in certain genres. (Side note -- was he complaining 20 years ago when women's work wasn't being considered? Doubtful that he even noticed.)

Maybe this author is right, and the pendulum of opportunity has swung too far in the other direction.  I'm sure he believes what he's saying is true, although I've included a link below that says otherwise.* But even if his claims are true, the problem with his argument is that it ignores the history of discrimination that has made the shift in focus necessary. Hopefully, a day will come when thinking about race and gender in publishing or other areas of opportunity won't be necessary, because the playing field will be equal. Education, training, and opportunity for advancement will be equitable. But to paraphrase one of my favorite male fantasy heroes, that day may come...but it is not this day. This day, we fight. We fight to break free of fifth grade thinking. We fight to recall our history in its completeness, good and bad. We fight to remember the mistakes of the past so we can create a better future.



*Info on diversity in science fiction

Suffer the Children: Sunday Morning Sermon

As I write this, it's Sunday morning, time for church. Time to sing with eyes opened or closed, holding a hymnal or reading from a screen, accompanied by an organ or a full out rock band. In whatever style, across our country millions of Americans are attending church services.

My wish for this Sunday morning is that every pastor, minister, or preacher would speak the same words and read the same verses from the scriptures on which they've based their lives.

"Let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Mark 19:14.

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength...Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:30-31

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." Ps. 82:3-4.

"Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Heb. 13: 1-2.

I could continue, but I trust you get the point. The scriptures are filled with admonitions toward love, care, and empathy, the opposite of the behavior the United States is showing toward asylum seekers at our southern border. Now, I'm not so naive to think that open borders are possible. I understand that, for various reasons, borders must be maintained and protected, and my purpose today is not to argue or recommend specific immigration policy of a larger scope. But, as a person of faith who values the scripture, as a mother, and as a human being, it seems more than obvious that separating children from their parents as a deterrent and perhaps punishment is cruel, ungodly, and unscriptural. And to use the Bible as a justification for this practice is reprehensible. This has nothing to do with following the Bible. This is about something else. 

I've read some pretty heartless reasoning on this topic lately, and at its core is the stripping of the humanity of those in question. These aren't refugees or asylum seekers, they are "criminals" who have given up the rights to their children by their criminal behavior. This is dangerous reasoning with a long history. Throughout the ages, the only way humans have been able to treat other humans so cruelly is to make them less than human. These are not parents seeking safety for their children. They are criminals who don't deserve our empathy. Of course, it becomes much easier to treat people badly if you believe "They are not our friend...they're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists." Oh yeah, some of them might be good people, but good people don't commit crimes, and since these people engaged in a criminal act when they entered the country illegally, they are criminals. And so the circular reasoning continues.

It's true, the Bible does say we should obey the law. Christians in the early church were instructed to mind their own business and live quiet and productive lives (I Thess 4:11), but this instruction came after praise for being "taught by God to love one another" (v. 9). The Old and New Testaments also give many accounts of people who broke human law (secular and religious) in order to follow God's law. Jesus was among these people. And let's remember that there was only one group of people that Jesus criticized harshly -- the Pharisees, and it was because, as he pointed out, "they don't practice what they teach" (Matt. 23:3). I'm sure you can see some parallels here. 

So, this Sunday morning I wish that all believers in Jesus (along with folks of other faiths) would be encouraged to practice what we teach and to invite our government officials to do the same. We are in a position to love our neighbors, to defend the weak, to show hospitality to strangers, and to care for the children, owners of the Kingdom of heaven.

Worlds Collide but Never Touch

A few years ago I gave a talk at several locations entitled, "Living in More than One World." The focus of that talk was race relations, and in it I described the need to understand and empathize with those whose experience as racialized beings differs from our own. Today I'm going to wonder from the topic of race to explore another way that I, personally, navigate two very different worlds: worlds on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

My first world of church going and teaching is a conservative one. I'll call it Conservo World. Many of the inhabitants of Conservo World hold very traditional beliefs about a wide variety of subjects ranging from race relations to abortion to sexual orientation to gender identity and lots of other topics, and although most hold no animosity toward individuals, they sincerely believe they must do their part to make the world a better place (or at least keep it from becoming a worse place). In that world I have many wonderful friends who are kind, caring, decent people.

World number two is mostly comprised of graduate school friends and academic colleagues outside of religious institutions, who, for the most part, land to the left of liberal on the political front -- it's  Libero World, indeed. The folks of Libero World (some religiously oriented, but most not) see themselves as progressives and so believe they must do their part to bring about needed change and make the world a better place (or at least keep it from becoming a worse place). They often see themselves as outside of herteronormativity either by practice or belief.  Again, in that world I have many wonderful friends who are kind, caring, decent people. I've been navigating these two worlds somewhat successfully for a very long time.

Something happened the other day, though, that made my usual smooth navigational system blink. I was at an academic conference populated by Libero World folk and the session leader said something that caught my attention. She mentioned, almost in passing, that fantasy and science fiction are mostly liberal spaces -- in others words, produced and consumed by the folks of Libero World. As a tried and true fantansy/scifi nerd, you can bet I shook off the descending conference ennui and sat up straight at that. Many images flooded my mind, including:

• standing in line for an hour at the premiere of every Lord of The Rings movie, next to Conservo World friends
• watching the youth group leader of our conservative church chase my sons across the church lawn, all of them waving lightsabers around
• listening to the rants of conservative friends of all ages when the latest iteration of Star Wars, Harry Potter, the X-Men, etc., didn't come up to their expectations
• giving in to my students' begging to show the latest Marvel trailer on the big screen in our classroom

I could say lots more, but mostly I thought of an organization I joined about a year ago called Realm Makers, populated by Christian writers of speculative fiction. I've been to their conference where hundreds of Conservo World folks dress up quite creatively to attend a banquet as Wolverine, Steam Punk characters, Harry Potter -- you name it. They have a very active Facebook group through which they dissect all kinds of scifi fantasy minutia, along with supporting each others' writing efforts. These are hardcore fans, folks, and I bet they'd be quite surprised to hear that their passion resides in mostly a "liberal space." 

What would make this presenter see fantasy and science fiction as a liberal domain? She was kind, professional, brilliant and well educated, but she knew nothing (kind of like Jon Snow) about evangelical pop culture tastes. My guess is that she sees conservative Christians very narrowly, probably buttoned up in straight suits and long skirts and knocking at people's doors with Bibles under their arms.

When the conference was over I went back to the classroom and my content that morning dealt with gender identity. We talked about gender typicality and gender constancy. As I defined these terms, most of my students looked at me blankly. Sadly, a few smirked uncomfortably. But when I described the risk kids who fall outside of traditional gender norms face at school, they became sympathetic and gladly agreed that their role as teachers will be to protect all the children in their classes. Their ethic of care, the same ethic of care I heard over and over at the Libero World conference, was obvious.

What's my point? We have more in common than we think. We may disagree on many issues, and sometimes our beliefs are so polar opposite it's hard to see any common ground. In the media and sometimes on the streets these worlds collide. But if we gave up our assumptions, just for a minute, and took the time to find out a little more about the reality of our lives, if we took the time to touch instead of banging against each other in anger, we might be surprised at how much we are alike.

As for me, I'll keep traveling back and forth between these two worlds, going left to right, depending on the issue. Mostly I land just enough in the middle to make both sides mad at me. So if you felt yourself bristling at this essay, that's fine. I'm right where I'm supposed to be.