Written in 1998, this article addresses the need to see race relations in broader terms than a simple "Black-white framework". Presenting this false dichotomy leads to several false impressions: that there are no common interests among peoples of color, that only African Americans suffer institutionalized racism, and that people of color should understand their lives in relation to "whiteness".
Martinez points out the numerous comparisons of suffering by different minority groups that often lead to claims of being "Most Oppressed". Indeed, she points out that "pursuing some hierarchy of oppression leads us down dead-end streets where we will never find the linkage between different oppressions and how to overcome them." All racially oppressed people should unite against the "White Supremacist agenda" to divide minorities against each other.
She speaks to the common history of colonization and exploitation by Europeans of all peoples of color. She speaks to the carry-over effects of poverty, segregation, and low-quality education systems in the inner cities. And she speaks to various actions (and inactions) that she deems racism. All of these are cause for people of color to unite against White Supremacy.
The article is angry and ineffective. Martinez traces a very vague history of oppression of a few minority groups and chalks it up to "White Supremacists" and their racial agenda. I agree that historical sociology is the key to understanding how institutional racism came to be, but we must remember that individuals are products of their society; those born into privilege and taught that they're better than others become racists, and those not born into privilege and taught resentment and contempt for the privileged are racist in their own right. It's true that a strict black-white framework is insufficient, but simply awakening a "racial consciousness" in every person of color is a Marxist delusion.
Relevance: 3/5 (neutral)
Salience: 2/5 (trivial)
References:
- Ron Takaki, Iron Cages - cited in agreement.
Remember that not all oppressions are equivalent. To characterize the so-called resentment of those not born into privilege as racist is convenient dodge. Nor is there anything necessarily Marxist about racial/ethnic solidarity or consciousness.
ReplyDeleteI think you want to pick and choose whose oppression you will regard as deserving respect.
That's some patronizing righteousness you got going there.
Thanks for your comment and criticism! You've caught me being lazy with this post (and others too, I'm sure), which I'm happy to expand and discuss.
ReplyDeleteAbove, I called the author's proposed solution to racism, awakening a "racial consciousness" to combat White Supremacy, a Marxist delusion. What I failed to do was elaborate. Martinez portrays racism as a conscious Us-versus-Them conflict, which I would argue is inaccurate. Speaking of race rather than class, she employs much of the same terminology and likens the two forms of oppression to the degree that, in her argument, they're almost interchangeable. For example, she discusses White Supremacy's "strategy" (her word) of stereotyping to prevent Asian Americans from uniting with other minority groups:
"The "model" label has been a wedge separating Asian Americans from others of color by denying their commonalities. It creates a sort of racial bourgeoisie, which White Supremacy uses to keep Asian Americans from joining forces with the poor, the homeless and criminalized youth.
"The stereotype of Asian Americans as whiz kids is also enraging because it hides so many harsh truths about the impoverishment, oppression and racist treatment they experience. Some do come from middle- or upper-class families in Asia, some do attain middle-class or higher status in the U.S., and their community must deal with the reality of class privilege where it exists. But the hidden truths include the poverty of many Asian/Pacific Islander groups, especially women, who often work under intolerable conditions, as in the sweatshops."
Elsewhere in the article, the author seems to lift her words straight from the Communist Manifesto:
"What has been the response from people of color to this ugly White Supremacist agenda? Instead of uniting, based on common experience and needs, we have often closed our doors in a defensive, isolationist mode, each community to its own. A fire of fear and distrust begins to crackle, threatening to consume us all. Building solidarity among people of color is more necessary than ever—but the exclusively Black-white definition of racism makes such solidarity more difficult than ever."
Racial solidarity, in the context of this article, is an incomplete answer to the problems of oppression. Systemic change requires the power to enact change, for which mere numbers are not enough (here I allude to Mill's notion of the Power Elite).
And I made no value judgement as to the oppressions. Racism, as the animosity and feelings of superiority expressed between racial/ethnic groups, is one thing; institutional racism, as the racial inequality resulting from a social system that upholds hegemony and favors the status quo, is quite another.
ReplyDelete