written by Anti-Racist Parent columnist Deesha Philyaw
[Okay, in reality the following is a comment that Deesha left on last week's "What we believe" post. I have been noodling about a post that explains why we need to keep ARP a productive space for anti-racist parents and what that means for the type of debate and discussion we allow here. My basic thesis was that I expect all who join the ARP family to respect this house. You wouldn't visit a Christian friend's home for dinner and hospitality and begin haranguing her about the agnosticism. You don't visit a site devoted to helping parents navigate race to argue that racism doesn't exist or that racism as it is defined in the anti-racist community is all wrong in your view.
I was going to write all this stuff, but then Deesha left a comment that said what I wanted to say way more eloquently. (She's always doing that sort of thing.) I liked her comment so much, I thought it merited a space where everyone could see it. Bolded copy refers to arguments made by another poster--arguments which are common, understandable and deserve response.]
If [ARP] becomes inclusive to only those who “get it” completely, then those who are “seekers” will never grow.
There are reasons folks will not “grow” as anti-racist parents, but I wouldn’t say that the fault lies with whether a particular online community is inclusive or not. In fact, I think that’s a cop-out, similar to: “I tried to be friendly to that black woman in the next cubicle, but when I told her that I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a black president, she stopped talking to me. There’s no pleasing those people!”
Some people see incidents like that as “teachable moments”, opportunities to help a racist grow. Other of us have had it up to here.
No one should ever feel obligated to entertain or tolerate ignorance or that which undermines their purpose.
The more the merrier when it comes to anti-racism parenting, but not everyone who shows up here is trying to grow, imo, so why shouldn’t the moderators establish some parameters? Showing up is not enough.
Inclusive…to what end? Certain types of commentary are counterproductive or even disruptive. This isn’t my site, so I can’t define those terms–but I believe Tami can and should.
If someone wants to “grow” in their anti-racism efforts, the ultimate responsibility for this lies with them. If those of us who have experienced racism can become anti-racist (and not vengeful or hateful) without an affirming welcome wagon everywhere we go, then I think it’s not too much to ask visitors to an anti-racist community to respect that this community is not perfectly inclusive (according to the terms that Tami sets).
Being a part of this community is not an inherent right. If someone is truly seeking to grow as an anti-racist parent by being a part of this community, then perhaps they should make sure that their comments on ARP don’t continually clash with the purpose and “rules of engagement” of this site–as defined by the folks who run the site. They always have the option of starting their own site and making their own house rules.
To me it’s akin to someone going to a breastfeeding support site and constantly extolling the joys of bottle feeding and formula. Should that community of breastfeeding moms be completely inclusive and help that visitor “grow” by tolerating the one-note comments that stand in contrast to their mission?
I wonder if it may be allowable for readers to care deeply about race but still disagree on the impact of certain events.
I believe so, if what you mean is care deeply not about race but about racism–about confronting and overcoming racism. However, the comments that I take issue with don’t fall into that category because I’m not getting the “care about racism” vibe.
Agreed. When I found this site I sensed I was jumping into the discourse mid-stream and the burden was on me to listen, read and understand the mission of this group. This idea that there are “house rules” isn’t specific to this site, but one that I’ve seen work on health-related, gifted kid and other sites.
Thank you for this post. I would really hate to see the tenor of this site change to accommodate the unfortunately mainstream white view (particularly post-Obama) that racism and white privilege no longer exist. As a white person who does not hold this view, this site is a refuge for me, a place I can go to seek out the like-minded. That is, as I understand it, one major purpose of such on-line communities. I am an educator by profession, and I take very seriously my responsibility to educate others. But sometimes you just need to be with people who you don’t have to educate. The truth is, all communities are defined both by who they accept and who they exclude, either actively or by default. While we all need to scrutinize those boundaries carefully, we also need to understand that there are some groups to which each of us more readily belongs than others. It’s a part of accepting who we are. And as you suggest, we can always make the decision to listen to others’ views and change if we feel we should.
I think anyone entering into someone else’s forum should enter humbly. Just as one enters into a home or place of worship or place learning. When you are trying to learn and glean information you are by necessity saying, “I don’t know/understand, can you help me learn?”
Acknowledging my own white privilege is hard when I have a knee jerk reaction inside about a comment or situation that says, “Oh that’s not racism.” I have to step back, validate the other person’s experience and know I DON’T know what it’s like to be black in america. That’s the process that leads to learning and understanding.
I think my bolded statements above were misunderstood, and that we are really mostly coming from the same place. What I was trying to say is that it is probable that two people who care very much about extinguishing racism may view different events through a different lens. I think the Gates situation is a perfect example of that, where you see reknowned anti-racist leaders arguing over how they view this incident. So taking that into account, opinions on this site may vary widely amongst those who are still commited to recognizing and stamping out the racism we are living with today.
I totally agree, Deesha, that this should not be a forum where people continually disagree that racism still exists. Your breastfeeding website is a perfect analogy. I guess what I was trying to say, using that same analogy, is that people should still be able to differ on breastfeeding techniques or be welcoming to the new and insecure . . . if that makes sense. When I said “seeker”, I meant someone with a true desire but needing more knowledge about what it means to be anti-racist, not someone who disagrees with the need for such empahsis. I agree that the “we are in a post-racial society” set should argue that crap elsewhere. That would not be seeking – that would be debating the whole point of this community.
Kristen,
Please know that I wasn’t coming for you. I get where you are coming from, but I’ve gotten these questions a lot from folks who most definitely were NOT interested in debating the finer points of racism, but debating its existence all together. That’s why I thought the questions would be useful to include. I hope you don’t feel it was an attack on you.
Thank you! I hear ya.
Thank you, Deesha, and thank you, Tami. I think the responses to the “inclusivity” argument were right on target, and the breastfeeding analogy was a good one. Respect this house, for it is one of the few houses we have.