âYou Speak to Me With Respectâ
Dissecting privilege, for the sake of productive discourseÂ
Pictured: Revolutionary of the Black Panthers Movement Stokely Carmichael.Â
Background: This post has been inspired by Stokely, and my friend Nadine Silva. Nadine is passionate and works hard in addressing the current position of privilege people unknowingly take when engaging in dialogues with people about their community, and the way certain dynamics effect their community this will be the premise for the analysis that follows. She is a journalist and a model striving to represent her community in a positive light, and serve as a role model for young South Asian girls globally. Â
Stokelyâs relevance is through his influence. Ironically Stokelyâs importance and presence in todayâs time is that the most intimidating thing about this man is how well spoken he was and how he articulated the thoughts and feelings of his community. He didnât gain notoriety through wielding shotguns and AK-47s, whilst tailing police. He gained his notoriety, by making it known that America is on notice and his community refuses to be scared anymore, and will no longer take the back seat. I respect him immensely, and try to emulate the characteristics of him as an individual and as a movement.
âOur grandfathers had to run, run, run. Our generation is out of breath. We aint runninâ no more.â
First and foremost let it be clear that no race nor creed or colour has the authority to take the moral high ground on any issue that effects everybody. That means no race or people is more or less entitled to control any one narrative that involves all. However, that in itself is indicative of what the issue is I am about to discuss.Â
Now I could sit here and explain through several paradigms how privilege operates and has transcended since that first boat left Britain, to the way our politicians engage in dialogue about issues that effect communities that are not their own. Most evidently of late, how majority of our government on both sides of politics have backpedaled in light of the recent atrocity committed in Christchurch. But that would be pointless âŚ. Because the reason as all diverse people are aware, is that privilege and accountability to rhetoric is not about knowledge or discourse. It is about the retention of power, and hegemony.Â
What is discussed, and how it is discussed comes second to the position of the conversation. But iâll stop thereâŚâŚ
Rather what iâm going to do, is include in an interaction I had with an individual from the US to exemplify what POC mean when they refer to privilege. Typically I donât engage with people online who are inclined to be argumentative, but on this occasion I thought I could document this interaction, and turn it into an example of something that can be used for productive purposes.
The interactions and my commentary are as follows:
*The original post was referring to someone I follow regarding how the Christchurch attack is indicative of âhate winningâ *
My initial comment was long winded so Iâll keep it punchy to the part that triggered this individual:Â
Myself - âTheyâre resorting to desperate measures, because theyâre realizing that just by the virtue of being white doesnât count for anything anymore.âÂ
Lets call him Fred, initiated as follows:
Fred: âVirtue of being white? Your jumbled sentence with racist tones seems to have the desired effect of the gunmanâs motive.â
| Note how he included the word âvirtueâ whilst quoting me, but his response neglected the context that word provides? Never mind that a supremacist just murdered 50 innocent people, iâm racist because I addressed White virtue signalling and the unfounded fear that these people frequently share. So therefore iâm part of the problem. Deflection is a tactic that is commonly employed, this is a fine example. | (Lets continue) âŚ.
Me: âThis is a fair point (it wasnât) one I am happy to discuss. As an Indigenous person of Australia in particular one that has spent a large part of my childhood growing up in the same community as the gunmen many people in rural NSW have only typically been there for 3 or 4 generations. They killed a lot of people in that time. Given that it was only someoneâs grand father or great grandfather who were doing the killing. It is not unreasonable to claim that someone of todayâs generation such as Tarrant grew up with a similar disdain for brown people. Given the contempt these people hold for people who were already here. It is not difficult to comprehend the psychological effect that would have on someone with the disposition that âforeignâ people are coming to take what is âhisâ with the supposed threats of sharia law threatening this mans status as a white man in the West.Â
So to answer your comment do I think that by the virtue of being white you are inherently bad? Of course not! But given the very recent history where this man comes from, in context with today political climate it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that perhaps this man was defending his âwhitenessâ despite none of these people having actually threatened it.âÂ
Me: And if you wonât accept any of that. You can read it in his manifesto because he has literally admitted to everything I have outlined himself.
Fred: Why would I read the manifesto of a nutter?
| Note the deflection again, no attempt whatsoever to address my response to an unfounded claim that I am a racist. But if you throw around words I will hold you accountable for them. |Â Â
 Me: Well initially your comment stated that what I said had undertones of racist sentiment based on the âvirtue of being whiteâ? This tells me you received this as me saying this is generally how how white people think and feel when it was merely a reflection of this particular individual and many like him. So from an objective standpoint despite him being a ânutterâ it would give you an insight as to his views, and where my original comment derived from.
Fred: Lot of words finally getting to the point. People focusing on colour do not have the ability to see things clearly. When we stop giving people little ethnic terms people will actually co-exist. Youâre definitely overthinking my comment with all that unneeded info.
| Quick summary: I wouldnât need to write a paragraph breaking it down for Fred if he took the initiative to understand what the single word âvirtueâ meant but that is how privilege works. âIâm right I donât need to consider anything.âÂ
Secondly, for anyone reading this for good intentions. This is a prime example of trying to control narratives. Because never mind hundred of years of colonial destruction and minimization. Fred has all the answers ⌠All we have to do is stop seeing colour! THEN the world will finally coexist. Fred knows this! Fred knows everything. Thanks Fred. |Â
Me: Is it unneeded because its irrelevant? Or because you personally donât care? I feel as though youâre trying to oversimplify a complex conversation to give yourself the higher moral ground. Which ironically plays into the whole âvirtue of being whiteâ thing that you initially disputed. I didnât originally place you in that category, but am now starting to see why my original comment may have caused a reaction from you.Â
These âlittle ethnic termsâ you down play is quite condescending. Because to many ethnic people they represent a great deal of importance. So for you to suggest that iâm âoverthinking itâ when 40 (now 50) people have been murdered. That is pretty arrogant of you. âA lot of words finally getting to the pointâ thatâs condescending and exactly the type of attitude iâm talking about. You can disagree with me, but you will speak to me with respect!Â
| Note*Â I demanded respect in this manner for two reasons. Number one is that I deserve it. Number 2 is that for the purpose of this experiment I know that when you address people of privilege accustomed to dominating discourse the fight or flight response is triggered. Typically they will either get quite defensive and resort to aggression, or they will flee. The response that comes next is telling. |Â
Fred: Youâre clearly disgruntled, iâll just let you hit your keyboard.Â
|Note: For someone who initiated this interaction he was pretty quick to want out as soon as he realized that though emotionally driven, I am not emotionally operating. I am more than willing to hold him accountable for not only his comments but his motives, through reasonable dialogue. He is not.
Some will say heâs just a troll others may believe he holds white supremacist views himself. Perhaps a combination of both. The lesson for us no matter who we are though is that we maintain composure and refrain from giving these people the reaction they want. But also ensure that we hold them to account for their views. Whether it be an internet troll or a politician.Â
As a side note, whats also very indicative of privilege in this interaction. Is how quickly he removed himself from the conversation as it suited. People of colour donât get to do this. Muslim women have their clothing debated in public domains, Aboriginal people have their blood percentage and pigment debated in public domains, African people have the morals of their children and their parenting debated in public domains. If you reserve the right to opt out of a conversation, my suggestion would be donât enter one. Unless youâre willing to learn. Because sometimes, only sometimes, certain conversations arenât about you. Unless you feel like the shoe fits. |Â
My final response: Iâm definitely disgruntled 40 (50) innocent people were just murderedâŚ..
