Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0V1wV907752; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:58:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:58:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <004301c08b28$f046d320$23bffea9@hppav>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Mary Ann Corley" <macorley1@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:383] The social construct of race
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
Status: O
Content-Length: 12719
Lines: 253
Hello, All:
There has been an interesting discussion on the construct of "race" taking
place on the nifl-womenlit list. The discussion is an outgrowth of the
Women and Literacy conference held last week at Georgia State University.
Both Daphne Greenberg (moderator of the nifl-womenlit list) and I promised
that we would cross-post messages relating to the themes of race, gender,
and class bias on both listservs. What follows, then, are multiple postings
from the nifl-womenlit list from the past few days. Daphne and I will
continue to cross-post messages whose content is appropriate to both lists.
If you are not on the women and literacy listserv and would like to be,
simply send a message to listproc@literacy.nifl.gov
Leave the subject line blank.
In the text of the message, write subscribe nifl-womenlit yourfirstname
yourlastname
That's it.
Here are some of the postings following the conference. If those of you on
this list would like to contribute to this discussion, please do so! Daphne
will cross-post your messages to the womenlit list as well, and we should
see some lively exchanges. Thanks.
-Mary Ann Corley
Director, National Center for
Literacy and Social Justice
macorley1@earthlink.net
**********************
Laura Hauser wrote:
One thing that struck me listening to the very good, opening panel
presentation was the inadequacy of the word 'white' to describe a race. I
think it is as inadequate as 'black' for denoting skin or culture. I'd
appreciate a discussion about other words we might consider using to
designate the amazingly diverse appearance, attitudes, and experience of
those now described as white.
-------------------------------------------
Daphne Greenberg wrote:
A few years ago, 3 women and I worked on a proposal to study the additional
difficulties women who have low literacy skills have when they are abused
and are trying to navigate the bureaucratic system to get help (whether it
is a shelter, restraining order, etc). Because we felt that women from
different cultures have different experiences (and of course a lot of
similar experiences), we decided to look at 3 groups-Latina women, African
American women, and White women. We struggled with the labels we used,
because Latina and African American described origins and not just skin
color, while White only described color. We were not able to come up with a
label that we could all feel comfortable with.
By the way, Laura brought up this issue during the question and answer
period after the panel, and it met with dead silence. It might be because
her question was the first one, it also might be that people found it too
loaded?
------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Wilder wrote:
One thing I'd appreciate, though I wasn't there, is getting rid of the word
"race." Did anyone bring this up?
------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Greenberg wrote:
No, this wasn't brought up! Thanks for bringing up this important issue. I
am wondering, if you would like to share your thoughts on this. Why would
you like to get rid of the word "race" and what term, if any, would you like
to see used instead?
-----------------------------------------------------
Dani Moore wrote:
I, too, appreciated the conference's opening panel and learned a lot during
discussions, workshops and other panels at the conference. Thanks to Daphne
and others whose hard work and commitment made the conference possible. I'm
interested in discussing more about the conference than the whiteness
question, so I encourage others to suggest more topics.
However, I wanted to offer my two cents on whiteness. I'm most persuaded by
arguments that frame the question differently-- not more names for white or
better defining who white people are. I know about some of my ancestors from
Ireland, England and Scotland, and I know it's possible
there are more racial and cultural influences in my family background. I
seek to undermine white supremacy, but it's difficult, and I also have
trouble with naming people who look somewhat like me and benefit from white
privilege in the U.S. Authors like Noel Ignatiev ("How the Irish
Became White") and David Roediger (ed., "Black on White: Black Writers on
What it Means to Be White") have informed my views and I think their
contributions to the dialogue on race compelling, provocative and useful.
As James Baldwin wrote in 1985, "As long as you think you are white, there's
no hope for you." Ignatiev argues that the white race is neither a
biological nor a cultural formation; it is a strategy for securing to some
an advantage in a competitive society. Roediger maintains that whiteness is
not merely oppressive and false, it is nothing but oppressive and false.
And I don't think we'll be getting rid of the word "race" anytime soon.
What would be our reasons for doing so?
Some of these ideas are outlined at
http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/features/thepoint.html
What do others think?
---------------------------------------------
Deborah Schwartz wrote:
I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your information regarding the
construction of "race." I had a similar reaction to the question posed by
Andrea re: when are we going to get rid of the word? (race that is).
We may get rid of the word- we certainly have played, and some would say
evolved, in terms of what we call ourselves and others in relationship to
our ethnic identity- but what we haven't gotten rid of is the power and
privilege that is associated with being on one side or the other of the race
line. We may work to dissolve or deconstruct the social construct of race,
but it won't happen till we work to dissolve the power differentials
attributed to people who belong- by societal definitions- to a particular
race.
In other words, we may rid our vocabulary of the word race, yet we are still
left with the word, and the very real experience (personally and
historically) of racism.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Bombach wrote:
Ref: Use of the terms white, black
Although I realize that these terms have no scientific merit, they are
social constructs that convey meaning whether we like it or not. I also
realize that they do not convey all the intractacies of one's real
background (Ibo, Irish, Iberian, etc.) and yet they describe a very relevant
social construct of "same-group vs. other-group". People we encounter make
assumptions depending
on our physical appearance in many ways, although most of those ways do not
carry as powerful a set of assumptions as 'white' or 'black'. For example,
pretty vs. homely, tall vs. short, or fat vs. thin have many associations as
has been demonstrated by research (pretty people are judged smarter and more
capable, fat people are jolly, tall people are smarter, etc.). Of course,
male vs. female, at the level of social construct, carries tremendous
meaning (men are smarter, make more money, etc. in the famous resume
comparison research). In fact, male vs. female is the first categorization
of the developing child. Racial differentiation comes several years later.
The question is not one of whether white and black are accurate terms. The
question is also not whether white and black are terms we do or do not want
to use (and if we don't use them maybe they will lose their meaning and go
away). The question (or problem) is changing the social constructs that
underlie the terms. I am glad that this was brought up at the Women in
Literacy conference, even if it may have made some people uncomfortable. In
fact, that discomfort is important because it recognizes the meanings behind
the words.
On a personal note, I have been asked several times in my life about why I
do not identify myself as Native American and why I do not pursue tribal
membership (asked by a by a tribal member). The answer is that I am
identified as white and I have not experienced being an Indian. I am,
however, a card-carrying member of the Southern white underclass ('white
trash'). That is the experience I have lived and understand and feel, never
mind my actual genetic ancestry. (Of course, I do experience some internal
conflict when I realize that I am an illustration of the success of the
holocaust of the indigenous peoples of the Americas--loss of identity,
language, culture.)
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrea Wilder wrote:
I think we need to move our thinking forward.
Race" is based on observed physical differences of groups of people to which
we then ascribe social, cultural differences. Inborn differences are then
mixed up with observed differences. In our country the salient division is
between black and white. A book came out last year, something like "How the
Irish Became White." The word "ghetto" makes a Black/Jewish connection.
Probably someone could write a book "How the Jews became White, "also. So
some people in the categories can change "color."
The problem is that there is considerable history attached to these "racial"
designations, that is, people act on the bases of observed differences in
others, so they are sociologically valid even if not genetically valid.
Does it matter to me that French Canadians in northern New England were once
seen as stupid? Maybe lazy? No, this is not a meaningful difference, though
I believe it once was in the area.
If you use the terms Black/White in this country you dredge up the
historical associations to these designations. There is no clarity in this
discussion. I doubt that ANYONE can make a sensible map to navigate these
differences.
I'd be interested in hearing what people do. If you go to ethnicity you try
to find another set of categories that have meaning, to which people attach
identity, but are not so historically loaded.
--------------------------------------------------
Sylvan Rainwater wrote:
Well, I don't know about the word, but the concept could use some work.
"Race" is totally a construct that makes no logical sense, when you get down
to cases. That is, it makes no biological sense. We use it loosely as a
synonym for "ethnicity," which makes slightly more sense, but still is
problematic. We overlay lots of cultural, economic, social, place of origin,
religious, and other considerations on it.
I remember a story told by a woman years ago who came from Jamaica to the
U.S. Her skin is just about as black as can be. She checked "black" on the
form where it asked about race, and the official objected. No, he said,
you're not black, you're Jamaican. She looked at her arm, and back at him,
and got really puzzled.
I've always remembered that story. The official was evidently thinking of
African American, not black, so it clearly had nothing to do with any
biological reality. This woman said that in central and south America they
just don't pay attention to race in the same ways that we do in the USA.
It's understood that we're all mixtures and the different mixtures don't
necessarily confer some special privilege.
That's the crux of the race problem, after all. It's that some "races" are
marked for special privilege and others are marked for deprivation. It's the
same problem with language. The difference between a "dialect" and a
"language" is that speakers of a language have a navy.
It's all about economic and social and political privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Soroke wrote:
I find this discussion on race and difference really interesting. I'm from
Canada and I attended the Conference in Atlanta and had a couple incidents
related to this issue:
During one workshop, it came up that some of the Canadians did not know what
was meant by "Jim Crow", and someone said "oh bless you Canada". In
reflecting upon this perceived "innocence" of Canadians, I see how our myth
of a "raceless Canada" is perpetuated by others and by ourselves. So easy
to hide in a lack of knowledge or lack of acknowledgement of the systemic
and institutional racism that is a part of Canada's past and present.
Then about perceptions of difference - I surprised myself that I was
conscious and initially concerned about "mistaking" a literacy learner for a
teacher or university student - really got me thinking about why it was/is
important to identify someone , and then all the assumptions and judgements
that get heaped onto that.
I really value this listserve outlet for reflection and communication about
the questions and issues that came up at the conference - it takes time to
digest all the ideas and connections made in a gathering like that - and
it's great to openly acknowledge that it's ongoing process,
Thanks, Daphne.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:02 EST