This is the second part of the statement by white allies in response to the Race, Privilege, and Identity gathering. Below is more detail about some specific instances of racism that occurred during the weekend and in the emails that followed. Most of these instances have been highlighted already by people of colour, both at the event and in emails.
Defining terms
‘Race’, ‘privilege’ and ‘identity’ should have been defined at the beginning of the gathering. There was no discussion of what these words meant at all, or explanation as to why the gathering had been organised under this heading. It was obvious that many of the white participants did not have any idea of what racism and white privilege actually means. During the first session, flip chart papers were put on the wall and participants were asked to write their own definitions of each word but these were never discussed, and it was clear from the varying suggestions on the paper, that there was no agreed understanding about what the words meant.
In discussions during the weekend, the word ‘racism’ was seldom mentioned, instead people talked about ‘prejudice’, ‘stereotypes’ etc – these are all things that white people can also be a target of, so the effect was to deflect attention away from discussing racism.
At both the event and in the white organisers’ statement, racism was defined as a force/structure, (eg the white organisers’ statement says that “patterns of conscious and unconscious racist behaviour came to dominate the space”), as if it was something ‘out there’ which magically arrived at the gathering, at no fault of the white people present. To discuss racism as something structural, without reference to how it is white people who create and maintain that structure, is a way for white people to evade our personal involvement and investment in maintaining that structure.
Lack of ‘safe space’
Throughout the weekend, white people dominated conversational space, emotional space, and the physical space of the building.
The ‘safe space’ statement (“All racism, homophobia, sexism … will be challenged”) was mentioned only briefly at the beginning of the weekend. It was not agreed between participants and many who arrived later did not even know it existed. Statements like this are borrowed straight from liberal equality and diversity policies, which do little more than erase and deny that inequalities do in fact exist.
A strategy should have been in place to deal with racism if it did occur, for example it being stated that if people present experienced racism then the event would be stopped. A sound safer spaces policy creates an environment where white people do not feel comfortable or supported in expressing their racism.
There was no translation or any thought put into making the space accessible for people with limited English speaking skills.
The film screening of ‘Travel Queeries’ and discussion
The choice to screen the film ‘Travel Queeries’ to launch this event was inappropriate and served to set the scene for the rest of the weekend. This film, a white American queer woman’s documentary about travelling around Europe and interviewing people in ‘queer communities’, marginalises queer/LGBT people of colour and is also problematic in the way it imposes a North American/Western European perspective on what ‘queer’ is and who qualifies as being part of the queer community. We question why this film, which reinforces racism, white privilege and western cultural imperialism, was chosen to start the event instead of a film which actually challenges these things.
The effect of showing this film seems primarily to have been to make white queer people present feel at home. In the discussion which followed, it was clear that many white people had simply taken away a positive message from the film, eg ‘queers can do anything’ and ‘the queer community is inclusive of everyone’, and were not interested in engaging in a critical discussion about the racism and white privilege exhibited in the film. In fact, several white participants directly challenged the idea that queer communities could be racist. This denial of racism was reinforced when the facilitator suggested ending the discussion right after several white people in the audience had challenged a person of colour’s assertion that the queer scene is racist. It was only at the insistence of the person of colour that the discussion was allowed to continue. This way of attempting to control and contain conflict to the advantage of white people was a common theme throughout the weekend.
The “icebreaker”
(from here on referred to as the “ice-creator”, as it became known over the weekend)
One of the exercises during the ice-creator was for people to get into small groups and tell each other about the origins of their name. Such exercises in a racist society often lead to exoticising of people of colour and was clearly not appropriate. This could have been avoided with the most basic of anti-racist awareness.
The exercise during the ice-creator where participants were asked to stand in different parts of the room to show whether they agreed, disagreed or were ‘unsure’ about statements such as ‘people are always more oppressed because of their ethnicity than their sexuality’ encouraged participants to compare oppressions, which is a strategy which has often been used in racist ways in feminist and queer communities (eg by suggesting that queer people are more oppressed than people of colour, as if it is possible to quantify, and erasing the existence of queer people of colour). It denies the experience of people who experience multiple oppressions, who can’t draw neat lines between aspects of their identity. The exercise encouraged the white people present to play hypothetical mind games at the expense and ignorance of the people of colour’s lived experience.
The fact that the workshop facilitators defended this exercise by saying that it was meant to ‘get people thinking’ was not satisfactory, especially as those participants who felt they agreed or disagreed with such a statement were not challenged on their beliefs. The structure of the exercise suggested that there was no such thing as a wrong answer – but in reality there was no such thing as a right answer. The facilitators of the ice-creator session also displayed a racist patronising attitude towards the people of colour who abstained from the exercise, ‘congratulating’ them for using their initiative, rather than listening to the reasons why they were abstaining (if they had listened, they would presumably have stopped the exercise).
Tools of white oppression
Responses to the event/ the fact that people of colour had highlighted it as a racist space/event were extremely racist and represented a number of tools of white oppression:
Silence
Silence and awkwardness are not innocent. At the gathering many participants used hesitancy and apology to deflect challenge away from their racism. Using one’s personal character and attributes, of shyness and hesitancy, as a platform for racism is not acceptable. This is a way of taking advantage of the privilege of inconspicuousness to avoid accountability and responsible thought about racism. It is very easy for white people to do this. The characteristics of politeness, superficial apology and uncertainty are ways of holding onto privilege. They are ways of being racist that have the added bonus of representing the speaker as gentle, vulnerable and beyond reproach. Exploiting these traits to avoid seeing white privilege is racist.
It took nearly three weeks to post a white organisers statement. During this time there was almost complete silence from white people about the event on lists such as LaDiDah, an email list for queer activists, where the event had been widely advertised. Prior to the event lots of people sent emails saying how great it was going to be, and those who could not attend asking for feedback. There was only one post by a white person about the event on LaDidah, and this was very racist (more details below). There was no response/reply by any white person to the email on this list.
The white organisers statement was not posted on LaDiDah. A critique of the statement by a person of colour was later posted on the list. There was no response to this critique by white people – either in terms of the statement or the event itself.
This has happened time and time again: when people of colour have highlighted racism there has been a resounding silence from white people. In not challenging racism white people are complicit in that racism. It is white people’s responsibility and business to tackle racism. It is only the reluctance to challenge privilege that allows white people to ignore racism.
Vagueness
When the white organisers statement was finally produced it was incredibly vague. It did not give any specific examples of racism. This avoids any individual accountability or identification and makes it safe for white people as there is no danger of white people recognising or addressing specific oppressive behaviour which they may have perpetuated.
Defensiveness
The white organisers’ responses to criticism were consistently defensive. For example repeatedly saying we tried but we didn’t have enough people involved, enough resources etc. This excuse – particularly lack of resources, has been used again and again as an excuse for not challenging racism. Trying isn’t good enough. If you can see an event is going to be racist then why go ahead with it? If people of colour are not attending your events, or when they do they experience racism, then surely you need to consider are you organising in the right way, should you be organising events at all? By going ahead and then repeatedly defending the decisions you made you are basically ignoring racism/avoiding doing anything about it and repeating the same patterns again and again.
Dismissal and attempting to control the terms and tone of debate
In the defensive emails following the event, the criticism, feelings and comments by people of colour were repeatedly dismissed and not taken seriously. For example people of colour were accused of acting aggressively/ closing down the conversation. One white organiser used the term “shit slinging” when people of colour expressed their anger at the racism they had been subject to. This is an example of not only dismissing what people of colour are saying and not recognising the fact that people of colour have every right to be angry; It actually puts the blame onto People of Colour i.e. ‘If only they’d talk to us nicely then we could sort this all out!’
It is also an attempt to silence people of colour by suggesting that they are not expressing themselves appropriately and saying that white people are responding in a more calm, considered and polite way and therefore suggesting that white people have a more valid point to make. It goes back to the classic argument of oppression that people of colour are just being over sensitive/ over reacting, imagining things. The most productive thing white people can do in this situation is to shut up and listen and think about what people of colour are saying to you.
During the final plenary of the event, after the extensive critiques provided by women of colour, a white woman spoke, repeating many of the same points that the women of colour had already made, but in a slightly different way. This is another way in which white people attempt to control the discussion – by re-centring themselves within it, and suggesting that the point is not clear until a white person has explained it.
Making it all about white people
It is not about white people’s feelings. For example, in the email on the Ladidah list, the poster recounted how she felt about being ‘the target of black women’s anger’ without actually mentioning her own behaviour. Similarly, one of the white organisers wrote in an email about the ‘positives from the event keeping her going in these difficult weeks post-gathering’.
At the event itself, there were several instances of white people crying and getting overly emotional and apologetic when challenged on their own racism, and expecting people of colour to reassure them. It is racist and manipulative of white people to expect people of colour to absolve them from guilt and to provide emotional support and reassurance to white people who feel bad about being racist. If a white person is having problems dealing with their emotions in such discussions, they should remove themselves from the situation rather than insist that the discussion be re-focused on their feelings, or that people of colour should have to expend their emotional energy on easing a white person’s racist conscience.
The key point is that People of colour have been hurt and are repeatedly being hurt by white people’s behaviour. It’s not about white people feeling uncomfortable or guilty. People of colour should not have to feel responsible for making white people feel good about themselves.
‘I’ve got black friends‘
The argument of “I’m not racist because my friend is black” was used in an email by one of the organisers. She not only named this friend, but put words into her mouth to make it seem like the event was OK. This is totally inappropriate.
Diversion
One of the main tools of racism used at the event was the diversion – in particular avoiding talking about racism or privilege. This has continued in the responses to the event. For example in one of the emails on Ladidah, the poster talks about prejudice but not about racism and attempts to apply prejudice to everyone ignoring the primary issue of white racism.
The white organisers repeatedly talked about lack of resources and the logistics of organising an event, without ever really talking about racism or recognising the privilege of white organisers and attendees.
Undermining
This works in a similar way to dismissal and diversion, but goes further to undermine what people of colour are saying by suggesting the point they are making is factually incorrect. e.g. in one of the Ladidah emails, the poster questioned a comment a woman of colour had made about there not being any Black men at the gathering (when in the poster’s view there had been one, but this depends on the definition of the identity ‘Black’, which it is not up to a white woman to define). The poster chose to address what she considered to be a factual inaccuracy, rather than engaging with the actual critique.
Owning oppression, not privilege
Another way white people avoided talking about racism was to talk instead about homophobia, sexism etc and therefore highlighting white people’s oppression rather than dealing with white privilege. At both the event and in the subsequent emails there were often references to lists of oppressions, as a way of deflecting attention away from the racism which was occurring in that space. The question ‘what is whiteness’ was also raised on a number of occasions by white participants. This distracted attention away from discussing racism.
In the workshop run by the Bristol LGB forum’s ‘under one sky’ project (a project run by people of colour), where the speakers told the audience about their work in schools and some of the conflicts which had arisen between the school and Somali parents regarding homophobia, a white participant suggested that the Somali parents were privileged in that situation. It was clear from the discussion that white audience members were using the guise of anti-homophobia to mobilise their racism. One white audience member also referred to a ‘Bengali-dominated’ area when discussing the complaints that Bengali parents had made about materials discussing same sex desire at the school where she worked. This was a racist choice of wording, suggesting that she was threatened by not being in a white majority, rather than that she just felt so because of her racism. The same audience member claimed that if Bengali parents were unhappy with the education their children were provided they should educate them in another school. This suggestion was designed to imply both that such parents were unreasonable to object in any case, and that they were also privileged enough to find alternative education for their children should they wish this. Both these suggestions are racist. Her comments also negated the existence of Bengali LGB parents and children. Rather than discuss the issues that the facilitators had introduced the (white) audience derailed the discussion so that a few anti-homophobic gestures were being made in order to better facillitate racism. Another white audience member repeated the same point that a woman of colour had made and received a far more considered response. It was obvious that the white audience members felt more comfortable addressing a point put forward by a white woman. The same white woman also talked about the difficulty of ‘bringing people of colour into LGB spaces’. This was highly offensive, negating the experience and organising of LGB people of colour and showing disdain for addressing the racism that is making the social spaces she is openly admitting are racist hostile to people of colour. The discussion, having been manipulated by the interests of white people present, became another way for white people to further assert their identity by talking about themselves as victims of homophobia with the added extra of being able to exercise their racism. No white audience member did anything to stop the workshop from being used in this way.
