As I commented, I think this is a mis-read of the poem, to isolate these lines. I think they are meant to be interpreted partially based on the line following them. Here's that whole section:
No matter how sensitive you are if you are white you are No matter how sensitive you are if you are a man you are We who are not allowed to speak have the right to define our terms our turf
I believe the author is expressing how hard it is to have space and time to speak even in a group of people like herself. Your comment sounds pretty blithely dismissive to me. Did you follow the link to the racism_101 discussion as well? There were a number of voices raised who had seen or experienced an effect like this. I'm an integrationist, myself, but I think you're oversimplifying. It is easy for us to include people because we are automatically included most of the time. Just as it is easy to chafe when we do not feel included some of the time, because we are used to being included most of the time. But these people aren't saying "Don't come in here," they're saying "If you want to come in here, respect those around you and listen, and find out what this space and time is for, why people need it, why they are here." This request definitely means "let this be about someone other than you" and it's easy to read that as exclusion, especially when, as in the poem, it's expressed as "we will ask you to leave and fight for our space and time if you won't give us our square inch."
But give them their square inch, she says, and they will give you a hanky.
No, I disagree. I think the author is leaving out specific words:
No matter how sensitive you are if you are white you are [racist] No matter how sensitive you are if you are a man you are [sexist]
It's labeling and name-calling.
The author is defensive because a white woman invaded what she perceived as her space. That space was supposed to be a White-Woman-Free Zone. Clearly the *author* is acutely aware of race - which is the definition of "racist". She has chosen her club, based on the fact that it's non-inclusive of white women.
Does she really need to be this defensive about it? I guess so. Maybe she was feeling that she was race-neutral, and having a white woman show up - and having to post guards to keep her out - made her recognize the inherent hypocrisy there.
She wants one hour a week when its acceptable to be a Black Female Supremacist. She wants to exclude certain classes of people. Is that a good thing?
A supremacist believes a race is (on the whole) inherently better than another race. Do you really think that saying "people who are like me are more likely to listen to me without trying to dominate and control the conversation" and "people who are like me are better than people who are not like me" is the same thing?
In a word: Yes. She apparently feels personally inferior to white women, and empowered when they aren't around. She therefore wants to have a secure zone, without those other threatening beings in their presence.
This is the same sentiment that has given rise to the Sons of the Confederacy, the John Birch Society, and any number of religions who promote themselves as Chosen People. All of these -isms, are, in my opinion, based on the idea that if there were a level playing field, the people in the subjugating group couldn't really compete with folks in the subjugated group. Therefore, the ones who feel threatened band together and exclude those they feel threatened by. It's kind of paradoxical, but they get their power through denying power to others, and finding safety in numbers.
That humans are fundamentally a tribal race, and clump into little groups of similar-traited individuals spontaneously even as toddlers, only encourages this. (They spend a lot of time in pre-schools forcing the kids to play with *all* of the kids, and not allowing these groups to form, because they become cliques and then mean to other children very fast.)
The real cure is to teach that life is a game of SET, where color is only one trait among many, and one needs to consider age, gender, educational background, personal interests, etc., before picking one's "tribe." I like to point to FoxTrot, where Jason and Marcus are both the same age, like the same subjects in school, and share a love of sci-fi and blowing things up. They have a *lot* in common, and only their skin color is different. That attitude needs to get around more in the real world.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I believe the author is expressing how hard it is to have space and time to speak even in a group of people like herself. Your comment sounds pretty blithely dismissive to me. Did you follow the link to the racism_101 discussion as well? There were a number of voices raised who had seen or experienced an effect like this. I'm an integrationist, myself, but I think you're oversimplifying. It is easy for us to include people because we are automatically included most of the time. Just as it is easy to chafe when we do not feel included some of the time, because we are used to being included most of the time. But these people aren't saying "Don't come in here," they're saying "If you want to come in here, respect those around you and listen, and find out what this space and time is for, why people need it, why they are here." This request definitely means "let this be about someone other than you" and it's easy to read that as exclusion, especially when, as in the poem, it's expressed as "we will ask you to leave and fight for our space and time if you won't give us our square inch."
But give them their square inch, she says, and they will give you a hanky.
no subject
No matter how sensitive you are
if you are white
you are [racist]
No matter how sensitive you are
if you are a man
you are [sexist]
It's labeling and name-calling.
The author is defensive because a white woman invaded what she perceived as her space. That space was supposed to be a White-Woman-Free Zone. Clearly the *author* is acutely aware of race - which is the definition of "racist". She has chosen her club, based on the fact that it's non-inclusive of white women.
Does she really need to be this defensive about it? I guess so. Maybe she was feeling that she was race-neutral, and having a white woman show up - and having to post guards to keep her out - made her recognize the inherent hypocrisy there.
She wants one hour a week when its acceptable to be a Black Female Supremacist. She wants to exclude certain classes of people. Is that a good thing?
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-03-28 03:28 pm (UTC)(link)This is the same sentiment that has given rise to the Sons of the Confederacy, the John Birch Society, and any number of religions who promote themselves as Chosen People. All of these -isms, are, in my opinion, based on the idea that if there were a level playing field, the people in the subjugating group couldn't really compete with folks in the subjugated group. Therefore, the ones who feel threatened band together and exclude those they feel threatened by. It's kind of paradoxical, but they get their power through denying power to others, and finding safety in numbers.
That humans are fundamentally a tribal race, and clump into little groups of similar-traited individuals spontaneously even as toddlers, only encourages this. (They spend a lot of time in pre-schools forcing the kids to play with *all* of the kids, and not allowing these groups to form, because they become cliques and then mean to other children very fast.)
The real cure is to teach that life is a game of SET, where color is only one trait among many, and one needs to consider age, gender, educational background, personal interests, etc., before picking one's "tribe." I like to point to FoxTrot, where Jason and Marcus are both the same age, like the same subjects in school, and share a love of sci-fi and blowing things up. They have a *lot* in common, and only their skin color is different. That attitude needs to get around more in the real world.
no subject