Things that make you go HMMM...

[holzman_tweed]

Since I'm planning on attending Arisia this year, I took a look at the program precis.

Several years ago, jadegirl and I attended Chicon 2000. While we were there, she overheard some people discussing "marginalized groups in fandom." She had thought this might be a discussion of people coming from demographics that tend not to be very well represented in fandom, such as Blacks or the poor. To her shock and consternation, it turned out that they were talking about Klingons and Furries -- fanish groups who are marginalized within fandom.

Time passes.

This year, Barbara Hambly is the guest of honor. Ms. Hambly has made a career of writing stories about people who are very powerful in one regard but severely constrained because of their membership in a marginalized group in society. For example, powerful wizards who must agree not to use their power on non-magi even in self defense because the magi realize the non-magi will overwhelm them and kill them if they aren't convinced they're safe. Or wizards who are constrained in what they may do in society because they happen to be women.

Most recently, she's been writing historical fiction mysteries about one Benjamin January, A Free Man of Color. Musician, Paris-trained surgeon, and veteran soldier, he is constrained by the realities of his race in New Orleans in the early 1800s. She's had a thing or two to say about the structure and function of American racism in the 8 or so books in this series to date.

So it is a defaning silence, or perhaps a blinding darkness, to find that in a program precis that contans multiple panels about sexual orientation, gender, transgender, disability, and nationality that there is not one single panel about race.

Klingons and Romulans don't count.

Hopefully, there will be a last minute rectification to this inexplicable gap that is only possible by completely ignoring the last 8 years of the GoH's career.

Or else, let us pose the question: Why are fans so unwilling to talk about race?

Comments

Re: Race

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

So I guess it come down to how to fix the problem. I get the impression that you feel we need to take a route that includes race discussion. While I feel that a better route is to up life people in general no matter what race.

Now I can see your point. But the difficulty with it is as long as you keep using the word race people will be forced to identify themselves by race. But if you address it by who needs jobs or who is suffering from poor housing and such then the focus becomes the jobs the houseing and not the race of the people in question.

Now as for fandom we have a PR problem. That is result of shows that make fun of trekies and such. What is seen is not the kind of thing that would make a good public outreach program. To increase the blend of people you need only make them aware and the few, (fandom has always been of the few) that can relate will come in. Not because you said "all races welcome" but because you said "science fiction" and after all isn't it about getting more people who are interested in science fiction?

Have you noticed that most of the successful minorities seldom put their main focus on their race? There is a real good reason for this. Race has been used to control many people from those who want to control a population or create fear. Why do you think Sharptin said "We black were promised..." The reason is to have "blacks" follow his orders. Since when has followers gain much of anything? I think if we are ever going to reach a truely open racial country we need to slowly de-tox ourselves from focusing on race and instead focus on the real problems like jobs, education, and housing. If everyone had a job, a good education, and a home and food then I think you would find that the issue of race would fade away.

But although we see the same problems I think our solutions are different.

Re: Race

[holzman.livejournal.com]

I get the impression that you feel we need to take a route that includes race discussion. While I feel that a better route is to up life people in general no matter what race.

I question your posing these two things as mutually exclusive.

But the difficulty with it is as long as you keep using the word race people will be forced to identify themselves by race. But if you address it by who needs jobs or who is suffering from poor housing and such then the focus becomes the jobs the houseing and not the race of the people in question.

I think you're lumping things together that should be considered as connected rather than the same thing.

It's not my use of the word race that forces people to identify themselves by race, it's the legal and social system that assigns all people a race and then distributes privilege unequally as a result of that arbitrary assignment. My birth certificate says that I'm White because there's a law that defines me as White. If I had one Black great-great-great grandparent, that same law would define me as "not White" and my birth certificate would not say that I'm White. In living memory, that would have had a very real impact on my legal rights. We've eliminated the de jure impact, but there are still de facto consequences firmly in place.

If I don't use the word race, none of that changes. If I dismantle that system, that changes, but I can't dismantle that system without talking about it.

There's also a discussion to be had about who needs jobs and who is suffering from poor housing and such, and there is and that discussion is different from a discussion about race, though that discussion will be incomplete if it is not noted that the race plays a role in how the current state of affairs has come about.

But there are middle-class and wealthy Black people, and they have noticed that solving their economic woes has not meant that they stopped being affected by racism, so we know that talking about -- and even solving -- poverty doesn't mean solving racism.

Have you noticed that most of the successful minorities seldom put their main focus on their race?

I'm uncertain which minorities you have in mind here. You're certainly not talking about Jews or Asians.

If everyone had a job, a good education, and a home and food then I think you would find that the issue of race would fade away.

That's the crux of it -- I think if everyone had a job, a good education, a home, and food we'd still find that racism exists and is a problem. I also think that you're not going to arrange it such that everyone had a job, a good education, a home, and food without dealing with racism because racism is one of the reasons that everone doesn't have a job, a good education, a home, and food.

Re: Race

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

" think you're lumping things together that should be considered as connected rather than the same thing."

The trouble here is that you are thinking that racism is preventable. That simple is a wrong and more to the point should it be prevented. What is racism? The dislike for another group due to their race. Well is dislikeing a person or people a crime in of itself? Well according to you it should be. But by law and the constitution it shouldn't be. But by law acting on this dislike is against the law. Thats fine. But a person or people who dislike other have a right to dislike others as long as they do not use this dislike to prevent the advancement of that "race". It is the nature of freedom to allow people to dislike another person even if the reasons are not worthwhile.

So what is the balance between a system that allows everyone the right to grow and prosper and still allow people to dislike each other? Well kinda what we have already in place, outside of the hate crime laws. You have laws that make harming others physically or ecomonically are punished simply because you stopped or harmed a person (not a race). But the things like the hate crime laws makes thinking a crime... thinking certain thoughts is worth a greater punishment then the crime itself and this has lead to government agents shooting a unarmed woman in the head and iron handed responces to groups that simply want to not interact with another race.

If a minority has a good job and a clear possablity for growth and all other needs covered then the presance of a person who is racist is little more then a annoyance. SHould the person who is racist seek to harm them the law should be used to punish them as it would if the same harm was directed without racist thoughts. But people have the right to be racist and no amount of laws will change that.

Re: Race

[holzman.livejournal.com]

What is racism? The dislike for another group due to their race.

I think we have suddenly reached the point in the discussion docstrange was talking about, where the limiting factor is what people mean by race and racism. Let's pause and confirm we're talking about the same thing.

I think if you go back and re-read my posting, you will see that "racism" as I have been using the term here does not simply refer to "dislike for another group due to their race," but "legal and social institutions that distribute privilege unequally on the basis of membership in a legal category called race."

Well is dislikeing a person or people a crime in of itself? Well according to you it should be.

Stop right there. You are putting words in my mouth, and I would appreciate your not doing that. While I'm not going to respond to what cames after because it's got nothing to do with what we've been talking about, I do have one point to make:

But the things like the hate crime laws makes thinking a crime...

That's like saying that treating murder 1, murder 2, and manslaughter as separate crimes makes thinking a crime.

Re: Race

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Look the hate crime laws have done nothing but pursecute people for having a view point that is not PC. It has never stopped a hate group. It has been used unevenly ignore black racist attacks while attacking white racist attacks. And lastly the hate crime laws are out right unneeded. If you simply enforce the laws currently in place then the problem is solved.

For example. Lets say some one plans to murder another person and succeeds in this plan. Now the preplaning is Murder 1. But if during it he yells something racist then it becomes a "hate crime" as if planning to murder someone in the first place isn't hate. Isn't Murder 1 enough? Why should someone be punished for having a view point? As wrong as it may be.

The line I see between planing to murder someone and a "hate crime" is that in the planing you are planing to commit a crime in example murder. But in a hate crime you are punished for a thought pattern and not for the the crime itself. It makes a world view a crime. And if they can make that world view a crime then were does it stop?

Lets take the favorate arguement about like the cross burning thing. Well we already have laws that can be brought to bear without targeting a world view. 1) Treaspassing 2) Destruction of private property 3) Death threats and so on I am sure if I were a officer I could come up with more.

Racism will never go away. To think you can simply outlaw a thought pattern is just plan wrong and against freedom of thought. We don't live in a communist country.. so the state thought (PChood) isnt and shouldn't be the law.

Sorry about putting words in to you mouth but it so sounds like would like put legal limits on thoughts. It is a dangerous practice to start telling people what they can or can not think, and can lead to so very real problems in the world.

I understand what you are refering to as racism. But you know what I would be happy if the government never asked about race in the first place. I would be happier is laws dealing with rent and jobs said things like "you can not deny a job or a house for a reason not related to the nature of the work or living place" or something like that. So if someone used race as a reason to deny a job they would have to explain in court why it is relavant to the work done (which I think would be down right amusing to hear the excuses). Again I think the use of Race creates a self fulling problem.

Re: Race

[holzman.livejournal.com]

There are a number of reasons I'm not getting into a discussion of hate crime legislation with you right now.

First and foremost, you don't know what you're talking about. If you go to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#hate, you will find the Uniform Crime Reports Hate Crime Statistics. from 1995 on. You will see that every year, Blacks have been arrested and prosecuted for hate crimes, as have people of several other racial groupings.

Second, because this is a side-tracking. In this thread, I've been talking about -- and want to talk about -- how Fen interact with the institution of race, if it's how we want to interact with it, and how we might interact with it differently. I've obviously made you uncomfortable, judging from the consistent defensiveness in your posts, but I think it's a topic worth discussing.

Racism will never go away.

I refute you thus:

There was a time where "That's mighty White of you" and "You are a credit to your race" were taken to be compliments perfectly acceptable in polite society. There was a time when the social expectation was that Blacks would step into the street to let Whites pass. There was a time when the KKK was considered a respectible organization to be a member of.

None of those things hold anymore. Racism went away, even if it didn't go all the way away.

Sorry about putting words in to you mouth but it so sounds like would like put legal limits on thoughts.

Since I didn't say a single word about putting legal limits on anything until you brought the topic up, I don't know how you could have gotten that impression.

Re: Race

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I can also sight a good number of case relating to the unbalance use of hate crime laws. But since as you said it is a side track I will not go in to it.

Now as of racism going away. I think you are blind to the real life facts. What you sight as racism going away I would say is racism going underground. It is there still and may be just as strong as it ever was. All it would take is a major break down in law for it to come to the for again. What has been done is the forceing of people to hide their thoughts. Nothing more and nothing less. Again this issue of freedom... in this case freedom to hate which is a right even you and I engage in. Like freedom to hate racist.

Now as for fandom I think the solution to your problem with the mix is something that lay in you very hands. Their is no rule that I am aware of that say you can not make fliers and pass them out in what ever coumities you would like to target. Be the minority comunities or other wise. If there are people who are interested in fandom their and they see the fliers they will come. But I still think addressing the issue should be about finding people who are interested in fandom and NOT about targeting races to improve the mix of fandom. For that I still say and will continue to say let the mix fall where it will.

Re: Race

[holzman.livejournal.com]

What you sight as racism going away I would say is racism going underground. It is there still and may be just as strong as it ever was. All it would take is a major break down in law for it to come to the for again. What has been done is the forceing of people to hide their thoughts. Nothing more and nothing less. Again this issue of freedom... in this case freedom to hate which is a right even you and I engage in. Like freedom to hate racist.

You contradict yourself here by claiming both that racism has gone underground and by saying that it is as strong as it ever was. If it was as strong as ever, it would not have had to go underground.

You're saying that everyone who would have once marched down Main Street USA in KKK robes but don't anymore are still feel just as strongly, but somehow have to hide it. That makes no sense.

You're saying that the vast majority of the country secretly wants to discriminate on racial grounds, but somehow haven't thought of writing to their congresscritters to get civil rights laws repealed. That makes no sense.

There may well be people out there who are secretly harboring racist thoughts. At the same time, you don't have to work very hard to find people who write web sites in support of racism, all quite legally.

It's a very pessimitic view, though, not to think that there may be people out there whose thinking about race has actually changed since the bad old days. I also think it's an inaccurate one.

Re: Race

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Look what happens to those racist that come out from the underground. They are publicly rejects (which I am fine with) they are decrimnated against (which I oppose) they are intrapped by the government (which is a crime) and they are even killed by the government (which is also a crime). So there is very good reason to stay underground, since the system is ready to smash any that pop their heads up. To prove this point I would dare you to write a racist note and put it up and a open board and see just how fast the system come in to crush you.

What we have created is very simlar to Sudia Arabia and their statements that their are no non-muslims in their country. Why do they say the because none speak out. Why do they not speak out because they are arrested and crushed by the state.

Now some racist do still speak out in the USA but I can tell you this try to get their names and addresses. You will find that they hide and those that dont I would bet you a months wages that the state monitors them ready and willing to stomp them down at the first hint of real growth.

But it is hard to prove such thing since you can not prove or disprove something you can not measure and you can not measure what is hidden. So you are welcome to think that since you no long hear form them they don't exist. But I think you are wrong.

As a final not I would say that we are instatutionalizing race in such a way that we will never be able to recognize the real facts of life that their are no races. As long as the laws require us the seperated ourselfs or classify ourselves as "races" we will continue to think of ourselves as races.

Re: Race

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Look what happens to those racist that come out from the underground. They are publicly rejects (which I am fine with) they are decrimnated against (which I oppose) they are intrapped by the government (which is a crime) and they are even killed by the government (which is also a crime). So there is very good reason to stay underground, since the system is ready to smash any that pop their heads up.

Even if we take your entire statement at face value, that seems to prove my point: racism isn't as present as it was a few decades ago. Explicitly racist organizations have had declining memberships, and those who do become members recognize that it is not a socially acceptable thing to do.

I'm not sure how underground they are, though -- looking over some of their web pages I come up with a bunch of names and phone numbers without much effort at all.

I'm also not sure what discrimination you're talking about, or entrapment, or outright killing by the government. That such organizations have a long history of engaging in violent crimes, I'm not a bit surprised that they are watched closely by the government for the same reason John Gotti got such scrutiny from them. The government watching people and groups with long histories of violent criminal activity is my tax dollars at work.

So you are welcome to think that since you no long hear form them they don't exist. But I think you are wrong.

You're still thinking purely in binary terms of "do exist/don't exist." I never suggested they don't exist. I said that they're not what they once were, that the thoughts they espouse are not what they once were, and that those are trends that can continue.

As a final not I would say that we are instatutionalizing race in such a way that we will never be able to recognize the real facts of life that their are no races.

The first problem I have with this statement is that you say it as if institutionalizing race is something we're doing now, rather than something that's been done since before the Declaration of Independance was inked. It's there. It doesn't have to be there, but to bring that state of affairs about something that was build has to be dismantled.