Global (international) views on race and intersections with local contexts

I started explaining in my thread some of the problems I have when considering race and specifically the designation "person/people of colour" (PoC) which is currently predominantly in--polite--use in North America (and which I myself am using, in that context).

Basically, "PoC" can be understood as "those people against whom white people do still or would discriminate, because of their race/ethnicity, in North America".

But how do we designate and conceptualise race/ethnicity as an absolute, I mean in a way that would make for universal communication? Or is that impossible and should we simply always specify the context? But what if there are multiple contexts--as there often are?

For example, if I refer to an Asian author as PoC, that may make sense in the NA context, but in Asian/country of origin-context? Probably not.

To illustrate the problem a little, here's a Tumblr blog link by an Egyptian--this example caught my attention because it resonates with my experience in the Arab countries (Egypt and Syria), although without any sort of conscious intellectual history concerning these topics (I was a foreigner, and left when I was fourteen). I just offer this for consideration, I'm not sure I understand or agree with everything this person says (the "ancient Egyptians vs. modern Egyptian" theme and responses to cultural appropriation are probably not completely on topic as far as regards this group?):

"BEFORE TALKING ABOUT EGYPT" POST

Lola and I have been discussing some of these issues on my thread. I have to say the Egypt post makes me wonder if the whole notion of diversity is Euro-centric.

However, let me make a case for context:

I have a gay male friend who is ethnically southern European (Italy and Greece) and is dark (tanned) skinned. He grew up in a white neighborhood with white privilege, but when he went away to school, he started to see the color of his skin was "different." He went to an engineering school where he was assumed to be South Asian, because most of the people with his skin-color are from the Indian sub-continent.

When he went to gay bars he was seen as either Asian or Black (African American) both of which are eroticized by some men. He said he wasn't really comfortable until he met some men who were "color blind" (in other words they just didn't identify people by racial categories).

I suspect, though he's never said so, that in black neighborhoods, he's more likely to be harassed by the police.

Now that he has adopted an African-American son, he has claimed the identity of PoC, because he feels that his experiences qualify him more than the average white person to talk about racial issues.

So, who he is depends on where he is and how much people know about him (because as soon as they know he's European and grew up in white circumstances, they accord him white privilege).

James Baldwin (African American gay writer) talked about how when he got to France he realized he was no longer a Negro, because they don't have that color prejudice there. However, in Giovanni's Room he writes very movingly about Arab prejudice in France and white privilege.

So, I'm for context.

I think one other point is that this challenge was originally set up as reading something that does not come from white male heterosexual privilege. It doesn't seem to be talking much about reading things that are diverse from who you are. (Unless you are a white male heterosexual). I'm not sure what I'm doing, at least, is that much different from what white male heterosexuals do: I'm reading about people who are like myself. The rest of you seem to be exploring more outside your comfort zones.

>2 aulsmith:

See, to me it's just bizarre that an ethnic Italian would be considered PoC--I mean an Italian without non-white heritage. No matter what he looks like. But then, by the same token I wouldn't recognise a "white-passing" Afro-American as PoC either. (I mean recognise literally, not in the sense "allow them to call themselves whatever they please, and follow their suit myself".) The man's personal wish to be considered PoC--since he's "passing for black" anyway, and has a PoC child--is more understandable. Although I wonder how other PoC, with PoC heritage, would see his choice?

Regarding Italians, and the Irish and the Poles in the United States, who were all, as I understand, at some time designated as non-white, it is clear that the racism behind this categorisation hinged on their ethnicity (and that itself further on connected to class), not looks.

Basically, the situation in the US, as I see it, is this: the country has since its inception been multi-racial and multi-ethnic and has from the inception used racist classification on its population, placing Western Europeans firmly on top. (Even "Western European" may be too broad--it's probably more correct to say "Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians". The Iberians and the French, for example, don't seem to fare much better than Italians in Anglo race folklore.)

The big irony is that today, in diverse societies, we are still using--in a way being forced to use--some type of classification based on race/ethnicity that is, at bottom, pretty similar to the racist versions. The main difference is that previously, identifying someone as non-white, or counting the drops of "blood" or type of genes that made a person "non-white", meant doom to that subject, active relegation to inferiority, oppression, slavery. It was an open invitation to discriminate against them. Today we use those categories because we want to fight discrimination. You can't point out an injustice committed against a certain group of people without naming the group in some way.

I'm reading about people who are like myself. The rest of you seem to be exploring more outside your comfort zones.

Oh, anything that's not strictly about snagging a husband and making babies is within my "comfort zone".

Regarding the post on Egyptians, I'll just note that I'm not sure the society is as "colourblind" as the writer makes it seem. I mean, if they are comparing it to slavery-age US, sure, but in general? One telling thing is that the celebrities, the big pop stars, especially actresses, tend to be pale. There's a term, "colorism", which as I understand is employed to cover PoC attitudes toward skin colour in PoC societies. I have no idea how is "colorism's" relationship to racism best understood. Is it (entirely?) a product of racism, especially in modern times when so much media and entertainment is dominated by white faces? Or has it always existed?

Well, I'm sure I'll be coming back to all this many times yet.

Reading War in heaven by Charles Williams (originally published in 1930) I came across a sentence that succinctly captures the racist attitudes of the times, exactly in the way I find so disturbingly parallel to our own (benevolent, of course) use of "persons of colour".

The speaker is English (white of course). The bold emphasis is mine.

We don't want Chinks hanging round up there, or any other kind of nigger.

Therefore: whoever is not white is "a kind of nigger".

>4 LolaWalser: Oh, now I get it. Sorry, I seem to have missed your point entirely.

I had been seeing PoC as a self-definition by people who had found themselves categorized as "any other kind of nigger." But I see that what we've been doing in this list has been white people assigning authors to the category.

That will require some rethinking.

I picked up by chance a little children's book by Constance Egan, Epaminondas and the lettuces, first published in 1960 in the UK. The character of Epaminondas was created by another author, Sara Cone Bryant, in 1907. Both Egan and Bryant were, as far as I could ascertain, white women and I presume their books were primarily consumed by white children?

Anyway, the reason I bring this title up is that I was surprised by the late date of publication, given the nature of the stories and illustrations. I find it hard to believe that style and content were still acceptable in 1960. Looking around online, I've come across several people who remember them fondly from their childhoods (they seem to have been fairly popular?), but also expressing shock when they look at them now.

Full scan of Epaminondas and his mammy's umbrella.

The basic formula in Lettuces and Umbrella is the same and I expect that was the case for all of them. Epaminondas is a sweet but not very bright little boy who each time messes up some simple task his mother sets him. In both books she chides him with the same words, that he doesn't have "the sense he was born with", it seems like one of those traditional, obligatory endings. Their language is ungrammatical and slangy, presumably meant to represent the black vernacular.

I can easily imagine a small child being amused and delighted by these books, but... it's impossible not to connect this treatment and humour to grown-up incapacity to see black people as equal to oneself.