Well maybe but certainly not by or to any of the aspects of my experience with my fb friend that they have been being attributed to throughout this thread.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that I agree with those things you say about white privilege.
Well, see LHoD’s post above for some examples of how your posts in this thread have definitely come across as your having hurt feelings about your exchanges with Mark and the other FB posters.
As for “wanting to be seen as a good white guy”, you did post these things:
I mean, yeah, it does seem that a lot of the “reality of your experience” here is about your insistence on being seen as a “good white guy”. You are repeating over and over again that your question was sincere and well-meaning (which AFAICT nobody in this thread is disputing at all), and that negative reactions to your remarks are due to misinterpretation. Evidently, your not being perceived as a “good white guy”, but rather “part of the problem”, in this situation is something that you regard as a significant error worthy of four pages of continued attempts to correct it.
Nobody’s claimed that you wanted “deferential coddling”. What I said in my response to filmore is that “deferential coddling” might not have been the most useful reaction here. I didn’t claim that “deferential coddling” was what you were seeking.
But the things that are being viewed here as actions of mine that show me “wanting to be seen as a good white guy” are not things that were ever even touched upon let alone served as any major part of the “reality of my experience” with Mark. I said things in this thread here that have been interpreted that way but I didn’t say anything like that in the FB discussion. And have I been talking for this entire thread about why I’m “not part of the problem”? Come on. Hyperbolize much? It wasn’t even Mark making those accusations in the FB thread. It was the tangential posters who knew nothing about me and weren’t even reading me for any reason but to attack me. I should excerpt a portion with names blacked out.
And again, the specific things or aspects of the FB exchange that I have repeatedly been accused of having “very negative reactions to” like Mark saying “google is your friend” or having “hurt feelings” because he wouldn’t give me “substantial answers” are the things this thread has been filled with. I never shied away from admitting my feelings at being labelled an epitome of the white supremacist patriarchy; even if I did know it was a ridiculous statement coming from a stranger who was simply trying to agitate. It’s a galling accusation to hear at all. Likewise with my words being twisted. I of course had a negative reaction to that. Who wouldnt? But that was never the substance of the “hurt feelings” or “strong negative reactions” comments.
Am I right in thinking that the “In your opinion” comment that you’ve quoted here repeatedly was your first, but not your last, comment to Mark? Is there any chance at all that your subsequent comments came across as defensive/wounded?
Because I’ve seen things like this happen on Facebook. Primarily with women, reporting on online harassment. Some dude will come into the thread calmly asking why she’s so upset, and instead of accepting her answer (which is given in less-than-deferential terms), he starts getting very defensive and turns the discussion into a “Why are you attacking me, I just asked a question” routine. At which point he gets piled on.
If you were called the epitome of white supremacy after just a single “In your opinion” question, that’s pretty over the top. But if there was more conversation that came across as defensive and victimhooding, I can kinda see where it’s coming from, even if it’s hyperbolic.
Well, you describe “the reality of [your] experience” with Mark as follows:
So, you focused your attention on what you felt he “obviously” wanted from people “like [you]”, namely, having “the privilege-encased veils lifted from their eyes”. And you presented yourself as a candidate for some veil-lifting by asking for his thoughts on effective anti-racism strategies.
And when he made it clear that what you were doing was not in fact what he wanted, you were “stunned” and “unable to grok”.
Yes, that absolutely comes across as your “wanting to be seen as a good white guy”.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, in and of itself. We all want to be seen as good, which is one of the most powerful incentives for actually trying to be good.
Well that sounds real good but that’s simply not a true characterization. When I said I felt he “obviously wanted more people (like me!) who could never actually experience the traumas inflicted by this racism…”, I was commenting on the fact that he shared it with all his fb friends, which number close to 5000 people. A huge portion of those 5000 fb friends were white (like me!) And I got a little too poetic for my own good with the “privilege-encased veils…” comment. But it simply meant, oh you know what it meant. But he didn’t want anything “from” any of the people he shared this post with, he simply wanted to reach the eyeballs of people who had lived with the privilege of needing to read about the the evils and pain caused by this white patriarchy, rather than being forced to live thru it. I cannot think of another reason for sharing it with thousands of fb peeps.
I was only stunned and unable to grok why this person, a person with whom I had had many a vibrant conversation on racial issues, one who was never anything but friendly and gregarious with me, suddenly was curt, tight-lipped and unwilling to engage with me at all on a topic and post he had just shared with his entire Facebook world and with a question that I found to be a logical follow up question that arose from being lead to and in the exact spot that reading the shared post would end up causing a person to find themselves in. I was not in fact stunned and unable to grok why or how I could possibly not be what he wanted for “veil lifting”.
For I never considered anything from our interaction to be words or actions of a man who wanted anything from me or anyone, other than to read what he had posted. The veil lifting was done by the sharing of the post, which was other peoples words, not his. His sharing of those words of others was what I meant by saying he obviously wanted others, like myself, to be able to read the words which might pierce the veils of privilege. He didn’t want me or need me specifically for anything. Nor was I offering myself to him for any sort of cause. He was simply one black man, one I had long known and long respected for his intelligence and wit and who had shown repeated interest in black activism, whose opinions I typically held in high regard.
I agree with this wholeheartedly and I have enthusiastically subscribed to this this idea throughout my life. All I’m saying is here it was inapplicable. For there was nothing for me to be wanting to be seen as “good” in re to. My “goodness” as far as not being a dyed in the wool racist was something well established already between Mark and I. The only accusations of such were coming from people that couldn’t rightfully make such accusations in the first place, the tangential commenters. I had no “not a racist litmus test” to pass with Mark. The main subject of contention between us is him not interested in answering my original question and me not being able to let go of the matter because I honestly and without any sort of malice or stubbornness, just did not understand why that would be, all things considered. My character or lack thereof was of little relevance to any of that.
It is a daunting task. I’m glad that I no longer have any responsibility for it.
If your point is that racism kills, then you are not really talking about the same thing anymore. You are not talking about the hurt that comes from having to bare wounds and educate white people.
The “hurting” here is about the hurt that is caused by educating white people. You said that this results in death. I am skeptical.
So if you were just throwing in some random facts about racism that don’t really apply to the argument being made, how about we take the appeals to emotion and other stuff that isn’t really relevant to the discussion and put it in our pocket for now.
I am repeating a point that I’ve made before but heck so be it -
There is a truth possible in which you (and I) are not “dyed in the wool racist”, are aspiring to be and to be seen as “good”, and still culpable in white patriarchy. Given that such culpability is in huge conflict with our conscious values and our intentions, with our core self-image, it is hard to see the mirror showing it, like hearing our own voice recorded playing back - “I don’t sound like that!” White patriarchy is very different than explicit racist statements and behaviors, it is to no small degree the result of how our implicit beliefs impact our behaviors despite our conscious values and how institutional inertias (which we passively participate in) perpetuate inequalities.
It may be that your very question pinged a sense of you not getting that you, a good guy, may share some culpability and need to be the active agent of change, of figuring out how to change, for yourself.
I’m not really sure how I should interpret this but as I went to go take an excerpt from the actual conversation I had with Mark and the tangentials (band name?) I was surprised to discover that Mark had removed it altogether.
I also agree with this. I used the term “dyed in the wool” racist to make the distinction between it and “unconscious racist”, with unconscious racist being anyone who has lived and benefitted from, thus helping perpetuate, white privilege. However, I’ve always struggled with calling each type by the same term “racist”. “Complicit in white patriarchy” is right on the nose as far as describing our roles but we cannot use the awkward and long phrasing of "well he’s certainly no dyed in the wool racist, he’s simply a “complicit oppressor in the white partriarchy” every time we talk of such individuals.
Again, just to make sure the distinction is clear, Mark never made any such comment like the “epitome…” comment. These were people not participating in the conversation and simply cherry-picking certain comments of mine and attributing things only present in their imagination as thread-shamers. The “in your opinion” comment was the only comment I made in regards to the post Mark had shared. The bulk, if not totality, of the rest of my comments were me trying to figure out what truly made no sense to me at the time, which was his stauch refusal to engage with me. The only “denigrating” comments, ones like the “epitome” one, or comments accusing me of “willful ignorance” or of being “willfully obtuse” came wholly from people who weren’t part of our conversation whatsoever. They simply came to try to make me feel stupid, bad, embarrassed and basically to just shut up. Mark did not engage in this way at all. In fact, at one point he actually defended me against accusations of being a troll.
I in no way, ever, in the slightest sliver of a shiver, engaged in anything that could be seen as “victimhooding”. I was rather adamant about getting my words communicated without being misinterpreted, with my words being the exclusive and strong desire to understand why this issue was off-limits for my question, given the fact that he felt a need to share it with thousands of others. I felt that Mark had somehow misinterpreted my words when he said things like “I’m not your Sherpa” and “I won’t do your homework for you.” That is kind of like putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps I would feel the need to do homework (research) on the issues, perhaps I would need some form of guidance along the way. Perhaps not tho. All of this would be developments happening after I posed my question that had been provoked by a FB friends’ shared post. At that point, I was more curious about his thoughts that I was interested in actively becoming an antiracist. At no point did I feel attacked by Mark.
On Facebook I feel many people just like to post things and dont really want any discussion.
On Facebook your experience is defined by the people you surround yourself with. So what you’re saying is many people in your Facebook world like to post things and don’t want any discussion. How would you have any idea what the FB worlds of other people not like you are like? I would never try and assume I know what people in my doctor’s Facebook world are in the habit of doing while on FB. I certainly wouldn’t ever assume I knew what someone who calls himself Urbanredneck uses Facebook for, or people he considers FB friends. Well, if I wasn’t already familiar with the guy from elsewhere. 
Yeah, I got that.
That’s IMO a pretty terrible behavior on someone’s board. Is this a fair summary:
Mark: [comment/meme/quote about race]
You: In your opinion what should I do?
Mark: Google
You: [rest of thread, why won’t you engage with me? Tell me about this, what’s going on that you won’t answer my question?]
Better behavior, instead of “trying to figure out … his staunch refusal to engage with [you],” would have been to Google. Links about how to dismantle white supremacy are literally a Google search away. When you take his commentary on racism and turn it into querying his refusal to engage with you, that’s uncool…
I’m not convinced about your “could be seen” bit. I know you don’t see it that way, but your approach to folks’ understanding of your words here indicates that you don’t always have a very clear understanding of how folks are receiving your words.
Simple. If people want discussion they will ask for it. Some FB groups specifically do NOT want any political discussions. For example if your on a FB group about people who like to camp, thats all its for. Discussions are allowed, but only for the topic. So for camping their could be a lively discussion over tents vs tarps but not one if someone tries injecting discussing something like social justice issues.
Now the OP in question, I dont know all the ins and outs but it may be his “friend” pretty much just wanted a mutual sounding board of like minded persons.
What the OP might do is look around or even start a FB group where blacks and whites could come together and share things.
Ambi, I don’t think you should have pushed Mark for an explanation after you got the “Google is your friend” response. I think you should have surmised from that response that he wasn’t ready to engage you.
I am guessing he knows you are the kind of guy who doesn’t hesitate to ask “why” and that is exactly why he didn’t want to engage you in the first place…at least in that venue. Like I said, hearing “why” to a question about your opinions on a sensitive topic is almost always hella annoying. Mark was pointing you to Google to keep himself from being hella annoyed by someone he probably respects a whole lot.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Im willing to acknowledge that my continued attempts to understand why after being told no, was in fact an “uncool” thing for me to do. But I didn’t come to this understanding until discussing it here and realizing it in hindsight. I was extremely wrapped up in my inability to understand why my friend was, for the first time ever, being tight-lipped in regards his opinion on something he had posted on FB. We had had a number of racially-tinged discussions on FB before this, plus an even greater number of good faith debates or heated exchange of opinions on a wide range of issues. It was because of this, and the way I was understanding my question in the context it was asked, that I was relatively blind to how my confusion and desire to understand might come across in that moment.
And im not misunderstanding your words when I say you are mischaracterizing what I said to Mark by saying I “asked him what I should do” because that is absolutely NOT what I asked of him. So no, it’s not a fair summary. Asking him to tell me what I should do would have been an inappropriate question to ask of him, irrespective of the context entirely. Even in the context of asking the question in response to reading his shared post, it would have been simply wrong of me. Wrong because that would be placing MY burden of the need for enlightenment and direction on HIS shoulders. And we’ve discussed that very thing in this thread, the clueless white man asking the ones who have been directly affected by this destructive racist patriarchy, to ALSO instruct the “good white guys” on how they should fight and be antiracist.
It’s a good thing I didn’t ask him such a thing. I read a chilling and illuminating post which discussed this patriarchy in terms that struck me and made me think. My brain automatically continued where the post stopped, which was after they had described how this patriarchy fed on the lives of those oppressed and the ways in which it would forever continue this oppression existence as long as it remained and wasn’t destroyed. I didn’t ask him what I needed to do, or presenting myself as one of the good guys ready to battle, or feeling as if he wanted anything from me, he simply wanted me and thousands of others on that forum, to be able to read the words he felt were important enough to share.
I behaved with him, with my original question, in the manner that I have and do with any other post that catches my interest and leaves me with a question or questions that seem to me might be relevant to the OP him/herself. I asked him for his thoughts on the very issues being discussed in the piece he had shared. And part of the reason I remained in the discussion with him expressing my confusion for as long as I did is because I felt as if he were perhaps misunderstanding why I was asking him for his opinion. I was simply intellectually curious to hear his answer because I figured he’d have interesting things to say as he had posted interesting words of others on the subject. He seemed to be of the impression that I was seeking his opinion as some kind of “short cut” or round-about to actually going and researching the issue myself and figuring this shit out without his guidance. But all I wanted was to hear the interesting ideas I was sure he had! I may or may not have chosen to move ahead beyond hearing his opinion, but I hadn’t even begun to ponder those questions. I asked him in the same way I had asked him for his opinion countless times before. I was genuinely trying to understand where the disconnect was. I was NOT feeling attacked or feeling like I was being seen as part of the problem, not from Mark himself. The reason I was confused by his google remark is because googling would never give me the answer to what I had been seeking, which was his opinion as to my question about his shared post.
I can now say these things are true, yes. However, as I just said, the reason “google is your friend” made no sense to me as an answer is because googling would simply NOT ever inform me of what I had been seeking, which was his opinion related to the matters talked about in the post he had decided to share with a shit ton of people. I can see that he could have forseen (errantly but understandably) me treating any opinion he gave me being treated as debate fodder by me which was thoroughly unappealing to me. I can see that as a distinct possibility. And all I can say is that genuinely would NOT have been the case, not here. I would have felt it not my place to say much of anything in response to his words, I was asking him to listen to him.