Far too often, I think about something my Aunt Laura said when I was younger. I seldom agree with any of her ideology but, hey, principles over personality. She was talking to someone, and I can't remember who, about why she had just handed over a couple of dollars to a homeless man. The usual dissent was, "Well, what if he goes to spend it on alcohol?" Aunt Laura said, "When I chose to donate, that is between me and God. What he does with it is between him and God."
That was so profound to me.
It seems so many people want to put stipulations and conditions on their giving. And they absolutely love to hold their good deeds over the heads of their recipients.
It reminds me of something I learned in my Intro to Social Work course, regarding this theory of the "deserving poor".
I am sure you remember the story of Fred Barley and how his GoFundMe was suspended when the creator had "concerns" about what Fred might do with the money. Aside from the racist ideology behind that kind of thinking, it was a huge slap in the face.
Once you make a donation, that money is no longer yours. The value of that dollar escapes your hand and you have no control over it. If you want to be in control of your money, keep it in your pocket.
My therapist had asked me if I had anything I was excited about possibly getting for Christmas. I said no, I don't really like to receive gifts. She said she was concerned about my feelings of receiving. Do not get me wrong: I absolutely appreciate any and every gift I've ever received. But I think, looking introspectively, my unsettling feeling about receiving has a lot to do with society's mode of conditional giving.
Have you ever had it happen to you? When someone gives you a gift, does you a favor or gives you cash and then suddenly it is ammunition in an argument. Or suddenly that request comes up, "Hey, remember when I took you to the store, well, now I need..."
Truthfully, I believe a solid relationship or friendship will be based on unspoken give-and-takes. But generally, I don't see it as very healthy to have a tally of all your giving with yourself armed and ready to use it as leverage when you want to receive. Giving should come from the heart and out of a desire to show love and appreciation. I am not saying giving has to be completely altruistic, truthfully, I don't believe anything is 100% altruistic.
I've had people I barely know offer me gifts, whether it be a material item or cash, and I always decline them. In part, because I have had them used against me. I don't want to feel indebted to someone because they gave to me.
Let's say I donate money to a friend. Once it leaves my hand, I no longer care or have control over what happens to the money. I'm not going to track them down for receipts to make sure they used it how I thought it should be used. I'm going to trust that they are the best person to make the financial decisions to suit their livelihood.
If I am truly troubled with what they are doing with the money--here's the kicker--I don't have to donate to them again. I don't have to! If I find they're doing something horribly destructive with it, I can make the conscious choice to never give to them again. If they have a problem with that, then the friendship wasn't very solid, now, was it?
Now, I do differentiate. Donations to people are unconditional in my eyes but donations to organizations are not. If I donate to an organization that is supposed to combat pollution and I find out they are not doing that, I will do whatever I can to hold them accountable.
Also, a loan is conditional. If I loan you $100 because you have a situation and I find out you're using it for something else, I am not going to be happy. And of course, because it is a loan, another condition is it should be paid back promptly (and I shouldn't have to ask you for it).
So let it be known: don't help me in any way if it has conditions and stipulations. Or, if it does have conditions and stipulations, say so upfront.
I don't necessarily have a problem with conditional giving unless it's disguised as unconditional giving.
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Monday, December 26, 2016
Death Is Not the Answer
Crime and punishment is a hot button topic in the United States. Progressives and conservatives alike cannot agree with themselves or their opponents on the proper ways to handle crime. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a fierce proponent of some serious criminal justice reform. In part, many of it has to do with what the documentary 13th is talking about. The fact is, our criminal justice system is designed to set people up for failure and there is seldom opportunity to redeem oneself once you have become part of the system.
But what I want to talk about specifically is my opposition to the death penalty. In the political spectrum, it is typically conservatives who support it (ironically...) and liberals who oppose it. However, of course, as with all aspects of the spectrum, there is occasional variations on these belief systems.
I oppose the death penalty for two very practical reasons. One is the possibility of inaccuracy in conviction. The second reason is due to the taxpayer burden (cost).
Inaccuracy of Convictions
Perhaps if we lived in a just world, I might support the death penalty. But we don't. Prosecutors often play foul in order to make their cases and many times, they coerce people into guilt. There are several unethical accounts of prosecutor misconduct and it is very hard to beat the system.
The Central Park Five is one of the most chilling examples of prosecutor misconduct and wrongful conviction.
Yes, you better believe that the death penalty disproportionately targets people of color. Simply put, our criminal justice system as a whole targets people of color, so naturally our death penalty will do the same. More often than not, someone tried by criminal court is unlikely to have the means available to defend themselves adequately against the system.
Just look at the figures of people wrongfully convicted in the United States.
The innocence project details how wrongful conviction affects people of color.
If you are in a pro-death penalty stance, you need to ask yourself some key critical questions: What if you were wrongfully convicted? What if it was your loved one? Then, how would you feel? Can YOU beat the system?
Taxpayer Burden
Even if you don't give a shit about human beings, you must consider the taxpayer burden related to the death penalty.
Here is an analysis of some of the costs we put into taking away lives by the State.
Ask yourself some key critical question, How could the money spent funding the death penalty be used to better our communities?
My stance to the death penalty is to the very extreme on the anti. Even if I myself am murdered, I do not want the prosecutors or the jury to push for the death penalty! I don't believe that the system is fair, useful or practical.
What is your stance on the death penalty?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
But what I want to talk about specifically is my opposition to the death penalty. In the political spectrum, it is typically conservatives who support it (ironically...) and liberals who oppose it. However, of course, as with all aspects of the spectrum, there is occasional variations on these belief systems.
I oppose the death penalty for two very practical reasons. One is the possibility of inaccuracy in conviction. The second reason is due to the taxpayer burden (cost).
Inaccuracy of Convictions
Perhaps if we lived in a just world, I might support the death penalty. But we don't. Prosecutors often play foul in order to make their cases and many times, they coerce people into guilt. There are several unethical accounts of prosecutor misconduct and it is very hard to beat the system.
The Central Park Five is one of the most chilling examples of prosecutor misconduct and wrongful conviction.
Yes, you better believe that the death penalty disproportionately targets people of color. Simply put, our criminal justice system as a whole targets people of color, so naturally our death penalty will do the same. More often than not, someone tried by criminal court is unlikely to have the means available to defend themselves adequately against the system.
Just look at the figures of people wrongfully convicted in the United States.
The innocence project details how wrongful conviction affects people of color.
If you are in a pro-death penalty stance, you need to ask yourself some key critical questions: What if you were wrongfully convicted? What if it was your loved one? Then, how would you feel? Can YOU beat the system?
Taxpayer Burden
Even if you don't give a shit about human beings, you must consider the taxpayer burden related to the death penalty.
Here is an analysis of some of the costs we put into taking away lives by the State.
Ask yourself some key critical question, How could the money spent funding the death penalty be used to better our communities?
My stance to the death penalty is to the very extreme on the anti. Even if I myself am murdered, I do not want the prosecutors or the jury to push for the death penalty! I don't believe that the system is fair, useful or practical.
What is your stance on the death penalty?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Sunday, December 25, 2016
In the Depths of My Soul
Being that today is Christmas, I felt it very necessary to discuss my deep, inner being. I recently wrote a post about Christian fragility and what I find the most perplexing aspect of it is, if you say you're not a Christian, many people automatically assume that means you are an Atheist.
For me, it simply isn't true. I find Atheism just as much a religion as Christianity. It requires a stern principle of faith, it's just coded differently. For Atheists, they say there is no God. They state it just as factually as a Christian says there is. Often, Atheists revert to Scientific evidence of things in our existence, similarly to how Christians revert to Scripture.
I've always been fascinated by the mindset that religion and science must be on the either/or spectrum. Why can't they both exist?
So, I feel like connecting the world with my spiritual belief systems! I don't classify myself as a person of any religion and I actually believe religion is a dangerous system. However, I am very much spiritual and a believer in Divinity.
I believe the soul is that mysterious little thing in our minds known as consciousness. I am certainly not the only one who holds this theory. Inside our brains, we are able to see, think, hear, feel...memories are formed. Emotions seep through all over our bodies. It is our consciousness that makes us alive and aware of our surroundings. Without it, we would simply cease to exist.
I believe consciousness is the soul. It is the fabric of what brings us from being in the spiritual world to being in the living world. I believe that consciousness is a compilation of energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed.
When we die our physical deaths, I believe the consciousness transfers from the physical body and moves toward its next destination. In some cases, that would be reincarnation into another life.
I truly believe we are expected to learn and fulfill a certain number of experiences within life. I, of course, do not have all of the specifics "figured out" but if I had to take a guess at it, I would say our human experience is designed to achieve:
For me, it simply isn't true. I find Atheism just as much a religion as Christianity. It requires a stern principle of faith, it's just coded differently. For Atheists, they say there is no God. They state it just as factually as a Christian says there is. Often, Atheists revert to Scientific evidence of things in our existence, similarly to how Christians revert to Scripture.
I've always been fascinated by the mindset that religion and science must be on the either/or spectrum. Why can't they both exist?
So, I feel like connecting the world with my spiritual belief systems! I don't classify myself as a person of any religion and I actually believe religion is a dangerous system. However, I am very much spiritual and a believer in Divinity.
I believe the soul is that mysterious little thing in our minds known as consciousness. I am certainly not the only one who holds this theory. Inside our brains, we are able to see, think, hear, feel...memories are formed. Emotions seep through all over our bodies. It is our consciousness that makes us alive and aware of our surroundings. Without it, we would simply cease to exist.
I believe consciousness is the soul. It is the fabric of what brings us from being in the spiritual world to being in the living world. I believe that consciousness is a compilation of energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed.
When we die our physical deaths, I believe the consciousness transfers from the physical body and moves toward its next destination. In some cases, that would be reincarnation into another life.
I truly believe we are expected to learn and fulfill a certain number of experiences within life. I, of course, do not have all of the specifics "figured out" but if I had to take a guess at it, I would say our human experience is designed to achieve:
- Unquestionable compassion
- Altruism
- Joy and Fulfillment
- Love
Love being the ultimate force, of course.
I believe when our conscious mind experiences deja vu, it is the experience of our past lives re-integrated into our present life. This is because, although our body is different, our consciousness is the same. The experience of deja vu is very surreal and believable, so it makes sense that it is truly something you have experienced before.
Perhaps our dreams are the consciousness desire of what it wishes to achieve in the waking hours. Or the dreams explain the fears and uncertainties the consciousness has about this worldly experience.
But ultimately, I believe God is the energy force known as Love. That powerful emotion that invokes people to do countless amazing things, change the world, start a family, whatever it may be. Through Love, we experience joy and fulfillment, altruism and unquestionable compassion. Love is so strong that it makes a human weak. Love is the only force on this planet that can truly ignite change. It is the only thing that can truly stop horror and pain. It doesn't have to be Love for another person or thing, it can simply be self-love achieved at the maximum.
Ultimately, I believe that when your consciousness has finally unlocked every achievement on its quest, that is when we pass over to the divine world. Perhaps the stars that we see at night are the true encompassing spirits that have self-actualized beyond this world. Maybe our ancestors truly are watching over us as we exist and figure things in the world.
Obviously, I don't know the real answers. But I know I believe this to be true in the depths of my soul. I believe we have a divine purpose but unlike religion, I believe that purpose is so divine and mysterious that our minds may never figure it out in the living experience.
What are your thoughts?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Friday, December 23, 2016
Status Quo Fragility: Part 4
My final post about status quo fragility is going to wrap it around to American culture and the false sense of patriotism we hold here. I will continue with DiAngelo's triggers of fragilities and how they apply to American patriotism.
White Fragility
Male Fragility
Christian Fragility
Now, many people when they read criticisms want to immediately launch into, well, if you don't like it, then leave! That, in itself, is an example of fragility to the American patriotism psyche. That the flag and the country in itself cannot be questioned or criticized without it being perceived as a threat. That is fragility 101.
Challenge to Objectivity--Unfortunately, patriotism in America is actually nationalism disguised with blind pride. When you inform someone that their viewpoint comes from a place of American privilege, they just cannot handle it. How dare you? They are likely a good Christian American that cares about all people! America is a melting pot full of vibrant cultures all across the world, isn't it? I am a great grandchild of immigrants! These are the deflections you will hear when American people feel attacked for expressing problematic, nationalist views.
Here is a great piece from the Huffington Post about the American Nationalism and how it effects us.
Challenge to American Codes--America, despite priding itself as an objective, immigrant-based melting pot, has some serious expectations of codes and norms.
Sitting out or otherwise not standing at attention to the national anthem is surely to cause a controversy.
Americans are in a tizzy about the pledge of allegiance not being respected in school atmospheres.
Burning or disrespecting the flag is surely to get you some negative attention.
Even the slightest hint of American criticism or questioning the flag, the anthem, the military or any other relative matter, is surely going against patriotic codes. Even if legal repercussions are not a result, social repercussions are very real. You might lose your job. You might become ousted or even physically assaulted for refusing to comply with patriotic codes.
The idolization of the flag and capitalism are so fierce, that you can expect to be called a socialist or communist if you defy it. History showed how intense this can become during the McCarthyism and the red scare.
Similar to Christianity, where God, Jesus, the cross and the church are not to be analysed or questioned, the American symbols are sacred and desecrating them in any way, including just by not observing them, is perceived as a serious threat to the fragile American identity.
Challenge to American Comfort--Americans often do not wish to be exposed to the danger of their nationalism. When such exposure does arise, it is met with defensive remarks.
If you discuss the horrors of American bombings in the Middle East, you will likely be met with a deflection of how oppressive those countries are to their people and how fortunate we are to have our privileges here with freedom.
If you discuss the horrors of American history, such as slavery, genocide, whitewashing, and really every other aspect of our history, you can expect to be met with deflections of how America has grown and the past is the past. Usually, you are met with the cries of "get over it!"
Challenging this comfort is met with serious hostility. They'll tell you, if you don't like it, get out of the country. Or their favorite is to compare us to a country, like, say North Korea. As though, two truths cannot exist--as in America's evils and North Korea's evils.
Patriotism is very much cult-like in it's every essence, as we worship our lord and savior, Old Glory.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--You absolutely cannot have America without colonialists. You do not need to be a history major to understand and acknowledge the very brutal truth of how our country came to be,
Politicians often gain success by igniting this fear of immigration. After all, our relationship in America is, we colonize and you become colonized. Do not try to come over here and colonize us as we did you!
While most of our fear today is at black and brown immigrants, historically fear has even reached to Euroethnic immigrants. The hysteria surrounding this fear is necessary to keep the American cult alive and well.
Aside from that, many Americans are cultural colonialists by nature. There is a common expectation that Americans should speak English. Conform to Western technologies, customs and clothing.
The very hint of multiculturalism is a threat to the American identity.
In fact, my own family migrated from Italy. When they migrated, most of their first names were changed from Italian ethnic names to American sounding names. My great-great grandparents refused to teach their children Italian and many of the Italian customs were lost. This was because they feared being outcasted if they did not assimilate.
Challenge to American Solidarity--As Americans, we are expected to be monolithic. As I discussed prior, disrespecting or not observing American customs constitutes a challenge to the fragility of the American identity.
This is really where the, "If you don't like America, then just leave!" comes from.
It is, at it's root, if you are not with us, you are against us.
Challenge to American Authority--This comes with many aspects of out of the country relationships. America is expected to be the authority and the master of all subject matters. However, in the next section, you will see how America ranks in quite a few categories that shows it shouldn't be an authority on much of anything.
Challenge to American Centrality--America is the default in most of our minds.
Jane Elliott discusses the centrality of the United States in the map.
We are taught that America is the #1 nation and that we are the center of everything. The rest of the world, in our minds, centers on the United States. And when it doesn't, it is met with disgust and discomfort.
In fact, many of us are led to believe America is just the best nation in the world. I think, however, our statistics world-wide share a different story.
We certainly are not the most educated.
Ranked #37 for health care systems.
Our poverty situation is better than many other countries but still abysmal.
Here's a more comprehensive list of our global ranking.
It often makes me wonder why so many Americans have so much pride in this country.
And for even so much of saying this much, someone is saying, if you don't like it, get out! No, if you like it, you want it to get better! You want it to improve.
So long as the majority of Americans are indoctrinated under the spell of the American identity, so long that the country will continue to oppress people worldwide and domestically. We have given our power to a country, a nation that is not for the people that live in it.
There is no longer time for deflecting or false sense of patriotism. It is time for some REAL patriotism and by that I mean challenging the status quo. As you can see, the status quo is very difficult to challenge because it was been embedded into our very psychology from the beginning. And those who are within any category of the status quo are very much prone to fragility and defensiveness.
That fragility is key to keeping the systems alive.
Do not be fragile. Be above that.
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
White Fragility
Male Fragility
Christian Fragility
Now, many people when they read criticisms want to immediately launch into, well, if you don't like it, then leave! That, in itself, is an example of fragility to the American patriotism psyche. That the flag and the country in itself cannot be questioned or criticized without it being perceived as a threat. That is fragility 101.
Challenge to Objectivity--Unfortunately, patriotism in America is actually nationalism disguised with blind pride. When you inform someone that their viewpoint comes from a place of American privilege, they just cannot handle it. How dare you? They are likely a good Christian American that cares about all people! America is a melting pot full of vibrant cultures all across the world, isn't it? I am a great grandchild of immigrants! These are the deflections you will hear when American people feel attacked for expressing problematic, nationalist views.
Here is a great piece from the Huffington Post about the American Nationalism and how it effects us.
Challenge to American Codes--America, despite priding itself as an objective, immigrant-based melting pot, has some serious expectations of codes and norms.
Sitting out or otherwise not standing at attention to the national anthem is surely to cause a controversy.
Americans are in a tizzy about the pledge of allegiance not being respected in school atmospheres.
Burning or disrespecting the flag is surely to get you some negative attention.
Even the slightest hint of American criticism or questioning the flag, the anthem, the military or any other relative matter, is surely going against patriotic codes. Even if legal repercussions are not a result, social repercussions are very real. You might lose your job. You might become ousted or even physically assaulted for refusing to comply with patriotic codes.
The idolization of the flag and capitalism are so fierce, that you can expect to be called a socialist or communist if you defy it. History showed how intense this can become during the McCarthyism and the red scare.
Similar to Christianity, where God, Jesus, the cross and the church are not to be analysed or questioned, the American symbols are sacred and desecrating them in any way, including just by not observing them, is perceived as a serious threat to the fragile American identity.
Challenge to American Comfort--Americans often do not wish to be exposed to the danger of their nationalism. When such exposure does arise, it is met with defensive remarks.
If you discuss the horrors of American bombings in the Middle East, you will likely be met with a deflection of how oppressive those countries are to their people and how fortunate we are to have our privileges here with freedom.
If you discuss the horrors of American history, such as slavery, genocide, whitewashing, and really every other aspect of our history, you can expect to be met with deflections of how America has grown and the past is the past. Usually, you are met with the cries of "get over it!"
Challenging this comfort is met with serious hostility. They'll tell you, if you don't like it, get out of the country. Or their favorite is to compare us to a country, like, say North Korea. As though, two truths cannot exist--as in America's evils and North Korea's evils.
Patriotism is very much cult-like in it's every essence, as we worship our lord and savior, Old Glory.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--You absolutely cannot have America without colonialists. You do not need to be a history major to understand and acknowledge the very brutal truth of how our country came to be,
Politicians often gain success by igniting this fear of immigration. After all, our relationship in America is, we colonize and you become colonized. Do not try to come over here and colonize us as we did you!
While most of our fear today is at black and brown immigrants, historically fear has even reached to Euroethnic immigrants. The hysteria surrounding this fear is necessary to keep the American cult alive and well.
Aside from that, many Americans are cultural colonialists by nature. There is a common expectation that Americans should speak English. Conform to Western technologies, customs and clothing.
The very hint of multiculturalism is a threat to the American identity.
In fact, my own family migrated from Italy. When they migrated, most of their first names were changed from Italian ethnic names to American sounding names. My great-great grandparents refused to teach their children Italian and many of the Italian customs were lost. This was because they feared being outcasted if they did not assimilate.
Challenge to American Solidarity--As Americans, we are expected to be monolithic. As I discussed prior, disrespecting or not observing American customs constitutes a challenge to the fragility of the American identity.
This is really where the, "If you don't like America, then just leave!" comes from.
It is, at it's root, if you are not with us, you are against us.
Challenge to American Authority--This comes with many aspects of out of the country relationships. America is expected to be the authority and the master of all subject matters. However, in the next section, you will see how America ranks in quite a few categories that shows it shouldn't be an authority on much of anything.
Challenge to American Centrality--America is the default in most of our minds.
Jane Elliott discusses the centrality of the United States in the map.
We are taught that America is the #1 nation and that we are the center of everything. The rest of the world, in our minds, centers on the United States. And when it doesn't, it is met with disgust and discomfort.
In fact, many of us are led to believe America is just the best nation in the world. I think, however, our statistics world-wide share a different story.
We certainly are not the most educated.
Ranked #37 for health care systems.
Our poverty situation is better than many other countries but still abysmal.
Here's a more comprehensive list of our global ranking.
It often makes me wonder why so many Americans have so much pride in this country.
And for even so much of saying this much, someone is saying, if you don't like it, get out! No, if you like it, you want it to get better! You want it to improve.
So long as the majority of Americans are indoctrinated under the spell of the American identity, so long that the country will continue to oppress people worldwide and domestically. We have given our power to a country, a nation that is not for the people that live in it.
There is no longer time for deflecting or false sense of patriotism. It is time for some REAL patriotism and by that I mean challenging the status quo. As you can see, the status quo is very difficult to challenge because it was been embedded into our very psychology from the beginning. And those who are within any category of the status quo are very much prone to fragility and defensiveness.
That fragility is key to keeping the systems alive.
Do not be fragile. Be above that.
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Status Quo Fragility: Part 3
So, as I have discussed in my past two posts here and here, the status quo is very fragile! It doesn't like to be challenged. Using Robin DiAngelo's trigger points to discuss white fragility, I have found that these trigger points are very applicable to other parts of the status quo as well.
Today's topic is Christian fragility.
I use Christian as part of the status quo because it is. Respectability to Christianity is still a fabric of our society. Christians will have you believe there is a domestic war on Christianity here but actually, that is part of the fragility in itself.
Challenge to Objectivity--Just like with the previous two aspects of status quo fragility, those in the Christian faith tend to dislike being told that their stances come from a place of Christian privilege.
Many will tell you that they love people of all faiths, or of no faith at all. However, they will sternly object to any opposition to laws like the First Amendment Defense Act
Because Christianity is the default, in their minds, Christian values should come first, no matter the costs to others.
Challenge to Christian Codes--This one is very important and has affected me very personally.
If you are not a Christian and you show any type of sign of this, you can except public scrutiny.
I once worked for a staffing agency and in part of that, I had to go to networking meetings to market my services. I remember being scared to death when a group led prayer occurred at one of the events. My inner morals will not allow me to pray in public (I don't believe in it) but I was fearful what might happen to my job if people saw me rejecting Christian norms. I still chose to stand firmly on my belief system and was advantaged by the fact that everyone else had their heads down and eyes closed. But still, that fear existed.
Think about how angry a large number of Christians got with the Starbucks red cup fiasco.
Whenever someone is running for political office, it is expected and assumed that they are a Christian. If they aren't, they can expect serious scrutiny from the public as a threat.
It is about these "so called" good Christian morals.
Challenge to Entitlement of Religious Comfort--Christians often do not like the idea of their comfort in their faith being challenged. It is perfectly acceptable to wear crosses and other Christian paraphernalia, to have public Christian prayer and use common Christian language in general. When someone tells you that, hey, these values do not match mine, they often take it as an attack.
A person showcasing their Muslim faith can expect stares, hate and hostility.
Christians do not like to be questioned for their faith or their actions. Certainly, all of us notice that several Christians pick and choose which scripture is applicable to whom and when. If you challenge this, or anything about Christianity, you can expect a trigger of fragility.
Your dissent to their faith, after all, is a threat.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--Christianity has a long history of colonizing. This is nothing new.
The church in itself has been used to oppress women, people of color, LGBTQ people, people of other faiths and many more.
Christians love to invade spaces. They will jump in with their two cents and their "I will pray for you" completely uninvited. Often times, many Christians will act as if they are entitled to this space.
Challenge to Christian Solidarity--I can't personally attest to it because I am not a Christian. However, I can imagine it does happen. If you are a Christian and you say to a fellow Christian, "hey, your projection is problematic", you will probably face some fragility from them. You, a person of faith, are challenging their faith!
It becomes the faith olympics!
I don't quite see Challenge to Christian Liberalism quite as applicable. However, maybe you might know of an instance? Feel free to share!
Challenge to Christian Authority--Although we are technically a secular nation, you will often hear about us being a Christian country.
Although unfounded, many people claim President Obama is a Muslim. And for that reason, many people are threatened by it! The very idea of someone with a different religion ruling over them just puts the fragility right on their faith.
I am sure if I really looked further into, I could find more micro examples of this challenge.
Challenge to Christian Centrality--Again, with Christian being the default, this one is very common. Christians are expected to be front and center.
I mean attacking someone over Happy Holidays?
If Christmas, Easter and other Christian holidays or events are not front and center, you can best guarantee people will flip out over it. If we aren't saying Merry Christmas and In God We Trust, we are automatically attacking their fragile faith!
I know there are awesome Christians out there. I am sure the Not All Christians camp is ready to chime in. Like with whiteness and masculinity, Christianity has its history of oppression and it currently oppresses today. And although the conservative right will have you believe that Christianity is under attack, just as they will about whiteness and about masculinity, it simply isn't true.
If you are a Christian and are about anti-oppression work, you, like white people and like men, must be ready to challenge your own status quo privilege when the topic of religion is brought up. Not everyone is able to come to terms with it.
Personally, I am not an Atheist. I believe in God. I just don't believe in religion. However, I respect people's right to believe. I really do! But it isn't without challenge and without introspection.
Have a comment? Ever encountered Christian fragility? What does it look like and mean to you?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Today's topic is Christian fragility.
I use Christian as part of the status quo because it is. Respectability to Christianity is still a fabric of our society. Christians will have you believe there is a domestic war on Christianity here but actually, that is part of the fragility in itself.
Challenge to Objectivity--Just like with the previous two aspects of status quo fragility, those in the Christian faith tend to dislike being told that their stances come from a place of Christian privilege.
Many will tell you that they love people of all faiths, or of no faith at all. However, they will sternly object to any opposition to laws like the First Amendment Defense Act
Because Christianity is the default, in their minds, Christian values should come first, no matter the costs to others.
Challenge to Christian Codes--This one is very important and has affected me very personally.
If you are not a Christian and you show any type of sign of this, you can except public scrutiny.
I once worked for a staffing agency and in part of that, I had to go to networking meetings to market my services. I remember being scared to death when a group led prayer occurred at one of the events. My inner morals will not allow me to pray in public (I don't believe in it) but I was fearful what might happen to my job if people saw me rejecting Christian norms. I still chose to stand firmly on my belief system and was advantaged by the fact that everyone else had their heads down and eyes closed. But still, that fear existed.
Think about how angry a large number of Christians got with the Starbucks red cup fiasco.
Whenever someone is running for political office, it is expected and assumed that they are a Christian. If they aren't, they can expect serious scrutiny from the public as a threat.
It is about these "so called" good Christian morals.
Challenge to Entitlement of Religious Comfort--Christians often do not like the idea of their comfort in their faith being challenged. It is perfectly acceptable to wear crosses and other Christian paraphernalia, to have public Christian prayer and use common Christian language in general. When someone tells you that, hey, these values do not match mine, they often take it as an attack.
A person showcasing their Muslim faith can expect stares, hate and hostility.
Christians do not like to be questioned for their faith or their actions. Certainly, all of us notice that several Christians pick and choose which scripture is applicable to whom and when. If you challenge this, or anything about Christianity, you can expect a trigger of fragility.
Your dissent to their faith, after all, is a threat.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--Christianity has a long history of colonizing. This is nothing new.
The church in itself has been used to oppress women, people of color, LGBTQ people, people of other faiths and many more.
Christians love to invade spaces. They will jump in with their two cents and their "I will pray for you" completely uninvited. Often times, many Christians will act as if they are entitled to this space.
Challenge to Christian Solidarity--I can't personally attest to it because I am not a Christian. However, I can imagine it does happen. If you are a Christian and you say to a fellow Christian, "hey, your projection is problematic", you will probably face some fragility from them. You, a person of faith, are challenging their faith!
It becomes the faith olympics!
I don't quite see Challenge to Christian Liberalism quite as applicable. However, maybe you might know of an instance? Feel free to share!
Challenge to Christian Authority--Although we are technically a secular nation, you will often hear about us being a Christian country.
Although unfounded, many people claim President Obama is a Muslim. And for that reason, many people are threatened by it! The very idea of someone with a different religion ruling over them just puts the fragility right on their faith.
I am sure if I really looked further into, I could find more micro examples of this challenge.
Challenge to Christian Centrality--Again, with Christian being the default, this one is very common. Christians are expected to be front and center.
I mean attacking someone over Happy Holidays?
If Christmas, Easter and other Christian holidays or events are not front and center, you can best guarantee people will flip out over it. If we aren't saying Merry Christmas and In God We Trust, we are automatically attacking their fragile faith!
I know there are awesome Christians out there. I am sure the Not All Christians camp is ready to chime in. Like with whiteness and masculinity, Christianity has its history of oppression and it currently oppresses today. And although the conservative right will have you believe that Christianity is under attack, just as they will about whiteness and about masculinity, it simply isn't true.
If you are a Christian and are about anti-oppression work, you, like white people and like men, must be ready to challenge your own status quo privilege when the topic of religion is brought up. Not everyone is able to come to terms with it.
Personally, I am not an Atheist. I believe in God. I just don't believe in religion. However, I respect people's right to believe. I really do! But it isn't without challenge and without introspection.
Have a comment? Ever encountered Christian fragility? What does it look like and mean to you?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Monday, December 19, 2016
Status Quo Fragility: Part 2
Yesterday, I had posted a rather lengthy summary of what is known as white fragility. As a white person, many of it was and is applicable to myself. It is important to acknowledge it. Members of the status quo are very defensive of their position being challenged. And this extends true into the masculine gender as associated with cis men. Using the same trigger to the fragility's that Robin DiAngelo used for white fragility, I believe it can be found within cis males as well.
As a gay man, I have faced experiences of male fragility and hypermasculinity. I also, however, have also been in that role. It's difficult to unpack all of what society and our upbringings teach us, so I am not going to deny my role in it nor act like I am immune to it. I'm not. And gay men often think they get a free pass when in reality they really don't.
I will also discuss Christian fragility and American fragility as well in another post.
Triggers to Male Fragility (Using DiAngelo's White Fragility Triggers)
Challenge to Objectivity--Men, especially liberal minded men, tend to believe that they are very objective. Many believe they know what they're talking about. When you challenge a man by stating his actions or words are stemming from a misogynistic stance, he is likely to get on the defense. In many cases, these men will deflect and blame feminism as the true evil, as though it is indoctrinating women into a mindset of hating all men.
Let's be clear. It is the constructs of masculinity that hates all men. And it is this very construct that is indoctrinating people.
Challenge to Gender Codes--When women, or non-binary people, bring up their concerns about their treatment or speak from their marginalized perspectives, men feel very threatened and challenged. Additionally, challenging the binary at all can be particularly threatening to both men and women alike. Much of this seeps through as transphobia and misogyny. Men do this and women do that. It's just the way it is! Often times, it isn't able to be rationalized when you get to the root.
Here's some information about gender codes and how challenging them is necessary to end violence.
Challenge to Entitlement of Male Comfort--This one translates a little bit differently to me than the way it translates when challenging white racial comfort. In my post about white racial comfort, I discussed that white people often don't have to think about race.
I don't think that men don't have to think about their gender. I think they do. I think they have to think about far too often, in fact. So much emphasis is put on what makes them men and how to be masculine. "This is men's work, this is what men do." Even if it doesn't make them happy, so be it, as long as it is manly.
However, men don't like to be positioned in a place where they are not in control. This is part of challenging men's entitlement to the comfort. Letting him be the decision maker. The breadwinner. The provider. Anything that challenges these notions will place him an uncomfortable and triggering position.
This writer discusses why feminism should make men uncomfortable.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--It still applies.
Men believe they are dominant. Our history books teach us stories of men seizing towns and dominating over women.
They have to woo women.
They have to get them in bed.
They have to be the very best, at all times, or they just aren't manly.
Losing is particularly detrimental to men, especially if they lose to a less "masculine" perceived male or a woman.
And when men aren't invited to be part of the conversation, they try to dominate it. Just like with white fragility, they throw in phrases like "Teach me." "How am I supposed to learn [if you don't unpack all of your trauma right now at my demand]"
Even in so-called feminist or gender equality circles, men still love to dominate and socially "colonize" the situation.
Here is a blog post about how men can fit in as true allies and not as dominating oppressors in feminist/gender equity fights.
Challenge to Male Solidarity--There's something I call "men talk". This is the type of talk you hear men having when, to their knowledge, no woman is around.
They expect their male friends to agree with them and usually they do. They'll talk about "fags" and "queers" and refer to women as "bitches" and "hoes". They'll talk about dominating over women.
More often than not, their stories are probably fabricated. They probably hadn't even spoken to the women they are talking about but that's not manly.
So, when another man challenges their misogynistic viewpoints, they tend to get hostile and quickly.
They'll call you a mitch (man-bitch). They'll call you a queer. A pussy is a favorite.
Or they'll say you are just trying to impress women by acting like you are part of the feminist movement. I've literally had this hurled at me which is extra hilarious.
Challenge to Male Liberalism--This one is especially important. When I discussed white liberalism, I brought up "Bernie Bros." Again, I was ardent in support of Bernie but I hated most of his followers. Many of men loved to mansplain to women as to who the best choice was, even if that woman may have been supporting Bernie.
Men in liberal spaces still colonize non-male spaces. You see mostly men in liberal and progressive leadership. When men challenge an ideal or concept, it is radical and it is groundbreaking but when women do it, they are being emotional or "acting crazy". Men have a tendency at all levels to speak over women or speak at women, rather than to them. And this is no exception to liberal minded men.
Challenge to Individualism--Just as in the white fragility discussion, we have the Not All camp for Men. You've seen it.
"Not all men are bad."
"Not all men are abusers."
"I am one of the good men!"
It's just the same old deflections and requirement for validation that comes from this fragility.
Yet in normal man talk, it is perfectly acceptable to call all women crazy or bitches because of their perspective of one woman's behavior. So men, like white people, are an individual but non-masculine people are, like people of color, a collective who must be accountable.
Challenge to Meritocracy--Sexism is a thing of the past, right? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 granted women equal opportunity in the law and therefore the problem is solved, right?
Men don't like to hear that women or otherwise non-masculine performing individuals have challenges that are related solely to their gender identities.
After all, these men tried hard, they worked hard and they made it, so why can't you?
One of the best deflections I've heard is women aren't as good at negotiating as men are and that is why women are paid lower.
But the wage gap is a real thing and it is highly problematic.
So many women are voicing concerns about discrimination in the workplace. But--it's because they're not as good at negotiating?
It's just another way for the status quo to deny itself of its privilege.
Challenge to Male Authority--Men have a hard time accepting women is leadership roles even if they are liberally minded men. All of our Presidents have been men, most of political leaders are men. We see more and more men as CEOs and doctors. In our minds, men always hold the position of power.
Women often have to change their approach when dealing with the male ego and that just isn't right. This is because women face several barriers and challenges to leading over men.
This challenge extends beyond the workplace and also exists in the home. I was just in a discussion today with a man who said he has a problem with "stay at home" husbands? The very idea of ANOTHER couple having an arrangement like that was responded with "Fuck that and fuck their arrangement."
The very idea of a woman having authority over men, in this case, capital, was just out of the question for him.
That is an all too common narrative.
Challenge to Men Centrality--Traditionally, cis men are what we focus on. They are the heroes of our history books with women seldom mentioned. They are the protagonists in our stories.
Even in film or media where the woman is the main character, it is still centered on her idea of finding a prince charming or Mr. Right, the man that is going to save her.
So when non-cisgender or non-male people are discussing their perspectives, men tend to center it on themselves with their men's rights or meninist propaganda. I have seen men deflect with everything from child custody court to all the times women have done awful, terrible things to them.
They must be the center of the conversation at all times, otherwise it challenges their perception of reality. And truthfully, that dates back to "men speak and women listen".
Gender is a very complicated subject matter and there are many experts on the matter that have analysed the social implications of gender norms. As a gay man, I am challenged by facing toxic hypermasculinity of others AND my own. I have to put my perspective aside often times and remember that I do have cis-gender privilege and male privilege.
Here is one blogger's take on being a feminist as a cis male.
And this isn't to say that feminism isn't without it's problems. The topic of TERF and SWERF is for another day, Many feminists are not intersectional. That is a huge, huge problem.
What are your experiences with male fragility, whether your own or another's? What do you have to say about it?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
As a gay man, I have faced experiences of male fragility and hypermasculinity. I also, however, have also been in that role. It's difficult to unpack all of what society and our upbringings teach us, so I am not going to deny my role in it nor act like I am immune to it. I'm not. And gay men often think they get a free pass when in reality they really don't.
I will also discuss Christian fragility and American fragility as well in another post.
Triggers to Male Fragility (Using DiAngelo's White Fragility Triggers)
Challenge to Objectivity--Men, especially liberal minded men, tend to believe that they are very objective. Many believe they know what they're talking about. When you challenge a man by stating his actions or words are stemming from a misogynistic stance, he is likely to get on the defense. In many cases, these men will deflect and blame feminism as the true evil, as though it is indoctrinating women into a mindset of hating all men.
Let's be clear. It is the constructs of masculinity that hates all men. And it is this very construct that is indoctrinating people.
Challenge to Gender Codes--When women, or non-binary people, bring up their concerns about their treatment or speak from their marginalized perspectives, men feel very threatened and challenged. Additionally, challenging the binary at all can be particularly threatening to both men and women alike. Much of this seeps through as transphobia and misogyny. Men do this and women do that. It's just the way it is! Often times, it isn't able to be rationalized when you get to the root.
Here's some information about gender codes and how challenging them is necessary to end violence.
Challenge to Entitlement of Male Comfort--This one translates a little bit differently to me than the way it translates when challenging white racial comfort. In my post about white racial comfort, I discussed that white people often don't have to think about race.
I don't think that men don't have to think about their gender. I think they do. I think they have to think about far too often, in fact. So much emphasis is put on what makes them men and how to be masculine. "This is men's work, this is what men do." Even if it doesn't make them happy, so be it, as long as it is manly.
However, men don't like to be positioned in a place where they are not in control. This is part of challenging men's entitlement to the comfort. Letting him be the decision maker. The breadwinner. The provider. Anything that challenges these notions will place him an uncomfortable and triggering position.
This writer discusses why feminism should make men uncomfortable.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--It still applies.
Men believe they are dominant. Our history books teach us stories of men seizing towns and dominating over women.
They have to woo women.
They have to get them in bed.
They have to be the very best, at all times, or they just aren't manly.
Losing is particularly detrimental to men, especially if they lose to a less "masculine" perceived male or a woman.
And when men aren't invited to be part of the conversation, they try to dominate it. Just like with white fragility, they throw in phrases like "Teach me." "How am I supposed to learn [if you don't unpack all of your trauma right now at my demand]"
Even in so-called feminist or gender equality circles, men still love to dominate and socially "colonize" the situation.
Here is a blog post about how men can fit in as true allies and not as dominating oppressors in feminist/gender equity fights.
Challenge to Male Solidarity--There's something I call "men talk". This is the type of talk you hear men having when, to their knowledge, no woman is around.
They expect their male friends to agree with them and usually they do. They'll talk about "fags" and "queers" and refer to women as "bitches" and "hoes". They'll talk about dominating over women.
More often than not, their stories are probably fabricated. They probably hadn't even spoken to the women they are talking about but that's not manly.
So, when another man challenges their misogynistic viewpoints, they tend to get hostile and quickly.
They'll call you a mitch (man-bitch). They'll call you a queer. A pussy is a favorite.
Or they'll say you are just trying to impress women by acting like you are part of the feminist movement. I've literally had this hurled at me which is extra hilarious.
Challenge to Male Liberalism--This one is especially important. When I discussed white liberalism, I brought up "Bernie Bros." Again, I was ardent in support of Bernie but I hated most of his followers. Many of men loved to mansplain to women as to who the best choice was, even if that woman may have been supporting Bernie.
Men in liberal spaces still colonize non-male spaces. You see mostly men in liberal and progressive leadership. When men challenge an ideal or concept, it is radical and it is groundbreaking but when women do it, they are being emotional or "acting crazy". Men have a tendency at all levels to speak over women or speak at women, rather than to them. And this is no exception to liberal minded men.
Challenge to Individualism--Just as in the white fragility discussion, we have the Not All camp for Men. You've seen it.
"Not all men are bad."
"Not all men are abusers."
"I am one of the good men!"
It's just the same old deflections and requirement for validation that comes from this fragility.
Yet in normal man talk, it is perfectly acceptable to call all women crazy or bitches because of their perspective of one woman's behavior. So men, like white people, are an individual but non-masculine people are, like people of color, a collective who must be accountable.
Challenge to Meritocracy--Sexism is a thing of the past, right? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 granted women equal opportunity in the law and therefore the problem is solved, right?
Men don't like to hear that women or otherwise non-masculine performing individuals have challenges that are related solely to their gender identities.
After all, these men tried hard, they worked hard and they made it, so why can't you?
One of the best deflections I've heard is women aren't as good at negotiating as men are and that is why women are paid lower.
But the wage gap is a real thing and it is highly problematic.
So many women are voicing concerns about discrimination in the workplace. But--it's because they're not as good at negotiating?
It's just another way for the status quo to deny itself of its privilege.
Challenge to Male Authority--Men have a hard time accepting women is leadership roles even if they are liberally minded men. All of our Presidents have been men, most of political leaders are men. We see more and more men as CEOs and doctors. In our minds, men always hold the position of power.
Women often have to change their approach when dealing with the male ego and that just isn't right. This is because women face several barriers and challenges to leading over men.
This challenge extends beyond the workplace and also exists in the home. I was just in a discussion today with a man who said he has a problem with "stay at home" husbands? The very idea of ANOTHER couple having an arrangement like that was responded with "Fuck that and fuck their arrangement."
The very idea of a woman having authority over men, in this case, capital, was just out of the question for him.
That is an all too common narrative.
Challenge to Men Centrality--Traditionally, cis men are what we focus on. They are the heroes of our history books with women seldom mentioned. They are the protagonists in our stories.
Even in film or media where the woman is the main character, it is still centered on her idea of finding a prince charming or Mr. Right, the man that is going to save her.
So when non-cisgender or non-male people are discussing their perspectives, men tend to center it on themselves with their men's rights or meninist propaganda. I have seen men deflect with everything from child custody court to all the times women have done awful, terrible things to them.
They must be the center of the conversation at all times, otherwise it challenges their perception of reality. And truthfully, that dates back to "men speak and women listen".
Gender is a very complicated subject matter and there are many experts on the matter that have analysed the social implications of gender norms. As a gay man, I am challenged by facing toxic hypermasculinity of others AND my own. I have to put my perspective aside often times and remember that I do have cis-gender privilege and male privilege.
Here is one blogger's take on being a feminist as a cis male.
And this isn't to say that feminism isn't without it's problems. The topic of TERF and SWERF is for another day, Many feminists are not intersectional. That is a huge, huge problem.
What are your experiences with male fragility, whether your own or another's? What do you have to say about it?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Status Quo Fragility: Part 1
If you follow @VeryWhiteGuy on Twitter, you will find numerous resources that are useful for white allies who wish to engage in anti-racist activism. One of the best tools that he provided was a study on what is known as "White Fragility". Robin DiAngelo (no relation) lays out some groundwork into understanding this fragility and how it impacts the world.
I believe that her analysis is clear, concise and applicable to all forms of the status quo. So, I will be addressing that today.
White Fragility
In DiAngelo's text, she outlines the triggers of white fragility. I believe these triggers are very important to understand in action. As a white man, I can attest to each and everyone of these events, both as the person "triggered" and among my fellow white person. One important thing to remember is allies in the racial justice movements are far from exempt from this fragility. If you believe you are exempt, you need to re-examine your position as an ally.
Challenge to Objectivity--White fragility loves to rear its ugly head when someone mentions to you that your viewpoint is stemming from a racialized stance. Largely, this has a lot to do with how white children are taught by race. In my generation, I was taught to be colorblind. Common deflections with this trigger are "I don't see race...", "I don't care if your black, white, green or purple...", "I am friends with black people...."
Chescaleigh has done a great job explaining why colorblind thinking is not a good system in our present day.
I will be the first to admit it. I have done exactly what this trigger states. I have been that guy that "doesn't see race". What this mindset does, as Chescaleigh points out, is allows the system to persist and it allows white people to remain unaccountable for their role in keeping the structural institution of racism booming.
Challenge to White Racial Codes--When people of color discuss their direct perspectives of their worlds and how the racial constructs affect them, this is often triggering to fragility because it challenges what white people believe about race.
Challenge to Entitlement to Racial Comfort--White people have a defaulted privilege in the United States. We don't have to think about race. We are comfortable in our being and often don't have to answer for the actions of other white people.
When a person of color discusses their plight and they do so in a way that does not mask or comfort the white feelings of an individual, this often triggers a defensive response.
A mock training video about workplace white fragility does a great job explaining this comfort.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--This trigger is probably the most difficult to understand at first. But the fact is, the way history is taught, it is done in a nice, sugarcoating and whitewashed manner that shows how beneficial colonizing has been for the new world. Of course, they might mention a thing or two about the horrible massacres and the enslavement, rape and pillaging of the First Nations and African people, but not before they tell you about the wonderful leadership of George Washington.
The way history is taught also gives those of us who are white a sense of entitlement. When we finally are up to the notion of discussing race, we verbally invade the spaces of people of color and have a full expectation that the person of color will take the time and emotional energy.
Simply put, we have the expectation of forced servitude in the sense of intellectual and emotional labor when it comes to people of color. Sure, some people of color may want to engage in these discussions and that's fine, but when a white person is not invited into this discussions, they feel threatened and very defensive.
Common calls related to this sense of fragility are "I want to learn." "Teach me." "Educate me."
They may be sugarcoated in "nice" ways to make it sound like a genuine attempt at learning but in reality they are re-enforcing the racial structure.
Here is a great blog post about this very phenomenon.
One way you can actually get some intellectual and emotional labor and pay for these dues is by subscribing to Safety Pin Box by Leslie Mac and Marissa Janae. This is just one of many tools and resources available for you to get involved in the anti-racism fight without re-enforcing colonialist relations again and again.
You can also check out this resource on organizations fighting against racial injustice.
Challenge to White Solidarity-- I face this one the most frequently. When a white person says or does something that re-enforces racism, I naturally will respond. And usually it is met with hostility or defensiveness.
Here's just one example of a time I challenged someone's anti-Muslim viewpoints. Granted, I know Muslim is not the race but the idea is still applicable.
Because I challenged his notions about Muslims being an all-evil group of people, I clearly am not in solidarity with my race. I must hate my race!
This one came after me after I called her out for climbing up on my friend Roni's post with some white fragility. In her mind, I am only an advocate for anti-racial beliefs because I am dating a black person. In essence, she called me a race traitor.
Challenge to White Liberalism--This one is the most important. Far too often, Democrats, Socialists, leftists and other progressives believe they are exempt from the structural systems of oppression that they participate in.
Marissa Johnson challenged Bernie Sanders during his Presidential campaign. Today, she still faces heat from "Bernie Bros" for it. Her stance challenged me to challenge myself.
I was an ardent Bernie supporter and I don't regret it. I'm not sorry. But what I came to realize was many of my Bernie supporter brethren despised being challenged for their own discomforts and contributions to racism.
Black Lives Matter founder Alicia Garza said it best in her response, when she said something to the effect of "We must continuously challenge our friends and our foes."
This is highly dangerous---and we see plenty of it in leftist circles. The Green Party is of no exception to this rule despite their claims that they are.
Challenge to Individualism--As a default, white people view other white people as an individual. There is not often a collective accountability for the actions of white people in society. When this happens, you get the not all white people camp.
Yes, I have been in that camp. I have! It's a bad camp. It's the let me prove I am not racist camp and the I don't want to be accountable for white oppressive behaviors camp.
Every year, you hear people complaining about Black History Month, Black Pride events and BET. "If we had a White Entertainment Television, it would be racist!"
White people expect everyone to just be an individual and ignore their identity. The fact is white people, particularly men, are the race that is most responsible for mass shootings. Yet, our media will have you believe that people of color are the most dangerous. Once you bring this issue up, you have the "Not all" camp armed and ready to defend the good name of whiteness. Yet, many of these same people will collectively hold Muslims, black people or Latinos accountable for acts of violence committed by people of color. The individualism challenge is only applicable if the individualism of white people is challenged.
Challenge to Meritocracy--You hear this one the most. "I came from nothing, I grew up poor, I made it!"
The fact is, everyone knows that individual merit and decisions will have an impact on the outcome of your life to some degree. However, when it comes to racism, people of color have to try two to three times as hard to achieve the same results. Merit alone would be a great system and it goes back to being "colorblind" but it just isn't the truth.
The income gap between races is just one example of how meritocracy just simply cannot work in an inequitable society.
This video really got people in their white fragility stance. Just take a brief moment to read the comments and you will see white fragility in action.
Challenge to White Authority--Until President Barack Obama took office, all of our Presidents had been white men.
Most of our company CEO's are white.
Most of our police are white.
Most of our representatives are white.
With these in mind, it is only natural that white authority being challenged results in a sense of racial distress. After all, everyone we know of in charge is white. People feel intimidated when people of color have authority over them. This, also, could be closely related to colonialist relations challenging.
Challenge to White Centrality--Have you ever been told you are centering yourself? All of us who are white have done it. We've been called out for it. And we should be.
The media depicts whiteness as the norm. We can always find white people in roles of the good guy and the bad guy, the poor, the ugly, the rich, the beautiful, the doctors, the lawyers, the homeless men, the politician, you name it. It is difficult, however, to find people of color in major roles and especially in roles that are not stereotypical to that racial group.
Do you remember the white fragility that came about when The Wiz Live featured an all black cast?
Or the fragility that came about when Beyonce performed Formation?
Those are living examples of challenges to white centrality. Saturday Night Live did a hilarious parody of this challenge. In essence, Beyonce was everyone's favorite singer until they found out that not only is she black but she is a proud black woman who was fine with centering her blackness. This challenge caused too many tears of white people begging for representation.
What is funny though is nobody challenged a show like Friends for having an all-white cast and almost no black guest stars. Seinfeld. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These are not shows from the 1950''s. These are shows that are much more recent. Yet, because whiteness is the default, nobody really bats an eye or notices the lack of diversity.
Here is one list of nine television shows with an all-white cast.
As we proceed into what will be challenging years for racial justice, we must be willing and ready to confront our own white fragility. The first step to confronting it is to acknowledge it. Read the report by DiAngelo that I shared. It's important. If it makes you uncomfortable, then good. You need to be uncomfortable.
I am not immune to acts of white fragility. I am much better about now that I am older, wiser and more aware. But I am not immune,
At a later date, I will discuss the fragility of other members of the status quo in the United States. I will be talking about masculine fragility, Christian fragility and then ultimately American fragility.
I believe DiAngelo's triggers are applicable to all of these fragility forms.
Can you think about a time you were confronted about your white fragility? Want to discuss? Feel free!
Much love ,
ArchAngel O:)
I believe that her analysis is clear, concise and applicable to all forms of the status quo. So, I will be addressing that today.
White Fragility
In DiAngelo's text, she outlines the triggers of white fragility. I believe these triggers are very important to understand in action. As a white man, I can attest to each and everyone of these events, both as the person "triggered" and among my fellow white person. One important thing to remember is allies in the racial justice movements are far from exempt from this fragility. If you believe you are exempt, you need to re-examine your position as an ally.
Challenge to Objectivity--White fragility loves to rear its ugly head when someone mentions to you that your viewpoint is stemming from a racialized stance. Largely, this has a lot to do with how white children are taught by race. In my generation, I was taught to be colorblind. Common deflections with this trigger are "I don't see race...", "I don't care if your black, white, green or purple...", "I am friends with black people...."
Chescaleigh has done a great job explaining why colorblind thinking is not a good system in our present day.
I will be the first to admit it. I have done exactly what this trigger states. I have been that guy that "doesn't see race". What this mindset does, as Chescaleigh points out, is allows the system to persist and it allows white people to remain unaccountable for their role in keeping the structural institution of racism booming.
Challenge to White Racial Codes--When people of color discuss their direct perspectives of their worlds and how the racial constructs affect them, this is often triggering to fragility because it challenges what white people believe about race.
Challenge to Entitlement to Racial Comfort--White people have a defaulted privilege in the United States. We don't have to think about race. We are comfortable in our being and often don't have to answer for the actions of other white people.
When a person of color discusses their plight and they do so in a way that does not mask or comfort the white feelings of an individual, this often triggers a defensive response.
A mock training video about workplace white fragility does a great job explaining this comfort.
Challenge to Colonialist Relations--This trigger is probably the most difficult to understand at first. But the fact is, the way history is taught, it is done in a nice, sugarcoating and whitewashed manner that shows how beneficial colonizing has been for the new world. Of course, they might mention a thing or two about the horrible massacres and the enslavement, rape and pillaging of the First Nations and African people, but not before they tell you about the wonderful leadership of George Washington.
The way history is taught also gives those of us who are white a sense of entitlement. When we finally are up to the notion of discussing race, we verbally invade the spaces of people of color and have a full expectation that the person of color will take the time and emotional energy.
Simply put, we have the expectation of forced servitude in the sense of intellectual and emotional labor when it comes to people of color. Sure, some people of color may want to engage in these discussions and that's fine, but when a white person is not invited into this discussions, they feel threatened and very defensive.
Common calls related to this sense of fragility are "I want to learn." "Teach me." "Educate me."
They may be sugarcoated in "nice" ways to make it sound like a genuine attempt at learning but in reality they are re-enforcing the racial structure.
Here is a great blog post about this very phenomenon.
One way you can actually get some intellectual and emotional labor and pay for these dues is by subscribing to Safety Pin Box by Leslie Mac and Marissa Janae. This is just one of many tools and resources available for you to get involved in the anti-racism fight without re-enforcing colonialist relations again and again.
You can also check out this resource on organizations fighting against racial injustice.
Challenge to White Solidarity-- I face this one the most frequently. When a white person says or does something that re-enforces racism, I naturally will respond. And usually it is met with hostility or defensiveness.
Here's just one example of a time I challenged someone's anti-Muslim viewpoints. Granted, I know Muslim is not the race but the idea is still applicable.
Challenge to White Liberalism--This one is the most important. Far too often, Democrats, Socialists, leftists and other progressives believe they are exempt from the structural systems of oppression that they participate in.
Marissa Johnson challenged Bernie Sanders during his Presidential campaign. Today, she still faces heat from "Bernie Bros" for it. Her stance challenged me to challenge myself.
I was an ardent Bernie supporter and I don't regret it. I'm not sorry. But what I came to realize was many of my Bernie supporter brethren despised being challenged for their own discomforts and contributions to racism.
Black Lives Matter founder Alicia Garza said it best in her response, when she said something to the effect of "We must continuously challenge our friends and our foes."
This is highly dangerous---and we see plenty of it in leftist circles. The Green Party is of no exception to this rule despite their claims that they are.
Challenge to Individualism--As a default, white people view other white people as an individual. There is not often a collective accountability for the actions of white people in society. When this happens, you get the not all white people camp.
Yes, I have been in that camp. I have! It's a bad camp. It's the let me prove I am not racist camp and the I don't want to be accountable for white oppressive behaviors camp.
Every year, you hear people complaining about Black History Month, Black Pride events and BET. "If we had a White Entertainment Television, it would be racist!"
White people expect everyone to just be an individual and ignore their identity. The fact is white people, particularly men, are the race that is most responsible for mass shootings. Yet, our media will have you believe that people of color are the most dangerous. Once you bring this issue up, you have the "Not all" camp armed and ready to defend the good name of whiteness. Yet, many of these same people will collectively hold Muslims, black people or Latinos accountable for acts of violence committed by people of color. The individualism challenge is only applicable if the individualism of white people is challenged.
Challenge to Meritocracy--You hear this one the most. "I came from nothing, I grew up poor, I made it!"
The fact is, everyone knows that individual merit and decisions will have an impact on the outcome of your life to some degree. However, when it comes to racism, people of color have to try two to three times as hard to achieve the same results. Merit alone would be a great system and it goes back to being "colorblind" but it just isn't the truth.
The income gap between races is just one example of how meritocracy just simply cannot work in an inequitable society.
This video really got people in their white fragility stance. Just take a brief moment to read the comments and you will see white fragility in action.
Challenge to White Authority--Until President Barack Obama took office, all of our Presidents had been white men.
Most of our company CEO's are white.
Most of our police are white.
Most of our representatives are white.
With these in mind, it is only natural that white authority being challenged results in a sense of racial distress. After all, everyone we know of in charge is white. People feel intimidated when people of color have authority over them. This, also, could be closely related to colonialist relations challenging.
Challenge to White Centrality--Have you ever been told you are centering yourself? All of us who are white have done it. We've been called out for it. And we should be.
The media depicts whiteness as the norm. We can always find white people in roles of the good guy and the bad guy, the poor, the ugly, the rich, the beautiful, the doctors, the lawyers, the homeless men, the politician, you name it. It is difficult, however, to find people of color in major roles and especially in roles that are not stereotypical to that racial group.
Do you remember the white fragility that came about when The Wiz Live featured an all black cast?
Or the fragility that came about when Beyonce performed Formation?
Those are living examples of challenges to white centrality. Saturday Night Live did a hilarious parody of this challenge. In essence, Beyonce was everyone's favorite singer until they found out that not only is she black but she is a proud black woman who was fine with centering her blackness. This challenge caused too many tears of white people begging for representation.
What is funny though is nobody challenged a show like Friends for having an all-white cast and almost no black guest stars. Seinfeld. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. These are not shows from the 1950''s. These are shows that are much more recent. Yet, because whiteness is the default, nobody really bats an eye or notices the lack of diversity.
Here is one list of nine television shows with an all-white cast.
As we proceed into what will be challenging years for racial justice, we must be willing and ready to confront our own white fragility. The first step to confronting it is to acknowledge it. Read the report by DiAngelo that I shared. It's important. If it makes you uncomfortable, then good. You need to be uncomfortable.
I am not immune to acts of white fragility. I am much better about now that I am older, wiser and more aware. But I am not immune,
At a later date, I will discuss the fragility of other members of the status quo in the United States. I will be talking about masculine fragility, Christian fragility and then ultimately American fragility.
I believe DiAngelo's triggers are applicable to all of these fragility forms.
Can you think about a time you were confronted about your white fragility? Want to discuss? Feel free!
Much love ,
ArchAngel O:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)