Conversations with Racists: Part 1

I spent past few days with my boyfriend’s family and in parts it was lovely experience, but we had few conversations about racism, islamophobia, black people and Muslims that are so representative of our Polish mentality and that drives me crazy. And the conversations I had way to many times.

I really don’t know how to start this post, so let me first tell you something about myself: I’m white woman, I come from very privileged background, I had happy childhood, almost painless adolescence, relatively successful academic education and a happy relationship. Life has been pretty good to me.

I didn’t want to say all those things to rub them in your face and prove to you that your life sucks, and mine don’t. This start is to show you that if I wanted to look from the perspective of my general life experience, something that happened personally to me, well, then world is a pretty good place – no discrimination, no poverty, no oppression, equal and happy people everywhere. Luckily, regardless of my happy life, I never lived in a bubble.

But let’s get to the point.

Poland, my country of origin, is one of the main bastions of racism in Europe. Not only we don’t hide with our racists believes, but we are proud of discrimination we impose on other ethnicities. What other see as progress (hate crime laws, proper education, activism against racism, sexism, etc.), we see as sucking up to backward people who should have been put in their place and not be lenient on them.

I’m freakin’ serious.

Okay, I’m being somewhat unfair. What I noticed about my country is two things: there are people who are open and tolerant and there are those who are absolutely sexist and/or racist and/or homophobic. However, it seems that the freedom of speech is granted mainly to the second group of people. Recently, I hear everywhere discriminatory and offensive remarks and almost nobody stands up and speak against them as if the right to offend somebody was greater than defending others.

But let’s get back to the conversation itself. There were few points made that appear way to often in this kind of conversations that I would love to shed some light and bring attention to its negative effect on our perception regarding other ethnicities.

1.      African’s are fighting because of their culture and unless we come and put everything in order, Africa will never be in peace.

If you talk about war and fighting, Africa will always be brought up at some point. And this is where it gets really frustrating, because you cannot explain the current situation in some African countries, without the historical context. And that’s complicated, different to every country and had different impact. It depends who colonise the country, what were the main purpose of colonisation (slave trade, resources, land), whether the coloniser wanted to oppress people and make them second class citizens to control them better or tried to make it a part of their country and establish something resembling a government and a state.

The history is so complicated and what had been done in Africa and what is still being done to Africa, cannot be dismissed.

But the main problem, when talking about “African” problems, is that Africa in minds of many is a country. One, not that big, uniform country. And tribal relations are main reason for fighting, because they don’t know any better.

Do you want to cry from frustration? I almost did.

I really don’t know how to explain to people that many tribes hasn’t exist before the arrival of Europeans (like artificial division of Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi that had nothing to do with their real tribe affiliation and everything with perceived superiority and physiological traits). Not to mention the fact that many tribes really lived in peace, they intermarried, had very rich cultural heritage, well developed social structure with respect towards every member of community.

But most people just cannot understand that many things happening in some African countries that we see as backwards and undeveloped are the result of Europeans imposing their culture, laws and oppression that destroyed social structures, communal ties and way of dealing with crimes and disorder. And we cannot use the argument “but colonialism ended 50 years ago”, because it’s difficult to rebuild the society that has been exploited, oppressed, fuelled by conflict from outside forces for decades. We should start concentrating on positive outcomes that some African countries are working towards and not only sighing with annoyance when we hear about ANOTHER "African" conflict in an African country.

And regarding the second statement, that we, white people are the only one who can make things right in Africa is preposterous. We should try to help as best as we can by engaging in conversation, sharing experience, helping in implementation of the projects that are designed by people on the ground. But coming in, imposing our ways and claiming that we know better? Which country should do this? USA, where 22% of children lives in families with income below federal poverty line? Or maybe Poland, where Church has more influence on social issues than people themselves? Or maybe Ireland, especially after the recent UN report claiming that women in Ireland are denied human rights?

So basically no one is in position to make a claim that “we know the proper way to solve your problems”. Most of African countries are on the way to discover the recipe for success, some are making mistakes, some are struggling, but they have to do it themselves.

2.      There is way too many black people and Muslims in Europe. If Black people and Muslims don’t like the way it is in Europe, they should get back to whenever they came from.

That one is… ugh. Let’s start with ethnic minorities that are allowed to stay in some countries, because they come from previous colonies or they received the status of refugee and they are under protection of refugee laws. Then let’s move towards ethnic minorities who are travelling within European Union. Many EU countries experienced an influx of migrants from other EU countries. But they are mostly invisible, becauuuuse… they are white. And those who are not white, are perceived as alien and therefore undeserving to be in a particular country.

When we look at the statistics on ethnic groups in Europe (I know the source is Wikipedia, but I think it still show some interesting patterns), most of the countries are homogenous, with their own ethnicity being a majority. For example, in UK less than 15% of population are of different ethnic background than “British”. In France, 84% of population is French and in general 67% has no recent immigrant in their ancestry. So Europe is not under attack of Muslim and African immigrants that are taking over our wonderful lands. Majority of members of so called “ethnic minorities” who are living in European countries have a citizenship of that country. So next time you see a black person complaining about a discrimination in a particular country, ask yourself whether he is just complaining, or is it true. And whether he has more right to be in the particular country than you do.

3.      Black people are racist too.

The issue of citizenship and ethnic minorities often brings this issue: Black people are racist too. What often follows is the vast list of instances where black person did something discriminatory against white person.

There are many problems presented in this statement and most of them, unfortunately, speaks more about the racism of a white speaker than perceived racism of black person.

But let’s get some facts straight:

Fact 1: Some black people are assholes. That’s true, but it doesn’t have its roots in racism. It’s rooted in their individual personality.

But let’s analyse the one particular situation. The example provided was as follows: my boyfriend’s sister needed to extend her visa (it was before Poland was in EU). There was few black girls from some French territory (Martinique or somewhere else). And each time she came to extend her visa, there were some documents missing, so she was sent back. As a result, each time the sister came to this office, she had the whoooole bunch of documents.

So here is my question: did those girls treat her like that because she was white or because she was immigrant? Would she be treated the same way by white French person or not? And maybe, just maybe, she was sent back all these times not because girls were discriminating her, but maybe she just didn’t have appropriate documents?

So what I hear in this situation are two things: first, the girls where just bitches who were like that to ALL migrants, because they were French and French people have a tendency to being xenophobic. Second: “how dare this black monkeys send me back to bring more documents? I should be treated in a better way, because I’m white”. Personally, I don’t think this situation would be so traumatising to the sister, if the rejection came from WHITE French person. And it wouldn’t be a big deal if a white person treated like that Black immigrant.

Fact 2: Just because some black people are assholes, or privileged, or successful, or are not discriminated against, it doesn’t and shouldn’t undermine the whole issue of institutional and social racism.

As in abovementioned situation, the girls were in position of power over a white person and that made people uneasy. What is more, those black girls were in any position of power ergo black people are not discriminated against because in a modern world they are in position of power.

As a supporting argument I usually hear is that many countries treat people of colour (sorry for the expression) with kid gloves and generally walk on eggshells in fear of racism, while mainly Blacks and Muslims are doing whatever they want.

And, black people’s racism towards white people is absolutely unacceptable! If they want us to change, they should change first.

ARE YOU F**** KIDDING ME?!

So let me get this straight: people who are constantly discriminated against by education institutions, police, more often live in poverty, with less access to various services, who constantly listen to racist (and ultimately limitlessly stupid) jokes and remarks should refrain from any aggressive, defensive or (God forbid!) offensive behaviours that might be perceived by privileged and oppressing group of people as discriminatory. And if they do show such behaviour, in order to be treated with respect like a human beings, they have to adjust their behaviour, so white people don’t get offended and can exercise freedom of choice whether to treat different ethnicities with respect or not.

Sometimes I have an impression that Black people are expected to sit quiet simply because their life is much better than it used to be. First, they are no longer enslaved, they are free, therefore they should just shut up and stop whining. Second, refugees who were welcomed in the particular country have it better here than they had over there, therefore they should just shut up and stop whining. Because if a Black person, even worse – immigrant Black person, find it’s voice and strength to speak up, then we will have menace on our hands and we might hear one or two things that we really don’t want to hear – that Europe is still racists, it’s bad and we have to be open to conversation and change of attitude, not the other way around.

4.      Yeah, but all the things you mentioned are the history. It happened and it doesn’t matter anymore. What do you have to say about what’s happening now?

At this moment I just gave up. I literally died inside.

Every situation in every country is rooted in its history. If there hasn’t been shortage of food, there would be no hunger. If there hasn’t been uprising, there wouldn’t be an instability.

And if the colonialism and slavery didn’t happen, most of “African” problems wouldn’t exist. It’s not to say that some countries or tribes or territories wouldn’t fight each other, but the structure of the conflict wouldn’t be different.

It hasn’t been an idea of local communities to divide the African countries the way that they are divided. Colonialism created artificial boundaries, dividing territories belonging to one group of people and assigning them to others. And as much as some countries are trying to find pride in their nationality, it’s difficult not to pay any attention to clan affinity.

Many African tribes had deep communal ties, had very complex system of handling social disputes and had a great respect for members of community and other human beings. They respected elders, women had their secret society that was beyond the reach of men (and men were punished for violating the boundaries), marriage has deeper meaning than simply receiving payment for giving away daughter, etc.

Europeans did not impose their rule of law, because they had a well-being of local population in minds. Anything that has been brought to African and imposed on people there was because Europeans saw Africans as backwards, worthless, whose value was counted only in the work they can do for a white person. Segregation, humiliation, genocide, slavery, exploitation of people and resources – all that deeply wounded African land and communities.

Not to mention the debt that many African countries are in, because of the warlords who “borrowed” too much money from world banks and they left civilians to pay off the debt on the cost of their dignity, integrity and well-being.

Some African countries were able to lift themselves up above the stereotypes and are working towards brighter future. Africa is booming and many African countries are fastest growing economically at the moment. It's developing rapidly, improving, establishing new trends and using modern technology.

But I cannot fight the impression that it would be much simpler for them if not for the interference from white people throughout the history. It’s us who introduced bribery, corruption and group domination. And it was us who ensured that some people remain poor for long time, because if they have little – they have still too much to lose.

All that history ripped away African population from their lands and displaced them around the world. Because of slavery, we have Black people in America. Because of colonialism, we have Black people in European countries. And because of white people interference, we have refugees who are in need for shelter from the atrocities that happened in their homeland.

So no, we cannot look at the present situation without paying attention to history. The current issues are results of the actions of the people in the past. So the conflicts we see now in media are not isolated outbursts of violence in some random places. Those are the outcomes of tensions that build up for a long time. And unless we realise the importance of historical context in every conflict, we won’t be able to find meaningful solutions.

Written by Vespertilio

Unwanted Kisses, Obligatory Handshakes, Pre-War Decorum and Feminism

Recently I had a pleasure of reading a very insightful and interesting interview (more like informal chit – chat - in Polish) with famous Polish rapper – Adam “Łona” Zielinski. In addition, Adam is a friend of the family and I know from the fact that he is freakishly intelligent so I eagerly indulged in the lecture while drinking my morning coffee.

The interview was mostly about everything and nothing, little bit about politics, little bit about social situation in Poland, little bit about himself. It was the brain-stimulant I need before getting ready to conquer the world – easy to read, yet very sharp and thought-provoking.

And then it happened. One fragment DID provoke me to think about the issue further.

Of course, recently if we start talking about doctors in Poland (and issues of women’s patient rights violations), automatically there has to emerge subject of feminism. And here it what was said (I did a quite awesome translation, I must say):

Interviewer: Would you participate in the Slut Walk?

Adam: No. However, I grieve when I see women who are falling into patriarchal system of thinking themselves.

Interviewer: I grieve when female politician talks about parities and then she’s offended when a man addresses her the same way as any other friend.

Adam: Okay. I myself do not agree with equal treatment, I would prefer to be gentlemen towards ladies. But it doesn’t mean that woman shouldn’t have equal rights. My female colleagues are the amazing lawyers. They are substantially better than their male colleagues, yet they earn less. I can forgive feminists the pathos, form, rabidity. On one hand I defend equal rights, on the other – the image of pre-war gentleman and ladies. I would love to see woman who is both feminist and lady, and for the world to appreciate and promote it. May the word “lady” prevails in use. No harm will come to feminists if they allow to preserve it. It’s a nice word.

Basically, this fragment mimics the entire interview – it’s witty and comprehensive. And yet something is missing here. Depth.

Let me explain.

First: The choice of Slut Walk as example of feminist activity.

Ban Ki Moon

It always baffles me why everybody keeps mentioning only the most controversial activities of some factions of feminism? There is such a wide spectrum of types of feminism: liberal, radical, Marxist and socialist, cultural, black, eco-feminism and probably millions of others examples, as probably each woman is a feminist in different way. But we all have this radical and provocative notion that women are actually human beings and deserve equal rights. Different groups can have different vision and agendas regarding what is specifically meant by “equality” and most importantly all of the groups have different vision of how to bring equality into the society. So please, tell me, where this persistence of giving label “feminist” only to the most radical and controversial groups came from? And why there is this persistence in ignoring all this high profile people, who are obviously feminists? Just because they are not showing their tits and yelling, they are not worthy to be called “feminist”?

I would love to see an article (or video or song or anything) where somebody sparks a  conversation about feminism starting from: “what do you think about Angelina Jolie’s speech during Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict?” or “What do you think about Anna Dryjańska’s feminist activity?” or if you don’t want to go into heavy stuff: “Laci Green really have a point (didn’t have a point) in her video about…”; or to have male representation “have you seen any video of Jackson Katz? What do you think about male feminists?”.

And yet there is this persistent, consistent, insistent and absolutely annoying mania for sticking to feminist stereotypes of aggressive behaviour, “rabidity”, questionable personal hygiene and expression of other forms of behaviour widely described as “masculine”.

Second: Preservation of ladylike behaviour

I understand where Adam is getting here. After WW2 Poland lost many representatives of aristocracy and intelligence, scientists, poets, writers and therefore we lost our models for higher standards of behaviour. With emergence of communism the promotion of hard work and simplicity, the state of that pre-war decorum deteriorated even further until it was totally forgotten. I also weep for those times, especially when I’m going to the theatre and I see people in jeans and sneakers, or people wearing sports clothes in the church.

There is nothing wrong in longing for seeing people behaving more… gracefully and tactfully. But it is wrong to pinpoint specifically the disconnection between “ladylike behaviour” and feminism. The truth is, we are so far from that times. Men in general couldn’t be more apart from the image of gentlemen – instead there is plague of rude, sex driven, sexists. In such situation, expecting women to protect the word “lady” and generally “ladylikeness” is showing the worrying insistence in preserving the perception of how women should behave, but at the same time absolutely ignoring the fact that men rarely have to adhere to any properly stated form of behaviour. Especially the one that requires them to respect other people, women in particular.

Again, I understand Adam’s love for those standards. However, I don’t see it happening in the nearest future. Not because it’s against “feminist agenda”, but because it is simply not feasible, as in the modern world women cannot be graceful, moderate and passive (as pre-war ladies were) and at the same time fight with everyday sexism and being silenced, objectified, belittled and not taken seriously. You cannot expect women to preserve and promote ladylike behaviour without strongly promoting gentlemanlike behaviour and equal rights.

In short: mutual respect for each other as human beings and our rights.

However recently, with this obsession for promoting men’s rights to sex, their promiscuity, rough masculine power and ruthlessness, there is little gentlemen left. And if those few golden boys want to improve general standard of behaviour, the job need to be done starting from their fellow men and then they can start complaining that there is deficit of ladies. Otherwise it just sexist and discriminatory.

Third: Wanting equal treatment equals being treated like a “one of the guys”.

Let me quote the fragment again: Interviewer: I grieve when female politician talks about parities and then she’s offended when a man addresses her the same way as any other [male] friend.

Actually, this fragment is so ridiculously inappropriate and shallow that I had no idea where to start.

Okay, I think I know.

There is huuuuge difference between equal treatment and equal rights (what actually Adam pointed out). Personally, I never understood the logic behind arguments claiming that feminists by equal rights they secretly want to be men.

For example: “I fight for equal rights” and answer “so why don’t you go work in quarry” or “I don’t know why you feminists don’t want to shave your legs” or like here “you are feminist so why don’t you carry heavy bags”. I really don’t know how some people can go from equal rights to unshaven legs. Or carrying heavy things. I don’t carry heavy bags not because I am hypocritical feminist, but because they are heavy and my boyfriend is stronger. I believe the logic: “he/she who is stronger does more things that require strength” has its merits.  

But all of this has nothing to do with the subject. Like Adam pointed out, feminists are advocating for equal right, for example to education, to progression in career, equal pay, to sexual freedom, to choose who to marry, when to have kids, with whom to have kids. And finally the right to participate in public life and be greater in numbers in governmental representation.

I don’t see the transition from talking about political participation of women to the nonverbal statement of “I actually want to be a guy”. Why is it so difficult to understand that we feminist first and foremost want to have equal rights, but at the same time still remain the women (whatever the hell that means)?

There is also one other problem with this statement: assuming that by wanting equal rights we simply want to be treated as guys.

Well, for example I don’t. I want to be treated as human being, not a representative of a gender.

Let me elaborate further on this. Imagine Frank. Frank is your good friend. Now think about Frank’s interaction with other men. How he interacts with his best friend, classmates, random friends from school, his teachers, his father, grandfather or distant male relative. Does he treat them the same way? Everybody, the same way?

Probably not. Frank adjusts his behaviour in male-to-male interaction according to the status, personality, age, etc. of other man. And that’s a natural thing. Because there is no prescribed ways of social interaction in man-man relationships, even friendships, the same as there is no prescribed ways of woman-woman interaction.

There is, however, an acceptable way of social interactions between man and woman and it implies that woman should agree to the way that man chooses to interact with her. Does he want to kiss her hand? Well, she better accepts it gracefully. He doesn’t want to kiss her hand instead he prefers to shake it, but she wanted the kiss? She shouldn’t have expect that, because he wants to treat everybody equally. He shakes hands with men but doesn’t with women and she wants to shake hands. Is she crazy?! She’s woman. Etcetera etcetera etcetera…

Now let’s back to the interviewer’s statement.

Why the notion of “equal treatment” implies being treated like “one of the guys”? That’s not equal. That’s enforcing dichotomy of interaction and rejection of greater spectrum of human interactions. And that’s sexism at its best. By imposing stereotypical “guys” ways of interaction as an equal treatment, we totally ignore somebody’s right to have their comfort zones, both men and women, and how they want to interact with each other and others.

Generally, there is no space for accepting that we actually want to be treated as human beings and therefore have the RIGHT to choose how we will interact with others in our everyday lives. Why this female politician cannot choose how she will be treated by her colleagues? Just because she fights for equal rights, does it mean she abandoned her right to be respected and being treated the way she wants to be treated?

Sure, some feminists want to be treated like men. But some don’t. And yet they also want to be treated equally. How? It can be achieved by respecting our boundaries, by respecting our willingness or lack of willingness to participate in certain practices and most importantly by allowing us to express our opinion on this issue. Without judgements, labelling, ridiculing, belittling.

I know that this statement implies some level of schizophrenia and bipolarity. But it’s actually very easy to achieve by following 3 A’s rule: Act, Ask, Accept or Ask, Accept, Act. (I leave it to your discretion).

So for example, Frank wants to kiss Mary’s hand, but she doesn’t want that. Frank asks what kind of method of greeting she prefers, she answers that she prefers to kiss on a cheek (or headshake or wave from the distance). Franks accepts that.

And conversely, if Frank wants to shake hands, but Mary would preferred to be kissed, she should say so. But she should also ask and accept Frank if he doesn’t practice hand-kissing in any case.

Again it's not only about handshake or kiss. That’s just a simple example for mutual respect and acceptance of equal right to choose how the person wants to be treated. But it can be applied to every human interaction.

Sometime ago there was this whole issue about a model who didn’t want to kiss Tour the France winner. There were comments like “I feel bad for the guy”, “that girl is a jerk” or “she is full of herself”. But most were just missing the point: that simply she didn’t want to give him a kiss, even though that’s the type of social situation, where it seems the kiss is “appropriate”.

Just to quickly sum up: I admire Adam and his work and I really value his opinion. The interview generally was well spoken and the questions led to really engaging conversation. But as comes to feminism, equal rights, equal treatment and forming opinion on this matter, both speakers should just check their facts first. And it wouldn’t hurt anybody to just accept that the world is changing and women’s behaviour will also change, but it would be lovely if we were free to decide about this ourselves. 

Written by Vespertilio