Dominant vs. Non-dominant
2003-12-15, 10:28 a.m.

Seems that there are those who don�t agree with my last entry. Of course, I knew that was likely. It�s not a popular position to take and I knew that.

On a personal level, I know better than anyone that you can�t make assumptions about a persons race just by appearance. I look white enough that people are forever �forgetting� that I am not. I don�t assume when I meet someone that they are racist. I am actually quite shocked when I hear prejudiced things from someone, regardless of their race. For some reason, I am still always shocked by it.

Racism is a social construct. It has a definition in any dictionary that doesn�t match mine. However, as someone whose academic background is in sociology, the definition I work from will be different than merely the standard dictionary. Of course, logic will bear this out. Think �institutional racism.� Does this make you think of the all black organization that doesn�t admit whites? Probably not. It�s more likely to make you think of the organization primarily made up of whites who allow racist behavior to go unchecked and certainly unpunished. �Racism� implies power, which in this country, people of color do not collectively have. In every case I can think of where race was at issue, the dominant culture harmed the non-dominant culture rather than the other way around. For example: the Germans and the Jews. The Germans (dominant culture) were in power and killed as many Jews (the non-dominant culture) as they possibly could. Heinous. In areas where they do not share our social construct, things may be different. In fact, they probably are. However, many countries that have racial (as opposed to tribal or national) differences, share our western social constructs. Race, in and of itself, is a social construct with no basis whatsoever in biology or physiology.

I don�t expect all people to agree with me. I�d be quite shocked if they did. But let me clarify something:

I do * not* think that all white people are �bad� and all non-white people are �good.� I think that white people who can�t understand *why* people of color might be angry should take a step back and think about it. TranceJen gave a specific example in her diary about a couple of people she worked with who were in a car that was assaulted by a group of angry black people. What on earth would prompt them to be so angry, she wanted to know, that they would take their anger out on people they didn�t even know? That�s paraphrasing it, but essentially, I think, the gist of it.

That�s a perfect example. Imagine if in *your* life you were considered �bad� until proven the �exception.� Imagine if in your life, you were stopped by the police, not because you�d broken any traffic laws but because a person who looked like you should not be driving the car you have in the neighborhood you�re in. Imagine if you or your spouse were pregnant and you knew that you were going to have to one day teach your child, your precious beautiful child, that they would have to deal with this same stuff? How do you do that? Imagine if, in your life, you risked your life just going out in the world because there are few ramifications for people who harm people who look like you? Think that�s a thing of the past? It�s not. Look through the papers. People commit �hate crimes� every day. In theory, they are punished harshly, but we all know that many times they aren�t. I haven�t gone to look up specific examples for the purpose of writing this journal entry, but I will if you�d like �proof.�

I know that there are white people, or people of the dominant culture wherever they are, who have worked toward a common good and the elimination of racism. In my entry, I didn�t make that clear. There have been countless people who have risked life and limb in the interests of racial harmony and, more importantly, racial equality. What I said was that *I* had met few white people who didn�t harbor some racial prejudices. Even those who work toward the greater good. That sounds much more like a condemnation that I meant it to be. They are good people who have the best of intentions and with time they�ll learn that their preconceived notions are wrong. There is hope.

Another thing that wasn�t made clear in my previous entry: I am *not* condoning violence against anyone. I am *not* excusing prejudiced behavior on the part of anyone. I am saying that I can understand why the people do it. It�s not right, regardless of who does it. But I can understand where the anger comes from. That�s the part I was really responding to in TranceJen�s diary: the part about where does the anger come from. It comes from centuries of being lied to, beaten, enslaved, murdered, raped and vilified. It comes from centuries of seeing images of yourself in books, movies and TV as stupid and wrong and something to ridicule. It comes from having our culture, language, religion and traditions ripped from us and debased. It comes from having our lives devalued and our contributions to this society ignored.

Whatever the question, violence is never the answer. While I won�t condone the violent behavior, I can understand it. It�s easy to say �We should just all get along� and not deal with the anger the non-dominant groups have. Think about it on a personal level: if your anger is ignored, does it go away? Nope. It simmers beneath the surface and erupts at an inappropriate time and in an inappropriate way. The anger must be dealt with and healed before we can �move on.� Sure, we can teach our children to be different. That�s a good start. However, for true healing to take place, we have to rectify the past hurt in whatever way we can and work *through* it, not around it. We can�t pretend it doesn�t exist. Or else we wind up with a bunch of Children of the Dominant Culture who have no idea why the Children of the Non-dominant Culture are so angry. At them. For their privilege that they don�t even know they have.

It isn't that I think TranceJen is a bad person. I don't. Which is probably why I got so riled up in the first place. She cares. She obviously cares and even she doesn't "get it." If *she* doesn't, and others who care about this issue don't get that we have to deal with the anger, we have a lot further to go than I thought.

For the record, I linked to Diva and Gnomad without thinking and without their permission. Doing so did not imply agreement on their part.