June Gloom
04 February 2020 @ 09:45 pm
Leave me alone, you're just a one-night stand to me.
 
 
 
June Gloom

Three subtle types of racism are captured in the concepts of symbolic racismaversive racism, and micro-inequities.

Symbolic racism: is expressed by those who may or may not perceive themselves as racist, but justify their negative judgment of others by asserting that the others do not abide by traditional values of the dominant group. People can perceive themselves as being fair and practicing equality by holding forth certain values, such as “individualism” or “work ethic” or “self-reliance,” and take negative action because the focal group does not share those values. So they perceive themselves as operating based on certain “objective” standards or “universal truths” rather than in opposition to the group based on their race (Durrheim & Dixon, 2004).

Aversive racism: is another subtle form of prejudice. People who engage in the practice see themselves as non-racists, but they will do racist things, sometimes unintentionally, or they will avoid people without overt racist intent. What they believe about themselves and will attest to is the importance of fairness, equality, and justice, but because they have been exposed to the ever-present societal racism just by living in the United States, they will reflect it in their conduct (Durrheim & Dixon, 2004; Tatum, 1997).

Micro-inequities: Finally, good people can do bad things to others in ways for which there is no formal grievance, but still have negative (sometimes unintentionally) effect. This refers to micro- aggressions or micro-inequities. Micro-inequities are “those tiny, damaging characteristics of an environment, as these characteristics affect a person not of that environment. They are the comments, the work assignments, the tone of voice, the failure of acknowledgement in meetings or social gatherings. These are not actionable violations of law or policies, but they are clear, subtle indicators of lack of respect by virtue of membership in a group” (Rowe, 1990). These are forms of racism that as members of this society we all commit. People of color may commit these acts or maintain these attitudes against other people of color. The charge is to become able to recognize them and move ourselves and others beyond them to facilitate systemic change.

(via INSTITUTIONAL RACISM &  THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION: A CALL TO ACTION . )

Tags:
 
 
Current Music: Evanescence - Whisper | Powered by Last.fm
 
 
 
June Gloom

I’m sure every white person and their brother knows by now, if you say the n-word, you will be immediately be pegged as racist and be side-eyed for the rest of your natural life by even other racist white people.

But did you know that there are things you can say that AREN’T racial slurs that can make you racist?

I know. Shocker.

We’ll go over some of those phrases shortly, in hopes that you will realize all of the parts of racism, instead of just the parts you feel like.

But first, you must understand that racists aren’t all going out murdering PoC. They don’t all burn crosses. They don’t all scream slurs and get swastika tattoos. In fact, PoC actually like those people better, because they’re obvious and easy to avoid. I mean, if you see a guy with a swastika tattoo on his left cheek and “White Power” on his right cheek…chances are you have all the information you need to know about this guy. No no, the racists we have the most trouble with are the ones who are less obvious, the ones who actually think that they’re enlightened, and above racism.

You can catch subtle racism, either in yourself, or in others, by answering a few easy questions:

—Do you argue regularly with PoC on what the definition of racism is? Have you ever quoted the dictionary definitions in an attempt to stronghold a PoC’s definition?

—Have you ever told a PoC that “you understand why they are angry” and follow that up with “but they need to stop lashing out at the good white people”? Have you ever told a PoC complaining about racism that you are a “good, not-racist white person”?

—Have you ever told a PoC they talk about racism too much? Have you ever told them they get too angry? Have you ever called them hostile?

—Have you ever derailed an argument being made by a PoC by pointing out a small, ineffectual portion of it and acting as if that overrides the argument in full?

—Have you ever brought the focus of an argument on racism to yourself or your feelings? How about to the feelings of theoretical white people who aren’t in the conversation?

—Have you ever insisted on sticking by friends who are known to be racist, and then say that “you don’t have a choice”?

—Have you ever thought it a good idea to tell a PoC about the time people from their race were mean to you for being white? Have you EVER told a story in which PoC were “racist” against you?

—Do you believe that it is possible to be racist against white people?

—Do you believe that loss of privilege in another area eliminates white privilege? Do you believe that moving to another country eliminates white privilege? Do you believe that white privilege can be eliminated, period?

—Have you ever said the phrase “kill whitey” in an attempt to side with PoC on racism?

—Have you ever repeatedly contacted a PoC who has said they did not want to receive contact from white people due to horrid events that day?

—Have you ever made an ironically racist joke?

—Have you ever found yourself needing to defend yourself from accusations of racism?

—Have you ever accused a PoC of using the race card?

—Have you ever used the race card yourself in reference to whiteness?

—Do you believe that PoC-only places discriminate in a bad way against whites?

—Do you think that there are racial slurs that affect whites?

—Do you think that race doesn’t exist?

—Have you ever claimed to not see race, that all humans are part of humanity, that we all bleed red, or that you are colorblind and see all people equally until they treat you badly?

—Have you ever watched PoC get treated badly at an event you organized, but insist that they show up to help organize despite that?

—Do you think that there are experiences a white person can face that are equivalent to racism? Do you think that other marginalizations are comparable to racism?

—Do you quote violent statistics from other marginalizations that refer to the marginalization as a whole, without sending care to the fact that 75% of the people in that statistic are PoC?

—Do you willingly date known racist people? Do you defend racist people or racist actions?

—Have you ever gotten angry at a PoC for not “supporting the troops” or “liking the police”?

—Do you think the world is equal or mostly equal? Do you think that bad things and good things happen to various races in a fairly equal manner?

—Have you ever accused PoC as a whole of taking things from either you individually or white people as a whole?

—Are you against programs made to help PoC specifically?

—Have you ever claimed that PoC have “had enough time to catch up to white people and it’s their fault if they haven’t”?

—Have you ever used “bootstraps” against a PoC in any capacity, whether in relation to jobs, schooling, housing, childcare, or anything else?

—Have you ever unironically stated that we’re in a “post racial society”?

—Have you ever gotten angry for “generalizations” or “stereotypes” against white people?

—Do you think white people “just don’t get enough attention”? Some things you might recognize include thinking white people need a White Entertainment Television, movies all about white life, White History Month, or White Culture Day.

—Have you ever dressed up in blackface? Have you ever argued that dressing up in blackface isn’t racist? Have you ever argued that dressing up as any stereotype of PoC isn’t racist? Have you ever argued that PoC dressing up as stereotypes of white people is racist?

—Have you ever seriously used the phrase “reverse racism”? Have you ever seriously said that “reverse racism doesn’t exist, racism against white people is still racism”?

—Have you ever declined to date someone on the basis of their race/skin color, and claimed that “you cannot help your preferences”?

—Have you ever claimed that a racial issue is a “class issue”? Have you ever tried to separate class and race? Have you ever tried to treat race as a standalone, isolated issue?

—Do you believe that racism and oppression involves isolated incidents of being mean, rude, or inconsiderate?

—Have you ever used anecdotal data to “prove” to PoC that they are wrong about racism?

—Have you ever thought that your input was necessary in conversations of racism?

—Have you ever thought that your views of racism are objective, unlike PoC’s, and therefore worthwhile?

—Do you think that academia is supportive of PoC? Do you think that academia drafts logical processes in support of PoC? Do you uphold academia to the highest regard, higher than actual people?

If you answered YES to any of these questions, congratulations, you’ve done something racist! If you answered YES to more than one, you are a flat out racist! Now do something about it.

http://dumbthingswhitepplsay.tumblr.com/post/12746570722/how-to-tell-if-you-or-a-white-person-you-know-is

Tags:
 
 
Current Music: Kelly Clarkson - Judas | Powered by Last.fm
 
 
 
June Gloom

Institutional or structural racism, defined as the social, economic, educational, and political forces or policies that operate to foster discriminatory outcomes or give preferences to members of one group over others, derives its genesis from the origins of race as a concept.

Race as a biological fact has been invalidated by biologists and geneticists, but race as a social construct is very real. Physical traits still have meaning as markers of social race identity. It is this social race identity that confers placement in the social hierarchy of society, and thereby access to or denial of privileges, power, and wealth.

“The status assignment based on skin color identity has evolved into complex social structures that promote a power differential between Whites and various people-of-color.” 

The emphasis on the use of physical features to classify and group people has its history from the extended encounter between European and non-European peoples that began in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. “Discovering” human beings in Asia, Africa, and the Americas who looked- and often acted- very different from themselves, Europeans concluded that these superficial differences were surely indicators of much more fundamental differences as well. This conclusion helped them to colonize, enslave, and even exterminate certain of those peoples. Europeans came to believe that races are in fact distinct and identifiable human groups; that there are systematic, inherited, biological differences among races; and that the non-White races are innately inferior to Whites-that is, to Europeans. 

In the United States, the cognitive dissonance between the values and beliefs of the Protestant founders for human rights, liberty, justice, democracy, brotherhood, and equality alongside the practice of enslavement of Africans, the making of Mexican/Mexican Americans a foreign minority in the land of their birth, and genocide of Native Americans was resolved by classifying groups of people by virtue of their physical characteristics as being not only different, but innately inferior and thereby unworthy of rights and entitlements. From the very origins of this nation, the concept of race was used to institutionalize the benefits of one group of people while denying them to other groups of people.

The determination of who is or is not white in America has fluctuated over time. There have been times and places in which the Irish, Jews, Italians, and Latinos have been considered white or non-white. The changes in the U.S. Census Bureau nomenclature system over time demonstrate the fluidness in the U.S. society’s perceptions of how people should be clustered. The categorization that had been “White/Non-White” is now a set of five major groups along with notation of national origin. Furthermore, the individual determines his or her own race and can choose more than one. The census also makes a clear demarcation between racial categories and the ethnic category of Latino/Hispanic who can be of any race.

Contemporary United States continues to struggle with the cognitive dissonance between the espoused virtuous beliefs of this nation andits actual practices in relationship to those who are “different,” meaning “not white.” These struggles are captured in several of the terms often associated with a discussion of racism and related concepts.

(via INSTITUTIONAL RACISM &  THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION: A CALL TO ACTION . References at source.)

 
 
 
June Gloom


By Andrea Cowie, BSW, RSW

Abstract


This article explores the journey of reconciliation, both personal and professional, required for the social work profession to shed its history of colonialism in the context of its relationship with Canada’s Indigenous People, particularly in the realm of child welfare. This process involves becoming accountable for past harms such as the residential school system, the mass removal of children during the ‘60’s scoop’, as well as the contemporary over-representation of Indigenous children in Canada’s child welfare system. Further, this process demands that non-Indigenous social workers locate their privilege in order to become effective allies and partners along this path of reconciliation.


Introduction

The social work profession’s history with Canada’s First Nations People is plagued with harmful contacts embedded within colonial and assimilationist ideologies and agendas. Child welfare policies and practices such as the residential school system, as well as the systemic apprehension of First Nations children in the second half of the last century, known as the 60’s scoop, continue to impact upon the lives of families and communities. The current child welfare system continues to apprehend First Nations children at a disproportionate and alarming rate. The profession must hold itself accountable to this legacy of injustice as a first step in the process of reconciliation. Further, social work discourse must move beyond conceptions of cultural competence that frame cultural diversity as problematic, towards perspectives that not only legitimate, but also actively engages with and supports Indigenous knowledge and ways of being. Social workers must also embark upon this journey as individuals in order to locate their own personal histories, privilege and power within the system that continues to impact heavily upon the lives of First Nations People. This process of critical systemic and self-reflection is necessary in order for non-Indigenous social workers to become allies with First Nations families and communities, and essential in order to build relationships upon trust, reciprocity and social justice. 


History of Social Work with First Nations People


The history of social work with First Nations People is steeped in the legacy of colonialism and assimilation (Sinclair, 2004). The reservation system was created to physically isolate First Nations people, and the residential school system was a tool that furthered this isolation by attempting to eradicate the language, traditions and indigenous knowledge that is critical for the survival of culture. The mass removal and relocation of First Nations children, along with the abuse and maltreatment that occurred systemically at the schools, amounts to cultural genocide, the effects of which have impacted the physical, emotional, spiritual and economic well-being of people for generations that followed (Blackstock, 2009). The mass apprehension of First Nations children that followed the closure of residential schools furthered the colonial agenda, and the social work profession was intimately involved in this mass scooping of children starting in the 1960’s (Sinclair, 2004). Currently, First Nations children continue to be over-represented in the child welfare system (Trocme, Knoke & Shangreaux, 2005), and so, the social work profession also continues to act as agents of colonialism and oppression. Blackstock (2009), argues that the social work profession insulates itself by rationalizing its past and contemporary history of injustice by “the propensity to believe that if we are all well intended in our actions, regardless of consequences, social workers are substantially absolved from moral responsibility” (Blackstock, 2009, pg. 34). Social workers must be aware of the context of this history, as their First Nations clients are likely to have experienced the impacts of these interactions either directly or inter-generationally (Sinclair, 2004).


Reconciliation in the Child Welfare System: The impacts of the residential school system, as well as the mass removal of children from their families and communities continue to affect the daily lives of First Nations people in Canada. Social work’s role in perpetuating these injustices can no longer be ignored if the profession is to move forward and become partners in the healing and reconciliation that needs to occur. Due to their professional history associated with the ‘60’s scoop’, social workers are faced with negative stereotypes and according to Sinclair (2004), social work “is often synonymous with the theft of children, the destruction of families, and the deliberate oppression of Aboriginal communities” (Sinclair, 2004, pg.50). The First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada has developed a process for reconciliation in the child welfare system that presents an opportunity for the social work profession to engage with First Nations communities in a meaningful and effective way (Blackstock, 2009). The goal of this process is to acknowledge the mistakes of the past in order to create a system of child welfare based on principles of social justice and human rights that supports the intrinsic right of First Nations People to care for their children and to be the authors of their destiny and cultural identities (Blackstock, Cross, George, Brown & Formsma, 2006). The first phase in the reconciliation process involves truth telling, or open exchanges about the history of child welfare. This process involves the participation of both those affected by the child welfare system, as well as those involved in administering its policies. “The definition of harm must be acknowledged to be the first property of those who experienced it, just as acknowledging the harm and learning from it is the first obligation of those who perpetrated it” (Blacstock et al., 2006, pg. 9). The profession of social work must make itself accountable to the history of harm that it has perpetuated as a first step in moving forward to create a system based on social justice and inclusive of Indigenous values, culture and knowledge. The process of reconciliation must not only occur at the organizational level, but social workers themselves must also take this journey.


Individual Journeys 


If social workers are to practice anti-oppressively, they must first understand their roles as oppressors in order to create a space for deeper empathy and understanding. Anne Bishop (2002) argues that ignorance to oppression simply compounds the issue, and that our experiences as oppressors are often difficult to locate because our privilege is often invisible. According to her, “all members of this society grow up surrounded by oppressive attitudes; we are marinated in it. It runs in our veins; it is as invisible to us as the air we breathe” (Bishop, 2002, pg. 114). In the context of non-indigenous social workers in Canada, it is white colonial privilege that must be located within the political, economic and social systems in which they operate. Whiteness, the set of social meanings produced by political, cultural and historical forces is inextricably linked to notions of normalization and dominance, and is the site where marginalization of the ‘Other’ occurs (Jeffery, 2005; Jeffery, 2009; Park, 2005). Whiteness continues to be the marker by which other groups are defined in terms of their distance from the norm. Privilege, then is related in part to possessing the norms and values of the dominant group, as well as the seemingly invisible ways by which membership provides anonymity and unearned power and opportunities (McIntosh, 1990). Further, it is crucial that individuals also examine the ways in which they benefit politically and economically from the oppression of others. It is necessary for non-indigenous social workers to understand the ways that they continue to profit from the colonization of Canada and assimilation practices such as the residential school system, as well as the continued failure to fully implement and recognize First Nations rights as enshrined in the treaties. 


The process of unearthing one’s privilege as well as contributions to and continued benefits from the oppression of others requires critical reflexivity. This process extends beyond introspection about how one’s personal values and beliefs affect they ways in which we relate to others, but directly challenges the legitimacy of the knowledge systems upon which these values and beliefs are based (White, 2007). In the context of social workers in the child welfare system, this means not only understanding how one’s own experience of white-Anglo parenting or family values may impact upon understandings of First Nations families, but challenging the assumption that the latter can be measured in any way against the former. According to White (2007), when social workers socially locate themselves in this way “we directly challenge the myth of the neutral observer. The process also invites us to give up our expert positions in exchange for more open, relational, collaborative, and accountable practices” (White, 2007, pg. 216). 


This process of exposing and challenging one’s role in and profit derived from the oppression of others is necessarily a difficult and painful task. In order to truly understand and develop the capacity to empathize with the oppression and marginalization of First Nations People, non-indigenous social workers must deconstruct the expert piety that has allowed for the rationalization of past injustices and the professional inertia that currently exists in the context of over representation of First Nations children in the child welfare system (Blackstock, 2009). While critical reflexivity is certainly a personal journey, Bishop (2002) warns that it is important that allies not over-personalize the issue and internalize feelings of guilt. Instead, understanding one’s role in oppression should be examined within a structural framework where individuals are part of a collective where systemic oppression and marginalization are produced and maintained. 


Moving Forward: Towards Reconciliation

While the process of critical reflexivity and taking accountability for past injustices perpetuated by social work is a long and difficult journey, it is not impossible. Anti-oppressive social work discourse has been criticized as being too theoretical in nature while elusive in practice (Jeffery, 2009), however the following suggestions for non-indigenous social workers represent tangible practice tools essential in anti-oppressive social work with First Nations People. Social workers need to maintain a learner’s stance and a constant position of curiosity in terms of expanding their knowledge of First Nations culture, traditions and ways of being. Asking questions within and outside of the therapeutic relationship creates a space for meaningful dialogue and discovery (White, 2007). By asking First Nations clients, Elders and community members first hand about their culture and values, social workers can come to understand others through an unfiltered lens. In this way being curious and asking questions are an express mechanism for generating knowledge and experience. This process allows the social worker to understand the lived reality of clients, families and communities. Further, engaging in meaningful and reciprocal dialogue allows for collaborative meaning-making and joint-knowledge construction where the social worker is no longer the expert but rather a partner and an equal contributor (White, 2007). 


Becoming an ally requires a shift in power within the social work relationship from a ‘power-over’ stance to a ‘power-with’ position (Bishop, 2002). Relationships that are built on trust and reciprocity are fundamental stepping stones in this shift. Caution must be taken however, that social workers do not take sole ownership of the solutions to the problem, but rather should invest in relationships with First Nations People in order to affirm and support their rights to make the best decisions affecting them (Blackstock, 2009). According to Bishop (2002), this may mean that the social worker “leave their process – working through their anger – to the oppressed group. Give your attention to your own process – becoming an ally” (Bishop, 2002, pg. 116).


Finally, the personal journey of exposing and challenging privilege and the oppression of others must not start and end at the professional level, but must extend into the realm of the social worker’s daily life. It is not enough to simply uncover injustice, but social workers must think critically about their way of living and being, and become anti-oppressive warriors carrying a commitment to peace and transformation (Kundouqk & Qwul’sih’yah’maht, 2009). Social workers must take a stance. This challenges the notion that the profession is value-free and neutral, but rather requires a personal and professional investment in the problems, and in their solutions: 


As many Elders have said ‘we did not get here alone and we are not leaving alone’. It does mean shifting the philosophy of our current social work practice from one of solution holder and service deliverer to one where Aboriginal peoples make the best decisions for themselves. Non Aboriginal peoples must play a critical and active role in making space for those decisions and ensuring adequate resources are available to implement them (Blackstock, 2009, pg. 31).


Conclusion


Social work’s relationship with First Nations People is firmly entrenched within the history of colonization and assimilation of Canada’s First Peoples. This is evidenced by its involvement in the mass apprehension of children that continues today with devastating effects upon First Nations children, families and culture. Social work must hold itself accountable to this history in order for the journey of reconciliation with First Nations People to begin. The profession can no longer absolve itself from the harm that it continues to perpetuate within the child welfare system. This journey must also be taken up at the individual level, where social workers, particularly non-indigenous practitioners, are compelled to unearth and challenge their power, knowledge and privilege located within the social and political systems that intrude daily in the lives of their First Nations clients. Social workers must build relationships premised upon trust, reciprocity and equality in order for effective and meaningful change to take place. Becoming a social worker means taking on and shedding over a century of colonial baggage. This process is inevitably a difficult and highly personal journey that requires social workers to not only acknowledge the harm that has been done, but more fundamentally requires that social workers engage with and support First Nations People in an anti-oppressive way not only in their professional practice, but in their daily lives as well.

 
 
Current Music: Imogen Heap - Sweet Religion | Powered by Last.fm
 
 
 
June Gloom
08 August 2009 @ 05:11 pm
don't think that i'm pushing you away cos' you're the one i've kept closest
 
 
Current Music: The xx - Crystalised | Powered by Last.fm