Skip to main content

Verbs, not Nouns

There's a bunch of videos going around right now, of white people exercising their power in a supremacist environment to ensure and protect their supremacy, and either killing or trying to kill black people. This isn't new, by the bye. White people have been executing, or trying to execute, black people since basically 1500 or so, and Americans (and that little appellation is deserving of its own rant, at some other time) have been doing it since at least 1600. I'm not particularly interested in watching or sharing a snuff film (or an attempted-murder film) so I won't be linking them here, but there are a LOT of people up in arms about the fact that the perpetrators of this violence are suffering from the consequences of their actions including losing their jobs, which some folk seem to think is an overreaction. 'I know these people, they aren't racist!' says Yet Another White Supremacist, and here's the thing: they're probably not actually wrong. 

G. Willow Wilson captured it brilliantly in Ms. Marvel when she said "Good isn't a thing you are, good is a thing you do." The reverse is also true: evil isn't a noun; it's a verb. That includes evil acts that fall into the "racist" bucket. You don't actually have to be "a racist" to do a racist thing. Especially when you're a white person (like I am) often the racist things you do are small, and unthinking, and (this is important) still racist things. There's every reason to think that the latest Stars of Public Opinion are probably seen by their friends, family, peers, and public as "not a racist" because they don't do things like dress up in bedsheets and burn crosses on lawns (though given that one of the people currently in the Spotlight is a cop, I make no promises or predictions). But that doesn't make the actions they take any less racist, even if that wasn't their conscious intention, and it doesn't mean they don't deserve to face the consequences of their actions. I don't say that intent doesn't count for anything, but it certainly counts for less than the actual results, good or bad, of the actions we take.

Being white is always going to convey benefits, because "white" is a constructed identity that is explicitly designed to include certain types of people and exclude certain types of people, and those types are explicitly fluid within the definition. Shit, for a while there in the pre-war USA, being Catholic meant you were outside the limits of the then-current definition of whiteness. The only way to justice and equality is to dismantle the concept of whiteness, and that means deconstructing several basic features of our current culture. We will most definitely do that; it is in the nature of history that cultures rise and fall. It would be great if we could do it intelligently, instead of via the chaos of uncontrolled destruction. But make no mistake: no culture lasts forever. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Money and Happiness as a fungible resource

Money really does buy happiness. Anyone who tells you differently has a vested interest in keeping you poor, unhappy, or both. I know this because I grew up on the ragged edge of poor, and then backed my way into a career in IT, which is where the modern world keeps all the money that isn't in Finance. So I am one of the extreme minority of Generation X that actually had an adulthood that was markedly more financially stable than my parents. And let me tell you: money really does buy happiness.
To be clear: at 45 years old, I'm now in a relationship and a period of my life where our household is effectively double-income, no kids. I live in the city, but I own a house, and can only afford to do that because of our combined income. We also have two cars -- one new, one used (though neither of them is getting driven very much these days) -- and we have a small discretionary budget every month for things like videogames, books, and the like. What my brother used to call DAM -- Dic…

Occasional Media Consumption: Gideon the Ninth, by Tamsyn Muir

There is -- I won't say no trick, but perhaps -- very little trick to introducing the reader to a character and then making us like that character. An author can make it a bit harder for themselves by making the character somewhat disagreeable, at least at the start, but eventually we get to the bits where the character does something good and then we like them. An author can do this in reverse, too: show the reader a character, and them make us not like that character. Arguably, it's slightly easier, because we just see the character being an asshole, and then we don't like them. But there is a positive magic in the trick of taking a character, and making us not like them, and then changing our minds. It's a hell of a trick, too. We're introduced to a character, and then the do something disagreeable or assholish, and then we don't like the character. And then, little by little, the author peels back the layers, and suddenly we understand. The character was li…

Occasional Media Consumption: Justice League (2017)

So let's get this out of the way first: this movie is bad. I mean, it's bad. And not in the way that most superhero movies are bad, though it is bad in that way too: inconsistent characterizations, lack of understanding of motivations, weirdly-shot fight scenes, dodgy use of CG, etc. I mean, it is bad in all of these ways too, especially the whole thing where they digitally removed a mustache from Henry Cavill, who's honestly doing his best with a bad script and a character he's fundamentally unsuited to play. Gail Godot, in an iconic roll for her, suddenly shoved out of the way to make room for (also fundamentally-miscast) Ben Affleck's the Batman and Cavill's Superman, And Ray Fisher and Ezra Miller trying to introduce characters that honestly deserve their own movies. Jason Momoa's Aquaman got his own movie, but as far as I can tell he's just stepped into this one from a whole different universe and is basically pretending to live in the grim-n-gritt…