So I was reading this article a couple of days ago, and I thought it raised a pretty interesting point about the attitudes of westerners. For those not bothered to read the article, it basically drew attention to the irony of the Tea Party: as of now anyway, most of its constituents are “angry” about unemployment, taxes and big government, in light of the economic downturn in the US; most of them are also white, married, middle-aged and have above average education levels. I.E, they’re not the people who have been hit hardest by the recession, (the unemployment rate for blacks is estimated to be 25% compared to a national average of maybe 10). This brought me to the rather uncomfortable and paradoxical conclusion that the more well-off we become, the more selfish we grow and the more we want. Not that poor people aren’t selfish, of course, but they seem to be proportionally less so than rich people, given their situations. It’s generally the rich who complain about insane tax rates, and while I accept that they pay nominally and proportionally more taxes and receive less government benefits, they also have longer life expectancies, better health and healthcare, and affluent areas are less prone to high rates of crime (see this.
Another striking example, and one that’s a bit closer to home, is the asylum seeker or “boat people” issue. Undoubtedly our darling pollies have duped us into thinking it’s far more pressing than it actually is, but they wouldn’t have gone on fear mongering sprees if they didn’t think it wouldn’t gain them votes. Which reflects rather badly on Australians, to the degree that one can make such generalisations. There were 2927 boat arrivals in Australia last year, and 4822 this year. Roughly 1-2% of our total migrant intake. Roughly 0.1-0.2% of Australia’s population. (Sidenote: I have no idea why the fact that they’re “boat people” as opposed to “plane people” makes a difference, but whatever floats your...)
I’ve heard many, many arguments in favour of refusing to accommodate boat people. Several of the most significant hinge on the idea that catering to their needs might endanger Australians’ standard of living. This is either because A, they bring nothing useful to Australia and are a drain on resources, or B, they’ll steal jobs from workers. Both can’t be true at the same time, and I believe neither is. But whatever people believe, I doubt a few thousand refugees will have us all homeless and begging any time soon. The US received 49 thousand claims for asylum in 2009, and they’re about 11 places further down on the Human Development Index. And in per capita terms of hosting refugees, we’re ranked 69th. Remember, most will try to escape to neighbouring i.e. developing countries, those that are comparatively ill-equipped to manage them. In 2009, countries hosting the largest numbers of refugees included Pakistan (1.8m), Syria (1.1m) and Iran (980 thousand), ranked 141st, 107th and 88th by HDI, respectively. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have a feeling the citizens of these countries were less worried about diseased queue-jumping refugees than about poverty, instability and corruption. People could argue that they don’t care simply because they’re too busy dealing with more pressing issues; I think that makes us first-worlders look even worse. What have we got to complain about, really? And if you think they’re that selfish over in Pakistan, I suggest you have a read of this.
More ideologically, I also stumbled upon this article, which is perhaps the most thought-provoking piece I’ve read in a while. I don’t agree with all of what the author asserts about “white liberals”, but I definitely think number 5 deserves merit:
5. It's not a "[insert racial group here]" issue as much as it is a "human" issue.
Last year, the outreach program Keep a Child Alive ran an AIDS awareness campaign featuring headshots of Western celebrities adorned with facepaint and large block letters proclaiming, "I Am African". The high-profile roster included such human rights luminaries as Gwyneth Paltrow, Sarah Jessica Parker and only one person who could actually claim to be African: supermodel Iman. There was a rapid backlash to the campaign and its asserted motives: "Each and every one of us contains DNA that can be traced back to our African ancestors... Now they need our help." Its flaws were easily exposed by a deft parody that reversed the roles portraying an African woman with the tagline, "I am Gwyneth Paltrow".
The campaign fit neatly into a framework of universal humanism, where a Westerner, with enough knowledge and/or empathy, could speak for another. Universalism, as it has existed, has refused to allow nonwhiteness to exist in any real or multifaceted way, and while Gwynnie can stand in for Africa, a nameless African woman could never replace her, or the "West" for that matter. This is yet another permutation of colorblindness that denies those who most experience racial oppression the right to speak to it. In the introduction to Notes of a Native Son, James Baldwin writes,
"When we talk about color, we are not merely speaking about phenotype, but experience, oppression, and livelihoods -- things that inform our humanity."
Even Toni Morrison (and she's not the only person who said this) made an egregious error when, in a New Yorker article, she said Bill Clinton was the first "black president." She said his background and the potshots directed at his sex life were indicative of the black experience. Not really. Nothing can stand in for having dark skin. It's also especially ironic because policies he espoused resulted in higher incarceration rates for black people.
Though that article deals mainly with the issue of race, I think the above statement is applicable to... well, everyone. White, preppy, Christian, male Tony Abbott shouldn’t be taking the moral high ground on abortion, because – let’s face it – he doesn’t have the same understanding of the issue as the rape victim or the working class teenage mother. His problem is that he lacks sympathy, (and, some might argue, hasn’t really attempted to sympathise).
But by the same token, I don’t think white liberals should assume that their progressive ideals render them especially well-informed/enlightened/intelligent. I’m not implying that they’re unintelligent, only that it’s presumptuous for them to think they understand the plight of minorities, and thus know best how to remedy their situations. Their problem is their inability to realise that sometimes, empathising is impossible.
In my view, person A (a white liberal) has absolutely no right to censure person B (another white person) for saying or doing something, simply because person A believes it to be racist and offensive. Now obviously, you have to apply common sense to that idea. Saying “black people are evil and deserve to die” is probably something a lot of black people would find offensive. But saying “Chinese food is gross” or “I think Indian dancing is boring” is merely expressing a preference that doesn’t necessarily reflect on someone’s racial prejudices, or lack thereof. (Another fascinating and important aspect of this issue is dealt with quite adequately here).
The indomitable self-righteousness of some liberals (of all ethnicities) irritates not only conservatives, who are often made to feel that they’re evil simply for possessing “unfashionable” views, but minority groups as well. A lot of people are shocked when I tell them my friends laugh at me when I walk into things/people. They think, no doubt, that I shouldn’t have to be humiliated for something I can’t control or avoid. They’re right, and occasionally it’s painful and/or embarrassing, but you know what? In the vast majority of cases I don’t give a damn, because I do grasp the humorous aspect and I laugh along with my friends. And when it is painful or embarrassing? I suck it up. That’s the way it should be, there’s little to be gained from spending my life walled up in a self-imposed prison of disadvantage. And, having encountered a fair few disadvantaged people, I know that a lot of them have similar mindsets. We don’t want people treating us like hypersensitive basketcases, because that can be just as offensive as insensitivity.
Of course, I recognise that it works the other way as well. Up until a few months ago, I relegated the anti-using-the-word-gay-pejoratively campaign to the “politically oversensitive” bin, though I can assure everyone I’ve never used it pejoratively or encouraged the practice. This was mainly because just about every openly gay person I’d met was confident in their sexuality, and most of them made and took gay jokes in good humour. Additionally, many of the really ardent anti-pejorative-ists I’d encountered were straight white liberals. After reading Darren’s note, however, I came to realise my error, i.e. assuming I knew how gay people respond in relation to that issue.
I think that a lot of the “white liberal” or “male feminist” or “rich philanthropist” sentiment arises from a sense of guilt, (this was also addressed in the abovementioned article). And from that guilt, there develops a desire to understand the wrongs inflicted. This kinda harks back to what I said earlier about empathy, and I’m all for acknowledgement of past and continuing disadvantage, but as I’ve said, there are limits. Because of the unique understanding granted by experience, I believe (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) that a lot of upper-class liberals either wish, or like to believe, they have experienced oppression. In some ways I don’t blame them, or us I suppose. My parents tell me that it’s mighty fine to aspire to be a low-paid professional who sticks up for the little guy, but that I’ve never lived without, so I take for granted the lifestyle of the well-off. Who wouldn’t feel rightfully frustrated by being sidelined for such a reason?
For a long time I resented my affluent background, because I felt it rendered me a preachy hypocritical loser. A tiny part of me probably still feels that way. But after giving it some thought, I realised how horrible that mentality is. If I really were poor, if my parents had to work inconceivable hours or struggled to find work, if they couldn’t afford laptops or mp3 players or slick new mobile phones or any mobile phones or adequate healthcare or enough food, I think I’d be far more concerned about making ends meet than about political credibility. Which is why the idea of wishing all that upon myself, simply in order to gain political credibility, is rather sickening.
I hope my ramblings haven’t offended anyone too severely, but if they have, I’m sure you’ll live.
BTW, If I’ve tagged you, it means I think you might be vaguely interested in what I have to say. If I’m being presumptuous in doing so, I apologise, lol.
(P.S: I suck at html)
