[Noisebridge-discuss] Oppressive Behavior

[Charles Tang]

Also:
http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/aasp/faculty/Leslie%20Bow/articles/pdf/transracial%20%20Bow.pdf


On 31 December 2013 14:08, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:

> Also, one may see that she could have been excluded for her lack of
> whiteness.
>
> Example, the use of the word to illustrate an example is non-prohibitive
> for a white person? Because they diminished it's power somehow in a
> politically charged discussion?
>
> If the power of the word is inherent, regardless of context then how can
> it be written or scripted. The OP would be excluded too, as the
> "Pejorative" function of the word is inherently absent from the
> conversation. . . . it's just the use of the word which is a problem. This
> is akin to allowing whites to use words in the state of exception, a
> functional homosacar of semiotic discourse.
>
> A state of exception, rendering impossible an identity outside of
> whiteness.
>
> I think we are prohibiting identities here.
>
>
>
> On 31 December 2013 13:58, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>
>>  ...and i'll attempt to interpret.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a difference between appropriation and reappropriation.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Blacks appropriated the N word from whites. Now wiggers are
>> reappropirating it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To me, both seem potentially liberating, depending. I also think some
>> white people use Black idioms because they LOVE those idioms. As a person
>> of Jewish descent, i'm not offended that everybody eats bagels.
>>
>>
>>
>> “Now wiggers are reappropirating it.” It depends if this person
>> classifies herself as a wigger, white individual or even black individual.
>> There is no defining characteristic until we ask the individual who uttered
>> the words how they identify and why they identify. We cannot play
>> essentialism when there is a clear intersectional becoming of identity. How
>> can we say she is black or white, African American or Anglo American? Race
>> goes well beyond skin color.  We don’t know which community she identifies
>> with or even if she refuses identification all together. We also don’t know
>> if she fluidly moves about in her identity between cultures.
>>
>>
>>
>> It really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group
>> around identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we
>> are to delve into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life
>> circumstances and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of
>> exclusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Meaning, we cannot know if Sara meant to exclude Black people from
>> Noisebridge, when she used the n word, and so we should not assume any harm
>> was intended.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree, and also (a) good sense and taking a moment to size up Sara
>> (she's not very big) would lead one quickly to the obvious conclusion that
>> she was not trying to exclude anyone from anything. And (b) we could ask.
>> Asking might be a better first step, then shouting someone out the door.
>>
>>
>>
>> ^above.
>>
>>
>>
>> Take for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not identify
>> with conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different pronoun
>> to describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a dominant
>> cultural narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with relation to
>> their body.
>>
>>
>>
>> --Meaning, if a person rejects social stereotypes about their gender, the
>> person may try to get society to discard those stereotypes, by asking
>> people to use "they" instead of "he" or "she".
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, they might. I agree with and practice rejection of
>> gender stereotypes that don't fit me. But, through living, not through
>> syllables (hey, that's just me).
>>
>>
>>
>> "Conflated"?
>>
>>
>>
>> The point I am making is that racial identity is constructed in sex and
>> gender. Conflated archetypes mean a becoming of a “being” and in the matrix
>> of archetypes that constructs one’s identity. I’m trying to show the
>> immediate parallels between the excluder’s implosions of gender through the
>> subscription to an “E” pronoun to the potential for the implosion [or
>> partial] of the exclusions’ race. If gender is fluid, then why isn’t race?
>> They are both attempts to construct binary oppositions that make dominance
>> possible (e.g. he/she and black/white). These dichotomies render impossible
>> the idea that race and gender are not discrete, but fluid and reflexive
>> understandings of self within the context of one’s experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in
>> their own whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave
>> their whiteness in an alternative racial narrative.
>>
>>
>>
>> --i THINK you mean, a white girl might use Black idioms to show she's not
>> a typical white person.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, she might.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, what I’m saying is that race is fluid as is gender. There needs to be
>> a conversation of intersectionality here that is largely being ignored.
>> That skin color may not determine an individual’s race, and consequently
>> this individual may be reappropriating the term within the identity this
>> individual chooses to live in.  Consequently, this is more reason to engage
>> in dialogue about the identities present in this argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> It comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense and
>> if the instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation
>> entrenched in an alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be
>> perceived.
>>
>>
>>
>> --what matters is: Was there intent to oppress, or intent to liberate?
>>
>>
>>
>> Having spoken with Sara at length, i would say her goal in life is to
>> liberate others through laughter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Appropriation is an over identification with the symptomology of
>> oppression. It makes possible the taking of the word and a translation of
>> the power of oppression vis-à-vis its use by the oppressed or individuals
>> who identify with the oppressed. Now, I’m suspectful of the liberation
>> ideology because it would seem strange within your iteration of her
>> identity. . . . and the fact that she likely is not going to liberate a
>> class of people via a small joke between her and someone who doesn’t
>> identify with any gender pronouns . . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s really just a discourse that plays or diminishes power in a space.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation...
>>
>>
>>
>> --You lost me there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perceptual appropriation is the understanding that this person only
>> identifies as white, has had privilege because of her whiteness and is
>> using a term, which can only be used in an appropriative way because of
>> that privilege. It excludes the understanding that this person may have an
>> aspect or even identify with blackness or an alternative African American
>> identity which allows her to reapproraite the word in a context that
>> actually upheaves oppression, by taking the dominating power out of the
>> word.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...reappropration should not exist for those who are not entirely
>> classified by essentialist functions within a social space.
>>
>>
>>
>> And there. Sounds like you're saying "1/2 white people are not allowed to
>> use the N word"?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, what I’m saying is that if we are to exclude off of this discourse,
>> it could be used to justify the exclusion of others who cannot specifically
>> identify in essentialist terms with a particular race. Being part of is not
>> whole or ascribing to is not whole, both situations under this exclusionary
>> framework disables alterity and refocuses power by prohibiting the
>> subaltern from engaging in speech. It utterly destroys the agency of the
>> Other discursively, rendering them voiceless absent exclusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of
>> policing of boundaries.
>>
>>
>>
>> One? Or specificially persons of mixed race?
>>
>>
>>
>> Any individual who exists as a mixed race individual, ascribes to
>> alternative cultural ways of knowing, or implodes categorical
>> understandings of identity. Policing of boundaries is as intersectional as
>> physical policing. The parallels and disparities exist for both. Imagine
>> the world where more people of a certain class, race, identified race,
>> gender, identified gender, identifying implosion get caught up in policing.
>> Because these individuals do not concretely fit within categorical
>> frameworks, they are lead to be marginalized.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the perception of identity functions in this fashion, then we are very
>> wrong to exclude on this basis of speech.
>>
>>
>>
>> Clearly, this individual has embarked on minstrelization. Who is to say
>> this individual can’t do this? Regardless, I don’t think this individual
>> should have to justify their identity. It’s akin to asking a mixed person
>> “what is your racial decent.” Translation: 'I don’t know who you are, why
>> you act the way you do, and I must know about it because I wouldn’t
>> understand your identity without such a justification.'
>>
>>
>> On 29 December 2013 18:09, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/29/2013 4:42:41 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...and i'll attempt to interpret.
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a difference between appropriation and reappropriation.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Blacks appropriated the N word from whites. Now wiggers are
>>> reappropirating it.
>>>
>>> To me, both seem potentially liberating, depending. I also think some
>>> white people use Black idioms because they LOVE those idioms. As a person
>>> of Jewish descent, i'm not offended that everybody eats bagels.
>>>
>>>
>>>   It really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group
>>> around identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we
>>> are to delve into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life
>>> circumstances and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of
>>> exclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Meaning, we cannot know if Sara meant to exclude Black people from
>>> Noisebridge, when she used the n word, and so we should not assume any harm
>>> was intended.
>>>
>>> I agree, and also (a) good sense and taking a moment to size up Sara
>>> (she's not very big) would lead one quickly to the obvious conclusion that
>>> she was not trying to exclude anyone from anything. And (b) we could ask.
>>> Asking might be a better first step, then shouting someone out the door.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Take for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not
>>> identify with conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different
>>> pronoun to describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a
>>> dominant cultural narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with
>>> relation to their body.
>>>
>>>
>>> --Meaning, if a person rejects social stereotypes about their gender,
>>> the person may try to get society to discard those stereotypes, by asking
>>> people to use "they" instead of "he" or "she".
>>>
>>> Yes, they might. I agree with and practice rejection of
>>> gender stereotypes that don't fit me. But, through living, not through
>>> syllables (hey, that's just me).
>>>
>>> "Conflated"?
>>>
>>>
>>>  The same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in
>>> their own whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave
>>> their whiteness in an alternative racial narrative.
>>>
>>>
>>> --i THINK you mean, a white girl might use Black idioms to show she's
>>> not a typical white person.
>>>
>>> Yes, she might.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  It comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense
>>> and if the instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation
>>> entrenched in an alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be
>>> perceived.
>>>
>>>
>>> --what matters is: Was there intent to oppress, or intent to liberate?
>>>
>>> Having spoken with Sara at length, i would say her goal in life is to
>>> liberate others through laughter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation...
>>>
>>>
>>> --You lost me there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  ...reappropration should not exist for those who are not entirely
>>> classified by essentialist functions within a social space.
>>>
>>>
>>> And there. Sounds like you're saying "1/2 white people are not allowed
>>> to use the N word"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of
>>> policing of boundaries.
>>>
>>>
>>> One? Or specificially persons of mixed race?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131231/99c0732f/attachment-0003.html>