As I did last week, I will put my question/thoughts from someone else's blog on my own for easier viewing pleasure! Enjoy!
Korie,
I was going to make a post on my own blog that dealt with the question of whether identity (especially in terms of race) is all that important on the internet. That is, there seem to be two sides: the side -- which, mind you, is not necessarily white or black or anything else -- that wants to shroud race or other identifying factors on the internet, and those who believe they're integral to any form of communication or interaction.
I bring this up because it's a question that occurred to me while I was first reading Nakamura's introduction. In some sense, we cannot argue that race/ethnicity has caused plenty of problems in society, and I, for one, could see many benefits of hiding it because of this. While I don't like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, at the same time I do not see how and why race MUST become an issue. Aren't there a lot of people who suggest that race has only become an issue BECAUSE it's been a site of contention? In other words, aren't the people responsible for the racial divide and oppression also responsible for it to be a necessary defining factor? Thus, wouldn't eliminating that as a category subvert the oppressive structure as a means of resistance?
This is where I take the most issue with Nakamura: she assumes things without really unpacking and critically examining them.
Maybe I'm not cynical enough and I believe in humanity too much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Sarah. I'm seeing far too much unpacking and presumption throughout Nakamura, but it feels jumpy and unfocused to me. In my post, I wrote that I could not write an annotation of Nakamura if asked. During the day, reading other's blogged responses and talking with Anne, I've moved from feeling personally and intellectually incompetent to simple frustration that I can't get a straight message to her. Nuance only goes so far with my little brain.
Deedee
Sarah -- I'm confused some by your writing here, I have to admit.
First, you write "we cannot argue that race/ethnicity has caused plenty of problems in society" -- should there be a "not" between "cannot" and "argue"?
Second, I really need for you to unpack the following sentences: "In other words, aren't the people responsible for the racial divide and oppression also responsible for it to be a necessary defining factor? Thus, wouldn't eliminating that as a category subvert the oppressive structure as a means of resistance?" Who *are* the people responsible for the racial divide and oppression? And how would eliminating the category of race "subvert" the oppressive structure?
The argument that we cannot be silent about race or ethnicity is that to be silent about it does not make it go away. Instead, acting as though it doesn't exist aggravates the situation by letting people think it's taken care of and done with, when in all our practices and institutions racism continues and is allowed to continue covertly and so even more dangerously. We don't need to acknowledge our own racism because -- hey! -- racism is something that's over -- so how can I be a racist? Why should I need to change any behaviors?
Or am I missing something in your argument?
Post a Comment