[Note: this post contains offensive terms.]
Africville was a small settlement on the outskirts of Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was founded by “Black Loyalists,” people of African descent who fought alongside the British during the American Revolution and the War of 1812, often because they were promised freedom from slavery if they did so. And after these conflicts ended, these Black Loyalists moved to Canada – and to freedom.
But life in Africville was not easy. And, after nearly 200 years of governmental abuse (such as locating both a prison and a dump for the city’s “night soil” in the area) and governmental neglect (the failure to ever provide potable water to the area), this thriving-against-all-odds community was ultimately leveled in the late 1960s to make way for the building of a new bridge and for an expansion of the Halifax port. The bulldozers destroyed even the community’s beautiful Seaview African United Baptist Church.
(For a history of the area, see http://www.africville.ca/)
The people who lived there – most of whom had never managed to acquire clear title to their properties and to the houses they built there, and hence received no compensation – were forced to move. And when moving day came, their belongings were transported in the back of garbage trucks, like so much trash to be hauled away.
The homes were immediately leveled.
Like the residents of so many Black neighbourhoods in North America that were thought to be standing in the way of “urban renewal,” the people of Africville were scattered to the winds. This move devastated the community. And while the bridge was in fact built, the port expansion never happened, and even today the land where Africville once stood remains largely empty. In the 1980s the city turned it into a park. In 2002, the site was designated a National Historic Landmark by the Government of Canada. And in 2010, the mayor of Halifax apologized for the destruction of the community, and established the Africville Heritage Trust in order to open a museum and to rebuild the beautiful church that – like the community itself – was needlessly destroyed.
We White people really care about “racism.” (Sometimes.) That is some of the background that helps us understand why, a few weeks ago, there was significant outrage among many African Nova Scotians at the hiring of a white woman from Ontario to be the Executive Director of the Africville Heritage Trust. There was no way that this woman, who was neither from the region, nor was she Black, could ever adequately represent the interests and experiences of the former residents of Africville, the protestors asserted.
I thought they had a good point.
But apparently many of my fellow White residents of the Maritimes did not agree. Comments posted on news websites and calls made to radio talk shows showed a high level of hostility toward the protestors, and betrayed an anger that one does not often see in these parts. These White commenters were very angry about what they saw as “racism.” But it was not the racism that had left Africville so terribly neglected for almost two centuries that angered them. Nor were they angry about the racism that had ultimately led to the devastation of this historic and vibrant Black community.
No, what they were furious about was the mere assertion that a White person might not be the right person for the job.
Isn’t racism just racism? these angry White folks demanded over and over. Isn’t saying that a White person should not have that job every bit as bad as saying that a Black person should not have a job? Isn’t this just a continuation of racism? Isn’t this just a big step backward?
To my mind, the answer to these questions is simply: No.
There are times when racial background should be taken into account. That doesn’t make it racism.
And, furthermore, even when people in communities of color do express an anti-White bias (which was not the case here), I believe it is still far too much of a stretch to call it racism.
Prejudice vs. oppression. Among those who study race and racism, there is an understanding that there is an immense difference between prejudice and racism. The sociologists Cazenave and Maddern explain that racism is “a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry.”
So, according to this analysis, in a North American, European, Australian or New Zealand context, a Black person who doesn’t like White people is biased and perhaps even bigoted. But it is misleading to call that person’s acts and deeds “racist” because they simply lack the immensely powerful punch of the entire historical, cultural, and enduring legacy of a racist society – a racism that operates on all levels: the individual, the community, and the systemic.
Recently the great African-American multiple Grammy-winning jazz and classical musician Wynton Marsalis was asked what his greatest fear in life was. His response? “That our country may never recover from slavery – and not ever know that we need to recover from it.” It is difficult for me to think of a clearer example of the different lived experiences of Blacks and Whites. Successful White people just don’t tend to walk through the world worrying about whether society will ever recover from the centuries of enslavement of Africans – and its aftereffects. And most of us fail to even see the need to do so.
I understand that this line of thought (that Black people in a White context can never be “racist”) can be a tough sell to people who prefer to see all racial/ethnic preference as evidence of “racism.” So let me break it down:
In a European-dominated context, there is a critical difference between a Black person who hates Whites and a White person who hates Blacks. And one clear measure of that difference is the difference between the term honky and the term nigger.
Until it hurts me - a white person - just as badly, and cuts me just as deeply, to be called a “honky” (or some other anti-White term) by a Black person as it does a Black person to be called a “nigger” by a White person, then we cannot say that our biases carry the same weight. Only when we are equal in all other ways will our acts of racial intolerance then also be equal.
And so I join with those who refuse to call the actions of Black people “racist.”
We men care a lot about “sexism.” (Sometimes.) As I watched this angry reaction to the Africville Heritage Trust hiring controversy from normally-mellow White Maritimers, I was reminded of some of the comments that I get from men on this blog that accuse some female posters of being “sexist” when they voice sentiments that could be perceived to be anti-male.
And I see a similar accusation of anti-male “sexism” being leveled whenever women’s organizations in my city sponsor women-only events.
How is excluding men any different from excluding women? demand some men who, finding themselves not invited to the party, suddenly develop an intense interest in gender justice. Sexism is sexism! they cry out. And all sexism is bad!
If you think all “sexism” is so bad, I want to cry out in response, then where is your outrage when you hear that a man has raped a woman in our community? Where is your outrage when a man kills his wife? Where is your outrage about the fact that so many women walk the streets in fear of sexual assault? Where was your outrage when the local university got rid of its women’s hockey team – while still finding the money to sponsor a men’s team that went on to win the national championship? Where is your outrage about the fact that women still face considerable harassment on the streets and in the workplace? Where is your outrage about the fact that women still earn less money than men for doing exactly the same work? And where is your outrage that after getting home from work so many women still have to do far more than 50% of the housework as well?
Women still face great barriers in society that men simply do not. Where is your outrage about that?
Borrowing from Cazenave and Maddern’s analysis of racism, I would like to assert that sexism is a highly organized system of gender-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of masculine supremacy. Sexist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, gender bigotry.
So, according to this analysis, in a patriarchal context, a woman who doesn’t like men is biased and perhaps even bigoted. But it is misleading to call her acts and deeds “sexist” because they simply lack the immensely powerful punch of the entire historical, cultural, and enduring legacy of a sexist society – a sexism that operates on all levels: the individual, the community, and the systemic.
And as for sometimes encountering women who seem to not like us men very much, well, that can be very painful. But I think there is still a critical difference between a woman who hates men and a man who hates women. And one clear measure of that difference is the difference between the term dick and the term cunt.
Until it hurts me - a man - just as badly, and cuts me just as deeply, to be called a “dick” (or some other anti-male term) by a woman as it does a woman to be called a “cunt” by a man, then we cannot say that our biases carry the same weight. Only when we are equal in all other ways, will our acts of gender intolerance also be equal.
And so too I join with those who refuse to call the actions of women “sexist.”