I am completely obsessed with this post by Chally and the comments on it over on Feministe. Entitled “Dear USians on the Internet,” here’s the money shot:
USian racial dynamics do not translate anywhere else on the planet. Hence their being called USian racial dynamics. No one else has the precise history you do, that unique racial make-up, those particular constructions of what those identities mean – things that ought to be respected. Likewise, this stuff works differently in other countries because your experiences don’t magically melt over into and obliterate ours. Do not, do not, ever try erase or modify our experiences of racism, Indigenous experiences in particular, by framing my country’s appalling racist history in USian terms. Have some respect for the stuff other people have to deal with every day, some basic consideration of where we’ve been. That means sometimes people are going to be uncomfortable with the use of terms that are benign or even positive to you, like ‘person of colour’ (because it’s often considered a term particular to the USian context, because it indicates a sense of alliance that isn’t universal, stuff like that). Sometimes you are going to be uncomfortable with such non-white-shaped cultural aspects in other countries. It is not cool to force your ideas about race and racism on us and in doing so alter and damage our cultures, our strategies of resistance, so that you’re more comfortable. I seriously don’t know how you stomach doing that.
Obviously, the post is a rant, and to that extent I can see some people getting upset about tone. In fact, I’m having, as I type this, second thoughts about posting it here, because while I bet a lot of you will understand, my experience as a non-American living in America makes me wary of even bringing up this subject, let alone introducing it in strong language. So let’s not talk about tone.
Let’s talk, instead, about the epistemological consequences of power. Because I think you can see how one could reframe the above passage to be about gender, race, or sexual preference, or just about any of the axes along which people form associations and identity. Because I think you know already that the fact is that categories of knowledge are not neutral, but are constructed for and taught to us by the powerful. I think you know that sometimes, when you’re raised thinking and speaking a particular way to people who share some quality with you, that when you have the power even your very way of speaking can become exclusionary to someone from another background.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the issue Chally raises, both because I am in all likelihood going to be (somewhat unwillingly) back in Canada six months from now, and because I am wondering if that’s basically going to cut me out of internet feminist discourse – and also the kind of magazines and writing I adore – for good. See, while I’m here, I often feel like I’m “fronting” as an American – while I’m told I have an immediately identifiable accent (!%!&?!), most of the time I’m able to talk as if the society of primary concern to me were America, and I talk about American culture, within the constraints of American timeframes. Living in America has been an adventure in what some might call “passing” for me – I’ve never lived in such a dominant culture before. And it feels – and I know how ridiculous this sounds – like giving up a privilege when I go.
Small things nonetheless keep me aware of how I’m Not From Here. Awhile back when I was putting together a writing sample for what now will likely be a slew of unsuccessful MFA apps (the 1% odds make it hard for me to take personally) I had someone comment on them. About one he said: if you’re going to set this in Canada, you’d best be up front about it, people should be made aware it isn’t the U.S. And since then I’ve been nursing this nagging feeling that maybe I can’t make it here, anyway.
Que pensez-vous, commentariat? Particularly non-Americans…
Well, the tone of the rant pretty much discredits it, IMO. There might be a valid point to be made about different cultures and different levels of discourse but the whole comment is obviously just an angry, obstructionist screed: you suck and you can’t understand me or my experience so don’t even try and you’d better quit telling me what to think cuz I’m gonna say whatever I want but you have to shut up shut up shut up!
It’s like listening to a teenage freak-out. I’m just waiting to hear the door slam and rattle the pictures on the wall.
It seems to me that we’re in a pretty poor position to cast stones at others for using a ranty tone, here, Becks.
My ranting about things like thongs or the bouquet toss on this site is entirely different from an accusatory, obstructionist screed saying that Americans–all of us, apparently, are monolithic beings who march in intellectual lockstep–”alter and damage our cultures, our strategies of resistance, so that you’re more comfortable.”
I don’t actually think the post accuses anyone of intellectual lockstep.
Well, when the author says “USian terms” or “USian context”, that assumes that Americans all have one particular U.S. way of thinking about race or that we all see racial issues in one particular USian context, which is completely false.
So in her rant about how Americans shouldn’t generalize about other cultures and their experiences–which is a valid point, IMO–she totally generalizes about Americans and American culture.
Well, I don’t know that I’d characterize the rant being about Americans “generalizing about other cultures.” I think it’s about Americans imagining themselves to have access to some “universal standpoint” because they are so dominant.
I agree that “Americans” (i.e. the social construct) shouldn’t be “forcing” their perspective/unique vocabulary/perception of social constructs on anyone like it’s The Gospel of Oppression. I’d say something about “can’t we all just get along while decrying the violence and inequality inherent in most systems” but I doubt Chally’s opposition is to the “average” citizen just looking to share their opinion while engaging in dialogue on how “isms” are perceived, felt and dealt with around the world.
I was able to have conversations with my Indian friends about American racism but I didn’t assume that meant I knew anything about Indian racism beyond what an anthropology course and repeated viewings of Gandhi would each me…
If that’s what she meant, that’s what she should have said. And honestly, if someone–even in the blogosphere–expects a respectful discourse, they should start from a place of respect. Which this author totally fails to do. But I suspect respectful discourse wasn’t her goal in the first place.
If we don’t require each other to qualify “men” or “white people” or “the upper class” every time we speak in generalizations about power why are people flipping out about the unqualified “USians?” I agreed with her post and found the comments hilariously touchy.
Becky, I am just going to paste what amandaw said in the comments. (For the record, she is USian.) If we’re really going to go after Chally’s tone instead of listening to what she has to say, it’s probably because we’re resistant to examining our own privilege.
Amandaw: “How in the world are we to address structural problems if we can never ever mention them, because it might insult some individual people who help make up that system?
Also, cries about stereotyping? Where are the stereotypes? I see Chally describing behaviors and attitudes that she actually experiences from USians. I do not see her stereotyping i.e. “all USians are arrogant and willfully ignorant asses.” It’s rather like the difference between pointing out that men commit rather a lot of violence against women and saying “all men are inherently violent creatures.”
That so many people see the first and interpret it as the second speaks to how certain privileged experiences are centered in discourse. Just like how “equality between men and women” becomes “special treatment for women.””
Alternatively, as I said on my own blog the other day, regarding tone arguments employed by anti-feminists: “[A]nyone who makes your tone a prerequisite for endorsing a social movement for your equality may not have your best interest at heart.” Basically, I think people who choose to focus on tone rather than message are people who are actually just resistant to the message. There is no possible tone that will make people listen to you if they’d rather bury their heads in the sand, and trying to convince ourselves there is allows us to buy into the argument that it is somehow our fault that people won’t listen, when it’s actually theirs.” Likewise, it is incumbent upon us, in situations where we are the privileged ones, to focus on the message communicated by members of oppressed populations rather than their tone.
Clarification: “[A]nyone who makes your tone a prerequisite for endorsing a social movement for your equality may not have your best interest at heart” was a quote from someone else that I used on my blog — the rest of the last paragraph up until the close of the quotation marks is mine.
I think she did say that, Becks, and I think your reaction is a bit unwarranted. But anyway, we’re not going to agree here. Let’s try to move on from tone arguments as I asked that we get away from that in the original post.
MKP – it’s interesting, but I’d say in some ways I imagine this is really about “average” citizens too. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think America is a monolith. I was in a business meeting with a bunch of other foreigners the other day and one of them said to another, “You’re making the mistake I made the first year I lived here: thinking America is one country.” But I don’t think this is about “ugly Americans” alone, what she’s talking about. It happens a lot in progressive circles, the erasure of arenas for social change that are not the United States.
Whoa, major deja vu typing this comment.
@Kat: I’m sure you’re right about people burying their heads in the sand, not wanting to listen to the message, etc. That doesn’t mean that how the message is framed isn’t important.
I think my dislike of this post has to do with my own dislike of the angry, ranting approach. It makes me tune out. That’s me. Has nothing to do with being American or having American privilege. I personally don’t respond to people who start out with an attack, because it inevitably means that the whole discourse will be an attack and I don’t find those a good way to learn or share or discuss.
But, not to harp on you specifically, Becks, but we all here have ranted in frustration from time to time, it seems to me, and I’d rather we rant if the underlying point is good than not say anything for fear of seeming “too angry.”
(ETA: Also, I get that you don’t think that it has anything to do with being American (I admit I cannot persuade even my Canadian ass to say “USian” though I understand the reasoning intimately) but I think it has to. Because none of us are afraid of ranting when we think we are justified; we just don’t like being the target.)
I have to admit that I completely bought in to the idea that the US is The BEST Country in the World for, well, almost my entire life. A couple of years ago I visited a not-so-touristy part of Mexico and it was incredibly eye-opening to see that there were many, many things about the way people there that I thought were not just better but preferable to the way I live in Texas.
I think that the Myth of American Greatness is something which is sold to normal, not powerful Americans to keep us from questioning some of the more homogenizing, less everyman-friendly aspects of our country.
One can express serious anger–rage, even– in the context of an open, respectful discussion. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t express these thoughts.
[blockquote]an accusatory, obstructionist screed saying that Americans–all of us, apparently, are monolithic beings who march in intellectual lockstep–”alter and damage our cultures, our strategies of resistance, so that you’re more comfortable.”[/blockquote]
But as we so often say to men who complain about feminist posts (“The ‘Not me, not me, this isn’t fair to men because it doesn’t apply to me’ folks”) – if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. If you’re not one of the Americans who does this, hooray, have a cookie. But that doesn’t change the fact that Americans – frequently, very lovely, well-meaning Americans – tend to dominate the discourse and manipulate it to make sense in their own context. Sometimes to the point of not understanding why other countries have their own national pride and why other peoples may not be interested in becoming American.
See also: Men’s complaints about the tone of “strident, hysterical feminists” who are legitimately angry about something.
Sorry Becky, but you’re wearing the privilege of dominant culture here, at least from the little corner of where I’m standing.
** Personal bias: Canadian. And I have not yet read the linked post – I am only commenting on what I’ve read here.
You’re saying we can just only express them in the ways that you’re comfortable with? I’m not trying to be an ass here, I just don’t understand your claim that this is a whole other level of tone, and you’ve taken it to the point where you seem uninterested in engaging with the substance of the post as a result, which confuses me.
@Becky – Well…Chally is in fact a teenager. So…there’s that.
I do think that she has some valid points, in particular the part you quoted. But honestly, it’s difficult to take that seriously when she juxtaposes it next to complaining that a lot of TV and novels in her country are American as if random American citizens have any control over that sort of thing or want it to happen rather than it being a result of capitalism mostly. Does she have a problem with the people in her country who are importing American media and selling them or the people in her country who are buying them?
Or, to take another example, I think that things like using the American flag to symbolize “the English language” are really absurd concerns next to the stuff about framing all systems of oppression in reference to American culture, especially since in my experience the Union Jack is used just as often.
Also, what the fuck is with the “USian” thing? What, every other group gets to decide what they want to be called but we don’t?
Look, the US can be culturally imperialist and I don’t think anyone here is unfamiliar with that or thinks it doesn’t happen. And Americans have a strong tendency to frame everything in the terms we’re familiar with, namely American terms. But to be honest, I’ve found that pretty much everyone does that when they’re in the dominant culture — certainly the French did when I was in France, for example. When learning new things, it’s a normal human reaction to try to fit them into the framework that you already know and it takes effort not to do that. It’s important to put the effort in but at the same time this is something that *everyone* has to go through when learning new things.
@baraqiel: Last I checked, countries occupying positions of much lower cultural and political power than the US and France… exist. So taking two examples and saying “everyone does this!” is a bit of a dodge, both empirically and abstractly.
Also, I’m not sure about the tone of your remark on Chally, but as the person who wrote this post and who thinks Chally has a valid point to contribute, no need to be sarcastic about her age. I’m sure you’d object if I pointed out your analysis came from a “college student.”
@PSoul: You’re saying we can just only express them in the ways that you’re comfortable with?
Nope, just that if her goal is to get me thinking about her point, this particular approach ain’t working for me. People are free to express their views however they want. But some forms of expression are more effective/persuasive than others.
@Baraqiel: I honestly didn’t know she was a teenager! Heh.
Why do you think baraqiel would object if you said her analysis came from a college student?
this particular approach ain’t working for me
Okay, good to know?
Anyway, as I have asked repeatedly, please address the substance of the post. Your refusal to do so is kind of telling, it seems to me.
She would object because I would say it derisively.
Falling somewhere in the middle for a change, I’m curious to know what prompted the original post. Since no one belongs to every group, the argument could be made that the writer herself is speaking for people she doesn’t represent. If she’s not a person of color, how doe she know whether such persons in her country feel about the term? How can she speak for all of any one group anyhow? If she’s not a gay man/transgender person/Jew/Muslim, etc etc…you get my drift.
There’s no question that there is a cultural hegemony the US exerts, whether we want to or not. And yes, Americans can be pretty culturally tone-deaf. Still, I’d like to hear what the problem is that’s gotten her so angry, and I’m not willing to condemn the entire country.
I feel like I need to hear from some more non-Americans in this thread. You’ve posed a good question, mischiefmanager, don’t get me wrong, but I never know how to explain to Americans how frustrating this maneuver is without them accusing me of condemning the entire country.
The examples were actually meant to be illustrative of other things, like the fact that I think a couple of her concerns make no sense, and the fact that when American culture is imported into other countries there are people in the other countries that are doing the importing. EG most of the people I saw buying Starbucks in Lyon weren’t Americans and if the French have a problem with Starbucks being there they need to not buy Starbucks at the very least in addition to complaining about American cultural imperialism. If Chally has a problem with American novels being sold where she lives, one great way to fix that is to not buy American novels and convince her countrypeople to also not buy American novels and when it’s not profitable to sell them, her countrypeople that own bookstores won’t sell them any more. One of the problems with American capitalism is that as long as there are people here who can make a buck at it, there are people here who are going to do it — so while I think it’s important for Americans to talk to other Americans about respecting other cultures, especially when we’re sending our media and such there, that’s part of a larger conversation that Americans need to have with other Americans about our implementation of capitalism. But of course none of that showed up in that essay.
And the other thing I was trying to say is that I think it’s wrong to be upset when a white American uses a term like “person of color” when we’ve been taught that’s the correct term to use by American anti-racist activists. If we don’t change when corrected, *that’s* an issue, but just using it in the first place? What else are we supposed to do? What I’m saying is that there’s a learning curve, it takes a nonzero amount of time, and people coming from what they know and then going through the learning process in that time is not the same thing as people refusing to go the process at all but I felt the two were conflated in that essay and that’s unreasonable.
Sorry, PSoul. Once again, I have not responded to your posts in exactly the way you want me to or discussed exactly the points that you want me to. I should stick to ranting about underwear!
Oh yes please people from other countries do weigh in.
If I could pose a question to those harpies (b/c I was born in the US), in a Latin American context, just how much solidarity is there between black people and indigenous and other mixed race people? And how DO you address that? Is it even valid to use the term “people of color” or is it just untranslatable jargon? What’s the analogous phrase? And if there isn’t one in Spanish, is it because for the moment, there is NOT solidarity?
You want to point out that my analysis comes from a college student, fine. And if my analysis is ever illustrative of some of the common weaknesses shown by college students then I hope that you will point that out so that I can learn and improve. Chally’s essay is illustrative of some of the weaknesses shown by teenagers, namely hyperbole and poor organization, stuff that I was certainly often guilty of when I was a teenager. I’m not going to pretend that my age is less relevant to my perspective than my class or gender or race or sexuality is, so I’m not sure why you object to pointing out that maybe the fact that the author is a teenager affects where she’s coming from somewhat.
baraqiel: I agree with your point that there is a learning curve. That said, I also understand, and don’t begrudge anyone of lesser privilege/power hir frustration with having to hold others’ hands as they ascend that learning curve time and again, especially given that there are, in fact, a great many people who have no interest in even entertaining the idea that they have something to learn.
It’s really disheartening to hear a tone argument come up on this blog.
Mostly I hear about it in discussions of race, particularly US racial issues (which is probably why I shouldn’t be surprised, right?). But to demand that someone frame their ANGER in polite terms because otherwise you won’t listen is an attempt to control a person’s discourse and anger. Have a USian link to help out:
http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/02/12/the-privilege-of-politeness/
I don’t even see what is wrong with the piece in question being a rant. Chally has been on the receiving end of enough US-centric ignorence/privilege that the situation has grown frustrating. If she can’t rant on the internet about it, what’s the internet for?
The number of other non-US people in the comments who agreed with her was telling. Agree that I’d be interested to hear non-US Harpy readers weigh in.
I’d also be interested in hearing more from PSoul about the feeling of not “making it” here. I’m curious about what led you to move away from Canada in the first place, and how the experience has aligned with your expectations at the beginning. No worries if you aren’t comfortable going there, or not right now, anyway. But I do enjoy hearing your ‘outsider’ perspective and questioning my own assumptions.
It’s one thing to assume that everyone who lives in a country knows about the way said country works, the problems its society has, its history. It’s another entirely to know that one is talking to a person from a whole other culture, who must therefore have a whole other set of experiences, and still think that it would be better for that other person to adopt one’s own experiences and resolutions; that is the message I got from Chally’s post, which is a message I wholeheartedly agree with. Being an expat myself, I see a lot of (mostly subconscious) “they should do it more like us, then they’d be OK” going on here in Switzerland sometimes. Sometimes, it can be valid. Other times… not so much.
Having read the whole post, I don’t even think it’s that strident. She’s clearly had this percolating under her collar for a while, but it’s kind of funny, even somewhat tongue-in-cheek in places (“other countries have newspapers! You didn’t even invent those!”).
Also I think the mix of genuinely frustrating (so much American [sorry can't do the USian thing, I don't even know how many syllables that word would have] television programming that you cease to notice the accent; people on the internet thinking they’re being inclusive by saying black/white/latino when they may be excluding almost every person where you live, etc.) with the smaller symbolic/obnoxious affronts (like the US flag for “English” and expecting people to care about the 4th of July) doesn’t discredit the main point, because this happens in every rant. You list the things that infuriate you, and then you list the more minor iterations of the theme to show how pervasive it is.
It’s hyperbolic in a way that the internet has codified as an acceptable writing style, and that I wouldn’t expect a caterwauler to take offense with. She might be in high school, but if so she’s an awesome high school writer, and actually in point of fact they probably don’t call it high school wherever she lives because as far as I know that terminology only exists in the US (USian!).
Unless I miss the point entirely, she might just want people to listen more instead of framing a debate they’re unfamiliar with in their own terms, which is standard “don’t be a ***’splainer on the internet” protocol. It’s just that it’s never occurred to most of us that we might be USsplaining, so we’re offended to think we could be lumped in with [insert whoever you had your most memorable flame war with here].
mischiefmaker: On reading the post, I have to say pretty strongly that she is not saying that all people who live in the US are bad people, any more than feminists condemn all men when taking on the patriarchy.
Frankly, I saw nothing wrong with Chally’s tone at all. In fact, the tone was very similar to what Sady sounds like when writing about feminism and pop culture. Generally, we’re all pretty derisive when MRAs take offense to Sady [or Amanda, or Melissa or ...]‘s comments.
I think it was very brave of Chally to write that post. Nobody likes having their noses rubbed in privilege for the first time. I think this conversation has legs – rather like conversation about Amanda Marcotte’s very unfortunate book cover with King Kong racist overtones.
@LMarley: I’ve read that post before and love it.
So if you say something racist I may write a detailed reply pointing it out and teaching a bit. I may also go off. Or I may just ignore it. It all depends. Depends on if I just spent the whole day dealing with racism, if I know you, if I think you can learn, if it’s something that’s been repeated over and over and I’m tired of dealing with it and think that you as an (assumed) intelligent person should know better.
I’d argue that this applies to so many situations for so many of us–it’s certainly a decision-making process that I as a woman have to make in my day-to-day dealings with Mansplainers and other tools of the Patriarchy or that I did constantly as a non-Christian growing up in the Bible Belt.
I’m delighted by the concept of US-splaining. Comments are closed over there but I say bravo, Chally! We marginalized people don’t like being the bad guys, but everyone can be a jerk sometimes, and it’s the right of the oppressed to point it out.
It’s quite funny this should come up, and come up from a fellow Sydneysider, as it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while after reading a Feministing post about Australia’s Year of Women in Local Government (http://www.feministing.com/archives/019735.html) That post rubbed me the wrong way because it was complaining about the lack of racial diversity represented in the group…I think it was probably a valid complaint, but the tone irked me. Racial identity in Australia has much to do with what would broadly be considered white ethnic backgrounds, and racial diversity for us requires some consideration of that. Lumping all the “white” people into one category was really inconsiderate of the kinds of ethnic diversity we have in Australia, and the way we understand race.
So yes, I agree with Chally… especially when talking about gender and race, it’s important to take a little time to try to understand the context.
It’s really disheartening to hear a tone argument come up on this blog.
As far as the blog is concerned, it wasn’t my intent to bring the tone argument to the fore.
Sorry, PSoul. Once again, I have not responded to your posts in exactly the way you want me to or discussed exactly the points that you want me to. I should stick to ranting about underwear!
…Do you seriously write for this blog? I’m literally shocked at the textbook “I don’t like that tone” argument being used here. You have not discussed any points. You have attacked Chally’s tone which is wholly uncalled for and you would not stand for someone doing the same on one of your posts. If you don’t like her tone why not continue to discuss the very pertinent issue of American ethnocentrism in your own terms? PSoul brought over a smidgen of Chally’s post, there was plenty to go off of and have our own thoughtful discussion on the subject.
I’m Swedish, and since I’ve never lived in Sweden more than a month or so, I’ve been a foreigner most of my life. (My dad worked for a series of multinational corporations. I finally naturalized as an American about a year ago)
One thing I discovered being a foreigner — whether it was in Europe, Latin America or the United States — it is that the natives of whatever country I was living in were convinced their way was the best way. No place was more beautiful, no culture more interesting, no food better. Everyone is guilty of nationalism and xenophobia to some extent.
That said, I get annoyed with the whole “American way” “One Nation Under God” jingoism too. And now that I finally committed to being an American, I am determined to not be an ugly one.
I just find it ironic that people who (presumably) enjoy TPoH are turned off by the “angry ranting” in Chally’s post. One could use the tone argument to dismiss this entire blog, y’know?
And she (and others) use “USian” because she is writing specifically about people from the US. Using “Americans” implicates people from other countries when her post does not apply to them.
JetGirl – Sure, everybody has nationalism and xenophobia written into their cultures, but not every culture has the power to enforce them.
It sort of analogous to how sociologists define racism as prejudice + power. Everyone has prejudices that come from their upbringing and situation. But that prejudice can become something else when you have the power to enforce it.
@Shiny – I’m sure I’ve navel-gazed enough on that subject around these parts – and also I feel like Canada is too close to the US, and therefore too particular to discuss in that vein.
@basketcasey: Let’s not dwell on that, please. I beg you.
@basketcasey: Yes, I do seriously write on this blog. I apologize for offending you and I apologize to Pilgrim Soul for offending her with my comments.
Tone is very important to me, for many reasons. I think the hows and whys of tone in writing are vital to whether writers make connections or not. Chally’s tone really rubbed me the wrong way, and I feel that’s a legitimate complaint to make.. I certainly understand if people disagree with my comments, and I’m perfectly willing to take criticism about them.
Oh, I totally get why USian would be necessary rather than American … it’s just awkward. (And also sometimes I think that’s overhyped, b/c the US is the only country with America in the name, and I don’t think it erases two continents’ worth of people to shorten it to “America” rather than “the States”. But perchance I’m being USian? Static? I’ll keep working on that one.)
For the record as I said above, even when I’m a feather-ruffled Canadian completely puffed up in anti-American anger, I cannot convince myself to say USian. I succumb to cultural imperialism!
@BeckySharper
It certainly is a daily process. Also a hard one, for everyone.
@Pilgrim Soul
I think it’s good to engage the tone argument; but not to actually have it.
I read this blog a lot. Thanks for “hearing” my comment. I’ll be reading this blog a lot in the future.
I still would tend to agree with some of the discussion about Chally’s approach/tone. Maybe I’m just a retiring English lady but I usually find that when I’m talking with anyone about these issues–including my own incredibly myopic countrymen–blasting them in frustration doesn’t do much good. I can understand the sentiment behind it, but in terms of making people realize their privilege, it’s a dead end. Might make me feel better though!