Town of Amherst: On the term "Minority"
One of our readers posted a question on Monday and it is an interesting one:
You note that white people are a minority in the world. This is true, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, but what's your point? Of what significance is this to anything taking place in Amherst? Are you just complaining about the word "minority"?
Initial Response:
-Thanks for taking the time to comment on an important word, one that carries ideologies of power
-The point is that the word/concept/construct of "minority" is incorrect: the world's so-called "white" population is the "real" "minority." Is that a threatening denomination for "white" people? Imagine if it were connected to centuries of systematic cultural desctruction, human annihilation, and exploitaion. Would the word be even more of a threat?
-Amherst, MA has a long history of racism. PVTA bus routes were re-routed from Holyoke because "drug dealers" were coming into the Happy Valley; stores in the center of town had windows broken and words of racial hatred written on them. The very name of the town is connected to a figure who decimated Native American populations. Perhaps is we could talk about things like the term "minority", people would come out with a new perspective, one that re-contextualizes.
We have several more answers to this question but would like to hear from our readers. There is a lot inside of the author's comments that we can learn from.
You note that white people are a minority in the world. This is true, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, but what's your point? Of what significance is this to anything taking place in Amherst? Are you just complaining about the word "minority"?
Initial Response:
-Thanks for taking the time to comment on an important word, one that carries ideologies of power
-The point is that the word/concept/construct of "minority" is incorrect: the world's so-called "white" population is the "real" "minority." Is that a threatening denomination for "white" people? Imagine if it were connected to centuries of systematic cultural desctruction, human annihilation, and exploitaion. Would the word be even more of a threat?
-Amherst, MA has a long history of racism. PVTA bus routes were re-routed from Holyoke because "drug dealers" were coming into the Happy Valley; stores in the center of town had windows broken and words of racial hatred written on them. The very name of the town is connected to a figure who decimated Native American populations. Perhaps is we could talk about things like the term "minority", people would come out with a new perspective, one that re-contextualizes.
We have several more answers to this question but would like to hear from our readers. There is a lot inside of the author's comments that we can learn from.
posted by The Crew @ 9:55 AM
3 Comments:
At 1:17 AM ,
Anonymous said...
I'm the earlier commenter. A few thoughts based on a very quick perusal of your blog:
(1) I grew up in Amherst, and I disagree with your assertion that Amherst has "a long history of racism." What Amherst does have is a long history of racial tension -- which is not the same thing. This tension is due in part to the fact that it's considered socially acceptable in Amherst to imply that someone is a bigot if you disagree with them, even on issues only tangentially related to race. This tactic is effective because the white liberals who make up a majority of the town's population are terrified of being accused of racism. So such an accusation is a near-perfect trump card. In the long run, however, this sort of coercion is quite naturally going to lead to bitterness and mistrust on both sides (see, e.g., the West Side Story controversy).
(2) Calling someone a bigot is a good way to avoid addressing what they're saying. I'm not suggesting that there's any point in debating with Nazis, but you use the term "racist" very freely. An accusation of bigotry is a quick way to dispense of someone whose ideas you find threatening without ever actually engaging with what they have to say. Obviously there are real racists in the world, but throwing the term around lazily is anti-intellectual.
Your blog does far too much of this kind of name-calling. Take the parking issue. You may be right and the town counsel may be wrong, but this doesn't make them racists. In this context, it's an irresponsible accusation. Part of growing up is figuring out that not everybody who disagrees with you has nasty motives.
A related point: If everybody's a racist, then nobody is. When you throw the term around as loosely as you do, it stops meaning anything. If you think the town counsel of ultra-liberal Amherst is full of racists (rather than, say, people who you believe are misguided or ignorant with regard to racial issues), what do you call David Duke? A super-duper racist?
(3) Terms like "minority" carry political baggage. I think this is part of your point, and I agree that it's worthwhile to question our preconceptions regarding these sorts of things. But the goal of language is not merely to set the stage for a glorious future. It also has a duty to represent what exists. I certainly wouldn't be offended if whites were referred to as minorities (as you note, it's technically accurate if we're talking about the world at large), but on a purely practical level it would be silly to do so in the United States today. And practicality matters. We should all aim to be as straightforward as possible in our speech. Obscurantism is bad, even if you're just trying to be inoffensive.
(4) People who break windows and write racist slogans on stores tend to be losers. The fact that some pathetic, thoughtless people (probably kids) did this in Amherst isn't evidence that Amherst is a racist community. They'll probably regret it in a few years -- and if they don't, they will be very, very far outside of Amherst's mainstream (certainly not the embodiment of community sentiment).
(6) The fact that somebody is offended by something is not an argument. Something can be both offensive and right. For example, it strikes me as very unlikely that the New Testament is literally true. Presumably this opinion is highly offensive to some people. But the fact that it's offensive to them doesn't make me wrong (or right), and it's no reason for me to stop being honest.
(7) Intent clearly matters. I think you might be more likely to recognize this point if the standard that you apply to others were applied to you. For example, if someone were to call you an anti-Semite because you think that Amherst is rife with racism, you could reasonably object that this accusation is unfair because what you've said isn't anti-Semitic at all, that in fact you never mentioned Jewish people, and that you hold no anti-Semitic beliefs. This would be a very reasonable defense. The fact that somebody is outraged by what you have to say doesn't mean they have any good ground to be, and the fact that somebody might call you a bigot doesn't make you one.
(Intent also matters for other reasons. Don Imus isn't Lester Maddox. This goes back to my earlier point about the necessity of making sure that words like "racist" enable us to distinguish between members of hate groups and people whose views we merely consider ignorant or misguided.)
(8) The world is a diverse place. People are offended by all sorts of silly things (religious fanatics in particular -- see, e.g., the Denmark cartoon controversy). I don't feel bound to avoid offending people who get offended for bad reasons, and neither should you or anyone else. We have brains for a reason. My opinions don't become wrong or unspeakable just because other people don't like them.
So instead of going after your ideological opponents with ad hominem attacks and accusations of racism, try putting yourself in their shoes for a moment and crafting an argument that might appeal to a person of good will. I think most people are basically trying to do the right thing. I'm not saying you ought to abandon your principles, but you'd be a far more effective advocate if you listened to your conscientious opponents and treated them with respect rather than dismissing them as bigots. Maybe you could even get them to see your side.
At 10:05 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I personally don't use the term "minority" in my speech--unless I place it in quotes to make a particular point about how I think it's usage is more often that not, pejorative. Why do I feel it is of significance to severely limit it's use in the lexicon of a place like Amherst? The town of Amherst because of it has three of the most reputable, competitive and expensive colleges in the country--often with a tradition of legatees--is like a training ground for young minds. The students who attend Amherst College, for example, are more likely to be in careers where once they leave this place, they in turn positioned to influence large numbers of minds/people themselves, i.e. directors, doctors, CEOs, CIA directors, Peace Corp volunteers, etc. And armed with their degrees, they don't just remain in THIS country. An Amherst College degree is useful worldwide--as are the degrees at the other three colleges and the university--if one learns well and learns to think critically and takes away the ability to think with one's own mind. If students coming through here year in and year out are taught to think of themselves always as the majority and as the dominant culture (wherever they go in the world), this perpetuates a sense of superiority. This and the perception of people as "minorities" is of particular significance with the burgeoning spectre of globalization. Because of it's role in shaping young minds on campuses for future leadership in and around the world, this isn't just about Amherst. Since the schools here aren't about to go out of business, people here, with there access to youth-in- training, to "great minds," and to the halls of power, people here can began their dialogue with the youth--particulary the "majority" youth who cycle through here year after year and are being groomed to take over the reigns of power and oppression. In this area alone, at current enrollment rates at the five colleges, roughly 1mm, largely white, affluent--because one has to have access to major funds to attend these expensive Ivy League institutions--with access to power within their own communities as well, will have cycled through here in a 20 year period. If you start changing the way they see themselves/see the world, that's a start right there/here. In many ways, Amherst is a microcosm of the behaviors found outside of its environs with the placating patronization, and paternalism so often found in social interactions around the globe when people work for or with persons unlike themselves, whom they deem minorities--i.e. subliminally "minor" importance. Not empowered and exploitable. A GOOD education is universal. It is difficult to effect change, address the world's problems, or improve upon situations you come in contact with if you are always feeling aloof and superior in the universe.
At 10:05 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I personally don't use the term "minority" in my speech--unless I place it in quotes to make a particular point about how I think it's usage is more often that not, pejorative. Why do I feel it is of significance to severely limit it's use in the lexicon of a place like Amherst? The town of Amherst because of it has three of the most reputable, competitive and expensive colleges in the country--often with a tradition of legatees--is like a training ground for young minds. The students who attend Amherst College, for example, are more likely to be in careers where once they leave this place, they in turn positioned to influence large numbers of minds/people themselves, i.e. directors, doctors, CEOs, CIA directors, Peace Corp volunteers, etc. And armed with their degrees, they don't just remain in THIS country. An Amherst College degree is useful worldwide--as are the degrees at the other three colleges and the university--if one learns well and learns to think critically and takes away the ability to think with one's own mind. If students coming through here year in and year out are taught to think of themselves always as the majority and as the dominant culture (wherever they go in the world), this perpetuates a sense of superiority. This and the perception of people as "minorities" is of particular significance with the burgeoning spectre of globalization. Because of it's role in shaping young minds on campuses for future leadership in and around the world, this isn't just about Amherst. Since the schools here aren't about to go out of business, people here, with there access to youth-in- training, to "great minds," and to the halls of power, people here can began their dialogue with the youth--particulary the "majority" youth who cycle through here year after year and are being groomed to take over the reigns of power and oppression. In this area alone, at current enrollment rates at the five colleges, roughly 1mm, largely white, affluent--because one has to have access to major funds to attend these expensive Ivy League institutions--with access to power within their own communities as well, will have cycled through here in a 20 year period. If you start changing the way they see themselves/see the world, that's a start right there/here. In many ways, Amherst is a microcosm of the behaviors found outside of its environs with the placating patronization, and paternalism so often found in social interactions around the globe when people work for or with persons unlike themselves, whom they deem minorities--i.e. subliminally "minor" importance. Not empowered and exploitable. A GOOD education is universal. It is difficult to effect change, address the world's problems, or improve upon situations you come in contact with if you are always feeling aloof and superior in the universe.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home