Read on Twitter
I studied Shakespeare at postgrad. There was one black guy in a class of 6. Everyone kept expecting him to be interested in racial analysis of Shakespeare. He just liked Shakespeare. https://twitter.com/Miss_Snuffy/status/1290962894969098240
I have been reading two popular books on race & racism from a Critical Social Justice perspective a week for the last few weeks. I disagree with most of it but two repeated points seem to be clearly true & not well recognised to me.
Firstly, there really can be an assumption that a black writer of fiction whose characters are black is someone who writes about race while a white writer of fiction whose characters are white is not considered to be doing so.
I think it was Toni Morrison who said this most. I see it too on Twitter at times. The assumption that anything featuring black people is politically or racially motivated rather than being a story of general interest & relatability that happens to feature black people this time.
This is very much the same mentality as the one that insists that any TV show or movie that features a gay or lesbian couple or person is 'forcing homosexuality down our throats' while straight people are not seen as political advocates for heterosexuality.
Secondly, the belief that racism against racial minorities is a problem belonging to racial minorities that it is natural for them to take charge of addressing while helped by non-racist white people when actually it's a problem belonging to the white people being racist.
I don't mean that all white people are complicit in oppressive systems of whiteness. I believe white people can be non-racist or actively anti-racist because I believe individuals have the ability to evaluate & reject or accept the ideas that are present in a society.
But I do see Reni Eddo-Lodge's point that there is a somewhat skewed perception of whose problem racism is that is not uncommon. I don't think I agree with her about anything else though.
This is similar to the first conceptual shift in disability activism from an individual to a social perspective that we write about in Cynical Theories. This seemed like a very positive development until it went postmodern & counterproductive.
This shift was one from:
"The difficulties a disabled person faces in having full access to society is caused by their impairment"
to
"The difficulties a disabled person faces in having full access to society is caused by society failing to accommodate their disability."
"The difficulties a disabled person faces in having full access to society is caused by their impairment"
to
"The difficulties a disabled person faces in having full access to society is caused by society failing to accommodate their disability."
So, the reality hasn't changed, a conceptual shift has been made in relation to who the problem belongs to. It means that rather than sympathising with how hard it must be for a wheelchair user who cannot access an upstairs library, we focus on getting a ramp or an elevator.
Unfortunately, disability studies & activism went a bit mad after this by incorporating Foucault & arguing that we only think it is better for humans to be able to walk because of the social construction of able-bodiedness & prejudice against disabled people.
