Monday 19 February 2018

Mary Beard and White Feminists and Can You Be Civilised in Haiti?

I never used to understand my girlfriends when they were frustrated with "white feminists." I used to feel puzzled and scratch my head, 'in my head.' (Why? I don't know why. I didn't even understand feminism in my early 20s.) 
This is even before how 'rampant' social media has become and, when very relevant debates and reactions to are being played out in real time. Conversations which you'd be having (or not having) are now available to see, analyse, and participate in online. So, now that I read more articles, watch for reactions on Facebook, Twitter and read articles about those debates and reactions, I am finally starting to understand what my friends referred to when they rolled their eyes and muttered 'white feminists.' See the Mary Beard (academic at Cambridge) case where she is trying to explain prostitution by aid workers in Haiti. Her Tweet is embarrassingly stupid and infuriatingly enraging. The levels of ignorance about aid work, male behaviour in general and male behaviour in aid contexts, why and how aid works, poor populations' entrenched subservience to aid, and so on is shocking. Who is she defending? White saviours saving Third World poor countries? Men straying off the path of acceptable behaviour? White men having some fun? Her Tweet and subsequent Tweets do not demonstrate she has any clue what she is talking about. I really admire Oxfam's advocacy and research - their reports and their famous statistics about global wealth and who holds it have become our lingua franca. Nevertheless, the debates sparked on Twitter and elsewhere are a good reminder of what women of colour refer to in frustration when they come across logic-defying statements from white feminists. It's a good reminder of how often feminism can be perceived as substance-less when it fails to acknowledge the basics. 
'White feminism' can come across as completely tone-deaf; ignorant; value-less; and lacking solidarity. How can feminists fail to incorporate class, race and other factors in their analysis and what values does feminism uphold if it fails to be sympathetic to millions of other women that it forgot? Perhaps one should look to early examples of white suffragists in America? They fought for the right to vote but openly said they would never allow the black man or woman to vote. Did you know the KKK had a women's league? The legacy of racism, ignorance runs deep. But does that still explain why an academic would say something so stupid? Doesn't an academic read? Read history? But then, which kind of history? Victors' history, I wonder cynically? 
Well, institutions of high learning are also heavy with the burden of colonialism and racism. British higher institutions are classist. The rich always have a guaranteed ticket to the hallowed institutions of Oxford and Cambridge. Higher institutions supported and theorised colonialism, no? Where do you think anthropology comes from? To study the natives they were dividing, conquering and ruling. Higher institutions are still mainly Euro-centric in even imagining and viewing the world from the most basic points of view. How many non-European thinkers, writers and figures are taught in higher institutions in the UK?
What is White Feminisms? I don't have an academic thesis on it but from various conversations I have had, read about and listened to, I think it points to the failure of privileged white women to understand women's struggles outside of their race, class, and history of their countries' imperialism. It points to the failure to have a clue about what women of colour experience. It points to the failure to stand in solidarity with struggles of the poorest of the poor women. It points to the failure to have shrugged off the legacy of racism and prejudice. It points to the failure for example to understand that Europe's obsession with humiliating Muslim women by forcing off hijab or head coverings is more to do with racism/Islamophobia than liberating women. It points to the failure to understand the varied contexts for the struggle for equality. Instead of supporting actual struggles (identify and support actual struggles), feminism is imagined and projected. But it's not sincere, of course. Just like the invasion of Afghanistan was presented - liberation from the Taliban.
Human progress is not perfect and painfully slow. 
Therefore you can come across academics trying to justify prostitution by aid workers in poor countries (pillaged, looted by European colonialism and then ravaged again by North Americans) by saying that those aid workers lose all notions of 'civilised behaviour' because of how tough it is 'down there.' She says, these (implied) heroes should be forgiven because 'we' don't dare to 'tread' down there. In a subsequent Tweet (following the barrage of disgust and criticisms), she says why doesn't anyone understand her point especially because 'Lord of the Flies' is standard text in schools.  What is she on about?!
Where is civilised behaviour practiced exactly? Does it only exist in peaceful contexts or does everyone descend into barbarism when poverty, natural disasters strike? What does 'civilised' exactly mean? Wave after wave of utter insulting, ignorant, privileged and racist statements are present in Mary Beard's Tweets, an honourable and civilised academic at Cambridge. 
Needless to say, I don't support the vitriol that has hurled at her but I do like to join my voice against the kind of stupidity and racism that she represents.
Are social media platforms the best place to pick out the real personality traits? Can someone say something really stupid on social media and, we should not take it too seriously? Is this medium the best to represent one's points of view and politics? Should academic, politicians and public personalities be more careful? Is it good to see people speak freely and, open up the debates? It is it good we know how people really think? 
See: Priyamvada Gopal's Tweets and participation in the conversation. 
End Note: You know how the English have propagated this myth about their politeness? Just because they mutter 'Sorry' all the time in the Tube to strangers and are painfully reserved does not mean they are polite. How do they still get to be polite when the legacy of colonialism and racist notions of civilisation still runs so deep in the English? And when did they start being polite? After or before their glorious Empire? No, the English do not get to anoint themselves as a polite island nation that peacefully conquered the world and brought them law, tea and railroads. No, not when you can't acknowledge or shrug off your violent history that your generations continue to benefit from and when you still view brown and black people without history, without agency and without respect. Polite my ass!

No comments:

Post a Comment