A RESPONSE

to a non response

The ideas contained in this piece are intended to serve two aims. First, it is a comment directed at Amanda Dickson, regarding two of her most recent articles, as well as the ideas I espoused in responses to her work. For the sake of clarity, I will link to her first piece and my response to it, as well as her second piece and my corresponding response. I address it here so as to clarify the content, tone, and spirit in which my and others’ comments were made, as they have been both misunderstood and misrepresented by Amanda in her subsequent writings on this issue.

However, my second intention is to consider, on a deeper level, what the ideas of engagement, discussion, and conversation truly look like on a platform such as Medium, and why I believe in this most recent event those things looked, well, absent.

So that it is perfectly clear, let me begin by saying I believe that as writers on a public platform such as Medium, choosing to engage or not engage a response to work that we create is entirely our right, and that is fundamental to our freedom of choice, supporting our ability and willingness to write from a free and honest place. Having said that, when one ends a piece saying:

If you would like to leave a response, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

And in previous work on the same topic has stated:

My goal on Medium is to have intelligent conversations with individuals who share the same goal.

It is then curious that out of the twenty five responses to her original piece, Amanda chose to address a total of three, with only one that actually engaged the respondents’ ideas, which, not surprisingly, validated and supported her original position. When she addressed the remaining two responses, it was by largely ignoring the substance of the comments and instead writing two independent articles which simply restated her original position by focusing on “the things people were saying”, that were actually never said or even implied.

Given the above, and the dogged insistence of her second piece to again refute what people were in no way saying, it seems obvious to me that Amanda’s stated intention of desiring to hear others thoughts and engage in intelligent conversations with those who share the same goal, were not, at least in this case, genuine.

I make a point of mentioning this as the comments that I and others who took the time to leave in response to Amanda’s piece were not only ignored, but inaccurately and unfairly framed. From her piece entitled Nothing I Say Will Satisfy Those Who Identify As Feminists:

The truth of the matter is, no matter how I respond there are those who would rather attack, argue, and point fingers rather than agree.

My name and reputation on Medium has already been ruined in several popular stories. Never in my life (before Medium) have I been called sexist, racist, or any other of the horrible words used to describe me recently.

I’m sure some will say that her words were not referring to me or my response specifically, however given that what I wrote was in fact the most recommended response, I can’t help but assume that when she refers to “popular stories”, mine was included in that description. As a counter to the above, I include my response to her original piece below:

Amanda,

I believe you when you say that you want men and women to be equal. But they aren’t equal. Equality would be great, but a level playing field comes first. We don’t have that. Not with gender, and especially not with race.

So when you say that “a cop killed a man”, you are missing the material significance of that statement. Saying a white cop killed a black man is important when you have an epic number of unarmed black men being killed by white cops in America. I won’t regurgitate what others have said here, but please take a step back and look at your country, then look at the context of your statements and please try to see what others are patiently telling you here. I am not trying to be mean when I say to you that you really do have it wrong on this. I truly believe that if you consider with an open mind what I and others have said to you, and provided you are willing to be wrong, it will begin to make sense. Please, don’t let pride blind you to that.

As demonstrated above, nowhere in that comment did I call Amanda racist or sexist or other “horrible words”. In fact, I began by offering her the benefit of the doubt regarding her stated equality aspirations for men and women. My next idea highlighted the difference between aspiring to a state of gender equality vs. dealing with the unfairness an uneven playing field creates, followed by a brief nod to the reasons why a “colour blind society” is in fact detrimental to dealing with issues of individual and systemic racism.

The smug “I don’t see colour I only see people” mantra is a deliberately obtuse sentiment, normally evoked to imply that one is somehow above or “over” the idea of race. Problematic in the sense that like gender, and to some extent outward manifestations of class, race is something we see right off the bat. That is not “opinion”, it is fact.

I end my comment with a suggestion for moving past what I view as a blind spot, clearly implying in my statement that I trust Amanda will at least consider what I and others have said.

And similar to my example above, in every other response to her piece, save one, not once did anyone call her a racist, sexist, or any other “horrible name”.

Heidi Rebroullet didn’t do it in her brilliant response highlighting the radical work of anti-racist educator Jane Elliot, that, besides a must see video, included:

My hero, Jane Elliott appeared on the Oprah show sometime in 1992 to conduct her ‘blue eye experiment’ on the audience (videos embedded below). While many have questioned Elliott’s methodology over the years, she is everything I want to be in my life and she has done some real work to eliminate racism. The one thing she said on this episode that has stuck with me (from the ripe old age of 12) is this:

“When you say to a person of colour, ‘When I see you, I don’t see you Black; I just see everybody the same’ think about that. You don’t have the right to say to a person, ‘I do not see you as you are; I want to see you as I would be more comfortable seeing you.’” ~Jane Elliott

Yet another Elliott quote that is a favourite of mine is this:

“God created one race, the human race and human beings created racism.”

You think that’s what you are saying in this post, but it isn’t. You have bought into the party line completely. Your post is a fantastic example of the failure that is our country’s educational system.

When Pax Ahimsa Gethen responded to her (in part below) with a story from lived experience, there was no mention of it either:

I’m black, but I’m one of those people who used to say “I don’t see colour.” I learned that I was wrong, because that’s not the way society works. You see, when I’m walking down the street, passers-by and the police don’t know anything about my personality, my level of education, or my views on life. They just see brown skin. And they are going to treat me differently than someone with white skin based on that and that alone. This is true everywhere in the USA, even where I live, in “liberal” San Francisco, where the police are killing black and brown folks with impunity. This is our reality, and no amount of “we are all one race” will erase it.

No trace of it either in the wonderfully instructive response by Ezinne Ukoha, some of which is below:

Racism doesn’t exist to make you miserable. It’s an institution that can’t be erased because too many people who look like you believe in it.

If you’re sick of hearing about it — then maybe you can bring more people of colour into your circle and find out why they may actually be a lot more tired of hearing about racism than you will ever be.

In other words, telling someone that their perspective, words, or actions, intentional or otherwise, may be demonstrating elements of racism or sexism IS NOT in any way the same thing as calling someone a racist or a sexist. To needlesly complicate that fact through a demonstration of faux outrage at the perceived ruin of a reputation and indignation over hurt feelings, is to derail a much needed conversation. A conversation that many people were willing to have, as was demonstrated through taking the time and good will to engage with a writer they felt had made a serious error in judegement. It’s unfortunate the writer was unable, or unwilling, to offer the same.

Though if Amanda is willing to challenge her ardently narrow views and consider that perhaps there is much to feminism and anti-racism that she is not familiar with, I suggest the following work, the majority of which is by a woman and / or POC, which is a wise and prescient place to start.

This recording of the Noble Lecture given by one of America’s most celebrated and accomplished authors, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University, Toni Morrison, is both a scathing indictment and quiet celebration of the the meaning and use inherent to language, as well as a larger consideration of the true nature of social power in a North American context.

These pieces by 5'7 Black Male:

This piece by Ezinne Ukoha:

This piece by Emjay Em:

This piece by Mirah Curzer:

This piece by the former Medium author Aaminah Khan:

Finally, this piece by yours truly: