15th May 2008

Intent

posted in Adoption, Issues, News |

I trekked off to the doc-in-the-box to get antibiotics for my sinus infection, which was feeling like someone was jabbing an ice pick up through my cheekbone.  Actually, OmegaDad and I trekked off, and I got to see The Wound.  It turns out that Dr. SledDog did not slash his throat; he merely used a paper punch to punch a hole in.  As the helpmeet, it is my duty the next few days to take a monstrous long Q-tip, drench it in H202, and plunge it into the gaping maw of the hole, then dig around the edges.  Ewww.  The things we do in the name of love.

In the meantime, I’ve come across some discussions on the intertubes that have to do with intent–as in, "Well, hey, if this offends you, it’s not my fault, and I’m going to keep doing it!  So there!"

Firstly, we have the tale of the tavern owner in the Atlanta area who has jinned up a T-shirt featuring Curious George eating a banana, and labeled it "Obama ‘08".  The question was, is this "racist"?  In the comments to Pharyngula’s write-up, an interestingly large number of folk did not "catch" it–people from Europe, young people from America, and a few folk who obviously knew it was denigrating yet sneered at the idea (mostly people who crashed Pharyngula from elsewhere, I think).  Given the quotes from the guy who did it, it’s pretty obvious it wasn’t intended nicely, yet an argument arose in the comments section as to whether "paying attention" to it, recognizing the past connotations of "black person = ape", was, in fact, perpetuating the racism.  And whether there really was racism intended.  And whether it’s better to ignore such things or fight them.

A few people in the thread suggested that those who did not think it was racist buy it and wear it around their black friends, and see what the response was.

It’s interesting that there are honest, intelligent people who do not think it was racist; it promises hope that the "black people = apes" trope is receding into the mists of history.  At the same time, it obviously hasn’t, because enough people know the coding to realize it’s offensive and wear things like this for that reason.  So is it better for the trope to fade in general consciousness, but still resonate in two areas–the targets (black people) and the perpetrators (racists)?  In other words, is it better that something be seen–and called out–as racist by the general public, or be glossed over, shunted aside?

Another item of "intent versus effect" is in Karen’s story of her dad’s response to her daughters names.  The first is that he doesn’t like the chosen name for the new baby.  The second is he makes fun of her current daughter’s Chinese middle name.  Her daughter’s middle name is "Chao Xing" (chow shing), and her dad teasingly does the "ching chong" thing with it.  There’s a lot wrapped up in it, specifically a "why remind her she’s Chinese?" attitude, a "you’re making too much of this" (the adoption) attitude.  The problem is, it’s all too easy to slide from that to the "ching chong chinaman" song.  Right now, Karen’s daughter is only a toddler…but as she grows older, this kind of thing can hurt.  (Google "ching chong Rosie O’Donnell", or "ching chong Yao Ming" or "ching chong Margaret Cho" or "ching chong Helene Chung".)

The third item that caught me was posted by YouKnowWhereYouAreWith, pointing to an article in Canadian MacLean’s Magazine, about the abrupt slowdown in adoptions from China, possible reasons behind it, and the question of whether international adoption is A Good Thing or reflective of colonialism.  Once again:  intent versus perception.  Adoptive parents aren’t looking to practice cultural genocide (and, frankly, they aren’t, because the cultures are still there, still going strong–perhaps it’s more a case of "cultural theft"?).  But some folks see it that way.  The question is:  if adoptive parents are providing the dollar motivation for cultures to not clean up their act, aren’t they helping perpetuate the problems that provide the commodity (babies)?

Anyways, all stuff to think about.  I’d write more, but that ice pick in my cheekbone is pushing a bit harder, the dotter is in bed, OmegaDad is soon to be in bed, and I’d like to go there myself.

There are currently 2 responses to “Intent”

  1. 1 On May 16th, 2008, Jozet at Halushki said:

    “It’s interesting that there are honest, intelligent people who do not think it was racist; it promises hope that the “black people = apes” trope is receding into the mists of history. At the same time, it obviously hasn’t, because enough people know the coding to realize it’s offensive and wear things like this for that reason.”

    This is right on the money, if you ask me. (Were you asking me?) It’s a strange but wonderful time we’re living in when intelligent and honest folks sincerely aren’t aware of the coding or even the stereotypes, but yes, does require some patience and an extension of good will from all corners - both in recognizing that some honest and intelligent people really, truly, actually are living in their hearts and minds in some socially-aspired-to place beyond the hurts of the past, and that, really, truly, honestly, they just don’t “mean it that way” e.g. calling children “monkeys” because they are swinging in trees and acting goofy, even if some of those children are black, and yet at the same time, being aware that there are still valid emotional triggers for some people, and being open to hearing people out and then begging forgiveness for the offense, even if unintended.

    We’re just living in a gray time of figuring intention…and I know that doesn’t answer the question of “how do we get beyond specific words or imagery bringing up the negative and hurtful connotations of the past without continually reinstating them through reminding?” (Was that the question?) I don’t see a clear way through - it’s a balancing act of good faith for now.

  2. 2 On May 16th, 2008, you know where you are with said:

    What’s interesting to me is that so much attention these days is focused on “intention” as the fulcrum in these debates…which way you lean in concluding whether something is racist or not depends upon whether the person intended to be racist or not. I’m wary of this focus. It only takes into account individual will, individual consciousness, and does not account for institutional racism; that is, for racism that is absorbed into a person’s consciousness simply by being a member of a traditionally racist culture, and especially a member of the dominant group, without volition on their individual’s part, without awareness oftentimes on their part. I’m not sure it absolves them of being racist, even if they didn’t have the conscious intent to be so.

Leave a Reply