Mad About Call-out Culture?: Stop Centering White Cultural Norms & Feelings
A few days ago, my Facebook timeline was abuzz with an Op-ed from the NY Times by Loretta Ross entitled; “I’m a Black Feminist. I Think Call-Out Culture Is Toxic.” I scrolled passed it on several occasions, knowing that I had to be in a darn near saintly frame of mind to handle that kind of Uncle Tom foolery. I saw clearly what the NY Times was trying to do with that title. They were purposely masquerading the errant Black voice to help assuage the ruffled feathers of well-intentioned white liberals. I wanted no part of that dog and pony shit show. But everywhere I looked, so-called white-allies were sharing this piece and I finally bit the bullet and allowed myself to subsume the emotionally caustic irritant. Within record speed, it managed to exceed my tolerance for white folk pandering.
I vehemently reject the idea that call-out culture is toxic; it is one tool, in the tool box aiding in the fight of all forms of oppression. It is not only necessary, but extremely beneficial to the masses when executed skillfully. The fact that Ms. Ross is focused almost primarily on the impact of the call-out to the person making the transgression is the crack that undermines her entire argument but yet, it is so basely American in its pattern of thought. When a cop shoots an unarmed Black Man, the majority of the news cast that day, will focus on the cop’s previously pristine record, or the fact that he is a family man or the awards he has been given for his many years of service; anything to stop us from focusing on the dead Black man. Unless of course, they are compelled to mention that he had a joint in his pocket or a prior arrest record. We need to cease this culture of protecting white feelings and reputations even when they are the clear antagonists.
It is false to assume that the Call-out Cavalier’s, (I just coined the term,) primary focus is reforming the aggressor. We have all seen how this plays out as if they are reading a script from Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility”. No amount of hiding that “Your actions were racist” pill, in a spoon full of sugar, ever works to make that medicine go down, if the person is not truly ready to listen. The assailant is often way too caught up in their emotions, defensiveness and myopic definition of racism, so regardless of the approach, you are not able to get them to admit any level of wrong doing.
The most critical reason for a call-out is actually centered on the victim. Interrupting racially offensive behavior, (or any other –ism,) in the same forum or elevated forum and at the same volume as the aggression was made, is paramount to ensuring that anyone from the oppressed group in ear or eye shot knows that those transgressions were seen and will not go unaddressed. When you wait to “call someone in” privately, the people who were impacted by the statement or action have no real way of knowing that there were others in the room that found it problematic and who were willing to stand up against such behavior. Letting the offended party know that someone has their back is of utmost importance, otherwise the secondary hurt of thinking no one cares sets in shortly after the blow of the initial offense.
Education is also a key goal of a call-out, but it is not necessarily about enlightening the offender. The offense is now primarily a chalk board for the call-out champion to write on. Any third party watching whose emotions are not immediately embroiled in the issue, stands an excellent chance of learning from the missteps of another if the call-out champion clearly outlines not only how the action or statement was racist, but the racist impact and the unjust systems and policies that produce the racist stereotype just exclaimed.
Again, not focusing on the white aggressor, I’m just going to go ahead and admit that venting is cathartic, PERIOD. As a Black, immigrant, lesbian, I refuse to internalize and swallow all the dog whistle transgressions I encounter on a weekly basis. I will not pocket those jabs to my soul in the hopes that I get the opportunity to hug it out with the offender at a more opportune moment. Nope, that is not my way or the way of my people. Bottling up feelings or only communicating them when it’s convenient, polite and socially acceptable is a norm to white culture and some Asian cultures. I invite you to consider for a moment that white culture is not the gold standard.
In my home country of Trinidad or in an number of Black and Brown communities, if someone steps out of line, most people are likely to handle it immediately, on the spot and with little regard to who is watching and what opinions they may form. Carrying that hurt around and waiting to address it, further oppresses the victim.
Addressing the issue immediately allows me to lay the burden of the incident back at the feet of the aggressor and walk away freely, knowing that I have said my piece. I release the negative energy created by the offender, and move on. I am free.
Ms. Ross over-simplifies so much in her diatribe as if she does not she think the reader capable of grasping nuanced situations. The example for her not telling off the women of the Ku Klux Klan after they called her a “well-spoken colored girl” and asked her to sing a negro spiritual is most certainly not because she “wouldn’t let her hurt feeling sabotage her larger agenda.” Rather, it is because she wanted to get off that darn mountain top alive! It’s about politics of location, literally and figuratively! If there is one thing Black folks figure out really quickly on this earth, it is how to survive in a world not exactly built to accommodate them. I’m pretty sure “don’t piss off the KKK in the middle of a deserted forest” is lesson #1 in “how to not to be the Black person that dies in the first scene of a horror movie.” It’s not exactly like she tried to “call in” the KKK ladies in, right?
There are a few things that Ms. Ross gets right. She points out that, “we’re a polarized country, divided by white supremacy, patriarchy, racism against immigrants and increasingly vitriolic ways to disrespect one another.” But I’m sorry, (not Sorry), when a person’s “disrespect” takes the form of devaluing the life, freedom and human decency to already marginalized groups, that person loses the right to a call-in. That person, simply doesn’t get any of my energy caring about their hurt feelings and defensiveness. That is in effect saying that there are “very fine people on both sides” and we just need to find a way to play in the sand box nicely. NOPE! Someone is going to have sand in their proverbial eye and my momma is not even going to spank me for it. You cannot ask the oppressed to play nicely with their oppressors. It’s like asking a slave to try not to escape to freedom because his master will be inconvenienced financially. HELL TO THE NO!
And while I fully agree that we can “work together to ascertain harm and achieve justice without seeing anyone as disposable,” I have to stop way short of the point where she goes on to equate a social media call out of the BBQ Becky’s of the world for example, to “violating their human rights or right to due process.” I thought I must have misread that line as it was such an offensive exaggeration, especially in a conversation where Black and Brown human rights and lives are violated consistently and systemically.
Ms. Ross goes on to argue that, “call-outs make people fearful of being targeted. People avoid meaningful conversations when hyper vigilant perfectionists point out apparent mistakes.” Again this centers the hurt white feelings and ignores the reality that white America has been systematically avoiding conversations of race for centuries. America jumped from slavery, to Black Codes, to Jim Crow, to the War on Black Men (aka The War on Drugs) and mass incarceration over a near 380-year period. Then suddenly in a 20-year span, they want to decree colorblindness as good and declared that we are in a “Post Racial America,” let bygones be bygones, let’s not talk about it too much, the past is the past, THE END. It is critical here to realize, that when an aggressor makes a transgression then is called out, and the rebuttal is, “well you could have told me in a nicer manner” or “it’s rude to call someone racist,” there is a clear and purposeful choice to avoid the message that points out their racism and to focus on the messenger. That is avoiding the key issue at hand. That is tone policing. That is gas lighting oneself to believe that the fault lies elsewhere. That trick is as old as the day, and in that op-ed, they even celebrated a sister for towing the crooked party line for them.
In the spirit of the phrase, “calling-in is simply a call-out done with love,” I would lovingly like to call everyone to the fight against all forms of oppression and not quibble about how the fight is approached. The task at hand is colossal, there is room for multiple approaches.
Let’s welcome everyone to show up as they are in this fight; with their rage, with their humor, with a well-timed meme, with their academic facts laid succinctly at the feet of the offending party, with their tears and with their frustration. And yes, if the spirit so moves them, on any given day, with grace and love, but that is not owed to an oppressor, so don’t expect it as the standard, because that is not a realistic or fair request.
When we choose this path we stop centering whiteness and stop putting the onus on marginalized communities to play the respectability politics charade, hence recognizing the validity of every culture at the table.
