![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 29th, 2009 05:03 pmToday I'm caught up in explanations of what it means to be the receiver of opinions rather than the happy privileged one who can say "We think this" and believe it's true. Unfortunately, today I'm lacking words. It appeared I had a limited supply and used them up yesterday. Or maybe it's just because all those people in my vicinity who were worried about me doing too much were probably right.
Anyhow, I've had my first "Santa and Christmas are secular" argument for the year. I don't know if every Jewish Australian has to endure these every single year, or if it's just me. I love celebrating other people's Christmasses with them. I can't see why I should be persuaded, however, to think of Christmas as secular and therefore something that's part of my own heritage. I do know that each time the people involved seem to think they're the only people arguing this important issue.
It came in the same twenty-four hours as a friend asked if I'd read a particular book (The Stories our Parents found too painful to tell us) which happens to coincidentally contain the explanation as to why the only family I have on my maternal grandfather's side is in Australia. And just now,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mac_stone linked to this discussion of Schrödinger's Rapist. Schrödinger's Racist or Schrödinger's Intolerant Person (two quite different people) can be understood using some of the same principles.
It's all linked, if you stop looking at the person who has to deal with the problems and focus on the person who's not listening.
The bottom line for me is that the person taking precautions against rape, bigotry or intolerance is not the one saying "Everything is fine." "I'm fine - stop being so sensitive" and "Not everyone is dangerous" are really, really bad answers when you're talking to someone who is not fine. In my case, I'm doing exceptionally well compared with all those murdered relatives on my grandfather's side. Exceptionally well, however, includes a bunch of experiences that the lucky majority seldom get to experience.
I'm lucky in terms of how little dangerous racism I've faced. Seriously. Maybe four physically dangerous incidents in a lifetime. Not bad. And not one of them that in-your-face-screaming event that other people have had to deal with.
However, I'm still very sensitive to statements that assert a certain type of privilege. I started explaining what these statments were and found I descended into a loss of words. I don't know if it's my unwellness or the fact that these issues are so complex and so fraught that makes me reluctant to spell everything out. It might be because it's so obvious to me that the world is not a safe place that I cannot understand arguments based on the happy theory that it is.
I wanted to talk about respect and about each and every one of us having responsibilities that are directly equivalent to the privileges we have. What I get stuck on, every time, is that one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking it's normal. I've got to sort this out, because I have to find out what I'm taking for granted that I ought not be taking for granted. I need to discover what my equivalent is to secular Santa.
Anyhow, I've had my first "Santa and Christmas are secular" argument for the year. I don't know if every Jewish Australian has to endure these every single year, or if it's just me. I love celebrating other people's Christmasses with them. I can't see why I should be persuaded, however, to think of Christmas as secular and therefore something that's part of my own heritage. I do know that each time the people involved seem to think they're the only people arguing this important issue.
It came in the same twenty-four hours as a friend asked if I'd read a particular book (The Stories our Parents found too painful to tell us) which happens to coincidentally contain the explanation as to why the only family I have on my maternal grandfather's side is in Australia. And just now,
mac_stone linked to this discussion of Schrödinger's Rapist. Schrödinger's Racist or Schrödinger's Intolerant Person (two quite different people) can be understood using some of the same principles. It's all linked, if you stop looking at the person who has to deal with the problems and focus on the person who's not listening.
The bottom line for me is that the person taking precautions against rape, bigotry or intolerance is not the one saying "Everything is fine." "I'm fine - stop being so sensitive" and "Not everyone is dangerous" are really, really bad answers when you're talking to someone who is not fine. In my case, I'm doing exceptionally well compared with all those murdered relatives on my grandfather's side. Exceptionally well, however, includes a bunch of experiences that the lucky majority seldom get to experience.
I'm lucky in terms of how little dangerous racism I've faced. Seriously. Maybe four physically dangerous incidents in a lifetime. Not bad. And not one of them that in-your-face-screaming event that other people have had to deal with.
However, I'm still very sensitive to statements that assert a certain type of privilege. I started explaining what these statments were and found I descended into a loss of words. I don't know if it's my unwellness or the fact that these issues are so complex and so fraught that makes me reluctant to spell everything out. It might be because it's so obvious to me that the world is not a safe place that I cannot understand arguments based on the happy theory that it is.
I wanted to talk about respect and about each and every one of us having responsibilities that are directly equivalent to the privileges we have. What I get stuck on, every time, is that one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking it's normal. I've got to sort this out, because I have to find out what I'm taking for granted that I ought not be taking for granted. I need to discover what my equivalent is to secular Santa.