No Offense, the Subtle Art of Marginalization

I operate in a world where, outside of a work context, I can go months without having significant interaction with others of my predominate ethnic group- (aka-white people).  I have long surrounded myself with diverse people from diverse backgrounds and am thus quite comfortable in situations where I am the only person who looks like me, most of the time.

I was at a party once a few years ago. I was the only person in the room who was not African American. At one point in the party somebody used the "N" word and then turned to me and said "no offense."  On a side note, in my thinking, I am probably the last one in the room who should have received an apology, as pathetic as that apology was.

Yes, I abhor the "N" word in any context, regardless of the melanin level of who said it and whether or not the word ends in ER or A. What I also abhor is when someone says something and then turns to say "no offense."

To me, saying no offense yields only two logical reactions, both result in the taking of offense. The first reaction is to think, if you knew it was offensive why did you still say it? The second reaction is to think, no I wasn't particularly offended, but now that you pointed out the offensive nature of the statement, I probably should be.

This happened to me again last week. Someone in the room said something about a particular white person or a group of white people. I don't remember because I wasn't offended or particularly impacted by the comment. The person who made the comment then turned to me and said "no offense." Except by this time, though specifically told not to be offended, I actually was.

The comment didn't bother me. What bothered me is that up until that moment I was just a human being sharing space with other human beings. After being told to not be offended, I was suddenly and completely reminded that I was, to paraphrase Sesame Street, the one of these things that is not like the other.

This wasn't a conversational moment in which differences were discussed. That would be called dialogue. This was a conversation halt, in which the one person most different in the situation was put on display for all to see. That is called marginalization.

Marginalization is to relegate or confine to a lower or outer limit or edge, as of social standing (dictionary.com). Marginalization can be personal (like in my example) or institutional.

Institutional marginalization can occur within the context of racism (such as redlining or segregation), classism (like relegating poorer people to less desirable parts of town, see segregation), ableism (like relegating disabled people to live in subsidized housing in these same less desirable parts of town, see segregation). It can also occur in families or in groups of individuals, like in my example. The end result of all incidences of marginalization, is that they suck.

Before I stray too far from my actual point into writing about oppression, which believe me, I can. I will say that I see value in having had the experience of being marginalized. These experience, these feeling, are part of why I strive to be observant of instances where injustice is present, not that my example presents an instance of injustice (yet another blog post that I would be all to happy to write).

Shared personal experiences help us to recognize the complete humanity in others who are different. Sadly many people do not seek these experiences.  Over time, because I observe and listen, I have developed an ability to move freely among different groups of people and in multiple contexts. Yet the older I get, the less comfortable I am in uni-cultural environments, regardless of who comprises the majority culture.

Back to the point though. There are things that many of us say because we think we are being nice. No offense is one of these things. Unfortunately, saying something that might be offensive and then covering it with, no offense, doesn't make you nice. It makes you an asshole.

Posting Political Articles to Facebook and Why it Sucks to Be a Pisces

As a rule I don't tend to post many articles or memes on subjects of politics or social justice. Sometimes I think that because I don't, I must be a person cowering in the corner afraid to say anything controversial. Yet this is a gut reaction to seeing other friends who post 20 articles a day and never leave any doubt as to where they stand on anything.

Many years ago, as a good Pentecostal child, I thought that I wasn't courageous for Jesus because I didn't stand in parks yelling at people and passing out tracts, politely pointing out who was and was not going to hell. Over the years I learned that most people think that park yellers are crazy and not particularly effective in their um, craft. Yet I remained somewhat conflicted. This conflict is mostly because I am a pisces and we are pretty much always conflicted about everything. Yet the good side of that, is that we easily see issues from multiple angles and often act as a bridge between dogmatic individuals, who love to readily break everything and everyone down into exactly 2 always opposing camps. So yeah, it kind of sucks to be a pisces, but then it's cool and then it sucks again.

So while I continue to chase my fish tail, let me offer a few reasons as to why I personally, as a proud piscean (sort of), don't (normally) post (many) articles and memes on social media (facebook- I'm too old for Instagram).

1. I prefer to blog (when I have the time and am between shows on Netflix) for a variety of reasons. A blog allows for deeper dissection of issues. Short blurbs such as status updates do not support any sort of analysis. When I hear another persons opinion on things, I don't just want to know what they are thinking. Chances are, because people are often predictable, I can already pre-determine what opinion almost everyone I know has on any given issue. What I want to know is how someone came to an opinion. What are the supporting arguments for taking a certain position? What personal experiences have led to the formation of a certain opinion? And ultimately, can a given argument stand up to logical scrutiny? I, for one, like to make sure that I know what I am talking about.

2. I prefer action to opinion. I know too many people who espouse ignorant and illogical views, yet do very kind things for others. I also know people who are always first in line to point out injustice, yet take an armchair view when it actually comes to doing anything for anyone else. I tend to think that I am more effective when I operate within my sphere of influence. Rather than casting a wide everybody net, to reach those who probably aren't listening, and are unlikely to change their mind anyway.

3. I don't think it is necessarily an effective tool for bringing about social change. I have many Facebook friends who are notorious for controversial posts and their ensuing arguments. Each time it is the same people taking the same predictable positions, often in contrast to the other same people who always take the opposite position. The rest of us, after awhile, just scroll past to see what people are having for dinner and to look at pictures of cats, and/or children. I am also not all that convinced that my opinion matters much to many people. Nor am I convinced that I have any more power to effect change than anyone else that I know.

However, I have a great many friends who would disagree, or who really just like to argue. I don't. At this point in my life I am perfectly content with being a person who doesn't enjoy arguing. If you, among the 11 people that read my blog, do enjoy arguing, do you. I will sit in my own little corner of the world doing what I can, taking respite in Netflix when the daily reality of life becomes to much to bear.