The Language Of Race
by Mike Namkung
At practice this past weekend, I overheard one of my teammates ask another on the sideline, "Hey, what's the Asian guy's name?"
Responses to this kind of question usually fall into two predictable types.
First is a response that accepts the question at face value, or literally. "That's Jason." This response reinforces a level of comfort with the question.
Second is a response that interrogates the question from the position of being offended by it. This comes with implications of racist thinking. "Oh, that's how you see him, huh?" This response establishes one's frame of mind as going deeper than skin color, of thinking beyond racial categories, of seeing the deeper humanity of others. "I don't see color," and, "I see him as a person."
By now you have likely identified with one of the parties in these scenarios. Or perhaps you empathize with more than one. We all have played a part in variations of this simple question and answer.
The Ultimate community is comprised of individuals, and those individuals bring with them the cultural practices of their economic classes and ethnic groups. By and large, this means that Ultimate is one in which liberal middle to upper-middle class white cultural practices are so dominant that they establish themselves as normative. When values, assumptions, and practices are normative, they are rendered invisible.
Being invisible, norms are not explicit, but instead are a set of unspoken codes. For example, you never have a situation on an Ultimate team in which someone asks what the white guy's name is. Why not?—because Whiteness is invisible. Need it be mentioned when it is so universally understood? Using racial markers to describe others that are non-White is giving a nod to the exception that proves the rule.
Barack Obama's candidacy and presidency has significantly impacted the way we talk about race in this country. He has taken the interesting position of both acknowledging the importance of race in forming his personal identity, as well as not allowing himself to be limited by this identification. We have also seen a desire to move beyond racial difficulties by embracing optimism that we can create a post-racial society. Many invoke Obama's presidency as evidence that we have shifted into a mode of thinking that transcends race. If a predominantly white country is willing to elect a black president, this shows how far we've moved away from prejudicial or racial thinking—is it even necessary to talk about race anymore?—so the logic goes.
Part of the problem is that we lack the language for productive dialogue—all we've learned is the rhetoric. This use of conventional rhetoric immediately extinguishes the possibility of communication. Claims of racism are met with knee-jerk reactions against being stigmatized as a racist. Similarly, members of minority groups have learned to cry racism (known as playing the 'race card') in a correspondingly uncritical manner. Conversations about race frequently become confrontations—they deteriorate into staking out the moral high grounds of being unjustly treated on the one hand, or of denying responsibility for injustice on the other. We need new ways of speaking to each other about race—we need to cultivate a language that does not immediately polarize the discussion.
The topic is taboo. Racial issues carry emotional charge. One of the primary problems is that racism is thought of as a discrete state of mind—one that we associate with overt statements and acts of bigotry. As long as we see racism as an either/or, we will fail to make progress. As long as we deny the possibility that particular values and assumptions that we hold true may contribute to forms of injustice (such as institutionalized racism), we will fail to communicate. The reality of racial thinking is much more nuanced and complex.
Certainly, racism and bigotry exist, although often in veiled forms. Simply look at our segregated school systems and neighborhoods for examples of institutionalized racism at work. Or the criminal justice system. Or the higher education system. Or culturally biased aptitude tests. If we gain privilege and access from such institutions, to what degree are we complicit in maintaining systemic injustices in society, through our actions or inactions?
How do we talk about racial issues in a productive way? How do we let go of our assumptions and habits of thought, and create a space that is free from assigning blame—one in which open dialogue can take place?
In 1997, Minority Rulz was formed. The following year it was called Affirmative Action, but in the end, Downtown Brown stuck. Spearheaded by Damon Adlao and Ken Leiserson, the team was formed as a way of recognizing just how rare it was to be an ethnic minority in a white-dominated sport, and as a way of celebrating our cultural differences.
From the beginning, the core of Downtown Brown has been the experience of the circle. The circle began as a space in which team members shared their cultural heritages with each other, and has since evolved into a platform for discussing racial issues, both inside and outside the Ultimate community.
One issue that has consistently arisen in the circle in recent years is the question of the purpose or function of the team—within the team itself, as well as in the Ultimate community at large. Is it to provide a safe place to discuss racial issues? Is it to win? How should DTB interface with others in the community? Who do we include, who do we exclude, and what criteria do we use? What does it mean to identify as brown? How brown does one have to be? In what ways is the DTB experience profound, and in what ways is it superficial? What do we get out of this and what do we give?
On Saturday, July 4, 2009, at a time to be determined, at Potlatch, DTB will open up the circle for the first time in its 12-year history. All comers welcome. All you need is an interest in participating in the discussion. We have no idea if this invitation will bring 2 people or 200 people, but we are prepared to break out into as many smaller circles as necessary. Please join us for what we hope to be an open and productive conversation. If you are interested in participating, please come find us.
Mike has represented the US as a Condor and a member of Team USA 2004, and has won National Championships with both the Condors and Jam.