I've been introduced to a new idea that is challenging and I feel like I should write out a couple thoughts to explore it further. An idea that I've talked about a lot in this blog and in my newsletters is that of my own privilege. I've been blessed with access to all life's necessities and more, which makes it much easier for me to take a year without making any real money to volunteer and experiment with living in community. It's obvious from our house and from meeting the national YAVs that we are largely a caucasian group of people. A book that we are reading as a house suggests that white people have traditionally had access to higher social status and can more easily live intentional and alternative lifestyles than can other groups who have traditionally been held back from achieving social status. In one passage the book describes an interaction between a white person who is being self righteous about eating organic, vegetarian foods and a black person who says something like "when I was growing up the only choice we had was organic, vegetarian food!" This in itself is a challenging idea, but I think it has some good merit in partially explaining why a lot of intentional, simple lifestyle communities are made up of mostly white people. But this isn't the idea I'm thinking about here.
No More Deaths (NMD) is a humanitarian aid group in Tucson that gives medical aid to migrants who have gotten stranded in the desert and are in trouble. They also push for immigration policy changes. NMD is another organization made up almost entirely of white faces and in my opinion their work saves lives and is necessary. A friend of mine brought up the issue that the organization is composed mainly of white members and explained how he thought it was arrogant for us to think that we could speak for this group of people without representation from that group. There are no migrants that are members of NMD as far as I know. But the point he was making was that we cannot expect to make any real change for people in a completely different demographic.
I can see his point, but have a few things to say to shine some light on the other side of the issue. The first point is that I don't think NMD actively discourages migrants or Hispanics from joining. Maybe it's really intimidating for someone to walk into a room of white people and to feel connected with and welcomed by that group. But how do you change that? I really don't think there should be a membership quota to fill in order to feel like they can do the work they want to do. I also don't think recruiting members based on race is a good thing, since it still singles them out based on their race. Also, it's obvious that people in my demographic have a tremendous amount of privilege, but what are we to do with that privilege? I might be wrong, but it seems like I can use that privilege in a way that fights marginalization in society or I can use it to advance myself. I don't feel guilty for whatever privilege I've been born in to, because there's nothing I could do about that and because it gives me a responsibility to use it in a way that helps resist marginalization. But at the same time I do think that my friend has a point that the groups that are trying to create change would be stronger if they included, or were led by, people in the group that is being marginalized. Any thoughts on the issue?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You both have very valid points. While hispanic membership would definately aid the group in understanding the intracacies of immigration reform and what migrant groups may need the most assistance with, you can not hold it against the caucasian members when hispanic membership is lacking. Considering the nature of their work, I would hope that their membership would be welcome.
This reminds me of the ongoing debate in psychology of caucasian practitioners providing services to minority clients. On the one hand, white psychologists are unable to understand the intricate cultural differences that create a different psychological reality for minority clients (even those born and raised in the U.S.). If there is a clinician of the same culture that is available and effective, then that is the best choice. But minority representation is lacking at the MS and PhD level of practice and often, a caucasian clinician is the only available. Should they then think twice about providing services?
I think the more important points are that the caucasian psychologist (1)take the time to be as educated as possible on how to best help these clients, and 2)truly have the client's best interest at heart and wish to help.
The same goes for NMD. Should they not attempt to help until adequate representation comes along? That does no good at all. While some understanding on their part may be lost, their intentions are not lost as long as they make the maximum effort to truly help and don't join for political reasons or to satisfy their desire to appear empathetic.
Post a Comment