Reverse Racism as Misnomer

I've heard people speak about the idea that reverse racism doesn't exist or would take a time machine to actually execute (see Reverse Racism by The MSSW for that gem!).

However, I'd like to take a moment to step back to a larger issue that I see with the term 'reverse racism'. It's a definite misnomer. As far as I can tell, it cannot exist because you can't have a reverse of something that doesn't have a specific place / person of origin. No definition of racism that I've seen includes a specific race or other group of people.

Here are three different definitions of 'racism' by 3 commonly used and / or well-trusted sources.

Merriam-Webster

"poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"

and / or

"the belief that some races of people are better than others"

 

Wikipedia.org (as of January 21st, 2014)

 

"actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that are based in views that see the human species to be divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics, and especially the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others, or that members of different races should be treated differently.^[1][2]"

 

 

National Association of Social Workers (via Barndt and Garcia & Van Soest) in their 2007 document Institutional Racism and the Social Work Profession: A Call to Action:

 

"Racism is the practice of discrimination and prejudice based on racial classification supported by the power to enforce that prejudice (Barndt, 1991; Garcia & Van Soest, 2006)"

 

 

 

 

 

In none of these definitions is any specific race noted.

 

If I, as a Black female, tell the White vacuum salesman on my porch that he has to stay outside while his Black partner comes in and shows me their newest Hoover model, I am being racist--by all three of the definitions listed above--if my only motivation for excluding the White salesman is because of his race (versus not letting him in because he was carrying a large weapon, was covered in soot, had a raging case of B.O., and so on).

 

If I grew up as a Mexican and considered flour tortillas to be a staple for every meal, if a Chinese store owner chooses to stop carrying the flour tortillas that my family and I enjoy, simply because she doesn't like Mexican people and doesn't want them in her store, that is racist. A decision was made to not provide a particular product based solely on the race of the potential buyer (versus not stocking tortillas because only one family would be buying them or because they were too expensive to purchase, stock, and sell at a reasonable price).

 

If you walk into a room full of people you don't know at a conference, large meeting, or classroom, and you refuse to sit in an open seat next to a White person, but pull up a chair to squeeze in next to Black person, only because you don't want to sit with a White person because of their race, that's racist (versus not sitting with that person because you know and dislike them on a personal level or you knew that the seat next to them was reserved for the meeting's leader).

 

I want to be clear that I'm talking about racism in a more non-judgmental way. I'm not professing that it's good or bad, I'm just trying to clarify what exactly it is so that we can further examine what it is not. I think a lot of people confuse the definition of 'racism' with the fact that they don't think they like racism or that they are racist themselves. The point is, if you have ever in your life made a decision and / or taken an action based solely on someone else's (or your own) race, you have behaved in a racist manner. This goes for White CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. This goes for homeless, unemployed, Latinos. This definition stands if you are someone who was offered a job at a particular place of business because you and the owner share a racial background (racist hiring), or if you got into a certain college in order for them to meet a demographic quota regarding your race (racist admittance).  

 

 

 

The phrase I think people may be thinking of when they use the word 'racism' in "reverse racism" is "institutional racism" or even "structural racism". This is the sort of racism that, as the names imply, are deep-seated and overarching throughout an entire culture. This sort of racism is entrenched in the foundation of how businesses are run, laws are written, cities are developed, neighborhoods are policed, education is offered, and justice is served.

 

Yet, even the idea of institutional or structural racism being reversed still doesn't make much sense to me. No matter who dishes out the institutional racism, it's either there or it isn't. It doesn't move forwards and backwards, it merely exists.

 

What does reverse sexism look like? Does that include when a man isn't allowed to attend a women-only domestic violence group or to lead a Girl Scout troop?

 

What is reverse ethnocentrism? Is there reverse prejudice in the world? How many reverse heterosexists do you know?

 

Unless the definition of a term includes that it can only be performed by a specific person or group (i.e.," White people's poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race") I don't see how a 'reverse' of that term can exist.

 

However, I'm open to learning. Let me know what you think by leaving a comment below or on my Facebook page. Thanks for reading!

 

The Language of Better Social Work

One reason I've noticed that, in the past, I and some of my colleagues have had trouble connecting with those we serve was due to our language. We spoke to people as though two completely false ideas were the honest truth:

1. They had no options or say-so in their own lives; and
2. We were psychic and knew exactly what was going to happen to them at any given moment in the future.

Some of us may still talk to our clients in the exact same way.

Whatever we choose to call this pattern of speech (I've heard it called 'aggressive', 'controlling', even 'male', for example), I've found that I'm a much more successful and effective practitioner (and a healthier wife, sibling, child, friend, and co-worker) when I lean towards making a few simple (yet fiercely difficult) changes to the way I talk to others.

1. Try to Avoid Telling People What They Can and Can't Do

I find it fascinating that we, as social workers, proclaim that we want to help people make better choices and choose healthier behaviors on their own, but then we speak to them as though they don't have any power in their own lives. We tell them that they have to do something or need to be somewhere. As Morgan Freeman / Joe Clark proclaimed in the movie Lean on Me, "I don't have to do nothin' but stay [insert your race here] and die!"

And I have to say that I agree.

Does anyone have to go to treatment? No.
Do people need counseling? Not at all.

However, these things could be very helpful, may have some benefit, and could help people achieve their goals in life.

Can you see the difference between "You have to go to treatment or you'll never get better" and "You might want to consider entering treatment. I've seen it help a lot of people get their lives back on track."?

Let's listen to ourselves, our clients, and our peers for the following phrases in bold, and see if we can start using (and encouraging others to use) the words and phrases in italics:

You have to   -   You might like to..., You might want to consider...

She should   -   It might have been more helpful to..., Maybe a better choice would have been...

You can't   -   You might run into some problems if you..., I haven't seen people be very successful when they...

I know   -   I get the impression that..., It seems as though..., I can understand if...

He always   -   I often see him..., I've noticed that he usually..., I can't remember a time when he didn't...

Addicts never   -   People suffering from an addition often don't..., Alcoholics generally don't...
  

I've especially noticed a resistance to this sort of language from people who have issues with authority figures, due to their past experiences with them. However, when we interacts with them with an attitude that expresses the fact that they have all the power, and every right, in the world to get up and walk out our door, they seem to feel less of an urge to actually do that. They don't have an overly controlling figure to "rebel" against. Think about how it takes two to tango, just like it takes two to argue. Let's try to steer clear of being that opposing force that they use to push themselves away from us.

Being someone that is there to help, versus someone who is there to control someone else's life, can be really helpful in building stronger, more effective helping relationships with the people we assist.

As a bonus, speaking in a less controlling manner to our spouses, family members, and co-workers can often have a similar effect. The relationship becomes more open, more relaxed, and people feel more comfortable sharing their problems (and successes) with us.

2. Steer Clear of the Habit of Prophesizing

I've found it helpful to avoid telling people what is going to happen to them. Sharing what I have seen or experienced in the past, or even giving them and idea of my fears for them should they make a certain choice is one thing. However, I've seen many a practitioner guarantee (they sometimes even literally use that word) that something catastrophic or fantastic is going to happen to someone if they make a certain choice.

"If you don't go to treatment, you'll die."

"If you try to live independently, you'll fail. Schizophrenics need assisted living--it's a fact!"

"If you stay in treatment for 30 days, you'll live a happy, healthy rest of your life."

"If you don't go to the therapy group for help, your wife's gonna leave you--plain and simple."

"If you quit using heroin, you're going to have so much more money!"

"You don't stand a chance without Narcotics Anonymous."

"If you start a business, you'll just shoot all the profits up your arm."

While I understand that most of us have been in the field long enough to have seen multiple examples of people struggling with addiction after leaving treatment or having a hard time living independently with a mental illness, there are (many) exceptions to those situations. So, if we decide to essentially promise someone that something will happen, when we really have no way of knowing, the second that terrible thing doesn't happen to them, or it doesn't happen to someone that they know, we become somebody who has no credibility. It's hard to trust somebody without credibility, so we have just severely injured our relationship with that person. Try using phrases like "I've never seen," "It's not impossible, however," and "Feel free to try, but I've never heard of" in order to express humility. We can still give the person the caring warning and advice that we want to offer without delivering it like Ms. Cleo.

Here are some tweaks to the above example sentences to make them more realistic:

"I've seen lots of people avoid going to treatment and it often leads to them living a really hard, chaotic life, or even dying. I'd hate to see that happen to you."

"Trying to live independently can be hard for people who don't have any mental health issue. I'm concerned about you want to live on your own, but let's look at some ways we might be able to make that more feasible, such as hiring an aide to check in on you or getting you on some medications."

"Though there are no guarantees, I've seen people do a lot better in their recovery when they have some form of formal treatment."

"I know your wife threatened to leave if you didn't get help, and I can't predict what she's going to do, but her and I both are encouraging you to attend a bipolar support group. Is not going really worth the possibility that she might actually divorce you?"

"Stopping your heroin use can really increase the amount of money you have left to save or spend as you please."

"I've seen kicking a habit be a real struggle for some people, but they often seem to do a lot better when they have the support of the people at Narcotics Anonymous."

"It's not impossible, however, I have witnessed several incidences in which people suffering from addiction who do actually gain a profit from running a business slip back into using because they have large sums of money that they're handling on a daily basis."


What other language have you heard that might be damaging to professional or personal relationships? Leave a comment to share!

Obesity Equal to Child Abuse

I just read an article about children in the UK being taken from their parents with the child's obesity being a primary factor in the decision. Here's the first half of the article (I've inserted the stone-to-pound conversions):

"One child had a BMI measurement of 35, which for a six-foot man would mean weighing 19st (266 pounds).

Britain's obesity epidemic, which sees NHS hospitals dealing with 1,000 cases every day, is a reversal of the traditional problem when children were undernourished. Increasingly social workers find youngsters being fed a high-fat, sugary diet, which can be just as bad for their health.

The phenomenon is known as "killing with kindness" because the child craves the unhealthy food and a loving parent feels unable to say no.

Professionals say they have to make complex decisions in care proceedings and a family's gross over-eating can be one of the factors that leads to them losing their children.

A Sunday Express survey of councils found that in the past year five children were taken from their families for that reason: two in Wake-field, West Yorkshire, one in Oxfordshire, one in Salford and one in Hounslow, London.

The previous 12 months saw five similar cases in Sheffield, Portsmouth, Lincolnshire, Slough and Harrow, London.

A social worker said: "Only in extreme cases would we take a child into care just because of their weight as we would seek to work with the family to improve their eating habits."

Ex-Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson warned in 2006 that health chiefs would look at removing children from their families if they became super-sized, risking their health.

The first reported case took place in 2007 when an eight-year-old girl from Cumbria, who had to wear size 16 clothes, was taken into care weighing 10st (140 pounds)."

Click here to read the rest of the article.

 

I know obesity has gotten pretty bad (I'm one of those obese people myself), but I was aware that the thought of 'facilitating' obesity being child abuse / neglect had become mainstream enough for people to start getting their children taken from them. Then again, if it is the parent's responsibility to take care of the child in an appropriate manner, the child being obese definitely isn't doing that. 

I think a lot of parents just believe that as long as they give their child everything that they want, especially if they actually have the financial resources to do so, they are taking care of their children. But, they still seem to usually be able to draw lines at certain places that might lead to harm to the child such as trying to jump off of the roof and fly like a comic book character.

It might be helpful if the parents were able to understand just how much physical danger they are putting their children in over the long run, even though it seems like they are being loving towards their children by giving them the unhealthy things to eat that they want. Then again, I guess if it's so hard for adults to discipline themselves enough to not become obese, it can be just as difficult to try to guide someone else towards eating in a healthier manner.

I've always thought that it would be nice to have a program available that actually pays people to lose weight. For instance, if we could calculate that I save this country $500 in medical costs for every pound that I lose, why not give me $50 of those dollars? Can you imagine how much weight people would lose if they were actually paid decent money to do it? Extra bonuses could be added for attending various fitness classes and dietary education courses in order to help encourage people not to lose weight in unhealthy ways (like starvation or using certain drugs). Also, it would be great if there were a lower limit for the feat. That way, people don't keep losing weight forever and ever until they're pure skin and bone. Based on their weight, height, sex, and age, once they reach their appropriate weight, they are no longer eligible for compensation. The same thing would go for the other end of the spectrum as well. You can only get money for weight that you lose from the time you register, so you won't get money for re-losing five pounds that you've regained.

Just a thought. What are yours?