4.22

[Edit 5.26: I don't like that I wrote this. It could do without the last paragraph entirely. It could do without the last two mainly. It could do without all five on principle. But I wrote it and I must own it because here it is, unavoidable, on the Internet. I'm not wiser now, and I've not grown in any way. I'm just not proud of it. I was angry at something I couldn't put my finger on and I . . .
Well, I guess that's just the point. I'm not racist--or am I? Do the voiceless get to apply labels to me, or I to myself? Some may point out the irony in that.]

I listened to a podcast today from Radiolab called Debatable. A young black gay man joined a debate club and quickly learned that the Kansas City all-black debate club aesthetic isn't the national norm, and that most clubs are all-white and coincidentally elitist snobs. Soon, he adopted the University of Louisville method of turning the debate on its head and asking whether or not the system of debate is broken and exclusive of black participants. He and his partner won the national competition a few years ago because of this tactic, despite what I think was a really deft rebuttal by the opposition.

They were discussing alternative forms of energy.

I've never lived his life. I've never been the only [label] in the room. Actually, I'm the only vegetarian at Moberly Middle School. I get misunderstood all the time and I have to explain myself and people judge me and think I'm weird or broken, but it's not the same as being black, which is obvious and unavoidable, in a room full of white kids (some of whom are bound to be racist). So I've never had his experience, and I can't speak to it, and neither can most of his opponents.
So what he's done is take a debate which has few rules apart from 1 there are two sides 2 there is one winner and he has taken a side his opponents didn't prepare for, but he did. He took a side that has the popular moral high ground (racism is bad) and forced his opponent to take the other side (thems the rules). He took a side that is heavily based on his own experience, which his opponents cannot speak to. He changed the debate. In fact, he hijacked it to serve his own purpose. I'm excited about what he's saying, because I would love to see more marginalized groups start to feel a part of things, and I'm even more excited to see what their suggestions are for fixing the things they love that still have problems. However. But. Sadly. What he's done isn't purely that. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter, but the second rule of the debate is that one side has to lose, and he has attempted his best to frame it so that he has a chance of winning each debate because his opponents are unable to answer him (partially because there's no way they prepared for this argument and partially because it's so easy to slip when you're trying to argue the negative to a statement, especially about something so emotionally explosive as racism).

There's no altruism in his actions. That's the slime under the shine that makes me feel really bad. I want to root for the underdog, but I can't feel good about it because it's so self serving. Maybe that's me being privileged, but I don't think so. This is the whining rant of a sixth grader who hasn't figured out how to get what she wants without being incredibly selfish.
Anyhow, I hope I'm not racist. I don't feel racist and I don't want to do racist things. But if being racist is somehow controlled by what other people decide and not based on my motivations and thoughts and ideals, then I and the poor opponents in this debate are screwed from the start. If all I have to do to be a racist is get on the wrong side of a PoC diatribe, then I'm never joining a debate club, I guess.
I don't care about winning, really. I just don't want to be racist for doing it.