Is it ever permissible to exclude?
Is it racist to have a feminist festival that excludes white people?
The Paris mayor, Anne Hidalgo, has called for a black feminist festival in the French capital to be banned, saying it was “prohibited to white people”.
The first edition of the Nyansapo Festival, due to run from 28-30 July at a cultural centre in Paris, bills itself as “an event rooted in black feminism, activism, and on (a) European scale”.
Four-fifths of the festival area will be set aside as a “non-mixed” space for black women, according to its website. Another space will be a “non-mixed” area for black people regardless of gender. Another space would be “open to all”.
Is separatism an intermediate step on the road to equality? Do minorities need to exclude the majority at times because otherwise they will always be drowned out?
French anti-racist and antisemitism organisations strongly condemned the festival. SOS Racisme described the event as “a mistake, even an abomination, because it wallows in ethnic separation, whereas anti-racism is a movement which seeks to go beyond race”.
I don’t know. I’m not sure if it really does wallow in ethnic separation, or just enact a desire to be the dominant presence for once.
The cultural centre La Générale, where the event was to be hosted, and the collective Mwasi, which organised the event, said on Sunday they were the “target of a disinformation campaign and of ‘fake news’ orchestrated by the foulest far right”.
“We are saddened to see certain anti-racist associations letting themselves be manipulated like this,” read a statement posted on the Generale website.
A “decolonisation summer camp” in the north-eastern French city of Reims elicited similar outrage last year, as it billed itself as a “training seminar on antiracism” reserved for victims of “institutional racism” or “racialised” minorities – excluding by default white people.
Possibly an outrage too many.
Sort of like women-only spaces. We’re not supposed to create those, either, because if we actually can exclude those who oppress, even if only for a short time, it might be possible to get momentum to have the discussion that helps change things. And dominant culture can’t have that, right?
It’s sort of like the internet outrage being generated right now against women-only screenings of the Wonder Woman movie. I’m not sure I”m thrilled about that, but mostly because I’m not sure I see a woman who is designed to show of her body as being really all that empowering for women. Otherwise, I think there is certainly nothing wrong with having brief exclusions and safe spaces. But the MRAs are invoking Rosa Parks – right, because white male culture has been so oppressed and so enslaved and so limited in where they have been allowed to go that they can invoke a Civil Rights icon to represent their explosion of juvenile anger at being told, uh, not today guys. Come back tomorrow, and no problems.
So yes, I think it’s permissible at times to exclude those who would harass or interrupt or mansplain or whitesplain (if that’s a word; I don’t know).. Breathing space and space for strategic planning or just space to be yourself without being judged by the standards of others can be very refreshing.
Oh, FFS!
I think we can agree that women of colour face challenges that are both significantly different and significantly greater than those of us who are part of the paler dominant culture. How can it possibly be racist to say that a degree of separation is needed to discuss and work with those experiences? Who could possibly be petty enough to have a problem with this? As a white feminist am I supposed to be butt-hurt because there’s an area of feminism that really doesn’t need my presence, or want my input?
I do think the concept of the “safe-space” is at times used inappropriately – but that doesn’t mean it is always an unnecessary one. Let people of colour deal with their experiences without white folks looking over their shoulder – and probably telling them they’re doing it wrong. And, whitesplaining most definitely is a word…
Take it in the other direction: Why is it ever not okay to exclude?
After all, private homes certainly and uncontroversially exclude people. Private parties, again, it’s invitation only. Private events in public places – still no controversy. It’s a problem when exclusion means denial of opportunities or goods that should be made available without regard for personal relationships (or perhaps only with very specific exceptions, e.g., restraining orders).
When it comes to groups of oppressed minorities meeting to address that oppression, it’s not the same sort of opportunity available for someone outside the group. There IS some opportunity there – the opportunity shut up, sit down, and listen – which may not be too terribly available when you’re living inside your privilege bubble, but it’s not on the oppressed minority to go out of their way to offer you that. And in this case, there ARE spaces, at this very event, for pale and/or male folk to show up and listen, so there isn’t even a basis for that one.
It’s a problem if your anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-wickedness is so unsubtle that any recognition of different needs and different circumstances is anathema, but if it is… you’ve got too big a problem to start with to be prepared to be a part of a solution in this area yet.
I think a good way to start to answer the question might be to look at US Supreme Court Decisions (and/or the equivalent body in France).
I don’t have the answers.
But I’d bet that “virtue” or “victimhood” or “color” is not a factor on how to decide.
And again, there is such a thing as taking laïcité way too far. This seems like one of those instances.
Of course, getting the event’s focus really nailed down for groups that have been blithely glossed over before would be a Good Thing. But I have a dark suspicion that exclusionary intersectionalism won’t include any ex-Muslims, and might end up with the stock anti-Israel conspiracy mongering.
The hope, and the suspicion, are emotionally rooted though and not to be trusted without some check in real evidence.
What I find problematic is not the idea that black women would want to meet and discuss issues of particular concern to their group, but how the selection of participants will be accomplished. Would there be DNA testing – http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0023851.html – at the door (and with a “black” father but a “white” mother – think Obama – would I qualify)? I confess that this smacks to me a bit of Aryan racial laws. And to which parts of the festival, if any, would Rachel Dolezal gain entrance? Of course, there is always a selection process for conferences and conventions. (Yes, bathrooms, too.) Most of the scientific gatherings that I attend have some sort of qualification requirement. But this is being called a “festival”. I am very suspicious of the whole “trans” movement, but, unless I’ve misread the specifics of this event, barring particular women from it on the basis of skin pigmentation (as opposed to simply not inviting them) is a “safe space” too far.
#7 – Exactly my reaction. How will this “racial purity” be ascertained? And by whom and by whose rules?
Will there be linguistic/mitochondrial/phrenological testing of participants? (Oops, I said pants):
Anyway, perhaps ~5% of the area will be ample space “open for all” who still want to attend.
This subject is very interesting and I can see that there is desire on many sides to exclude.
I don’t know French law, but I’ve been thinking about this issue a bit and it seems to me fairly simple:
Anyone can determine who they want to associate with so long as the venue is totally private and there is no public funding… That means that a hotel should not be allowed to rent to a group which limits participation based on race sex religion and so forth. And obviously no public money should ever be spent. But if people want to assemble on private property and choose whatever criteria they like, then I guess that’s OK. But the venue has to be totally truly private and not something that is ever open to the public.
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander “.
I’m not a fan of separatism, but this doesn’t seem to me worth fussing over.
If this were a permanent thing, I might feel differently, but it’s a 3-day festival by and for black women, and it’s not like black women have disproportionate–or even proportionate–power in France.
Does anyone here have a problem with women-only screenings of Wonder Woman? MRAs here in the US are getting all bent out of shape over those.
LM,
If KKK meets in a private venue and pays for the rental costs and everything related to the event, it’s their right.
If at a public facility, or public accommodation like a hotel conference center or using public money, NO!
I think that’s the proper analysis.
But it isn’t what I was talking about. I didn’t ask whether it should be allowed or not. I asked whether it’s racist or not. I’m more interested in the morality than the legality.
Actually didn’t you ask about “exclusion” not “racism”?
And to answer the exclusion aspect, I believe that the answer is pretty straightforward in the USA:
If you want to exclude, you have to pay for it yourself.
Is it moral? I have no idea.
But it seems to be a human desire which is impossible to Police except by means which are far too intrusive so we police it by simply saying you can’t spend public money and you can’t do it in a public accommodation such as a hotel. At least I think that’s what the law is.
I don’t know for sure either, which is why I wanted to discuss it. What the law is really isn’t what I was asking about.
Isn’t that interesting. I can’t imagine a discussion like this without starting from the question “what is the current law? and “is it correct”? and if not correct, “How should we change it he law?”
To me, such questions are of only minor theoretical interest until we reduce the question to practical reality, which often means law.
It’s not a right or wrong just different outlooks.
—
In terms of the broader question of exclusion, you could also ask the question terms of “discrimination”… And discrimination is the essence and core of human consciousness because it distinguishes between different things… we discriminate between A and B and V…That’s why we have different words. So yeah we exclude until it becomes impractical
You do raise interesting questions, Ophelia.
That’s odd, though, because the law has to be far more minimal than morality, manners, oughts, and all that. Nobody wants the cops adjudicating every disagreement and conflict – but disagreements and conflicts can be of surpassing interest. Most literature centers on them.
What this reminds me of – in certain, limited ways – is Mitchfest. Trans women demanded access to a space that had been traditionally reserved for cis/afab/natal/biological/whatever women. Mitchfest was supposed to be a safe space for those women. Is that discriminatory? Well, yes, by definition, but it also uses the idea of the Safe Space. Space where women can be with other women and no dicks are allowed (in any definition of the word…) I supported keeping Mitchfest cis/afab/natal/biological/whatever women only because there are women for whom the knowledge that there were no dicks around was actually reassuring and healing. It gave women a chance to be with other women exclusively.
I think that’s important. And while I do think it’s discriminatory I don’t think that’s the same as bigoted. Same with women of colour needing their own space just to be, to discuss and workshop their experiences, and to celebrate who they are. Interestingly, the, “how will this be policed” was something that people, who wanted to open Mitchfest to transwomen, regularly brought up. It’s often an issue brought up by people who vaguely disapprove of something they won’t be included in. The answer is usually pretty straightforward: as a first line, you expect people to respect the aims of restriction and not rules-lawyer it. Secondly, if someone looks appropriate, behaves appropriately and doesn’t draw attention to themselves as someone who “shouldn’t” be there, no one bothers too much.
Discrimination becomes an issue when it occurs in areas where, perhaps, policy is created, money is endowed, or power is used. That doesn’t seem to be something that applies here.