What is a 'microaggression'?

[poppy]

I was talking to someone on Facebook and was accused of using a 'microagression'.

From the context it looks like a microaggression is a way of pointing out subtle insults or dismissals?   But if that's the case, isn't calling someone out for using  a microaggression in & of itself a microaggression?

Is this a new Facebook thing or bigger than that?

[Joanne]

It is bigger and beyond Facebook. It began to be identified primarily in racial issue context.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/racial-microagressions-you-hear-on-a-daily-basis#.nfGNrMR0X

[Denise in Florida]

It is bigger than facebook.  Micro aggressions are real but can be difficult to pinpoint in our own behavior.  

 

When someone asks a seemingly innocent question like "where are you from?" it could be a simple question or it could be a way to subtly say 'you don't belong here, you are different, I need to peg you into some kind of slot'

 

Because they are simple and seem harmless some people deny they are a form of aggression or prejudice.  

 

I have been the new kid on the block a few times in my life and sometimes the example above "where are you from?" is meant as an insult and a way to tell you you don't fit in.  The only problem is that when you object you are often told you are over-reacting or misunderstood.  

 

Other micro agressions examples could be telling someone 'you are good at math for a girl' , 'I thought all Christians believe xxx" or "YOU are an honor student!?" (to someone who does not fit the standard perhaps too pretty, too interested in sports, too tatooed, etc).

 

Most can be read as an insult, not all people intend them as such but the folks who hear them are usually tired of them. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Denise in Florida

[bolt.]

It's a minor comment or question (or even body language) that seems inoffensive (and my have no ill intent) -- but it *reveals* somehow that the speaker believes a stereotype/prejudice/assumption that *is* offensive -- and (possibly) believes it so hard that they've probably never noticed that it's not true or that it might be hurtful.

 

Most people call out micro aggressions because they believe that the speaker (1) didn't mean it that way, (2) will regret it once they notice the stereotype as-revealed, and (3) might think twice before repeating it for the rest of their life. -- Or, (4) if it *was* intentional, the call-out makes it open hostility instead of passive-aggression and power play.

[bolt.]

Some micro-aggressions are about "erasing people" -- example "Nobody really needs those grab rails in the washroom." -- Turns disabled people into "nobody" in your comment. They have been revealed as people you don't believe exist, hence "erased".

[bolt.]

Some are about making a real attribute into an insult or a joke:

 

"That's so gay!"

"I'm OCD about my sewing cabinet."

[SparklyUnicorn]

fascinating....

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I can't help but think that this is a label slapped onto a bunch of vague behaviors rendering it mostly useless.

 

 

[momacacia]

Oh brother! In a micro-aggressor. Finally got it out there. I don't make comments about bathroom handrails (because I know why they're there and that they likely get used), but I could make the sewing cabinet comment and I'm fascinated by where people are from, ancestry and things like that (which I get from my mom). So I'll probably be aggressing at some people who "aren't like me" just because I'm macro-interested.

[Little Women]

The problem many people have with the term is that it can be used for just about anything and often has more to do with the person calling it a microagression than with any harm meant or implied.   

 

Eg, I have seen a conversation wherein someone was hugely bawled out for offering a Black friend watermelon.   This person was simply sharing what she had brought to a picnic, but apparently stepped into a huge no-no that she had no idea of.   The whole conversation made me afraid to ever offer to share anything, because I had never heard of such a thing being an insult.   

 

Similarly, the question above of "where are you from" is a basic conversation starter with a new friend or neighbor, but apparently has been used differently against someone in this thread, above.    So if I used that, she might consider it a microaggression, while I might just be trying to be friendly.   

 

It's a pretty nebulous term, and I do think it's often used in an aggressive way, to imply that a person is tainted by aggressions even if they don't realize it.   I can understand saying that someone may be deliberately making aggressive statements that seem small, but the intent of the term from the way I've seen it used is to presume offence and especially racism or gender-ism against people who truly have none.

 

[poppy]

The problem many people have with the term is that it can be used for just about anything and often has more to do with the person calling it a microagression than with any harm meant or implied.

 

Eg, I have seen a conversation wherein someone was hugely bawled out for offering a Black friend watermelon. This person was simply sharing what she had brought to a picnic, but apparently stepped into a huge no-no that she had no idea of. The whole conversation made me afraid to ever offer to share anything, because I had never heard of such a thing being an insult.

 

Similarly, the question above of "where are you from" is a basic conversation starter with a new friend or neighbor, but apparently has been used differently against someone in this thread, above. So if I used that, she might consider it a microaggression, while I might just be trying to be friendly.

 

It's a pretty nebulous term, and I do think it's often used in an aggressive way, to imply that a person is tainted by aggressions even if they don't realize it. I can understand saying that someone may be deliberately making aggressive statements that seem small, but the intent of the term from the way I've seen it used is to presume offence and especially racism or gender-ism against people who truly have none.

Is that watermelon thing actually true ? It sounds made up.

[Catwoman]

It sounds to me like many of the people who are accusing others of "micro-aggression" may very well have macro-chips-on-their-shoulders and go around looking for offense where none was intended.

 

It gets tiring when people insist on over-analyzing every little thing people say, rather than simply taking them at their word and assuming the best of them.

 

And, you know, they have to invent a term for it so it will seem Very Important.

 

Poppy, do you know what it was that you said that made the person accuse you of micro-aggression?

Edited December 3, 2015 by Catwoman

[Tanaqui]

Is that watermelon thing actually true ? It sounds made up.

 

Which part sounds made up? The argument, or the fact that "black people like watermelon!" is a well-established racist trope?

 

And it sounds so stupid, doesn't it? Yeah, black people, they like watermelon, oooh, how awful. But "watermelon" is generally used as a proxy for other racist sentiments - black people steal watermelon, because, you know, they're all criminal (it's their culture not their race). Black people are so simple-minded, all it takes to make them happy is some watermelon and fried chicken, like children or animals, ruled by their base impulses instead of their brains. The White House must be a disaster by now, all those chicken bones and watermelon rinds all over the floor (because black people are so lazy and filthy, amirite? And too stupid to eat healthy foods, btw.)

 

And what should be ridiculous is really very ugly and toxic.

 

So if that anecdote happened, here's the thing. That person goes through life, and they don't know if the reason they didn't get the job is their race. They don't know if the reason they're being followed at the store is their race. They don't know if they got pulled over because of their race. They might suspect, and they can be reasonably certain that they're getting rejected more and followed more and pulled over more because of their race, but they can never pinpoint if this specific incident is racism or not. And when handed that watermelon, they don't know that this other person is not familiar with that trope, and they certainly don't know what the intentions are. If it's been a stressful week, it can be easy to get fed up over a small maybe-racism maybe-not incident.

[Garga]

It's a minor comment or question (or even body language) that seems inoffensive (and my have no ill intent) -- but it *reveals* somehow that the speaker believes a stereotype/prejudice/assumption that *is* offensive -- and (possibly) believes it so hard that they've probably never noticed that it's not true or that it might be hurtful.

 

Most people call out micro aggressions because they believe that the speaker (1) didn't mean it that way, (2) will regret it once they notice the stereotype as-revealed, and (3) might think twice before repeating it for the rest of their life. -- Or, (4) if it *was* intentional, the call-out makes it open hostility instead of passive-aggression and power play.

 

 

Hmmm.  So, it's possible that I believe something so hard that I don't know that it's not true or might be hurtful. That can be difficult to accept, but it's very possibly true.  In fact, there has to be at least one thing that we all believe that's wrong.  The odds just aren't in our favor that everything everyone of us believes is true.  We've got to be wrong at least sometimes.

 

And it's possible that someone will call me out on it and I'll think to myself, "No, I didn't mean it like that!" and my first reaction will be to defend myself.

 

But...as I've gotten older, I've discovered that it's ok to let other people "win" an argument.  It's ok to admit when you're wrong, or even just might be wrong.  Nothing terribly earth-shattering happens.  It might sting one's pride a bit, but that's about it.

 

So...here's my plan if someone accuses me of micro aggression.  Said without a hint of sarcasm, because the point is not to be sarcastic.  The point is to learn something:

 

"Really? Micro-aggression?  I had no idea. Why is what I said/did wrong?"  Listen to response.  "Ok. I can see why you'd think that.  I honestly didn't mean anything offensive intentionally, but I'll be more careful in the future." 

 

And then I can take time to consider whether the accuser was being goofy themselves, or if I actually was the one in the wrong.  At the end of the day, the person might just a hurt person who sees slights in everything.  And my gentle answer make them feel better to feel heard for a change.  Or maybe a kind response will make them stop and realize that I am not the sort of person to intentionally harm them, and they'll be able to trust me or learn for themselves not to judge so quickly. 

 

Or maybe they really are a jerk.  And in that case, then at least I didn't sink to their level, but I did the right thing by not being a jerk, too.  They doing the wrong thing doesn't make it ok for me to also do the wrong thing. At the end of the day, I would be more proud of my gentle answer vs a combative one.  Their chip on their shoulder is their problem.  No need for me to stick one on my shoulder as well.

 

Ok--it's past my bedtime and I'm getting too philosophical and preachy.  Blah.  I'm really tired right now.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Garga

[Tanaqui]

Garga, that's quite sensible, and it definitely avoids escalating a situation.

[Garga]

Garga, that's quite sensible, and it definitely avoids escalating a situation.

 

 

I've been trying to channel Sister Julienne from Call the Midwife.  She's always calm and makes everyone feel better even when they're in the wrong.  I'd like to be more like her.

[wathe]

"Where are you from"  as a microaggresion is a real thing.  My non-white DH deals with this all the time.

 

Note the difference: 

 

a) At a party where many folks don't know each other.  "So, where are you from" might be non-micoraggressive normal small-talk: DH answers *particular Canadian city*.  Asker accepts this, maybe asks where I'm from,  asker might talk about his hometown, conversation moves on.  Not a microagression.

 

b) At a party where many folks don't know each other.  "So, where are you from" might be  microaggressive:  DH answers *particular Canadian city*.  Asker does not accept this, and asks "Oh, where are you from originally?".  Asker does not ask where I'm from, isn't really interested in comparing hometowns as small talk.  Now in this case "where are you from" is really code for "what kind of asian are you/you look different from everyone else here".  This is a microaggresion.

 

 

ETA.  This has happened often enough that DH has developed a scripted answer to the "where are you from" question:  "*particular Canadian city* born and raised".  A polite response to the literal question, that also shuts down the coded "what kind of asian are you" microaggressive version.

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by wathe

[Joules]

I've never heard the term, but as I read I hear more and more terms and phrases that are offensive.  I think many subcultures and regions have their thinly veiled insults and as the world grows smaller more words fall into the no-no category.  Sometimes I feel it's best just to nod and smile.  It's a shame that there is no way to distinguish between something meant as an insult and a shy awkward individual trying to be friendly.

 

I did think of one that always felt wrong to me..."Where do you go to church?"  In the playgroup/park era of my life, it was usually about the third question.  As a non-churchgoer, it always felt like a weed-out so someone could knock me off the potential friend list early, but I guess in some cases it was just another shy awkward individual talking about the only thing she can think of.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Joules

[creekland]

We're rural and it seems that some things don't get here quite as quickly as other places.  I'd never heard of this before.

 

Having read a bit about it, I'll also admit I'm not really concerned.  If people want to get offended about something, they will.  Chances are those aren't people I'd want in my IRL circle anyway.

 

I often ask folks I don't know where they're from.  It's all part of getting to know them.  Fancy that.  An even stranger fact is that I've yet to see anyone get upset about it.  Most return the question to me (even if they think I'm local) and then our conversation continues.

 

Yet there are still very few people I don't get along with...

[marbel]

<snip>

 

So if that anecdote happened, here's the thing. That person goes through life, and they don't know if the reason they didn't get the job is their race. They don't know if the reason they're being followed at the store is their race. They don't know if they got pulled over because of their race. They might suspect, and they can be reasonably certain that they're getting rejected more and followed more and pulled over more because of their race, but they can never pinpoint if this specific incident is racism or not. And when handed that watermelon, they don't know that this other person is not familiar with that trope, and they certainly don't know what the intentions are. If it's been a stressful week, it can be easy to get fed up over a small maybe-racism maybe-not incident.

 

I can see this, and I understand a person being sensitive, but re: the bolded - the poster said it was at a picnic, and presumably everyone was offered the watermelon.  If the person offering watermelon specifically did not offer to the black person due to fear of offense, that could have been considered a microagression just as easily. 

[poppy]

Which part sounds made up? The argument, or the fact that "black people like watermelon!" is a well-established racist trope?

 

And it sounds so stupid, doesn't it? Yeah, black people, they like watermelon, oooh, how awful. But "watermelon" is generally used as a proxy for other racist sentiments - black people steal watermelon, because, you know, they're all criminal (it's their culture not their race). Black people are so simple-minded, all it takes to make them happy is some watermelon and fried chicken, like children or animals, ruled by their base impulses instead of their brains. The White House must be a disaster by now, all those chicken bones and watermelon rinds all over the floor (because black people are so lazy and filthy, amirite? And too stupid to eat healthy foods, btw.)

 

And what should be ridiculous is really very ugly and toxic.

 

So if that anecdote happened, here's the thing. That person goes through life, and they don't know if the reason they didn't get the job is their race. They don't know if the reason they're being followed at the store is their race. They don't know if they got pulled over because of their race. They might suspect, and they can be reasonably certain that they're getting rejected more and followed more and pulled over more because of their race, but they can never pinpoint if this specific incident is racism or not. And when handed that watermelon, they don't know that this other person is not familiar with that trope, and they certainly don't know what the intentions are. If it's been a stressful week, it can be easy to get fed up over a small maybe-racism maybe-not incident.

 

Yeah, I know the trope, everyone does, which makes it handy for made-up anecdotes.  I honestly can't imagine a real picnic where "I have seen a conversation wherein someone was hugely bawled out for offering a Black friend watermelon. This person was simply sharing what she had brought to a picnic, but apparently stepped into a huge no-no that she had no idea of. " I think it's hogwash. 

[marbel]

Years ago the office I worked in got some new artwork for the lunchroom.  They were graphic prints of fruit - one giant piece of fruit per print.  Orange, apple, some others, and... watermelon.   People just came unglued over the watermelon.  I could imagine it if someone decorated the lunch room in a watermelon theme (maybe?) but they were just assorted fruits.  Common fruits that people eat.  Fruits that are popular!   I felt so sorry for the woman in charge of the purchase (though I doubt she chose them by herself).

 

ETA:  So, I don't necessarily think anecdotes like the picnic one are "hogwash."  

Edited December 3, 2015 by marbel

[flyingiguana]

Yeah, I know the trope, everyone does, which makes it handy for made-up anecdotes.  I honestly can't imagine a real picnic where "I have seen a conversation wherein someone was hugely bawled out for offering a Black friend watermelon. This person was simply sharing what she had brought to a picnic, but apparently stepped into a huge no-no that she had no idea of. " I think it's hogwash. 

 

I can see it happening.  Kind of depends on who you're hanging out with.

 

In my experience, the whole accusing people of micro-aggressions has gotten out of hand.  It's mostly being used as a way to belittle people -- sort of a, look, my politics are cleaner than yours, comment.  I'm to the point where there are a huge number of people I'm not even speaking to anymore over these things.

 

Truth is, I think they're using it to attack me when I seem to be having better political ideas than they are.  They don't want to admit I might be right (and a lot smarter than them) so they just come at me with the accusations: microagression, racist, sexist, etc labels.  My take on it is that these accusations are going to destroy any good that might have come out of the demonstrations and discussions about racism, sexism etc.  They're shooting themselves in the foot by antagonizing and marginalizing the very people they OUGHT to want to have on board.

 

I have yet to hear someone bring this topic up in a nice way (irl).  Or an educational way. It's more a way of shutting people up.

 

But that's what's happening where *I* am.  Could well be different in other areas.

[Joanne]

I am continually saddened by these threads in which the majority culture dismisses, invalidates, and disregards the shared lived experience of a minority culture.

[bolt.]

I take comments about my potential micro aggressions very seriously. Getting rid of my entrenched (unconscious, unintentional) "-isms" is a personal goal of mine. I also very much want to stop adding my verbal support to illogical ststems of inferiority/power that seem normal in my culture (therefore tend to go unnoticed).

 

Beyond not adding my verbal support to those systems I want to behave in such a way that 'compared to bolt' people begin to sense some discomfort around the possibility that they-too might be influenced by the norms of their culture -- and use 'micro-aggressions' to support it enforce those norms... without noticing or intending to. I want them to at least notice occasionally, then maybe wonder about their intent, then possibly change.

 

This is driven by my desire to grow in spiritual maturity by obeying the book of James. No one who has read James (with the intent of being a follower) can possibly miss ideas like the power of the tounge, the insistence on equal/impartial treatment for all, and the duty to oppose the unjust systems-and-culture of 'the world' with the love of the kingdom.

Edited December 3, 2015 by bolt.

[luuknam]

ETA.  This has happened often enough that DH has developed a scripted answer to the "where are you from" question:  "*particular Canadian city* born and raised".  A polite response to the literal question, that also shuts down the coded "what kind of asian are you" microaggressive version.

 

Which doesn't mean that you can't *ever* ask... but not as the first or second thing. Maybe way later in the friendship or w/e. Because really, there is no need to know random strangers ancestral origins, and if you do ask e.g. Asians more often than e.g. white people, then it is bothersome (really, how many white people are asked "no, really, where is your family from, originally? France, England, Ireland, etc?). After moving to Buffalo, people suddenly started asking me where I was from (despite rarely having been asked that in Texas). I do have a foreign accent (though apparently it blended in better in Texas), but if I answer "Texas" (I lived there for 8 years) or where I currently live, people will do the "no, really, where are you *from*" thing... if I wanted to tell them, I would've, duh. Sometimes I just don't want to get into the "yes, I'm a foreigner, wow, how veird" thing. Especially since I've been in the US for 11 years now. And then I really don't get the people who ask "where are you from", I answer "The Netherlands", and then they want to know where in The Netherlands, so I tell them, and they go "huh, never heard of those places", and they may not even know a single place in NL. It's like, why on earth are you asking if you can't even locate NL on the map?

 

Also, people usually look really weird at me when I ask them in return where they're from (when I suspect they're from a Buffalo suburb). They give me this puzzled look, like "oh, I'm from here", like "why would anyone ever ask me that?".

 

I did think of one that always felt wrong to me..."Where do you go to church?"  In the playgroup/park era of my life, it was usually about the third question.  As a non-churchgoer, it always felt like a weed-out so someone could knock me off the potential friend list early, but I guess in some cases it was just another shy awkward individual talking about the only thing she can think of.

 

I've been asked that by kids in rural TX when taking Celery to the playground. They were okay with "nowhere" as the answer, though they did usually invite me to come visit their church. In areas where practically everyone goes to church, it's just part of their world view. "Have you found your church home yet" or something along those lines seem to be common questions there when you've newly moved there (been asked that by several adults). It's just people being friendly. And yes, some may use it to weed out people, but I don't really mind that. If they want to weed me out based on that, then I wouldn't want to be their friend anyway. Realistically, very conservative religious right people are unlikely to make good friends for a liberal atheist LGBT couple (I do have religious friends, fwiw, and they're even somewhat on the conservative side of the spectrum, but not of the extremist variety, and obviously not of the "weeding out by asking what church you attend" variety either).

[bolt.]

Sorry (Heigh Ho) do you mean that 'the concept of meritocracy' is the listed example of a micro aggression? Or that the 'I believe...' quote you supplied is, itself, on the list?

 

Because "I believe that the most qualified people already have the right jobs" is a meritocracy micro aggression, and so is expressing the confident assumption that merit will (automatically, always) lead to the most appropriate level of achievement.

 

But I don't think expressing that you *want* deserving candidates to be evaluated on the basis of merit is a micro agression. (It could be! But it would need to be explained to me.)

Edited December 3, 2015 by bolt.

[marbel]

Sorry (Heigh Ho) do you mean that 'the concept of meritocracy' is the listed example of a micro aggression? Or that the 'I believe...' quote you supplied is, itself, on the list?

 

Because "I believe that the most qualified people already have the right jobs" is a meritocracy micro aggression, and so is expressing the confident assumption that merit will (automatically, always) lead to the most appropriate level of achievement.

 

But I don't think expressing that you *want* deserving candidates to be evaluated on the basis of merit is a micro agression. (It could be! But it would need to be explained to me.)

 

I don't think anyone said "the most qualified people already have the right jobs."   Here is something I found referencing the U of WI's list of microagressions:

 

Under the "Myth of meritocracy: Statements which assert that race does not play a role in life successes" section, the statement "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" is deemed racist. According to Wisconsin, this is because it's as if you are telling minorities, "People of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race."

 

The linked article includes a link to the University's list of microagressions, but that link does not work.

[Bluegoat]

I'm good with the concept of passive -aggression, not so much with the idea of micro-aggression. I think most of the time is it used as a kind of groupspeak, a way to weed out people who have the "right" language, whose feelings count,  from the ones who don't, all without knowing much about the persons intent or experience or background, and without discussing whatever the issue is supposed to be. 

 

asking people about their ethnic origins or birthplace to suggest they are excluded is passive-aggressive.  Doing it because you are curious is, depending on the circumstances, just making small talk, or being nosy.

[bolt.]

I don't think anyone said "the most qualified people already have the right jobs." Here is something I found referencing the U of WI's list of microagressions:

 

Under the "Myth of meritocracy: Statements which assert that race does not play a role in life successes" section, the statement "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" is deemed racist. According to Wisconsin, this is because it's as if you are telling minorities, "People of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race."

 

The linked article includes a link to the University's list of microagressions, but that link does not work.

So, it's because it implies disagreement with 'affirmative action' style hiring (because it's not merit-alone). I think it means that in some contexts it expresses the belief that the past system (let's call it pseudo-merit) is more fair than hiring for merit-and-quotas -- by speaking of pseudo-merit as if it were true merit, thus implying that on 'merit alone' top positions are justifiably for white men without any complications, and people of colour or women only get them when merit is ignored.

 

Fascinating! That's what happened when our most recent election brought in a new prime minister who was committed to choosing a gender-equal cabinet. Objectors often said, "Those roles should go to the most qualified people!" (Instead of trying for gender balance). The implication was clear that without 'special treatment' for women, the natural 'merit' of men would not result in a balanced cabinet. I can see the micro agression in that sort of a context.

[luuknam]

My 'where are your from?' Back in the 70s, we are traveling, changing duty stations. My father is asked by a store clerk. She had recognized his accent, but felt it was more polite to ask than assume. Turned out she grew up about ten miles away from him. That conversation cant take place now. For me, I was asked all thru college and laughed at for not knowing some of the local cultural norms. Most couldnt understand what it meant to grow up in another country while being from the US...not surprising as college for many was the first time out of the neighborhood. I was taught to not take offense, and to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous circumstances.

 

There is a difference between recognizing your own local accent and inquiring and just randomly asking people 'different' from you where they're from. Especially if they don't have a foreign accent.

 

Other example: say someone has a big scar on their face. Aren't you just dying to know what happened (even if you aren't, surely plenty of people are)? But asking that person during your first conversation ever with them would be annoying to them. It's none of your business, and having to explain random stuff to random strangers just isn't fun when it happens too often.

 

Just consider it to be like "how old are you" if that helps. We don't go around asking other grown-ups how old they are during our first chat with them. Little kids do, but for adults it's considered rude to ask another adult their age. Which is totally random - everyone has an age, everyone gets older every year, what's the big deal?

[Sarah CB]

"Where are you from"  as a microaggresion is a real thing.  My non-white DH deals with this all the time.

 

Note the difference: 

 

a) At a party where many folks don't know each other.  "So, where are you from" might be non-micoraggressive normal small-talk: DH answers *particular Canadian city*.  Asker accepts this, maybe asks where I'm from,  asker might talk about his hometown, conversation moves on.  Not a microagression.

 

b) At a party where many folks don't know each other.  "So, where are you from" might be  microaggressive:  DH answers *particular Canadian city*.  Asker does not accept this, and asks "Oh, where are you from originally?".  Asker does not ask where I'm from, isn't really interested in comparing hometowns as small talk.  Now in this case "where are you from" is really code for "what kind of asian are you/you look different from everyone else here".  This is a microaggresion.

 

 

ETA.  This has happened often enough that DH has developed a scripted answer to the "where are you from" question:  "*particular Canadian city* born and raised".  A polite response to the literal question, that also shuts down the coded "what kind of asian are you" microaggressive version.

 

You know, I've been asked many, many times where I'm from originally.  I almost think it's a Canadian thing - except for Aboriginals, all of us originally came from somewhere else.  It annoys me, because I'm not Scottish or British.  But, I've never thought of it as a micro-aggression and I've certainly heard it enough times and been in enough conversations where a bunch of white people who are second and third and fourth generation Canadian are talking about where they're from that I would *never* even consider that asking someone that would be considered offensive.  Tiring, maybe.  I tell people I'm Canadian and then I get the - yeah, but what else are you?  Just Canadian, thanks.

[Sarah CB]

There is a difference between recognizing your own local accent and inquiring and just randomly asking people 'different' from you where they're from. Especially if they don't have a foreign accent.

 

 

 

I explained in another post that I've received the "where are you from" thing lots of times over the course of my life.  I'm a white Canadian - I think I'm 4th or 5th generation Canadian.  I'm from here.  What people mean, is where my family originated from.  Since, it's pretty obvious I'm not Aboriginal, so my family had to come from somewhere.  

 

It's kind of annoying because I tend to insist that I'm Canadian, but it's not a racially loaded accusation or anything.

 

Is this going to be the kind of question that it's ok to ask of white Canadians, but it's not ok to ask of anyone else?  Isn't that kind of weird?  

[Bluegoat]

So, it's because it implies disagreement with 'affirmative action' style hiring (because it's not merit-alone). I think it means that in some contexts it expresses the belief that the past system (let's call it pseudo-merit) is more fair than hiring for merit-and-quotas -- by speaking of pseudo-merit as if it were true merit, thus implying that on 'merit alone' top positions are justifiably for white men without any complications, and people of colour or women only get them when merit is ignored.

 

Fascinating! That's what happened when our most recent election brought in a new prime minister who was committed to choosing a gender-equal cabinet. Objectors often said, "Those roles should go to the most qualified people!" (Instead of trying for gender balance). The implication was clear that without 'special treatment' for women, the natural 'merit' of men would not result in a balanced cabinet. I can see the micro agression in that sort of a context.

 

There are a hockey-sock of assumptions in there, but the most serious one is that it on;y works if you assume the person actually thinks men have more merit than women.  That is - the disagreement is not evidence unless you are already assuming what it is supposed to prove.

 

It might be the case for exmple, that the person realizes that statistically there will often be cases where there is not going to be gender balance by merit in  group the size of a party caucus or cabinet, and thinks it is best to pick the best people regardless of sex - over time it would likely balance out, or they think it is too important to have the very best people.

 

Or, it might be the case that the person thinks the balance is slanted to men for historical reasons, or perhaps other reasons, that have nothing to do with merit, but thinks gender quotas are not a good way to address those things.

 

They might think that quotas will have effects that will ultimately undermine the goal of basing positions on merit rather than sex.

 

On the other hand, it is quite possible to believe that men and women (as a group) are not equal in merit, but support quotas.

 

Then we might go on to ask, is the person thinking whatever because he is aggressive or biased, or because it could be true?  Name-calling of this kind is a kind of ad hominum argument - we attack not what the person is saying with  rational argument, instead infer something negative about his character based on buzz-words tht we expect people to be sensitized to, so the controversial statement itself is bypassed - and of course the name we choose to apply is based on our own prticulr ideas which are not being put to the test but instead accepted as the orthodox and inassailable position.  "You are aggressive and biased, because my ideas about gender quotas in government are obvious and correct.  If you re not ill-intended, it is just because you re unconsciously biased and can't know that."  Of course it is impossible to refute the idea that one is deeply unconsciously biased, whether it is true or not.  Conversely, it is also quite possible that the perception of a comment as being aggressive stems from unconscious bias. Saying so though seems to be taken s further proof the speaker is unconsciously biased.

 

I can't see this as being a helpful way to think about interactions.

[Tsuga]

It's a minor comment or question (or even body language) that seems inoffensive (and my have no ill intent) -- but it *reveals* somehow that the speaker believes a stereotype/prejudice/assumption that *is* offensive -- and (possibly) believes it so hard that they've probably never noticed that it's not true or that it might be hurtful.

 

Most people call out micro aggressions because they believe that the speaker (1) didn't mean it that way, (2) will regret it once they notice the stereotype as-revealed, and (3) might think twice before repeating it for the rest of their life. -- Or, (4) if it *was* intentional, the call-out makes it open hostility instead of passive-aggression and power play.

Great explanation. For example, FIL telling me "the Asians" in his neighborhood were "really smart with money." It was Thanksgiving so pass the wine, please, but to me that was racist. I don't believe he is "a racist". He believes it is cultural and "just an observation about this neighborhood". Plus, "it's a compliment". Well, I'm sure his neighbors are very intelligent and all, but I don't see Asians in particular smart about it. Without going into detail there are a lot of things he was ignoring when he made that comment. He's a great person in general, didn't mean to hurt anyone and no kids heard so I just moved on.

[marbel]

So, it's because it implies disagreement with 'affirmative action' style hiring (because it's not merit-alone). I think it means that in some contexts it expresses the belief that the past system (let's call it pseudo-merit) is more fair than hiring for merit-and-quotas -- by speaking of pseudo-merit as if it were true merit, thus implying that on 'merit alone' top positions are justifiably for white men without any complications, and people of colour or women only get them when merit is ignored.

 

Fascinating! That's what happened when our most recent election brought in a new prime minister who was committed to choosing a gender-equal cabinet. Objectors often said, "Those roles should go to the most qualified people!" (Instead of trying for gender balance). The implication was clear that without 'special treatment' for women, the natural 'merit' of men would not result in a balanced cabinet. I can see the micro agression in that sort of a context.

 

I don't want to contribute to fighting and I'm not even sure about this, just musing, so please no one jump all over me, OK?

 

If a person says that they are committed to choosing a <whatever>-balanced organization, they are saying (or maybe just implying) that that is their priority.  If that is the priority, then other considerations obviously have a lower priority.  People may be objecting to the idea that gender (or whatever) balance is the very most important thing.

 

It's like... I've never quite understood people who insist that the US needs a female President.  I think it'd be fine for the US to have a female President.  But the gender of the President is not my top priority when I am choosing a candidate.  I do know people who have said that they would vote for any woman candidate in order to have a female President.  Whatever her politics, beliefs, apparent fitness or lack thereof for the job.  Any woman will do.  There may not be many people who think that way, and probably not enough to elect a President, but there are people for whom this is the top priority. 

 

So, I don't see, on its own, the call for the most qualified people to come from an implication that women would require special treatment in order to get on the cabinet.  It might be a concern that gender equality is the top priority, and they disagree that it should be.

[luuknam]

I explained in another post that I've received the "where are you from" thing lots of times over the course of my life.  I'm a white Canadian - I think I'm 4th or 5th generation Canadian.  I'm from here.  What people mean, is where my family originated from.  Since, it's pretty obvious I'm not Aboriginal, so my family had to come from somewhere.  

 

It's kind of annoying because I tend to insist that I'm Canadian, but it's not a racially loaded accusation or anything.

 

Is this going to be the kind of question that it's ok to ask of white Canadians, but it's not ok to ask of anyone else?  Isn't that kind of weird?  

 

No. If everybody asks each other where they're *from*, then that's just Canadian culture being different. I've never, *ever* heard anyone ask a white American where they're *from*. I've rarely even heard people ask a white American where they're from without the ancestral origins part. Obviously, white Americans came from somewhere other than the Americas, but people don't ask that question, so asking Asian Americans where they're *from* when they have perfectly American accents and they say they're from Minnesota is annoying, whether it's out of curiosity or for other reasons. It wouldn't be an issue if people *were* asking everybody where they're from. They just don't though. And asking an African American where they're *from* would probably be even more offensive than an Asian American, what with the slavery thing.

 

So yeah, Canadians can do their Canadian thing in Canada, but it wouldn't go over well in the US.

[marbel]

No. If everybody asks each other where they're *from*, then that's just Canadian culture being different. I've never, *ever* heard anyone ask a white American where they're *from*. I've rarely even heard people ask a white American where they're from without the ancestral origins part. Obviously, white Americans came from somewhere other than the Americas, but people don't ask that question, so asking Asian Americans where they're *from* when they have perfectly American accents and they say they're from Minnesota is annoying, whether it's out of curiosity or for other reasons. It wouldn't be an issue if people *were* asking everybody where they're from. They just don't though. And asking an African American where they're *from* would probably be even more offensive than an Asian American, what with the slavery thing.

 

So yeah, Canadians can do their Canadian thing in Canada, but it wouldn't go over well in the US.

 

I am a white US American and I ask, and have been asked, that question.  I ask it of white and non-white people, and have been asked by white and non-white people.

 

Before I lived in Pennsylvania (where everyone has lived here all their lives, apparently, except my family*) I lived on the west coast (CA and OR).  Asking people where they are from was a very common question because most people living in those states were not born there.   So, yeah, out to lunch with a new coworker - "where are you from?" would be a fine question to get conversation rolling. 

 

I've never heard anyone press the point as far as going back further unless the discussion was about immigration or ancestry anyway.  But "where are you from" asked in a conversational tone does not seem an unusual or insulting question to me, and no one ever seemed insulted by me asking it (except people in Pennsylvania, because of course they are from here, where else would anyone live*?)

 

*hyperbole, but not much.

 

[luuknam]

Fascinating! That's what happened when our most recent election brought in a new prime minister who was committed to choosing a gender-equal cabinet. Objectors often said, "Those roles should go to the most qualified people!" (Instead of trying for gender balance). The implication was clear that without 'special treatment' for women, the natural 'merit' of men would not result in a balanced cabinet. I can see the micro agression in that sort of a context.

 

However, saying that you're committed to choosing a gender-equal cabinet can also be a micro-aggression, by implying that if you just picked the most qualified people, the cabinet wouldn't be gender equal.

 

I have wondered at times how much the fact that I applied to be a *female* electrical engineering major at UTD played a role in my getting a scholarship. I never met another female electrical engineering student there who didn't have a scholarship from UTD. Obviously, many of the male electrical engineering students didn't have scholarships (can't give scholarships to everyone). Now, probably less than 5% of the electrical engineering students were female, so it's hard to tell whether it's a fluke that all the female electrical engineering majors I talked to had scholarships. I hate not knowing though whether I got the scholarship based on my achievements or based on the fact that I checked 'female' and 'electrical engineering' on my application. None of the male students with scholarships had to wonder whether they got it based on the combination of their major and their gender.

[luuknam]

I am a white US American and I ask, and have been asked, that question.  I ask it of white and non-white people, and have been asked by white and non-white people.

 

Before I lived in Pennsylvania (where everyone has lived here all their lives, apparently, except my family*) I lived on the west coast (CA and OR).  Asking people where they are from was a very common question because most people living in those states were not born there.   So, yeah, out to lunch with a new coworker - "where are you from?" would be a fine question to get conversation rolling. 

 

I've never heard anyone press the point as far as going back further unless the discussion was about immigration or ancestry anyway.  But "where are you from" asked in a conversational tone does not seem an unusual or insulting question to me, and no one ever seemed insulted by me asking it (except people in Pennsylvania, because of course they are from here, where else would anyone live*?)

 

*hyperbole, but not much.

 

The * around the word 'from' were meant to indicate going back further: "Where are you *from*" vs "Where are you from". I have heard Asian Americans asked where their family is originally from. I haven't heard people ask white Americans where their family is originally from (maybe whether a certain last name is Polish, but not in the "where are you *from*, you're not from *here* even though you were born and raised here").

[Tsuga]

Also, I think that 100% of the population has at least a few contradictory beliefs floating around in their heads. So it's not like explicit belief that all humans are of equal inherent worth, and that you can't judge a person's merit by the color of their skin, precludes racist behavior. On the contrary, again and again studies suggest that those who are least aware of / most in denial of bias are very susceptible--and that is people of ALL racial, ethnic, economic and geographic backgrounds.

[Tsuga]

The * around the word 'from' were meant to indicate going back further: "Where are you *from*" vs "Where are you from". I have heard Asian Americans asked where their family is originally from. I haven't heard people ask white Americans where their family is originally from (maybe whether a certain last name is Polish, but not in the "where are you *from*, you're not from *here* even though you were born and raised here").

It is common in the west to asks where people are from, even white people. Everyone is from somewhere but the tribes.

 

The rude part is when you say, "My mother's family is from back east and my father's is from New Mexico" and they follow with, "but I mean, originally, like before you came here?"

[wathe]

You know, I've been asked many, many times where I'm from originally.  I almost think it's a Canadian thing - except for Aboriginals, all of us originally came from somewhere else.  It annoys me, because I'm not Scottish or British.  But, I've never thought of it as a micro-aggression and I've certainly heard it enough times and been in enough conversations where a bunch of white people who are second and third and fourth generation Canadian are talking about where they're from that I would *never* even consider that asking someone that would be considered offensive.  Tiring, maybe.  I tell people I'm Canadian and then I get the - yeah, but what else are you?  Just Canadian, thanks.

 

Context is so important here. 

 

A friendly discussion about origins, where everyone in the group participates and is interested, an isn't directed at and and didn't start with questions about a person of colour specifically,  is fine. 

 

Being the only person in the room quizzed about origins, by people you haven't met before, and this situtation repeats over and over and over in your life...not fine.

 

ETA.  I'm Canadian here too.  I get the everyone talking about origins thing as a topic of conversation, all participants volunteering origins information about themselves, everyone is white.  Part of what's tricky about microaggressions is that they are so invisible to the majority group.  DH gets singled out with "where are you from" on a regular basis.  So often that the friendly origins conversations I think you are talking about don't feel so friendly to him.

 

I didn't really get it until I married DH and had  mixed-race kids.  Oh boy, now do I ever get it. 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by wathe

[Sarah CB]

Context is so important here. 

 

A friendly discussion about origins, where everyone in the group participates and is interested, an isn't directed at and and didn't start with questions about a person of colour specifically,  is fine. 

 

Being the only person in the room quizzed about origins, by people you haven't met before, and this situtation repeats over and over and over in your life...not fine.

 

ETA.  I'm Canadian here too.  I get the everyone talking about origins thing as a topic of conversation, all participants volunteering origins information about themselves, everyone is white.  Part of what's tricky about microaggressions is that they are so invisible to the majority group.  DH gets singled out with "where are you from" on a regular basis.  So often that the friendly origins conversations I think you are talking about don't feel so friendly to him.

 

I didn't really get it until I married DH and had  mixed-race kids.  Oh boy, now do I ever get it. 

 

I'm sure it happens, otherwise it wouldn't be discussed.  But, the only time I've ever asked someone a "where are you from?" in the context of assuming they were born in another country is when it's clear that they actually did come from somewhere.  It hasn't mattered to me what colour their skin was - in some cases it was white (Ireland, South Africa) and in others it wasn't (Guatemala, Nigeria, for example), but when someone has a noticeable accent and I'm just meeting them it seems like a relevant - and (I thought) rather safe form of small talk would be to ask where they're from.  

[Sarah CB]

Context is so important here. 

 

A friendly discussion about origins, where everyone in the group participates and is interested, an isn't directed at and and didn't start with questions about a person of colour specifically,  is fine. 

 

Being the only person in the room quizzed about origins, by people you haven't met before, and this situtation repeats over and over and over in your life...not fine.

 

ETA.  I'm Canadian here too.  I get the everyone talking about origins thing as a topic of conversation, all participants volunteering origins information about themselves, everyone is white.  Part of what's tricky about microaggressions is that they are so invisible to the majority group.  DH gets singled out with "where are you from" on a regular basis.  So often that the friendly origins conversations I think you are talking about don't feel so friendly to him.

 

I didn't really get it until I married DH and had  mixed-race kids.  Oh boy, now do I ever get it. 

 

Just another quick note - growing up, I didn't care where my friends were from and didn't really think about race.  We were just all classmates and friends and nothing else mattered.  I had friends of a number of different ethnicities, but I don't remember talking about where they "came from" because they came from down the street.

 

I kind of do wish we'd talked about it more, though.  I was just helping my ds do a project on Japanese internment camps in Canada during WWII and realized that the last name of a good friend from high school was a Japanese name - and I didn't clue in at the time, but now I think yes, he likely would have been part Japanese.  I would be interested in hearing about his family's heritage.  But, at the time, I didn't think about heritage, he was just Chris and I assumed his family history was about as boring as mine was. 

[Catwoman]

I am continually saddened by these threads in which the majority culture dismisses, invalidates, and disregards the shared lived experience of a minority culture.

I am not seeing that at all in this thread.

 

Honestly, any of us can pick apart any post in this or any other thread and manage to find some sort of microaggression. The problem is that most of the time, we would probably be wrong. We would be misinterpreting and misjudging each other because we are analyzing others' words based on our own emotions and prejudices, not on their actual intent.

 

I can't help but suspect that at least some of the people who are so intent on identifying all of these so-called microaggressions against them are just plain paranoid or have persecution complexes. Sure, some people have bad intentions, but most people are pretty decent, and if someone says a buzzword or a certain phrase or asks a certain question that could maybe, possibly, kind of be a microaggression, I don't think it is fair to automatically make that assumption with no other evidence. Sometimes people say awkward things. Sometimes people misinterpret each other. I don't see a benefit to micro-analyzing every little thing that everyone says to me. It's not a positive thing to do, and it seems incredibly divisive.

[Jenny in Florida]

The "where are you from" thing is fascinating to me.

 

I started subbing in our local public schools just a few months ago. I've worked at a fair number of different schools so far, in different neighborhoods that have students from diverse economic and ethnic/racial backgrounds. At every single school, I've been asked more than once each day where I'm from. I was a little baffled the first few times I was asked the question, because it's not something that occurs to me to use as a conversation starter. And, while, as a white person, I'm sometimes in the minority in these classrooms, that is not always the case. So, I don't think I stand out as "other." But what I find usually happens is that, once I answer (California, originally, but I've been in Florida for 17 years now), the students often fall into chatting about their own backgrounds. It seems to me that they are just really interested in discussing their own origins and those of others in the room and are much less self-conscious about their perceived differences.

 

I struggle with the whole micro-aggression thing. I definitely support being cautious and courteous with language, and I do believe that language has power. I recognize my own privelege and completely understand that I probably hear certain phrases and conversations quite differently from the way others do. I have worked hard for years to keep up with evolutions in language intended to make the world a more inclusive place. However, it seems to me that it is sometimes an unwinnable game and that focusing on the many ways it's possible to offend someone may make us more conscious of differences and stereotypes, rather than less so. I like to believe that people of goodwill can navigate these issues without resorting to accusations of aggression, no matter how micro, at every turn. 

 

I also have found that, sometimes, the determination to avoid offending anyone has meant that my own experiences and feelings must be discounted or invalidated. For example, I had the audacity recently to suggest that I, as a woman, do not personally feel like a member of a downtrodden minority. I acknowledged that there is certainly still active bias against women in too many places and situations -- and that I've experienced my share -- but it doesn't seem to me to compare with the obstacles faced by a lot of other groups. 

 

I was accused of being ill informed and behind the times and of suffering from internalized anti-feminism.

 

So, I stopped sharing my feelings and thoughts and closed off a door to communication.

 

Honestly, while I do my best to be sensitive and intentional about such things, I often find myself feeling a little sad and hopeless.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Jenny in Florida

[luuknam]

Honestly, any of us can pick apart any post in this or any other thread and manage to find some sort of microaggression. The problem is that most of the time, we would probably be wrong. We would be misinterpreting and misjudging each other because we are analyzing others' words based on our own emotions and prejudices, not on their actual intent.

 

The thing is, micro-aggressions aren't about intent, they are about effect. Someone can be just friendly curious when asking their Asian-American classmate where she's from, no, where her family is originally from, but the cumulative effect of a LOT of those friendly curious questions that other people don't get is still that the Asian-American student feels like she's different, that people see her as different.

 

I do NOT think people calling others out on micro-aggressions is a good thing, most of the time. I think that conversations *about* micro-aggressions can be useful though, and if you're close to someone, pointing out the occasional micro-aggression would be okay too. But random people calling you out on micro-aggressions is unlikely to do any good and more likely to be harmful.

[Jenny in Florida]

I've never, *ever* heard anyone ask a white American where they're *from*. 

 

I actuallly just mentioned this in the comment I posted right before this one.

 

I'm a white American. I get asked where I'm from fairly regularly, possibly because I live in a part of the country in which many people are "from" somewhere else. Over the years I've lived in Florida, I've been asked where I moved from -- because most of the social groups in which I move seem to be made up primarily of people who moved here from another state. So, I'm used to answering that one. But recently I'm encountering a lot of young people -- middle and high school students -- who keep pressing when I give my standard "lived in Florida for 17 years but was in New Jersey before that" line and want to know, "No, but where's your family from, originally?"

[luuknam]

Another example is that there have been studies that show that people with foreign-looking names are less likely to be offered an interview by sending in the same resume with a different name at the top. The HR people looking at the resumes may very well think they're not racist, and might very well feel horribly embarrassed knowing that, but just because they don't intend to discriminate, that doesn't mean that the effect is that they don't discriminate. So, knowing that, as an HR person you could for example ask an intern to cover up the names on the resumes before handing them to you to read, to prevent subconscious bias.