Should I have kept my big mouth shut at work?

[Perlosa]

I work for a large tech company and manage a very small, specialist team. My LM was sharing a ppt that he is planning on presenting to the wider team in a all hands call next week. It's a ppt concerning systemic racism and has come directly from People. We had a flurry of similar talks following George Floyd's death but not so much recently.

At the end when my manager was asking for input/feedback I (as a half Indian/English woman) said some may feel uncomfortable with being labelled "a victim" of racism. I as the only POC (white passing but that's beside the point) thought it was a fairly innocuous point to make and was just wanting my LM to strike the right tone. But after we got off the call one of my colleagues sent an IM to the effect of "what was that all about them?" and some other slightly disapproving/patronising comments. Tbg it seemed like it was said in advisory way from him - I've only recently been promoted.

Really scared I've messed up.

Your op was confusing you admit that but are now unhappy that some people are saying incoherent

you are being pedantic?

+1 but she has just admitted that @Walkaround apparently hit the nail on the head.

It’s not difficult to understand- maybe just the acronyms for some people. Sounds like you work in the Civil Service.

You’re entitled to your opinion and it’s a valid point of view. Colleagues should be open-minded and appreciate the honesty/different point of view. I wouldn’t think on it any further, you’ve done nothing wrong.

You have done nothing wrong OP. I work in a different sector and would expect this kind of discussion to come up. It is a perfectly valid point and not exactly a new one about the word ‘victim’ and its connotations of passivity or lack of agency. People may agree or disagree with its use but it’s a discussion for poc to have. If I was the LM I would be asking you about it one to one and looking to make my presentation more nuanced.

I for one completely understand what the OP is saying. This is her life and experiences as a white passing mixed raced Indian. Her views are completely valid and relevant in the complex discussion on race. She said nothing wrong and is entitled to her view.

Nevertheless, I think we’ve imported the American version of the debate on race, our country is different and race interlocks with class. Many people believe here that if you have the trappings of a middle class life, e.g. high education, good job/own business, have a house in a nice area, then you transcend or are shielded from racism. Therefore, if you are a downtrodden victim of racism, it must mean you’re unsuccessful/failure. ‘Successful’ people must publicly distance themselves from those who experiencing racism as these are ‘losers’.

Many British Asians, particularly higher castes Indians ‘as those are the ones who are the most successful in UK) put a lot of stock in being seen to be a success. That’s why you will see some of them denying they’ve ever even witnessed racism let alone been on its receiving end because this would imply they are not doing well/unsuccessful (nevertheless, it would be good for them to acknowledge that those who were willing to put their head above the parapet led to law changes that gave them opportunities).

However, up until relatively recently, many black people of Caribbean descent, cared less about class, social standing so didn’t see it as embarrassing or a personal failing to state they have experienced racism. Now the black middle class is growing, particularly African, you will notice more denial that they have even witnessed racism or if racism happens, it was the victims fault or they lack resilience. See Kemi Badenoch for an example.

Of course you can also get the extreme where the POC is so desperate to show how well they’re doing that they become ‘more British’ than white British people or even become a champion of white supremacy! particularly for upper class whites. See Suella Braverman for example.

Race is a complex thing is especially in the UK where class is a big factor.

Some points

1. Most important... in your OP (which I found very easy to understand) you say you are ' (white passing but that's beside the point)'. I wonder how many people on this thread even know what 'white passing' is, from the responses. OP, how many people in this meeting understand that you do not identify as a white person - or do not identify as white for the purposes of this meeting, in any case? They should actually be falling on your every word with grateful tears and valuing your input as the only POC present!
2. If the majority of the team do not recognise you as a POC, what the absolute fuck was the meeting about, without POC representation (from the point of view of the organisers)? What sort of a company is this?
3. I agree with your point about 'victim' being a word which could be improved, and probably symptomatic of the team's view of white saviourism (is that a word?)
4. While your point about home ownership may have been put in a slightly confused way, I do think you can make the opportunity to explain this further, demonstrating how cultural differences can be beneficial rather than contributing to the making of a 'victim'.

As you can see, I don't feel you have anything to apologise for. The meeting sounds as if it has quite a lot to apologise for!

I am 'passing mixed' and I agree @Endlesssummer2022 the situation here (and elsewhere) is different and yet the discourse is US dominated.

The PPT as described made me wince and did come across as patronising to me. I definitely see the OPs points - but also some of the other posters have made compelling counter points, e.g. on the relevance of the term 'victim' - which if used I think is worth justifying, especially as this ppt is being given by a white man (so seems especially condescending and 'whitesplaining'). And that's how it is and should be.

I'm a lecturer and we are constantly challenged on these issues. In our context - it isn't really acceptable to have this kind of subject presented by a white person and that in itself would shot down immediately.

And Suella - well - just no words I can put here....

It appears that you are suggesting that some people will have an issue with the narrative that ethnic minorities are a victim of racism because they have achieved a certain level of success. It appears that you have issue with all ethnic groups being lumped together.

I am dual heritage. I look visibly mixed but you cannot fully tell what is my heritage. I have not had many experiences of overt racism of being racially abused. I had a lot assumption made about due to being mixed race. For example, will often assume that I am confused about my identity or that I caught up in two worlds etc. It often assume that I have a white mum. The generally message that I received in subtle ways that is only low cast white women who date and have children outside their race. I do not outwardly appear to be have jewish or East Asian ancestry - As a result I heard prejudice about both of this ethnicities.

I have a relatively okay life. Despite this I know that racism exist particularly systemic racism. I would never deny or minimise someone experience of racism because my life is okay or because I have not experienced the same level of racism or prejudice. Nor would equate someone success or lack of access with the level of racism or prejudice they have experienced. Racism is like sexism, one may not have direct experience of it but the fact of the matter is both of this issues exist.

Over the years, I had heard both East and South Asian share they that cannot related to racism narrative particularly situations such as George Floyd because it generally doesn't impact on them. I have always found this narrative interesting from I can see every ethnic group as their pigeon hole. I can only think of one racial group that has full representation in academia, sports, entertainment, fashion, medicine, law and so on.

In a work context, I personally wouldn't give feedback or opinions are anything related to race.

I think it is the victim bit, a successful business man with a nice home, good income probably doesn't himself as a victim. A target of racism, a subject of racism but victim might not sit right. Bit like a woman who has experienced sexual abuse might prefer to be seen as a survivor of sexual abuse rather than a victim.

It's a sad state of affairs when the people who are more likely to experience racism and/or its effects are somehow not allowed to have opinions.

You haven't done or said anything wrong OP. It's helpful to have textured conversations such as these.

I have lots of experience working in big and start-up tech companies. My advise would be to get used to them paying lip service to things like anti-racism, and not caring too much what actual POC have to say on the matter.

I understand exactly what you mean. There are very many successful People of Indian heritage in the UK. Making out that they are all poor victims are just really patronising. And it would piss me off too.

I don't think ANYONE wants to see themselves described as s victim tbh, but it is a generic term and we all understand what is meant by it without having to be pedantic. What I have a contention with is that the OP implies that successful Asians are somehow above other discriminated against ethnicities (she is now denying that but it is clear as day). She is then capitalising on the fact that she is a POC to state that her colleagues shouldn't call her out. I am not a white person myself and I would just like to say that I have come across this behaviour before and find it obnoxious and divisive. She even used the term "lumped in with" in subsequent post to mean that successful Asians do not want to be "lumped in with" black people when it comes to the topic of race and discrimination. OP has come on here to gain sympathy from what she perceives to be mostly white posters who she believes will agree with her, but some of us have quite a lot of experience of this stuff. Implicit in this kind of argument is the idea that Asians have become successful through hard work - unlike some other ethnicities. That right there shows a profound lack of understanding of systemic racism and the OP's workplace should not be relying on the OP's comments in their approach to diversity (I wonder why the company had so few black colleagues in attendance anyway). If you don't get what I'm trying to say here (there isn't the space to really go into it) please dm me and I can explain further including my own lived experience of this kind of argument.

Haven’t RTFT but it sounds like pretty old fashioned training that failed to recognise things like intersectionality and privilege. We all carry different protected characteristics and in different contexts they can be either a privilege or disadvantage.

Think of a man/woman working as an active combat soldier vs a man who is the primary caregiver for a baby. For the soldiers the woman might have less easy access to appropriate sanitation and be at greater physical risk, for the caregiver the man might find fewer groups he could attend and find facilities harder to access.

Both these problems are mainly caused by the structures in our society that long ago meant the baby-change got put in the women’s toilets and the body combat equipment was tested and designed on male forms, both groups carry different privileges and disadvantages but of course the man, in a patriarchal society will probably find far far fewer places where he feels disadvantaged.

If I stupidly generalise about 'all Africans' or 'all Asians' then I'm deplorable, if I describe people more broadly as BAME or POC, I'm an ally?

@CabbagePatchDole those are not the views I hold at all. I spoke about British Indians solely as that is the group I belong to. I do not believe other BAME groups inferior to British Indians.

I said "lumped in" to highlight that non-white people are not a monolith and it I think it serves no-one to treat us as such. Not unlike you have.

I only made the, inelegant, home ownership point to highlight that some people may not appreciate being seen as victims. I was genuinely not trying to elevate BIs above other BAME groups. I know my family members hold these views (as they are entitled to do so).

I'm with the person who messaged you saying "What on earth was that about"! I get your point about the term "victim" perhaps not being particularly nice. But after that you've completely lost me.

I'm sure you have very valid points, and as a POC you've tried to be helpful in correcting something, but unfortunately you've made people even more confused.

This is a perfect example of why well meaning people who are desperate to improve workplace relations for all groups, races and faiths just give up, it's such a minefield.

Hopefully your colleagues will realise you just didn't explain your thoughts very well.

Gah

My previous post should have included the bits in bold

I only made the, inelegant, home ownership point to highlight that some people may not appreciate being seen as victims. My grandfather took great pride in repeating the spiel of "i came to this country with £10 and look what i have now etc". He was a turban wearing corner shop owner, trust me, he experienced plenty of racism. I was genuinely not trying to elevate BIs above other BAME groups. I know my family members hold these views (as they are entitled to do so).

This sounds like a load of horseshit. It’s a checkbox and a bandwagon, not a sincere attempt to improve anything except appearances. It makes very few people more comfortable to be lectured to by a bunch of white people then told how brilliant, diverse and inclusive things are where they work.

I don't think you did elevate British Indians, I think you were speaking from the viewpoint of your experience.

If someone at work gave a presentation about people with disabilities and I gave feedback around the language used from the point of view of someone with a visual impairment it doesn't mean I think my point of view is more important than those with a hearing impairment, or that people with visual impairments are more important and need to be considered more than those with hearing impairments. It's because I can only speak to my experience as a visually impaired person, i dont have the lived experiences to speak as a hearing impaired person.

This is a perfect example of why well meaning people who are desperate to improve workplace relations for all groups, races and faiths just give up, it's such a minefield.

It's pretty simple, you treat your colleagues as individuals with their own unique life experiences and preferences. If your aim is to improve workplace relations and a colleague tries to explain to you why they find the language you're using problematic, then you listen to them and don't try to invalidate their views. You don't continue to alienate them by using said language. Perhaps the person delivering the speech should have seen this as an opportunity to speak with other non white colleagues to get their perspectives. Whitesplaining in order to tick off a box on a HR exercise is cringy and best and at worst has the potential to upset people.

It does when you draw up statistics about there being more people with visual impairments owning their own homes than those with another disability. What does the statistic prove exactly? Does being a homeowner make you less discriminated against? The OP has now corrected this (and i totally understand that when a person posts they do so very quickly etc) but that was all I had to go on when she posted.

I didn't take what you took from her posts on home ownership, I understood them differently, and as it turns out more in line with how she meant it. Everyone has their own interpretation. I was just giving mine to the OP as you gave yours to the OP.

My friend who is of Indian heritage attended a DEI meeting, and was left upset by it, her exact words were "I've never felt so different than when they tried to ensure I was treated equally".

I found this really interesting.

DEI conversations/councils in work places are definitely trying to do GOOD, and with the best intent - but it may not land with everyone the way in which it was intended.

Similarly during Black History Month we had a work blog post written by an employee, which stated "We resist because we are more than a lineage of freed slaves. Our history started before slavery. We were African kings and queens before the Slave Trade. We have built civilizations, developed cures, created public policy. "

There is a lot of White Knight/Savior complex going around in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion circles - and again, it's with the best intent - but it doesn't always land with everyone the way in which it was intended.