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.

For example, I'm from a minority group (but white) and I would have a problem with narratives moving away from victim. The reason being that the term victim implies that the racism is being done unto them and that it's wrong. And racism, regardless of the minority's success, is absolutely abhorrent and damaging.

I agree with your points @SchoolShenanigans and this especially although I recognise OP's views are completely 100% valid on this, of course they are, they're her experience. But, if you remove 'victim' from an individual or group who have experienced racism, because in the OP's example they have been economically successful, it plays into the hands of those who play mental gymnastics trying to argue certain prejudices can't actually be racism because it's technically 'punching up'. This is how a lot of people actually get away with it! It also allows people to jump on, as someone has already done on this thread, to basically say "see this non-white person doesn't want to be called a victim of racism so none of them are actually victims". Obvious paraphrase and I see her post is deleted now.

But I also agree you don't need to apologise and should keep arguing your point however OP, it's completely valid and I totally get what you mean about not wanting to remove agency. But I just can't see past that if someone experiences racism - regardless of their wealth, achievements, status, power - then they are literally a victim of racism, in that moment.

It's pretty simple, you treat your colleagues as individuals with their own unique life experiences and preferences

100% @JonahAndTheSnail It's only a minefield to those who aren't willing to listen to and accept others' points of view on how they themselves experience discrimination.

Can I make a friendly request that you explain what you understood that to mean and how you would relate that to disability, if possible? I ask because the OP only said that she didn't mean to be discriminatory but didn't explain how the house ownership comes into it. I think she said that was a clumsy choice, implying that she wouldn't have chosen it, so I wonder what your interpretation of it was.

Haha! I think my last post sounds pretty convoluted. I hope you understand what I'm asking@Catchasingmewithspiders I'm just genuinely curious about what you extrapolated from the reference to home ownership and how you came to do so.

The other thing to add to what you're saying @2ManyPjs (and I mostly agree with you) is that, while we don't see groups as a monolith, we do at some point need to talk about groups who are discriminated against rather than focusing on the success of individuals. I am lucky enough to be very successful myself, but that doesn't stop me seeing that the majority of people from my ethnic background suffer from gross discrimination that holds them back. There may be high numbers of certain groups of Asians who own homes, are small business people etc, but there are far far more in this country who are not in this position. Surely a presentation about diversity is speaking to this rather than to those who have "made it". As such I can't imagine myself taking umbrage at that and sort of saying "what about me? I'm successful. I am not discriminated against in the same way" What possible good would that do?

On the other hand, if the OP felt that there was a kind of casual assumption on the part of the presenters that, for example, all people of colour live in council houses (nothing wrong with council homes by the way, I grew up in one myself) or come from single parent families (again, I tick that box) then I think I'm clearer about what she's saying. Is it that sort of thing that you're talking about, OP?

Now, I must get back to work, interesting as this discussion is.

We do at some point need to talk about groups who are discriminated against rather than focusing on the success of individuals.

@CabbagePatchDole Oh for sure, totally agree with that and I suppose it did come across that I was focusing on individual experience too much. Focussing on the success of individuals has the unfortunate inevitability that when individual success becomes (say in this case financial) more common within that group, then 'wealthy stereotype' tropes become commonplace for the group as a whole, regardless of their circumstances.

OP I'm not sure that you perhaps conveyed your point as clearly as you would have liked to. But your colleague is the one who is in the wrong. Someone who has never experienced/been a victim of racism has no business telling you how you should or should not respond to those slides.

OP I mean this in a nice/constructive way-you aren't good at explaining things so may have offended people that way, as it's so unclear what you are trying to communicate, and why. Even with many elaborations on this thread, you still confused me. It's easy to think you might have been offensive - or not - as your words were convoluted and the home ownership thing was a weirdly explained example.

I also don't think you're qualified to deliver that training. That's on your company not you. But for such a critical topic this really needs to be done properly by someone who is a specialist in the area.

…per se

So the post I was responding to wasn't about home ownership although I realise now that the post where I was responding to the OP was a response to you and that was part of the chat. But my disability example wasn't supposed to apply to the home ownership example.

That said what you (I think it is you I'm losing track) have said here is kind of how I was taking the OPs comments in the first place

On the other hand, if the OP felt that there was a kind of casual assumption on the part of the presenters that, for example, all people of colour live in council houses (nothing wrong with council homes by the way, I grew up in one myself) or come from single parent families (again, I tick that box) then I think I'm clearer about what she's saying. Is it that sort of thing that you're talking about, OP?

So for my disability example, if someone casually assumed that all disabled people don't work and are on benefits then I would be offended both on my own behalf and that of other disabled people who do work.

Which absolutely does not take away from the fact that many disabled people do need benefits because they can't work and the government and some media's treatment of them can be appalling at times. But it's that casual assumption that everyone in a certain group has not, and cannot be anything other than a stereotype in someone's mind. And it can feel like it's really hard to break free from that sterotype so I wouldn't want it perpetuated in the workplace.

I mentor a young black graduate at work. His parents are successful, they went to uni, he's gone to uni, he comes from a comfortable background. But he keeps running into this assumption that because he's black and from london he must have come from poverty, and gang culture and he must be first generation uni and hasn't he done well for himself. Now if that was his background then damn right he would have done well for himself but he probably still wouldn't want the patronising assumptions made that almost limit him instead of lifting him.

That said I do take on board what people say about the word victim and how it shouldnt be avoided because it is what it is. As someone who has gone through both abuse and rape I think I veer away from victim because I don't want to feel like one, but I appreciate that's my issue and not necessarily relevant to this point, but I do understand the OPs instinctive aversion to it.

His success does not mean that he and others like him, weren't victims of racism

He is not a victim unless he feels himself to be. And that is OP's original point. Someone being racist to me does not make me a "victim" of anything, unless that is a label I choose to apply to myself.

People are too ready to call other people "victims" of things. If they don't see themselves as that, it's patronising.

The OP isn't delivering the presentation and that's quite clear from her first post so I'm not sure where you have misunderstood this from.

Using “she” as you do seems rude to me.

What should I have used?

Why?

The term “OP” - for a start. Thereafter the pronoun is acceptable.

Great post.

Right well you appear to have lost your way to pedants corner as you just seem to want to pick and mine at the OPs posts, interesting thread to choose by the way.

However as I have already explained, I'm visually impaired aka practically blind. The fact that I can be on here interacting in this format is essentially a modern miracle but it's also exhausting so perhaps I'm not always as perfect in my sentence construction as you apparently are.

Luckily the OP, who has been interacting with me doesn't seem to have found me rude, unlike me, I found your post to me very rude. Likewise your post to the OP correcting her per se when someone had already corrected her and she had acknowledged the correction.

But thanks for your handy pointers on how not to be rude. I can see you are quite the role model to aspire to.

You really are not difficult to understand op, and I don't know why people are confused. Love the story about your grandfather btw, I have heard the story of Ugandan Asians who had exactly the same story of their grandparents arriving with next to nothing, just escaping with their lives and making good. Was it a case of everything being taken from them, and then they were given £10 back to make their way, or did i imagine that bit?
Presentations in the workplace are all well and good, but when you have a person of colour in the room their experience is much more valid than the second hand opinions of do-gooders.
You did nothing wrong. People try too hard to be PC just to virtue signal and end up getting their knickers in a twist when they can't play white saviour.

Entitled to to hold those views?

Are you for real?

Great post. In very middle class white areas affluent ethnic minorities are still really viewed as less than.

What is mixed passing?
Thanks

I'm pretty sure the OP is saying that her family are entitled to hold the view that they don't want to be seen as victims despite experiencing racism. Although the sentence order in this post does make it less clear and like she could be saying something unfortunate but I'm going off the points made in the OPs other posts.

The last thing we want here is the pronoun police. She is perfectly fine.

Thank you. No disrespect to the OP but her posts are hard to decipher at times.