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.

Entitled to to hold those views?

Oh wow. Sorry added in some text which makes it appear I am saying my family are entitled to hold the view that BI are superior to other groups. Meant to say they are entitled to not appreciate the term "victim"

But if you are white passing you may have more in common with your white colleagues than with your black colleagues in relation to racism, which can in some cases, explain why lighter skinned individuals sometimes do so much better. I once worked for a huge very well known organisation and took part in a workshop that they ran. They told us that research showed that people's progression in the institution was in direct proportion to their skin colour. The lighter skinned people of colour did better than the darker skinned, but not as well as white colleagues. Whenever I have looked into the statistics regarding workplace progression in various workplaces I have found the same thing. The OP's colleagues are not necessarily going to get incisive feedback from someone who doesn't identify with other people's experiences of racism.

I would like OP to say a little more about how these "home owners" experience racism in a different way. Or to clarify what their feedback on the presentation was. Because despite their updates, it makes very little sense to me.

And if the opinions of people of colour is so valuable, then my view is valid. And I am not white passing (with the exception of the beautiful anonymity afforded by MN).

This backtracking doesn't wash with me because the point you made was actually that more Asians own homes than other ethnicities.

Listen, this isn't personal, but I think it would be better for you to talk to your colleagues and tell them what you meant,. Or if you need to start a grievance against them.

I could understand if you were asking us how you should approach a defence of your views, but you're not doing that. You're seeking for us to justify your performance during a workplace meeting. Some have done that for you. I can't do that, but it really shouldn't matter to you one way or the other because you are going to have to deal with the very real consequences of this in your workplace.

you haven’t messed up. Your white colleague who IM’d you is completely out of order. I’m sorry you’ve been made to feel like you’ve done anything wrong. You made very good points about the presentation. I would be outraged if someone berated a POC on my team who gave that kind of constructive feedback to a white colleague about a presentation on racism. If white colleagues are going to talk about racism at work then they need to educate themselves and listen humbly to any feedback from those like yourself with lived experience.

the point you made was actually that more Asians own homes than other ethnicities.

No the OP made a comment based on a slide her LM showed that said more Aisians own homes than other ethnicities. The OP isn't making that statement she was responding to someone making that statement. Im not sure it's fair to make out these were her words.

As a POC (Caribbean) I too would take issue with being described as a 'victim of racism' - bloody cheek! If i sat through a diversity training and saw myself referred to as that , my first thought would be "I beg your pardon".

It gives really negative connotations and that is not what I would want as the lasting legacy of my older relatives or myself/peers. We overcame incredible adversity to then be referred to as victims.... i'd rather the term 'subjected' was used.

It is entirely the wrong lens, I would push for 'disgusting them' (perpetuators of racism) vs 'poor victims'. Well done you for speaking out - It is horrible to be put in that position.

The best thing your LM could have done was refer to an external expert - not ask his team of non-experts to weigh in.

She is absolutely right to use her privilege to speak out. That is what allyship looks like.

I appreciate all the posters who have made me look at the issue from a different perspective. Will definitely take on some of those contributions. Always hated the term "victim" and thought it was corrosive but I guess it has its place

I really like @Energydrink's phrasing of 'disgusting them' (perpetuators of racism) vs 'poor victims. Somehow putting the onus on the perpetrators sits better.

Maybe some posters take issue with the fact that it appears, to some, I've tried elevating my own group by degrading other POC groups. I naturally just look at British Indians and White data in charts first. Perhaps choosing another group that displayed other metrics of success would have been appropriate.

Obviously it's not difficult for you to understand, you were a) there and b) know what you meant/were trying to say!
It's nothing to do with the abbreviations, they are fairly commonplace, and there were hardly any typos/grammar errors. It's because you didn't initially put any sort of context in to explain what the relation was between your first post and the second one, which is why the first few posts replying to you all say they couldn't understand exactly what the issue was, how houses came into it etc.

People saying they understood you just fine had the benefit of posters like Justcallmebebes/carrottop basically having tried to translate what you said into something that made sense, and then your subsequent posts clarifying. But it wasn't clear from your first two posts (and tbf also the one about overcoming adversity) what had happened/what you were asking.

I naturally just look at British Indians and White data in charts first.

At least some aren't trying to hide it or pretend anymore.

^excuse me?

@DojaPhat

The premise of your thread, your subsequent posts, my post being deleted r.e POC/BAME. I'm a mixed Black woman and my view is that if you ever choose to change careers and focus on the DEI space in the workplace, I can assure you white people will absolutely fall over themselves to appoint you 'head' of the DEI department, you'd be given your own office and platform by the end of your first week to express your views in your capacity as 'a POC'.

At work I make a point of not joining these groups because there's almost always a POC who questions whether race/racism actually does have any bearing on anything at all given there are a number of 'POC' in senior positions. I used to think it was general ignorance but your post just above highlights it's not. There's a reason why you are "naturally" drawn to data on British indians and white people first.

👏

I have yet to meet a senior POC who has been invited to join these group that has not eventually stepped down with a whole heap of eye rolling.

Indeed, well said.

There's a reason why you are "naturally" drawn to data on British indians and white people first.

Cause I'm half white and half Indian

Well, I most strongly object to 'diversity training' where The Disabled are presented as a homogenous group of happy, childlike souls who must be protected by the Great Saviours. Especially when the trainer has blocked the routes to the coffee and exit with their shit because you'd never have one of those people actually in the training, as they'd never have a job like the one you're actually doing already.

I'd also be pissed off if Menopause Awareness portrayed every 35+ year old woman as a sweating, irrational womb on legs with a shrivelled up vagina who should probably give up work now they're past their peak mental competency, so please 'bekind to any that haven't realised their limit of economic worth has passed and are still hogging the reception jobs.

I can see how somebody with a different Protected Characteristic wouldn't necessarily appreciate the poor little victim narrative, either.

Very well said.