The atheist-skeptic community currently seems extremely preoccupied with having more racial minorities participate in their events and activities.
I’m not sure if their interest in having more minorities is primarily because they feel people from minority groups might have something useful or interesting to say. To me, it seems more because some people think not having enough racial minorities somehow makes atheists look like racists. I think this is that whole “white-heterosexual-male-privilege” conspiracy theory in full effect – fuelled by a large dose of white guilt.
In the essay “The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual” – Shelby Steele – award-winning African-American author, columnist, documentary film maker, and research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University (specialising in the study of race relations, multiculturalism and affirmative action), writes:
“What is white guilt? It is not a personal sense of remorse over past wrongs. White guilt is literally a vacuum of moral authority in matters of race, equality, and opportunity that comes from the association of mere white skin with America’s historical racism. It is the stigmatization of whites and, more importantly, American institutions with the sin of racism. Under this stigma white individuals and American institutions must perpetually prove a negative–that they are not racist–to gain enough authority to function in matters of race, equality, and opportunity. If they fail to prove the negative, they will be seen as racists. Political correctness, diversity policies, and multiculturalism are forms of deference that give whites and institutions a way to prove the negative and win reprieve from the racist stigma.
Institutions especially must be proactive in all this. They must engineer a demonstrable racial innocence to garner enough authority for simple legitimacy in the American democracy. No university today, private or public, could admit students by academic merit alone if that meant no black or brown faces on campus. Such a university would be seen as racist and shunned accordingly. White guilt has made social engineering for black and brown representation a condition of legitimacy…”
So in order to prove to themselves that they are not racists, the largely white-populated atheist-skeptic community seem to want to go out of their way to find minorities to join the fold. But just how do they plan to do this? No one goes into any details. What you do hear a lot of, though, is how the atheist-skeptic community needs to be more ‘welcoming’ of people of other races.
More welcoming? But how?
Do they plan to give out doughnuts to every black person who attends an atheist or skeptic conference, in order to encourage more to show up? Will every black person in attendance be assigned an attractive usher to show him around? Will there be a hip-hop music session between talks to make sure we don’t get bored during all the science presentations? Will they offer us special treatment, like seats on the front row? Will they tip toe around us at conferences and mince their words to ensure they don’t say anything that might have the slightest chance of ‘offending’ us? Will they not criticize us openly and ruthlessly (in the true spirit of skepticism) if we say something erroneous? Just what do they have in mind?
No one goes into any details.
As a black skeptic from Africa, its hard not to feel insulted if this was indeed their primary motivation. Its almost as if they want racial minorities just so they can feel better about themselves by assuaging their self-inflicted guilt.
Personally speaking, if I heard of an atheist-skeptic conference about to take place, and ALL the speakers were white, and ALL the attendees were also white, if I had the means to, I’d still want to attend because I want to hear interesting IDEAS.
Yes, interesting ideas. Not cookies, not ushers, not hip-hop, not special treatment – but interesting ideas. And why might that be? Perhaps its because I have a brain? Probably.
An African-American commenter at Abbie Smith’s blog, ERV, shares my view and drives the point home beautifully. He made this comment on a thread that was discussing Elevatorgate:
[…] even before this flareup got going I noticed bloggers consistently talking about bringing in more minorities and women. Trying to give advise on what the skeptic/atheist community ought to do to fix this problem.
So, as a racial minority, let me tell it to you straight.
The reason you don’t see as many minorities and women at these meetings and lectures isn’t because white, heterosexual men, high on their privilege, are rampant with subconscious racists and sexist mindsets. Heck, atheists in this country tend to be the most liberal people and socially progressive people on the planet. The main reason why we’re not there is because racial minorities and women in the western world statistically tend to be more religious then white men.
So all of you freedom fighter can relax all ready and stop getting bothered on behalf of me. Now, we can have fun trying to figure out why we’re more religious, but I promise you it’s not because the skeptic community is seen as too prejudiced to get involved in.
To be honest I’m kind of insulted that these bloggers think that if they are nicer to me that I’ll have more reason to be a skeptic/atheist. I’m atheist because there is no evidence for god/s; it is entirely an intellectual position on my part, not because I’m looking for a place to be treated like a delicate piece of porcelain. Every other atheist on the planet can be an egocentric jerk for all I care, I still would be an atheist because their still wouldn’t be any evidence for god/s.
In fact I think this whole political litmus test some are trying to make for atheist/skeptics is just plain stupid, and at least for me, a real reason why I might consider not showing up these sort of conferences.
I came to skepticism because I saw demonstrable value in it. If white atheist-skeptics want to feel guilt over anything, let it not be the fact that they are white – but the fact that those they are allowing to speak on their behalf assume that being ‘welcoming’ to us will somehow get us interested in skepticism. I couldn’t think of a more patronizing attitude than that!
Are you a white atheist-skeptic? Please don’t feel sorry for me, just because I am a black African. Do not. You owe me nothing.
Judge me not by the colour of my skin, or my race, but on the ideas I have to offer. And if those ideas are not particularly interesting or worth considering, do not feel obliged to pay attention to them. You owe me nothing. The onus is on me to generate ideas that are sufficiently compelling in order to garner the interest of others.
If going out of your way to be nice to people like me is how you plan on getting people interested in skepticism – you’ll be infiltrated by half-wits who are simply looking for a good time. They’ll water down everything and bring the movement down. You do not want that.
So let’s keep politics and political correctness out of skepticism. Let the facts speak for themselves, because to have a viable ‘movement’ what you want is people who are drawn in by the demonstrable value of applying skepticism in their lives – not people who got interested because you were ‘nice’.
Consider this: what if tomorrow this person meets a ‘nicer’ Christian missionary, Scientologist, or homeopath? If nice-ness is the point of entry then this person will susceptible to the very things skeptics are trying to discourage him/her from. Exploiting people’s emotions to get them interested in something is what religion and other forms of quackery does. As skeptics, what we want to do is stimulate people’s thinking and let them see for themselves how much good comes out of applying skepticism, right? So let’s do that.
If we are unable to effectively communicate the demonstrable value of skepticism to others in the first place, then I have to wonder what the point of having a skeptical movement is.
Freethought Kampala 
37 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 28, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Doceorcecat
When I started reading, I thought this was piece of satire… but I’m not entirely sure. If not, then I’m sorry but to me you seem like the one that’s actually racist and projecting onto other people’s motives your own issues. I’m an atheist from the minority and I cannot relate to your way of thinking at all.
September 29, 2011 at 11:55 am
James Onen
I’m a racist? Hahaha…. that’s a nice one – a black African racist atheist from Uganda. How about that?
In my own freethought community here in Kampala, the time we tried to get more people involved/interested by placing emphasis on “making people comfortable” or “making people feel welcome”, the result was that the quality of our meetings deteriorated.
To begin with, where did we get the idea that we were keeping people away? Well, a casual visitor one day remarked that our topics were too complicated and people felt too intimidated to get involved. Another said that we were too critical of alternative (usually religious/paranormal) viewpoints. Some said we needed to get more women involved as well – and that being too argumentative over viewpoints is what was driving them away. So we embarked on our own “make people feel welcome” campaign.
The way in which we tried to make people feel “welcome” was by: not openly stating our views so as not to offend anyone, engaging in discussions of more “accessible” i.e. rudimentary topics, and an increased emphasis on the “fun” aspect of our socialization in order to encourage them to keep coming back.
Within 2 months, the more serious skeptics among us started losing interest in showing up at these meetings, because the meetings had become too inane for them – leaving me (the coordinator) with dozens of people whose real interest was just hanging out with a bunch of cool people (which we are anyway 😉 ). When skeptical issues arose, the discussions quickly got derailed into conversations about more ‘fun’ stuff – such as sex, dating and which cool places we should hang out. We lost direction.
We have since rectified this situation by going back to our core focus – which is sticking to discussing skepticism, and bringing on board people in whom we had stimulated a passion for the philosophy of skepticism on the basis of the demonstrable facts, rather than ‘nice’ gestures on our part. The core members are now more active, and we’re doing a better job of communicating the issues to a wider audience.
In the interest of boosting numbers of attendees at our weekly gatherings, we sacrificed quality and substance. And this is exactly what is going to happen with the atheist-skeptic community if they decide to go whole-sale with this “be welcoming” campaign of theirs.
The people who you should want involved in activism are those whose interest in skepticism is based on the demonstrable facts.
Otherwise you’re that much closer to accomodationism.
Just keep talking skepticism. Be loud. Be visible. And you’ll get your minorities. That’s how I got interested – and no one had to go out of their way to make me feel ‘welcome’.
September 30, 2011 at 4:14 am
justtryingtokir
You kind of lost me with this post.
What you see as an effort on the behalf of these groups as trying to be “accomodationism” (whatever that means), I see as being proacitve in searching for people whose experiences and ideas may be helpful to advocating their cause. I wouldn’t mind maybe being treated a little well to endear me to their group, but that does not mean you have to be silent on your views. Instead I think it would be best to start with presenting a new member with some rudimentary knowledge of the group, what you support and finding out what their opinions are.
Now to my main point. I think we are seeing this from two different sides most likely because of our nationalities. As an American, I see these groups being well aware of the fact that (a) their groups is overwhemingly White and male and (b) they have certain privileges, because of no fault of their own to shape conversations from their perspective. And just because these people may identify as skeptics, atheists, etc. does not mean they will not expouse some form of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Yes, non-believers are often very progressive in their ideals but that doesn’t mean you do not and cannot be diligent to make sure it stays that way. And having minorities, if nothing else, puts a face to whatever group is being oppressed and makes the offender aware of why such ideas are unacceptable when rare incidents like these occur.
Should trying to recruit a more diverse pool of members be done at the risk of sacrificing the content and quality of their discussions? Of course not. However, many minority non-believers are being pushed away from their old communities of faith and I see nothing wrong with recognizing this and proceeding in finding them a new community to be a part of if that is their desire.
September 30, 2011 at 12:17 pm
James Onen
Thanks for your comment, justtryingtokir.
Sorry if I was not clear in my article, though I think I was. My concern is simple – that to me, the drive to get more minorities involved seems to be motivated more out of a need to not have the atheist-skeptic movement appear to be racist, rather than the need to have people who have interesting things to say, who might just happen to belong to minority groups e.g blacks. My contention is that this need is directly linked to the “white guilt” that Shelby Steele speaks of.
Like I said in the article, as a black African, I’d be comfortable attending a meeting where there was not a single black speaker. It would not bother me in the least. Now, it could be that African-Americans have a different need than I do, and for them, it might mean a big deal to have people who look like them on the podiums. But that doesn’t seem entirely true, if the comments of the African American gentleman I quoted from the ERV blog are anything to go by. In fact he completely shares my perspective on this matter. Perhaps black people like he and I generally refuse to see ourselves as victims, and feel squeamish when it appears as if some people are feeling sorry for us. Maybe others do see themselves as victims, and therefore require validation by having greater representation of their race at these conferences. Who knows.
As it is, I have observed that there are a number of prominent African-American speakers at these conferences. Something tells me they didn’t become skeptics because someone went out of their way to make them feel “welcome”. I also suspect that it is because they are highly accomplished individuals in their own right that they were invited to speak, regardless of what their race happened to be. They were invited for the interesting things they had to say because of their expertise in a given field (e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson), rather than simply because of their colour. All I’m saying is that this is how it should be, and where the focus should lie.
October 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm
0verlord
It is telling that the first comment here was the stunningly arrogant and presumptuous (not to mention thoughtless and stupid) accusation that you yourself are a closeted racist. Of course the accusation is easily seen through, not because you’re black atheist from Uganda but because it’s patently absurd.
All of these “guilt complexes” (lacking better terminology) seem to share important similarities. They all seem to root in some vague but ever-looming threat against certain values commonly accepted as “right.” The litmus test is that if you don’t believe those threats are real (i.e., if you don’t share this particular brand of guilt), then you’re “part of the problem.” Another laughably stupid assertion.
This is all to say, I for one see where you’re coming from, and I like it. (Psst. It’s mainly because I’m a KKK member. White power!!!)
October 3, 2011 at 9:16 pm
James Onen
And perhaps I am a “race traitor”. Hahahahaha.
October 4, 2011 at 4:51 am
franc hoggle
James: And perhaps I am a “race traitor”. Hahahahaha.
Perhaps you are. These accusations and implications of “treachery” is where these bogus liberal activists unmask themselves. What is “treachery”? Heresy against orthodox ideology.
Having a genealogy that stretches back to both Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia, it horrifies me seeing this kind of reactionary stupidity from the allegedly enlightened.
These kind of accusations are exactly the same as those encouraged by both of the above regimes, getting coworkers, spouses and children, to look for evidence of things like “extravagance” or “speculation” and publicly denounce the “traitors”.
Is there anything that Orwell was wrong about?
October 4, 2011 at 9:38 am
TK
Disclaimer: white (Jewish) atheist here.
I think I can shed some light on why they might do something like this.
When I see a white Christian, I pity them. They’re brainwashed. Imprisoned. In chains.
When I see a black Christian, this pity is compounded; Not only do they hold these ridiculous beliefs – beliefs that are as eternal, invisible chains – but they likely hold these beliefs *because their ancestors were forced to convert* by their slave-masters. This state of things – that they have inherited these invisible chains from masters who were long since stripped of their ownership and humbled for their inhumanity – is like adding insult to injury. I would think that of all peoples, blacks would have been the *first* to shed the faith of their ancestors – faith they probably didn’t even have a choice in learning.
As for black Muslims…well, I don’t know what to say. I’ll simply say that I’ve learned that many arab-born Muslims have an intense hate for black Muslims, which astounds me. How can people who believe the same lies hate each other so intensely? The idea alien to me.
I’m a liberal. I’m an atheist. I’m white. But I have no white guilt, because I’m of Jewish ancestry; my ancestors were in Europe when blacks were slaves in America, being treated like second class citizens. Perhaps this gives me a unique perspective through which to see this issue: I don’t have a personal stake in this fight, only a desire to see more minds of every color and origin freed.
October 4, 2011 at 11:56 am
franc hoggle
TK: Perhaps this gives me a unique perspective through which to see this issue:
I think being Jewish is it’s own thing that is beyond colour. Really, when you tally it all up, Jews are probably the most hated and persecuted demographic ever. These circumstances are what have created the Jewish insularity that most people instantly think of when think of the Jewish people. Most Jews DO believe in a binary social system – the chosen (us) and the goyim (everyone else). They don’t even get to the point of making race or colour distinction – its already just “us” and “them”.
Don’t take this as a criticism, or as a lot of others would as “antisemitic” thinking. But the Jews are in a position that is unique to them – and it is very much a product of history. There is no “right” or “wrong” to this observation. It’s just the way it is.
October 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Rudi
I think one element that is missing here is the influence of cultural/political pressure. Speaking as (until very recently) an employee in the biggest UK government department, we were continually made aware of the importance of ensuring adequate ‘representation’ of ‘ethnic groups’ in every team, and were monitored – by a specialist team no less – to ensure this quota-filling was adhered to. This even extended to a preposterous message to managers to “give special consideration” to ethnic minorities when deciding whether to nominate someone for an honour (MBE, knighthood, etc). As if the best way to fight racism is with even more racism. So you would find dubiously-qualified people from ethnic minorities being strategically promoted so that their director could then show off their “equal opps” credentials to fellow directors. (The most disgusting thing about this being that it is based on the assumption that ethnic minorities NEED this leg-up. In defiance of this pressure, I would set an entrance test when recruiting new staff, and recruit on the basis of that – as it happened every single successful candidate I selected was black, but skin colour had zero bearing on the selection process. If all the successful candidates had been white, then so be it.)
This may seem remarkable to you, but this was absolutely the cultural context we had to operate in. I am not suggesting the cultural context of atheist movement is exactly the same as my example, but I give it as an example of the KIND of pressures organisations in the west can find themselves.
October 4, 2011 at 3:49 pm
James Onen
Thanks Rudi. I think your story serves as a wonderful example of the kind of problem I am talking about. I do not think it is that far removed from what we are starting to see in the atheist movement.
You were only lucky that all the successful candidates (whom you chose on the basis of merit alone) happened to be black. Now imagine… what if they had been white? There would have been a shitstorm so big you wouldn’t have known what to do with it – even if merit had been the sole criterion for selection.
October 22, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Maria L.
I’m a black, African, female atheist.
You’d *think* that atheists, by virtue of being reasonable enlightened people, would have some of the most socially progressive views out there. But look at the recent SkepChick controversy, including one of our heroes, Dawkins. Listen to Hitchen’s view of us women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA7pfR0FIc Yikes.
I do think that there should be concerted efforts to make atheist communities more inclusive of minorities, having acknowledged that most atheist are white cis males. This should not be done by dumbing meetings/content down – this is patronizing, annoying and has negative effects as you’ve posted. It should be done by white male atheists acknowledging and being educated about other identities.
Atheists feel that they are a misunderstood/oppressed minority. Many forget that some of us have been members of multiple oppressed minority groups from birth. We have valid concerns that intersect all our identities – atheist, feminist, African etc. So when an issue of racism/sexism comes up they should check their privilege and try to understand our issues before shooting them down.
When SkepChick called out the community for being less than welcoming to women she was attacked, harassed and threatened, called a c*nt, told that she was unworthy of sex etc. I’ve read on many forums eg reddit many male reason minded atheists pushing the beliefs that blacks are just less capable as a race than others. And it’s ok for them to say that because it’s science.
As a woman and a black person, you are right, I do not want or need pink chairs or hip-hop music in order to attend an atheist meeting. But I do need to believe that if I raise a concern that happens to address feminism/racism issues that are *also* atheism issues I will not be shot down for “distracting the issues” or “hijacking the meeting with my agenda”. I want to be heard and respected as a member of multiple communities.
October 23, 2011 at 3:30 pm
James Onen
Hello Maria,
Thank you very much for your interesting comments. You raised very many interesting points, and gave me a lot to think about. I’d like to give you my opinion on the things you said.
‘Atheist’ just means one doesn’t believe gods exist (or lacks a belief in the existence of god/s). How he arrived at that conclusion is irrelevant. There is no requirement for one to be enlightened, in order to be an atheist – he/she only need not believe that any god(s) exist(s). About being socially progressive, I think there is an interesting debate to be had about what the term ‘progressive’ denotes. I am all for equal rights and opportunities for every individual, but I’m generally suspicious of anything that goes beyond that. I am not a supporter of affirmative action, or gender feminism, for example.
You will be happy to know that I have looked at the recent SkepChick controversy – and in great detail, as a matter of fact. Take a look at my articles on the matter, and feel free to comment on them. I fully concur with Richard Dawkins on this. I think he is right.
That said, you might want to ask yourself why you and others tend to describe Dawkins as a ‘hero’. In my opinion, this is partly the problem with organized skepticism/atheism today. We put on pedestals people who agree with us on some issues, and expect them to think like us on all other issues. But then when we eventually realize that the people who we’ve looked up to do not share our same political and social ideologies, what do we do? We complain – all the while claiming to celebrate diversity in opinion and tolerance for dissenting views. This is where it gets ironic, really. We accuse organized religion of not being tolerant of dissenting views, and yet here are the loudest of today’s skeptics, ridiculing anyone who does not subscribe to gender feminism, or socialism, for example.
I did watch the Hitchens video, and I’m not sure what it is about the video you found objectionable. The man stated his opinion, and gave his reasons. Perhaps you can tell me what your grievances about his views are. What is the ‘yikes’ for?
Indeed we have become an organized religion, with our own set of socio-political dogmas and taboos, haven’t we? The religious must be laughing at us now.
Hmmm….
1. Why should there be ‘concerted efforts’ to make atheist communities more inclusive of minorities anyway – seeing as there is no law that says minorities can’t attend atheist-skeptic events?
2. Have you bothered to ask yourself WHY most atheists (involved in organized skepticism/atheism) tend to be white males? Is this because of any deliberate scheme on their part? What might that scheme be? Might it not instead be more about cultural or economic reasons? Or a matter of personal interest, or lack thereof?
I’d like to ask – how is this not patronizing also? And what might you mean when you say “being educated about other identities”? Are you suggesting white atheists don’t know about other minorities? And even so, I don’t see how if a person is white, male, and is an atheist – he should be obliged to acknowledge or be educated about other identities. I don’t see how that follows at all.
Even if I were not acknowledged, or white people were ignorant about the experiences of people from my race, I’d still be an atheist because there is no evidence of god/s. I’d still be an atheist even though all white atheists were racists. Should you say that the attitude of white people would discourage you from atheism, then don’t you think this would raise serious questions about the basis by which you are forming your opinions with regards to the question of god/s? Is it really a rational basis, or an emotional one instead? It would seem that it is the latter.
It is those that presume to speak for others that are actually seeking privilege – and it is theirs to check at the door. Take a moment to reflect on how similar such an attitude is to communism.
Here is the problem with the way debates on race/gender play out:
1. A few loud people will claim to be the moral voice that speaks for all in whichever racial/gender group they belong to, and will proceed to make declarations, or voice grievances, on behalf of all in that group.
2. Anyone from that group who deviates from this view point is labeled a ‘traitor’ – while anyone from outside the group who disagrees from this view point is labeled ‘privileged ’, and this alleged privilege will be said to be the reason their dissenters ‘don’t get it’. This seems to be true when it comes to discussions of racial and gender issues, most notably.
But surely you are aware that in the case of Elevatorgate there are very many women who do not agree with Skepchick Watson. Have you heard of Abbie Smith, Miranda Celeste, Steph McGraw, Rose St.Clair, Ardent Speptic, Jennifer Keane (a.k.a Zenbuffy), Scented Nectar, Maria Maltseva (a.k.a. bluharmony), Alison Smith, to name but a few? You therefore cannot claim, without successfully arguing for it, that the pro-Watson view is the default pro-woman view. You just can’t do that, otherwise you would be presuming to speak for other women, whose own independent opinions differ from yours. When men do this, it’s called sexism – and frankly, I don’t see why it should be called anything different when women do it to their fellow women.
Maria, just because you are a black African atheist, you do not speak for me – and neither do I speak for you just because I am an atheist, black and African. Similarly, just because you are a woman, you do not speak for all women – and the same applies to each and every gender feminist out there who presumes to do so.
Many women feel that feminists do not speak for them – which means, on matters of allegations of sexism, the feminist view is not the default view. The feminist view – like any other view – is one that is to be considered, debated, criticized, accepted or rejected, on the basis of evidence that can be adduced to support it. It should not be treated as the default view point. If anyone feels that such evidence for the feminist view point (or any other view point) is not forth-coming, insufficient, or false, he or she is perfectly justified in “shooting them down”.
If any of us have concerns (about race or gender) arising from our individual experiences, we should not attempt to generalize these concerns to apply to the entirety of whatever demographic we claim to represent. I will tell you right now that any African atheist who claims there is general racism in the atheist community is not speaking for me. I do not see myself as a victim, and I will not allow anyone presuming to speak on my behalf to claim that I am a victim. Individual experiences are individual experiences, and no one should try to leverage an entire group as a political bargaining chip by claiming their personal individual experiences are representative of the whole (without hard data to back it up). I would not presume to do the same either, but then I’m not the one making the positive case for there being general discrimination in the atheist community, so the burden of proof is not mine to bear.
In every group there will be assholes. But if someone wants to make a case for how there is a general problem, he or she can’t rely on a few random examples. Just because one, two, or even ten atheists called you a nigger or monkey, this does not mean that there is a general problem of racism in the atheist community. It just means some, but by no means all, people in that group are assholes.
Not quite. She was attacked because people were of the view that she is a blatant hypocrite who basks in the limelight while contributing nothing particularly unique that warrants her prominence in the skeptical community. I find myself in agreement with those criticisms. And her critics include many women. See what this young woman has to say in this video, for example. She pretty much summarizes the problem with Skepchick.
I will also contend that her claim that the community is not welcoming to women is absolutely false, and without any evidence to back it up. Pointing to the actions of a few nit wits on Youtube and elsewhere does not equal a case of sexism on a general scale, and neither could it be said to apply to all women. Let’s not forget that men are also often the target of some abuse, as even Watson acknowledges in the case of Dawkins, in her panel appearance where she was supposed to discuss communicating atheism (but didn’t). In the same panel discussion she actually makes jokes about the death threats Dawkins gets. How ironic.
Let’s also not forget that Richard Dawkins has been called a d*ck by feminists not happy with his views on the Watson fiasco. Indeed, if your problem is with the nature of the insults themselves, then I invite you to check out what I had to say on the matter in this article. Atheists are simply in no position to make such complaints, without exposing themselves as hypocrites.
As I said, one doesn’t have to be particularly brilliant to be an atheist. It is also true that being an atheist doesn’t keep someone from being a total asshole. When it comes to mindsets about race such as the ones you’ve encountered on Reddit, my take is that it is up to us Africans to prove otherwise. While I doubt that there are genetic factors that contribute to our seeming inability to modernize our societies – I believe that once more of us start working hard to EARN the respect of people of other races then such mindsets will change. In my opinion we haven’t tried hard enough to earn that respect – we’ve chosen instead to demand for it through political means. Going the route of advocating political correctness and affirmative action is rather unproductive, in my opinion, and reinforces victim mentality which further stunts our progress. So rather than feel bad that some idiots on reddit think of our race as backward, I would see such attitudes as a reason for us to push ourselves harder. That is my opinion.
You say you want to be heard – but are you prepared and willing for your view point to be questioned? That is the problem with feminism, and how it is killing skepticism in the atheist community. Yes people will hear you out – but any attempt to raise questions about the validity of feminist claims is taken as being the very evidence of the ‘problem’ that they allege exists. No atheist has ever stopped any feminist, not even one, from ever saying what she wants to say – but should you ever dare to challenge what a feminist says, you are accused of “refusing to let women talk”. Do you see how this works? So are we allowed to question/disagree, or not? And if not, then what happened to skepticism? This atheist community of ours is not so skeptical anymore, is it? All thanks to certain socio-political ideologies that are supposed to be treated as infallible and absolute.
And yes there is such a thing as hijacking the meeting with your agenda, and Watson did this exact thing in the panel discussion on ‘communicating atheism’, in Dublin. The topic was communicating atheism – not OMG people send me hatemail. Try changing the topic at your next company board meeting (where you’ve been specifically been asked to address a particular topic) and see if you won’t be asked to stick to the topic at hand and find another occasion to raise your off-topic issue.
This is common sense.
If you want to be ‘heard and respected’ then be prepared to also ‘hear’ and ‘respect’ the people whom you expect to listen to you – even if it eventually turns out they disagree with what you are saying.
Personally, I’m at the point where I’m trying to decide whether or not I want to be part of the political wars of the atheist-skeptic community anymore. There is far too much emotion, political correctness and dogma driving the thinking within the movement. In the end, I think I might simply stick to what I’ve been doing, which is promoting critical thinking in my little corner of the world – and leave the increasingly self-congratulatory international atheist communities, panels, events and conferences to the socio-political ideologues that seem to have taken over. I don’t really think I need or want to be a part them at this rate, to be honest. They’re slowly losing the plot – if it isn’t lost already.
But I appreciate you sharing your views here, Maria. Which country are you from?
October 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm
James Onen
You are from Kenya!
October 25, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Maria L.
Hi James, I’m not as keen a writer as you are, otherwise I’d write a very long reply 🙂 I wish you were in Nairobi so we could talk in person. Just a couple points.
“Atheist’ just means one doesn’t believe gods exist (or lacks a belief in the existence of god/s). How he arrived at that conclusion is irrelevant. There is no requirement for one to be enlightened, in order to be an atheist – he/she only need not believe that any god(s) exist(s).”
True – I misspoke. I should have maybe said skeptic. I made the assumption that atheists in the “atheist community”, however we’ve defined it for this conversation, are skeptics and arrived at the atheistic view point through reason and skepticsm. For me, reason and skepticsm led me to atheism and feminism and anti-racism etc. So I was presuming the same thought process for others, maybe I was being too generous.
I think ultimately we’re on the same page. The crazy people who called Watson “cunt” are on the same level as the crazy people who attack anyone that challenges/criticizes them. Both kinds of people are probably destructive to any community. Even if you take out the crazies on both sides, I think the rational, skeptical, people left should (and, note, should, not must) be aware of the world they live in, with all it’s faults, and yes, check their privilege.
About privilege. It’s not a dirty word. It’s not accusatory, although some people use it to permanently close a conversation. We all have some sort of privilege. I think that a self-aware moral person should acknowledge their privilege when it comes to issues that they have limited insight into. That doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to talk about it. It means give the benefit of the doubt to someone who’s lived an experience that you haven’t. But no community is a monolith – there will be differences of opinion of course. But there are also commonalities. Asking someone to check their privilege is not saying “shut up” but asking someone to consider if they could possibly be mistaken about this issue that they have less/no experience with. It should go without saying that I am for free constructive speech/debate. Hope you’ve seen this before
Example I am privileged because I am able-bodied. I am not obliged to give two seconds thought to wheelchair accessible public streets. This is not an issue for me. I don’t think there’s a problem. But as a moral person I should be able to listen when someone from that group tells me that she/he and others want ramps on public streets. Or don’t want ramps. Either way, I should realize that opinions are not made equal, my own is worth “less” in that situation.
” I am all for equal rights and opportunities for every individual, but I’m generally suspicious of anything that goes beyond that. I am not a supporter of affirmative action, or gender feminism, for example”
Fairness/meritocracy is great in a fair world… we don’t live in one. I’m on the fence about affirmative action, but I can understand it as a step towards correcting many institutional imbalances, although the practical implementations are hard to get right. In Kenya we have the KCPE exam which determines which secondary school you get into. The best government schools have regional quotas, with the semi-arid and poor north-eastern province requiring lower marks for entry. I think this is a good local example of affirmative action. Not fair to compare the well-resourced Nairobi teen to the rural teen studying by the light of a kerosene lamp.
Well, I’ve written long enough, so much to say, so lazy… Great blog!
October 26, 2011 at 3:18 am
franc hoggle
Maria L.: The crazy people who called Watson “cunt” are on the same level as the crazy people who attack anyone that challenges/criticizes them.
Maria, there are two real issues here –
1. You are succumbing to the Watsonista PR campaign that wishes you to think that all those that criticise Watson are “crazy” because they behave irrationally, and
2. If you are a realist, you will KNOW there is a sociopathic element in any sample. As I wrote elsewhere, if you post an article criticising Persian cats, and it has a high enough circulation, you WILL get abuse and you WILL get threats.
Watsonistas cherry pick, distill, concentrate and present to the world that the only criticism is vile gutter criticism. As a skeptic, you owe it to yourself to see the larger picture. James does a good job deconstructing all this, I make my own efforts.
Maria L.: About privilege. It’s not a dirty word. It’s not accusatory, although some people use it to permanently close a conversation.
This is another excellent example of PR manipulation to invert reality completely on its head. Yes there is privilige here – Watson’s. A middle class white girl that has had everything in life presented to her on a plate. She has no qualifications, no relevant life experience, no real intellect, yet she is “priviliged” by all these evil white males elevating her to the position of somehow being the spokesperson skeptical/atheist secularism – which she then abuses to spit on that same white male demographic.
I cannot think of another person in the community that has had *more* privilege bestowed on them than Watson. This is an absurd pantomime.
October 24, 2011 at 8:12 pm
NEGRONAPOLEON
JOIN REDDIT.COM/R/BLACKATHEISM
WE DO EXIST
October 24, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Craig
I’ve (white male) been a part of some of the discussions about women and minorities (or their absence) at atheist/skeptic events. From what I’ve seen, there are a few reasons that aren’t “not looking racist” to actively seek out minorities and women. Some bloggers involved, such as PZ Meyers or Hement Mehta or Greta Christina, point out that by having the same group of speakers at these events (who do happen to be overwhelmingly male and white over past years) you ARE missing a lot of people’s ideas and a lot of different perspectives.
Now, I have no personal experiences on race as it relates to atheism and skepticism, but I have had several friends tell me atheism is “a guy thing” because all the atheists they know are guys. These girls – who aren’t at all religious – are quick to dismiss atheism as relevant to their lives because when they see atheists, they just see a bunch of dudes and feel like its not for them. Just given this, seeking out prominent female atheists as speakers and looking to draw more female atheists to attend conferences seems to me to be a very good strategy to expand the reach of the movement. If you want to get your ideas out to more people and get the input of more people, you need to get them interested and involved in the first place. Now, again, my experiences only deal with gender, but I do wonder if this doesn’t apply to race, educational level, or other areas where the activist atheist community differs in makeup from the population at large. My interest in this has nothing to do with “guilt” about being among mostly white males, but about feeling that if atheism is largely limited to white males, we’re severely lacking in reach, potential, and points of view.
-Craig
October 25, 2011 at 4:01 pm
0verlord
Who or what is “limiting” atheism to white males?
October 25, 2011 at 4:37 pm
James Onen
The White Patriarchy
Just kidding. I couldn’t resist 🙂
October 25, 2011 at 4:54 pm
franc hoggle
Not directed at you James – you’re the most sensible one here. But it does get tiring listening to accusations of racism AND sexism. More than tiring. It’s like kicking a dog every time there’s a bad smell and screaming at it for farting – when its done nothing other than be in the same room as you with the bad smell.
i would like to know WHO it is that is preventing non-whites and non-males from participating. Because if you have evidence of active, malicious interference from people PREVENTING this participation, I will be the first in line to break their nose. Chances are, as with “atheist misogyny” there IS NO REAL EVIDENCE and never will be.
Basic facts are, there is NO ONE preventing participation – what there is is an ABSENCE of willing participants to step up to the plate and participate. In the case of females, it is worse – Watson and Skepchick et al. are the ones that have created the atmosphere of hostility to women THEMSELVES. It is they, and others like Ophelia Benson, who are openly abusing and intimidating female community members from participating in any way – many are even leaving altogether.
Enough whining. Do something positive for a change. This endless victim talk is what is doing all the real damage.
October 25, 2011 at 5:55 pm
0verlord
Noes!
October 25, 2011 at 6:25 pm
James Onen
No.
😀
October 25, 2011 at 6:37 pm
franc hoggle
You’re trying to goad a “c” response. I won’t pollute your blog. Ophelia hates you enough as it is.
October 25, 2011 at 7:00 pm
James Onen
Hahahahaha.
But I don’t think Ophelia hates me, Franc. And I actually am quite fond of her myself. We’re just having a misunderstanding over one highly emotive issue. Of course, she is not particularly thrilled that I sometimes post comments at ERV, but there’s really not much I can do about that.
The way I see it, the more these conversations continue, the more we all shall find clarity.
October 26, 2011 at 3:04 am
franc hoggle
James, then you don’t no Ophelia very well. I would suggest you err on the side of caution and expect the very worst from her. She has exhibited quite clearly that she is not content to merely hurt people, she also likes to indulge in efforts to damage them professionally – as she does to Abbie Smith/ERV, and also to Adrienne Myers (just a high school student). I know of another female academic she has intimidated into silence altogether. As far as raw malice and spite goes, Ophelia has few peers, and her hatred is only amplified against females – so on the bright side, you won’t get her worst.
October 25, 2011 at 6:17 pm
James Onen
Hello Craig,
Don’t mind my initial cheekiness in response to Overlord’s question to you – because I actually think your comment is very thoughtful and insightful. I hope it will not be your last on this thread.
I personally harbor suspicions about the motives behind the drive to get minorities involved though – and feel inclined to attribute it to ‘white guilt’. Perhaps this is not the case, and in fact, as you say, the primary motivation might be the desire for a diversity of perspectives. Unfortunately, the way gender issues have been handled by the atheist community recently leads me to have doubts.
You say several over your friends have told you that atheism seems too much of a guy thing and so that’s why women don’t want to participate. I take it you mean ‘organised’ atheism – that is, the community, the events, and so on. Well, we had the same problem with our own group, Freethought Kampala. Someone suggested to us that we needed to make the group more ‘women friendly’, and so we proceeded engage in a ‘let’s make them feel welcome’ campaign.
Please see my response to a commenter by the name of Doceorcecat above (his was the very first comment), where I explain what happened when we deliberately went out of our way with that whole ‘welcoming’ thing. It backfired for us. That was our experience anyway.
The way some people go on about it, one gets the impression that there is an almost deliberate attempt by white atheist men to prevent minorities (and women) from participating in organized atheism or skepticism. I will join others here in expressing doubt about such a conspiracy. It’s actually ludicrous, and without any evidential merit. This is partly where my suspicion about people’s motives about attracting more women and minorities is coming from.
October 25, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Craig
I actually meant that identifying as atheist, and having atheist ideas, is a “guy thing” in the eyes of these friends of mine. While I don’t think it’s necessarily a need to “make women more welcome” or anything, I think there is a need for people to have examples to identify with to help cross the barrier. Inviting the accomplished female atheists (or minority atheists) who are out there to be a larger part of the image and message of events and campaigns, and this is already happening, may have the effect of getting more people to pay attention to the message in the first place. To a lot of people, even non-religious people, “atheism” is a scary word, and if the atheists you know are all different from you and coming from a different place than you, it doesn’t help break down the emotional barriers to that evil “A” word. The biggest encouragement is having a close friend come out atheist. A friend helped shatter my false images of what atheists are, and soon there was a cascading effect among our friends who had already for the most part rejected religion but hadn’t given the idea of atheism a fair chance because of preconceived notions about it. I’d say the second best encouragement is seeing someone who comes from a similar background as you, who has interests and experiences and points of view similar to you, pitching the message.
October 25, 2011 at 6:24 pm
0verlord
In the interest of fairness, I should also qualify that my question is serious and not just a wisecrack. I, and it seems lots of others, really do want an answer to the question of who or what is allegedly limiting skepticism to white males.
October 25, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Craig
I don’t really think anyone’s actively limiting anyone. Things started with a bunch of older academics – a group that in America is largely white males – and things just went from there. With women, they tend to be more religious and more strongly tied to church and the social things that come along with it. Whether or not anyone meant to keep women out, if we’re trying to convince people that religion is untrue, a waste of time money and effort, and often harmful, then we need to figure out why that message isn’t getting to more women and how to change that. It’s not about sexism, or guilt, or anything else. It’s about effectiveness at meeting our goals. In terms of race, like I’ve said I have much less personal experience talking to minorities about atheism. One thing I hear is that among many minorities, the church plays a larger role in life and community, and this makes people’s ties to it stronger. Not sure how to specifically address this, except to say that the people who come from that experience will have the best insight on what’s needed, and can provide an example for people living that experience on the alternative.
It’s also hopefully true that the continual, general weakening of religion’s armor against criticism and the growing frequency of people questioning, criticizing, and forsaking religion and god-belief will keep snowballing and lead to more people from every background to imagine no religion.
October 25, 2011 at 8:24 pm
0verlord
Craig, a very fair and insightful analysis, and I do agree that to understand the needs of underrepresented folks, we need to listen to them for their insights and opinions. Thing is, I think we already do that. Though perhaps we could indeed do more, no matter how much we promote and encourage it’s ultimately up to the underrepresented folks to represent themselves. At some point they have to take the reins, get over their shyness and say, “Hey! I’m here!” Or something…
As you probably know, although it cannot be stated enough, my main beef is that it seems a lot of people are more interested in flexing their own perceived moral superiority and condemning people outright than they are in actually discussing it. It’s invariably “I’m right, you’re a stupid piece of shit, this conversation is over,” and I’m not the only one who sees this. Such arrogant self-righteousness is offensive, counterproductive, and does great harm to our ability to meet our goals if only because it tears the movement apart from the inside. And for what reason other than some people want to feel themselves superior to others?
October 25, 2011 at 5:18 pm
ERV
I am SO sorry I just now found this post!
“Will there be a hip-hop music session between talks to make sure we don’t get bored during all the science presentations?”
I literally loled, hard, when I read that 😀 The short answer is ‘No’.
In my experience, the people most concerned about the appearance of ‘cultural diversity’ (as opposed to the people actively working to make groups more welcoming for everyone, regardless of gender/race/sexual orientation/education/income/etc) are ironically, culturally illiterate. It would take them ~4 hours to figure out who ‘Big Poppa’ was (“IS THAT PINK FLOYDS COUSIN FROM ATLANTA??”), and that is far beyond the amount of ‘work’ these people are willing to invest in this ’cause’.
*shrug*
October 27, 2011 at 1:21 am
An Ardent Skeptic
As a woman, I don’t give a damn what gender the speakers at conferences are, (or ethnicity, or sexual preference, or whatever), I just want interesting and engaging speakers who will provide me with food for thought.
I am not well educated and, often times, may not fully understand the subject matter of a speaker’s presentation. However, I do not want them not to be included as a speaker because I don’t understand, or have them dumb down their speech to my level. Good speakers take into consideration their intended audience and the best teachers know how to make their subject interesting and accessible to those less educated than themselves in their area of expertise. I want the best teachers as speakers. It is the only qualification for speakers that concerns me.
October 27, 2011 at 1:43 am
Hassan Higenyi
Here comes me-troll 🙂
Thank you, “Ardent Skeptic”, therein lays a simply brilliant point.
December 26, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Anyuru
I agree with James, (good article) but like James said atheism is the belief that God does not exist. And that belief is not associated with race or sex. So atheist-skeptic community being preoccupied with having more racial minorities participate in their events and activities might be a good thing to further prove the point. May be there methodology is wrong. May be they need to go back to the drawing board and look at how they joined the community. It might be through friends or the web who told them about the events. And if they use the same methods to get to the minorities, they might get to there objective.
The other point will be when the minorities come to the events, let them get involved in the community/events
May 11, 2012 at 3:53 am
byron
I wonder why some folks seem so certain that religious belief is not connected to race or ethnicity. I don’t recall seeing any recent studies done on the subject, perhaps there have been. If not, perhaps there should be. I know we are commanded to profess a belief that race doesn’t exist and our differences consist solely of a little pigment, but is it true? Let so-called racial equality first be actually observed, then tested, you know, the whole scientific method thing we all hear so much about sometimes.
July 5, 2012 at 4:40 pm
The Atheist-Skeptic Movement and Minorities | rational ugandan
[…] [Originitally published in Freethought Kampala] […]