Tom Matlack asked his friend Steve Locke to write for us about race. He declined. Here’s why.
Dear Tom,
Thanks so much for asking me to contribute something to GMP. It has been exciting to see how this project has gone from an idea to a reality.
As much as I enjoy reading GMP and as much as I’d love to be a part of it, I don’t think I am able to write about race.
It’s not that I don’t know anything about it. I was on a social media site and I was looking at the post one of my friends shared. He was lamenting the fact that PSYCHOLOGY TODAY had printed an article saying that black women are “objectively” less attractive than other women. Others of his friends posted on his “wall,” saying that attractiveness was relative and that it was based on symmetry of features and the like. I posted a “sigh” and said that it was sickmaking, in 2011, that someone would even create a study to investigate humans in such a way, that the creation of the study was evidence of a bias, and the notion that peoples’ “tastes” and “preferences” are not affected by 300+ years of racialized bias was ignorant. Also, I have been told that black people are somehow deficient for most of my 48 years and that PSYCHOLOGY TODAY was passing this crap off as research was sad.
A poster responded that he didn’t see any racism in the research and that it was like comparing apples and oranges. He also told me that too many people say things are about race when they aren’t, and that maybe I was upset to be on the “losing” side of the article. He wanted me to explain why I thought the article was racist.
I told him that it is not my job to educate him about the experience of race in his own country, although as his darker countryman, I am called on to do just that. I told him that like most ostensibly white people his age, he wanted to locate a reason for thing in his own experience, probably so he would not have to have bad feelings about history, or have to acknowledge the privileges and benefits that he has received for nothing that he has have done.
I am a college professor, however, so I gave him some texts that to read that would take him from Reconstruction to the current moment in culture and history. I told him that these would help him develop an understanding of how the caste system of the United States is racialized, and that the understanding of the American experience is structured through the creation, implementation, and sustenance of the racial boundaries through policy and culture.
Here’s the list:
W.E.B. DuBois BLACK RECONSTRUCTION
Ronald Takaki A DIFFERENT MIRROR
Eric Lott LOVE AND THEFT
Noel Ignatiev HOW THE IRISH BECAME WHITE
Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall AGENTS OF REPRESSION: The FBI’s Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement
Alexander Saxton THE RISE AND FALL OF THE WHITE REPUBLIC
(B)ell hooks BLACK LOOKS
Douglas A. Blackmon SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME
Andrew Hacker TWO NATIONS: BLACK AND WHITE, SEPARATE, HOSTILE, UNEQUAL
The poster advised me that I was being racist by saying “most ostensibly white people.” I advised that I was going solely by his phenotype, which is what people do with me. I also told him to look up “ostensibly” and “racist.”
So you see, it’s not that I don’t know anything about the subject.
Tom, I don’t want to talk about race because it gives weight to a fiction that was created to oppress. It has no basis in biology and is a social construction in this country that was engineered to maintain access to free labor. The fiction created by race distorts the reality in which we live.
Plus, as a black person, I am called on often to speak for my “race.” I can never give an opinion without it being assumed to be that of a multitude. So when a white person asks me my opinion about an issue that can be related to race, I suspect that there is going to be a moment later when that white person is going to say, “Well, I have a black friend, Steve, who says…” And that will be the black authority on the subject.
Black people can’t talk to white people about race anymore. There’s really nothing left to say. There are libraries full of books, interviews, essays, lectures, and symposia. If people want to learn about their own country and its history, it is not incumbent on black people to talk to them about it. It is not our responsibility to educate them about it. Plus whenever white people want to talk about race, they never want to talk about themselves. There needs to be discussion among people who think of themselves as white. They need to unpack that language, that history, that social position and see what it really offers them, and what it takes away from them. As James Baldwin said, “As long as you think that you are white, there is no hope for you.”
When you went to Africa, you said “you were the minority for the first time in your life.” That’s not true. You have been the only adult in a room full of children, the only man in room full of women, the only non-incarcerated person in a jail. In America if you were a minority at a hip-hop concert in Compton, you would still have the privilege that accrues unbidden to persons designated as white, with all of the political, social, and economic access that comes with it.
What you experienced in Africa, Tom, was that the apparatus that supports the dominance of white skin was absent. It has nothing to do with being a minority someplace, you were free of the prison that is whiteness in America. You could have brought all that privilege with you and manifested it when you saw Cole with Protus, but you didn’t. Letting go of that allowed you to show Cole that he can connect with another person independent of the color of their skin.
Do you remember how Clinton was vilified for wanting to have a national conversation on race? People thought it was unnecessary, that he was a “race traitor,’” that it would lead to reparations for slavery, that it would make white people feel bad for things that were not their fault. White people don’t want to hear about race because the don’t want to be called “racists” or they cannot see how they are responsible for something they didn’t do. That report talks a lot about white privilege. It was no surprise to me that it was not widely read and discussed.
Whiteness to me is oppression. And it oppresses not just black people, but people who think it offers them something other than dominance over their fellow man. Poor white people have been sold a bill of goods that offers them white supremacy and takes away jobs and economic growth.
Tom, I have never, not once, thought of you as white. I think of you as a father, a husband, a brilliant businessman, a feminist, a Quaker, and most of all as a friend. You have never treated me as whiteness demands that you treat me. I don’t want to talk about race because if I do, I stop being an artist, an educator, a godfather, a gay man, and most of all, human.
So I appreciate the offer, Tom, I really do. I just don’t think I can write about it. I can write about art if you like. I know a lot about that.
Love to Elena and the kids, and to you, my man.
Steve
♦◊♦
Reprinted with permission
♦◊♦
More articles On Race:
White Boy in a Black Land
Black Boy in a White Land
‘Why I Don’t Want to Talk About Race’
Eating While Black
Facing Mecca
Beautiful on All Sides
Race is Always a Parenting Issue
The Race Walk
Poetry In Motion: A Story of Hardship and Hope in Crow Country, Montana
How Travel Made Me Confront White Privilege
I Prefer My Racism Straight Up, Thank You.
Whiteness Is Not the Absence of Racial Identity Any More Than Maleness Is the Absence of Gender Identity
I Ain’t No Whiteboy: A Reflection on Hip-Hop, Misogyny, and Racial Identity
Why We Need to Talk About Race
When Do I Get To Stop Apologizing for Being White?
Tourism Black and Blues
How Basketball Helped Me Realize I’m Not White
I Talk About Race Because I Don’t Know How Not To
♦◊♦
Image credit:
“the neverending story” 2007
oil and acrylic on panel
12 x 16 inches
Private Collection.
About Steve Locke
This is why there isn’t rational conversation on the subject: “Whiteness to me is oppression” and after that I would agree that there is nothing left to say. By his definition I am oppressive solely due to the color of my skin. Note how that conflicts with MLK’s dream.
he didn’t say that “kurt is oppression”. he said “whiteness is oppression”. there may be nothing left to say but i respectfully implore you to pick up one of the texts he recommended.
He didn’t have to say it. If “whiteness =oppression’ and “kurt = white”, then the logical conclusion is that “kurt = oppression”.
I tend to agree with the author that there is nothing left to say about race because, as a young, white working class man, anytime I hear an upper middle class person lecture me about all my white male privilege my first instinct is to say tell them to go fuck themselves and the Diversified Multicultural Horse they rode in on.
Extreme logic failure.
Whiteness is a social system designed to oppress.
White is the social construct upon which it is based.
Kurt (it seems to me) is more than a mere social construct, he is a human being,
The only way for me to make your logic work is to strip Kurt and you of your humanity and reduce you completely and only to the social construct (White). I prefer not to do that.
“anytime I hear an upper middle class person lecture me about all my white male privilege my first instinct is to say tell them to go fuck themselves and the Diversified Multicultural Horse they rode in on.”
Eric as working class black male I have to agree with you. It’s not that there is no such thing as white privilege but that does not trump class privilege, education privilege, opportunity privilege and any other that leads one to a cushy job writing about ones opinions on society. The poor are seen and not heard and poor whites even more so because they get the ‘hey their white’ treatment from the left. If you’re a male on the left you get the ‘hey your male’ treatment where male problems are seen as unimportant unless they some how impact women.
The blogging hipsters on the left have devolved into bigoted lazy thinkers who know how to repeat what they heard but don’t understand the spirit or promise of the civil rights movement. Instead they feel these issues are just another means to berate political or ideological opponents. We need to resist stereotyping any ethic group or gender. The left needs to get it’s act together. The moral authority they casually toss around is a hard one inheritance, not a birth right.
Hi, Kurt!
You and I interpreted that phrase in completely different ways. I took it to mean that white people are just as oppressed by ideas of race as anyone else: “whiteness is oppression.” I assumed, hopefully correctly, that Mr. Locke meant that there is no supremacy in whiteness, but only oppression by the same racist system that created eugenics, slavery, the Trail of Tears, and internment camps. If whiteness is defined by being opposed to blackness, then both are equally troubling and/or equally triumphant.
@Kurt
He’s not talking about white-skinned people having a predisposition toward tyrannical behaviour. He’s talking about the social construct of whiteness playing a master narrative in our dialogue about culture.
I know this is old, but I was browsing and could not help but peek at the comments. I HIGHLY suggest reading Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh. It is enlightening. My knee-jerk reaction to dialogue about white privilege used to be very defensive. When I read Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack I got it almost instantly. There are inherent privileges that come with being a majority, and while it isn’t easy to accept, it is our civic duty to recognize when we hold a position of power and either use it to move forward or backward.
Here’s the essay:
http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/ele3600/mcintosh.html
I understand where you’re coming from, but the author wasn’t saying that white people = oppression, so much as the idea/concept of whiteness = oppression…more as a social construct. And that construct = oppression b/c it forces both those who considers themselves white, based on that imposed social construct, and “others” into particular roles or boxes that replicate themselves; as you cannot have one without the other. You can’t have a slave without a master or a host without a parasite. The construct becomes the relationship by which people define themselves, unable to exist therefore without keeping the counterpart in their role…and that becomes oppressive.
You’re missing the point. He doesn’t care to experience people in terms of race. You are not a white person, you’re a person to him. You and he viewing yourself in the context of race put limitations on the way you can see each other. Whiteness is oppression, blackness is perpetual victimhood. He’d prefer the blank slate. I don’t blame him. By the way, you actually proved his point.
Kurt -
You missed the point of the article. He’s saying that whiteness is not a biological concept but a social category in which we place ourselves. In other words, simply having pale skin is not sufficient to make an individual “white”; that person must affirm that they are a white person, including all of the historical and cultural baggage that comes with it. The construct of “the white man” (taken as a whole) is one that depends completely upon its context in history in order to determine who is included by it. For instance, for many years, it applied only to the WASPs for which New England is so well known, excluding Southern and Eastern Europeans as well as the Irish. Gradually, the category has expanded into the incredibly-amorphous “Caucasian” which signifies little about what unites those groups, but it is still assumed to be a coherent category, not to mention one that stretches back into the the entirety of history. In reality, whiteness is an extremely problematic category, upon which Other racial categories depend, and when we acknowledge that, it is a step to fracture the entirety of the racial system. I think if you reread the article, you will find that Dr. Locke is in fact extremely critical of the racial essentialism to which you ascribe him.
I don’t want black people to talk about race either. In fact I wished that everyone would shut the fuck up about it a long time ago. So its one thing we can agree on. Then lets dismantle affirmative action, diversity training and the rest of the left wing anti-racist institutions and we can call it a day. As for the whole whiteness==oppression….I thought you were going to stop talking about race!
Keep that promise.
assman, for real??? ill shit don’t go away by not talking about it. more importantly, taking some real action. might you consider taking any real action, friend?
Lo! I have found thee, ye ol internet troll!
Do not feed this ghastly being!
Flee! Flee!
I was offended somewhat by parts of Steve Lockes’ letter. Then I read the latest comments. And it started to sink in. I’ve known that I don’t know what it’s like to be hated for the color of my skin. I can never really understand how that wounds and shapes a person. I’ve always known that it is wrong. I read “Black like Me” in high school, Eye opening for a teenager. Found it in the library. It wasn’t a required book. Beat another kid to the library in grade school to get the only book on Martin Luther King for my book report. I’m a big fan. But I can only TRY to undertand, because I am white. My life experience in the U.S. is not the same as a black person’s experience. I’m sure of that.
And that’s what I understood from Steve’s letter and the comments. Talking about it won’t change it. It’s ugly and persistent. And it’s what I have come to understand myself. If we all continue to take an “us versus them” stance, whether with race, politics, or anything else other than football, we’ll never see that we are all in this together.
I like to think I avoid the whole ‘I’m white-you’re black” thing by the way I view myself and the world. To me, and it’s always been this way, we are all brothers and sisters. (I am a liberal Christian and yes, you can be one. Just let others live their life the way they see fit and leave it between them and God.) What’s funny is that the latest research leads us all back to some initial early people, right? I’m fuzzy on the specifics to repeat here, read it awhile back. When it came out, I laughed. I always knew we were brothers and sisters or related. But THAT is how one can avoid getting stuck in a role. Step out of it. The whole world is my family. They don’t know it. It’s not given back to me, necessarily. Not everyone i meet treats me like a family member. But that doesn’t change my view of you.
So much for short and sweet. Quick story: Went to California with my friend, Lisa, in 1990. Great trip, drove up and down the coast, Hwy 1, all that. Upon returning home, the pictures came back *before digital cameras* and I shared them with my family. One of the first things out of one of my family member’s mouths was, “You didn’t tell us she was black!”
“Oh, I forgot.”
This is the best article about race that isn’t about race I’ve seen in a long time. Beautiful post.
he wanted to locate a reason for thing in his own experience, probably so he would not have to have bad feelings about history, or have to acknowledge the privileges and benefits that he has received for nothing that he has have done.
what is this?
your a college professor?
Cher Cameron. It’s called a typographical error. Similar to when you write “your a college professor” when you clearly mean “you’re a college professor.”
Zing!
“As long as you think that you are white, there is no hope for you.”
Well, I only meet about 20 of the 134 criteria for being White on the Stuff White People Like List, so I’m obviously not white. Guess I’m good to go! No privilege, no guilt, just freedom!
I love this, this is a very universal concept. The privileged are oppressed by themselves and their own social construct. Correct me (writer) if you do not feel this way. But this is how I feel.
I am married to an indo Canadian, recently a now ex friend said “surrey is run by Hindus and that’s only one of the things wrong with it”. He didn’t see what was wrong with what he had said. In my mind he just made a slur towards my family my kids, and my wife. This is the type of person who in the next breath will say “racism doesn’t really exist anymore”. So I understand why one would not want to talk about racism because the whole premis around hate is closed minds. You can scream at a brick wall to move all you want, it’s not going anywhere. Great article thanks
This is the most beautiful, loving piece about race that I have ever read in my entire life.
A little history: White on black racism rose to prominence as a direct result of rich whites’ attempt to misdirect poor whites’ class angst. All whites against all blacks redraws the lines so that the rich folk didn’t have to address economic inequity. Completely stupid, and there it is.
A big part of the history of racism, in a nutshell. In the late nineteenth century in the South, the same policies that kept black people from voting took away the votes of some poor whites as well, and then told those poor whites that black people were the enemy. Divide and conquer, baby.
And this is the thing about racism that is so befuddling to me. The social construct of “whiteness” actually has people voting and acting against their own best interests. Our current economic system absolutely could not survive without racism and it’s hurting people of all races. But we were divided long ago, and the wealthy elites have been using this division to concur ever since. As long as we are divided along racial (and class, gender, etc) lines, the wealthy will absolutely keep the stronghold they have over this country, and world.
But how are the wealthy able to do this when they are so totally ignorant and blinded by their privilege? I’m very confused now. Are the elite evil geniuses, or are they ignorant morons?
If they’re ignorant morons, what does it say about the rest of us that we keep falling for their schemes?
@Steve: I am not quite sure what exactly is a mystery. It would to seem be clear, given the financial debacle of ’08, that the system is rigged to favor elites. It has always been thus. Read the Constitution; it is evident that the people who wrote it were concerned primarily with preventing the overthrow of the system or put another way, with maintaining privileges of their class. America is a class system, some are on the top and some are not. The L’Enfant founders put a system in place that would give preference and advantages to themselves first. The truth is, poorer, less connected white people, who can’t afford lobbyist and aren’t connected to power get used against others like minorities, in a battle for what is left over. And so it goes.
The writing of the Constitution wasn’t an egalitarian affair. It was written during recess by a few hands and minds.
Therefore, no matter how much some try to say the Constitution is a document of fairness,freedom and equality it isn’t true. Freedom and equality are in conflict.in American culture, always have been. They are conflicted in the Constitution The people who wrote it NEVER believed that you or me, a person color, were equal to them. So, are they morons, on some level, yes. Why? Because when you create a system that produces dynamics that are damaging to the culture, it’s pretty moronic. Are they evil? No, they are just unreflective, ego centric, humans, like us.
Believe me, I get the idea that an elite wrote the Constitution to favor their own interests. That actually seems pretty obvious to me. This narrow elite put quite a bit of thought into it and created a pretty sophisticated power tool with it.
Now, that suggests to me that this elite wasn’t really all that ignorant or stupid, despite the blinding power of their privilege. They really did understand something fundamental. They created a long-lived system that continues to find new ways to keep many of the same people on top. That seems quite prescient on their part. A work of genius, to some degree. Certainly a bit of genius when it comes to maximizing their own interests over the long-term.
My point is that white privilege must be founded on a whole lot more than illusions and ignorance. There must be some sort of intelligence at work. By intelligence I don’t mean goodness or fairness. That’s why I brought up the phrase “evil genius.” If the people in power are deluded by their own ignorance, one would think that would give a big advantage to the people who are NOT deluded. The truth is supposed to set people free. Why hasn’t it done so?
I guess the rub for me is where passive verbs tend to appear. For example, when you write about how the system “is rigged.” FOR whom is pretty clear. But BY whom? Someone must have done the rigging, and those people must have had a pretty clear idea how the system works, because they made a system that’s highly effective at it. Maybe we’re getting into something like an argument about “intelligent design” or something like that.
I guess I’m wondering how to reconcile two things that seem to be at odds with each other:
1. The multifaceted, incredibly durable way that whiteness has consistently given advantages to some people at the expense of others. It’s so powerful and so insidious that it’s invaded everything and disguised itself in a hundred ways. It’s even disguised oppression as freedom. It exhibits the greatest political, social, economic, and cultural manipulation the world has ever seen.
2. The people most responsible for maintaining it are blind and ignorant. They don’t even know that it exists, so they can’t really even defend it. The people most harmed by it are the ones who understand it best. Whatever the sophistication of its creators, its beneficiaries today have no idea how it works.
It’s like this incredibly powerful, complicated, tyrannical machine that’s supposed to have been invented by clueless idiots. Maybe white people way back when created this system by accident? That seems highly unlikely. Yet, apparently white people today benefit from it without being conscious of it. So, did white people understand the system at one point and then lose that understanding at some point?
Is white privilege created by intelligence or is it a product of ignorance? If it’s made white people so brainless, then it should be pretty easy to trick white people into giving up their privileges. Br’er Rabbit tricks stupid, privileged Br’er Fox every single time, because Fox is so arrogant in his own superiority, so why not on this issue as well?
If the answer is that some white people understand white privilege and others don’t, then that needs an explanation. What I’m hearing here is that there are two groups of white people: the elite who really do understand how to create privilege, and the majority of whites who don’t see their privileges. But then I hear that the poorer whites don’t really have the same privileges anyway?
@ Steve; OMG. You need to go out get drunk man, get laid or maybe both, This mental masturbation thing, this Looney intellectual circle jerk is a joke and maybe covering some latent aggressions. Get out of the house!? Damn!
I hope this will catch on. I doubt it, but here goes:
I suggest we do for race what we’re doing for gender. Racial categories have even less connection with objective reality than gender categories do. Gender can be linked partially to sexual characteristics, which has some biological existence, but “race” has no biological reality at all, so it should be even more fluid.
Let’s create cis- and trans- categories for race, and let’s fragment, challenge, and subvert the pre-existing categories just like we do for gender. I am now going to identify as “cis-white.” I haven’t decided what I will transition into. Perhaps I will be trans-African American and trans-latino at the same time. Or perhaps I will change it depending on the context. The U.S. Census lets me mark more than one for myself, and I can mark something different every ten years.
I don’t see why I should be stuck with my racial designation when people are not bound by their gender designation. Just because I was ‘raised white’ doesn’t mean that is my true nature. Perhaps I am an Asian woman trapped in the body of a white man. Maybe I’ve always known deep down that I was a person of color, and it’s horrible that my parents chose my race for me. I will embrace the rainbow by seeing myself as all the colors.
Besides, it should be much, much easier to change my race label than my gender label:
1. No change in which bathroom I use. (not anymore, anyway….)
2. No documentary proof required, e.g., no doctor’s note required.
3. No psychiatric evaluation needed.
4. My Equal Opportunity survey is supposed to be confidential, so no one would know.
If we have the freedom to self-identify, and you have to take my word for what race I am, then I’ve decided to shop around.
I brought up this theory of mine to some of my social work classmates. I felt that if gender was considered a social construct, and that’s why it was easy to accept the notion of transgendered, and that if race was also considered a social construct, then the same should be able to be applied to it.
The best example I gave for the existence of this concept was Grey Owl. Grey Owl was a British man who took on an Aboriginal identity in his adult life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Owl
Thanks for the reference. A fascinating case.
From what I understand, many Native American groups traditionally had a somewhat open membership policy. You did not have to be born into a group to be a member of the group. Many had forms of adoption for both children and adults. Some of the most powerful native groups were made up of lots of people with mixed ancestry – the Seminoles took in escaped African slaves, Anglo criminals, you name it. They didn’t seem to care very much about what your heritage was.
It’s really not until the U.S. and Canadian governments got involved that the concept of a racial “tribe” became the norm, and you have to have a particular ancestry to become a member. “Native American” didn’t really become a “race” until European Americans got involved.
It’s odd to me that anyone would say he “doesn’t count” or was “putting on an act” or was “not a real Indian.” That’s not necessarily how the Ojibwe would have seen it.
And, I keep thinking as a practical matter what difference it makes if the person’s self-identity seems “false.” If someone claims to be of a particular race and I disagree, what can I really do about? I don’t think I should be allowed to do anything about it, really. If there are supposed to be consequences for “lying about your race,” then who decides, what’s the burden of proof, and what’s the standard of proof?
(In the case of federally recognized Native tribes, there are actual bureaucratic rules governing who counts and who doesn’t. In some cases, no matter what your heritage, you could actually be voted out of the group. You could be a “full-blooded” Cherokee and be kicked out of the Cherokee. So, what’s your race in that case? Native American but unaffiliated?)
Uh, just putting this out there. While I agree with the sentiment of the article, there are some things that we will want to differentiate on, literally for someone’s safety. Different types of races and their respective populations are at significantly different risks for certain types of cancers, and medical practitioners will look at this and based on probability will have a much better shot at specifically identifying an ambiguous case of cancer. While i’m good for dismantling social constructs, yeah, totally, there are physical realities. I think the difference here is that I feel they don’t matter, at all (generally, with the exception of cases like the above. I wouldn’t mind being looked at on a race basis if, gee, well, they could find my cancer more effectively and make sure I didn’t die in the event that I had it.), or at least they shouldn’t in a “fair” society, which is something we’re all aiming for.
Ah, but such medical ‘studies’ are rooted in fallacies, so your medical treatment would not be improved, it would miss critical issues. For example, if you had a doctor who believed only African Americans were at risk for sickle cell anemia, and you were Greek and had i,t because a high percentage of Greeks do historically, then your doctor would miss that diagnosis and you might die. Sickle cell anemia has nothing to do with being African American and everything to do with the geographical area from which your ancestors hailed. If there was a prevalence of malaria in that region, you have a decent chance of inheriting the gene.
I understand completely where he is coming from. He is talking about whiteness as a concept not as a color.
I loathe having to explain said distinctions to people who have not deemed my experiences and therefore beliefs and values as important to the overall dialogue; whatever that happens to be at the time. For instance, there was a spirited debate about body issues for women. When I brought up the fact that for men of color, larger women were more likely to be seen as attractive. The nice woman I wrote the comment to had not even considered that she had bought into a concept of beauty that wasn’t universal in America.
More importantly, as a result, she never thought to herself that a reasonable alternative to the old broken body image values system was available. She had not even considered that she was excluding the opinions and feelings of an entire group of people. Feeling and values and possibly relationships that would hold her and how other women look in high esteem. Not only did she not recognize this but no one else on the thread did either. I didn’t pursue any further discourse on the subject because it is TOO burdensome and draining.You can lead a Camel to water, but it WILL spit in your eye if you try to make it f drink.
I love this article. Lots to think about and digest. One thing I don’t completely understand: “As James Baldwin said, ‘As long as you think that you are white, there is no hope for you.’”
Part of what I’ve learned from reading and talking a lot about race is that it’s important for white people to learn that they are white and not just some default non-race in this country, and that that is a part of accepting that they are privileged as white people in this country. I’m not sure if Mr. Baldwin’s quote contradicts this or how it fits in exactly.
For me, the piece was more about friendship than race.
Notice of typographical error.
“I told him that like most ostensibly white people his age, he wanted to locate a reason for thing in his own experience, probably so he would not have to have bad feelings about history, or have to acknowledge the privileges and benefits that he has received for nothing that he has have done.”
“Has have done”
A thought provoking read that had me reflecting on my own existence and behaviours. I realised that I rarely think of myself in terms of physicality (that includes skin colour). I cannot remember a time in recent history that I though “I am a white woman”. I tend to think of myself in terms of “I am creative. I am striving to be a more rounded person. I am fortunate”.
So what does this say about me?
Thanks to your letter I shall explore that question a bit more and maybe find some insight into myself and possibly even a deeper level of connection to my fellow men.
You don’t think of yourself as white because this is the privilege white conveys. Those of us who are not, must constantly remember we are not in order to walk the halls and streets.
So, that means that there is no way to disprove white privilege. It exists everywhere, and a lack of empirical evidence becomes proof of its existence. That’s a very airtight way of seeing things, but that’s kind of hard to support as an objective explanation.
Is it possible, just possible, that I fail to detect a bit of white privilege because that little bit does not exist? Not just because I’ve been blinded by the privilege?
It’s like the old idea that “the greatest trick the Devil ever played was convincing people he didn’t exist.” That’s not proof that the Devil exists. I believe that’s called “begging the question.”
The more I hear about white privilege, the more I’m amazed that white people ever got so much power. The more I hear about white privilege, the more I hear how totally deluded, ignorant, and stupid white people are, and how wise, grounded,and informed people of color are. It’s like people of color understand reality and the real world and the way that society really works, and white people have no idea what the real world is like. How did these Clueless Caspers ever maintain their power when they have no idea how anything works? Seems like they’d be really easy to fool.
@wellokthen: What surprises me is that anyone thought that America cold degrade a people for hundreds of years, then degrade them some more, “free” them, but give no rights for an additional hundred years; create laws to dehumanize them -Jim Crow, the ultimate expression of white privilege and allow them to be hunted, burned and lynched by a terrorist organization, would expect said people to be normal. How fucking stupid is that!? You may not think that viciously and legally denying opportunities to one group, and giving them to another doesn’t create privilege for the latter. You may not think that straight people, because they can legally get married anywhere and gay people can’t doesn’t constitute privilege for straight people. This is why I don’t discuss race with MOST white people either; They are too ill informed.
“What surprises me is that anyone thought that America cold degrade a people for hundreds of years, then degrade them some more, “free” them, but give no rights for an additional hundred years; create laws to dehumanize them -Jim Crow, the ultimate expression of white privilege and allow them to be hunted, burned and lynched by a terrorist organization, would expect said people to be normal. How fucking stupid is that!?”
Very true. I agree. The more we look at the history of racism, the stupider it looks.
Let me be clearer, then. I am quite familiar with the horrible things done in the name of white supremacy. I assume there are others that I am ignorant about. Let me stipulate for the sake of discussion that there were even more and even worse atrocities committed against African Americans than the ones I know about. I agree with you. I don’t believe the real difference between your perspective and mine is a case of my ignorance of the past.
So, we are actually in agreement that white people have done some incredibly illogical, stupid things and that white people are often in total ignorance of reality.
My question was not challenging how bad racism is and has been. I was asking a question about the mechanics of white privilege. I was asking about how such blind people could ever stay in power so long. Let me rephrase it.
How can people who are totally divorced from reality, totally ignorant, completely stupid, and blinded by their own fantasies (white people) hold in submission people who are wise, informed, realistic, and strengthened by their experiences (black people)? It feels depressing to discover that knowledge is not power after all. In fact, white privilege theory almost seems to suggest that ignorance is power. The stupider the understanding about racism, the more privilege the person maintains, while the most underprivileged understand the most. The depressing, discouraging part of this is that understanding the history of racism has apparently not made much difference to those who are the primary victims of it. At least the way that I understand white privilege theorists explain it.
I freely admit there’s something I’m just not getting here. There’s a step in the explanation that I’m missing. The more clueless white people seem to be, the harder it is to explain how they’ve been able to stay in power so long. Seems like the smarter people, the people of color, should have been able to take over by this point.
I’m not looking to throw out the concept of white privilege. I don’t consider it a useless or false way to look at things. I don’t consider this an all-or-nothing question. But, there are some problems with the theory that need to be addressed which could make it a better, more sustainable theory.
How the hell did brainless, crazy maniacs totally blinded by their own idiotic fantasies manage to seize power and maintain it over so many smarter, saner people?
@wellokthen: Good god, really. I gotta tell you talking to you is like trying to drag a Tasmanian devil up hill made of quicksand. This is exactly what the author was talking about. This level of ignorance is frustrating. You are stuck in a black white narrative that is sham, a farce, a deception.
Let’s see, when the elites seized power, Native Americans resisted and were killed, hacked to pieces, burned, shot, scalped, raped, humiliated, had their land-America- stolen…and oh yeah THEY were called savages. And millions of dumbass (too many) white people across this country, most of which and encountered a Native American in their wretched little lives, believed that lie.
Now we’re getting somewhere. So, stupid, ignorant white people maintained power through force. Their use of force, fear, and coercion was enough to offset the weaknesses caused by their own ignorance. Ignorant people can be far more powerful than wise people. That I can understand.
So, understanding the truth about race is no real guarantee of equality. What people of color need to do is to seize more real power, not just try to educate white people about the reality of white ignorance.
@wellokthen Who said that knowing the truth about race was a magic bullet? Steve’s point, I believe, was that he didn’t want to waste time educating some white people because they don’t give a fu5k I think trying to convince arrogant, ignorant people of anything is a waste of time. Which is obvious and ok.
I think I see what you’re saying. Here’s how I see the white privilege logic playing out:
Assumptions:
People of all races are equally capable.
There is nothing that a white person can do that a black person can’t.
Black people are better at some things than white people are.
Black people understand racism better than white people do.
Conclusion: Logically black people are somewhat superior to white people, at least in terms of knowledge of the world. Or, the two at least equal in their capabilities, except that white privilege makes white people more ignorant than black people.
That does raise the question of how inferior people have managed to stay in power over superior people for so damn long. Assuming that the superior but subordinate people don’t want to be subordinate any more. What is it that keeps stupid people ruling over smart people for so long?
How did superior people wind up being subordinate?
I just want to say the article contains a great many texts that explain and explore the reasoning I have set forth. I would ask those curious or dismissive of my reasoning to at least read some of the books or investigate some of these thinkers. This demand for explanation is odd considering that thinkers much wiser than I have addressed this subject. As I said, a list of them is above. I don’t think it is incumbent on me, or on people of color, to explain this to people. That work has been done. It’s a choice not to access it. If you truly want to understand “how inferior people have managed to stay in power over superior people for so damn long” (not my terminology for certain), I really urge you to do some reading and stop demanding an explanation.
I see what I think are some flaws in the logic and argumentation of a particular article. The response is to give me a list of books of people with excellent academic pedigrees?
I believe that’s called an “appeal to authority,” which is a kind of logical fallacy. (There seems to be an assumption that if I read these works then I would agree with them. I’m actually familiar with most of them, and I see a lot of validity in their interpretations. That doesn’t mean I’ve turned off my critical thinking skills.) Maybe it’s ignorant of me to use the phrase “appeal to authority” because it’s a phrase created by a white man.
Then again, I was warned about this, so I should have known better. A month ago I attended a White Privilege Conference. One of the presenters explained to us that one key characteristic of whiteness is that members of the more privileged group have a tendency to overthink things. They are overly reliant on rationality, logic, objectivity, evidence, and academic forms of intelligence. She contrasted this with the “ways of knowing” of indigenous people and people of color, which are more holistic, more connected to emotions, gut instinct, and other things besides rationality.
My immediate reaction to this was that this is an incredibly patronizing way to look at people of color. But hey, what do I know, because I’ve been blinded by my white privilege. Maybe I should take her warning at face value. Perhaps my whiteness has made me too rational to have a discussion about race?
If so, I apologize. I’ve made this mistake plenty of times on this site. I go in thinking there’s a rational discussion getting started, so I try to engage in rational debate, only to discover I’ve completely misread the nature of the discussion.
@Steve
The point is the same. I think it is fine if you don’t believe me. I am not trying to insult your intelligence or claim ignorance on your behalf. I’m also not saying that reading those texts will make you agree or disagree, nor am I asking you to turn off your critical faculties. I am saying that this discussion, where white people ask black people to explain race, racism, whiteness, and yes, privilege, is one that I and a lot of black people aren’t interested in having anymore. And you still demand to have these positions explained for you.
And I think an “appeal to authority” is appropriate when someone knows more than I do. I never claimed to be an authority which is why I provided a list of people, much smarter than I am, for people to address. The call in my letter wasn’t for a discussion. It was for people to avail themselves of all of the tools of thought and discourse around race for themselves and stop asking black people to explain this for them.
Since I wrote this article, I get mail from people demanding that I clarify, explain, or define things for them. I find it fascinating and saddening.
All Steve, talked about was “race”.
Interesting perspective – food for thought.
Great article…although many may not agree with his perspective or explanation as to why he did/does not want to talk about race, just look back at the Presidential election, and the last 4 years of President Obama’s Presidency, and then you will (maybe) understand why Steve did not want to talk about race. As much as people may want to deny that there aren’t any issues or privileges, just remember how many times President Obama’s citizenship, education, and religious beliefs (just to name a few) were challenged – not based on fact, but purely rooted in his ethnicity. He was asked, and in some cases, demanded to prove things about himself that his predecessors were not.
@Steve: OMG; You need to get laid get drunk or maybe both. This mental masturbation, this intellectual circle jerk you are engaged in is a joke and is maybe covering up some latent aggressions. Get out of the house man! Damn!