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
Not sure where this leaves affirmative action.
Once met a green-eyed redhead in a Michigan restaurant, in an upscale town. Conversation got to college. Seems her tuition and books–possibly residence costs but not sure–were on the state on account of she’s one quarter Indian. This is pretty fluid race stuff, but it does seem to gravitate toward the boodle.
And I note he cited Ward Churchill.
I am assuming that the problem was that this person did not look one quarter Indian enough for you to decide that they deserved any benefits?
Amazing.
Nobody should get automatic benefits because of their heritage. This is my stated opinion. And Steve Locke, since I see you’ve been responding to comments, even though you specifically have stated time and time again in your e-mail that you refuse to speak of the subject of race, I have a question of my own–actually, I have a lot of questions, but I’ll just stick to the one that concerns me most. You said,
“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.”
What exactly are you trying to get at?
“Nobody should get automatic benefits because of their heritage.” –I’m angered when I read this, because it points to a very big blind spot that has existed for generations.
As a White person of European descent, I get all sorts of “automatic benefits” because of my heritage–a heritage that is overlooked because I’m White.
(CAUTION: What follows will likely make White people who haven’t considered their own unearned privilege uncomfortable. But discomfort is a sign of where personal growth can occur.)
I get to drive while White, even in neighborhoods where there are few White people, and not be pulled over by the cops for doing. I get to take out a loan with fewer questions asked and even with iffy credit because of my heritage. I got to go to a certain private college without having to jump through certain hoops because of my heritage–which includes an alum from that college who got to attend because of *his* heritage.
If I and an African American woman my age participated in the same act of civil disobedience and we were arrested, I’d likely be treated (and sentenced?) in a far different manner from how my social-justice seeking peer would be.
And when I and an African American friend both talked about racism and how it appears in the world, the White people challenged my friend’s observations but readily accepted mine–because I receive that automatic benefit as a result of my heritage **when I talk with members of the dominant group in power,** which of course are White people.
So I wonder if what you really are thinking is, “Nobody who looks different from White people should get automatic benefits that I’m not even aware of receiving…”
One thing I’ve noticed since I started exploring my own unearned privilege is that privilege begets privilege–and the last thing that a person of privilege wants to do is acknowledge being a recipient of unearned privilege.
Membership in a native American tribe is a little different than other “racial” categories because there are actual bureaucratic, formal legal institutions involved. For many federally recognized tribes, you can actually be literally a card-carrying member of the tribe. In some cases, the tribe can actually vote you OUT of the membership, which puts an interesting spin on race. Different tribes have different requirements – for some you just need to have one grandparent who was a member, for some just one great grandparent. There’s a private school in Hawaii where you must be at least 35% native Hawaiian to be able to enroll. (Not sure how that works….)
Technically, the state may just be carrying out a legal agreement with the tribe like the state does with all sorts of institutions – corporations, non-profit groups, donors, etc. “Native American” is a racial category but is also an actual legal category in some ways.
I agree with Steve Locke.
It is White people’s responsibility to talk about race. I have found that empirical research helps to convince my grad students that racism still exists, so I wld add
Jack Dovidio’s research on Aversive Racism to Dr. Locke’s list of references.
Another good book is Beverly Daniel Tatum’s “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the Cafeteria?”
Steve Locke
In my view, bennies ought to be reserved for the needy. She was born in an upscale ‘burb, went to HS in an upscale ‘burb, and had no discernible financial disabilities due to being one quarter Indian.
IOW, her one-quarter was trotted out at need, when there was money to be had. The rest of the time, it was irrelevant to her life.
Now, if she had exhibited a full NA phenotype and had the same financial backgroud, my objection would be the same.
You should stop basing things on race. That’s so nineteenth century.
Richard Aubrey,
You want people to end affirmative action, that is clear. You think that people use their race to get things they obviously (to you) don’t deserve. That’s clear, too. What’s not clear is why the privileges of people designated as white don’t bother you.
You choose not to understand my thesis that whiteness isn’t something people ARE, it’s something people choose to DO.
Talk about how no one deserves special treatment, or “bennies” or assistance all you want. But you never talk about the benefits white people get, do you? The minute something comes along that would stop white people from the benefits they assume every day then it’s a problem. I’m sure it is really hard for you who have to work SO hard to see all these black and brown people getting things they clearly don’t deserve. That canard has been used to pit poor whites against black people since before the Civil War.
Maybe you could ask yourself why you are so invested in being white? Can I be an American, a worker, a friend, a lover, a golfer, a Rotarian, a vegetarian? If you stopped being so defensive and combative, maybe you would see that what I want is freedom for all people from white supremacy just like I want freedom from sexism for women and men.
I’m not basing things on race. I was trying to have a conversation about why things are the way they are. That’s clearly not a conversation you want to have. If you want to ridicule what I’ve wrote go right ahead. I know snarky repartee is becoming the language of the internet.
I get the sense that you and Richard Aubrey are actually more in agreement than you might think. Maybe he wouldn’t call it “white privilege,” but I got the sense he was saying it seems unfair that the person he met gets to double-dip. She gets racist benefits from her appearance plus some benefits for her specific family tree.
Another way to think about it: one could say what this student was doing is itself a form of white supremacy. Here’s a white person benefiting not only from white privilege but now taking a little bit from the nonwhite population as well. I might even call it theft, if I believed these categories are really sustainable enough to assign property rights to them.
I think a lot of people would agree that there are ways that white people (and not only white people) can find ways to benefit from racism AND movements to fight racism at the same time.
[For the sake of readability, I don’t put “white” and “nonwhite” in quotes every time even though they should be. It would be even harder to read if I added the disclaimer that goes with each one, like “white (whatever the hell that really means)” ]
I feel I should speak about this redheaded woman who Richard Aubrey feels abused the system. (She may or may not have done so…I do not know how her story.) But I do know this – I’m a redhead with a grandfather who is Native American and if I could have taken federal money to go to college, I would have done so in a heartbeat. My grandfather’s mother had to burn all their papers though so he could go to school because where they lived in Oklahoma, “Indians” were not allowed in.
He lived an interesting life. The ‘Grapes of Wrath’ book could have been written about him – 10 siblings, all piling into one pickup truck to run to California in the aftermath of the Dust Bowl. They even ended up in Weedpatch, like they do in Steinbeck’s novel. He was dirt poor, was in the Air Force, and worked through college to eventually become a math teacher. Had our government been offering aid (maybe they did? and he just didn’t know?) to people like him to go to college, he *deserved* it, in the way that Mr. Aubrey perhaps might think needy, hard-working people deserve things. And he also happened to be a Native American.
I did not have such an epic story. But I happened to live in a time where descendants of people with epic stories maybe get to go to school for free. Mr Aubrey probably thinks I wouldn’t deserve that ability, and it would relieve him to know that due to my grandfather’s papers being cinders, I did not get to have that opportunity. Instead, I took out loans, got a bachelor’s and master’s, and now I’m declaring bankruptcy because I was ‘privileged’ enough to put my entire future in hock under the silly belief that what all the adults said at the time was true – work hard, go to a good school, get a good job. I’ve been unemployed since I graduated 2 years ago.
Why do I say all this? I’m sorry that it doesn’t directly relate to the nice article/letter by Mr. Locke. However, I felt compelled to comment on what Mr Aubrey was saying. And if given the chance, I would do what that redheaded girl did, too. Maybe that makes me an oppressor. All I know is I spent a ton of money on something that ended up being useless, and (yes) selfishly, I wish that if I HAD to make the colossal mistake of going to college, it would make my situation a million times better if I wasn’t thousands and thousands of dollars in debt. If the economic breakdown has taught me anything, it’s that hard work means nothing, who you know means everything, and the class war will continue on and on – with the rich winning every time.
Steve,
There are considerable problems with your arguments.
First and foremost, there is legitimate academic disagreement about the nature of white privilege. There is a huge gulf between “white privilege exists” and “white privilege is responsible for the majority of observable discrepancies in people’s experiences.”
Generally, people in the “we need to fight white privilege” camp can easily demonstrate the first, but then do not bother to prove the second. This is the point made by academics like Shelby Steele. This is then covered up with the all-too-obvious smoke screen of “White people are unwilling to talk about themselves.”
But this criticism could easily be applied to any group. What happened when Bill Cosby suggested that absentee fathers were a problem that the black community had to talk about within itself? When Barack Obama made similar comments, did Jesse Jackson hope to spark a meaningful debate with the “I want to cut his nuts off” comment, or was it more of the “I don’t want to talk about my own group,” mentality?
Conversations about race have to involve ALL groups being willing to take at least partial ownership for their own problems; it is unhelpful to suggest that whites alone are unwilling to do this.
Because they created and earned those privileges: wealth, industry, science, etc…
You ask for an artificial restructuring.
If it’s white people’s responsibility to talk about race, what parts of it are off limits? Channing Newsom? Flash mobs? Disparate interracial crime stats?
I figured as much.
Why would any of those things be off limits? The idea that there are concepts that are inherently off-limits has hindered any productive national dialogue on race for decades.
What is objectionable about those subjects is when they get used to confirm so-called racial phenomena that have no necessary relationship with race. No, they result from a host of other factors that culminate in cumulative white privilege.
Oftentimes, the discouragement to speak gets overgeneralized, either by people who don’t want to have the discussion, or people who tire of hearing concepts being mangled into either racist (race is the only thing that matters) or race-blind (it’s a non-issue because I choose not to see race) issues. Fatigue then sets in, as Steve and others like him feel like they either must rehash the same basic arguments on race over and over again (it doesn’t exist, it’s a social construction, but it has real effects on how people conceive of privilege) without any progress at all, or they must shut up, not talk about it, and continue with the silent charade that is our public discourse on race relations. However, by reading the books that Steve has posted (some of which I myself still need to read), you and I can gain sufficient understanding to approach and talk about race too.
Finally, to give myself some identity (though I’m reluctant to do so), I’m seen as white. I sometimes without thought assume a white identity, with white privileges. I’m not going to get everything right when I talk about race. However, by starting to talk and listen, if I set aside my own ego, I have a lot to learn and offer.
Steve Locke.
You can be anything you want. Not my problem.
The issue with the Celtic-looking one-quarter Indian and the bennies is as follows: The dem party platform to the contrary, there is no free money. Money is extorted from people at the point of a gun–try telling the IRS to piss off–and given to others. Each category is decided by government at the behest of the groups carrying the most clout. Some of that clout is mojo earned in the we’re-the-most-victimized stakes.
In other words, some people, lacking clout, are made to become needier so that other groups with more clout can become less needy. The TANSTAAFL issue being laid on the table, most of the folks who are ponying up the boodle would prefer to have it go on the basis of need, if it has to go at all. The victimology handicap is not what they’d like. The young woman had a good life situation because her parents got into one. Had no discernible financial issues due to being one-quarter related to the race that killed off Kenewick Man and his tribe. Yet she gets money.
Affirmative Action, by definition, gives benefits (promotion, college admits, jobs) to people who are not qualified, solely on account of race. There being limited slots, those who would and did qualify do not get slots they should have gotten save for being white or Asian. Therefore, white people have things taken from them. This is no myth. Your ability to justify it, once you’ve been forced to admit it, is waning. Fortunately.
My privilege of being white is what it is–not what you think–and does not have any connection to the foregoing.
White supremacy, huh? Wow.
Anonymous. The young woman in question did not get any racist benefits based on her appearance unless you think young men’s attraction to her appearance is racist, which i suppose you may.
The problem with Steve Locke’s position is that he doesn’t think most whites have any lived experience, or none that he is likely to credit, and have to take his word for things. Boy, that’s a fail. Major fail.
I spent the summers of 67 and 68 in MS doing the civil rights thing when people who currently think of themselves as very fine folk were pissing their pants at the thought of going south of Cincinnati. Yeah, learn to chord “We Shall Overcome” on a cheap fourstring and you go to the head of the class. Not impressed, folks. Not impressed.
As Thomas Sowell said, cultures vary and differences have consequences. See Ogbu in Shaker Heights. See John McWhorter.
As I have told you before, your personal experience of doing the “civil rights thing” is evidence of your investment in your own superiority. For some people, the “civil rights thing” is their lives. I never said that class was not an issue in this country and need based aid is necessary.
I know that people who are designated as white have disavowed their privilege, some of them at the expense of our lives. Goodman and Scherner, John Brown, William Kunstler, the list goes on. They are honored on the Civil Rights Memorial in Alabama. I’m hardly ignorant that there are a lot of people, then and now, who have refused the yoke of white supremacy.
Affirmative action means that when two people are qualified for a job, the candidate who is not of the majority gets the position. I know you have a different opinion. I won’t address your assumption that non-white people are qualified for their jobs.
I won’t continue this with you. We can simply disagree. I’m not your problem as you told me. So you can stop commenting on something that you acknowledge doesn’t concern you.
Affirmative action is when a candidate without privileged status (white, male, Christian, …) who has faced present day discrimination and the effects of historic oppression and discrimination, still is assessed as equal to a candidate from a privileged group. Given the layers of bias that have been socialized into us so deeply that many – most – white people don’t even acknowledge it, I would conclude that if the candidate without privileged status looks equal, they are likely far superior. Its like overrating your own kids performance on the ball field. When one can say the “other” is equal, it generally indicates they are more than equal.
Oh yeah, I’m white, male and Christian.
I just read the comments and couldn’t keep myself from repeating “no wonder Steve Locke doesn’t want to talk about race with white people.” It has to be wearying in advance to have to address such hostility over and over. Steve, I suppose Tom asked if he could post your private reply to him. Why ever did you say yes? You must still hold some wisp of hope for conversations like these? I’m sorry those were dashed again.
Steve Locke
You got affirmative action wrong. It means when a minority is not qualified, or almost qualified, he gets a boost past a white or Asian who is qualified.
If they were both qualified, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. No wonder you don’t want to talk about such things. People know stuff you didn’t tell them. Wearying.
I might have given my life in MS. Took the chance, lucked out. As G,S,&C did not. So being lucky is a bad thing now.
You know, discussing things with you is tiring. Really tiring.
As to flash mobs, for example, or the disparate rates of interracial crime: You can discuss them to reinforce stereotypes. You can discuss them to think about causes. Problem is, causes are rooted in liberal politics and disfunctional cultures. Shelby Steele said that white guilt had done something slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation were unable to do; destroy the black family. Who wants to hear that the technique of buying votes with taxpayer money has a bad effect on the black community? And who can stand the PC onslaught when he talks about disfunctional cultures? See the crap Bill Cosby got. That was a lesson to anybody else trying the same thing. I have some black friends who are Pentecostals. Nevertheless, they sent their kids to Catholic schools through high school specifically to avoid the disfunctional aspects of black culture exhibited in the local high school. It would be one thing for a Catholic family to send their kids to Catholic school. For Pentacostals…. Maybe we could have Steve tell them they’re being racist.
And, when talking about flash mobs or the disparate rates of interracial violence, you can–but you’d best not–talk about the effects on the victims, or anybody who knows about it.
Years ago, I was dealing with a guy who was obnoxiously racist. I called him on it and he said his father had been murdered by two black guys and he was going to say what he thought. I figured there might be something to “walk a mile in the other guy’s shoes” and stopped bothering him.
You definitely got affirmative action wrong, but I agree it’s not Steve’s responsibility to disabuse you of your misapprehensions.
Richard, your definition of affirmative action is incorrect. In all the hysteria over the “reverse racism” that AA engenders, it’s been forgotten that for many Black people, qualifications have actually been irrelevant – that is, how prepared/educated you were meant NOTHING. The fact that you were Black meant you wouldn’t even get in the door. AA was to ensure that color did NOT sift out people who were qualified, while unfairly giving advantage to people who may or not have been qualified – solely because those persons were White. If White people hadn’t decided that whiteness provided an automatic “boost” when it came to employment – well, no, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?
As for the “obnoxious racist” whom you decided to cut a break because his father had been murdered by Black men – it’s nice to know that you’re so understanding. Because there are a few thousand Black people out there (who can tell even creepier stories of family murders, drownings, lynchings, torchings, or what have you) in whose shoes you might wish to walk a few miles. But of course they don’t get cut a break—they just get labeled Angry Black People.
As a self-realized white man with my eyes fairly open, I share the author’s view that Caucasian folks enjoy a preferred status in American society. What convinced me more than reading books or studying history is the profoundly persuasive article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Backpack” (http://www.uakron.edu/centers/conflict/docs/whitepriv.pdf). Where I depart from the author’s perspective is that all Caucasion people should be indicted or made to feel guilty based on this social structure. There are all kinds of preference-based social structures — religious, social, stylistic, professional, educational, age-related, gender-related, sexual orientation-related, etc. It’s up to us to manage those obstacles and challenges, as many minority groups have successfully done. My encouragement is to recognize these systems, and leverage what you have and who you are to work them. Simply stating they exist, or even just knowing they exist, won’t get you much except an occasional platform here or in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. Opportunity is earned, not gifted — even if otherwise inherently deserved.
That link is fantastic. Thank you for sharing it. I hope the editors at GMP consider publishing something similar.
“Where I depart from the author’s perspective is that all Caucasion people should be indicted or made to feel guilty based on this social structure. ”
Uh, what? Show me where Steve Locke said that. Unless you were talking about the Invisible Napsack essay’s author, in which case… well, I don’t remember anything like that in there, either.
“My encouragement is to recognize these systems, and leverage what you have and who you are to work them. Simply stating they exist, or even just knowing they exist, won’t get you much except an occasional platform here or in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. Opportunity is earned, not gifted — even if otherwise inherently deserved.”
I’m a little confused here, but if you were talking to Mr. Locke in that bit, it reads like condescending white-splaining in the first degree.
Victor. You might want to talk to the Supreme Court about affirmative action. They said it was necessary in order to provide a critical mass of minorities, as long as the minorities didn’t actually need extra melanin points and could get in by themselves. See Asians. Reports in CA are that there is a gentlemen’s agreement about too many Asians. Yes, I refer to the old movie.
Victor, you know better. U-Mich once gave fifteen points out of fifty-some for simply being black. They got caught at it and started more subtle methods of cooking the books. They did it so that black kids who didn’t qualify by the published standards would have enough points to look as if they actually qualified.
Thing is, Steve and Victor. People actually know better. It’s believing your or our lying eyes. What do you think most folks will do?
Given comments like Aubrey’s, it seems fairly clear to me why Steve Locke doesn’t want to talk about race. And who can blame him? Aubrey reminds me of many of my undergraduate students, and I’m talking mainly about the 2/3 of them who consider themselves white (almost all of whom are working-class, as are almost all my students in general, and almost all of them would call themselves conservative or Republican). They all assume they know everything there is to know about affirmative action (it’s bad because it’s reverse racism); they all assume they know everything about welfare and all those cheaters who are taking money out of the pockets of honest working people (they’re always surprised to learn that 2/3 of people on welfare are white and that most people who receive welfare also work and, thus, also pay taxes); they all assume those nasty democrats have ruined the economy with too many taxes (and don’t see how cutting tax revenues is connected to the failure of public schools – because, hey, anyone who is serious about learning, will learn, right?). But that’s what we’re dealing with here: people who insist upon living a fact-free existence. Maybe they’ll educate themselves; maybe they won’t. I’d be perfectly willing to have a conversation with my students about affirmative action (just to use that as an example), but when we must start with the premise – the same tired falsehood that Aubrey trots out – that a.a. means giving the less-qualified non-white person the job over the more qualified white person, I refuse because they’re simply too ignorant to have the conversation. Not even ignorant: willfully, deliberately misinformed and unwilling to entertain a different idea. They live in a fact-free universe. I worry that my refusal to discuss certain issues with them is a symptom of a future in which the so-called “culture wars” can only become more divisive and more violent, but the fact is that the right wing of the political spectrum has succeeded in removing facts and reality from many of the discussions that it would be useful for us, as citizens, to have. In a country in which less than 45% of families consist of a man and woman, married to each other and raising children, conservatives still succeed in selling the “destruction of the family” as a reason to oppose gay marriage. That’s life in a fact-free universe. In an economy in which the business people and homeowners most negatively affected are disproportionately black and Latino, but in which the number of black and Latino college graduates is dwindling, we still hear the fevered insistence that white people are being shafted by give-away programs for people of color and that white folks can’t get to good colleges because minorities have taken all the scholarships. That’s life in a fact-free universe. So I’m with Steve, and I’m taking heart from his refusal. I don’t want to play either.
Wendell,
Respectfully, there are several problems with your comment.
First, you conflate (purposefully?) disagreement with affirmative action and being a Republican, and with belonging to extremist subset of the Republican party at that. It is perfectly possible to disagree with affirmative action and simultaneously support gay marriage (indeed, according to most polls, at least 10% of registered Republicans support gay marriage, so it is also possible to be a Republican and support gay marriage).
Second, you argue that your opponents are “ignorant” and living in a “fact free universe” and yet I can say with certainty that in my undergraduate experience the “fact free universe” was in vogue on both sides of the political spectrum. According to victim data surveys (i.e. those that control for police bias) non-whites make up a disproportionate number of both crime victims and perpetrators. This fact is virtually never admitted by leftist academics describing race relations: how can any honest discussion of race take place when the link between race and crime is denied from the get-go?
Finally, while many whites are unwilling to discuss white privilege, there is a complimentary refusal among many members of the black community to discuss race-specific issues openly. As I posted above, we all remember the reaction to Bill Cosby suggesting that maybe black fathers should take ownership of their own abscence. We all remember Jesse Jackson’s reaction when Barack Obama made the same suggestion just a few years later.
In-group blindness works both ways. Whites may be unwilling to take ownership of the problems associated with white privilege, but many blacks are no more willing to take ownership of their own problems. Conservatives may choose their facts selectively, but no more so than liberals.
Assuming your race-based crime “statistics” are even true (I’d appreciate it if you’d cite a source), your use of them is AT BEST misleading, and at worst outright deception — because correlation does not imply causation. If a person checks out some stats where some groups are over-represented, then immediately assumes that means those groups are simply more violent/prone to criminal behavior, that person was probably already assuming that, or at least leaning in that direction.
And comparing black people taking issue with things Cosby and President Obama said, to whites being unwilling to discuss white privilege, really seems like deflecting to me. You don’t want to talk about white privilege, so you bring up some things that some black people have objected to and act like A) this MUST be comparable to white privilege and B) that’s what we should talk about *instead* of white privilege. Seems a pretty obvious (and quite dishonest) strategy there.
If this was FB, it would be liked. If this was HP, this message would be F & F. So, I’ll just say 20 thumbs up!
Wendell
Your talking points are too extensive to rebut completely. For a couple of items: Ed spending is up substantially, which pretty much parallells the drop in results. Everybody knows this. Even you.
Let’s see… Welfare cheating. I recently moved from a decaying manufacturing town. Last time I checked, food stamps were going at seventy cents on the dollar. Which means the folks wanted seventy cents of something instead of a buck’s worth of food, which they wouldn’t do if they were hungry.
The 2/3 nonsense. So? The percentage of the population on welfare.
Know all about affirmative action? Not necessarily. But there’s Duke Power and Grutter and our own experience. See U-Mich and Carl Cohen who used FOIA to bust the school on what they insisted they weren’t doing.
We know better, Wendell, and so do you. Thing is we know you know, too.
I am never surprised to see that many people refuse to see that we live in a racist, classist, sexist, homophobic society. For most of our major social categories (race, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, SES, age, language) there is one group that is the dominant group and everyone else is the subordinate group. It is the dominant group who makes the rules, creates the vocabulary, defines ‘normal,’ and stands as the paragon of that category for society. In terms of race in this society, white is the dominant group and everyone else is in the subordinate group. I guess it should be no wonder that, if I only look at the world through a dominant lens, I can’t see the issue in any real way. That’s what leads to the type of comments that I frequently see whenever anyone, especially a person of color, attempt to point out this inequity. That is also how, we can have this debate about race even though there is no biological basis to argue race. Race is a social construct, and as such, race and racism are real. I agree with Steve Locke (who ironically shares the surname of John Locke, who believed our natural human rights contain, “Life, Liberty, and Property,” which was adopted by Thomas Jefferson, who switched “Pursuit of Happiness” for property as to not have to give that right to all Americans) when he says white is an oppression. The same could be said for male, heterosexual, Christian, etc. I also understand that, unless you try and see the world through an oppressed group’s eyes, you will never truly see our society for what it is. Even if we apply the principal of charity and assume that the oppressor has no clue he is oppressing or receiving societal benefits, an unconscious oppressor is still an oppressor. As a white man who is afforded a large amount of unearned privilege in this society, I can hope that I can offer a small amount of insight into the issue from my perspective and take an ounce of weight of the shoulders of Black men and women from having to speak for an entire race to a group who largely doesn’t want to listen anyway.
Peace.
jeffery
If what you say is true, there’s nothing to be done.
Gotta go and enjoy my privilege, such as paying taxes for Indians who have no financial need to get tuition. Stuff like that. Money I could have used for my kids’ tuition.
Now, if you don’t get me to admit my privilege and get all sloppy about apologizing for it, you lose, right?
You lose.
“Gotta go and enjoy my privilege…”
You’re already enjoying it, you’re pushing stereotypes and whining endlessly about non-existent problems. Problems you believe in because you won’t admit that maybe you’re not the only one whose POV and opinions matter. What makes your experiences and knowledge any more valid or believable or worthy of respect than Steve Locke’s and those of everyone else who disagrees with you here? You act like people should respect your word, your [alleged] lived experiences, but you will not respect theirs. Which means you’re not really arguing, you’re just whining for the sake of whining, and deserve no respect yourself.
“…such as paying taxes for Indians who have no financial need to get tuition.”
Going by what you’ve said here (you keep saying stuff like she had no *discernible* disadvantages), you probably don’t even fully know the redhead’s situation. Plus, your whole story about her… I mean, if you won’t respect anyone else’s experiences, why should anyone believe what *you* say you’ve experienced? What you say is so propaganda-grade, after all.
“Now, if you don’t get me to admit my privilege and get all sloppy about apologizing for it, you lose, right?
You lose.”
Ha ha, you think of this as a game (do you play Racist Minesweeper, too?) and you’re more interested in “winning” than actually saying anything worthwhile.
Caste system? What country is this guy living in? I work in finance and half my colleagues are first or second generation immigrants. Our higher education system is entirely merit based. We have a black president. Yes, there’s still racism, but viewing every interaction, article, and institution through a racial lens only perpetuates the role of race in society.
‘Our higher education system is entirely merit based’, yet ‘There is still racism’? That seems genuinely miraculous. I would be very interested to hear how, in your opinion, higher education has managed to escape the racism that you accept exists in society. Perhaps we could extrapolate this fantastic success.
As for ‘viewing every interaction, article, and institution through a racial lens’, it is a manifestation of your privilege that you are able to NOT do this. People perceived as non-white, and, incidentally, other minorities and women, are *never* allowed not to be aware of their marginalised status.
Your confusing the existence of racism with its fictitious omnipresence. Are there some racist people? Of course. Are the effects of past racist laws and institutions still being felt today? Of course. Does Harvard discriminate against a black applicant with stellar grades and standardized test scores? Of course not. Quite the contrary. The best schools and the elite companies engage in various forms of affirmative action quite energetically.
It’s sad that you won’t let women and blacks just be people. Sure, some blacks marginalize themselves every moment of every day. Then again, you have successful black engineers and black entrepreneurs for whom the “black” has no bearing on their professional work.
Ari,
Respectfully, I think you may be missing the point.
Even if racism doesn’t factor into each decision made by each person, the fact that it exists at all means that the playing field is not even. Its existence makes it significantly less likely that “a black applicant with stellar grades and standardized test scores” will make it to a point of applying to a school like Harvard. Certainly many do so, and/or succeed brilliantly in various other ventures. And EVERYONE who works hard to achieve their goals, academic or otherwise, deserves great respect and admiration. But the structure of society is such that the odds are stacked against some demographics, in lots of ways both obvious and subtle, throughout their lives.
Just my $0.02
I agree with mm, and I just wanna add my 2 cents to theirs here. Ari Paul , you said:
“Does Harvard discriminate against a black applicant with stellar grades and standardized test scores? Of course not. Quite the contrary. The best schools and the elite companies engage in various forms of affirmative action quite energetically.”
In addition to what mm said, I’d like to point out that there is still lots of systemic racism in “the best schools and elite companies”, despite affirmative action.
“It’s sad that you won’t let women and blacks just be people.”
Pointing out bigotry makes one a bigot? There ARE real inequalities. I don’t think bringing up systemic oppression is the same as stereotyping. I mean, it COULD be stereotyping to bring up inequalities *in the wrong context* — *anything* can be nasty in the wrong context. But they are not the SAME thing. And I don’t think this is the wrong context.
“Sure, some blacks marginalize themselves every moment of every day. Then again, you have successful black engineers and black entrepreneurs for whom the “black” has no bearing on their professional work.”
So you think that the onus is on black people to… not be marginalized? I’m confused.
Incidentally, to Steve Locke, I have bookmarked your list; thank you for the pointers. I currently have bell hooks’ ‘Ain’t I A Woman? Black Women and Feminism’ on my to-read pile, and am reading WEB DuBois’ ‘The Souls of Black Folk’, and will endeavour to read some or all of your list once I have finished that.
I am female and mostly perceived as white, but I strongly believe that we will never put an end to one type of discrimination while others remain. I hope and try to be an ally to *all* marginalised human beings.
College professor or not, it’s disingenuous to insist that there is no biological basis for race.
If that were true, it would not be heritable, and black parents would be bumping out white babies all the time.
If that were true, black albinos would look like white people — instead of having clearly distinct facial, hair and bone density features.
The first step to honest dialogue about race is to stop making up fictions about it. Whether those are horrible racist fictions, or equally racist horrible “anti-racist” fictions, is irrelevant.
We need to stop lying about it.
I think it’s necessary to draw a distinction between “phenotype” and “race.” I’m over-simplifying here, but…
Phenotype describes the attributes of an organism and is determined by the interaction between genotype and environment.
Race is a cultural construct. It is used to categorize groups of people, assign them a general range of expected phenotypes, and appraise them within a given domain (athletics, ethics, intellect, etc.) and value system.
Racism is a cultural reality, with real impacts on individuals and groups.
Skipping all the virulently racist (yep, because it is. Like Steve said, look it up folks.) flaming “comments,” I’ll just say THANK YOU, STEVE for writig out what so many people of color think and experience. As a black woman in the arts and academy too I know every bit of this argument so well and yes it is, as one commenter said, wearying to have to deal with white supremacist defensiveness at every turn. I too for the most part refuse to discuss race — not because the discussion isn’t important, but because most people do not *really* want to have an honest discussion and often have noninterest in dismantlig their own privilege and investment in oppression, etc.
So yes, thank you Steve for speaking plain and thank you Tom for printing it.
Now… Let’s talk about art, yes?
Honestly, this kind of comment seems entirely hypocritical.
On the one hand, there’s a supposed desire for an “honest” discussion.
But on the other, anyone who disagrees is immediately labeled ignorant (hence the “look it up” comment) or straight-up called a racist.
There are many views of race in America that are not “white supremacist” and still oppose the points made by Locke in this piece. As an example (and also posted above) I would encourage people to read something by Shelby Steele, a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, who is also, *shock* a black man. For a short piece, I would recommend “I’m black, you’re white, who’s innocent?” it’s a quick read at about 9 pages.
An “honest” discussion can only take place if the side represented by Locke and his comments admits that there can be disagreement. Calling your opponent “ignorant” or rushing out with the label “racist” are not part of an “honest” discussion. Please do not say you want an “honest” discussion if you are not actually prepared to deal with opposing views.
“anyone who disagrees is immediately labeled ignorant (hence the “look it up” comment) or straight-up called a racist.”
Not true. I’m sure it’s possible to take issue with this piece without being racist/ignorant, BUT there are also many ways to disagree that ARE racist and ignorant, and unfortunately those opinions have been heavily represented here. Plus, many of these comments have been answered *without* calling anyone racist or ignorant.
“Please do not say you want an “honest” discussion if you are not actually prepared to deal with opposing views.”
The comments you’re talking about are not honest themselves, including your own. There’s been lots of trolling and trotting out of racist stereotypes (such as “affirmative action is stealing from white people!”, an “argument” which has been countered several times). And it doesn’t seem like your side is considering opposing views at all, either. So, no, not honest at all. Just closed-minded, slippery, unaccountable, privilege-denying, and smug.
So, let me get this straight: you believe it is possible to disagree without being racist/ignorant, but when I say I disagree you immediately label “my side” as racist and ignorant?
I never said that affirmative action is stealing from white people (though it often steals from Asians, see UC admissions pre- and post- 1996 for evidence), nor have I discussed racial stereotypes.
Yet here you are telling me this is “my” opinion, and that I am “closed minded” for an opinion I don’t have.
Who is actually being closed-minded and smug here? (I’ll give you a hint, look at yourself)
Sorry for the very late responses — I’ve been having a lot of trouble concentrating (if you respond to this, my next response might be late also).
I assumed you were aligning yourself with everyone who disagreed here, given the way you put that before (“anyone who disagrees…”). My apologies.
Anyway, I think that in the first place the only way you could possibly be correct in saying that anyone who disagrees is labeled ignorant or racist is if Samiya was referring to every single disagreement here. If so, than I was wrong about that. BUT, even if Samiya WAS saying that, I still stand by my statement that I’m sure it’s possible to disagree with this in a non-ignorant, non-racist way, but that racist and ignorant disagreements are heavily represented in these comments here. What you don’t seem to be aware of is that, just as disagreeing with this does not inherently make one a racist, disagreeing with this does not inherently make one NOT racist, either.
And you HAVE pushed stereotypes. Earlier, you brought up what you call “the link between race and crime” (/#comment-41843), and assumed (and expected us to assume) that A) the stats were correct and B) correllation equals causation and oh, gosh, I guess now we have to talk about the OBVIOUS link between race and crime that’s so OBVIOUS [/sarcasm].
“… [affirmative action] often steals from Asians, see UC admissions pre- and post- 1996 for evidence)…”
I’ll admit I don’t know a whole lot about this, but from what I *have* read, it seems at the very least more complicated than you make it seem here.
And my smugness is intentional. I don’t feel obligated to argue with you in a polite tone — even now that you say you’re not “with” the other people in disagreement here, you are quite smug yourself, and you argue dishonestly.
One thing white folks need to get over, once they recognize the privilege they hold, is the whole “guilt” thing. Look, y’all didn’t invent racism or slavery–it was created many generations before you. That also means that you can’t solve it–it will take many generations after you. So stop blaming minorities for making you feel guilty. If you resent the fact that you have to feel guilty for something you didn’t create, then place the blame where it is due–on those who came before you in history. And stand up for the honor of white folks when you see one of your own doing something that promotes racism and allows that history to continue into the present. You can’t do much more to assuage your guilt, but at least do that much. And if that’s all you ever do, that’s okay. All of us are privileged in some way or another–the important thing is to understand where it comes from and who is really to blame. Don’t project your anger at the system onto minorities–we didn’t choose for things to be this way any more than you did.
Shelby Steele’s own brother, Claude, doesn’t agree with his position and they are identical twins so maybe Richard Aubrey should think about diversifying his authors list. Regardless I really like the way the sociologist Louis C.K. talks about race and white privilege: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
Mr. Locke,
I just want to say thank you for writing this letter. A friend sent me a link after I posted a note about the discussion of race. I was very upset and confused by her message and I responded to her in a note. After I stated my piece, I felt at peace and i was through with the discussion. I absolutely agree with you… I’m tire of having the discussion with people who are too closed off by the topic (ethnicity and race do not matter, as most people just don’t want to discuss it anymore). Everyone agrees that racism exists, but no one wants to take responsibility for it…nor create solutions to eradicate it. I try my best…I’m an artist and will be attending grade school for the educational portion, but I feel discouraged by much of the rhetoric. If people are not ready to accept their portion of the responsibility, then we cannot truly have a discussion on race…only the “Blame Game”.
Thank you, Tom, for posting the letter. I’m glad this was posted and I wish you both the best in all of your endeavors.