Jamie Utt explains the profound danger in watering down our discussion of identity by removing any mention of societal power, oppression, and privilege.
—
Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of White people screaming about racism.
I wish these were anti-racist ally White people who were speaking about the prison industrial complex or about systems of privilege and oppression, but no.
These are White folks who are claiming that the Obamacare tax on tanning beds is “racist” against White people. These are White folks who are claiming that affirmative action is racist against them. These are the White folks who honestly believe they suffer more racism than people of Color.
And every time I hear these folks cry racism, I can’t help but think:
And it’s not just people of racial privilege who are doing this!
Certain Christians claim they are being religiously oppressed because the rights of Lesbian and Gay people are now being recognized at federal and state levels. The entire Men’s Rights Movement is basically predicated on the idea that men are far more oppressed than women (or transgender people or genderqueer people or really anyone who isn’t a cisgender man).
Now aside from the mountains of evidence that makes someone look a little silly when they claim that those with seemingly endless identity privilege are widely oppressed in society, I am realizing more and more that we have a problem of language precision.
Too often, when people are talking about racism or sexism or heterosexism or any other form of oppression, they’re simply referring to when a person was made to feel bad for or about their identity.
There is absolutely no acknowledgement of wider systems of oppression and power.
And this is no accident.
There has been a concerted effort made by a small but loud group (like the Limbaughs, Zimmermans, or Robertsons) to coopt language and shift the discussion so that things stay just the way they are.
But whenever we say things like “Well, sometimes women can be just as sexist as men,” we are contributing to the problem.
Precision of Language
Yes. Any person of any identity can be an asshole to any person of any other identity. But that doesn’t make it oppression. It doesn’t even make it racism or sexism or heterosexim or any other -ism.
There is a profound danger in watering down our discussion of identity by removing any mention of societal power, oppression, and privilege.
Doing so ensures that the conversation remains about interpersonal slights rather than about the larger systems of oppression that are the true problem.
Now, this is not to say, that the real issue is the system, so I can say whatever I want, and it shouldn’t matter. Not at all.
Our interpersonal interactions are reflections of and support structures for the larger problems of systematic inequality and oppression.
Instead, we need to recognize that not all hurtful words or deeds are equal when certain ones are backed by a history and current system of domination, violence, oppression, repression, dehumanization, and degradation.
We need to be clear that when we are talking about oppression or a particular -ism, we are not simply talking about an interpersonal slight. We are talking about something much bigger.
“But Why Can’t I Say the N-Word?”
Take, for instance, the recent outrage from Fox News and others on the political Right over Charlie Rangel, a Black man, using the word “cracker” to describe Whites who violently resisted integration in the South.
There are cries of “double standard” that White folks can be called “cracker” by people of Color, yet Whites can’t call Black people the “n-word.”
Now, if no historical or current systems of oppression and marginalization existed as context, then sure, maybe those words would be the same thing. After all, on face value, they both seem to insult someone based on their race.
But, of course, there’s a little thing called context.
There’s that whole 600 year time period where Black people were sold as chattel by Europeans who reinforced their system through violence and repression and who recreated their same systems of domination through Jim Crow and the Prison Industrial Complex when slavery was made illegal.
And there’s that inconvenient fact that the “n-word” was created solely by White people as a pejorative for Black slaves.
And there’s that other inconvenient fact that the word “cracker” literally refers to White power and supremacy in its reference to the overseer who cracked the whip.
And there’s the context of the daily assault on Black bodies and livelihoods (and the bodies and livelihoods of all people of Color) at the hands of a White power structure that continually makes said usage of the “n-word” hurtful and relevant.
So when we consider the context of power, oppression, and privilege, the use of these two words in two different ways does not create a double standard. As Jay Smooth puts it, that’s a standard.
Shifting the Conversation
A young person with whom I am friends on Facebook recently posted the following as his status: “Why is it that all of a sudden the worst thing in the world you can be is a white, straight, middle class, christian? [sic]”
And I engaged him. Because I’m hearing this sentiment more and more from folks of privilege: There is a tremendous fear (no matter how grounded in fiction it may be) that they are under attack.
It is a fear peddled by conservative media and in daily conversation. It is a fear that what was once promised to us as people of identity privilege (often at the expense of others) is no longer a guarantee.
It is a fear that speaks to the progress –humble in some areas and significant in others – that has been made (and continues to be made) in overturning (or at least reforming) systems that were built fundamentally for the benefit of a tiny few.
But it is also a fear that speaks to the kind of resistance we can expect as we move forward in these struggles.
As we went round and round, my initial tact was to prove to him just how wrong he was about his sentiment.
He expressed that White people are discriminated against in job and education applications because of affirmative action, and I showed him the data that he’s wrong.
He complained that Christians are under attack because of the Gay rights movement, and I explained how it changes nothing for them or their rights to allow others to have full legal recognition.
This only seemed to make him angrier and more frustrated.
So I took a different route.
“None of this is to say that people with identity privilege do not struggle,” I said.“Plenty of us are struggling with real and tough things. Plenty of middle class White families are fighting in a system that is working against anyone who isn’t rich. It is just important to keep perspective about the relativity of privilege.”
This shifted the conversation considerably.
I don’t think I convinced him that he’s not under attack. But I do think this statement helped him see that, as he put it, “the problem is a broken and incompetent system.”
Call It Out, Call People In
So now, whenever I hear people make these types of statements, ones that ignore the reality of power structures and oppression, I try to use the “call it out, call them in” method.
The language that denies systemic oppression they are using must be called out as problematic and silencing to the experiences of those actually experiencing oppression.
But that doesn’t mean the person saying that language can’t be brought into a thoughtful conversation about the nature of oppression in the world around us.
In the case of the young man above, perhaps his family is struggling with the class inequality that is ever more present for middle class people of all races and he is projecting those concerns onto issues of race, religion, and sexual orientation.
Well, if I simply write him off as a bigoted jerk who doesn’t understand power structures, where do we go?
Instead, it is my responsibility as a person of privilege striving to be an ally to call him into discussion.
It is my responsibility to at least attempt to bring him to a place where his words are less hurtful, and – who knows? – perhaps doing so will help him along the path to being an ally himself.
—
Because while we fight tooth and nail to make powerful change to systems of oppression, we need to ensure that if people who benefit from these systems are not actively acting in solidarity, at least they aren’t in the way.
And this is primarily the work of other people of privilege.
It’s time for us to call our people in.
–
Originally appeared at Everyday Feminism
Jamie Utt is a Contributing Writer at Everyday Feminism. Jamie is a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator based in Minneapolis, MN. He lives with his loving partner and his funtastic dog. He blogs weekly at Change from Within. Learn more about his work at his website here and follow him on Twitter @utt_jamie. Read his articles here and book him for speaking engagements here.
photo: flickr/Maryland GovPics
“Why does prejudice require privilege to be racism?”
Social justice fanatic: Because I said so!
Real reason: Because they don’t want everyone to be held to the same standards, as that would ruin their perceived victimhood
I notice in this article a lot of ” White folks” and other expressions where “White” is abused. I have the impression that the author here believes that race as essentialist element exists. I mean, how many white people are in reality Jews, Balks or any kind of mixed? You idea of race is ultimately racist, something no uncommon for socialists, indeed, both the right and the left have one point in common: the idea that “culture” and ‘race’ exist. Than it is just a pitiful war for hegemony. Unfortunately you share something else with the right: hate. I am… Read more »
I think that before affirmative action can be taken, the rivalry between whites and blacks must be smoothed out (good luck with those morons Limbaugh and the Fox crowd!). There must be a sense of “we’re all in this together” instead of “they’re taking from us what they give to them”. Or else, black people in the work place will start to hear stuff like “he only got there because he’s black”. I see it up here in Canada in another form; we don’t have the racial makeup of the US, but we have two main linguistic groups and official… Read more »
Someone I knew used to get worked up about the Bakke case (1978), in which the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action was violating the rights of a white man (he was rejected from medical school twice from UC-Davis because he was deemed “too old” while a minority person was admitted with lesser scores)….Bakke did get into medical school….I would sit there and listen to him go on and on…but really, no one owes you admission to professional school….
What I see from the growing “white males are being discriminated against” meme is perhaps an issue of relativity. By analogy, a millionaire who takes a 10% pay cut may well feel it emotionally as keenly as someone making $40k a year does. I suspect that even going from “can use the n-word with impunity” to its current slightly complicated status is some sort of loss of privilege (for the amount of consternation there, I sure wonder how that one is coming up so often in some people’s lives though that they are worried someone might “get” to use it… Read more »
face palm over this article.
Monica Surely you jest when you write that the reason racism and sexism exists is because marginalized people seek redress?! The reason these things exist is because racism and sexism were codified through legislation and re enforced through social habit.Black people didn’t invent racism and have long argued that many many white people suffer,taken advantage of by the same system that has taken advantage of them.MLK was killed while supporting striking sanitation workers, not in support of “black rights”.Whites have consistently voted for policies and politicians who hurt them. Understanding how oppression operates is central to dismantling the system.Simply saying… Read more »
I don’t think you understood my point. I’m trying to be brief so perhaps I’m not explaining it well. You are correct that these systems are codified, but by whom, and why? Patriarchy was not developed as a system to give power to common men over common women – it was developed to solidify and stabilize the position of the ultra powerful. Racism was not designed to benefit whites as a whole – it was designed to benefit the tiny minority of slaveholders, in part by making lower class whites feel that they had more social power over someone so… Read more »
At some point far enough in time – we are all the descendants of slaves. Europeans didn’t invent slavery because they discovered people of a difference culture and skin-tone in Africa. That context shouldn’t be overlooked.
I think the article looks at this issue too simplistically. Perhaps that’s inevitable, given the complexities involved. Let’s examine a hypotetical situation. My husband and I are having an argument. He gets so angry that he hauls off and hits me in the face as hard as he can. My jaw is broken and I need to call an ambulance and I also call the police. Compare that to the reverse scenario. My husband and I are having an argument. I get so angry that I haul off and hit him in the face as hard as I can. He’s… Read more »
Interesting. I find this article at once positive and true, and a little wrong; maybe that’s the nature of the beast. Let’s get this out of the way: white, hetero male, 47, agnostic, American. That said, I’ve always championed the fight for equality for everyone; I still do, but I’ve realized some counter-dynamics in the process. I think what it boils down to is that in any just cause there are those who really strive for justice and equality of opportunity so that positive change can be realized, and then there are those who use the cause as an excuse… Read more »
Let’s say for the sake of argument that there should be different language rules for people of different races. Just for the moment. In that case, someone explain to me where the boundaries should be. For example, if I’m a white guy, can I quote a black person who uses the n-word, or is that still me using the word? What if I play a song on my stereo, sung by a black man, and he uses a version of the n-word – I won’t sing that word while I’m singing along, but I don’t know if that’s still the… Read more »
It’s not really confusing at all.
If you have to ask the question of whether the language you use is appropriate, then it probably isn’t.
So if I just speak any old way I want and stop caring if it’s appropriate, that automatically makes it appropriate? Word.
Reginald Denny would be able to make a pretty good case for the existence of dangerous antiwhite racism. I doubt he would find comfort in hearing about his white privilege. The same way that Henry Louis Gates might scoff at being told of his male privilege when stopped by police in front of his own home. He’s not all that bad off, is he — sure he faces anti-black racism, but he’s got that great “male privilege” on his side, right? My Irish immigrant ancestors would be puzzled to hear about all the white privilege they were supposed to have.… Read more »
What I worry about, and what I see all-too-frequently, is white male potential or actual allies being alienated by the rapid dismissal of any acknowledgement that all people, of all genders and races and religions, struggle. Everyone is fighting his or her own series of battles in life. To tell a white man that “you’ve had it so easy because of the colour of your skin” takes away his dignity and his power as an individual human being. It steals from his struggle. Does a white male senior citizen living in poverty enjoy the fruits of his privilege? Does a… Read more »
I agree. If you talk to men about violence, street harassment or rape then you are far more likely to be talking to a male victim, rather than a perpetrator. It is a bad start if you immediately dismiss his experience, and try to claim that it is something that only happens to women.
You’re absolutely right about the violence, harassment, and rape. I believe it was when the Illinois State Police Crime Lab started tackling the backlog of rape kits that they made a startling discovery: That a small number of male rapists commit the vast majority of rapes allegedly committed by male rapists. And the numbers are pretty similar in other kids of crime. So when you talk to a man, you are far more likely to be talking to someone who is a victim of crime than someone who ever perpetrated one. And when it comes to race and socioeconomic class… Read more »
So instead of the continuation of this us-vs.-them adversarial monolog, I think building bridges of understanding and having a dialog on what we have in common would be much more effective.
Agreed. How can you in one breath say that you want to build bridges and connect with people to solve issues but then in the next maintain a dividing line where the “who” is more important than the “what/how/why”.
exactly mae! for all the bluster from the racial grievance industry, they certainly have a one-sided view of things. if one, say this author or those who think like her were to simply take a look at me (and make a preliminary judgment) about me simply because i am “white”, fairly young, able-bodied, male, etc. and think (as many who think this way do) oh, he’s got it made without knowing anything else about me (and about anybody else in the same situation when they encounter another stranger and make preliminary, often false, judgments) is to do the very thing… Read more »
You don’t need to preface every statement with a recognition of your own place in the kyrarchy.
The fact that black people and women, experience worse discrimination does not make discrimination against men or white people OK. It is OK to call out all discrimination.
Maybe you can argue that it shouldn’t be done in a feminist space, “taking away” from women. But the men’s rights spaces were created by men to deal with issues that affect men.
My experience with MRA is that they don’t represent the concerns of all men at all. They just think they do.More often they pretend,like feminists have,that racism isn’t important enough to discuss in their movements.They presume their approaches are naturally inclusive.Many times on this site MRA types have bristled at the idea that MRA groups should deal with race directly.They ignorantly claim that CR and Affirmative Action has hurt the aspirations of white people in general and of whitemen in particular.Which is ridiculous.Every white woman who has entered the workforce and every white male who has suffered from disabilities or… Read more »
To the white guy who is struggling to feed his family because he can’t get a good enough job…welcome to the fraternity.We have been waiting for you since well-before a few well off white guys made a false claim to independence.That white guys don’t see the obvious connections to their own disenfrancisement to that of other men(and women) like Native Americans,Asians,Hispanics, and yes,African Americans too is strange.There is a long and storied history of poor white males being economically and institutionally disenfranchised.This was especially true before the rise of the labor unions.The reality seems to be that white males have… Read more »
“Racism = prejudice plus power” has been a staple of critical race theory for many years – coined by Judith Katz, the author of White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training (1978). The addition of power into the equation is a trivial add-on that attempts to measure “impact” much like the speed of an automobile can determine the severity of a car accident. Power is a very big word and today, it’s best viewed in the context of dollars and cents rather than race. According to her profile, Judith Katz has provided training to Cisco Systems and other fortune companies. It… Read more »
elissa writes: “Racism = prejudice plus power” has been a staple of critical race theory for many years – coined by Judith Katz, the author of White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training (1978). — “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.” — And that pretty much sums up the question,… Read more »
Again, you’re confusing racism for prejudice. Just look in a dictionary. They’re different.
Racism a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Huh. only ONE of those definitions mentions anything about a system, institution or government… yet this article would have us believe that is the one and ONLY definition. Whoops. Prejudice an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge,… Read more »
Again, Joanna, you’re doing the Humpty-Dumpty thing. I did look at a dictionary, and so did Jax, who posted a dictionary definition for your edification. As many people in this thread are pointing out , you are playing a Three Card Monte game in your attempt to appropriate the definition of racism (and by extension sexism). There are many of us who simply aren’t buying what you’re selling. That doesn’t make us bad people, or racists, or sexists, or people unwilling to address issues of systemic oppression (as you accused me of doing in another recent article). Your definition of… Read more »
The entire Men’s Rights Movement is basically predicated on the idea that men are far more oppressed than women (or transgender people or genderqueer people or really anyone who isn’t a cisgender man).
Versus a movement like feminism where one of its tenants is that women are oppressed and men cannot be?
Its amazing how something can suddenly become a monolith when it suits someone I guess.
But ignorance and lame generalizations are okay when oppressed people do it. Didn’t you read the article?
What a pathetic pile of nonsense. If this is typical of the site it came from, that’s one palace of idiocy to steer clear of in future.. and certainly don’t bother posting their bilge on a forum for men and men’s issues.
I always find it a little amusing when I see white people, black people, Hispanic people, etc. talking about racial prejudice, institutionalized racism, etc. How the hell can any of you see things from the other persons perspective? You’ve never lived it. Talk about privilege. Ask a biracial person. I’m half white and half Filipino and can tell you without qualification that the OP doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I used to date a mixed race black woman. One of her grandfathers was white and she told me that she got a lot of grief from other black people… Read more »
“It is a fear that speaks to the progress –humble in some areas and significant in others – that has been made (and continues to be made) in overturning (or at least reforming) systems that were built fundamentally for the benefit of a tiny few.” Part of it is fear but part of it is frustration about fighting hateful words with more hateful words. If there is to be respect it must be mutual respect for TRUE progress to be made. “Cracker” may not have the same demeaning intent as the “n” word but it is demeaning. It is a… Read more »
Even when examining racism, sexism, transphobia etc. in this way, examining the problems of the more privileged group has a lot of value. LGBTQQI people face intense oppression. Despite the fact that each letter represents a completely different group, however they have all decided to band together largely due to the connections between the oppression each group face. However this oppression is also related to the oppression straight cis-women face, and indeed, regardless of the misgivings of the past modern feminism is closely linked to the LGBT movement. In LGBTQQI discussion it will be called compulsory heterosexuality, in feminist discussion… Read more »
So, if there are no white people involved… who’s the one that gets to be racist?
I mean, if a latino man calls a black man a N***** Is that racist or isn’t it?
This reminds me of when I was a kid and my friend told me “I can hit you because I’m a girl, but you can’t hit me back.”
At what point does “freedom to use racial slurs against other people” become a privilege?
Then the latino man becomes white. Did the George Zimmerman trial teach you nothing?
The idea that only someone in the majoritarian (ie privileged) community is capable of racism (or sexism, etc) is false. It is easy disproven by example. Here’s one: Leonard Jeffries is a professor at CCNY in New York. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia: — Jeffries had also advanced a theory that whites are “ice people” who are violent and cruel, while blacks are “sun people” who are compassionate and peaceful.[7] He is a proponent of melanin theory and claims that melanin levels affect the psyche of people, and that melanin allows black people to “…negotiate the vibrations of the universe… Read more »
Yeah right. Peddle your double standards over at Slate, they’ll buy it.
The link I clicked on to get here from the main page had an image from the Princess Bride referencing the famous “I don’t think it means what you think it means” line. Am I the only one that find it ironic that those who have altered the definition of words to suit their own needs are turning around and trying to tell others that their use of those words is incorrect? Most definitions of the various -isms contain nothing about institutional power. That bit has been added in by those that want to turn -isms into one way streets.… Read more »
Right, don’t we have the terms ‘racism’ vs ‘institutional racism’ for this exact reason? The redefining of racism to the power+privilege definition just muddles the two together.
It’s like how the term ‘misogyny’ just means ‘sexism’ now, apparently. Why introduce a new term for something we already have a term for? It just increases the redundancy within the English lexicon.
Given how vitriolic accusations of misogyny can get, I’d hate to see how those flinging the term around would react if confronted by someone they believed actually hated women.
More apologetics for victim privilege, I see. “MY racism is okay, but YOURS has to stop.”
Ugh. Pathetic. But not surprising, given the source.
Shorter form: “MY racism is okay, YOURS has to stop.”
Sorry; not buying it. Claiming that only women get to complain about sexism is like complaining that only black people face racial discrimination–simply and obviously false. And just as obviously self-serving rhetoric designed to protect one group’s victim privilege over anyone else’s.