Boxing Ourselves In: The Sad Irony of White Supremacy
I guess it would be amusing were it not so sad. After several days of combing through hateful diatribes, aimed at me because of previous commentaries I had written concerning racism and white privilege in the presidential campaign, it struck me: one of the most disturbing things about white racists is how they manage to confirm every stereotype about white folks that they would otherwise deny.
And so they write to me to say how I exaggerate the problem of white racism, and how they, of course, aren't racist at all, and then go on to tell me how they just don't like "the blacks," or "the Mexicans," or the "parasitic welfare cheats," whose race they never specify, but whose color in their minds is easy to guess, given the context of their remarks.
Or even better, they write to tell me that "racism isn't really a problem any more." The problem, they insist, is that "the blacks are just too damned lazy to get off their asses and work like the rest of us." Gee, glad to have that cleared up. I mean, if you can't see the irony embedded in that remark--after all, to deny that racism is a problem for black people, and then to cut loose with a racist generalization about those same people is the epitome of self-contradiction--then you're probably not prepared to enter a dialogue about much of anything.
I guess this is one of the aspects of racism that we don't think about often, but about which we should. Namely, it distorts the critical thinking skills of persons who may well be decent human beings, or at least capable of quite a bit better than what they show us in moments such as this. To hold such views as expressed above, and to then get angry at other whites when we reject those views, is to actually seek to limit white folks' humanity, by essentially insisting that all whites must see the world through the lens of white supremacy. That too is ironic: it means that white racists, by their demand for white unanimity, by their unwillingness to brook opposition to their sickness, are basically trying to force white people into a box in which our ability to define ourselves and to break out of the socially-constructed confines put upon us by racism is constrained. One would think that we would be offended by this; that perhaps we would begin to see white racism and its would-be enforcers as our enemies; that we would come to view race treason (if indeed, being white means going along with that kind of nonsense) as the highest calling of our people.
We rightly note how unfair it is when persons of color demand that other persons of color hew to a particular style or demeanor in order to be considered authentically black, for instance. When some suggested that Barack Obama wasn't really black, or at least not black enough, or when some within the black community, having internalized the strictures of white supremacist thinking, engage in intra-group harassment or invective against one another for being "too dark" or "too light," most everyone recognizes such things as unfortunate and regrettable examples of internalized racial oppression. But so too must we stand up to this notion, spread as it is by white racists, that to be white--authentically white--is to buy into anti-black and anti-brown stereotypes; that to be a strong white person is impossible unless we stand atop somebody else, as kings and queens of the proverbial hill.
How does this happen? And why do we allow it to happen? Why do we get angrier at people of color for pointing out white racism than we do at white folks for practicing it, and in so doing, perpetuating the notion that that's who we are--all of us? Do we not see that the reason we have so much anxiety about how someone might call us a racist if we say the wrong thing, is because we've been so silent in the face of white racism that folks of color logically come to wonder if we care, if we agree with the bigots in our midst, or if we're ever, ever going to stand up?
Don't get me wrong: I believe that all of us have internalized certain notions of white supremacy. It would be damned near impossible not to in a society that does such a marvelous job of teaching it. But we can also choose to turn on our teachers, those who have sought to condition us to go along, to remain silent, to accept the contours of American inequity and white privilege. That so few ever do so, not only implicates us in the suffering of those who are the targets of racism and white supremacy, but also implicates us in the negation of our own better selves. It is to say that we are OK with the box into which racism has placed us. It is to say that we don't mind having the confines of our humanity restricted in such a fashion. It is to say that we are not only in this skin, but even more, that we are *of* it: a terribly stultifying and depressing thought, which all but destroys the hope that one day we might evolve past such pathetic tribalism as this.
It is all the more disheartening because it doesn't have to be this way. And once upon a time it wasn't. There was a time, during the colonial period, when working class persons of European descent and those of African descent, seeing their common class interests, banded together to overthrow economic oppression, in places like the Virginia colony and elsewhere. Color meant very little to them, the notion of a unified "white race" didn't exist, and institutionalized white supremacy had yet to be fully actualized. But once the elite realized the dangers these growing cross-color coalitions posed to their power, they began to develop the divide and conquer tactics that are with us to this day. They ended indentured servitude for those who they began to label whites, they allowed them to own land, to testify in court, and to serve on slave patrols to keep blacks--those with whom they had previously seen a commonality of interests--in line.
It was a trick, of course, and it worked, and has continued to work for hundreds of years: working class white folks with nary a pot to piss in, ultimately contenting ourselves with what W.E.B. DuBois called the "psychological wage of whiteness," which is to say, the notion that we might not have much, but at least we're not black. When one has very little, one clings to what one has, and if the only real property one can claim is whiteness, then so be it, we'll do it, and have been doing it for generations. And of course those whose property is quite a bit more extensive than that are all too happy to watch the rest of us fight one another, over the pieces of a pie that we don't even own.
One would hope we had learned by now, after all these many years, that psychological wages--however comforting they may be in the moment--don't pay the mortgage or the rent, don't put our kids through school, and don't keep the lights on. They won't fill the pantry with food, nor take care of medical bills when we're sick. What they will do, is allow us to keep feeling ourselves superior, better, more entitled to the blessings of life, liberty, and happiness than our fellow human beings, even as we pursue political and social agendas that, in the end, put most all of us at risk. This we do in the name of whiteness. And this we do at the cost of our own integrity.
It would be amusing were it not so sad.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
RSS- Bookmark With:
Gretchen Dietz says:
Thank you
As a white, middle-aged woman, I thank you for your insights and examinations. In my opinion, you speak a truth that many are too afraid to hear. I think of a man I heard on NPR, a common citizen somewhere in Wisconsin who said, roughly, that he does not understand why, when a black man (and he believed it to be a black man in particular) achieves success, white people fear that something is being ripped from them. From the negative and hateful comments you've received there are many who are feeling something "ripped" from them. It is very sad. But know that there are some out here who agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you.
Genie X says:
Breaking Rank
Well Tim, I hope the barrage of hateful diatribes doesn't get you down because what an awesome job you are doing in holding white folk accountable for their damaging thoughts, words and deeds towards non-white people.
I know you must pay an aweful price for 'breaking rank', so I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate you and that reading you really gives me hope ... makes me feel less pessimistic about the world.
Thank you.
M. Lainak says:
Truth seekers
I've been emailed copies of your White Privilege piece twice in the last couple of days, so you wrote something that has really resonated with many people. It led me here to your other pieces, so keep the faith.
Daniel Bouchard says:
You penned a few lines in
You penned a few lines in one of my favorite essays of yours, "Passing the Buck and Missing the Point: Don Imus, White Denial and Racism in America" that had a profound impact on me:
Combined with the reasoning of why you do this work which was expressed in "White Like Me", something along the lines of racism simply being evil and you don't want to raise your children in such a world, I don't see how any white living in America who has come across those words and who possesses the intellect to understand racism, see it in all it's blatant and subtle forms, and who at their core are decent persons, can continue to remain silent.
That's the problem. When confronted with questions I've witnessed many whites devolved into abstract examples and statistics perhaps referring to test scores or what have you. Besides the obvious, that these statistics are most often made up on the spot and cannot be cited by the speaker, it amazes me at how they come up with such nonsensical reasons to justify their hatred. If you weed through the bullshit, it's just an irrational hatred which they have no legitimate reasons for. Most likely based on some imagined fear and definitely not based on personal experience of which they have none.
That's usually when the dialogue stops. It's when I realize that no matter how many logical arguments I counter with, how many DoJ statistics I bring up which all point to whites being victimized more by other whites than by any other racial group, how many times I offer up the fact that whites makeup 80% of rap consumers and therefore are responsible for perpetuating negative black images through purchases of gangsta and other corrosive rap, that my audience will never simply 'get it'. They first have to accept and identify their own irrational hatred before they can allow another person to assist them in dismantling it.
You often speak about whites standing up and challenging racism and ceasing to be silent about such matters. I agree wholeheatedly that such a practice needs to be adopted by whites with the mental faculty to carry it out in the face of others. However I think it's safe to say that for many whites there may be a nervousness about doing so. Not necessarily a nervousness about speaking out but perhaps about what comes next? What happens if the person they are confronting begins coughing up statistics and surveys and all manner of academia, whether real or fabricated? To someone without such an extensive edcuation and who doesn't make it a part of their daily routine to read anti-racist literature or literature from black points of view, engaging in a dialogue about racism with someone who essentialy argues FOR racism and who seems to do it in a brainy way can be a bit intimidating.
I wonder, Tim, if perhaps you would ever consider writing a sort of 'field manual' for whites not as well educated in racism as you in basic talking points, irrefutable evidence to cite, and other such content. You know, kind of like those books that outline ways for Democrats to beat Republicans in arguments and things of that nature.
At any rate, keep up the great work and I hope you stop in Jersey for a speaking engagement this fall/winter. Perhaps at Montclair State again? (As a gift of support, WBAI sent me a DVD of your 'Browning of America' speech you delivered at MSU in 2007) I'd love to hear you speak in person.
Tim Wise says:
thanks for your kind words,
thanks for your kind words, and i think your idea for a book for me to do (a field manual kinda thing) is not bad at all..quite good actually. I have been playing around with the idea of doing sort of a "100 not-so-simple things you can do to fight racism" book (not-so-simple because I hate the idea that fighting injustice is ever simple), but i like the rhetorical field manual idea too...maybe i could sell a publisher on doing both!
Harriet Sharp says:
White Rage
Mr. Wise,
I wrote a polemic some years back and emailed it to a bunch of U.S. senators (it got me on John Ashcroft's mailing list!) urging them to think about racism in terms of what it was actually costing America.
It was thinking about the Columbine High School massacre that began give shape to what I'd experienced as a black American: that white America was insane: always caught in an approach/avoidance dilemma from which there was no escape. Why white america was crazy in a way that white europe was not (I'd travelled extensively outside the U.S. by then) gave rise to speculation about the factors present in each one's history, and a great deal of clarity followed from that. Clarifying, especially, why white youngsters were so angry; my conclusion being that maybe, due to the Information Age, they realized they'd been lied to, that the very foundation of their identity was a lie. They were not superior because they were better, but because they'd been handed that 'superiority' at birth. Through exposure to mass media, they learned that on a level playing field they would lose because the very lie they'd been fed had in fact made them the weaker race by 'sparing' them competition with a large, very visible, segment of the U.S. population.
You have so articulated my own rather clumsy attempt to describe the peril this country faces unless it really wakes up. In my polemic, I said if white people don't start holding themselves accountable they will find themselves marginalized, their destructive weaponry notwithstanding. We human beings are social animals, we have, through eons of evolution developed hard-wired behavior that seeks to maintain and promote cooperative behavior, in general, and to punish its opposite. And no, white readers, black people aren't going to punish you. You're doing it to yourselves. As fellow animals created and maintained by the ecology of this planet, you're following its edicts just fine. Which brings me full circle to why I think white youngsters are so angry.
Thank you, so much. You give me hope.
Cate R says:
I was with you until the
I was with you until the end, but somehow your wrap-up isn't sticking with me:
One would hope we had learned by now, after all these many years, that psychological wages--however comforting they may be in the moment--don't pay the mortgage or the rent, don't put our kids through school, and don't keep the lights on. They won't fill the pantry with food, nor take care of medical bills when we're sick. What they will do, is allow us to keep feeling ourselves superior, better, more entitled to the blessings of life, liberty, and happiness than our fellow human beings, even as we pursue political and social agendas that, in the end, put most all of us at risk. This we do in the name of whiteness. And this we do at the cost of our own integrity.
I'm having a hard time reconciling what you are saying about the "psychological wage of whiteness" with white privilege -- because in some way, whiteness does pay the mortgage or put the kids through school. For example, I got my current job through a temp agency. White women are more likely to get placed through temp agencies than equally or more qualified black women, and I absolutely believe that I was hired at least in part for my whiteness. So I guess the psychological wage of whiteness is what allows another white person to feel unashamed and entitled of their position.
I don't know, maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet...
Tim Wise says:
You make a good point. I was
You make a good point. I was merely saying that for the hard core working class, their relative advantages over people of color come at the expense of their absolute well being, by keeping working people divide...while our privileges may literally pay the bills, we'd be better off to relinquish the relative advantage in favor of absolute well being. But your point is well taken
Liz Barrett21401 says:
Racism
Thank you for this discussion. One thing that is fabulous about this election period and Obama's candidacy is that it is bringing right up front so much discussion about racism. There's nothing better than honest discussion to define one's own position and deal with it, right or wrong. If we could just keep this discussion blooming in all the households across this country, I honestly think that a good deal of progress would be made. Let's hope for the best. In the meantime, many of us are working to come to terms with our white privilege and working hard to be aware of it at all times.
Thanks for your good work. I look forward to that new book.
Liz Barrett
David Mattisoff says:
Unanswered Critiques
Tim Says: "After several days of combing through hateful diatribes, aimed at me because of previous commentaries..."
I have to wonder, from my unanswered post (by yourself), how many of these responses aren't 'mindlessly hateful' but actually a critique your paradigm? I've stumbled on your site and writings here, and I'm rather taken aback by this use of confirmation bias and viewing responses as merely hate rather than substantive or just merely denial of your paradigm. This denial can be a critique of a flawed paradigm, and perhaps some time should be spent on the more substantive criticisms.
Frederic Christie says:
Not Red Room
David: Tim isn't generally talking about the responses here but rather the e-mails, phone calls, and responses on other fora he gets. Red Room is moderated so all you see are the cream of the responses (which is fairly sad considering how many responses, while being politely phrased, were essentially empty, kneejerk reactions that didn't respond to Tim's points). Tim has answered at other times and places most of the criticisms levelled here. He's got a lot of better things to do than respond to hundreds of comments on a blog post system.
Huntington Sharp says:
Moderation
Frederic, this is a good a place as any to let everyone know that, of the more than three hundred comments Tim has gotten so far on the initial White Privilege post and its follow-ups, we've only had to put the kibosh on about a dozen. It's our goal to host the most constructive conversations possible, and I think these threads prove that people want to discuss and disagree energetically without descending into offensive, off-topic, or personalized attacks.
Huntington Sharp, Red Room Editor
Tim Wise says:
I don't have time to go thru
I don't have time to go thru and answer all the critiques David, and others have done a pretty good job I feel of defending the paradigm in the original piece. I have written entire books on these subjects and 180+ published essays, which stand as a testament to how seriously i take the substantive critiques, seeing as how I respond to those in those longer pieces...the ones I was getting in my email box were more along the lines of calling me slurs, telling me to go f*%$ myself, etc...I get that every day David. Every day, all day long. Perhaps you don't think people like this exist in large numbers, but if not, you are simply wrong. Whites who challenge white racism and privilege are subjected to crap like this regularly. No big deal. I'm a big boy and can handle it, but trust me, I'm mature enough to know the difference between a substantive critique and a threat of violence
David Mattisoff says:
Space
Tim Wise: I don't have time to go thru and answer all the critiques David, and others have done a pretty good job I feel of defending the paradigm in the original piece.
That's unfortunate, but I will respect your space. I've really just started reading your work, and a number of epistemological questions are rising out of the literature. I'd rather ask you that then some of the other here who I feel provide less than appropriate responses. I'm getting the impression that this isn't the vehicle you would want to engage those questions. I will respect your space. Good luck.
Frederic Christie says:
Epistemology?
What epistemological questions? Sure, I suppose that a lot of the time it can be hard to prove race, especially if we want to say "What would happen if X person was black instead of something else?" That having been said, the epistemological standards, I've found, are quite high. For example, studies show that whites associate black faces with negative words and white faces with positive words in a way that closely suggests internalized stereotypes. We accept far more controversial hypotheses with far less evidence in other situations.
David Mattisoff says:
Re:
We're already ground in a far more mundane discussion on the other thread. However, if you feel you can attach causality to any of your statements there, feel free. Please remember to cover the points made in the post containing
Thank you for continuing the discussion there and not here.
David Lubertozzi says:
Color-blind
To paraphrase Eddie Murphy, when asked how he dealt with the heavy racism in Hollywood when it came to getting a movie made, he said "The only color those people really care about is green". Now that 1% of the population owns 30% of the wealth in this country, I hope the rest of us get the message and start working together to stop the plundering of the commons.
Frederic Christie says:
It's Both
David: The two phenomena are of course deeply intertwined. I heard this argument a lot, for example, after Katrina: It wasn't racism, just government ineptitude and Bush-style failure! Well, no, it was both.
John Gerson says:
white supremamcy
Your paper made me uncomfortable, so I knew its importance to me. I am a successful white psychologist, and mostly don't think about these issues.
Thank you.
Lee Evans says:
The Dynamics for White Privilege
Today I was listening to Eight Forty-Eight on Chicago Public Radio (http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=29056) The show was hosted by Richard Steele with Dawn Turner Trice, Esther Cepeda and Walter Benn Michaels.
The central question explored on the show was how honest are peoples comments regarding race and politics. I guess ones of the things that struck me about this conversation, is how the white male guest on the show Walter Been Michaels first comments out of the gate was something like abolish race-based affirmative action. Now, while I tend to agree with the reasoning behind his analysis including the assertion that poverty and class is the central issue in the country more so than race, I guess I fundamentally disagree with the notion that race and class can be separated in anyway especially, when if you look at an issue like housing for example, there are reasons that are well understood but are often not spoken as to why a diverse city like Chicago is significantly racially segregated. And when one looks at the history of the codes, lending practices and action by individuals you can see how the clustering of people by race in the city was no accident.
And on the ground, those practices were tied to race a lot more often than people who are not holding the short end of that stick will ever own up to. I can completely understand how some whites take offense with the idea of white privilege (not to be confused with self-righteous indignation and phony outrage) Especially, if the concept of white privilege is limited to the idea of material possessions. Take for example often repeated notions by some whites:
"I worked hard for everything I have." "I went to school got an education and made something of myself." or "No one ever gave me anything."
While all of those things might be true, I often challenge people to think of white privilege as a pass. In other words, whiteness inoculates them from maltreatment that is regularly handed out to people who don't have that pass. And what remains out of sight to everyone accept the oppressors and the subject of that oppression, is a system of double-standards that allows a white person to traverse society with all of its normal challenges while black and brown people can play by the rules, work hard and do everything and more, but get entirely different outcomes.
A lot of these outcomes are usually the result of structual biases built into the various systems but it is also the result of well placed political operatives who are actively engaged in making life more difficult for them and finally, it is implicit but ultimately racists assumptions made by otherwise decent people. To add insult to injury, these outcomes are then rationalized and then blamed on the subjects themselves. All of this causes well-meaning people to develop self re-enforced monolithic prospectives that see these symptoms of abuse as the actual root causes of the problem. I think that this is only natural especially when it is hard to know the suffering caused by such actions when one is not personally a target of such hostilities.
Therefore, the most effective means I have found for communicating white privilege is to juxtapose white privilege with child abuse because it shares a parallel number of social and political dynamics with how racial oppression is practiced and experienced in our society in that:
(a) The oppressor tend to be well respected member of the community with uncritical love and support from family and friends. (b) Some children that live on his side of tracks have nothing but positive experiences with this individual.
(c) This man belongs to a community that serves as the arbiters of truth, standards etc. In other words, his community makes the rules.
(d) The people from the other side of the tracks are not accepted members of the first community they are considered others.
(e) The children that live on this side of the track has had unspeakable experiences when exposed to the oppressor.
(f) Any grievences have to be settled by approaching members of the aforementioned community.
The challenges that our second community will have in bringing a successful grievence against one or more members of the first community are numerous but I will review a few of the important ones.
(1) The oppressor is smart enough to know that there will be some blowback for his actions so he starts by spreading rationalization (rhetorical lies) among his community in hopes of predisposing them to seeing things from his prospective. I call this stacking the deck. In otherwords, his opinion and point-of-view are the only one that matters. This point-of-view (lies, distortions and obfuscation) are enforced through repetition.
(2) When members from the community with the abused children go to have their greivences address they are met with (a) Self righteous indignation and phony outrage from the oppressor. (b) Hostility, disdain, mistrust and uncooperativeness from members of the oppressors community.
(3) The very act of trying to bring to light the ongoing abuse their children have been receiving has caused this community to have to carry the weight of being labeled as complainers, whiners and troublemakers. With very few efforts taken to address the root cause of the problem.
(4) Charges originating from the oppressors community against the community with the abused children whether real or imagined are delt with quickly and harshly.
(5) Finally, members of the oppressors community who have witnessed this abuse or have experienced it first-hand may be afraid to speak up out of fear of community rejection and reprisal.
Amanda Madorno says:
What my daughter taught me....
I thought I was a left-of-left liberal white girl, until my bi-racial daughter entered her teen years. Then I got an earful. And an education that continues to this day. For quite some time she referred to me as SWM: stupid white mother. Biting as that was, crushing as that was, it took her brutal honesty to make me realize that she didn't see being a 'child of the rainbow' in quite the same light as I did. One day she finally granted me a new moniker - CWM - cool white momma. I will never win any award or recognition as meaningful as that. Doesn't mean I've left my SWM days completely behind. It just means I understand more what I didn't even have a clue about for years: even left-of-left white liberals suffer from a healthy does of white priviledge. Even when you love your child more than life itself, and think you couldn't possibly see the world through color, you do. Or at least I did, at any rate. And even if you learn to rise above it for the love of your child, other people - even your friends - might not be able to, even if she is your child and they're your friend.
As my daughter wrote in her college application: 'I grew up in a loving home where everyone pretended I wasn't black. Except I was. And even though everyone who loved me didn't mean it, their pretense made my life harder.' I struggle every day with the knowledge that my daughter - despite her socio-economic advantages and the fact that I love her fiercely beyond all measure (isn't that a good enough reason?) - may NEVER have the same rights and priviledges as I do when it comes to jobs, health care, legal representation and a host of other things I take for granted every day. It makes me want to bellow with rage and rise up in a great fury of maternal righteousness and strike people dead in the street for even thinking she is less than them. Except it doesn't work that way.
And perhaps the greatest irony of all is that she doesn't win in either world. For many blacks she's not 'black enough' - something that has confounded me for years and perhaps I will never fully understand or appreciate.
In any case, we are voting for Obama. :-)
Daniel Bouchard says:
Great post Amanda! As a
Great post Amanda!
As a white man who is married to a black woman, I often keep myself up at night hoping I will be the kind of father my children can be proud of, hoping that I will do everything in my power to help them understand who they are and where they came from. My wife and I are insistent on not pushing them to either end of the spectrum, but in allowing them to be themselves by giving them as much information and knowledge as possible for them to make an educated decision on their own.
Contrary to the belief that most ethnic women's heritage is a casualty of their marriage to a white man, I do all I can to help my wife identify with her culture and background and participate every chance I get. I'm on my own crusade to learn my own heritage since none of it was passed down to me. No language, no traditions, no recipes and I'm only a first generation American child of immigrant parents. Tim makes an earth-shattering observation in many of his essays alluding to white European culture being sacrificed on the altar of whiteness in European immigrants assimilation into American whiteness upon arrival in America. I'm a result of that, stuck between not identifying with the consumerist materialistic culture of America and knowing nothingof my French, Italian, German, and Russian heritage.
At any rate, your post was inspirational to me. It's helped me understand that I may try my best to be the perfect parent of a biracial child but inevitably I will make mistakes and as long as my heart is in the right place, as long as I'm doing the best for my child, hopefully I will get on the right path and my child will appreciate my efforts when they are older and love me all the more for it.
Bill Canaday says:
You're Not Alone
I find that the problem, the root problem, of racism is that we simply don't know each other very well.
I think that most of that lies in not WANTING to know each other very well. Find a way to overcome that and I think that the problem would be 90% solved.
(ps, I am married to a Black woman. It is my 4th marriage and my first good one. I fully expect that it will also be my last.)
Frederic Christie says:
Systemic
I think this is a nice liberal fantasy because it allows us to think that the problem will resolve itself as people integrate and interact. But actually, people who are in ghettos or nearby and interact with blacks and Latina/os all the time still often have racist viewpoints. I do agree that part of the problem is that people don't want to know each other and the viewpoints precede the attempt to know, but that's simply not always the case. The socialization we're under is very powerful. The problem is systemic and requires system solutions.
Thomas NoWay says:
Two Way Street
You wrote:
"There was a time, during the colonial period, when working class persons of European descent and those of African descent, seeing their common class interests, banded together to overthrow economic oppression, in places like the Virginia colony and elsewhere."
I think we are ripe for this kind of society again. I didn't read your entire post and I almost allways ignore statistics, but you are right, things are not equal, but I think the black community has to take responsibility for some things. We all suffer from oppression to some degree, but to use it as an excuse is inexcusable. Sorry, not enough time to be eloquent about it, but you get my drift.
Frederic Christie says:
Ed Gordon, Bill Cosby, Cornel West, Aaron McGruder...
Thomas: I really recommend you actually read some commentary from the black community. There's an NPR program called News and Notes, I imagine you should be able to get it. Putting that aside, there's Bill Cosby, self-help books aimed at blacks, a YouTube video called "Read a Book" and The Boondocks. The barest look at black cultural product will tell you that blacks see numerous problems in their community and take responsibility for them and try to satirize them, engage with them and combat them.
But whenever race is brought up, this is the first things whites do. "Well, things are inequal, but someone else better take responsibility". It is buck-passing to say this. Because this inequity doesn't just arise from nowhere, it comes about thanks to people's decisions and attitudes. Particularly white peoples'. And so white people need to take rDesponsibility, and indeed their role is far more central given their capacity to define facts on the ground.
I also wonder what oppression Bill Gates suffers from...
Carol M says:
Is He Serious?
Frederic I agree, as always. I advise the poster to check the average AA blog or even talk to the average black person. "Black personal responsibility" moments are NOT an anomaly, far from it actually. You can go anywhere from afrobella (pop culture blog) to keithboykin (homosexuality in AA community blog) straight on down to Black Voices and you will find a "responsibility" post and or topic. Not only are these "responsibility moments" the norm....they're almost outrageous to the point where personal responsibility is called on things that blacks are NOT doing en masse. To say or imply that black people aren't taking their "fair share" comparatively to that of whites is almost laughable, but unfortunately predictable.
Perfect example: The Imus situation. When Imus and other white people alike wanted to take the focus off of Imus' racially motivated and sexist statements...he blamed black rappers. BLACK PEOPLE...since then have had, yet another, full blown discussion in regard to misogyny in rap music. The only person in the limelight that addressed the fact that Imus intentionally passed the buck, to my knowledge, was Dison. There was no "white responsibility" moment, and why would there be? It wouldn't behoove them to do so....and they are never typically questioned on whether to take responsibility or not. I'd assume that white people being told to take "white responsibility" would be addressed the same way as Rev. Wright's sermon. Even in the ridiculous and trite "how come I can't say nigga" discussions, hordes of blacks take the bait and try to convince other blacks to discontinue the use of the slur...almost in a "If we don't say it...white people wont say it" type of way. Very rarely do I see many whites beg the question of "Why do I want to say it anyway?". This continuously happens, which leads me to believe that anyone who could say with a straight face that it's a "two way street" and that blacks "need" to take responsibility...as if we have not (or are not trying to), are seriously divorced from reality or sorely unenlightened when it comes to the black community, my vote is on the latter...but I'd seriously consider the former. Black people are accustomed to these "race talks", unbeknownst to Thomas.
It IS a two-way street, but the fact of the matter is blacks as well as Hispanics have been taking their fair share for quite a while now, in almost self-deprecating ways. Then again, it seems all too easy for someone to point the finger instead of pointing the thumb....
Bill Gates faces oppression for being white, a male, a heterosexual, and rich...duh. *sarcasm*
Frederic Christie says:
White Defense Mechanisms
Tim, I think you could do an entire post on the non sequiturs, diversions and red herrings I've seen in these comment posts regarding race.
Just off the top of my head:
a) In response to a claim about white privilege for a Republican, note that Kennedy or Gore or either Clinton did X or Y insanity or monstrosity and not notice that that proves the salience of white privilege
b) Claim that multi-culturalism is the problem
c) Claim that if someone wrote a post about black privilege, people would be in an uproar
d) Argue that any accusation at a group that would be offensive were you to replace the group word with "black" must be an offensive argument; for example, "Republicans play people for fools" is offensive because "Blacks play people for fools" would be.