where the writers are

Tim Wise Essayist/Polemicist

Off the Deep End: Reflections on Private Clubs, Public Prejudice and Racism 2.0

July 9, 2009, 6:46 pm

On the one hand, racism is so deeply embedded in the history and structure of the United States, that it shouldn't be particularly surprising when a story emerges, indicating that indeed, that racism has bubbled to the surface yet again. 

But on the other hand, sometimes a story finds its way into the public realm, which is of such a profoundly disturbing nature, that you can't help but do a double-take: the kind of story that makes you go, huh? What the hell did I just read? Like for sure you must have seen that headline wrong. Like you must have been teleported back in time fifty years or more, to a period when folks didn't even feel the need to pretend they were racially enlightened. Like you must be hallucinating, or perhaps this is a satire you're reading, maybe something from The Onion? And then you realize, nope, it's for real.

And so it was yesterday, when a swim club on the outskirts of Philadelphia made the news after expelling from their pool a summer camp group of approximately sixty kids of color from the city. Not because they had done anything wrong--no bad behavior, no inappropriate conduct, nothing like that, as they had just arrived and most of the children hadn't even had a chance to enter the pool yet--and not because they had crashed the private environs uninvited (the camp had paid over $1900 for the right to swim there once a week), but because, as club president, John Duesler explained in a letter: the kids would "change the complexion and atmosphere" of the club. Got that? The complexion

Of course, Duesler, about whom I'll have more to say in a minute, insists that the decision wasn't racial. Yet several of the youth denied access to the pool overheard a white club member openly complaining about the arrival of the "black kids," and all but a few of the white children swimming when they arrived were yanked from the pool by their parents, in a move reminiscent of the 1950s, suggesting that the club's racism is not some inanimate institutional force, but a lived reality for many of its white members as well. One woman at the club, for instance, fretted openly that the black kids might "do something" to her child. Of course, because that's what fifth graders from the 'hood do: they roll out to the 'burbs, pretending to be interested in swimming, when really, the plan is to find some white kids and cut 'em the hell up, in some kinda pee-wee gang initiation ritual. Of course.

That the expulsion was racial is beyond dispute, or at least should be. The club knew how many kids were going to be there when they accepted the membership fee, so they can't claim they were overwhelmed by the size of the group, although they seem to be offering that as their excuse now that the story has gone public. Yet to read the comments left underneath the story at the Philly area NBC affiliate's webpage, which was first to break the news, leaves one with the distinct impression that for a lot of white folks, there is no need for the club to devise a cover story. Rather, a disturbing number of white posters seem positively exultant that these children--who had done nothing wrong except, apparently, to be born and to live in North Philadelphia--were booted from the club.

To wit, among these postings, one finds regular and repeated reference to the "animals" from the city, others who claim that blacks don't care for their own neighborhoods, and so, presumably, a group of black children shouldn't be let into a white one, and comments to the effect that if blacks want to be respected (and not discriminated against) they must first "clean up their act." In other words, whites are entitled to view all black people, even 8 year olds, through the lens of presumed group pathology, all because some in the black community engage in undesirable behavior. By which logic, of course, we should also presume that all whites are corporate criminals, because of the actions of Ken Lay, or Bernie Madoff, or the Savings and Loan bandits from the 80s.

Or perhaps that all white men should be presumed serial killers because of Manson, Bundy, Gacy, or dozens of others, or pederasts, like the sick-ass high ranking staffer at Duke University who was advertising for people to come and rape his 5-year old adopted black child, as he had already done repeatedly. 

Perhaps it would be fair to think all whites to be semi-illiterate, because of, say, George W. Bush, or Sarah Palin, or to insinuate that white boys are all sociopathic animal mutilators because, as with a recent case in South Florida, most of the whack jobs who butcher kittens end up being, well, ya know, white boys. Or perhaps that whites are inherently predisposed to cannibalism or that white females should be banned from teaching because of the threat they pose to their students: after all, well over a hundred white female teachers have been busted for preying upon underage kids in recent years, and indeed the perps have been white in over 93 percent of all known cases. 

But of course, none of those who would defend their racism in the swim club case--and who would assure us it is "rational" to fear black kids--would find any of the above examples nearly as logical. This, despite the statistical and anecdotal evidence that could be brought to bear in each case to make sense of crass generalizations in those instances too. No, they reserve their "rational discrimination" for the dark-skinned. Indeed, to read their messages is to see racism in the raw. The kind of thing so many pundits have assured us is no longer a problem in America, now that we've entered the "post-racial" era of Barack Obama. 

Oh, and speaking of which, here's the kicker: remember the above-mentioned club President? The one concerned about how the black kids might change the complexion of the place? John Duesler? Yeah, well, turns out, Duesler is no knuckle-dragging right winger. He's no Klansman. Actually, he was a supporter of President Obama, and helped coordinate a blood drive in town to celebrate the Presidential inauguration. Even worse, he's the chairman of Peace-Action Philadelphia: a collection of presumably progressive and even leftist types. This is what I speak of as Racism 2.0 in my book, Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama: the kind of racism that allows some whites to vote for Obama, and to carve out exceptions for those black and brown folks who make us comfortable, but to maintain fundamentally hostile views towards the larger communities of color from which these exceptions come. In other words, the kind of racism that says, black folks are fine, so long as they went to Harvard Law, speak a certain way, dress a certain way, and pander to our tastes. But for the rest of y'all, oh hell no.

In light of this latest incident, let me make the following points, and let me make them in the clearest terms possible: 

1. I bet'not hear one more Northerner lecture me, ever about the South again. We know perfectly well our history down here. 'Bout time you get clear on yours. This wasn't Philadelphia, Mississippi partner, it was the city of brotherly-frickin'-love, so you and Rocky had best go figure it out, while the rest of us watch for a while. And for y'all in Boston, and Bensonhurst, and Greenwich-damn-Village, feel free to join in. Let us know what you learn about yourself. We got phones down here now, and even, occasionally, internet access, so give us a holler when you come up with something noteworthy.

2. I bet'not hear one more white liberal act like racism is the province of the right. Yes, racism itself is a decidedly reactionary philosophy, but it's one that has long been embedded in the white psyche, and white folks' worldview. As Joe Feagin explains in his newest book, the white racial frame has long influenced how white Americans, irrespective of broader political views, view black and brown folks, and this latest incident only demonstrates that with a vengeance. It is the white racial frame that frames, pun very much intended, blacks--even children--as pathological, socially dysfunctional, likely to misbehave, and unworthy of the opportunities enjoyed by whites. It is the white racial frame that serves to rationalize every injustice done to persons of color, no matter how blatant.

And is that white racial frame which must be thoroughly challenged, exploded, destroyed, eradicated, before this nation can ever hope to achieve racial equity, or even the most rudimentary levels of social justice. So for those nice white liberals who thought voting for Barack Obama was gonna be their get-out-of-jail-free card the next time somebody brought up the subject of racism--sorta like a modern day version of "some of my best friends are black"--think again.

Oh, and finally, for those who insist on changing the subject with regard to this pool story, and insisting that "well, ya know, it is a private club and so they can do whatever they want," you miss the point, and miss it quite badly. First, if a private club advertises memberships to the public, as the Valley Club did, there is an open question as to just how private it actually is. It may indeed be far less so than many claim, and may be bound by civil rights laws just as surely as a municipally owned facility would be. But more to the point, it doesn't matter. This is not an issue about the right of the club to be racist. It is a question about whether it is right for them to be such. One may have the right to do lots of things. I have the right to stand on a corner and shout racial slurs at passersby of color, I suppose. I have a right to publish hate literature. I have a right to join the Klan. In short, I have a "right" to be as racist as I wanna be. But if I decide to do any of those things, you have the right, and more--the obligation--to call me an asshole. And a racist asshole at that. And to make my life miserable.

So let us exercise our rights, and do just that to the folks at The Valley Club. You can reach them via e-mail at: info@thevalleyclub.com. Or you can call them at: 215-947-0700. Their voice mail was full last time I checked (for reasons I think I can imagine), but at some point they'll clear it out, at which point we should fill it up again. Or, if you're white and feeling really creative, perhaps you can pay for a temporary membership and then go swimming. Just make sure to drink a lot of water before you go, and all go together. And then get in the pool, and then, well, I think you know the rest. It would be the world's first piss-in,* and it would serve them right.

* I cannot take credit for the piss-in idea. This concept is borrowed, lovingly, from long-time social justice and antiracist activist/educator, Sharon Martinas, to whom all praise is due for her creativity and sense of humor in the face of injustice: a critical virtue in difficult times.

Tim Wise is the author of four books on race and racism. His website is timwise.org. He blogs at redroom.com and can be reached via e-mail at timjwise@mac.com.

Genie X

Genie X says:

Reading your reflections on

Reading your reflections on America's racial quagmire always gives me hope. Love the touches of humor. Important to maintain one's ability to laugh. Thank you!!!

Tim Wise

Tim Wise says:

Thanks Genie X... Just

Thanks Genie X...

Just thought I'd post something else on this, in anticipation of some troll coming on here and insisting that the issue at this pool wasn't about race, but was merely about the size of the pool beingt inadequate to handle the number of kids (the official club line, now)...

Turns out, twelve days before this incident, the same club, in the same pool, hosted roughly 80 kids, from four 6th grade classes from a local school. All but two of the kids were white. Apparently no one minded THAT...The founder of the camp that got booted knows this first hand, as one of her sons was one of the two kids of color in the school group...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2009/july/10/a-s...

Anonymous

Jeronimus (not verified) says:

racist summer camp

Tim,

I hope you'll join me in condemning another openly racist institution, Hadassah sponsored Camp Judea:

http://www.campjudaea.org/

If you browse their web site, you'll not find a single person of color! It's just a bunch of pasty kids who salute a flag of a foreign nation, whose Prime Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, openly calls for the extermination of Palestinian people of color!

Thank you for your work in continuing to fight racism, Tim, including the U Pareve Kosher Likud variety.

With warmest Oy Veys and Shaloms!

Rabbi Jeronimus Vierzehn-Worten

Zak Patten

Zak Patten says:

As a Boston resident....

...I had to comment on this one, Tim. I completely agree with your assertion that many of us white liberals who voted for Obama use that act as a way to convince ourselves that we're not racist. Unfortunately, I happen to have been blessed (cursed?) with a strongly self-critical mind. I am all too aware of my own prejudices, one of which cropped up today as I took my son to a playground here in the city. Upon seeing a great many young people of color hanging around, I started to worry about having the valuables stolen out of my bag. Funny that I didn't have that worry at the 95%-white playground we were at earlier in the day.

So my question for you is this: What can/should I do about these prejudices, if anything? I'm a white person who, like you, recognizes the fundamentally raw deal people with my shade of skin have given those with much darker skin ever since "we" landed on these shores. I just don't seem to be able to overcome my prejudices, despite years of effort. Does that matter? I certainly try not to act out my racism.

Thanks for all you do.

Tim Wise

Tim Wise says:

Note to everyone here: I

Note to everyone here: I responded to the above poster in a private email. He is not a rabbi, but a well known rabid Jew hater, who tries to catch other Jews, like me, in a contradiction, by "exposing" us as apologists for Zionism and Israel, even as we critique racism in the U.S....in his case, his mistake is not doing his homework. I am militantly anti-Zionist and have been for years. The camp he mentions however, is not segregationist, any more so than a christian youth camp is, however absurd their Israel-phile nature may strike me

Frederic Christie

Frederic Christie says:

Tim...

As always, love the new commentary, but I'd note that relying on comments sections as a barometer of racism may not be the best approach. Bear in mind John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: Comments sections routinely bring out the worst trolls. Sometimes they're racist, but as 4Chan demonstrates, sometimes they're just saying racist things for attention.

Michael Gibson

Michael Gibson says:

Question:

After seeing so many examples of white bias in the news recently, I’m forced to ask this question. Is racism a learned behavior- or is an inclination passed on through the genes while the child is yet in the womb? Those things that we hide even from ourselves- the dark things we refuse to admit but harbor even to our heart of hearts. Can such things be imprinted upon the fetus? We already know that children of talented artists sometimes exhibit the same artistic traits that are found in the parent. Children of geniuses are often found to be exceptionally gifted themselves. So- can our biases, our prejudices- our sins and secret animosities; can our children become conditioned by what they already have inherited from Mom and Pop?

When mothers snatch children from the swimming pool as in the recent story, so as not to be contaminated by their kind; is the child being conditioned by environment or is the tendency already there?
Does the child simply pick up on their parent’s vibes or is the predisposition already present.
We know that a father who is an alcoholic stands a good chance of passing on a gene that might leave his son susceptible to the illness. The fact that we continue to hear stories like this can be overwhelming at times. That some whites continue to flee to the outskirts of cities, and secret themselves away in gated communities should we ask?
That shows like Cops continue to thrive in the market based on a biased white viewership perhaps.

I hear people talk all the time, you know you look just like your momma? You know he walks just like his daddy- he’s got that same swagger. Or your attitude sucks, just like yer dad!
So I would like you all to pine in on this…
Does racism occur before- or after the womb?I hope
I don't offend...

Frederic Christie

Frederic Christie says:

Michael...

It clearly has to be both, to some degree.

The ability to discriminate against people, put them into schemas, stereotype them, etc. is undoubtedly genetic: It's a major part of our neurology. Similarly, there is a reasonable chance that some kind of "tribal instinct" is genetic.

But the exact form of those racial categorizations HAS to be nurture-based. Otherwise, we'd see roughly constant racial categories throughout history, as well as constant treatment of the minorities in any given society, and we don't. Societies vary tremendously as regards their treatment of their racial minorities, what minority groups are (or even if they ARE minorities: in many countries, the weak group is the vast majority of the population).

Patrick Motton

Patrick Motton says:

New

My heart is going to explode with joy at the inquisitiveness of white folks who really want to know what racism is.I'm no Neely Fuller Jr or Dr.Welsing but my experience as a 53 year old black man living in America will suffice.
Racism/White Supremacy is a global system of control maintained by whites, over non-whites that functions in all areas of people activity.
Entertainment,Law,Politics,Religion,Sex,Economics,War,Education and Labor.
Neely fuller Jr. said if you don't understand Racism/White Supremacy everything you think you understand will only confuse you.This means if you can not admit the obvious about the dominate behavioral dynamic under which you dwell then you probably have misinterpreted many thing not so obvious.
Racism is not an individual,it is the collective action of people who consider themselves to be white to maintain dominance over people they consider non-white whether intended or unintended through what ever means necessary.The real question is. Why?
Why would white people impose a global system of domination?
Also Frederic in every society globally the darker you are the lower your status on the social ladder.Enlighten me of a country where this is not true even in brown countries black people are
socially at the bottom.Latin,Arabic,European,Australian,Indian it even permeates some parts of Africa.In what part of the world is this dark skin is a benefit.Also Western domination or European
domination,or White domination finds it's beginnings in Greece,then Rome,then Britannia,all of Europe then it spread to the new world all with religion and bloodshed.
This is an old issue for white folks which probably became evident
when whites begin to circumnavigate the globe out of tiny Europe. In every place they went there were people of color.If they cohabited they found that the offspring was of the mother's color.The logical conclusion before the advent of genetics was probably if those ships allowed to go in the other direction which such genetic power could conceivably eliminate the Anglo Saxons.(It was already proven in Spain where the Moore over 700 years had changed it.s complexion.)The populations of all countries have been
controlled.You noticed that the day camp that had visited the week before with only two children of color a controlled number,we just can't have colored people runnin'round here willy nilly it might change the complexion of things.
Not many black people understand that we as a people have been in
a war for some centuries now.For the last 45 years we've been victims of mass unemployment especially among black males.(These statistics you won't have to look up.)Add to this discrimination in all it's forms,but especially housing white people are not if humanly possible allowing more than a controllable number of colored people live in there midst or in there workplace.The labor unions are virtually all white,and that's just blue collar.We as
a group are denied gainful employment and then stereo typed as
men who don't take responsibility for their family.
Racism is a subconscious survival mechanism that dictate whites maintain physical domination for fear of genetic annihilation.
Could this be why so many blacks were lynched for merely looking at white woman.

Frederic Christie

Frederic Christie says:

Some Corrections

"Also Frederic in every society globally the darker you are the lower your status on the social ladder.Enlighten me of a country where this is not true even in brown countries black people are
socially at the bottom.Latin,Arabic,European,Australian,Indian it even permeates some parts of Africa"

First of all, I don't know why you made this point. I didn't ever indicate that I believed otherwise, though in fact I do. My point was that racism varies from time to time and from place to place. Denying this claim is absurd.

But, second, that's historically incorrect and incorrect in the modern world. See Amy Chua's World on Fire: Market-dominant minorities, like the Chinese in the Phillipines, are often lighter-skinned in Asia. Similarly, in Hawaii the ethnic ladder is more complex than that. In Japan, the buraku, eta, etc. are often virtually identical in skin tone and even in other physical markers to the Japanese. And in the former Yugoslav Republics, you had largely white folks shooting at other largely white folks.

Similarly, in history you had darker-skinned Muslims (black, Arab, Turkish, etc.) discriminating against lighter-skinned Christians and Muslims in their territory. As civilized as the Muslim Empires were, they had racialized and religiously-based tax codes.

Insofar as your claim is true, it stems from the pernicious effects of European racism.

I don't see what the point of this claim is. Racism is a very heterogenuous force, as is ethnic hatred. That's a GOOD thing: It indicates to the racists that their resentment is arbitrary and that the categories they use to hate are make no sense, and it indicates to us fighting for justice that our goal is achievable.

"Racism is a subconscious survival mechanism that dictate whites maintain physical domination for fear of genetic annihilation."

Is it? If that was the case, we'd see norms against miscegenation and interracial marriage stay constant, yet that has NOT been the case, uncontroversially. There is NO serious study I am aware of that shows that whites are less comfortable with interracial marriage than in the 60s.

Dominant tribes in history like the Mongols, Aryans and Turks conquered tribes and assimilated them. It's why both Germans and Indians could claim "Aryan" heritage. The tribe eclipsed the genetics.

No, it's not about genes, it's pure power politics. Racism has performed useful functions for European empires, for capitalists. That racism changed and morphed over time. Irish were considered barely a step up above blacks; now they are considered fully white.

Patrick Motton

Patrick Motton says:

Racism

Racism denotes race as in the white race,(or if you prefer people of European or West Asian descent)the black race(people of African
descent).Emphatically speaking;There is or never has been any other form of RACE-ISM except White Supremacy/Racism in the history of the world.
Expand your bubble,if only for a second.Race-ism can only refer the actions of an Entire Race.Race is a mostly global phenomenon,
it is not simply the actions of one sub group against another
however severe.
I won't argue with you about what Racism is,it is all I know.
Mr.Christies might I ask what familiarity you actually have with
racism.Even if you are black it is doubtful that you have grasped the depth of this issue.If you don't understand Racism/White Supremacy EVERYTHING else you think you understand is only confusing you.

Frederic Christie

Frederic Christie says:

Weltanschauung

"Racism denotes race as in the white race,(or if you prefer people of European or West Asian descent)the black race(people of African
descent)."

Or the Asian race, or... If your only argument is that racism is by definition white-on-black and black-on-white, then you might be narrowly correct, but then we have to ask, "What the hell kind of a definition is that?" Ethnic hatred seems pretty much the same as racism structurally: You get genocide or ethnic cleansing, you get segregation, you get inequal opportunities... You're saying that what happened in Bosnia just wasn't as bad, or comparable to, what happens to African-Americans here. I don't think this is tenable.

 "Emphatically speaking;There is or never has been any other form of RACE-ISM except White Supremacy/Racism in the history of the world."

Either

a) this is a definitional claim, in which case it's useless because lots of other things virtually identical to what you're defining as "racism" have existed and they've been atrocious

Or

b) this is a factual claim, in which case it's flat out wrong.

Take the Mongolian invasion of China. That became a racialized opportunity structure to some intent, with warlords from outside dominating the natives. There was plenty of racial resentment both ways during those years.

History is full of tribal, ethnic and racial groups hating each other and committing atrocities upon each other. It is untenable and insulting to the memories of those who died to suggest otherwise.

"Expand your bubble,if only for a second.Race-ism can only refer the actions of an Entire Race."

Then there's no such thing, because entire races have never banded together to commit the same KIND of atrocities (other Europeans stopped the Germans, Northerners stopped slavery in the South, etc.), not to mention that "races" don't exist.

By your reasoning, employment discrimination against an individual Arab isn't racism because the entire race isn't performing it. It's ludicrous.

Most people  accept something like the following two definitions:

"1) the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other race

2) discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race"

Racism therefore is both worldview or attitude, like discriminatory attitudes, subconscious prejudice, or explicit racialism; and behavior, like discrimination, even color-blind but race-impacting discrimination.

"Race is a mostly global phenomenon,
it is not simply the actions of one sub group against another
however severe."

So then we need a new word for all that other "sub group" stuff that is horrible and atrocious, not to mention the vast majority of what you call "racism".

"I won't argue with you about what Racism is,it is all I know.
Mr.Christies might I ask what familiarity you actually have with
racism."

Given that I'm white, I have a lifetime's worth of experience with white privilege.

".Even if you are black it is doubtful that you have grasped the depth of this issue"

So other people who suffer from the same thing you do must be wrong if they disagree? How insulting.

"If you don't understand Racism/White Supremacy EVERYTHING else you think you understand is only confusing you."

How interesting that, despite how "confused" I might have been, I made coherent arguments and you didn't.

I see "racism" anytime I see people being targeted or affected thanks to their socially constructed racial status, which has no independent existence in genetics or anywhere else. That's employment discrimination against African-Americans, the media behaving as if all Arabs are terrorists, the media making the plight of African-American communities invisible, and the plight of the buraku in Japan. My definition can be applied to a whole number of historical situations and therefore lets us view oppression without preconceived blinders. Yours requires us to ignore pretty much everything before European colonial history. Tell me, what ADVANTAGE is there to your definition and world view?

 

Patrick Motton

Patrick Motton says:

Racism

We are talking about racism or all form of injustice. I never said that Europeans or Asians or Africans for that matter killing each other was not a horrible thing.but it's not Racism. Segregation,discrimination,lynching,inferiorization{religous and educational),economic oppression,the diaspora,germ warfare,unjust imprisonment,racial profiling,inferior living condition,inferior educational system,justifiable homicide,mass genocide of people
of color,worse overall healthcare and many more are all methodology
that are systemic not random.

Frederic Christie

Frederic Christie says:

Terrible Definition

""We are talking about racism or all form of injustice. I never said that Europeans or Asians or Africans for that matter killing each other was not a horrible thing.but it's not Racism."

Yes, I was afraid you'd make that distinction.

Jews under the Nazis, buraku in Japan, and ethnic groups in Bosnia were all targeted for their ethno-racial identity. They were viewed in an ethno-racial lens, Otherized, and specifically referred to as ethnic or racial impurities to be cleansed. This fits any definition of racism on the planet aside from yours. It smells like racism, it looks like racism, it acts like racism. Implicitly, your definition of racism means "racism only against African-Americans". Well, sorry, I'm not going to adopt that as a terminology.

Surely you can admit that what happens to "Europeans or Asians or Africans" isn't just "injustice" but is actually fairly similar and analogous to what you call racism. Maybe you want to call it ethnic hatred, or caste hatred, or nationalist hatred, but it's structurally identical.

"Segregation,discrimination,lynching,inferiorization{religous and educational),economic oppression,the diaspora,germ warfare,unjust imprisonment,racial profiling,inferior living condition,inferior educational system,justifiable homicide,mass genocide of people
of color,worse overall healthcare and many more are all methodology
that are systemic not random."

All of which were experienced by Native Americans, red-skinned not black and in the racist taxonomy of 17th-19th century Europeans better than the blacks yet treated worse, and by Jews in the concentration camps, and by the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslav Republics. The buraku/eta/other groups in Japan have not experienced the lynching and genocide, AFAIK, but virtually everything else on the list (particularly the economic and political discrimination) they have faced. None of this was random either, yet it doesn't fit in your narrow black-white dichotomy.

This was actually one of the major critiques of CRT, particularly from Lat-Crit scholars, Asian American scholars, and others: That the black-white dichotomy is unnecessarily narrow and ignores the intersections and categories of racism. Most race scholars have long since moved past a strict black-white dichotomy.

Further, let's say that your historical vision is accurate just for a moment. It's plainly not, but even if it were, that wouldn't mean that IN THE FUTURE there may not be different racial faultlines. As I noted to no reply, the Muslim Empires, primarily browner people, discriminated against Jews and Christians in their domains, often whiter. European dominance has been such a powerful element of world history for the last five hundred years or so that it warps our historical perspectives, but European dominance is not guaranteed in perpetuity. Meaning that your definition of racism as only black-on-white or white-on-black also prevents us from responding to racialized atrocities and mistreatment based on future ethno-racial faultlines.

Tags: