Wednesday, October 28, 2009

point out that they've never owned slaves

This is a guest post by Nikki, who blogs at Irene's Daughters, along with Kate and Cayce. This post is part of their series on common white "derailment" tactics. Nikki can be reached at nikki@jhu.edu.


The majority of white Americans believe that black people were mistreated horribly; we’re willing to admit that. But we aren’t willing to pay for it for the rest of human history. We don’t want to believe in the curse of the sins of the fathers. And so people like me, who do believe that black people were wronged, also wish we could say, “If you don’t get over it, you’ll always languish like this. You have to work for what you want, like the rest of us do. Don’t expect anyone to give you the leg up.”


I’m not trying to ignore history; I’m trying to get beyond it.


An acquaintance wrote the above words to me in early 2008. She was a Christian and a Democrat who enthusiastically supported and voted for President Obama that same year. I have no idea if she still feels this way; I haven’t asked her lately.

derailment [n]: a defensive argument, statement, or question that dismisses or seeks to undermine anti-racist arguments in an effort to preserve privilege or the status quo

“I never owned slaves.”

“No one in my family ever owned slaves.”

“Our family didn’t come to America until well after slavery.” [Note: Up until recently, this was my own white family’s favorite line.]

“The past has already happened; we can’t change it.”

(That last pass-the-buck statement is my favorite, I think. Really, you don’t have the power to change the past? You mean to tell me you’ve never tried to build a time machine? My God, how do you live with yourself?)

Usually when I hear these sorts of lines from white people, they are offered in explanation of why they vehemently oppose affirmative action, or any other race-based help/“handouts” for people of color. Their justification, in most cases, is this insistence on their own helplessness to change history, and their unwillingness to “pay” or be “held responsible” for it.

The way they tell it, they, too, are victims of unjust, ignorant, and/or racist white ancestors — because they, white Americans living today, are the unfortunate ones who must deal with affirmative action, “reverse racism,” and angry, greedy people of color. Sure, black people suffered tremendously under slavery, but many white people now feel that they are the oppressed ones, paying unfairly for “the sins of the fathers.”

In his book Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva refutes this notion of institutionalized racism and ensuing white privilege as a thing of the distant past, far removed from white people living in the U.S. today:

[W]hites interpreted the past as slavery…. Since Jim Crow died slowly in the country (1960s to 1970s), their constant reference to a remote past distorts the fact about how recent overt forms of racial oppression impeded black progress. This also means that most whites are still connected to parents and grandparents who participated in Jim Crow in some fashion… [B]elieving discrimination is a thing of the past helps whites reinforce their staunch opposition to all race-based compensatory programs. This story line, then, is used to deny the enduring effects of historic discrimination as well as to deny the significance of contemporary discrimination…

It is a fact that most whites did not participate directly in slavery or came to the country years after slavery had ended. However, this…ignores the fact that pro-white policies (“preferential treatment”) in jobs, housing, elections, and access to social space…have had (and continue to have) a positive multiplier effect for all those deemed “white.” … Although specific whites may not have participated directly in the overt discriminatory practices that injured blacks and other minorities in the past, they have all received unearned privileges by virtue of being regarded as “white” and have benefited from the various incarnations of white supremacy in the United States.


An American who exonerates himself because “that’s someone else’s history, not mine” makes the conversation all about him and his own defensiveness, his feelings of helplessness. It is not wrong to feel frustrated or helpless in the face of racism, prejudice, and unearned white privilege — but it is wrong to give yourself a free pass to ignore it, to walk away, to do nothing to challenge or change it.

The determination of many white people to excuse themselves not just from any wrongdoing, but from taking any positive action to fight (or, in some cases, even acknowledge) racism as it persists today, seriously handicaps all Americans in our struggle to overcome our collective racist history. To echo Cayce’s Derailment Monday post of last week, conversations with white people about race often get sidelined by the white person saying, “You just want me to feel guilty!” But, as Cayce pointed out, no reasonable anti-racist wants white people to feel guilty for either past or current wrongs — instead, we want them “to feel engaged, empathetic, righteously indignant even, over the injustices in our society.” These are feelings we can take to the bank; these are feelings that aid us in the fight against racism. Guilt, helplessness, and especially defensiveness changes nothing.

There is one other point I want to make about the fallacy of this “historical” excuse, or “the past is the past” argument (to again quote Professor Bonilla-Silva). Yes, the past is the past, and one cannot in fairness blame a white descendant of slaveowners for the sins of her forebears. But it is ignorant and irresponsible to assume that a grievous sin such as racism, institutionalized and promoted as it was by slavery and Jim Crow — and the genocide against America’s indigenous peoples, and the persecution of immigrants, and the Japanese-American internment, to name only a few examples — can remain isolated in the past, without creating a blight on future generations as well. We are not so easily separated from what our countrymen did just a few generations ago, no matter how much we try to distance ourselves from the past and claim innocence.

We reap what others have sown before us, and that includes deep mistrust, prejudice, and racism. And we do bear the burden, as their descendants — and the only people with the power to change anything now — to try to right at least some of the wrongs. It’s time to challenge all the people of our generation who want to simply wash their hands of history. Why should we expect to be excused from addressing this injustice, and working to eradicate it, even if we are not the ones “directly responsible” for it?

95 comments:

  1. It continues to amaze me when white people claim that racism doesn't exist anymore because we no longer have slavery or Jim Crow laws!

    Sure... keep telling yourselves that, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Part of this is that nothing is ever as simple as "you people did this". The US has a long and varied history of racism, even against people only now considered white, which was not uniformly carried out by "you people".

    Look at Germany, even Hilter's secretary, Traudl Junge, did not know what was really going on. Many helped Jews hide and escape. Many had to escape themselves, such as my grandmother. Yet people will collectivly blame all German people and even today call them Nazis. It is entirely possible to distance yourself from the past while at the same time working to fix the problem.

    You can't "you people" subjects like racism because it always involves shutting out history and relying on generalizations. And when you do this, you lose sight of ways to fix the problem. There are plenty of white ethnicities (such as Jews, Italians, Irish) who are still at a lower social standing and do not participate fully in white privilege. I usually hear the "my family never owned slaves" argument from people who are lower-middle to lower class and a part of an "other". They generally live in more racially mixed areas where white privilege is much less of a factor in their daily lives. I think they tend not to understand why affirmitive action is needed because they don't live in the areas where it IS needed. They don't live in upper-middle class suburban WASPville where few stop to question why they're surrounded by nothing but other whites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think white Americans, though not responsible for wrongs done by other people in the past, are at minimum obligated to be aware of racism and try not to perpetuate it with their own actions.

    Would you say that that's not enough? What kinds of positive actions are you referring to? And why is inaction wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I usually hear the "my family never owned slaves" argument from people who are lower-middle to lower class and a part of an "other". They generally live in more racially mixed areas where white privilege is much less of a factor in their daily lives.

    If they're white people living in the United States, white privilege is still a part of their everyday lives, even when they experience economic, ethnic, and even racial marginalization. We've had a recent post about this, too.

    And why is inaction wrong?

    Inaction only serves to perpetuate white privilege and racism. Racism works kind of like a moving sidewalk: if a white person just stands still, everything keeps heading heading in the same direction. If someone wants to change directions, she needs to do something.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Kate

    I didn't say they don't experience any white privilege, I said it's much less of a factor. And because of this they are much less likely to understand the need for affirmative action because they don't live and work in areas where there is a true need for it. They don't live that white on white lifestyle where "WASP" is synonymous with "normal"

    Also, I and several others have pointed out what is wrong with the previous post about "white ethnics".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oooh, you forgot my favorite:
    "But the Irish used to be slaves, too!"
    --

    >> "Guilt, helplessness, and especially defensiveness change nothing."

    Oh, I don't know, I find guilt to be *very* motivating. Not so much for what my ancestors may or may not have done, but for what I as an individual have done. I do agree that guilt can *trigger* defensiveness, which is pretty much a conversation-ender and a progress-stopper. But I think that at least some amount of guilt, on the part of white people in anti-racist discussions, is inevitable. Because while theoretically there could be completely non-racist white Americans out there who have never done or said or thought a racist thing, pretty much all of us are racist, and we do at least have the idea that "being racist" is bad.

    Guilt *alone* does nothing, true. But it does mean acknowledging that you (generic), personally, have screwed up. Which gives *everyone* a place to start to work for change.

    >> "An American who exonerates himself because “that’s someone else’s history, not mine” makes the conversation all about him and his own defensiveness, his feelings of helplessness."

    Hmm...yes and no. A [white] American who uses the "not my ancestors" derailment has made the conversation about her/himself *internally*, long before the words were spoken. It's not a reaction to some proposed slight against long-dead family; it's about that thing I did last week, what she said two years ago, how he got that job. We say "no such thing as institutional prejudice!" or "I played no role in institutional prejudice!" because we don't want to face our internal prejudice.

    It has nothing to do with helplessness. Helplessness is "I can't change this." This is a case of "I don't want to change this."

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is one of "those" topics for me. The ones that get my heart pumping and my adrenaline flowing.

    Things have to change. We have to stop trying to step around and over the shit-stain on the carpet and stop pretending it's not there. That shit-stain makes the whole room stink. It makes the carpet with the shit on it still feel shit upon. And it shows that the person who tried to clean it up before did a shitty job. Just because it wasn't our dog that put it there, doesn't mean we don't have to do anything about it. It's a big mess - but it's not beyond our control to clean it up. There will always be that residual mark no matter what - but the cleanup effort means a lot more than the end product.

    I'm in my senior year at school and I plan to be an English teacher in high school. I have given the above subject thought for my entire life. My answer to the questions "what are we going to do about this?" and "how can we remedy this?" is to find the things I see as HUGE faults that go unnoticed every single day and change them. My "plan" or what I feel my call to action is is to stop segregating classes by the "color" of their content and to stop giving students the choice to NOT learn about the black story and what REAL black culture was and is. There will be no "February is Black History month" shit. My students will enjoy African-American literature and film the entire year, as though it had the same merits as white literature. And I won't point it out to anyone. It will be "the norm".

    I'm absolutely sick to death of African-American writers not being given credit as AMERICAN authors, not allowing them to be recognized outside of their blackness because no one wants the context of slavery to be brought up. The "she's good for a black writer" thing is going to be laid to rest in my classroom. My students will accept black and African-American writers as just that - writers. My job will be to facilitate their understanding of the subjects brought up within the text.

    I'm done with white people "not knowing any better". Done with that being an excuse for why they perpetuate ignorance. My students will fully understand what an African diaspora is, will understand voodoo as a legitimate religion, will understand how important oral tradition is and stop using the ability to pen a paragraph as a marker for a learned person, will not leave my classroom feeling separated from black culture because they don't know anything about it. My students may pick up on the fact that none of the authors I've chosen are white, but they won't pick up on the fact that I'm forcing them to acknowledge that the culture and literature of the black and whatever other majority of an ethnic group that presides in their school is relevant to them and is important for more than just one month out of the year.

    I will probably spend the rest of my life doing this, but I will have thousands of young people pass through my doors in that time and I will have done SOMEthing about it. They will go into other English classes and get the white lesson probably for the rest of their lives, but they will always remember that one year they had me for their teacher. They will perk up at Lucille Clifton's name like someone said "Shakespeare," I guarantee.

    I went off on a tangent. But the point is this - slavery happened. We need to stop perpetuating the "blacks are descendants of slaves, and slavery was bad so we shouldn't talk about black people unless it's in the context of how bad slavery was, and we shouldn't do that too often because it makes blacks mad at us and makes whites cry" thing we have going on here. As the dominant culture and race, white people, we have to do something to stop the oppression from continuing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and one more thing...
    --

    Dear my fellow Irish-Americans,

    WE HAVE WHITE PRIVILEGE.

    Love,
    [Irish first name] Willow [Irish last name]

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with Cloudy. The white population in the United States has a considerable amount of class struggle. I have a hard time linking White Privilege with a white family who suffered a foreclosure or a white male facing chronic unemployment. I wonder how White Privilege is working out for white felons facing mandatory drug sentences or the tons of mentally ill white homeless people I see on American streets.

    I don't think White Privilege is going to save these people. I believe that White Privilege does exist for the wealthier and more educated white person.

    As a human being, I am not part of the race problem in this country. As a person of European ancestry though, I want to help people of color break down the White Privilege barriers. I just have no idea how to do this.

    I see capitalism and our plutocratic structure as the source of the problem. Majority of wealth is still concentrated in the hands of white families. Karl Marx speaks to me here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I shamefully admit that I used that derailment in the past. It was an attempt to personally distance myself from racism. I would also use the tactic that my mother and biological father aren't even American (the man who raised me is, that's why I'm here).

    It really is a hard thing for a white person to not take racism personally. To be told you're racist just because you're white isn't easy to except, especially if you've thought yourself to be "colorblind".

    There is an adjustment period where we will say all sorts of things to distance ourselves from the nastiness that is racism. I think there should be a "stages of grief" for white people learning about racism.

    If we're honest with ourselves, we'll eventually get over the butthurt. I have faith.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Cloudy and Kate: I think a helpful tool in this discussion is an article by Paul Kivel on how his Jewish male family members (himself included) benefited from white privilege, despite being "minorities" themselves.
    http://www.paulkivel.com/articles/whitebenefitsassessment.pdf

    He also has an article called, "I'm Not White, I'm Jewish" that examines these issues and talking about what Jewish folks can do in the antiracist movement:
    http://www.paulkivel.com/articles/imnotwhiteimjewish.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just realized that "butthurt" was maybe not a good term to use. I live too much in the gaming world where that term is used all the time. My apologies for any offense.

    *redface*

    ReplyDelete
  13. The white population in the United States has a considerable amount of class struggle. I have a hard time linking White Privilege with a white family who suffered a foreclosure or a white male facing chronic unemployment. I wonder how White Privilege is working out for white felons facing mandatory drug sentences or the tons of mentally ill white homeless people I see on American streets.

    I don't think White Privilege is going to save these people. I believe that White Privilege does exist for the wealthier and more educated white person.


    Tim Wise has a few things to say about that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Elsariel,

    It really is a hard thing for a white person to not take racism personally. To be told you're racist just because you're white isn't easy to except, especially if you've thought yourself to be "colorblind".

    I can understand this, because, while not white, I was brought up to be "colorblind" and pretty much ignore race - mine and other people's. The subliminal message I received from that, of course, was that race was something BAD, that it was something that had to be magnanimously overlooked by others.

    I don't think white people are "racist because [they're] white," I think we all harbor racial prejudices -- and some of us are racist -- because we are Americans, and our collective cultural inheritance as Americans is very biased against people of color.

    I agree with you that waking up from colorblindness and confronting one's own prejudices can be extremely difficult and hurtful for white people, and that struggle should not be overlooked. But I think there's also a way through the prejudice, guilt, and "grief" as you aptly call it, to better understanding and, in some cases, real healing. It can't even be attempted if the white person persists in denial and derailment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Willow:

    A [white] American who uses the "not my ancestors" derailment has made the conversation about her/himself *internally*, long before the words were spoken. It's not a reaction to some proposed slight against long-dead family; it's about that thing I did last week, what she said two years ago, how he got that job. We say "no such thing as institutional prejudice!" or "I played no role in institutional prejudice!" because we don't want to face our internal prejudice.

    It has nothing to do with helplessness. Helplessness is "I can't change this." This is a case of "I don't want to change this."


    I think this is a good point. I DO think that in the case of some white people, it really is a feeling of helplessness, of "I can't." But a lot of times, that is hand in hand with "I won't, and here's why." Thanks for making this point. It's not REAL powerlessness, even if it's a feeling of powerlessness - and sometimes it's a choice to remain helpless.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear my fellow Irish-Americans,

    WE HAVE WHITE PRIVILEGE.

    Love,
    [Irish first name] Willow [Irish last name]


    A-freaking-men. Thank you, Willow.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Craig, I feel like you're conflating white privilege and economic privilege. They are, in fact, 2 entirely different things, which intersect. Even poor whites benefit from white privilege. This is not to say that their socioeconomic class doesn't limit their opportunities or that they don't have less privilege than rich whites, but consider that poor blacks have the added experiences of classism and racism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Elsariel

    "I think there should be a "stages of grief" for white people learning about racism."

    There kinda is I'm studying for a test right now in a management class and the topic is diversity. And according to my text there are 6 steps to becoming multiculurally sensitive.

    1. Denial
    2. Defense
    3. Minimization
    4. Acceptance
    5. Adaptation
    6. Integration

    Anyway, just thought that was interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I like bluey's point:

    "I think white Americans, though not responsible for wrongs done by other people in the past, are at minimum obligated to be aware of racism and try not to perpetuate it with their own actions."

    That while it's true that there are plenty of white people whose ancestors had no hand in slavery, there's absolutely no reason to state that as an argument! It's not actually relevant to anything, since no matter what, we as white people have experienced privilege in some form or another.

    ReplyDelete
  20. You may not have owned slaves, but you still reap the benefits from African-Americans 246 years of unpaid labor and another 100 years of Jim Crow segregation that ossified white people's social and economic advantages.

    Which is why many Black people get pissed when we hear Whites utter that 'we never owned slaves' line.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @LolaAnn

    Thanks for the stages list. I'm curious as to what the "Integration" step is.

    I'm at that point where I'm accepting it and trying to adapt, but when I look forward I'm not entirely sure what to do.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Go go Victoria!

    You're obviously going to be a valuable teacher. Just one thing, though. Why not teach white writers too, but also teach about, and ask about, what it is that's white about them?

    Sounds to me like your ideas might still give white students the idea that race is all about "them" and not about "us," the normal people (even if you're not focusing exclusively on racial issues when you teach non-white writers).

    Thank you for this great post, nikki, i now have better ammo for when i hear this obnoxiousness about the past being all in the past again.

    ReplyDelete
  23. from what I understood the integration step is the point at which ideas/parts of other cultures become a part of you and your personality/worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You always here white people say, "Well, MY family never owned slaves."

    I hear this so often that it makes me wonder WHO exactly had slaves. No one from the way they tell it. "Get over it.....but let us still reap the rewards from it"

    LOL...I can't tell you how laughable this is.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bonilla-Silva was one of my favorite writers to study in University. I found he spoke many truths I knew, but I couldn't articulate.

    @Cloudy & Craig
    I've brought up the fact that YES, I know your family didn't own slaves (and that really isn't the point), you still benefit from the system of racism b/c of your white skin--to my white friends.

    And you know the first thing they'll talk about? Classism & class struggle.

    Look. It goes like this:
    Are you considered white by the general populace? If you answered "Yes" to this question, then congratulations! You benefit from white privilege.

    There are no other socioeconomic considerations with this analysis, because it is not about those
    Does having or not having white privilege affect those other socioeconomic categories? Yes.
    But those categories do not effect whether or not you benefit from white privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I’m not trying to ignore history; I’m trying to get beyond it."

    This is true. It's one thing to acknowledge the past and work to avoid repeating it, but I don't blame anyone for being defensive when they're beaten over the head everyday about slavery, Jim Crow, interment camps, etc all the while trying to make a difference. What more do you want from people?

    I kid you not, I think about Emmett Till and Abeer Qassim Al-Janabi *everyday*, but I'm not scowling at every white person I see because they don't do the same. If they even knew who they were at all. Here's what I see happening, and I think it's spitting in the face of the entire civil rights movement:

    "We want 100% equality...er, you can't use that word, oh I know you didn't mean anything by it, but be sensitive, oh, but I still want equality when it comes to everything else...uh, you can't do/say that because someone might be offended...erm, stop using that kind of language, because it reminds me of Jim Crow South/slavery and we want to get past that...ugh, why aren't you thinking about Jim Crow South/slavery RIGHT NOW?! It's part of American history. Ugh! That's in the past."

    Mixed messages. I'm getting them, so I'm sure there are plenty of well-meaning white people who are just as confused.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Inaction only serves to perpetuate white privilege and racism.

    True. However - and I may be getting overly abstract about this, but bear with me - there is probably an infinite number of wrongs that a white American could help right. By your argument, you could say it's wrong not to personally move to Iraq and help out with reconstruction. Or to not become a scientist and do cancer research. If inaction is wrong, then we are wrong for not doing an infinite number of worthwhile things.

    And in fact, white Americans are often told to feel guilty, not only for what we or our forebears have done, but for every single thing we aren't doing, because we have the power to Change Teh World and we aren't doing it. Granted, that's partly our fault for bragging about how world-changingly powerful and amazing we are.

    But it's still unrealistic. A given individual, or even group, can't do everything that needs to be done.

    The way most people live their moral lives is that they separate actions into three categories: Wrong, Obligatory, and Other. Doing a wrong thing is wrong. Not doing an obligatory thing is wrong. As for everything else, you may or may not be encouraged to do a given thing, but you can't be told you're wrong for not doing it.

    So what we're discussing here is obligations. It sounds to me like you think there is no limit on the obligation of white people to fight racism, which means that as long as racism exists, white people will exist in a permanent state of blame.

    (Hint: If you're trying to avoid making white people feel guilty, this is not the way.)

    So what I was really asking is this: is there a limit to the obligation of white people to fight racism? Is there any point when a white person can say, "I've done my bit and it's enough"? Or should we be held perpetually accountable for the infinite number of things we're not doing?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Funny you should write about this today, as I take on 'originalism' and the Constitution over at AAR.

    When I hear white folks talk about the Constitution and how it's a pure document, I am still surprised when they ignore that most of our FF's were slave owners and that fact influences the entire document. (In the case of 'black Conservatives'like Justice Thomas, I don't even have words.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Even poor whites benefit from white privilege. This is not to say that their socioeconomic class doesn't limit their opportunities or that they don't have less privilege than rich whites

    I agree.

    I hear this so often that it makes me wonder WHO exactly had slaves. No one from the way they tell it.

    LOL. So true.

    I think many of the people who say this are not considering how many ancestors they've really got.

    white Americans are often told to feel guilty, not only for what we or our forebears have done

    FWIW, they're being told the opposite by me. First, no one has any reason to "feel guilty" for something other people did that she has not personally committed or condoned. And second, even if someone does personally commit or condone a wrong, she shouldn't wallow in guilt. Guilt doesn't help anyone, and only keeps the focus on oneself. She should turn around, commit to change, repair the wrong inasmuch as she's able, and move forward.

    A given individual, or even group, can't do everything that needs to be done.

    No one suggested one person could do everything that needs to be done.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've said "I don't own slaves" before and oh goodness, the telling off I'd received. Even though I'd also mentioned that I don't mind taking part in reparations even though...

    Dear People,

    Not everyone is white. I'm Asian.

    Not everyone is American. I'm Australian.

    Yup... not white or American and still willing to help out. And what do I get? Accused of derailing. Fun.

    ReplyDelete
  31. >> "Or should we be held perpetually accountable for the infinite number of things we're not doing?"

    Of course not. But I think we (EVERYONE) should be held accountable if we're not doing *anything.*

    >> "I hear this so often that it makes me wonder WHO exactly had slaves."

    So now I'm wondering, what about people whose ancestors *did* own slaves? What do they say? "Oh, but my ancestors were nice to their slaves..."?!

    ReplyDelete
  32. If you're a 'white' person today, the advantages that accrued to you might have begun when a grandfather, say, got a job in a union that was closed to blacks, and in that way got a step up onto the next rung of the ladder of the bourgeoise.

    The one statistic which provides irrefutable evidence to me of the pernicious persistence of white privilege is the inequality in "family/personal wealth." Per capita, whites own six times as much wealth as blacks.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Willow wrote,

    So now I'm wondering, what about people whose ancestors *did* own slaves? What do they say? "Oh, but my ancestors were nice to their slaves..."?!

    That's exactly what they say! Or at least what some of them say. In fact, I've heard that often enough, from several different descendants of slave-owners, that I've been considering a post on it, something like "claim that slaves were treated well." Also, I have a friend who just went on a plantation tour in the American South. I asked (sarcastically) if the tour guide talked about how nicely the slaves had been treated. "Basically, yes," she said. "And other than that, the whole presentation just sort of glossed over the whole issue of slavery."

    ReplyDelete
  34. @macon d
    When I was in my Advanced Placement U.S. History class in High School, our teacher (who doubled as the soccer coach! smh) very literally told us that slaves didn't have it that bad here. That they all got food, clothing, & split level houses! That all the "really bad" abuse happened in the Caribbean.

    I will never forget that for as long as I live.

    ReplyDelete
  35. AE - thank you!
    I have considered how/if I will include white writers, but so far, I think that students get plenty of white lit from day 1 and no one has to point out that it's white lit to them - it's pretty much a given. When black lit comes about it's usually in February and a huge production is made about how wonderful it is for us to give blacks and their accomplishments attention for a whopping one-twelfth of the year. I want them to read black and Af-Amer lit seamlessly. I never want to have to give credit for race. I just want that to be conveyed in the stories and discussed when it's pertinent. I want them to read books/stories in which they don't even know the race of the writer or narrator. The wonderful thing about African-American and black authors is that they have common everyday experiences that have nothing to do with their race, just like white writers do. Not everything is about how race affects them.

    I live in an urban area and more than half of my students will be "minorities". It's not just my white students I think of when I consider how I want to educate them. I really want my black students to feel respected and like their culture IS our culture too. I want my white students to see the similarities in black culture and understand (read: not be ignorant about) the differences. Know what I mean?

    I think that American History is the history of the white man and American Lit is the writing of the white man as well, peppered with a few women here and there. I may be going about it all wrong, but I feel really strongly about this approach. I'll make adjustments along the way if I find it's not working how I envision it to.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I hate how in America, white people can say they never owned slaves, and conveniently forget Jim Crow and act is if the impact of slavery and Jim Crow have no relevance to the perceptions of black people today. This argument is white privilege defined.

    ReplyDelete
  37. When I hear white folks talk about the Constitution and how it's a pure document, I am still surprised when they ignore that most of our FF's were slave owners and that fact influences the entire document. (In the case of 'black Conservatives'like Justice Thomas, I don't even have words.

    I hate that. I always refer people to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, where it determined people who were slaves were only considered 3/5 a person.

    Then I have to explain why the document why pure, needed the amendments that are attached to it. We have changed a lot as a country since it was written in 1787.

    ------

    I hear this so often that it makes me wonder WHO exactly had slaves. No one from the way they tell it.

    And as was stated in the article, it is largely ignored about the benefits poor whites had during Jim Crow, they had the option to live, eat, and go to school where they wanted, black people didn't, even if they were rich.

    ------

    So now I'm wondering, what about people whose ancestors *did* own slaves? What do they say? "Oh, but my ancestors were nice to their slaves..."?!

    Yes they do, they say slavery wasn't so bad. They treated the slaves ok. When I was doing some genealogy on my family history, I found out I am related to a State Legislator in Texas, he in his infinite niceness gave our family land and left it in his will. He incidentally died after slavery was abolished, and some folks want to talk about his philanthropic endeavors when it came to the former slaves because of this. He did it because he felt bad he was sexing up a child and got her pregnant 10 times, not because he was a great man. An old married man getting a 12 year old pregnant and letting her keep her kids by not selling him is I guess being a good slave owner.

    Another thing we never talk about is the employed white people who worked plantations, overseers typically were white field hands for the purpose of controlling the slaves, should they not be discussed either.

    ReplyDelete
  38. *cough*Totally have slave-owners in my background.*cough*

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just a left field anecdote but reading these posts made me think of my grandmothers stories of share cropping and earlier. Apparently the women in my family had a penchant for poisoning their "Masters" with finely ground up glass and there is one document coming from Virginia that attests to this practice.

    "Yas suh, youse hongry suh? I's be right on dat...."

    *wicked grin*

    ReplyDelete
  40. HawkMom asks "What more do you want from people?" and then provides a litany of complaints about the way white people are "beat over the head" when PoC talk about race.

    How about this HawkMom: I want thoughtfulness. I want respect. I want to be able to say to a white person "it hurts me when you say this, here's why" and not be accused of being oversensitive or stuck in the past, or be reminded that their ancestors never owned slaves and anyway their family started with nothing, nothing I tell you! and racism is over and what I should be focused on is class.

    Why does it seem to you that this is asking too much?

    And what do white people want? If my friends and family are any indication, they want to NEVER EVER EVER hear about racism again, because it WASN'T THEIR FAULT. And they're "sick of hearing about" something I live with every damn day.

    Clearly, I need new friends. Which is pretty much why I'm reading this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I gotta say I think framing the argument this way gets everything a bit sideways. For background, I'm white, liberal, and a supporter of affirmative action, although I think it's pretty ineffective by itself. I think it's silly to try to obfuscate in any way the distinction between the moral culpability of those who benefit directly from past offenses and those who benefit indirectly, e.g. descendants of southern aristocracy and lower class independent farmers in the case of slavery.

    Moreover, as a general principle, responsibility for the actions of one's distant forebears, cultural, ethnic, or otherwise has got to be the weakest possible argument for making an effort to improve the lot of those who suffer the consequences today. I should be motivated to deal with the consequences of racism, socio-economic disadvantage, etc not by virtue of being white or coming from a wealthy background, but by virtue of being human, possessed of the capacity for empathy and basic decency.

    The fact that in many parts of the country, lots of social problems correlate with racial issues makes us inclined to overestimate the importance of history and thus skew the moral reasoning. The moral justification for social program should be constructed in a general way so as to be valid whether one is considering race in the US, caste in india, or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm a busy grad student (in biracial literature) so I don't read your full blogs, but I'm one of your followers so I read the headlines on my homepage and laugh at how true and accurate they all are! I love your site!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. If I'm reading the post right, it seems like the author wants to establish that white people living today are responsible somehow for what happened in the past, so that the author can then turn around and make certain demands, like reparations or more affirmative action, or something. But I'm just not seeing how people living today are responsible for what people did in the past.

    Yes, I can see how if you're white in this country, you're still benefitting from the racism of the past, even if you don't have family that directly participated in slavery. But isn't there an obvious difference between benefitting from past wrongs versus being responsible for past wrongs? No one asks to be born into "privilege," after all.

    I bet there are good arguments to be made for why blacks deserve more justice than they've received, but I don't think it's a compelling argument to try and make white people who live today feel responsible for things they didn't do. It feels intuitively wrong and it shouldn't be any surprise that most people will reject it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Vick
    You're not reading this post right.

    ReplyDelete
  45. And what do white people want? If my friends and family are any indication, they want to NEVER EVER EVER hear about racism again, because it WASN'T THEIR FAULT. And they're "sick of hearing about" something I live with every damn day.

    This is prime white privilege, they are bothered by something on occasion that most POC are bothered with on a continuous basis and they don't realize it.

    ------

    Moreover, as a general principle, responsibility for the actions of one's distant forebears, cultural, ethnic, or otherwise has got to be the weakest possible argument for making an effort to improve the lot of those who suffer the consequences today.

    It isn't that we are mad about what your forefathers did, but rather that many white people fail to acknowledge how it benefits them now and still continues to impact POC. We suffer the consequences of the past in the present, and most white people don't. The consequence they suffer is having to acknowledge it was bad, and they don't lose the privilege that affords them now for what happened way back then.

    ------
    But I'm just not seeing how people living today are responsible for what people did in the past.

    Again not blaming you for the past, we just want you to acknowledge how the past has impacted the present. As much as it is sad to think about Great Great Grandpa Joe, it directly impacts me more that because of my skin color, regardless of my education or work experience, I am expected to make less than someone else. Or the fact that when I drive through my neighborhood I am looked at with suspicion by others because it is assumed "I don't belong". Or that regardless of my GPA, work ethic, or any other factors, it is assumed my skin color led to my placement in a job or university, because the assumption is by many whites I am taking a job or spot in a school away from a white person who is automatically more deserving simply because they are white. These are the issues that affect me today.These are the issues that were established by a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and institutionalized racism. It affects perceptions of whole groups of people. It impacts income. It impacts social class. These things are still issues that to be frank, many white people refuse to acknowledge, and that is where the anger or frustration comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I notice my comment about a certain prominent black slave owner wasn't approved. Figures. I guess I'm done here.

    ReplyDelete
  47. HawkMom, if I had to guess, I'd guess your comment about a Certain Prominent Black Slave Owner wasn't approved because it's classic derailment.

    http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

    The racism apologist perspective (i.e. "PoC should stop asking white people to care about the problems of PoC and just shut up and work hard and assimilate and hope for the best and stop giving white people reasons to marginalize and / or hate them") doesn't add anything to the conversation, which, in case you weren't paying attention, is about Stuff White People Do that is harmful or hurtful to people of color.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I hear this so often that it makes me wonder WHO exactly had slaves. No one from the way they tell it. "Get over it.....but let us still reap the rewards from it""
    I read once that the majority of white people in the US are apparently descended from people who immigrated here some time after the Civil War, which might make that relatively true...

    ReplyDelete
  49. I've sometimes seen this here (repeatedly over the past few weeks as an excuse why it's ok for Aussies to laugh at blackface humour), along with other regional variants of 'I didn't do it'. But I haven't seen it much in the context of affirmative action, since we don't have much of that here.

    I've seen it most as a way of shutting down any talk about racism by pretending that racism was a long time ago, totally separate from us and our lives, and therefore irrelevant (and anyone who talks about it is boring and annoying, and any problems blackfellas have are all their own fault).

    It's used with a long line of other 'we're not racist' excuses. But the end result is the same - treating it as an ancient history lesson, rather than a dynamic process which still has an impact today.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Umbrella Today,

    You're a good guesser!

    ReplyDelete
  51. My family owned slaves. I'm an Appalachian and our culture usually leads us to 'tell it like it is'. (And yes it is a culture and one I'm proud of.) Anyway, my father has worked on our family geaneology for 40 yrs so he has an extensive record of the slave owners in my family. How did they treat the slaves? As property. I've seen copies of the wills he has that list the slaves as inventory ... their age, sex, skills, and monetary value. Right along with the cows and land. That is a surreal and creepy thing to see. There are a couple of oral history stories that have been passed down. The first one involves a descendent of mine who apparently had fathered some or all of a slaves children. He freed her and the kids in his will. Why? guilt maybe? The wife and one of his white sons were really upset by this and tried to keep the slaves after his death (my dad has all this paperwork). Apparently the slaves did win their freedom. I thought wow there really was some justice in those days. However my dad informed me that their winning their freedom had nothing to do with their rights. It all had to do with the fact that the courts were defending a white man's right to do with his 'property' as he wished in his will.
    The other story is even worse. Apparently one of my descendents was such a mean SOB that his slaves killed him ... or so the story goes. Don't really have any proof of that, but it is the story that was handed down. My dad does have the court papers where his wife actually tried to press charges against him for beating her. A very rare thing in that day ... so it seems he indeed was a real winner.
    So what does that say about me? Nothing, I hope. But I do admit to it. I can't do anything about it. However, I can try to be a better person myself so that my ancestors don't have to look back and think I was a total douche. Anyway, I don't think it makes me any more or less responsible than other 'whites' for racism. However, I think it does give me some awareness of the actual horror of it all.... and of the fact that my very existence on this earth may not have been had it not been for the slaves my family owned (butterfly effect and all). So, I do feel a need to do what I can. Even though I often don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Just recently truly absorbed the fact of my white privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  52. My black family owned slaves as well. It was not uncommon in Louisiana for free people of color to do this. I have a relative who benefitted from a "left-handed" marriage, she had an informal agreement with a white man who once owned her, but then freed her and had children with her. He gave her a house, paid for the children's education, and gave her an allowance. She bought her relatives who were still enslaved and then freed them, and moved them into free people of color communities so to ensure that they maintained their freedom. She was half black, of her four children, three of them disappeared, we think they went on to pass as white. She freed her mother, her brother, and it looks like her grandfather.

    So yes, black people did own slaves, but those who did so, not all did so for the purpose of chattel, at least not in Louisiana.

    Not saying the arrangement was right, but I understand the motives of a black or mixed race person buying a relative to give them freedom.

    So yes, black people owned slaves, including people in my family.

    Just because black people owned slaves or helped white people catch or obtain slaves, does not erase the history or severity of slavery. I don't know how the small percentage of blacks or even native americans owning slaves helps the erase the history of the predominant white slavery in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  53. . Anyway, I don't think it makes me any more or less responsible than other 'whites' for racism. However, I think it does give me some awareness of the actual horror of it all.... and of the fact that my very existence on this earth may not have been had it not been for the slaves my family owned (butterfly effect and all). So, I do feel a need to do what I can. Even though I often don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Just recently truly absorbed the fact of my white privilege.

    This to me is touching, I think that many black people (I can't speak for all) really just want acknowledgement. It isn't about 40 acres and a mule or reparations, it is about at least being aware of the injustices that exist, including white privilege due to this past that it seems so many others want to minimize.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Okay, so, I've thought about it some more and I've figured out why this discussion seems so horribly muddled to me.

    There's a major straw man argument going on here.

    One point made in the OP is that white people try "to excuse themselves not just from any wrongdoing, but from taking any positive action to fight (or, in some cases, even acknowledge) racism as it persists today" by pointing out that they've never owned slaves.

    Not quite true. White people don't use that argument in reply to statements like "the news portrays black people as criminals, creating a harmful stereotype." They use it specifically in reply to demands for economic justice. Things like affirmative action or, especially, for reparations. Right? Nikki even said so - "Usually when I hear these sorts of lines from white people, they are offered in explanation of why they vehemently oppose affirmative action, or any other race-based help/“handouts” for people of color."

    I understand that the overall point the OP is trying to make is that regardless of who is responsible for injustice, it still needs fighting. That's great, but it doesn't necessarily address responsibility in the context of economic injustice, especially in a capitalistic and classist society.

    ReplyDelete
  55. From Caucasians United for Reparations and Emancipation

    http://www.reparationsthecure.org/Articles/Lamb/MeetingOpposition:

    1) One of the most common questions I get from white people is, "My family didn't own slaves so why should I have to pay?"

    I tell them a person didn't have to own enslaved Africans to benefit from slavery. The entire early American economy, in the North as well as the South, was fueled by the products and revenues generated by the institution of slavery. As, for example, the government raked in millions of dollars in taxes on cotton alone, all whites--whether they were rich or poor, slave holder or passionate abolitionist--benefited from slavery because the whole infrastructure of this nation was built on money made from it, directly or indirectly.

    As I learned from CURE member Ken Lewis, we even owe the success of the American Revolution to money generated by slavery in the colonies. For example, Robert Morris, who made his money in the slave trade and trading slavery products, is known as the "Financier of the American Revolution" because he bailed out Washington's army several times, thus helping to save the revolution from going down in defeat from lack of money. This country's true history is replete with such facts.

    If you dig deep enough, you will find that every large metropolitan area in the country benefited greatly from slavery. Take New York City where I live, which--despite the fact that it was the heaviest slave holding region north of the Mason-Dixon Line--has always enjoyed a reputation as one of the liberal refuges from slavery during the decades leading up to the Civil War.

    As Howard Dodson, Chief of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, has illuminated, from the beginning, every white person in New York benefited from the enslavement because slavery was a publicly organized and operated institution created by the laws of the colony of New Amsterdam. The first enslaved Africans brought to New York in 1625 weren't brought as private "slaves" to work for individuals, but as public "slaves" to work for the City. They built forts, constructed houses--in general were the labor force that created the foundation of New York City as we know it today.

    From the founding of the republic through the years leading up to the Civil War, New York City, as the financial and commercial capital of the US, controlled the sale of the slave-produced goods that were sold abroad. Cotton grown by enslaved Africans was shipped up here from the South, and from here sold to Europe. Which leads us to this truly shocking fact: because of the city's economic dependence on slavery and the slave trade, when South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1861, Mayor Fernando Wood proposed that New York City also secede and join the confederacy. Fortunately, the City Council voted down this proposition!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Also from CURE:

    Another thing I hear all the time is, "I don't see why I should have to pay, because my ancestors weren't here during slavery." In fact, I hear this so often I'd almost think there were no whites in this country during slavery! There is also this variation, which is a valid question, "What about all the poor people who immigrated here long after slavery--isn't it unfair to expect them to pay?"

    First of all, it doesn't really matter when your family came over. As soon as a person's feet land on this soil, in one way or another, they, too, begin to benefit from what slavery created that has come down to all of us through the centuries.

    And the fact is, the whole reason people come to this country in the first place is to get in on the wealth that had its origin in slavery. They don't know it, but these "streets paved in gold" they came here to find could more aptly be called "streets bathed in the blood, sweat and tears of enslaved Africans." A person cannot expect to come and share in what really amounts to ill-gotten gains without also having to be a part of making amends for the unjust way it was amassed in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  57. >> "I've been considering a post on it, something like 'claim that slaves were treated well.'"

    Oh my gosh, yes, please. Because...I really *was* wondering how people justified it; the "they were nice to their slaves" was supposed to be the so-far-beyond-comprehension-it's-laughable response. But...shit. So. Many. Things. that [other white] people have said over the years make sense to me now. I guess this is naive, but I just...I don't know, I've always believed that the idea of possessing another human being, as property (i.e. not buying with the intent of freeing or the like) as an INHERENTLY evil act is a fundamental moral absolute. Yeah, you have your big-R Racists who think slavery was the fudge on Sunday and more, but I thought that there was some sort of agreement among all Actual Human Beings.

    Bah, sorry, I know I've gone whitegirlangsty and that my drama is trivial compared to what POC deal with every day of their lives, and obviously the fact that I was not previously aware of this, um, ambivalence does not say good things about me, but--I really, truly, honestly thought that the idea of slavery as inherently and necessarily evil was not up for debate.

    So many conversations make sense now.

    Fuck humanity. I'm regenerating as a cat.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ RVCBard, thanks so much for linking to those Tim Wise clips. I hadn't encountered him before. Fantastic.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think if you stated to a roomful of white people:

    "All else equal, your life would be worse if you weren't white,"

    90% of them would say, "duh, of course." The remaining 10% would say, "no, on net, affirmative action holds me back."

    The validity of the latter response is really an empirical issue. Conceivably, if you were raised in the wilderness with no inherited assets and you never applied for a job or sat in a classroom or interacted with cops or were exposed to popular media and then out of the blue you applied to Harvard, your whiteness could be said to have disadvantaged you, overall, up to that point. Probably the tactic for addressing the "but, affirmative action!" responders is to point out that this scenario really does not apply to them.

    But anyways, let's talk about the majority of white people -- the 90% group. They aren't so oblivious or desperate to deny the core reality of white privilege as it's phrased above. Where they become defensive is when you proceed:

    "...therefore, you personally should pay reparations to black people totaling $___,"

    or,

    "therefore, our admissions committee has decided to reject your kid, who scored a mere 1400 on the SAT. But we'll accept this nonwhite applicant who scored 1100, because, well...he's nonwhite,"

    or,

    "therefore, you should feel guilty."

    When "but my ancestors didn't own slaves!" and its analogs come up, it's usually because the white person perceives, accurately or not, that the subtext of the conversation is pointing towards one of the above conclusions (or a similar conclusion).

    If that's the case, then it's not so irrelevant or derailing to note, hey, even though my life would be worse if I weren't white, my life would also be way better if I weren't Jewish/female/queer/disabled/poor...so if we're computing entitlement payments or admissions bumps or degree of deference owed in a conversation, and we're doing so in attempt to zero out privileges that attach from birth on the basis of arbitrary and immutable criteria, why should whiteness (or the absence of whiteness) be some trump card?

    An Eastern European woman born into abject poverty in a remote village, snatched from her parents and trafficked into a brothel at age five, who is confined to a wheelchair for life after a particularly sadistic "customer" grinds his elbow into her spine while raping her (he also infects her with HIV) who arrived days ago on American shores has technically benefited from white privilege. But is this really a meaningful thing to point out? Should she really be taxed to pay reparations to Oprah Winfrey? This is an exaggerated version of what many of these defensive white people perceive.

    ReplyDelete
  60. If that's the case, then it's not so irrelevant or derailing to note, hey, even though my life would be worse if I weren't white, my life would also be way better if I weren't Jewish/female/queer/disabled/poor...
    So you're going to post some stats describing systematic injustices against all these groups in all the following areas healthcare, banking, education, housing, environmental justice, food fustice, criminal justice, etc. -- pretty much only race can do that too you. And as for the Eastern European woman you gave -- we're not talking about which individuals have the worst lives, we're talking about how groups of are systematically discriminized against.

    A few more things -- reparations are not necessarily about whites paying taxes to blacks -- for example, you can do stuff like diverting funds from the military industrial complex. Secondly, a handful of super-wealthy people like Oprah doesn't mean blacks are not disenfranchised as a whole. And in fact, the black people who are considered super wealthy are nothing compared to whites like Bill Gates. Thirdly, yeah that Eastern European woman would have privilege -- that Haitian woman gets sent back!

    ReplyDelete
  61. 'claim that slaves were treated well' (Willow quoting someone further upthread)
    That claim is such BS. American slavery in the 19th century was less murderous than slavery in the Caribbean in the 18th, but that was because the supply of new slaves from Africa dried up at the same time as huge amounts of primo plantation land were stolen from the Native Americans. The price of slaves shot up, working them to death would have been stupid. Bottom line, not humanitarianism.
    Slavery and other kinds of unfree labour have been common enough in history, but if you start making comparisons, the results do not make America look that good.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "therefore, our admissions committee has decided to reject your kid, who scored a mere 1400 on the SAT. But we'll accept this nonwhite applicant who scored 1100, because, well...he's nonwhite,"

    But then you ignore the white kids who get in because their parents went to the school or the fact that the white kid most likely had better education, the wealth gap means more funding for SAT prep, etc., which makes the black kids score worth more.

    No one is saying white people should feel guilty - they should feel responsible.

    And re: Eastern European woman -- she's gonna get better healthcare to heal - white ppl do across class levels, she's gonna get more sympathy than a non-white immigrant, she'll be more likely to get a loan to rebuild her life -- YEAH she has white privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  63. why should whiteness (or the absence of whiteness) be some trump card?

    Did America spend 200 years enslaving Jews? Did the KKK terrorize gays? Did the segregated water fountains say Male and Female -- that's why race is the trump card.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Should she really be taxed to pay reparations to Oprah Winfrey?"

    I hear this sort of question from time to time and it really shows a lack of understanding and critical thinking. A lot of white people have this idea that reparations are about handing checks directly over to decendants of slaves. Reparations are about the government righting it's past wrong by way of creating special government programs that work to serve the black community. Stuff like a complete overhaul of the public (especially inner-city) school system, scholarships for the economically depressed... there's so much good that can be done with reparation money.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Jupiter,

    But then you ignore the white kids who get in because their parents went to the school

    Yep. Or kids whose parents donated huge amounts of money to the school. Or, in the case of my alma mater, rich white kids who were good at lacrosse. White people are very good at overlooking those "unfair advantages" that largely benefit white people.

    People who rail against affirmative action in college admissions, to take one example, whatever their test scores or grades, cannot complain about "their spot" going to a less deserving person of color. This assumes they had ownership of/a right to that spot in the first place. Who ever said it was theirs to "give away"? That's not how admissions works.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @ strange attractor (and scallion) -- no, Jews have been oppressed and occasionally enslaved not merely for 200 years and not merely in America. Rather, they've been subject to varying degrees of oppression and persecution in every society they've inhabited (except Israel) since, literally, Old Testament times. Yeah, it's been a long time since Jews were enslaved, but relatively recently they were subject to this, whatchamacallit, Holocaust.

    Women, meanwhile, are still treated as chattel (or worse) in many parts of the world. The last time we saw isntitutionalized racial apartheid was in South Africa, and we wouldn't tolerate that, no sireee -- divest! Divest! But we don't react that way towards regimes that sanction the murder, rape and mutilation of women and girls, deprive them of basic civil rights, and treat them as poorly as (or worse than?) the antebellum south treated slaves. In America, black men won the right to vote, were elected to Congress, and won the presidency before women did -- isolated milestones, yes, but surely they are significant ones.

    I think the Oppression Olympics line of inquiry is stupid and that pursuing it at length is a waste of time, but I think it's equally stupid to affirm, "yes, race is a trump card; therefore, if you're trying to ensure a 'fair' distribution of resources, gender/class/disability/orientationare irrelevant."

    That's the point of the "Eastern European...Oprah" example. As attenuated and exaggerated and specious as that example might seem, think about it: if race is a trump card, you feel sorrier for Oprah. Oprah is less "privileged." And, I mean, please. Since that's obviously not the case, it's obvious that other criteria matter too. Yes, scallion, the E. European woman DOES have white privilege (something I stated verbatim in my prior post), but from an equitable standpoint, is this really the most salient thing about her? Has she benefitted from it to an extent that morally obligates her to sacrifice for the benefit of the average U.S. PoC? If not, then stuff like "but I just GOT to America" is not irrelevant or derailing, because you've conceded that factors like these do impact the overall equities of the situation.

    @ Cloudy: I (not a white person, btw) have this idea that reparations proposals generally center around the government paying compensation to descendants of slaves. Since this compensation is going to inevitably be funded by tax dollars (as all government expenditures are...or else they are financed and paid out of future generations' tax dollars), this effectively amounts to a redistribution of resources based on race. You refer to overhauling failing inner city schools and creating scholarships "for the economically disadvantaged"...to me those don't sound necessarily like reparations (i.e., like compensation *for slavery*), but rather social welfare programs that progressives have proposed for years. Unless you only want to offer these scholarships to economically disadvantaged people who happen to be of a particular race, I doubt most white people are going to respond to this proposal by exclaiming (per the OP), "but my ancestors never owned slaves!"

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ Jupiter:

    Legacy status and wealth are not the same as race, though (even if they tend to correlate). Conflating them only adds credence to the "I don't have white privilege -- I'm poor!" deflection.

    If you are a PoC and you would like to trade places with the Eastern European woman, let me know. If, despite her white privilege, you prefer to be situated as you are, then I guess white privilege is not flatly determinative of the extent to which each of us ought to feel responsible for remedying the suffering of others.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @ nikki -- There are problems with the "he probably took *my* spot" rationale, but a sense of entitlement to that spot is not one of them.

    We all feel entitled to not be discriminated against on the basis of race. This sense of entitlement is very well founded, since freedom from race discrimination is a constitutional right. If it's a fact that this white kid *would* have gotten the spot had it not been awarded to a PoC *solely* on the basis of race, race, then the white kid's constitutional right to equal protection was violated. All of the court decisions upholding AA aknowledge this, which is why quota systems are forbidden.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @larfy

    You're comparing oppresions of Jews and women in other countries to the oppresion of blacks in America. I suggest you do some research on South Africa that's not filtered through the Tarzan "Africans are barbaric" meter. Yes, black men got the right to vote before women -- and they were lynched for trying to exercise it. You continue to confuse individual privilege with group privilege.

    And social programs have overwhelmingly benefited whites - they aren't slavery reparations.

    @blueberry taffy said...
    The wealth gap between whites and blacks is around 10-1 -- yes it's racial.

    The existence of white privilege is not predicated on all white individuals being "luckier" than POCs. "then I guess white privilege is not flatly determinative of the extent to which each of us ought to feel responsible for remedying the suffering of others" -- straw man argument -- nobody made this claim.

    ReplyDelete
  70. In America, black men won the right to vote, were elected to Congress, and won the presidency before women did -- isolated milestones, yes, but surely they are significant ones.

    You are using the feminist argument that drives many women of color away. Yes black men were guaranteed the right to vote before white women, but you forget that black women didn't get to vote until after black men either, but I guess their vote doesn't count, and we can't forget in many states blacks were not able to vote until the 1960s because of poll taxes and poll testing which purposely sought to keep blacks from voting.

    When people use the "black men won the right to vote first" argument, it seems they forget black women are part of the population of women who were also unable to vote and pretend that the floodgates for black people voting opened upon the resolution of the 15th amendment.

    Playing the Oppression Olympics is a tactic used often by the feminist movement, which completely makes it seem to be a movement that target and focuses on white, middle and upper class, women.

    but rather social welfare programs that progressives have proposed for years. Unless you only want to offer these scholarships to economically disadvantaged people who happen to be of a particular race, I doubt most white people are going to respond to this proposal by exclaiming (per the OP), "but my ancestors never owned slaves!"

    But they do, because the perception is that blacks are inherently all poor and intellectually inferior to whites, the assumption is most black kids in college come from poverty and got in on skin color alone, even if it isn't true.

    -------

    The existence of white privilege is not predicated on all white individuals being "luckier" than POCs.

    Yes because we all know the real factor is black people are lazier, inferior, and don't know how to get a real job instead of living off of welfare. That explains the wage gaps between two people of similar education and work experience in the same jobs. ::rolls eyes::

    The longer we pretend white privilege doesn't benefit even the poorest of white people, the longer racism will continue to thrive.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Has she benefitted from it to an extent that morally obligates her to sacrifice for the benefit of the average U.S. PoC?

    How has this white woman sacrificed as a immigrant for POC? I am confused, did she have to write a reparations check to descendants of former slaves when she entered the country?

    If you are a PoC and you would like to trade places with the Eastern European woman, let me know.

    It depends on the situation. If I need healthcare, I would love to be her, as the doctors will show her more sympathy than me. If I am poor, I would rather be her because there will not be a stigma for her as it is for me if she takes public assistance. I would rather be her when I get admitted into a college because no one will assume she took some one else's place due to her skin color. If I am driving and spotted by the cops in a white neighborhood, I would rather be her because no one will question her right to live or drive in the area. When I am being followed in the store by a security guard because my skin tone allows them to think I am a thief, I would rather be her.

    I don't want to be Eastern European or poor, but I don't want to pretend she doesn't have benefits I don't have based upon her skin color alone.

    -------------

    All of the court decisions upholding AA aknowledge this, which is why quota systems are forbidden.

    No one ever acknowledges this, and no one ever seems to acknowledge that white women are protected under AA as well. We assume their whiteness makes them more deserving and we never question their right to be anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @aggrieved,

    If it's a fact that this white kid *would* have gotten the spot had it not been awarded to a PoC *solely* on the basis of race, race, then the white kid's constitutional right to equal protection was violated.

    How in the world could this be a "fact"? How could we (or the white kid in question, whatever) ever possibly know? This is not how admissions works. It's usually the arbitrary decision of whatever admissions counselor is in charge of your particular geographic area, and there are a billion factors that counselor has to weigh besides race.

    So there's no way to know that one particular spot that might have gone to one particular white person was "given" to another, less deserving PoC. Assuming that is the case at all is prejudiced and short-sighted. A white (or Asian - also not an underrepresented group in college) person could just have easily not gotten in, regardless of the number of people of color admitted. I get what you're saying about this unfortunate white kid, but I disagree with your logic - I didn't get into one of the colleges I applied to, and it's not as if I think or know that my ethnicity (Asian) was the reason.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @siddity, great comments but this statement "The existence of white privilege is not predicated on all white individuals being "luckier" than POCs." was saying that white privilege does exist even if individual black people are "better off" than individual white people...

    ReplyDelete
  74. [if you're going to keep posting here, please read what's written above the comment box; select Name/URL and pick a name --macon d]

    "You are using the feminist argument that drives many women of color away. Yes black men were guaranteed the right to vote before white women, but you forget that black women didn't get to vote until after black men either, but I guess their vote doesn't count"

    First, I only started down this Oppression Olympics tangent -- sexism vs. antisemitism vs. racism, etc -- in response to a prior poster who challenged my implicit allowance that these other forms of oppression might warrant accounting-for in an overall assessment of the degree of "privilege" a person enjoys. My point was, and is, simply that there are plenty of colorable arguments to be made that racism is not so much "worse" than other forms of bigotry so as to nullify them and make race the only relevant consideration in a discussion about distributing resources "fairly" in a society.

    Anyways. If we're talking about pure white privilege, we're talking about advantages conferred solely on the basis of whiteness; if we're talking about pure sexism, we're talking about advantages conferred solely on the basis of sex. If we're really measuring one "against" the other, then black men vs. white women would seem to be the relevant yardstick. No one is disputing that intersectionality happens, and the effects can be damaging. But it's pretty clear ITT that people are referring to white privilege in its most precise form -- privilege that attaches solely because you are white -- which is why I engage in this kind of hairsplitting.

    I doubt most white people are going to respond to this proposal by exclaiming (per the OP), "but my ancestors never owned slaves!"

    But they do, because the perception is that blacks are inherently all poor and intellectually inferior to whites, the assumption is most black kids in college come from poverty and got in on skin color alone, even if it isn't true.

    So if Democrats in Congress proposed that from now on, there would be government-funded scholarships for all poor kids, you really think white people would respond, "wtf, I shouldn't be punished for slavery?" Because they seem to be pretty supportive of the race-neutral student loan programs that exist now.



    I don't want to be Eastern European or poor, but I don't want to pretend she doesn't have benefits I don't have based upon her skin color alone.

    Obviously there many such benefits. But "does this woman enjoy white privilege?" wasn't my question. My question was, OVERALL, in spite of her white privilege, would you trade places with her? If not, then race does not trump every conceivable combo of oppressions that a person might suffer. White privilege is not everything. And policies aimed at redistributing privilege in the interest of fairness should therefore take account of more than just race.

    All of the court decisions upholding AA aknowledge this, which is why quota systems are forbidden.

    No one ever acknowledges this...

    “Preferring members of any one group for no reason
    other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.” Gratz , citing Bakke .

    ...and no one ever seems to acknowledge that white women are protected under AA as well.

    This was quite contrary to my understanding (at least w/respect to college admissions), so I googled "gender affirmative action college admissions." This was result #1:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html

    Here is another article to the same effect. It quotes plenty of college admissions officers and HS guidance counselors:

    http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/02/15/affirmative_action/

    Oh, finally (and unrelatedly), I'm no feminist. Indeed, I assume feminists would disclaim everything I've posted here, since everyone knows that these days it is trendy for feminists to be antiracists too.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ Nikki -- I agree with everything you're saying. That's mainly why I caveated, before, that there ARE problems with the "he took my spot, because of his race" rationale. I posited a situation wherein it had been established that this WAS the case because I wanted to address the idea that (white) people are less "deserving," just for being white, i.e. aren't entitled to race-neutral consideration. Re-reading my post, I realize I wasn't very clear about this.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ Nikki -- I didn't get into one of the colleges I applied to, and it's not as if I think or know that my ethnicity (Asian) was the reason.

    I get what you're saying here, but even though you don't know this for sure, you CAN state with certainty: "If only I weren't Asian, I would have been %___ likelier to be admitted."

    ReplyDelete
  77. @ "someone or other"

    No one said racism nullifies other types of oppressoin. Reparations are not about redistribution but justice.

    You say, "My question was, OVERALL, in spite of her white privilege, would you trade places with her?" Again whether or not a race of people has privilege has nothing to do with whether or not any give POC whoud change places with any given rights. The point is the Eastern European woman is still better off than a WOC with those samem life experiences. You said "White privilege is not everything." another straw man argument. And policies aimed at redistributing privilege in the interest of fairness should therefore take account of more than just race - no one said it shouldn't.

    You say, ""If only I weren't Asian, I would have been %___ likelier to be admitted." This isn't true. For example, you get points for going to private schools, being in AP classes (many black schools don't offer them due to lack of funding) etc. that Asians are more likely to benefit from.

    ReplyDelete
  78. As a honkyfried cracker I'm tired of being told I have to give my tax dollars to descendents of slaves that my ancestors didn't own because they were too busy being killed in coal mining accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I get what you're saying here, but even though you don't know this for sure, you CAN state with certainty: "If only I weren't Asian, I would have been %___ likelier to be admitted."

    But I don't think I CAN state that at all, let alone with any certainty. I have no idea why I didn't get into School X. I guess if it had bothered me a ton I could have called the admissions counselor responsible for my state/region and asked, but it's unlikely that even he or she would remember the exact reason beyond "there were lots of other qualified applicants." I DON'T believe my race had anything to do with the decision -- or that it had MORE to do with it than my GPA, SAT scores, activities, essays, etc.

    And even if I could somehow KNOW for sure that my race was THE deciding factor...um, so what? I felt very fortunate-- very privileged. I got into other schools; I attended a great university. Even if being Korean is what kept me out of School X, I still have nothing to complain about.

    (Am I crazy? This is really how I see it.)

    ReplyDelete
  80. "I'm tired of being told I have to give my tax dollars to descendents of slaves that my ancestors didn't own because they were too busy being killed in coal mining accidents."

    But you realize that they had affirmative action helping to get them jobs in the coal mines because their would be black competition was enslaved, right?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Assuming that all 'white' people are racist in some way is a racist statement.

    I'm not "white." I'm Irish and Sicilian Catholic. I have a culture. I am not my skin color.

    I live in an affluent area of California that is culturally diverse. I don't see anyone getting special privileges because of race. Growing up, many authority figures in my life were black. There's really very little I can do to oppose racism except to continue to act like a decent person.

    We aren't going to change anything by bashing "white" people and making them feel vaguely guilty. It just makes them insulted or paranoid of the "thought police."

    Let's have more work and less talk.

    Point out concrete examples of racism when they happen that people of all races can work together on.
    For example, what companies or universities still discriminate against POC? Let's boycott them.
    Use the internet to let people know about cases like that idiot judge in the South.

    As for education, I feel teachers should present art and literature of different cultures side by side. They should choose works meaningful within those communities, not those created (often by outsiders) to preach cultural diversity. Fake diversity begins and ends with stereotypes. Real diversity teaches what people in other places and times thought and valued.

    ReplyDelete
  82. 'In America, black men won the right to vote, were elected to Congress, and won the presidency before women did -- isolated milestones, yes, but surely they are significant ones.'

    Yes and let me assure you that the white suffragettes were enraged at this. Their reasoning being that black men were childlike who did not have the intelligence to vote responsibly.
    It also speaks to the contempt for which white men held their womenfolk at the time as they saw fit to deprive them of the vote. They preferred to give the vote to a group they reviled instead of white women. Funny that.

    'We aren't going to change anything by bashing "white" people and making them feel vaguely guilty. It just makes them insulted or paranoid of the "thought police."

    Yes and we wouldn't want that now, would we?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Herneith:
    Do you just want catharsis or do you actually want to stop racism? Because making 'white' people feel vaguely guilty is counterproductive to the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  84. This is one of my FAVORITES. INEVITABLY if there is a conversation amongst white people about racism in America some idiot will bring this up. "Well, I never owned slaves why hold me accountable FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED THEN?" It's only been recently that I've even known where to begin to take on that kind of fail. But I still don't understand how other white people's minds go there, it's totally nonsensical!

    ReplyDelete
  85. PDM - I'm a white person in California too. Lived here all my life. Trust me, you're benefiting from white privilege just like I am. You might and I'm sure do face other difficulties, but racial discrimination is not one. And plenty, plenty, plenty of POC here do.

    AND pretty much all of us have absorbed prejudices from our highly fucked up culture. Most white people are racist in some ways. Most men are sexist in some way. Most able bodied people are ableist. And on and on and on.

    And pointing that out, is not remotely racist, that's just silly.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @PraiseDivineMercy

    My post was not intended to either bash white people or make them feel "vaguely guilty." In fact, I specifically stated that most anti-racists don't *want* white guilt. Guilt can't help anyone. All the same, we can't get anywhere by pretending there have been no wrongs done -- that many injustices do not still exist -- or that white people in the U.S. have largely benefited (intentionally or no) from both.

    I don't believe *I* said that "all white people are racist in some way," at least not in this post. But I'll go out on a limb and say that everyone is racially prejudiced in some way; it would be almost impossible not to be, living in our society. I definitely include myself in this number. I wouldn't rail against racism so often if I hadn't seen evidence of its evil in my own heart.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Using the term "white privilege" to accuse whites of holding oneself back is the same as any other excuse. It is infuriating to hear black people blame whites for their lack of success, i.e. lack of motivation. What do black people want? Do we want to get an education and work hard or do we want to sit on our behinds playing xbox while someone else supports us? It starts in the home, people. If I ever hear one of my kids blame a white person for their failure I will take it out on their rear ends. ENOUGH!

    ReplyDelete
  88. @whatsername

    You are quite silly. You created a 'straw man'.

    I am a "white person". I am also a man.

    You said,
    "Most white people are racist in some ways. Most men are sexist in some way."

    That assumption is racist and sexist. You are making judgements on a group of people by way of stereotypes. Isn't that what we are trying to move away from.

    But if you still don't believe me. If I were to say that most women from California are affluent snobs, would you not call that prejudice. I would.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I'm White American. Proud of my heritage. Should I feel any guilt because the United States once had slavery? No, absolutely not. And yes I knew of my ancestors never owed African slaves in America because they were either dying because of potato famine (Irish) or fighting for the Union and their new home in the Civil War (German) or they were having the there land stolen by other whites (Native Americans).

    So I don't believe I deserve guilt for something I had no control over. So why should a black person be compensated for something they had no control over either. (i.e. the enslavement of their ancestors.) Maybe we should just live our lives and realize their will always be differences.

    The only thing blacks and whites owe each other is respect.

    Oh, and prejudice knows no bounds. Never count yourself out as being a racist just because your black. There are plenty of black racists out there. I would know from personal experience. This white boy can jump.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I think it's sad that many whites actually believe in their self-prescribed myth of "we worked harder than other groups and were rewarded because of it". Let's be honest here. You didn't work harder than anyone. You were born in a twisted, evil society that valued your skin color over others. Based on that alone, you gain entry to unwarranted rewards.

    Once you grasp that concept, you will realize that everything taught to you was false and that, perhaps, your life was pretty false.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Chase, a sizable portion of the people from my home state are affluent snobs. What's your point?

    Am I supposed to be shocked that as a white man you don't think you have a hint of racism or sexism anywhere in you? Of course you don't think so. Everything about the world you live in tells you you're right. You're the standard against which everyone else is judged. Why on earth would you be introspective enough to see the effect of our kyriarchal society on you?

    But I bet you think "racism" is burning crosses on people's lawns and "sexism" is thinking women aren't made for more than baby-making.

    Unfortunately, they're both a helluva lot more than that, and are way more subtle than that. Which I don't really expect you to agree with. Naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Why do white people take racism so personally?

    As a white person, you really need to understand that racism has a life of its own that transcends you as an individual. It's an institution, a system.

    It's also important for whites to understand that no one is holding them personally responsible as individuals for every act of racism that occurs or is trying to make them feel guilty. If you feel guilty, then I personally must wonder if that's not a personal problem.

    Nobody can "make" you feel guilty about something you haven't done. We are all products of this racist society which was set into motion before any of us were born. Therefore, we all can't help but have certain tendencies and perceptions. It's unconscious.

    I'll give you an example: as a black person tend to be overly vigilant and sensitive to racism. When white people find me off putting for whatever reason most of the time the first thing that pops into my mind is "is this a race thing?" I can't help it.

    Does this make me a bad person? No. It is what it is. The important thing is me being aware of this tendency and looking for other explanations.

    Might I suggest to you white folk who think/feel you're being "beat over the head" daily with slavery, Jim Crow, etc. (which, sorry, I have to believe is a gross exaggeration) that you accept that as part of growing up in America that you can't help but have certain perceptions, attitudes, feelings about blacks.

    And, perhaps most importantly, that you accept that even though you may have these racist tendencies that you are not a bad person!

    Furthermore, that unless you are personally out perpetrating racist acts or within your circle of acquaintances allowing or enabling racists acts, then you have nothing to feel guilty about, and in fact, are not a "racist," in the most commonly understood usage of that word.

    When you start there, it's easier to open your mind and understand what PoC and more enlightened whites are telling you about racism, and it's easier to see what you can do to help combat it.

    ReplyDelete
  93. >> "Why do white people take racism so personally...racism has a life of its own that transcends you as an individual. It's an institution, a system."

    Ah, but you see, if racism is *systemic* rather than just something perpetrated by *individuals*, white people have to face the fact that the flip side of POC being oppressed is WP gaining. We would have to admit that not all of our success is due to our abilities. In other words, that "I am not as good as I thought I was." I have heard this hilariously described as "Born On Third And Thought He Hit A Triple" syndrome.

    But if "racism" boils down to a WP on the street calling someone a n*r or c*k, well, it's not as clear how other WP benefit. Thus, we (WP) can feel good about condemning "racism" and "fighting racism," without owning up to the other half of the problem--white privilege.

    As for why so many WP take such personal offense when called "a racist" or told we have done something racist? Two theories:

    1. We know that we actually are racist/have white privilege--even if we haven't admitted it to ourselves in those words--and the cognitive dissonance manifests itself as guilt.

    2. Obviously, the lesson that WP got from the civil rights movement was not "racism is bad b/c it oppressing POC" but rather "being called a racist is bad b/c it shames WP." In other words, we take it personally because we (like everyone) enjoy making everything about us. The discussion then becomes about whether or not it was right to call the person a racist...rather than the actual harm that was done, and how to fix it. :o(

    ReplyDelete
  94. Ooooh, re: the thread topic:

    swpd: point out that they've never owned slaves

    My extended family's Thanksgiving dinner went drastically downhill between appetizer and main course, with seemingly little sign of becoming happy bouncy joy joy again. So to fill in the awkward silence I decided what the hell, let's drop the "true story of Thanksgiving" bomb.

    I got not one, but THREE replies of "But our ancestors didn't come over on the Mayflower, you know."

    /sigh

    ReplyDelete
hit counter code